I move—

When this Bill came before this House last year it was, before the Second Reading, referred to a Select Committee. The Select Committee recommended the Bill in the form in which it is now before the House. I cannot submit that it was a unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee, but the reason which was stated for two of the members opposite voting against the Bill was that they considered that this was a measure of such a nature that it should be sponsored by the Government. A number of women’s associations have asked the Government to take over this Bill, but the Government has decided that it should be left to the free vote of the House, and it is under these circumstances that I now propose its acceptance by the House. The principle of the Bill is a very simple one. It allows a married woman married in community of property to manage her separate estate, and the Bill defines “separate estate”, as that estate which a woman earns after she is married, by her own labour. That is briefly the position. The Bill affects nothing else. It only allows a married woman who has to go out to work and acquire assets and a salary by her own labour to have absolute control of her earnings and her savings. That is the limit of the Bill. Now, it is necessary for me, in order that I may bring the matter properly before the House, to refer in some detail, to the present law relating to the position of a woman married in community of property, and I cannot do better than quote the authority of Mr. Justice Maasdorp in his “Law of Persons”, sixth edition, which sets out the position very concisely. On page 48 the law is stated as follows—

That is to say, she is not entitled to go out to earn a living for herself or engage herself for a salary without the express or implied consent or ratification of her husband—

And then on page 49—

So that the position, from the point of view of the law, is simply this, that if woman marries, no matter what her capacity is, no matter what her education is, no matter what her experience is, if she marries in community of property she is at once degraded to the position of a minor, and no subsequent agreement between the parties can alter it. She is set under the tutelage of her husband and unless he consents to it, any contract she enters into is void. It is not only in respect to contracts made by a woman married in community of property that this applies, but even where an antenuptial contract has been entered into, unless the marital power of the husband iS expressly excluded. He has the sole administration of the estate and she can do absolutely nothing, although it may be in respect of her own assets. Last Tuesday I asked the Minister of the Interior to give me the numbers of European and Non-European marriages during the years 1942 to 1943 which were out of community of property. The total number of marriages in 1942 amounted to, Europeans 23,000, and NonEuropeans 29,000, and of these, amongst the Europeans, 6,406 were by antenuptial contract and amongst the Non-Europeans 148. Stated as a percentage, 72 per cent. of the European marriages were in community of property for the year 1942. Of course, if you take the Non-Europeans into consideration the amount is very much greater. In 1943, the Europeans were 24,821, and the Non-Europeans 29,755, and the number of Europeans married out of community of property was 7,954, which means that 36 per cent. were married by antenuptial contract in 1943, so that 64 per cent. were married in community of property. It will therefore be seen at once that the largest number of people in this country marry in community of property. Now, the origin of this law is not a matter of any religious importance in any sense. The law which we have today is an inheritance from the Germanic customs which were taken over by the old people in Holland. While they took over certain elements of Roman Law, family life remained as it had always been under the old tribal system, and under that tribal system the woman was really a chattel, part and parcel of the household and assets of the man, and it is that system which has been handed down to us, and it is that particular aspect of it which we now seek to alter. As Mr. Justice Wessels points out in his History of Roman-Dutch Law on page 425, which hon. members may look at if they like, it is a relic of very ancient tribal customs. The Roman law, which originally had exactly the same view about women, during its latter period, during the period of the Christian Emperors, departed from that system, and I would like to quote a passage about what the Roman Law actually provided in its later stages. That will be found in Lord McKenzie’s book on Roman Law, Seventh Edition, at page 101. This is what the author says—

She must have a rotten husband.

She is in a much better position to provide for herself and her child than the married woman, because that woman has no control over her own earnings, whereas the mother of the illegitimate child has such control. While, Mr. Speaker, there was a time of course when a motion of this nature might have been regarded as something revolutionary, something inconsistent with the idea of the subordination of the wife, whose place was regarded as exclusively in the home. But the idea that women should be maintained on an inferior status to men has during the last generation undergone a complete change everywhere. We in South Africa, however, have done nothing in regard to this. But I think that nobody in this House will deny the fact that since the war, during the last five years, the position of the woman has undergone a greater change than during the previous generation. There is no activity in which women are not engaged today and there is no responsibility that they are not capable of handling almost on an equality with men. They have gained experience; thousands of girls from the platteland are coming to the towns, earn good salaries, and understand the value of money, the advantages of savings and how to handle them. This Bill has really been before the country for more than a year, and all women’s organisations strongly support it. Yesterday I got a letter from the president of the National Council of Women in these terms—

There is attached a list of societies that—

It must not be thought that in the vast majority of cases there is going to be any difference created by a Bill of this nature. This Bill is in the nature of an insurance. Its object is to secure to the wife and the children their future, and so that every parent will know that when his daughter gets married if the husband does not play the game with her, and she is obliged to go out and earn her living, she will be entitled to do so and that she will be entitled to dispose of her own earnings in accordance with the necessities of the case. A circular letter was sent out by the Scriba of the Nederduits Kerk, Heidelberg, in which the Bill was strongly attacked. I do not propose to deal with that letter in detail, because I have replied to it and given all the members a copy of my reply, but there are two allegations in that letter I think I ought to refute. I am reading from my translation. They refer to the effect of the Bill and they say this—

Theoretically that is a perfectly sound criticism. The effect of this Bill, if it goes through, where people are married in community of property, is as far as the community is concerned, the wife participates, but as far as concerns a separate estate acquired by her own labour after marriage the husband does not participate But there is a complete practical answer to that, and that is this, that the type of case in which the woman is obliged to go out and earn a living for herself and her children there would be no communal estate; there would be no communal estate of any value at all. If there were a communal estate the woman could go to the Court and say: “Why am I allowed to starve. I want this estate sold so that I and my children should be maintained.” Under those circumstances there would be no estate which needs serve as a handicap to the passing of this Bill. From a practical point of view it is not a sound criticism, though theoretically I admit it is a criticism against the Bill. The second point I wish to deal with is this. I read part of the letter—

But the point is that the Bill only objects to the husband being consulted where this course is likely to be abused, and it is only likely to be abused in such cases where the woman is obliged to go out and earn her own living. Most women who get married get married because they want to stop working, not because they want to continue working. That is the position in the towns. They wish to have a home and to bring up a family, and those are the conditions which induce them to go out into the world; and it is the abuse of the power of the husband that this Bill will tend to prevent. I now wish to deal shortly with the clauses of the Bill, so as to emphasise its object, which is merely to allow a woman to work and to control her own earnings. The first clause is the definition clause in which there are two important expressions; the one is “marital power” and the other “separate property”, and the clause says—

I stop there, because when you are considering what that means you must look at the next expression “separate property”, and “separate property” is then defined as—

So that all that is excluded from the power of the husband is the property acquired by a married woman, after the marriage, by her own labour. In other respects the husband’s power over the communal estate remains unimpaired, and that is made quite clear in Paragraph 4, which states—

In other words, when once you have the idea of the wife being able to go out and earn her own living and control her own earnings, these earnings alone being excluded from the marital power of the husband. Then we have Clauses 5 and 6. Clause 5 states—

again meaning what is defined in the Act—

Paragraph 6 goes on to say—

That is to say to the extent of her earnings and savings made after the marriage. She is also in respect of her separate property under sub-section (2) entitled to bind herself as surety, but under no circumstances can any contract made by the woman bind the husband or any of the assets of the community as they existed when the marriage was entered into. That is also made quite clear by Section 7. Section 8 says that the married woman is entitled to—

That clarifies the position. The next clause I ought to explain to the House, is Clause 9. That is a very important clause because it is a saving clause. Clause 9 says—

Under Act 13 of 1934 where spouses are married in or out of community of property and one of them dies without a will or intestate, the survivor is entitled where there are a number of children to a child’s portion or £600, whichever is the greater. If there are no children she is entitled to half the estate or £600, whichever is the greater, and that provision of the law is not interfered with; it is not touched by this Bill.

What happens if the estate is only worth £600?

Then she gets the lot. But the minimum is £600. That is the law as it stands. The second provision is in regard to Section twenty-one of the Insolvency Act of 1936. Section twenty-one of the Insolvency Act simply says this that where a man and his wife are living together and one of them goes insolvent, the assets of the solvent and insolvent spouse are pooled. In other words, the Master takes possession of the assets of both spouses, and if the solvent spouse wishes to establish a claim to those assets, he or she must show they have been acquired by a valid title, not a gift between husband and wife, or anything of that nature. So it would follow in a case of this nature if the husband became insolvent and there was property in the name of the wife, the wife would have to show how she acquired those assets. The object is to protect creditors against fraud, and these provisions of the Intestacy Act and of the Insolvency Act remain in effect. By the provisions of the Bill the woman would still have to show in case of insolvency that she has a valid title to the assets which she claims. I think I have explained nearly all the relevant provisions of the Bill, but I want to emphasise that the Bill does only one thing, and that is it secures to the woman the right to engage herself and to control her own services and her own earnings. The other day the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister in an address at Germiston said this, while referring to the part played by women—

This, Mr. Speaker, is the generation which we wish to do justice to in this Bill, to put on a footing of security and to obviate the feeling of inequality and frustration which many mothers must feel today. If this Bill becomes law it will remedy a very serious defect in our law. It will give parents a greater feeling of security in the future prospect and happiness of their daughters and cure a feeling of inferiority in the mothers of South Africa.

I think that the mover’s comprehensive extensive exposition of this Bill will commend it to every section of the House. He has informed us that it has a very limited scope and is really confined to dealing with the property of certain women who are unhappily married and will not effect those marriages which turn out to be happy, that is to say a very large proportion of the total number of marriages. I support this Bill, not only from my own conviction that it is a good Bill, but from the fact that it has been supported by an association in my constituency which has considered it in the last few weeks, and who passed a resolution commending the hon. the mover for his action, and asking me to support the Bill in the House. I refer to the Natal South Coast Voter’s Association. I appreciate the Bill and the terms of the Bill. I have in mind a case which came to my notice many years ago. There was a married woman with three children, and the youngest of the three children was only three weeks old when her husband disappeared. The woman had perforce to rely on her parents for subsistence for a time. Then she arranged for the care of her children, and went to work to provide her children and herself with sustenance, and building up a little nest egg for the higher education of these children. There was a chance that her errant husband would pitch up and take the lot. He was a good-for-nothing sort of husband and it is against husbands of that sort that the Bill will afford the wives protection. In this particular case after a long period, the woman fortunately secured a divorce, so that the danger did not exist any longer. But it is a fact that there are women, who in these circumstances hesitate to claim a divorce, whose religious convictions prevent them from obtaining a divorce, and in such circumstances I think it is the duty of the members of this House to see that women are protected. I believe that the Bill will commend itself to every section of the House, and I hope that the effort of the women of this country to secure a margin of safety for themselves and their children in certain circumstances will be realised during the Session.

I had the privilege to be one of the members of the Select Committee which investigated this Bill, and I made my voice heard against the Bill, and now that the hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis) has spoken here I am still more opposed to the Bill than I waS before. For example, he used the expression here just now: “Women are placed in a position of subordination.” I can only tell him that he does not know the South African women, if that is his opinion of the South African women.

I suppose you know them.

I refer to all women who live here; whether they speak English or whether they speak Afrikaans, makes no difference. The hon. member must not tell me that women in South Africa are subordinate to men. I, and many of us, know hundreds of married families and we know the position in which they are. We know that although the man thinks he is the master in the house it is always the woman who exerts her will and has the last word. I think it would not be unsuitable here to tell a short story so that hon. members can see how married couples set to work in order to make married life happy. There was a certain man who got married at a time when he had a very poor income. He could not drink tea. Only coffee agreed with him. When he was married he discovered that his wife could only drink tea and that coffee did not agree with her. He then told her that he could not afford to pay both for coffee and tea at meals, as his salary was very small, and that they should only drink coffee. She then said: “We must only drink tea; I cannot drink coffee.” They proceeded in this way and afterwards it seemed as if a quarrel would arise, but that passed over and they lived together very amicably. One day a friend visited them at their house and asked what they had done to solve the difficulty. They told him: “We affected a compromise; we both drink tea now.”

The wife again won.

When the hon. member for Pretoria (City) tells me that the woman is in a subordinate position, I tell him that he knows very little about married life in South Africa. The people of whom he is thinking are the extremists and the worst type of man he could find, when he spoke about the position in which the woman finds herself. Does he know what position this Bill will cause if it becomes law? Women will be encouraged to neglect their homes; I do not say all women, but many women will neglect their homes. You will find women who will not see to it that things in the house are properly done. The other matter he mentioned and which I wish to controvert—I hardly know which words to use; if I use the correct word it will be unparliamentary—but to come here and say that a woman with an illegitimate child is in a better position than one with a legitimate child, who is married, is going too far.

I did not say that. I said it was true as regards her capacity to maintain the child.

If it is only in regard to her capacity to maintain the child and she, as a woman with an illegitimate child, is in a better position to maintain the child than a married woman to maintain her child, where she is married in community of property, I say you are going to encourage women to have illegitimate children, because you say that the woman with an illegitimate child is in a better position to maintain her child than a married woman is. That will be an encouragement to bring illegitimate children into the world. I say that the women of South Africa surely do not wish that that contention of the hon. member should triumph. Furthermore we were opposed to the Bill because we think that if such legisliation is necessary, it is the duty of the Minister to initiate it. Rightly or wrongly, one has in our country the two kinds of marriages, marriages in community of property and marriages by antenuptial contract It is left to the free choice of any person which kind of marriage he or she wishes to enter into, and if the parent is so anxious about what will happen to the daughter after the marriage, he can insist that the marriage should be entered into by antenuptial contract.

Who will pay the costs of the contract?

If it is the wish of the Government that all marriages should be contracted out of community of property, as is the case in Scotland, let the Minister then draw up such a Bill.

Will you support such a Bill if the Minister initiates it?

No. The present position is that a person can elect. But if there is a Bill which the Minister and his advisers have examined and which has been discussed with the judges, as is usually done with legislation of that kind, then we know it is a Bill which has been subjected to thorough investigation. I wish to mention a few points to show why, in my opinion, this Bill will also lead to very great dishonesty. This Bill will encourage dishonesty. If the Government is of opinion that the common law must be changed, it is the duty of the Government to initiate such legislation, after its advisers have investigated to see whether such a change is necessary. A thorough study is made also of the laws in other countries, and then one can expect that a Bill will be introduced which one might possibly support. The woman has always been protected. Just take the position of a woman when she signs as surety. The hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis) alleges that the woman has always been in a subordinate position as against the man, but under the existing laws, when a woman signs as surety, the notary public has to explain to her, before her signature can be of any force, what her position will be, in order to see to it that the woman is protected. That shows how the legislator in the past has always tried to protect women as far as possible. Take the position of a man married in community of property. The woman enters into the marriage with a lot of debts, and the husband is responsible for the debts. I have no objection to that. He enters into it with open eyes and decides to get married in community of property, with the result that he is then responsible for the debts of his wife. But if the woman herself earns money after the marriage it cannot be taken for the husband’s debts. Thus the woman is once more placed in a better position. There are hundreds of cases where people get married in community of property and where the position of the wife is undoubtedly improved. Just take the case of salaried people and officials, etc. Not long ago I still had a few cases where people died, who had been in the Civil Service, and notwithstanding the fact that their wives had been married in community of property, in one case £1,600 and in another case £1,400 was paid out to the wife. I mention this just to prove that when a woman is married in community of property, she is not always placed in a worse position.

The Bill maxes no alteration to that.

I know, but the hon. member wished to pretend that the woman is always placed in a worse position, and I am only pointing out that in many cases, and even in the majority of cases, the opposite is the case. There are many women who marry well-to-do farmers. The farmer has a large farm. On the death of her husband half the estate is hers, and the other half of the assets belong to the husband’s estate. The hon. member quoted the case of the worst type of man. I do not know whether he knows those people well, but he mentioned the case of a husband who did not want to support his wife, who did not wish to work for the household. But now take the opposite casé of a young woman. She has a free choice whether she wishes to get married in community of property or not. She decides to get married in community of property. After the marriage it is her duty to look after the household and to produce children to increase the population of the country. Today one finds numbers of families wherethe woman wants no children. The wife goes to work in an office or elsewhere. What must the husband do? Somebody must look after the house; somebody must prepare the food. He has to engage an additional person to look after the house and that costs him £5 or £10 or £15 per month. That comes out of the husband’s estate every month, and if the wife earns £20 outside it is her own. She can do with it what she likes. I repeat that if legislation of this sort is necessary, it should be introduced by the Minister, who must first study the whole position in consultation with his advisers. If he thinks an improvement should be made, it must emanate from him. I have already said that in the case of the wife, her separate property belongs to her estate alone, but the husband’s property belongs to the common estate. If in her lifetime, while she is not looking after the house, she earns £1,000, it is hers. If the husband dies and leaves an estate of £1,000, she will be worth £1,500. £1,000 being her own and £500 being inherited from the husband. The man can only dispose of £500 as he wishes. But now I wish to point out in which way this Bill can lead to dishonesty of the worst degree. How many shops are there not on the platteland today where the man and his wife both serve behind the counter? What stops the man from paying his wife £50 or £100 a month for the services she performs in the shop? She earns £1,200 and after a little while the husband goes insolvent, but nobody can touch the £1,200.

You are putting up skittles to knock down.

The hon. member, ever since he threw his Afrikaner principles overboard, is in favour of everything which is not Afrikaans.

When did he abandon his Afrikaner principles?

You will find many cases where the woman is paid in the shop, and it will not be the Afrikaner woman who is standing there. She looks after her house, but the wives of foreigners will be found behind the counter, and they will then be earning £50 or £60 or £70 a month and no-one will be able to touch that money if matters go wrong with the shop. I repeat that if it is necessary to make such a drastic change, it must come from the side of the Government.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to support this Bill of the hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis). And to begin with, may I deal with one point made by the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. G. P. Steyn). He denied that in fact women were subordinate to men in marriage. He knew perfectly well that the hon. member who moved the Bill meant that legally woman was in a subordinate position to man, and as an attorney, which I understand is the hon. member’s profession, I challenge him to controvert that statement. That is in fact the case. Now I support this Bill which is before the House today because it is a Bill designed to give married women the ordinary simple human right of controlling what she earns. I have found it a little difficult to understand the heat engendered on the other side by so simple a proposition.

For every year that passes, every month that passes, one finds more and more married women entering the labour market, and that makes the passage of such a Bill more and more necessary. Even hon. members opposite will concede that from year to year the number of women who enter the labour market is increasing. And since that is a fact, since we are no longer purely an agricultural community but are becoming rapidly industrialised, so that increasing numbers of married women are entering the industries, it becomes increasingly imperative that the married woman who goes out to work and to earn money surely should be given the right to dispose of the money she earns. It seems to me difficult to find a better argument than the simple statement, that where one earns money one should have the right to dispose of that money. Yet that very elementary right is being challenged by hon. members on the other side. It is so obvious an elementary right that I find it difficult and indeed almost incredible that there can be members who challenge it. There is of course their usual theory that our common law must not be touched while the hon. member opposite suggested that if the common law had to be altered, the Hon. the Minister was the right person to do so by introducing the Bill. That may well be, but because he feels that the wrong person is introducing the Bill that is not, in my view, a very sound argument against the validity of the Bill as such. If he feels that the common law should be amended, as indeed I feel it should be amended, there is no reason to vote against the Bill simply because it is a private member’s Bill. May I remind him, as I think I did last year, that the Roman-Dutch Law, the common law, about which he is concerned today, was at the time it was brought to this country perhaps the most liberal law in Europe, but today it is far otherwise. In almost every department of our law, Parliament has altered the common law to bring it into line with modern conditions, but in this single department of the law, the relationship between men and women, the law has remained static and unchanged since the days of Van Riebeeck, and yet, frankly, no department of our lives has changed so much as the status of women. Therefore I consider that it is more than time that such a law should be introduced. I wish to reply to one other point that the hon. member made. He says that the fact that women will have the right to control their own earnings will encourage them to go out to work. I, for one, certainly do not think so. The vast majority of women desire a home and children of their own and it is only when the marriage is an unhappy one, when it has foundered, and when women therefore have to go out to work, that difficulties arise. The hon. member will agree with me that it is in fact the case that as long as the marriage is a good one and a happy one, who cares who controls the joint pocket? The trouble only arises under the law, as it stands at present, the moment the marriage ceases to be happy and differences arise. Then the marital power of the husband becomes an unfair weapon in his hands as against the wife; the moment she has to go out to work, because there are differences between them and because the marriage has ceased to be successful, the marital power of the husband becomes operable against the wife; and to show the exact nature of that marital power I would like to quote from an article in the Law Journal by the late Dr. Bodenstein as long ago as 1917.

They could exclude the marital power.

Certainly they can do that, but in this article the author makes it clear that the marital power unlike other guardianships, is purely a power and is used on behalf of the husband as a weapon against the wife so that the husband may be safeguarded against the actions of the wife. Under those circumstances in an unhappy marriage, it can become as I said almost a means of blackmail. As regards the hon. member’s point that the wife can make an antenuptial contract to exclude the marital power, of course, that is so, but in the vast majority of cases, it is a question partly of ignorance or largely of ignorance, and partly of poverty that they marry in community of property and not by antenuptial contract. Let me remind the hon. member that an antenuptial contract costs at least £7 or £8, and most of the people in this country when they marry, have a better use for that money, or so they think. I do not say they think rightly but they think so. They think they have a better use for the money than to enter into an antenuptial contract; and the fact remains too that when people marry they are emotional and always think that whatever may happen in other marriages their marriage will be successful, and therefore they will have no need to bother about an antenuptial contract. For these reasons then the vast majority marry in community of property. The percentage has gone up from approximately 70 per cent., which was the percentage of marriages contracted in community of property in 1938, to over 90 per cent. which were the last figures I could obtain from the Minister of Justice. I would also remind the hon. member opposite that in time of war people marry hastily, emotionally and it may be without due consideration of the effect of a marriage in community as against one out of community of property; also all the people have not got the time or the inclination to make use of the possibilities of getting married by antenuptial contract with the exclusion of the marital power. I feel very strongly therefore that it is time, and more than time that the House should pass a simple Bill of this nature. I feel that those on the other side who are against it are letting their prejudice against tampering with the common law and their conservative views militate against the rights and justice of the case. I would appeal to them to consider the matter not from any conservative point of view, or from the point of view of tampering with the common law, but to consider the whole question objectively from the point of view of the position of the married woman in present society. What was right in 1652 is a long way from being right in the changing circumstances of our days of 1945. It does seem too absurd that a woman who is allowed to do and encouraged to do every single thing almost that a man may do in this war, and in civil life, should not be allowed to sign her name to a simple document without her husband’s assistance. As long as that is the position it is absurd and irritating. Incidentally too it hampers business, because it was not so long ago that the estate agents were agitating to change the law as the very fact that a woman could not buy a house also hampered their business very much. Since then most of our Roman-Dutch Law has been amended and brought up-to-date by this House, I feel that it is time that this law of persons too under which the law of marriage in community and of the marital power fall, should be brought up-to-date, to do away with the indignities sufferd by married women in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I look upon this Bill as a perfectly fair one and not prejudicial to anyone. It means, as the mover very clearly pointed Out to the House, that it gives protection to the large number of married women who have landed in a very unfortunate position today. Now I believe that the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. G. P. Steyn), in putting forward his arguments, appeared to base his argument not on the legal but on the social aspect. As the hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) has just explained to the House, we know that this Bill will be of force only where marriages are no longer happy. We know that where husband and wife live in harmony there is never any trouble, and speaking as a practising attorney, I do know what hardships women have had to contend with where the husband has failed in his duty towards the household. While on that point, if I will be in order in mentioning it, I would suggest a very slight amendment, more or less in this direction. We must not lose sight of the fact that we sometimes have wives who have no need and no reason for earning a living. As the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet very rightly said, the first duty of the woman is in a house, to look after her family, and I think there should be a slight amendment in the Bill before these rights it provides for are given to a married woman. The amendment should be that only in the event of a husband neglecting to support the household should she have this right. One may find the case quoted by the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet where you have a wife—luckily they are not many—who instead of doing her duty in the house prefers to work in just any billet and neglects her children, where the husband is a hard-working man and provides adequately for the support of the household. Under such circumstances no woman should have the right to go and work. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet was somewhat unkind in his criticism when he referred to the reference of the mover of the Bill to illegitimate children. All that the mover tried to say was this: he put the position to the House how at present a married woman, married in community of property, is not entitled to earn anything. The neglectful husband can hinder her in that, but he says that when you have a woman who has given birth to an illegitimate child, she has not that handicap; she can go out and earn money. That is all he tried to emphasise. She has greater rights to step out into the world in order to support that child, because if a woman is married in community of property a wrongminded husband has the right to stop her from doing so. I do feel that this Bill should be supported. It is not a Bill which infringes any rights, and as a member of the Select Committee I wish to say—the member for Graaff-Reinet also raised that argument—that if the Minister had proposed the Bill it would have been more satisfactory, but if a private member proposes a useful Bill there is no reason to vote against it on that score. It does not take away from the fact that if the Bill is necessary it should be put on the Statute Book as readily when introduced by a private member as it would be if a Minister introduced it. In fact, the private member should be congratulated. In urging the acceptance of this Bill I think some provision should be made for the hardworking man who is doing his duty, in which case there is no reason for the wife to leave the home in order to work. With that amendment I do feel that there is good reason for the Bill to be accepted. An hon. member raised this point, that there will be nothing now to prevent a woman going behind the counter in her husband’s store, and her husband giving her a fabulous salary of say £100 per month, whereas the work she is doing is worth £10. After all, Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any Bill to be found on the Statute Book in respect of which you cannot devise some way of getting round it. After all, we have our Estate Act, which does give protection in such circumstances. Where a man is giving his wife a salary that is not commensurate with the work being done, and immediately afterwards goes insolvent, I am absolutely certain that such an arrangement would not hold water and would always be upset by the Court. As the law stands, if the two are married by antenuptial contract the woman has her right to contract and so has her husband. So that course could in many cases be followed today, but if they should attempt that the Estate Act Will stop any humbug of that description. The Bill is a fair one, and I support.it wholeheartedly.

The hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) made an appeal to the House for us not to deal with this Bill from a conservative point of view.

I wish to give her the assurance that it is legislation of this nature, with its ruinous principles of liberalism, that is one of the chief causes of the rising divorce figures in South Africa. The hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis) had the cheek to speak here about the Voortrekker mothers, in order to try to justify this hateful liberalism in that manner.

On a point of explanation, I merely referred to the speech of the Hon. the Prime Minister.

He used a speech made by the Hon. the Prime Minister, but if he wishes to use that speech in order to justify this Bill, it is even greater cheek than that of which I have accused him, because I do not believe that the Prime Minister, when he spoke about the Voortrekker mother, tried to introduce this kind of liberalism into the family life of the country. But the hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis) tried to use that kind of sentiment in order to have his Bill passed.

Let me remind him of something somebody else said, not somebody from this side of the House or from this country; let me remind him of what an English-speaking person said about the Voortrekker mother. I refer to Mr. Cochran of the New York World. His words amount to this, that “the allegations that the Boers were uncivilised was evidently founded on the fact that they evolved a society where divorces were unknown and where each man lived with his own wife.”

If he wishes to make use of the name of the Voortrekker mother, he should rather refer to her steadfastness in marriage, her love, and the fidelity with which she served the family. It is just that attitude and inner conception of the Voortrekker mother which made the family life of our nation sacred.

I also wish to remind the Minister of Justice about what his father said about the mothers of the nation on the occasion of the unveiling of the Vrouemonument at Bloemfontein, and I hope he will not permit those words also to be twisted by the hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis). On that occasion he used the following words—

It is because the Voortrekkers had such mothers that we had such a healthy family life in the country. The hon. member pleaded for the emancipation of the woman by means of his liberalism, and he also mentioned the economic side of the matter.

We know that before the marriage the man is the treasure and after marriage he is the treasure chest. The home is the smallest organisation in social life. The nation is an enlarged family. The family is a miniature nation, and unless you have a moral and religious family life, where the true spirit of the nation is kept alive, all methods of enhancing ideals in the country will be useless. Viewed superficially, this Bill looks innocent, but it is one of those things which will contribute towards undermining a healthy family life in South Africa. It is said that the woman should no longer have a subordinate status. Let me tell the hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis) at once that we quite realise that the woman is different but that she is also an equal. It is not a question of domination over the wife by the husband, but there is purely a difference in function. But within the family, in order to give it solid value, and in order to make the family truely the best organisation in the social life of the nation, the man must be the high priest, the head of the family. By means of this kind of liberal legislation we will encourage economic strife. We know how things go. It is said that the husband listens with the left ear and it goes out by the right ear. The woman listens with both ears and it comes out of her mouth. That is what will happen. Instead of this Bill encouraging a healthy and legal foundation for family life, instead of us creating a healthy psychological family and economic basis for the marriage, you are introducing legislation which aims at remedying certain symptoms, instead of going back to legislation which aims at creating an ideal marriage based on a sound scientific footing. In that respect your legislation is lacking. This House ought not to accept such liberal legislation because it is that liberalism which leads to the increased divorce figures in the country. It destroys our national life in general.

I am afraid that the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Potgieter) has interpreted the aim and scope of this Bill quite wrongly.

You cannot speak about this because you are not married.

That may be so. We are not discussing here the difficult question whether the husband dominates the wife or the wife the husband. We are dealing here with the case of marriages in community of property which have failed, for some reason. The object of this legislation is to restore the legal incapacity of the wife in such cases. The point is simply this, that there is nothing in this Bill against which the most sensitive person can take exception. The hon. member for Brits thinks that if the Bill is accepted it will contribute to the already rising divorce figures in the country. I make bold to say that as the result of this Bill the opposite effect will be achieved, for the following reason. If a wife wants to protect her property rights when she is married in community of property she will at present be obliged to take refuge in the court. But it is not in every case where the wife is compelled to earn her own living that she wants to dissolve the marriage. Take the case of a man who gets in arrears as the result of an accident, business failure or ill-health. For the rest his marriage is happy, but the wife wants to go out in order to help to improve the man’s position. The man does not want co go insolvent. He has many debts and the wife goes out to earn money. All the money she earns for herself will be subject to execution by the creditors of the husband. No, let us assure the hon. member that the opposite of what he fears will be achieved by this Bill. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. G. P. Steyn) was very excited and did not speak with the usual calm we generally expect from him. His sense of justice is hurt because a private member of this House dared to tamper with the sanctity of the common law.

If the Government had introduced the Bill the matter would have been investigated more thoroughly.

I wish to remind the hon. member of the fact that a few days ago he had the courage—he only in all his party—to support whole-heartedly a private Bill introduced by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon). In that Bill it was proposed to change the principles of the common law just as much as in the present law. I wish to remind him of his speech during the second reading and to ask him whether the Party whip has cracked on this occasion.

In the Select Committee I also voted against it;

The hon. member mentioned a few cases where he thought this Bill would encourage fraud and dishonesty. The hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure) has already adequately replied to that. As a legal man he knows just as well as we do that where the wife is in the service of the husband, who gives her a salary out of all proportion to the market value of her services—in comparison with what an ordinary clerk would receive for the same work—and the husband goes insolvent, the curator will thoroughly investigate the position and if it appears that she has received a consideration of £100 for services worth only £10 on the open market, the curator in the estate will execute on the £80 or £90 she has been overpaid. No, my hon. friend must not allow himself to be confused by that. I would like to see the Bill go further and that in cases of inheritance and gifts, where one or other of the spouses receives such inheritance or gift, it should be regarded as his or her private property and separate property.

That is so.

That can be provided for by a special condition in the will or by a deed of gift, but there are legal difficulties connected with it, and it is not always easy to interpret those conditions. But seeing that the Select Committee has thought it well not to go so far in this Bill, I do not want to insist that the proposer of the Bill should accept such amendments in the committee stage. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet further said that if anyone desires a marriage with the exclusion of community of property, he can then be married by antenuptial contract. To this the hon. member has already replied that many people do not appreciate the difference between a marriage in community and one out of community of property, and the majority of marriages take place in complete ignorance of the legal consequences of the two. Finally we say that this Bill makes an earnest attempt to solve the difficulty where the marriage has failed, and where the husband is not able to act as the provider—the husband perhaps became ill, or fate hits him in another manner, such as for example the failure of his business, and he does not wish to go insolvent nor does the wife wish to dissolve the marriage—we say that in such cases this Bill will be of great benefit. If the wife must go so far as to apply to court for the dissolution of the marriage she forfeits all rights that she has to force the husband to maintain her. In those circumstances the huband is still responsible for the maintenance of the children. In those circumstances I feel that this Bill should be accepted and that it is legislation which should not hurt the sentiment of anyone. We know that our law recognises two kinds of marriage, marriage in community of property and marriage out of community of property. Will my hon. friends on the other side now say that the people who intentionally exclude community of property are acting dishonestly and immorally? If on moral grounds no objection can be raised against marriages out of community of property, no moral objection can be raised against the two amendments appearing in this Bill. I know that there are many things in the common law that should be changed. We are looking forward to the day when the Government will tackle the gigantic task of the codification of the common law. This matter has however been discussed for the past twenty or thirty years without any effect having been given to it. We cannot wait for it. Our common law is very slow in keeping pace with modern developments, and if we accept this Bill we will be hurting nobody’s feelings, however sensitive that person may be. I therefore feel that we can make an appeal to members on the opposite side and ask them not to lose perspective, but that they should regard this Bill objectively and help us in this manner to put right the legal injustice under which the married woman suffers when she is married in community of property.

Some hon. members hold the view that inequality between man and woman is the natural order, and liberal thinking that tends to disturb the assumption of that inequality would be the cause of all sorts of wicked things. How can it be assumed that people who come into such a partnership as marriage should be unequal. Whatever may be said for the male having physical and mental superiority, we have, after all to remember that the woman has to bear the most onerous part in that partnership. Why, I ask, on the assumption of some supposed male superiority in physique or mind, should the assumption follow that because of that the woman should be unequal in partnership with the man? It is an untenable assumption, and the mere fact that it has not been challenged until recently does not make it any the more tenable. The Bill does not go so far as one would like to see in regard to the relationship between men and women. The Minister has said that he would like to see something more comprehensive and one agrees; but it is still another step in the right direction. It represents an attempt to redress that inequality in a certain measure. It is, Mr. Speaker, a perfectly just thing to do. Whatever fears men may have—I do not know whether they are well grounded in particular cases as a result of experience—whatever fears men may have in regard to inability of women to live up to greater freedom and greater equality, I want to say again that these fears have no ground that would justify opposition to a Bill of this nature. I hope we shall, in all rasonableness, realise that this Bill does not assail any principle which we, as men, can reasonably advocate. We shall support the Bill because it gives women an additional indication that generally men have no fears regarding their engaging in activities which have in the past been dominated by men. It is not only the legal sphere that has now been invaded by them. By general consent they have appeared in the legislative arena and should they obtain a majority in this House—which they could very well do—women would be able to make laws to suit themselves. Because we have over a long period held the power we should not press any advantages we have gained, but in justice to the women hand back to them such rights and privileges as we may have deprived them of in the past.

The mover of this Bill has made it very clear that it does not interfere with the main principles of the marriage contract. That being so, I fail to understand why certain Opposition members oppose a Bill which is merely designed to accord justice to women who may be the victims of unhappy marriages. I feel that the issue is being confused owing to the fear that this Bill may be an incentive to wives to go out of the home and work. I want to say this, that it is my honest opinion that no married woman who is happily married would merely go out to work in this way against her husband’s wishes, and run the risk of the marriage being wrecked. I think that in a happy marriage, and if there is no real need for a woman to go out and work she will fall in with the wishes of her husband. After listening to members of the Opposition I should like to say that there are hundreds of married women today working in factories, and I may add that quite a large percentage of them are political supporters of the Opposition. They are not going out to work because they like to, and they are not going out merely so that the money they earn will be their own property. The object is to help to keep the home-fires burning. I am satisfied that in happy marriages, whatever earnings are derived by women taking up employment are put into the “kitty” to assist the family to live happily. The hon. mover of the Bill quoted cases of unhappy marriages. I too know of such cases myself. In one particular case that came to my notice recently, the husband was convicted through having been involved in a mishap in which some third party was injured. He lost his job and was sent to gaol. When he came out of prison, instead of looking for a job he found that his wife and two daughters were working, and he simply stayed at home and demanded that they should keep him instead of him keeping them. I do feel, Mr. Speaker, that if a plebiscite was taken in South Africa 99 per cent. of the women of South Africa would vote in favour of the provisions of this Bill, which is merely conceding a right to women, and it is only a just concession to them. I heartily support the Bill.

I had been under the impression that in this House only those were competent to speak on a subject of this kind who were either lawyers or unhappily married; but having listened to the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. G. P. Steyn) I have grave doubts whether that proposition is sound. I was astonished to hear the views of the hon. gentleman, who is known to this House as an attorney. I was surprised that he should have opposed the Bill at all. I was doubly surpised that he should have challenged, as I understood him to challenge, what are unquestionably sound legal propositions. And in doing so he reflected not only on the hon. the mover but on the hon. members who sat on the Select Committee, and who shared the views of the mover of the Bill. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet, as the House will remember, was the one member on the Opposition benches who spoke and voted in favour of the Childrens Guardianship Bill. It seems to me fair to assume that he felt so strongly about it as to differ from the rest of his party, and that if he did feel strongly it would have been only on the score that he accepted the principle that married women in South Africa were in an inferior position to their husbands. But this afternoon for some reason which is not apparent, he shifted his ground and combated that suggestion advanced by the hon. mover as a legal proposition, and which as the hon. member well knows, is a perfectly sound legal proposition. He offered strong resentment to the statement that from the point of view of maintenance, the mother of an illegitimate child was in a better position than the mother who is wedded. That is an unchallengeable legal proposition. I cannot help feeling that there is probably a general impression that marriage in South Africa is either entirely in community or entirely out of community, and that if it is out of community there is only one type of marriage which can be out of community. I do not know whether that is very clear ….

About as clear as mud.

My hon. friend says it is as clear as mud. It depends on what sort of mind applies itself to the problem whether it is clear or not. The fact of the matter is that there are various different types of marriages, all of them out of community. You can have a marriage out of community of property in which both spouses are in respect of their assets in precisely the same position. You can have a marriage in which certain assets are retained by the wife. You can have the lowest gradation, as it were, in the sequence, that is the type of marriage which the hon. member wants set up by law and not merely by the will of the contracting parties. In other words, it is perfectly possible today for two contracting parties to enter into an antenuptial contract which provides that the estate shall fall into a common pool, save and except such assets as become the property or fall to the lot of the wife subsequent to the marriage. That can already be provided for by mutual agreement. But the difference is this. The hon. mover wants the law to protect the woman who needs protection rather than that the woman should be responsible for her own protection. The Bill will provide that if circumstances arise which require that a woman should look after herself, and if she so desires it, she should be enabled to do so because of the law and not because of a step which she in her wisdom took at the time she entered into marriage. I cannot see anything in that that should not commend itself whole-heartedly to all who have not only the interests of the women of South Africa at heart, but the general moral welfare of the people of South Africa.

I must say that I am very disappointed that up to the present the Minister of Justice has said nothing in regard to this matter. I waited to hear what he had to say, but he who is responsible for the administration of justice in this country, is remaining silent. I must say I am very disappointed. I am altogether against this Bill. Before I come to the actual objections, I just want to say in this connection that no useful purpose is served by quoting to the House, as the hon. member who introduced this Bill did, what the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister said in regard to the women of South Africa. That has nothing to do with the matter. It is altogether irrelevant. Nor does it serve any purpose to talk about men who are drunkards and women who succumb to hunger. We know that such cases do occur. But not all the husbands are bad and all the wives good. There are bad husbands and there are bad wives. There are husbands who neglect their marital duties and there are wives who also neglect their duties. The hon. member is painting a picture of starving wives who have to be protected against husbands who are drunkards. That is pure nonsense which does not affect the matter at all. He apparently wants to pass legislation for the exceptional cases, and in legal circles we say that hard cases make bad law. I can come to no other conclusion as to why he dragged those things into the discussion than that he realises that from a legal point of view he has a poor case, and now he is pleading on the ground that the husbands are supposed to treat their wives very badly. In the second place I want to protest again, as I did in the case of the Bill of last week, that here we have an extremely important amendment of our whole legal system, of our marriage laws as they have existed ever since we have been here as a nation, laws which we brought with us from Europe. It is an old system which has been put to the test. I want to say that I am not one of those people who say that that system cannot be altered, but I say when the law is changed on such an important and essential point, one wants more than this little book which we have before us. This Bill was examined by the Select Committee. No evidence was adduced and we only have the report that the committee by a majority of votes recommended the Bill. That Select Committee was appointed last year with power to take evidence, to call for documents and to report. They did not take any evidence. I think there was a request on the part of certain people to give evidence, and the Commitee said it was not necessary. In my opinion the Committee should have gone into this matter thoroughly. For example, they had the Government Chief Legal Adviser with them, Dr. L. C. Steyn, and nowhere is there any evidence which was given by Dr. Steyn. I should have liked that evidence to appear in this book, so that we could have seen what his opinion was, and I should have liked to hear the opinion of other law advisers so that we who were not on the Committee might have had the advantage of hearing the opinion of those experts. I say we object, not because, as the hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) said, we object to the person who is introducing the Bill, but we object on the strength of the fact that the Government is not assuming the responsibility, not because we do not want a private member to introduce a Bill, but the reason is that when the Government introduces a Bill of this nature, it deliberately comes before the House with a Bill which was drafted because it was felt that it was in the interests of the people and after having instructed its experts to go into the matter thoroughly. Up to the present we have not heard what the Government’s opinion of this Bill is. I can imagine that if the Minister gets up at all he will say again that he leaves it to the free choice of the House. That is unsatisfactory, quite unsatisfactory, where we deal with such an important question. The Government should assume the responsibility in such a case and say to us: “We regard such an amendment, after proper consultation with our experts, as essential and desirable, and we are therefore prepared to recommend it to the country.” The Minister should not come before the House and simply say: “Very well, let the House do as it pleases; we cannot advise you.” I am not casting any reflection on any member of the Committee or of this House, but this is a highly technical matter in which there are many difficulties and dangers with which all members of the House are not acquainted, which they are not able to grasp fully, and where one needs the advice of experts—and we have not got it. I want to say that when this Bill is placed on the Statute Book there will be one section of the population whom it will benefit to a great extent, namely the advocates and attorneys. It will be a very good thing for the advocates and the attorneys. They will make a great deal out of it.

In that case you ought to vote for it.

I think many of us ought not to vote for it for the very reason that it is in our own interests that this measure should go through, because it will provide a great deal of work for the attorneys and the advocates. Under this measure the spouses can come to court and ask for the terms of their marriage contract to be altered. Attorneys and advocates will be required for that purpose, and the result will be a nice type of case out of which we shall be able to make money. I spoke of evidence. There is one person who did approach the Select Committee with evidence or rather with recommendations, a person to whose opinion, from the very nature of things, we must attach great weight, and that is the Master of the Cape, the Master of the Supreme Court. He sent a letter to the Committee and made certain suggestions. Inter alia, he says—

These things were not put before the Select Committee. According to the procedure this document is not placed in the report of the Committtee because it was not submitted as evidence. I should have liked these things to come out in evidence. I want to read it again—

But the Master was not summoned before the Committee to explain in which respects he thought there might be fraud. We have not the advantage of knowing his opinion. As the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. G. P. Steyn) said today, here we have the danger of fraud. I do not want to quote the whole letter but here is another paragraph in which he says—

This is a very important point which might lead to difficulties in this Act. I am quoting this letter so that hon. members can see that this person whose name appears only in the minutes of the Committee, visualises this danger in the Bill. I ask whether it is not our duty as members of this House to heed the warnings of the Master of the Supreme Court of the Cape. Why were the Masters of the Supreme Courts of the other Provinces not offered an opportunity of submitting a report on this Bill? I cannot see that the Master of the Cape was requested to give his opinion. He merely says—

and then he continues. Why did the Committee not submit this Bill to the Masters of the other Provinces and ask for their opinion? Are we as members of this House not entitled to those opinions? Here we have a serious warning. When I read that such a letter had been handed in and I took the trouble of getting this letter from the Clerk of the Papers and of reading it, I felt slightly annoyed to realise that here we are being told that everything is going without a hitch, and yet we have these adverse remarks by the Master, which are not being placed before the House.

Who made adverse remarks?

The Master of the Cape.

But we altered the Bill.

These remarks are applicable to it now as much as then. The hon. member now admits that those remarks were true but that they subsequently altered the Bill. If they realised that those remarks were true, why was this Bill not sent to the other Masters for their opinion? I say the Committee did not do what the House expected of it.

And in these circumstances the Minister is remaining silent.

I say after these remarks all sides of the House ought to be very careful before passing this Bill. Then I want to deal with another point which was mentioned by the hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis)—he made light of it—and that is the lengthy communication from the Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa (Nederduitse Hervormde Kerk). I am not a member of that church, but here is a letter in which they protest strongly against the Bill and a large number of provisions contained in it. Why was an opportunity not given to such bodies to give evidence and to voice their objections? The hon. member over their is a Jew. The Jews always strenuously protest when anything is done which conflicts with their religious convictions.

On a point of elucidation, is the hon. member entitled to attack me because I am a Jew? I make an appeal to you to protect the Jewish members of this House.

I did not understand the remarks used by the hon. member in the nature of an attack at all. The hon. member was merely using it as a simile in order to draw attention to the circumstances.

I did not think the hon. member was ashamed of the fact that he is a Jew.

You ought to be ashamed.

I said the hon. member was a Jew, and a Jew is usually very strongly opposed to any attempt to apply a measure which conflicts with his religious convictions, and I say that from his point of view he is perfectly right. What is wrong in saying that? They are the first people to object strenuously when anything is done which conflicts with their religious convictions, and quite correctly. Here we have a church which objects very seriously because the provisions of this Bill conflict with the convictions of the church, and the hon. member passes over it lightly. I say attention should also be paid to the objections of the Dutch Reformed Church. But they were never given an opportunity to voice their objections. Is that reasonable? I do not want to read this letter, but it is stated here that the Church feels that this Bill conflicts with their marriage vows, and my objection is that they were given no opportunity to voice their objections. If there had been anything in this Bill which conflicted with the religious convictions of the Jews, that hon. member would have been the first to get up and protest strongly against it, and we cannot blame him. But the hon. member passed lightly over the objections of this Church.

[Inaudible].

There is another Jew who is objecting. I now want to deal with the provisions of this Bill. According to our law the husband is responsible for the maintenance of his wife and children. He can be compelled by law to maintain his wife and children and if the marriage is in community of property there is a joint estate. According to this measure it may happen that the wife comes into possession of considerable property. She cannot be compelled, however, to maintain her husband and children or to contribute towards the maintenance of her husband and children. There is no such obligation on her.

There are no husbands who are so devoid of a sense of responsibility that they will not support their children.

We who appear in the law courts daily could tell another story. The wife cannot be compelled to contribute towards the expenses of the household out of her separate income. I do not want to say that there are many mothers who will not support their children, but I say the wife cannot be compelled to contribute towards the maintenance of the family out of her separate property, while that obligation does rest on the husband. The huband’s salary may be very small; his wife may be in busi ness and making a great deal of money, but she cannot be compelled to contribute towards the expenses of the household. My next objection is that this measure is going to alter marriages in community of property of 20 or 30 years’ standing; they can now be altered by means of registration or application to court, or at any rate the marital power of the husband can be taken away. Do hon. members not realise that here they are creating fertile soil for disunity between husband and wife. Assuming the wife comes to the husband and tells him that she wants to govern her own affairs, that this Act gives her the right to have the marital power of the husband abolished. Is this not fertile soil for quarrels in the future? It is said in the Proverbs that the beginning of dissension is like water bursting through a dam wall; there is no thing which can stop it. Where we have had this position for years and one of the spouses now comes along and demands certain rights and the other spouse refuses to grant those rights, it will result in endless difficulties. For that reason too I am opposed to this measure;

What is the cause of the trouble as the law stands at present?

Surely the hon. member does not want to create new difficulties. As it is there are many difficulties, but he now wants to create a brand new source of difficulty Up to the present the husband could simply say that the marriage is in community of property and that he cannot give her that power. Another point to which I seriously object is that here the wife is being given the right freely to appear in court in respect of her separate property. Without any disrespect to our women, I believe that the further a woman stays away from court the better. We know what difficulties there are in connection with court cases. We know that the husband will have to sit by while his wife carries on and takes part in litigation. They may have been married in community of property for many years the husband having retained his marital power. But under this Bill the wife may appear in court without his permission. I say the fact that the married woman was not allowed to appear in court at will, gave her some protection. I say that women are not adapted to appear in court; I say that with all due respect. It would not be in the interests of the married woman to allow her to appear in court, and to force the husband to stand by while his wife becomes involved in litigation without his permission, although he may know that it is wrong and yet be powerless. A further objection is in connection with the question of suretyship. The hon. member who introduced this Bill stated that this Bill did only one thing, and it was simply this; the only point which this Bill affected was that the wife would henceforth be able to control her own separate property. He did not tell the House of these important provisions in regard to suretyship. Throughout the centuries the position under our law has been that a married woman could not act as surety unless she specially renounced the benefit of the Senatus consultum velleianum and the authentica si qua mulier, and to this Bill that protection is being taken away from her and she is given the right to act as surety for any person at any time. Under the existing law a married woman cannot act as surety. She cannot sign a contract of suretyship; that is very clearly in her interests. A man may persuade her to sign a contract of suretyship, and she would be bound. For that reason it was provided that she could only sign a contract of suretyship after the Notary has explained to her that she cannot sign a contract of suretyship or rather that her signature to a contract of suretyship is not valid unless she renounces the benefits which are given to her under the common law. The dangers attached to signing as surety are pointed out to her; but under this Bill, if it is passed, the wife will be able to sign a deed of suretyship at any time. She can be misled by any scoundrel who may persuade here to sign a contract of suretyship, and it will be valid although she has not been warned and although she has not renounced the benefits of the exceptions. I say this is a serious departure from the law and it is certainly not in the interests of the wife. I have always felt that this prohibition in regard to the signing of a contract of suretyship by a married woman, was one of the best protections which the married woman has always enjoyed. Here that protection is being taken away and she no longer has any protection. The next point in connection with the Bill is this. The hon. member who introduced this Bill has already admitted that it creates a certain anomaly; in the case of a marriage in community of property the wife has a share in the joint estate, but the husband has no share in her separate estate. Everything which the husband earns by his own labour or in the exercise of his own profession or occupation comes into the joint estate, and the wife is entitled to one half of it. But the husband has no right to a share in her estate, in other words, if the husband dies, his wife is still entitled to one half of the joint estate. Let us assume that there is trouble between the husband and wife, as often happens, then the wife would be entitled to a full half of his estate in the event of his death. They may be living apart, without actually being divorced, and the husband may have an estate of £100,000; in that case his wife would be entitled to £50,000. But if she earns £100,000 her husband would not be entitled to anything in her estate in the event of her death. That is an anomaly which ought not to exist. It is only the wife who enjoys the benefit of the community but not the husband. Then the marital power of the husband is being interfered with. His marital power can now be taken away by means of a post-nuptial contract. The marital power is not, as some people want to make us believe, a sort of tyranny on the part of the husband over the wife—not at all. It is only for the protection of the wife. I concede that there are exceptional cases where it has a different effect, but usually it is for the protection of the wife so that it will not be possible for every scoundrel to mislead her to squander her property, to waste her property without the husband having any say in the matter. I say this marital power is something with which we should not lightly interfere. It is a valuable form of protection in the marriage for the wife that her husband must also be consulted before she squanders her property, but in this Bill that power is simply being thrown overboard. A further objection, as was indicated by the Master of the Cape, is that in the event of an insolvent or deceased estate, one would have the greatest difficulty in determining to whom thé funds belong; one will have the greatest difficulty in determining what the wife earned by her own labour. There is the question of inheritance. An inheritance does not fall under the separate property. Separate property only means property acquired by her own labour or from her own business or profession or occupation or by the exercise of literary, artistic or scientific skill or by gift inter vivos or in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 6. What portion remains? If an inheritance accrues to her, everything goes into her banking account. How are you then to determine which portion of it she acquired by her own labour, or from her own business or profession or occupation or by the exercise of her own skill or by means of a gift? It will be extremely difficult to say that this portion belongs to this fund and that portion to another fund. Everything is in the banking account of the wife; who would be able to say that she acquired this portion as a result of her own skill; that portion she acquired as a result of the exercise of her occupation; that portion as a result of scientific research; and these other portions from other sources? It creates an impossible situation. The next objection is that which was also emphasised by the hon. member for Graff-Reinet (Mr. G. P. Steyn), namely, the possibility of fraud which is being created in this Bill. There is a possibility of fraud. Even where it comes to insolvency, one has various types of funds. The origin of those funds will then have to be determined. There is no doubt that this may lead to the greatest difficulties. It will not be possible to determine how the wife acquired her property.

The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet is quite correct in saying that this Bill may lead to fraud on a large scale, both as regards insol vency and as regards estate duty and similar matters, as was also indicated by the Master. This Bill is going to create all sorts of difficulties, and we as a House cannot therefore consider it today. This matter should first be thoroughly investigated, evidence should be heard, and these difficulties should first be elminated before we go on with the Bill. For that reason I move—

I second.

I just want to indicate briefly what the attitude of the Government is in connection with this matter. The Government’s attitude is that we want to leave this matter to the free vote of the House. There are a few points with which I just want to deal. The question arose why the Government did not introduce or take over this Bill. The reply is twofold. In the first place it is hot desirable to do patchwork as far as the women and their position are concerned. I think the House will agree that where the rights of women under our common law are concerned, the matter will have to be dealt with as a whole, as far as possible. I also think that it is clear that this is a difficult matter, one which will have to be investigated very thoroughly. A Committee was appointed just before the war by the previous Government, by the Prime Minister when he was Minister of Justice, and the matter was then postponed on account of the war. It is difficult to deal with such a matter during the war, because such a Committee will have to travel about a good deal. It was not therefore found desirable and practicable to let such a Committee function during the war.

Do you not think therefore that this matter should stand over until such time as the Committee has gone into it?

Such a Committee would have to obtain the opinion, inter alia, of the women who are on active service and who have been up North, and during the war it is not possible to do that. That was one of the reasons why the Government did not pursue the matter. Since the Committee was not appointed, legislation in connection with this matter had necessarily to wait. As I have stated previously, one should go about this matter very carefully. Generally speaking, women have enjoyed a great deal of protection in the past under our laws, and they have been very privileged. But conditions change, and without going into details, I think hon. members will agree that there are many points which require revision and which should be adapted to the altered modern conditions. In other words, the legislation should also be modernised to meet the altered modern conditions. It has always been the trend of the Roman-Dutch Law to progress from point to point where it was necessary in the interests of the women. I think hon. members will also agree that it is not desirable to have too much legislation of this nature by private members. On the other hand the Government connot avoid it.

Do you not think it is desirable for this Bill to stand over until such time as the Committee has gone into the matter? Do you agree or do you not?

I am speaking of the general principles, because it is not for the Government to impose restrictions on what a private member regards it as his duty to move. It is not for me to say “yes” or “no”. I can say what the attitude of the Government is but I cannot speak on behalf of private members.

Do you not think it is desirable to postpone it?

That is a matter for this House to decide. It is a matter which we want to leave to the House.

You personally do not like this Bill.

I do not want to invite another discussion, but I repeat that we should be careful, and I think it is best to let hon. members of the House judge this Bill.

The hon. member who introduced this Bill and also the hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) tried to explain to the House that the object of this Bill is to give equal rights to the women and, as they put it, it is only fair to give the woman what she is entitled to, so that she can decide what she wants to do with her own earnings. If we put it in that nice way, it sounds very laudable, but as the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. G. P. Steyn) has already indicated, it is surely clear that this Bill is not going to do what they maintain it is going to do. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet and also the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) pointed out that under this Bill the married women will in certain cases enjoy greater rights than their husbands. Surely that is not the object, not even of the member who introduced the Bill.

The argument which was advanced by the hon. member for Jeppes was that when one marries one is emotional. If it is the idea that we should control emotional feelings when people marry, the hon. member should introduce a Bill in that connection. But surely that is no justification for proposing such a drastic alteration as far as property is concerned. I cannot understand it. The question of the costs of an antenuptial contract was also raised by the hon. member. The time is more than ripe that we should explain to young people who are on the point of marriage that if they cannot afford to spend £7, or whatever the amount is, on a antenuptial contract, they certainly cannot afford to marry either. And if they marry in such circumstances although they are not able to afford the costs of such a contract, the reasonable and moral development of our country disappears. The hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis) went even further. He said the Roman-Dutch principles of law—and I discussed this with lawyers, and they differ from him—that the existing law is of German origin. Hon. members opposite are always coming forward with the Hitler bogey. These principles are now supposed to be of German origin. I have respect for the hon. member as a lawyer, but I have sought the advice of lawyers and of judges in regard to this matter and they differ from the hon. member. The hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) further suggested that there might be cases where a married woman has found it necessary to assist her husband, cases where they are quite happy, where they live together and co-operate quite happily, and, according to him, this Bill is necessary in order to make that happy co-operation possible. If husband and wife live together happily, there is no need for a Bill of this description to induce them to help each other. They help each other spontaneously; they build up together and what they accumulate in the material sense, they accumulate for themselves jointly. They have one aim. No Bill is required for that. In connection with the dangers of this Bill as far as bankruptcy is concerned, the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure) indicated that such a thing was very improbable. I cannot help thinking that it is tantamount to a suppression of the truth or an evasion when such arguments are advanced. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) quoted to the House the opinion of the Master of the Supreme Court, and if I have to accept any opinion, I would rather accept the opinion of the Master of the Supreme Court who has to deal with these things every day. It is said that it can easily be determined, whether the wife did earn the money if she assists in her husband’s shop. I know of cases where pensons have received exemption from the Receiver of Revenue because they were active directors in a business or society, and where they are being allowed £1,500 per annum. These are two persons who do nothing whatever in the business, and after an investigation which has been in progress for years, the Receiver of Revenue with his technical experts has not yet been able to prove that these persons are not drawing £1,500 per annum for work which they do If the Receiver of Revenue with his technical staff cannot determine what is happening today, how would a court of law be able to determine what the position is in regard to a salary which a married woman has been drawing over a period of 10 years, and how will the court be able to judge what type of work she did for the salary? There are real and great dangers in this Bill, but it would almost seem that there are certain groups who are interested in passing legislation as a result of which such dangers will be created. Our laws afford adequate protection. They fully protect the property of married women, and every married woman or single girl who marries is able fully to protect every penny of her property if she marries by antenuptial contract. If my daughter asks for my advice, I would advise her to marry by antenuptial contract. The law provides for the protection of the woman in that way. Why then this Bill? If people are emotional when they marry and they have to be protected against their emotions, let them introduce legislation for emotional people. I think this Bill is wrong: I cannot see any logic in it. The mover of the motion mentioned the case of a woman who came to South Africa from oversea and who married a professor. She is a graduate, and he tells us that this poor woman now finds herself in such a difficult position. I have a great deal of sympathy with the fair sex, but I have not much time for a woman graduate who lacks the initiative or the understanding to ascertain her legal position before she marries. The Minister of Justice himself indicated very clearly that this Bill at its best could only be patchwork. To me it seems like a multi-coloured patch on a pair of white trousers. I do not often agree with the Minister of Justice, but on this occasion I fully agree with him when he says that this matter requires thorough investigation. As the hon. member for Jeppes says, our social life has gradually undergone a development under the existing laws, dating back to the days of Van Riebeeck; i.e. as from the days of the first settlement; and as the Minister said, we cannot now pass patchwork legislation in connection with a matter which is as important as this. There should first be a thorough investigation. This is not a political matter, but it requires thorough investigation. The hon. member for Winburg indicated that even the Select Committee did not call for proper evidence in connection with this matter, and that it did not investigate this matter thoroughly at all. I should like to ask the Minister whether he knows of anyone of his law advisers or of anyone of the senior officials of his Department who is in favour of this Bill. If so, I should like to know the name of that person. The judges and lawyers with whom I have come into contact and who deal with these cases from day to day, are without exception opposed to this Bill, in view of the potential dangers contained in it. The summing up of the Minister of Justice was also to the effect that this Bill contains dangerous provisions. If the hon. member feels that additional protection is required for the women of South Africa, there should first be a thorough investigation, and if the hon. member is really in earnest, he will come forward with such a measure at a later date after thorough investigation. For that reason I move—

I second.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—27:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer K.

Brink, W. D.

Döhne, J. L. B.

De Wet, H. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Haywood J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux. J. N.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Olivier, P. J.

Potgieter, J. E.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Vosloo, L. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and J. J. Serfontein.

Noes—66 :

Abbott, C. B. M.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden W.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, P. J.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Dolley, G.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Marwick, J. S.

Moll, A. M.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pocock, P. V.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Motion accordingly negatived.

The division that has just taken place really fills one with astonishment; not only the result of the division, but particularly the conduct of the Government. There are many people to whom this Bill appears to be just an innocent measure. That is not the case. Here we have a Bill which is in conflict with the Roman Dutch law that for generations and generations has been the system of law in force in our country. One would have expected, too, that when such a Bill as this comes before the Heuse, the Government would, through the Minister of Justice, voice its attitude in respect of the principles contained in the Bill. One would have expected that it would not only have given a lead to the members on its side of the House, but to the country as a whole. That is what one expects from a government that realises its responsibility, and from a Minister if he has any perception of responsibility. But what does the Minister do? He rises in his place, and has nothing to say about the Bill. He does not know whether it is right or wrong. What can one do with such a Minister of Justice? He has not got the courage to tell the House whether the terms of the Bill are good or bad. The Government itself does not know whether it is a good or bad Bill. The Government wants to take its lead from the House. I hope that the Government, when it ought to take a lead from the House, will take it, but here the Government should really take action in order to give a lead, and it remains silent. I ask, for instance, what the legal profession and what the judges in our country must think of the Minister who, in this House, has not a word to say on a Bill that undermines and affects our old existing system of justice. Is the Minister perhaps afraid of certain elements in his own party; is this the reason why he has said nothing here; is he afraid that he will lose his influence on this or that member if he adopts a standpoint that is in conflict with their standpoint? No, I want to express the hope that the Minister of Justice or the Government will have the courage when subjects of this nature come before the. House, to tell the country and the House what the Government’s attitude is. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) made this point, that the Government has available the services of capable law advisers who are paid by the country. Is this House not entitled to the guidance of those able law advisers when a matter of this description comes before it? Why are they paid if not for this? They are there to serve the country; they are able to do so, but the Minister of Justice stands up here and instead of giving us an example of the guidance and researches of the law advisers in connection with a matter such as this, he remains as silent as the grave as far as this is concerned. Though the Master of the Supreme Court has expressed an opinion which is strongly opposed to the foundations of this Bill, we find that opinion has virtually been suppressed to such an extent that most of the members know nothing about it. Why were the Master and the Masters in the other provinces, as well as the law advisers, not called to give evidence before the Select Committee in order to give a lead to this House and to the country? Has the Minister of Justice simply allowed the matter to take its own course so that it would be easier for the hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis) to have the Bill accepted? Is it that he had not the courage to say whether he was for or against the Bill? I have spoken of the Roman-Dutch law which is affected by it. If there is one thing of which most lawyers in our country are proud it is the Roman-Dutch system of law. We are proud of the Roman-Dutch system, because it is not only the foundation of our system of law but it is a system which has compelled admiration from virtually the whole legal world. It is something more than this even to us. It is not only a system of law for the Afrikaner people, but it is portion of its cultural treasure. But what do we see here? As the Minister of Justice really intimated himself, it is being altered in a piecemeal manner. What we regard as one of the finest cultural treasures of our people is being varied piecemeal and in driblets. And who are the people who are doing this? They are not members of our own race but people whose race and religion puts them into the position that they have absolutely no feeling for our cultural treasure. It is those people who time and again introduce Bills into this House to meddle with these things. They are the people who raise objection if any feeling is revealed against the Jewish section of the community. But if they do these things, do they not realise that they are engaged in aggravating and accentuating the feeling against their race? I want to warn them to leave these matters alone. If they have no feelings about it, they ought to remember that the Afrikaner nation has a feeling about it. It is not only a cultural treasure to us, but if the Roman-Dutch system is affected we find that those principles are affected which form a portion of the religious foundation of the Afrikaner people. We have, for instance, the principle that the father is master in the home, that he is the head of the household. That is one of the cornerstones of the Calvinistic faith, and that cornerstone of the Calvinistic faith is being undermined in this way in the House, and it is being impinged on by someone who, by reason of his race and his faith has as little regard for the Calvinistic faith as what I would have for the legal system and religious foundations and the outlook of the people of Iceland, of whom I know nothing at all. Is it right that the Minister of Justice should remain silent in these circumstances, when, as I myself am convinced, he is opposed to this Bill? If he has the courage of his convictions he would stand up and say that he is opposed to the provisions of this Bill from A to Z. But he has not the courage to stand up and say that. I have spoken about the Roman-Dutch system of law as the cultural treasure of the Afrikaner people, but I want to go further and say that it is something over which English-speaking South Africans are proud, at any rate as far as concerns legal practice. Go to prominent English lawyers and judges and ask them what they think about the Roman-Dutch law system, and everyone of them will talk about it with pride. I am thinking, for instance, of Sir James Rose-Innes, and what he did to strengthen the fundamental principles of Roman-Dutch law in South Africa, where they had been meddled with in the past. He is one of the men who did an enormous amount of good to bring the Roman-Dutch law into its own again. It is not only a cultural treasure of the Afrikaans section of the community. Even a great number of the English-speaking people have accepted this principle as their own, and they are just as proud of it as we are. Accordingly I repeat that it is to be regretted that it shoud be allowed in this House, apparently for political considerations, to retain the support of certain people that this system should be tampered with. I want to register my strongest protest, not only to the fact that it has been tampered with in this way, but more particularly against the fact that the tampering comes from people who have absolutely no feeling for what the Afrikaner regards as his own in South Africa. In regard to the details of the Bill, the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) and the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. G. P. Steyn) have already pointed out how impossible some of the provisions of the Bill are. At the risk of repeating, I should like to submit to the House what my standpoint is in regard to certain provisions in the Bill. I have in mind, in the first place, the confusion that will be created. One of the principles of the Roman-Dutch law is the marital right of the husband. This Bill calls into existence something that is absolutely new. Quite apart from the marital right of the husband under the common law, we now get a sort of marital right that is created by this Bill. We have now two sorts—the one of the common law and the other that of the hon. member for Pretoria (City.) (Mr. Davis). One has two sorts of property and two sorts of estates. Where people marry in community of property there is a joint estate, according to the common law, over which the man has control. This Bill creates an entirely different sort of estate, namely, the separate property of the wife. In the case of people who are married in community of property we get two sorts of estates. We get the joint estate of all the property that there was before the marriage, and then we get the estate comprised of the various sorts of property derived from the sources specified in the Bill. That is a separate estate. Just look at the confusion that may arise from that? The wife has certain property that was hers when the marriage was entered into. Later she obtains property that she inherits from her father’s estate under his will. That all goes into the joint estate over which the husband has control. But if her father instead of bequeating the farm to her in his will donates the farm to her during her lifetime, the farm will not fall within the joint estate. Then it is her separate property. It is not alone confusion, but it is a bit of stupidity. It can only lead to one result, and that is to give a big income to certain sorts of attorneys and advocates from the matters that will flow from it. Let me analyse the position a little further. The wife has her separate property, and under the provisions of the Bill it now goes to her individual estate, that is to say, property that she gets out of the sources specified in the will, such as for instance her own earnings in a business or profession, her literary and artistic work and guests inter vivos. The man has nothing to say about that. But all the property that she had derived from these various sources before her marriage, goes into the joint estate over which the husband has control. It does not come into her separate estate comprised of that property which she obtains after her marriage from the sources that are specified in the Bill. That is the third point leading to confusion. Let us go a little further. After her marriage the woman obtains property from these sources with which she can deal separately. The husband has nothing to say about this. But if the husband after the marriage derives property from the same sources it does not go into the joint estate. Not only that; the husband who is the head of the family and who has secured that property as the result of his own labours by means of his artistic gifts, or whatever it may be, or who has received a gift, is not able under his will to dispose of that property separately. But in respect of the same sort of property the wife can dispose in her will of what has accrued to her, without the assistance of the husband. The wife is in reality put in the place of the husband. The husband falls under the marital power of the wife. The husband must have the assistance of the wife to dispose of that property, but the wife can dispose of such property without the assistance of the husband. Now I put this question: Can we imagine anything stupider than that, and can we imagine that a lawyer should present such a stupid document in the form of a draft Bill? Can we understand further why the Minister of Justice could leave anything of this sort to the free vote of the House, and not offer any guidance? There is only one thing that the Minister can do if he wants to do justice to himself, and that is to resign his porfolio. Now I turn to the further difficulty, and one that has been strongly emphasised by the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet. It is one the Master of the Cape Provincial Division of the Supreme Court also emphasised, namely, that the Bill opens up the possibility that in the future even a greater amount of fraud will be prepetrated by certain people in connection with insolvency than has been perpetrated in the past. This creates another means by which creditors can be defrauded to a certain extent. Quite apart from the other strong objections to this Bill, this fact alone—whether that was the intention or not—that the possibility is created for more fraud in connection with insolvencies, ought in my opinion to be a conclusive reason for every man and for every member of this House who is sincere and who wishes to maintain decency and honour in the commercial life of this country to vote against the Bill. It is not only the Minister of Justice who has been afraid to range himself against the Bill. A moment ago during the division the Lobby was full of members who made no secret of the fact that they would oppose the Bill. But of course they will meekly vote for it as part of the herd. I want to express the hope that they will consider the matter afresh, and that they will realise that, if they want to fulfil their duty, they must vote against the Bill. The matter appears to me to be of such a serious character that I want to move that the House adjourns, in order to give hon. members an opportunity to consider the matter anew. I move—

I second.

The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) seconds.

The hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. E. R. Strauss) seconds.

Motion put and negatived.

I should like, in the first instance, to raise a strong objection to certain of the expressions which have been used in the course of this debate.

The hon. member may not now address the House, because he has seconded the motion that the House do now adjourn.

I seconded it.

No, the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) seconded it.

I should also like to say a few words on this Bill.

The hon. member may not take part in the debate now, because he seconded the motion of the hon. member for Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel) that the debate be now adjourned.

I can only say this, Sir, that a big mistake has been made, because I have not seconded anything.

I just want to draw attention to this, that the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. E. R. Strauss) rose to second the motion and the hon. member for Boshof rose to take part in the debate. When you announced that the hon. member for Boshof seconded the motion I pointed out that the hon. member for Harrismith had seconded it, because I knew that the hon. member for Boshof wanted to take part in the debate.

Then I will call the hon. member for Boshof.

I want to confine myself to certain expressions that have been used this afternoon, and I want to take the strongest exception to them. This debate has taken an unfortunate turn, for expressions have been used here which touch on the Afrikaner’s philosophy on life. The hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) made an observation in connection with the conservatism of the Afrikaner people. Let me tell the hon. member for Jeppes, and also any other hon. member who would like to hear it, that the Afrikaner is proud of his own conservatism, just as any other nation in the world ought to have similar pride. I only want to put this question to her whether there is any race in the whole world which adhere more firmly to their conservatism than the Jewish people, and what right has she then to be captious about the conservatism of the Afrikaner people, which is their very own? That conservatism of the Afrikaner people forms part of its philosophy of life, and seeing that measures are being introduced here of which use or abuse is being made to speak with disapproval of the Afrikaner’s conservatism, I want to say to those hon. members that they are the last people who should make such a remark. It is clear to all sides of the House that we are here concerned with a measure which—if I may be permitted to employ such a word in this House—was placed on the Table in a half-baked way. The addresses that have already been given here from this side of the House have abundantly shown this. This Bill contains comprehensive clauses, and we have already heard from the Minister of Justice that he is unable to say whether they are good or bad. He wants to leave the test to the voice of the House—he wants to leave it to the test of the moment. I think that it is a sound maxim of this House that when it does not know whether the proposal is good or bad, it should rather leave it over for a later occasion in order to ascertain whether it is good or bad. It will be a reflection on this House if it lets through anything of this sort while it is not certain what the consequences of it are going to be. So far as our information goes, and so far as we have expert opinion on the subject, the Bill is not a good one. We have had before us the opinion of a man who ought to know; if there is anyone who ought to know what the implications of this alteration are it surely must be the Orphan Master, who day after day has to deal with these matters, and we have seen that he has expressed himself against the Bill and has offered the strongest objection to it. In order to emphasise this, I want to quote to show what the nature of these objections to the Bill is. He used these serious words—

Those are affairs with which he has to deal. This is a man who deals with these matters every day, and he sees the greatest danger in the Bill, because he will be put in the position that it will be extremely difficult to decide what part of the estate falls under the joint estate, and what falls under the separate estate. Seeing that this is the position, and seeing that we have had no evidence to the contrary, is it not right in view of that testimony, to postpone the matter at this stage and to decline to let it go through hurriedly. In this connection I want to make a further objection. The body that has principally to do with marriages in our country, is the Dutch Church. Here a Bill has come before the House and as it has happened, members of the House have not had a proper opportunity to go into it. And what about those outside bodies, which still have to deal with the subject? In this case it has happened that strong objections have been received from one of the Dutch churches in our country against the principle of the Bill. I am convinced that if the other churches were asked to express an opinion on the subject they would undoubtedly have taken a stand against this Bill. We have learned of the attitude of the Hervormde Kerk. On what do the objections rest that are contained in the letter from the Hervormde Kerk? I just want to quote a few of the considerations. Just as in the case of the other Dutch churches the Ministers of the Hervormde Kerk have to deal with this matter. They have to concern themselves with marriage, which is assuredly one of the most serious steps a person takes in the course of his life. In this letter we find that in the first place it is stated that the measure undermines the family life of the people. We all know that one of the sound principles of the Dutch Church is the view it takes that so long as there is a sound family life in the country we can preserve a sound national life—for so long can we keep intact those foundations on which the temple of national life is built. We have these people who have to deal with these matters coming along and telling us that this Bill affects those principles of family life and of such national life. It is a measure that is going to undermine that family life. Let me quote what the letter of the Hervormde Kerk says on this point—

That is a very serious matter, and we cannot be content with dealing with it in the way the Minister of Justice has dealt with it merely saying we do not know whether it is good or bad. We cannot reject such evidence. Here people who know declare in so many words that it will undermine the national life, that it will undermine family life, and thereby the foundations of our national life. I want to quote a further passage from the letter from the Hervormde Kerk—

The letter goes on to explain that the husband should be acquainted with that decision, and that the relationship between husband and wife must be one of mutual consultation. The bond of matrimony should create a union between man and wife. There should be common and mutual consultation, and we take exception to this being violated in this manner. According to the opinion of the church the family life is affected. Let us assist in preserving the unity of the marriage tie, and not encourage division between man and wife. If we take all these objections into consideration I really think that if ever there was a half-baked measure to come before us it is this measure. We should not proceed any further with this measure now. It ought to be properly investigated. The appropriate evidence ought to be obtained, so that we may test the feeling of the general public and of those institutions. For that reason I want to move—

I second.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—26 :

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer K.

Brink, W. D.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, J. N.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Vosloo, L. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and J. J. Serfontein.

Noes—63:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, R. J.

Dolley, G.

Eksteen, H. O.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare W. D.

Hemming, G. K.

Hopf, F.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

Marwick, J. S.

McLean, J.

Moll, A. M.

Morris, J. W. H.

Payne, A. C.

Pocock, P. V.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sullivan, J, R.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Merwe, H.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers J. W. Higgerty and W. B. Humphreys, Motion accordingly negatived.

There is only one point to which I wish to refer and that is the one made by the hon. member opposite. He quoted the letter by the Master of the Supreme Court in which the Master refers to certain provisions, not of this Bill, but of the original measure which was put before the Select Committee, and which provided that in respect of existing marriages the application of this Bill could be agreed to by a registered contract between the spouses. He said this could cause misunderstanding and fraud. He was quite right, and when that point was made before the Select Committee, as the hon. member should know ….

But what clause did you refer to? The letter does not refer to one section alone. It referred to certain sections.

I am referring to the original measure which went before the Select Committee, and when his letter was read to the Select Committee the Committee altered these provisions and put in Clause 3 of the Bill so that in respect of existing marriages no alteration will be made except ….

No, you are wrong.

The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) does not know. I was there the whole time.

Is he satisfied with the Bill as it is now?

Let me explain. It provides that no alteration in existing marriages could be made excluding the marital power except under conditions set out by the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court in granting such application will impose such conditions as it deems necessary for the protection of the interests of creditors and other persons likely to be affected thereby. That is Section 3 (b). It was not in the original Bill and it was put in in consequence of that letter.

You are misleading the House. Death duties are mentioned.

If it affected death duties the Government would never have agreed to the Bill.

Question put: That the word “now”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—61 :

Abbott, C. B. M.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, P. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Fawcett, R. M.

Friedman, B.

Goldberg, A.

Hare W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hopf, F.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

McLean, J.

Moll, A. M.

Morris, J. W. H.

Neate, C.

Payne, A. C.

Pocock, P. V,

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F,

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—26 :

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer K.

Brink, W. D.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, J. N.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk; J. G. W.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and J. J. Serfontein.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Motion for the second reading of the Bill put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 9th February.