I wish to draw attention to a slight omission, though an important one, from the Minutes of yesterday’s proceedings. It will be recalled that the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. J. S. F. Pretorius) in the exuberance of his feelings used a full-blooded—

I move—

seconded.

Is that the report of the Waste Lands Committee?

No, these are matters referred to the Crown Lands Committee to decide about waste lands and lands to be allotted to certain people. It is the ordinary thing. My motion is that certain papers relating to proposed amendments to title deeds and Crown lands be referred to the Select Committee on Crown Lands.

Motion put and agreed to.

with leave, amended Notice of Motion No. III, and moved, as an unopposed motion and pursuant to notice—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

Owing to a provision in the rules of this House, I find myself in the position of having priority on the Order Paper for this motion of mine today. I realize that this notice of motion was given by me after a number of motions had already been put on the Order Paper and, therefore, conscious as I am of that fact, I feel it incumbent on me to be very brief in moving the resolution, and to suggest to the House that, in discussing this matter, we be as brief as possible, in order to give opportunity to other hon. members who have motions on the Paper, to have them discussed. I was asked to take this matter up on somewhat short notice. I understand that originally it was intended that the cause of women suffrage during this session should be in the extremely capable hands of the hon. member for Roodeport (the Rev. Mr. Mullineux); but owing to circumstances into which I need not enter here—circumstances which. I feel sure, no one regrets more than the hon. member himself—he finds it impossible to undertake this matter and, therefore, it is in my hands. The course that has been followed, and is being followed this afternoon, is necessitated by the fact that early in the session the Government intimated its intention of bringing before the House an electoral Bill. That being the case, those in charge of this particular measure were given to understand that it would not be possible, side by side with that Bill, to introduce a Bill for the introduction of women’s suffrage. Therefore, we were obliged to wait until the passing of the second reading of the Electoral Bill, and the reference of that Bill to a Select Committee, to take the course we are taking this afternoon. In this motion of mine we are inviting the House to convey an instruction to that committee to take into consideration the making of provision in that Bill for the enfranchisement of women. If any cavil were taken at the course which we are proposing to follow this afternoon—if, for instance, my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior were to tell the House he did not consider this the particular method or the right time in which to enforce our views upon the question of women suffrage—I may say it is answered by long-established precedent in this House. I could not hope to express the matter better than was done by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) when he had charge of a similar motion in this House in 1918, when the former Government had upon the stocks a Bill which subsequently passed into law as the Electoral Act. The Hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) in moving the motion, which I am moving this afternoon, said it was a pure subterfuge to say that this was not the right place to introduce women suffrage. He claimed that this was the one and only place where this question should be dealt with, and he hoped when it came to a vote that hon. members would not consider party, but only what was right and just. And may I be permitted to say that in introducing this motion I am doing so in no party spirit, and without hopes of gaining any party advantage.

Or getting it through.

To echo the admirable sentiments of the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) may I say that this is not a party measure, and should not be treated by any hon. member in any party spirit. Those members who believe in women suffrage should vote for it irrespective of party, and similarly those who are against it should vote against it irrespective of party considerations. I have stated that this is a procedure sanctified by long usage in this House, and I may mention that in the case of New Zealand and Great Britain women’s suffrage was introduced by an amendment to electoral acts, so that this is the proper and appropriate occasion for raising this question as I am doing this afternoon. It is not necessary for me to recapitulate the history of the womens’ suffrage movement in this House. On two occasions this House has, by majority vote, affirmed the principle, and we reached a notable landmark in the progress of womens’ suffrage when last year—the Bill being in charge of the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron)—the second reading of the Women’s Enfranchisement Bill was passed by a majority of six votes. Subsequent to that, the Bill was referred, by consent, to a Select Committee, with instructions to report at an early date. Unfortunately the premature dissolution of the House and the consequent general election precluded the matter being dealt with by the outgoing Parliament, and this is the first opportunity the present Parliament has had of considering the matter. In consonance with my wish to be brief, I do not think it necessary or desirable for me to speak at great length on the merits or demerits of women’s enfranchisement. It is not a new principle. Most members in this House have voted upon it, and the House has discussed it at great length. There are very few members. I think, who would express an opinion opposed to women suffrage as such, though there are many members who would vote against this resolution and against any suffrage Bill on special grounds such as the colour question. The Prime Minister himself, speaking on this measure last year, gave his adherence to the principle, and there are many members on the Nationalist benches who are in favour of women suffrage, but excuse themselves from voting for it on the grounds of the colour question. It is said that there is no demand for this particular measure. In 1921 there was a petition presented to the Prime Minister (Gen. Smuts) signed by 54,500 women, and these women have behind them the insistent demand of the majority of thinking women in this country. My contention is that it is not for us to make out a case in favour of womens’ suffrage; it is for those who, in this 20th century of ours, deny the women the right to participate in citizenship on the same terms as men, to set up some special facts to justify such a denial. When every political party recognizes and welcomes the participation of women in political life, and has its own associations of women; when leaders of every party attend women’s congresses and speak on political matters to them; when at every election women take a big hand; then I say—to use a legal term—the onus is on those who say the women should not have the vote, to satisfy this House and the public conscience as to why women should not have the vote. We have admitted women to professions on equal terms to men, to business and to all branches of human activity throughout South Africa. Why then should we deny the women in South Africa the right to exercise the franchise? We know that in almost every other civilized country—certainly in every country with pretensions to advancement—that women are enfranchised on equal terms with men, we have to ask ourselves: Why is South Africa lagging behind? An hon. member interjected “native.” This resolution does not commit the House to any particular solution of that question. It simply asks the House to affirm, in general terms, the principle of women suffrage, and invites the House to instruct the committee to consider this matter. That committee will not be bound to any of the deliberations of the former Select Committee of 1924. All I am asking members to do is to affirm the principle that they wish to see the women of South Africa enfranchised. If they do that they will vote for this resolution. If they dislike women having the vote they will vote against it; but we should not draw in a red herring by bringing in the question of the native and the coloured people. The resolution leaves it open to the committee to say what solution, if any, it proposes of the particular difficulty affecting the question of the franchise of native women. I am not going to be drawn into a discussion on that point, because it is not germane to my motion, and the committee will have full power to consider that matter. I venture to say our women are just as intelligent and capable of exercising the rights of citizenship as the women of Australia, Britain, or any other country where women’s franchise exists. I would ask hon. members now long they are going to render lip service to the cause of women’s suffrage and let women see and feel that they are up against a brick wall when it comes to doing anything practical. I ask hon. members to assist the cause by voting for this motion, not to take up too much time of the House, and to give this instruction to the committee.

On a point of order I should like to have a decision, Mr. Speaker, if this motion can be permitted. The motion suggests that certain instructions be given to the Select Committee to put a provision in the Bill amending the Electoral Act of 1918. The Electoral Act of 1918 was passed with the following objects—

I would thus like to know whether where the original Act makes no provision for the extension of the franchise it is in order to propose such amendment of the Act.

Before you give your ruling on that may I remind you that when the Act of 1918, which this Bill proposes to amend, was before this House, an instruction in similar terms was moved and discussed and voted upon. I hope you will keep that in mind before you give your ruling on the point just raised.

I understand that the argument of the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) is that the motion of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout falls outside the scope of the Act of 1918. If this is so then I wish to bring to your notice that the hon. member for Lady-brand is wrong. I think that the scope of the Act of 1918 is quite wide enough to include the motion of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. As the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has pointed out we had the same motion when we were dealing with the Act of 1918. The House then accepted the same motion and the principle was consequently referred to the Select Committee on the Electoral Bill of 1918. There is no difference between that motion and what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout now asks. I hope that you will take this into consideration and also rule that the scope of the present Bill is quite wide enough.

I feel that the motion amounts to this that it is an amendment of the constitution. The regulation of elections is not an amendment of the constitution. The alteration of the qualifications of voters is a different thing. On the other hand I feel that the same instructions were given on another occasion. The provision is that Parliament can amend the voting qualifications and I, therefore, think that the motion is in order.

In the measure of 1918 there was a clause which abolished plural voting in Natal—purely a franchise clause. In the present Bill there are two points referring actually to the franchise; one is the abolition of dual registration in the Cape Province, whereby the voter will no longer have the choice whether he shall be registered at his place of work or his place of residence, and I understand in regard to the coloured vote there is a tightening up of the form which voters have to sign in order to pass the education test. So in both respects the Minister in this Bill does touch the franchise, as did the Bill of 1918.

I think that the subject matter of the instruction and of the Bill are sufficiently cognate for me to allow the motion to be moved, and I am strengthened in this view by the fact that in 1918 a similar instruction was moved in connection with the Electoral Bill then before the House and, under similar circumstances, was allowed to be put to the vote.

I want to second this motion and, in accordance with what my hon. friend has said. I shall do so in very few words. I think it is admitted on every side of the House that we in South Africa are lagging behind the rest of the civilized democratic world in excluding women from any participation in the franchise. That is admitted, I think, by all except the comparatively small minority who think that women ought not to have anything to do with political affairs. I am strengthened in that view by the answer given by the hon. Prime Minister the other day to a deputation of women who waited upon him. His answer was—and it is in accordance with his statements in regard to his policy—that he will not consider the enfranchisement of women until the native question has been solved. That answer seems to me to be inconsistent with the views of a man who thinks that women ought to have a share in our political life. He tells the women “I don’t say you are not entitled to have a voice in the affairs of the country, but until the question—which is admittedly the greatest question with which we are faced—is settled, you must stay outside.” When we have settled the question which will probably take generations to solve then we can consider allowing women to have some share in political life, but they are to be carefully excluded while the vital native question is under consideration. Let us make up our minds to-day that there is going to be no short cut to a solution of the question of the position of natives in our political or industrial life—no solution will come for a long period of time. There will be no such thing as passing an Act of Parliament which will finally, or permanently, solve or settle the native question. The settlement of it has to be left, so to speak, and its settlement will take years, possibly generations. Meanwhile we tell the women that until that time has come they must stay outside the pale. I do not think that is a position which can be expected to satisfy the women of the country, or the men who think women are entitled to have a voice in political affairs, and that the whole country suffers from their exclusion. With regard to this particular occasion, the Bill is near enough to entitle us to raise the question. Governments in South Africa in the past have shrunk from bringing in a measure for the enfranchisement of women, because of internal differences and other reasons. But here we have a Bill which enables this House, apart from any party considerations, to raise the question. I think we should be lacking in our duty if we neglected this opportunity of adopting this instruction to a Select Committee on the Electoral Act Amendment Bill to take into consideration the question of making provision in the Bill for the enfranchisement of women. The instruction proceeds no further than the affirmation of a principle and leaves it to the Committee to find out what difficulties there are and, if it can, to suggest a solution of those difficulties. We are asked to come to a decision whether the Select Committee should be instructed to adopt the principle and to consider ways and means of carrying it out. If the Select Committee fails to arrive at any reasonable way of carrying the principle out, well and good, but we should be lacking in our duty if we did not instruct the Select Committee to see if it cannot arrive at some settlement whereby the women of South Africa can be allowed to take part in our political life.

I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) for carrying on this fight, and I am sorry he does not represent all the members of his party, both inside and outside the House, on this question. In the Free State the majority of the South African party are very much against giving women the vote. The behaviour of the South African party on the Select Committee on the last Electoral Bill which led to the wrecking of the proposal brought the fury of the women of the enfranchisement league on the heads of the South African party, which had promised to support the measure, but when they got the opportunity quarreled about the chairmanship of the Select Committee which had to consider the matter. On the other hand the Labour party has always stood for equal rights for women, and the whole of the party has voted for that on every occasion, but the other political parties have been divided on the question. The only party which has consistently supported women’s enfranchisement has been the Labour party. I am sorry to see that the other parties are so hopelessly divided on the subject, and I hope this afternoon’s discussion—which I think will only be an academic one—will go a long way to heal the differences, and will show the people that there is a good deal to be said for the enfranchisement of women. We are the only dominion in the Empire where woman has not equal political rights, and we are one of the few civilized countries in the world where women have not the vote. Women are equal to men in business and in the professions, and in the last war they ran hospitals particularly well. A large number of arguments have been used against women’s enfranchisement, and we have been told that women must stop at home and nurse the baby and leave the politics to men. Well, I know a large number of men more fitted to nurse babies than to take part in politics. This is the first time that this question has been brought up in the new Parliament, but I am afraid the motion is going to be thrown out, for with the exception of the Labour party and a few of the mover’s friends, there are very few members of the other parties who will vote for women’s enfranchisement. If the motion is defeated it will do an enormous amount of harm to the women’s cause in South Africa, for people will say that Parliament has thrown the thing out by a side wing, and the women will not have the heart to carry on. It would be much better if the Bill were brought in on which everybody could vote. I can see the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. de Waal) and the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) smacking their lips at a motion whereby they can kill this woman’s enfranchisement movement. My friend has been rather ambitious this afternoon. I can see the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal), saying. “Ah, he is walking in my parlour and I am going to swat him.” We must discuss this matter from all points of view. I am certain ray friend’s resolution is going to be thrown out this afternoon, and I am very sorry, because it is going to do a lot of harm. The first time a franchise Bill was brought into this House it was brought in by a Labour member, and we have been the only party who have been consistent on this question. I feel the women are making a rather stupid move, and I want to save them. I want to move—

seconded.

I have listened carefully to the guarded remarks of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), and it seems to me that he is doing a very careful egg-dance.

It is the force of bad example.

I agree. We saw yesterday how inconsistent the Labour Party was on the native question, and we are to-day being furnished with proof that the Labour Party are going to be inconsistent and insincere on the question of women’s suffrage. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) pretends to be in favour of women’s suffrage, and yet he tries to kill it.

I am not going to vote against it.

You are trying to prevent it coming to the vote at all. I don’t know what the other members of the Labour Party are going to do but throughout the country they have been posing as the friends of women’s suffrage. They have been telling the public they are in favour of the principle. I hope it has not been a case of spoofing the public, and if they do anything to prevent this coming to the vote we shall have to infer that they have once again been egg-dancing; that they have once more been inconsistent and insincere. In 1918, on the previous Electoral Bill, we had the identical motion now before the House under exactly the same circumstances. I would like to give a history of the movement from that day to revive the memories of the Labour party. In 1918 a similar motion was moved by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) in these words—

At that time, in speaking to his motion, he said that the principle needed no flowery oratory from him for it was the duty of Parliament to accept it and he strongly pressed the House to consider the giving of this instruction to the Committee. He added, “It is pure subterfuge to say the Electoral Bill is not the proper way to raise the question, it is subterfuge to say it should not be done by motion after the second reading of the Electoral Bill.” He went on to say. “The question is germane to the Electoral Bill and the entire Labour party will give the motion its hearty support.” The hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) went on to say that this motion and this Bill was the one and only place where the question could be brought up. Nobody, he continued, could accuse the Labour party of making it a political bribe, because it had always been in the forefront of their programme. I do not say they were now being politically bribed into opposing this measure, but I leave it to the House to say what has happened if they are going to vote against this motion or participate in any proceedings that will prevent it coming to the vote to-day. The hon. Minister of Labour participated in the debate and said—

If the Prime Minister thinks it is a matter that can be put off indefinitely, I must tell him that the country will not have it so.

Why did the Prime Minister refuse?

Because he was against it. The hon. member is missing my point, which is that I want to know what the Labour attitude is with regard to this motion, and I am trying to show the House the Labour attitude on an exactly similar motion in 1918. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs said, at the time: “It was dishonest to say one thing to women before an election and another when it was over.” I really do not know what the attitude of the Labour party is. They are strangely silent this afternoon, but they were very eloquent on the previous occasion on this question and they were particularly definite in their views. That particular motion went to the vote, and amongst those who voted for it were the following:—M. Alexander, T. Boy-dell, F. H. P. Creswell, W. B. Madeley and H. W. Sampson. The entire Labour party voted unanimously for this motion, so that I think we are justified in assuming that the entire Labour party will once more vote for it.

Nobody would be more disappointed than you if they did.

No, I think I have been a consistent supporter of this principle for many years. I would not be surprised if you voted against it, but I would be very disappointed, for I have the cause of women’s suffrage at heart. I would be disappointed because it would damage the chances of women’s suffrage, but I think the country would know what construction to put upon the action of the Labour members if they vote against this motion, or resort to any Parliamentary tactics this afternoon which will defeat its coming to a vote. I have told the House what the Labour party’s attitude was up to 1918. Up to them it had been consistent. What has happened since? In January of this year it was decided that the hon. member for Roodepoort (the Rev. Mr. Mullineux) should sponsor a suffrage Bill in this House. Then a meeting of the House Committee of the Women’s Suffrage Organization was held, at which the hon. member for Roodepoort and the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) were present. That committee found that the hon. member for Roodepoort, finding that an electoral Bill was being introduced, had written to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs asking him what was the Parliamentary position. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs telegraphed to the hon. member for Roodepoort (the Rev. Mr. Mullineux) as follows—

So that this motion now before the House has been introduced on the direct advice of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs.

He asked me a question on Parliamentary procedure and I replied.

Let me read the telegram again. The Minister has always told the House that he was in favour of women’s franchise, so it seemed a natural role for him to advise the introducer of the Bill that was to come before the House what to do. His definite advice was that—

Is the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs against this course? What then is his attitude?

I merely suggested what could be done by Parliamentary procedure.

Exactly, and the suggestion has been followed. The Minister cannot have it both ways. Let me go on with the subsequent history of this matter. Immediately on receipt of this advice from the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, a committee meeting was called of the Women’s Enfranchisement Association. The hon. member for Roodepoort and the hon. member for Salt River were both present, and voted for this resolution, which was passed unanimously—

This was brought forward by the hon. member for Roodepoort (the Rev. Mr. Mullineux) immediately on receiving this telegram from the Minister. But what happened after that? The hon. member for Roodepoort apparently had some qualms as to what was going to happen to this Bill, so he writes to the association as follows—

So we have the position that the considered judgment of the Labour party in 1918 under exactly similar circumstances was, as definitely stated by the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs that this Electoral Bill was the right time and place to move the amendment and that it would be subterfuge if it did not go through. That was the unanimous attitude of the Labour party on this subject in 1918. To-day we find the Labour party suddenly shirking the issue. Why? The only explanation the hon. member for Roodepoort (the Rev. Mr. Mullineux) has given is that it would embarrass the Government. This is evidently part of the price the Labour wing has to pay for the Pact. I may be doing my hon. friends on the Labour benches an injustice, but this is the only construction we can place on their attitude until they have told us what they are going to do about this motion. I am trying to refresh their memories as to what they did in 1918, and I am asking them for an explanation of what they are going to do now. In his last letter to the association the hon. member for Roodepoort stated that the labour caucus had decided not to support the amendment. This extraordinary change of opinion—if such change there be—certainly requires explanation. On receipt of that letter the association very naturally wrote to the hon. member for Roodepoort to this effect—

The hon. member for Roodepoort thereupon did a bolt. He replied—

This was the last word the Women’s Enfranchisement League had from the hon. member on the matter. Up to now the hon. member for Roodeport has been a staunch worker for the women’s suffrage principle. I hope the bolt he did then will not be repeated now.

Do you suggest I deliberately ran away?

It looks like it from this letter. It appears as if you thought discretion was the better part of valour. The Suffrage Association then wrote to the Minister of Labour asking him for his views on women’s suffrage. He replied—

As this was on the vague side, the association next day wired him again. The reply was on the same day. It was to this effect—

I mention this to show the necessity for the Labour party coming out into the open. We have had a blocking motion from one Labour member. We have it on record that the caucus of the Labour party had decided not to support the motion, although they had previously supported it in very strong terms. After receipt of the second vague telegram the association was, naturally, still dissatisfied, so they wrote the Minister again. He never replied and, since then, complete silence has reigned; he probably found it safer not to commit himself. The Labour party hold a strong position in the House and they can put this motion through if they wish. If they refuse to vote for this motion, or if they assist the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) to block the motion, or if they attempt to impede it in any way, I hope the public, and especially the women, will realize what has happened, and place the blame where it is due. As recently as April 8th the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs delivered a speech in Cape Town which I see is headed “A Message to Humanity,” to the effect that—

In 1918 the same hon. Minister told the people in this country they must not tell ladies one thing before an election and another after. I hope the public is taking note of all this. I hope the Labour party is going to tell us where they are standing. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) was the next contributor to the subject. On April 17th he states—

Then there is the hon. member for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan), who is also a contributor. His version is as follows. He said this is the position: The only justification I can give for the action of the Labour party in refusing to support the putting of women’s enfranchisement into the Electoral Bill is that we have entered a pact—

I did not say that.

He went on to say that each side has to subordinate much of its own individuality for the common interest. Well, could sordid material consideration go further than that? I think we have reached the truth at last. The common political interest, the chance of jobs for pals, would go by the board if they did not throw overboard principles like a sinking ship throws part of the ballast overboard in order to save the rest. We had the sonorous tones and altruistic principles of the Labour members enunciated in 1918—

There was no Billingsgate in any of those speeches.

No, I said there were sonorous phrases enunciating altruistic principles; you can’t talk Billingsgate in sonorous phrases; but they said we are going to support the motion; they said it is the only motion that will ever succeed in gaining women’s suffrage. Every Labour member voted for it and they assured the country and the House that it had the unanimous support of the Labour party. The two leaders of the Labour party spoke very effectively on the subject, and we now have this acrobatic feat. To use a Billingsgate phrase, the party has ratted on women’s suffrage. That being the case. I would ask the country to take note of all this. I am sure they have closely followed the attitude of the Labour party on the native question. They have heard the hon. members on the Labour benches fulminating against the Bill of the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins), and then support a Bill which takes away from the natives their rights, and I am quite sure they will bring the Labour party to book if anything is done this afternoon to obstruct this motion of the hon. member. I sincerely hope that the Labour party is not merely trying to wriggle out of promises in order to wriggle into jobs, but we will see this afternoon. However, I hope the Labour members will be frank with us if they have changed their views. We have had a number of homilies on political consistency and political purity from hon. members opposite, on the newspaper clause of the Electoral Bill. Well, let the Labour members practise what they preach, let them take a little of their own medicine, and give us some frankness this afternoon. Error is but opinion in the making. I used to hold very reactionary views on the native question, but I have broadened down from precedent to precedent. There is nothing humiliating or dishonest about your opinion evolving and broadening; but if the Labour party have “ratted” on the Bill, let them say so, and let them explain the difference between their attitude in 1918 and their present attitude.

The hon. member who has just spoken cast some ridicule on my telegram to the ladies who addressed me. But the attitude of the Labour party is unchanged, and I can assure the hon. member that when the day comes when the Labour party constitutes a majority of this House and has the Government of this country in their hands, it will make it one of their first duties to introduce a Bill to give effect to this principle.

Why not try now?

The one thing that astonishes me is to hear the leaders of the party opposite affirm that this is a measure which ought to be carried through, and yet for many years they were in a position to carry it through.

You hold the balance of power to-day.

Yes, certainly, but we have entered into a coalition in order to carry on the government of this country, and naturally that necessitates the subordinating or putting in the background of some of those points upon which we do not agree, in order to carry points on which we do agree.

You have subordinated your principles.

You asked for frankness. I support women’s suffrage and shall continue to do so. The hon. member has stated that the position in 1918 was the same as it is to-day. With all respect, I wish to point out that there is a very considerable difference. As regards procedure, it is identical, and when he quoted my hon. friend he was simply saying what might be done. My hon. friend was correctly pointing out the correct Parliamentary procedure by which, if desired, that question could be discussed while the Electoral Bill was before the House. But in 1918 we bad an Electoral Bill before the House sponsored by hon. members opposite, which we knew would be of little value. On this occasion we have an honest Electoral Bill that is going to eliminate a number of pernicious things in connection with the conduct of elections. The. Bill of 1918 was introduced and sponsored by hon. members opposite.

You voted for it.

We could not get anything better. I hope my hon. friends on the cross-benches will not give way to their natural tendency to follow the advice of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz). I know that when he speaks the natural desire when they listen to his dulcet tones is to be carried away and to feel they must follow his lead, and I do hope they will resist that temptation. I agree with the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) that this motion is not going to carry women’s suffrage one step further. Last year we carried a motion to set up a Select Committee, or was it the second reading of the Bill? When the Select Committee met it was perfectly clear that the whole question of women’s suffrage constitutes a problem, complicated by other points in the electoral qualifications, which is something to be solved by itself, and something which will take the full course of a session in order to bring up a reasonable, considered proposal. It is bristling with difficulties. It is probably on that account that the hon. gentlemen opposite did not think fit as a Government to make themselves responsible for a Women’s Suffrage Bill. All supporters and non-supporters of this Bill know it is bristling with difficulties in the circumstances of our various electoral qualifications and the many factors which impinge upon them.

You did not say that in 1918

I am a little wiser, by the experience of last year’s Select Committee for one thing.

And the statement of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan)?

I generally try to keep the statements of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) because, as a rule, they are gems of wisdom, but this one escaped me. If my hon. friends allow themselves to be seduced by the persuasive eloquence of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) they will not advance women’s suffrage by one iota, but they may prolong the proceedings of the Select Committee so that the Electoral Bill will not be able to come back to this House in time to be passed.

What does it matter? It will come on next year.

There will be ample occasion to consider women’s suffrage by itself.

In 1918 you said that was a subterfuge.

In 1918, as I said, I had not the experience. (Laughter.) You asked me to be frank, and so I am.

“What tangled skeins we weave when first we practice”—I won’t go on.

No, not at all. I was simply being frank. From the remarks opposite I might almost suppose I was being indiscreetly frank, but I think I am being most discreetly frank, in urging my hon. friends to resist that innate and intense desire to follow where the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D Reitz) leads. After all, we are not responsible to hon. members opposite, but to those who sent us to Parliament, and they have entire confidence in the way we shall run affairs, and know that we shall not delay the consummation of women’s suffrage by one single minute; and we shall not respond to hon. members over there, but decline to take the vote on the question of women’s suffrage in view of the fact that to do so may prevent the Electoral Bill from coming back in time to go through this House; but when the occasion arises when we can vote for the principle and carry it through we shall do so. I only wish to add that I am amazed when I see that solid phalanx of women suffragists opposite. How is it that during all the years they were in power, when they had only to introduce legislation to have it supported by all their members, they did not use their machinery to carry a measure through the House? When the Labour party have a majority in this House we shall take it up as a Government.

Must the women wait till then?

You had your chance up to last year, and the women had to wait until you converted your party. We converted our party but we did not return with a majority of the electorate. Again, this is a curious fact, it makes me suspect the Labour party is being used as a sort of convenient little catspaw.

By the Pact?

By the Unionists. If there is one thing that members opposite may make up their minds upon it is that, although they may try and use the Labour party as a catspaw for years for their own party purposes, their amusing and interesting attempts—unless I am greatly mistaken—will be defeated.

After this lucid statement by the hon. Minister of Labour and Defence, I think the women of South Africa know what to expect from the Pact.

They have known all along what to expect from you.

We have listened to both leaders of the Pact. Last year the hon. Prime Minister made clear the position of the Nationalist party, and the other day, on meeting a deputation of the Women’s Enfranchisement League, he reiterated his opinion, that women’s franchise must stand over until the native question has been settled. We had a statement from the Prime Minister a few weeks ago as to the state of maturity of the native question, and we heard him say, not to our surprise, that it would take many years, perhaps a whole generation, to settle the native question. So far as the Nationalist party is concerned, after that declaration the women know that they will never get the franchise. Well, I had rather built hopes on the Labour party. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) was quite correct when he said the Labour party had been assiduous in their efforts for women’s franchise. From the statement now made by the other leader of the Pact, we learn that the women of this country will get the franchise when there is a Labour Government. The hon. Minister knows that if the women have to wait until there is a Labour Government they will have to wait till the Greek kalends, and they will never get the vote in our day and generation. The late South African party Government did its best to avoid giving this great question a purely party complexion. We felt that we had not the strength to put this through as a party measure, but we thought with support from other sides of the House it would be possible to gather sufficient strength to put through this great reform on non-party lines. I believe that there are to-day sufficient members to pass this Bill if they could forget party feeling and loyalty. But for the statement of the Prime Minister last year that this question had to stand over, his impassioned appeal that it should stand over until the native question has been settled, this reform might have been through. Now we have not only the Prime Minister, but his colleague, taking up the same partisan attitude, and relying simply on party discipline, not to put the measure through, but to defeat it. I am profoundly disappointed with the attitude of the Labour party. They had been consistently in favour of women’s suffrage, but now that there is a chance of securing it they run away. The reason is the Pact. The women of South Africa should know to what cause is due this unfortunate postponement of the fulfilment of their hopes—it is the Pact. The women of South Africa know now that they have very little, in fact nothing, to expect from the Pact. There could not be a more telling instance of the meaning of the Pact to the country and to our public life. What has happened to-day? Here is a principle to which the Labour party is pledged, which is affirmed in their programme of principles, but it is being sacrificed to-day for the Pact. We see how the principles of the Labour Party may be jettisoned in order that common interests—I shall not define them more clearly—may be promoted. I am sorry. The attitude of the Pact will lead to the destruction of this great reform, and I am very sorry. I am sure that, but for the partisan attitude of hon. members on the Government benches, it would be possible to carry this great reform. The attitude of the South African party remains what it was before, and we wish to carry this reform. There are a small number of hon. members among us who are opposed to the reform, and that is why we could not carry it when we were in office. We could not carry the reform by our unaided efforts, but we relied on the followers of the Minister of Labour. Now he has deserted his programme and his principles. The Pact means the postponement not only of this reform, but of many other genuine reforms. The Pact is a real drag on progress, and more and more the country will feel that the Pact is a surrender of vital principles and a real drag on the true progress of South Africa. On this side of the House the great majority support the principle, and will vote for the motion, and we hope that in spite of the appeal of the Minister to his followers that they will think more of their party principles, and what the whole of South African womanhood is looking for, than to any purely party advantage which they expect to derive from this Pact. The eyes of South Africa are on the Labour party to-day, their action is being watched with grave concern. The Pact may secure a little party triumph today, but the hon. members who help in that direction will give a great shock to their numerous followers all over South Africa.

It is amusing to hear the hon. member for Standerton representing that the Labour party and the Nationalists are engaged in throwing sound principles overboard. They were, he says, deprived for all these years of all principle that they must still acknowledge that there is something good in principles when they see them. But why is he so concerned about it that he will give a slap in the face to the whole of South Africa if we are not true to our principles? I think that he should welcome it because he is anxious to see that the Pact Government should go out of office. I am glad to-day to see him in this reasonable frame of mind that he is anxious for us to remain longer in power. This must surely be on account of the good work we are doing. Let us now come to the measure for which he is so determined to vote. When did the conversion occur? Until last year the hon. member for Standerton never dreamt of hesitating about such a thing as giving a slap in the face to the women of South Africa.

I have always voted for it.

I beg pardon, I have made a mistake. I have confused the position in connection with prohibition. It s in that matter that the conversion took place last year. Let us now go a little bit further into the matter. The hon. member for Standerton wants to meet the women of South Africa. But who are the women of South Africa that he wants to meet? The hon. member for. Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) introduced a Bill into the House last year which represents exactly, what the hon. member for Standerton means when he talks about the women of South Africa, The hon. member for Yeoville in his whole speech argued that the women of South Africa should not be put in a second place to the men. I look again at the Bill that he introduced as a member of the Government of the hon. member for Standerton. Who were the women who would get the vote? Those that the hon. member for Standerton knew would vote for him. The result was that the Bill—I do not say a jot too much—excluded one-third of the women of the country from the vote who should have enjoyed it. If the woman is on an equality with the man—I do not wish her to be behind the man—then we must be logical. Why was the right not given in that Bill on the same basis as to the men? That was not done. What was the reason? I think only two reasons can be given. The idea was that they would retain the voting power of the women as a result of the operation of the Bill, but that the Labour party especially, and also the Nationalist party, would suffer. The second reason was that they acted in that way to exclude the natives—and the coloured women. Don’t let us put on blinkers. Now I ask again of the hon. member for Standerton, how does this tally with the high ethical point of view which he has recently taken up with reference to the relation between the coloured man, the native and the white man in the country, to remove stumbling blocks that might cause friction? My position is still this. As regards the granting of the franchise to the white women, I still doubt whether it will bring the benefits to the women that many think. But I will readily admit that the women have been so worked up that they will not be happy without having the franchise, and I am therefore not prepared to stand in the way. But I wish to say this, that she must not insist on the right, without which she has done for centuries, when the granting of the franchise will undoubtedly do a great injustice to the white men in the country. I again take up that position. I go further than the hon. member for Standerton, and I say that we will not get the white population of South Africa to extend the native franchise on the Cape basis to the rest of the Union, and thus before we give the franchise to the white women we must first of all take the necessary steps to see that the native women do not also claim it. In the proposed legislation which I have mentioned, my hon. friend took care to avoid this. But at what cost? At the cost of more than one-third of the white women of the country. And to that I say no. If the women are to get it, and if they are as much entitled to it as men, then I do not see the justice of putting her on a different basis to men. For this reason I say that it is clear to me that until we can solve the question of the native franchise for posterity, the question of the women’s franchise had better stand over a little, and that she also will make the sacrifice. Now, say the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Standerton, the time will never come when this solution will take place. Well, I must say that I feel a little hopeless with regard to the hon. member if that is the frame of mind in which he is going to help us with the native question next year, when I hope to introduce the matter. If this is his despair, then we will probably attain nothing, if it is dependent on him. Happily I do not in the least share his view. I am convinced, absolutely convinced, that if we in South Africa will use our intelligence with the necessary determination and with the necessary sense of justice, we shall be able to find a solution which will mean more to the native than the political rights which he enjoys at present. As to the justice of which the hon. member for Standerton has spoken in connection with the Mines and Works Bill, I can say that the interests of the white man and of the coloured man will also be properly guaranteed in South Africa. I say so because I am convinced that it can be done. And it is because I am convinced that it is possible, and that it can occur, that I say that we should first make an earnest endeavour in that direction before we try to give the franchise to the women, which if we do it now will be unfair on the one hand and ineffective on the other. I am convinced of it that the people are longing that Parliament, should take the necessary steps to so fix the political relations between the natives, the coloured and the white people that everyone shall enjoy his rights and that the safety of all shall be protected. For this reason I shall not vote for legislation of this nature before an opportunity is given to see what we can do in that connection. I only wish to add this, that I cannot help feeling that this motion has been actually introduced with the object of stultifying the Electoral Bill. Why introduce it so suddenly? It is a complicated question about which we have to decide and why then is this troublesome measure annexed thereto. No, I feel that there are certain important provisions in the Electoral Bill upon which my hon. friends opposite do not agree with us. I am convinced that they will do a great deal to prevent the acceptance of those provisions and the improvement of the electoral law. In view of the importance of the Electoral Bill and the improvement of the Electoral Act, I should be the last person to approve that we should annex something to it which will make the matter more difficult. In the circumstances, I wish to say that we on this side of the House, if not all, then at least the large majority, feel in regard to this question that we cannot give our votes for this motion, although we possibly feel that the white women are entitled to the franchise. We will, in voting against the motion, have no feeling that we arte doing an injustice to the women. For these reasons, I wish to say that I hope that we will accept the amendment that the matter should not be brought to a vote.

In a certain sense, I am gravely disappointed at the speech of the Prime Minister The Prime Minister brought forward two points in opposition to this motion. First of all he discussed the details of a Bill which was introduced last session and, because the details of the Bill then introduced did not satisfy him, he uses to-day those details in order to oppose the principle which it is by this motion sought to refer to the Select Committee. He used an argument which he has used before, that this question should not be considered on principle until the native political question has been solved. I think that is really putting an absolute bar on the discussion by this House of this very important question. The Prime Minister must not forget that the Minister of the Interior introduced a Bill dealing with the electoral law, and by the fact of that introduction, a private member is barred from introducing a Bill dealing with the same principle and running concurrently with the Government measure. Particularly to the Labour party would I say that all through the years when this question was discussed in this Parliament it was invariably treated on a non-party basis.

It is not to-day.

To-day is the first occasion that hon. members on the cross benches are forsaking

And on your side also.

Those of us who formerly supported this principle are to-day prepared to show our colours, but the difference is that, while hon. members on this side are prepared to stand by and support this principle, hon. members on the cross benches are trampling it under their feet. What is the Parliamentary position in regard to this motion? It is simply to have this principle discussed in the Select Committee the same as we did in 1918, and I ask the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr.Barlow) was the Bill of 1918 jeopardized on account of this principle being referred to the Select Committee of that Bill? This is the most timid support that I have ever seen on the part of hon. members who are supposed to stand firm on this principle. They are too timid even to refer this principle so that it may be considered by a Select Committee. How can the Electoral Bill be wrecked, how can it be prejudiced, if you refer this principle to the Select Committee on that Bill? The Prime Minister says it may delay the passage of the Electoral Bill.

Hear hear.

Yes; I suppose the hon. member thinks the principle of curtailing the rights of the press is far more sacred than this principle of women’s suffrage. That seems to be the sum total of the opposition of hon. members to the reference of this question to the Select Committee. Now my hon. friend (Mr. Barlow) comes forward with the Parliamentary screen, the previous question. I wonder whether the hon. member knows what really is meant by the previous question. By the previous question is really meant that the hon. member is satisfied with the position as it now obtains, that he does not wish to disturb the fact that women have no vote. That is the underlying principle of the previous question. He comes here and says that the women’s case should not be enquired into or considered by a select committee, and that the league of women who have this question at heart should not have the opportunity, through the Select Committee, of laying their views before Parliament. They are denied their privilege through the conduct of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) and his friends. What further does the previous question mean? It means this, in a Parliamentary sense, that the hon. members on the cross benches are not prepared to face the principle, that principle which they argue is near to their hearts, has been all these years and still is. By moving the previous question, they announce to the world that they are not prepared to face the principle, they are not prepared to vote on the principle which they say is sacred to them. Therefore they shelter behind “the previous question.” I am going to vote for the motion.

Are you going to vote for women’s suffrage?

If you bring in a Bill to-day I will vote for the second reading. You are afraid even to refer this principle to a select committee. The Prime Minister is afraid, he does not wish the Select Committee to enquire into the details of the Bill. He says: No, there shall be no opportunity of enquiry. My friends over there have taken a course to-day which they are bound to regret before long. They will not allow the Select Committee to see whether they can carry out an object which hon. members over there claim to have had at heart for years.

The hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Krige) has not told us whether he is prepared to vote for women’s suffrage. No one knows better than hon. members on that side of the House that there are many sitting there who, from a party point of view, in order to secure some party advantage, will vote for this resolution. They also know that there are many members in this House who would vote in favour of the second reading of a Bill if it were introduced and yet would wreck it in the committee stage. Is this apostle of high dealing prepared to stand up and say without equivocation that he is whole-heartedly in favour of women’s suffrage? The introducer of the motion (Mr. Blackwell) when he said he would like discussion to be as short as possible, knew perfectly well that members of his party were simply making women a political stalking horse.

Quite wrong.

He knows as well as I do that when the Bill passed the second reading it would be years and years away from the third reading, because he knew that the divergence of opinion on the subject would be successful in wrecking the Bill. May I reiterate the advice of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) although I do not often agree with him—when he says to the Women’s Enfranchisement League and other suffrage leagues that they should go out into the highways and by-ways of South Africa and educate women in favour of suffrage; then they would get a Bill through and not before. They have a lot of educational propaganda to carry on before members of this House are prepared to vote in favour of women’s suffrage. Are the Women’s Enfranchisement League and other suffrage organizations sincere when they say they are in favour of votes for women? I doubt it. Practically 99 per cent. of the members of the Women’s Enfranchisement League have really party interests at heart.

What right have you to say that?

I have every right; that is my written opinion to the secretary of the league.

Give us the facts to justify it.

If the hon. member will be patient I will give the grounds for my statement. I have given my opinion for what it was worth. I do not expect it to appeal to the intelligence of the hon. member. I say that so far as the league is concerned no one can deny that members of that league have helped candidates in this House who are against women’s suffrage. That is why I ask if they are sincere. If they were sincere they would work wholeheartedly, forget their prejudices, for the men who have helped their cause. They have not done so, and therefore I ask whether these women are sincere. I doubt whether they are in earnest. We come to another point. Again I ask members of the league whether they are really in favour of women’s suffrage or whether in their hearts the majority of the leaders are really only in favour of a class women’s suffrage? Whether they are not prepared to desert their humbler sisters if they can only get a vote for themselves on class lines? If they could get a Bill through which would enfranchise women according to the amount of money or property they possess, the league would be prepared to accept that Bill and desert their humbler sisters. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) also stated that he considered the best way to deal with this matter was to introduce this motion. Again, I give him credit for knowing better, but if I have overestimated the intelligence of the hon. member I apologise. I give him credit for knowing that the moment he introduced this particular motion in the nature of an amendment to a Government Bill he was laying himself open to the accusation of attempting to hold back that the real object he had was to secure a party advantage in attempting to drive a wedge between the Pact. Nobody knows better than he that that would be the effect of that resolution. And when he said that on two occasions this House has passed the principle of women suffrage he was talking with his tongue in his cheek, as he knows that there has been a great divergence of opinion between hon. members on the subject. He says now that all we are asked to do is to affirm the principle—special pleading in order to raise false hopes in the hearts of the women, in order to pretend that he is giving them something he cannot give them. The hon. member knows that what is needed to carry this measure is propaganda throughout the country. Let him do as much propaganda with the women as the Labour party has done on the subject. I claim that the people who can claim the most credit for the position which the principle occupies to-day in South Africa is the Labour party, because they have preached and stood by this principle when it was unpopular in the country. It was that party which showed the women what they could do in obtaining seats on town councils, etc. The hon. member asked, how long were members going to render lip service to this principle? I ask him, and the members of the Women’s Enfranchisement League, how long they are going to render lip service, instead of taking action to show that they are in earnest. If this motion is passed, they may show themselves in their real colours. They may commence a campaign against the Labour party as being insincere and being the wreckers’ of women suffrage in South Africa. Again, I ask the Women’s Enfranchisement League to go further. If they ask for justice in the political field, are they going to vote for justice for women in the social field; for industrial justice; for equal pay for equal work? If not, they are only partly fulfilling the functions they pretend to serve. Even the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) must admit, privately to himself, that the greatest enemy the women had in South Africa this afternoon was the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz).

Why? I always vote for the Bill.

He started off his great plea by immediately antagonizing everybody he possibly could on this side of the House. He said the Labour party was inconsistent and insincere. He said he hoped most of them were not, and he was praying all the time that most of the Labour party would oppose this measure, so that his party would have more docile women workers in the future than in the past. He knows that the only hope of passing this measure is by bringing in a non-party Bill, and yet he immediately made it a party question, and was the first member to make it a party question in this House. He endeavoured to embarrass the Government, and has converted a lot of hon. members opposite, who were against the principle in the past, into sturdy champions of women’s suffrage—for to-day only. He said the Labour party was strangely silent. One of the greatest failings of the Labour party is their political honesty, because they always tell the public exactly where they stand, as the hon. member for Roodepoort (the Rev. Mr. Mullineux) did in black and white, in letters to a political organization who are so blind to their own best interests that they handed that correspondence to the political opponents of the Labour party to bring the women into the arena from a political party point of view. The hon. member is much concerned for the Labour party, but generally he is most abusive and calls us “soap-box orators,” “Hyde Park orators,” and so on. He has never called us “Billingsgate orators,” but people in glass-houses should never throw stones. He went on to tell us what the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) said, and what the Minister of Labour said, and what the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs said, and used a lot of gibes of that description from a party point of view. He said that is part of the price the Labourites will have to pay to the Nationalists, but only the other day he was telling us, with tears so plentiful that the overflow was running down his back, that the Nationalists were in the grip of the Labour party, and “the Lord help all these poor Nationalists in the back veld.” The hon. gentleman, while going on with this sort of thing, said that was the considered opinion of the Labour party caucus. Can he tell us what the considered opinion of the South African party caucus is? Will he tell us all he knows about the little meeting upstairs when they decided to make this a party question and come forward with a united front to drive a wedge between the Pact and to use the women as the poker in so doing, and then to show what wicked fellows these Labourites are? He cannot tell us what the considered opinion of the South African party is, but he accuses my hon. friend, the member for Roodepoort (the Rev. Mr. Mullineux) of running away to Klerksdorp. There is not a man in this House, irrespective of his political opinions, who can cast a stone at the hon. member for Roodepoort. So far as I know, there is no one who has worked harder on this question than the hon. member, and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) sank pretty low when the attacked him. I wish to emphasize that the supporters of women’s suffrage did their case no good when they handed those documents to the leaders of the party opposite. Whatever we do, we take up our attitude openly before the country. We claim that, whether from the point of view of tactics we are doing the best in the interests of this movement, the women of South Africa, in regard to social and industrial reforms, have no more sincere or warm-hearted supporters than in the Labour party, because we stand for what we believe to be principles. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) has done the women a great disservice by his speech. He said he hoped hon. members would be brief, and he proceeded to make a 40 minutes’ speech containing sneers, gibes and jeers, and tried to stir up the members on the Government benches. He wanted it both ways. If the hon. members on the Government benches speak on this Bill they are held to blame if the House does not come to a vote, and if we vote in favour of the motion the hon. member and his friends will say that they shamed us into voting.

You must be ashamed of doing it.

That is the position he wanted to put us in. For myself, I am one who is inclined to vote in favour of this resolution. I was very strongly in favour of it, but I will never lend myself to any party manoeuvres from that side that will tend to damage the party in power, because I have had many years of bitter experience under the late Government. I thought this matter was going to be dealt with in a non-party manner, but from the moment the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) made his speech, with the whole-hearted approval of the South African party, of whom I know 55 per cent. are opposed to women’s suffrage, I saw the trap.

What did you decide last March in caucus?

I was not at that caucus meeting, and I have yet to learn that this was made a party question; but whether it was right or wrong, if my conscience told me a certain course was right, I should follow my conscience. Hon. members have made it a party question from the point of view of tactics and they have convinced me that it would be fatal to vote for the resolution now, because you will have more votes against it. The supporters of this resolution would have been very wise to keep the matter out of party politics, because once it enters the party arena the women will have to wait a great deal longer than if they kept it free from party manoeuvres. I would urge those hon. members who have been so eloquent to come out with me into the highways and by-ways and raise the fiery cross and preach for all they are worth in favour of women’s suffrage, social and industrial reforms, and they will have no better supporters than the hon. members of the South African Labour party.

As a supporter of women’s franchise, I am very sorry that this particular motion has been introduced. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) immediately commenced to make a party matter of it. He appears to know everything that takes place in the caucus of the Labour party and has apparently got all the correspondent that took place in this matter in his possession. I protest most strongly against it that such a matter should be used for party purposes. Why, seeing there is a House Committee in connection with women’s franchise of which I am a member, have I never heard about this motion? In the past I was always consulted, but in this case I was left completely in the dark until this motion was introduced. I am sorry that this has been made a party matter at the present time in order to wreck the Electoral Amendment Bill. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) knows well enough, seeing there is such a great difference of opinion on this matter in his own party, what we may expect from a Select Committee, and that the Select Committee will not be unanimous in connection with women҆s franchise. I am a supporter of women҆s franchise, and am very sorry it has been made a party question in order to wreck the Electoral Amendment Bill. The hon. member knows how the Select Committee will be constituted. It will be constituted according to the strength of parties and the supporters of women’s franchise will not be taken into consideration at all.

The Select Committee has already been appointed.

Yes; the Select Committee has already been appointed in this case. No; the hon. member who is a strong supporter of women’s franchise has allowed himself to be used in this matter for party purposes to attack the Labour party. Especially the hon. member for (Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) has made a party question of it and attacked the Labour party and shown what they are doing as a party. For fourteen years his party had the opportunity of putting such a measure through. Why did they not do it? He has read out what the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) said in 1918 when the same motion was before the House and he has quoted what others said, but he has omitted to mention what the then Prime Minister, the late Gen. Botha, who was also a supporter of women’s franchise, said. He said that the time was not suitable for referring the matter of women’s franchise to a select committee. This the hon. member suppressed only to sow division in the Labour party. He wants to point out to the people outside what the Labour party are doing in connection with this matter and what the South African party is doing for the women. The peculiarity is that while in the past supporters of women’s franchise have always been asked not to speak in the debate because the opponents of women’s franchise always talked much, we have to-day only heard supporters of the women’s franchise talking on this side of the House. I hope in the future to be able to do something for women’s franchise, but I shall certainly not allow myself to be used for party purposes by the South African party. I would like to propose an amendment, an amendment which is of great importance, and which can also be dealt with by the Select Committee.

The hon. member cannot move an amendment at this stage.

As I may not move the amendment, I just want to take the opportunity to express the wish that the Select Committee will also consider a matter of great importance, viz., the taking away of the franchise from persons who get Government relief in the Transvaal and the Free State. We know that such people who are unhappily in necessitous circumstances go to the magistrate to get relief from the Government, and are consequently removed from the voters’ roll. It is a scandalous state of affairs. It can easily be taken into consideration by the Select Committee, and if I have the opportunity later, I will move an amendment in this direction or give notice of such a motion for the consideration of a select committee.

I rise as, possibly, the oldest advocate of women’s suffrage in this House, and I regret that for the first time this has been made a party question. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) introduced the party question, but the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Col. D. Reitz) made the matter ten times worse. I have been associated with the hon. member for Roodepoort (the Rev. Mr. Mullineux) on this question ever since he entered Parliament; his heart is in the matter and it was with much sorrow that he had to abandon the idea of proposing this motion. I do not think that the circulars which have been referred to were meant to be used for the purpose of this debate. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) said he was in sympathy with the motion, but he would not vote for it. But supposing that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) has done an injudicious thing has the hon. member for Brakpan any right to depart from his principles? Did the hon. member who introduced the motion make it a party question? I do not think the carrying of the motion will in any way injure the Electoral Act Amendment Bill which—apart from the clause affecting the press—I am anxious should go through. The carrying of the motion this afternoon would not commit the House to the principle of women’s enfranchisement, as it only asks that the Select Committee should consider the matter.

The majority of the Select Committee are against women’s suffrage.

At any rate the referring of this matter to the Select Committee would afford an opportunity for the question of women’s suffrage to be debated when the Bill is returned. Members who have advocated votes for women belong to all parties of this House. It has been stated that 55 per cent. of the members on this side of the House are against women’s enfranchisement, but I am positive that there are not ten against it. We have had no more earnest advocate of women’s enfranchisement than the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé). The Prime Minister on the 9th. of May last said—

It is generally believed that the majority m this House to-day are in favour of women’s franchise, and we are told to wait until this Electoral Bill is out of the road. What guarantee have we that there will not be another Bill of the same sort brought in next year and it will be in the way again? Another point made by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) was that those women who want the franchise were all of one party. Let me tell him that the executive council of the women who want the franchise comes from all parties. I can give data. I have made a statement, and I will be satisfied to hand to him the names which will satisfy him. Let us get to the broad side of the question. To-day it is one of the burning questions. A statement has been made in the House that the whole of the press were in favour of the franchise, but up to a few years ago the whole of the leading papers wrote against it. It is only within the last three or four years that the “Cape Times” have taken up a position favourable to women’s franchise. Its late editor wrote skilled articles against it Another thing we are told is that harm is being done to women’s franchise by bringing forward this motion to-day. Harm is not being done. It is not going to make one enthusiast of the party one jot less zealous. Harm is being done by injudicious speeches. There is no use making an appeal to hon. members if they want to turn it into a party question, but is there not yet time, in spite of the strong political speeches, to get rid of party, and if it is right in itself and in the interests of the women, to realize that you could not get a better time to consider it than in the quiet of the committee room? It does not follow that because a majority of the committee are against it they might not, on hearing the evidence, take up a different attitude and change their view. Is it not a fact that many committees after hearing the evidence have decided to report contrary to what they have done before? In the quiet of a committee room, away from the sphere of party politics and away from the jibes of hon. members who try to vie with each other on what they can say nastily about each other, we might forget party altogether. Once we get in a committee room we do not, as a rule, know politics. We try to discuss a question on its merits and come to the conclusion that will be best in the interests of the country. I don’t want to see this question talked out, but I want hon. members to think before it is too late and cast their votes on the side they believe to be right. That is the way to approach this question. What every member has to consider is not which side of the House he is on, but what his conscience says on the question. On many occasions, and on many occasions again, many of us will stand out from our party if we think the principles are sound. From what I know of the South African party, to which I was taken in two or three years ago, it has always been an open question with them. When the late Government was in power I think there were three hon. members who voted against it, Mr. Jagger, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central), Mr. de Wet, the Minister of Justice, and Mr. Burton. Another statement was made that the women never used their influence. The women claimed that time after time publicly that the small majority by which the late Minister of Justice lost his seat was because he did not vote for women’s franchise. The women claimed they did it, and made no secret of it. I know of other constituencies where they refused to use their influence for party purposes because the candidate was not in favour of the enfranchisement of women. It is like a voice crying in the wilderness to get anyone to change their mind when the party whip cracks. It is not a party question; it does not affect the Government in the slightest. The Government have not made it a party question. It is only an instruction to a committee to take into consideration the advisability of extending the franchise to women. That is quite simple and plain and does not affect any party. Even if the committee brought in a majority report there would be no desire for the Government to resign their seats of office.

Are you trying to talk it out?

It has been suggested that I want to talk this out. The hon. member who suggested that does not know much about this question, and my sympathy with it. I do not know who said it, but I do say this, that he knows nothing about it, and that he has allowed his tongue to run riot.

I will vote against you.

I don’t want you to vote for or against me; I only want you to vote for principles. I would make a final appeal to hon. members not to allow themselves to be carried away with the party question at all. This is no party question, and the man who makes it a party question damns and ruins the women’s cause.

It is all very well for members to shout “vote.” Now that it is clear that no other motion will be heard, some of us want to speak on this matter for several reasons and there is no reason why those who feel strongly on this question should not give expression to their views. I am going to vote as I have always voted on the question of women’s franchise. Party considerations do not influence me in the matter at all. I have always been in favour of women’s suffrage, and I see no reason why my vote should be different on this occasion from what it has been on previous occasions. I want this matter to go to the Select Committee on the Electoral Bill. The women have a right to have their case decided and not shelved. They are not represented in this House; they have no vote, and the history of what has taken place in other Parliaments should make us pause before we say we are not going to decide the matter, but that we are going to shelve it. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) in bringing forward this motion set a good example in his speech, but the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) introduced the party spirit and the party element. Hon. members on the Opposition side were in power for several years, and if they had been in favour, as a party, of women’s suffrage, they could have carried it through. What is the good of raising the party issue? Since the late Government came into power in 1921 as an amalgamated party the matter has been before the House on several occasions. In 1921 it was shelved by the adjournment of the debate being carried by 52 to 44. In 1922 we got a vote on the second reading. There was a vote of 54 to 52 against the adjournment, and then we came to vote on the second reading, the division disclosing 52 for and 55 against. Among the 52 for the second reading there were 39 South African party men, 2 Nationalists, 10 Labour members and myself. Of the 55 who voted against the second reading, and thus defeated the Bill, there were 21 South African party men, including two Ministers, namely, Mr. Burton and Mr. Jagger. The matter came up again in 1923, when the second reading was lost by one vote. Among the 55 who voted for the second reading were 40 South African party men, 13 Labour members, 1 Nationalist, and myself. The 56 who voted against included 19 South African party men and 37 Nationalists. Last year, when the matter came up, the second reading was carried by 54 to 48. Here again you find the South African party divided. For the second reading 41 South African party men voted, 10 Labour members, Mr. Hunt, 1 Nationalist and myself. The 48 consisted of 37 Nationalists and 11 South African party men. You see from these figures that the South African party has always been hopelessly divided in the Cabinet and among the rank and file on this matter. It seems to me, therefore, that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) might have spared us the attack on the Labour party. I regret the decision that the Labour party have come to this year, because it seems to me that it is not consistent with the stand they have previously taken, but at the same time they have made their position quite clear. The hon. member for Roodepoort (the Rev. Mr. Mullineux) is a member of the House Committee for women’s enfranchisement, so am I, and so also is the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. D. M. Brown). As I understand the position, when the two Labour members of the Government were approached last year, they said that the Cabinet was divided, and neither of the Ministers could introduce a Bill. Therefore the matter was left open for a private member to act, and the hon. member for Roodepoort, perfectly bona fide, agreed to move an amendment. I have the correspondence in my hands, and I must say that the hon. member for Roodepoort has stated perfectly honestly and clearly what the position was. He says in his letter that the Minister of the Interior in consultation with the Prime Minister did not want his Electoral Bill complicated by any kind of amendment dealing with the women’s franchise, and that the Government was very anxious to get this Bill through this session. The hon. member was told by his party that he could not be allowed, as a private member, to introduce an amendment of this kind. I say it was an unfortunate thing that decision should have been conveyed to the hon. member after he had agreed to move such an amendment. It was an unfortunate thing that he did not point out at the time he was asked to move the amendment that there might be some difficulty. It was a great mistake. In a division I do not think more than two Nationalists have ever at one time voted for women’s suffrage. We know what the position is; we know that the parties are divided. Even if the Labour party to a man voted for women’s suffrage it would not be carried, because there are enough South African party members combined with Nationalists to defeat it.

How do you know that?

I am judging that members would vote as they have voted in previous years. I am trying to introduce some calmness into this debate, but apparently some members cannot remain calm under any circumstances. Where I think the injustice is done is that if this motion is not carried the women will not have a chance of even placing their views before the committee. It would do a serious injustice to the women of the country. It has never been treated as a party matter, except by one or two members in their speeches, and there is no reason why the motion should not be carried, and why the women of the country should not have the opportunity of putting their case before the Select Committee. The whole thing the Government fears is that their Bill is going to be endangered. Why should it be? Discussion need not take up a long time, because members have more or less made up their minds for or against. It would be still open to the majority to vote it down if they were still against it, as I am afraid they are. I do not see how we can defend the attitude of refusing to grant elementary rights to half the nation. If that is so, we have even less right to refuse to allow the women to put their case before a common tribunal. It seems to me that those of us who are in favour of giving women the suffrage should vote for this motion proposed by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) and against the amendment of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow).

This matter has already been before the House for many years. I think that everyone who has listened to the debate will acknowledge that it was the most disappointing that has ever taken place on this subject in the House. Never has so much party politics been introduced into a discussion. Now it is asked who is responsible for this? Well, party politics have not been introduced here for the first time to-day. It was a disappointment to me at the previous election to read how the granting of the franchise to the women was brought on to the political platform by no less a person than the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). He made the beginning. To prove this I only wish to read what he said in the manifesto. The people must decide, he says.

The people have decided.

Yes, the people have decided. That is stated in the manifesto which was the halleluja book of the South African party. I am reading it in all seriousness and not to poke fun. I read it with disappointment, because the hon. member for Standerton said shortly before in the House that the matter should please not be discussed on party lines. At the voting his party was divided. Three of his own Minister voted against women’s franchise. The portion of the manifesto reads as follows—

In his manifesto he therefore says that the people should notice that the Nationalist party despise the Afrikander women. He forgot to say that three of his own Ministers voted against it. This was the beginning of the movement of discussing on party lines the granting or otherwise of the women’s franchise. The consequence thereof is the speech that we have heard this afternoon by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) which I hope all the women in South Africa who are in favour of women’s franchise will read. They will then see that they have no greater enemy than him. This matter has been dragged into the arena of party politics, and this by no one else than the leader of the Opposition. Is it then a wonder that we have had such a debate, where no one has gone into the merits of the case? What has happened is that the parties have simply been abused, and it is a great pity that we should deal with a serious matter in such a way. Then I want to touch upon another matter. The hon. member for Standerton said at that time that it had been said that he was in favour of granting the franchise to native and coloured women. He says that this is untrue, and he says that he wishes to fix a high general qualification which would prevent that and would keep the colour bar outside of the Cape Province. I carefully listened to him in the House at the time and read again what he said at the time, and I got the impression that what he said here in the House did not square with what he said outside on the countryside. According to Hansard of 1924, page 264, he said—

He therefore says nothing about the Cape Province. Further, he says—

He then refers to the difficulties in connection with men, and says further—

From this I infer that he lays down two principles. The first is that there must be no colour line. The constitution laid that down and also various qualifications for the enjoyment of the franchise. He said that we must not again make those mistakes. The second is that the qualification for women should be uniform throughout the whole of the Union. What else can we infer but that he intended that we, in granting the franchise to the women, should not again make those mistakes of having to separate qualifications and also should not draw a colour line. In the country districts, however, he says that he wants to keep the colour bar outside of the Cape Province. I hope that we shall have an opportunity of hearing what the hon. member for Standerton meant by those words, because we do not wish to do him an injustice. It is said that we should refer this question to a Select Committee. We had a Select Committee last year which considered this matter, and if hon. members will refer to the report of the committee they will see that the committee sat from 22nd February to 25th March. The Select Committee has to consider matters of great importance in connection with the Electoral Bill which will require long discussions. If this question is added, then if the same thing happens as did last year, it is clear that the committee will not be able to finish its work during the present session. In view of what was said by the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé), who has been a champion of women’s franchise and a member of the House Committee for Women’s Suffrage all these years, that he was not even consulted about the matter, it is clear that the matter only comes from the South African party with the object of defeating the other Bill. In 1918 the same motion came before the House, and then Gen. Botha did not accept it because he did not believe in doing patchwork, especially in connection with such a matter. He further felt that it was a further objection that we could not introduce such a far-reaching question into the Electoral Bill. That objection is still applicable to-day. Hon. members opposite have said that they have nothing against the Electoral Bill, and why, then, has this matter been drawn into it? In conclusion, I only wish to point out that what has been said here by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) is a point that many of us feel. The women come to us and ask us to support women’s franchise. We say to them that they must go to the countryside and induce the women from the country to apply for it. If the women in my constituency ask for it I will consider the matter. I am personally opposed to it. But if they ask for it in my constituency I will give my attention to the matter. Various petitions have already been introduced into the House in favour of it, and let us see who were the signatories. In 1913 the petition was only signed by 12,000 women; in 1921 by 45,000. But they were not all women. The people stood at the polling stations and all signed who were in favour of it. We also find that the congresses of the South African Women’s party is divided on the matter, and that a motion in favour of it was only accepted in the Cape Province by a narrow majority. In the other provinces they are still against it. The Nationalist Women’s party still reject it at every congress. This leads us to the conclusion that the majority of the women in the country are opposed to it, and if they themselves do not want it then we have no right to force it upon them. No, it seems to me that the proper position is that we should wait until the women ask for it, and then the time will come that we can no longer withhold it. The majority appreciate that it is not in their interest or in the interest of the country to obtain it. I do not say that they are right or wrong. But the fact is that they feel in that way about the matter.

I want to support the motion of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow). It is not a question of principle with me. As appears from statements in the House, the majority feels that the woman has qualified herself for the franchise. As far as I am concerned it is an accomplished fact that the modern woman, by this I mean the civilized woman, deserves the franchise. It is not alone my experience in the past, but it is the experience of the world which has brought me to this conclusion. The woman stands in close relation with the problems of all countries and she plays an important part in the future of the world, so that the woman has the fullest right to have a say in the regulation of the circumstances that are of importance for the future. The hon. introducer of the motion has tried to make a matter of principle of it, but this is not a matter of principle, because unhappily a political colour has been given to it, and it is not only the decision for or against the principle. In this way very great harm has been done to the movement for women’s franchise. But there are other circumstances which urge or influence me to support the amendment of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow). I have already said that we have not to do only with a pure question of principle. We have to do with a sort of double-natured thing. Although you, Mr. Speaker, have given your ruling, I still think that the motion under discussion is an extension of the existing Act which was not originally intended. Another objection I have is that if we accept this principle it will be an entirely new principle. A principle which we have not yet got in our laws, and that other principles which have in the past been laid down in the laws are not yet properly carried out. On the one hand, I feel that if possibly damage or harm is done to the women by the acknowledgment or non-acknowledgment, on the other hand there is the consideration that to-day direct harm is done where certain portions of the population are excluded from acknowledged applied principles. I refer here to certain portions of the population who, although they in other ways have every qualification, are not enfranchised on account of a formal legal objection. Take, for instance, a portion of our people in the district of Griqualand West. There are diggers there on one side of the river who have a vote, but as soon as they go to the southern side of the river they are deprived of the right. Here there is a decidedly wrong application of an admitted general principle whereby qualifications are created not by natural facts but along artificial lines. The same is the case with our trek farmers, students and other people. There an artificial boundary line is created to prevent them exercising their natural rights, and before we establish a new principle those conditions must first be put right. I now move—

seconded.

Motion proposed by Dr. Stals put, and Mr. Blackwell called for a division.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—58.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bergh, P. A.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Christie, J.

Conradie, J. H.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fordham, A. C.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Hay, G. A.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Muller, C. H.

Naudé. A. S.

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, B. J.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Te Water, C. T.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Waterston, R. B.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Sampson, H. W.; Vermooten, O. S.

Noes—33.

Alexander, M.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Blackwell, L.

Brown, D. M.

Brown, G.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, J. P.

Marwick, J. S.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Struben, R. H.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; Robinson, C. P.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

On the motion of Mr. Blackwell, the debate was adjourned until Friday.