laid on the Table the regulations issued by Government to Control Officers appointed under Martial Law in certain districts of the Union.

laid on the Table the accounts of the S.A. Railways and Harbours for the year ending March 31, 1913, with the Auditor and Controller-General’s report thereon.

who was received with general cheers on this his first official rising in the House, laid on the Table the report of the Agricultural Department for the 15 months ending March 31, 1913.

who was also greeted with cheers on making his official debut, laid on the Table copies of notices and proclamations issued by the Department during the year 1913.

laid on the Table certain proclamations issued by the Department during the year 1913.

laid on the Table the annual report of the Mines Department, with reports in respect of explosions, white labour, miners’ phthisis, and a number of proclamations and regulations issued by the Department in the year 1913.

laid on the Table a list of the names of officials and members of the Land Bank Board; Return of officers retained in the Public Service after the age of sixty years had been attained by them.

When the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Hull) gave notice on Friday last on behalf of the honourable member for Smithfield (General Hertzog), to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into and report upon the causes which led to the proclamation of martial law and the administration of martial law (vide Notice of Motion No. IV on the Order Paper for the 3rd instant), the Minister of Defence (General Smuts) had already given notice of motion for leave to introduce the Indemnity and Undesirables Special Deportation Bill. It seems to me that the issues raised by General Hertzog’s moton can in every detail be traversed in a discussion on some stage of the Bill referred to. The notice of motion in the name of the honourable member for Smithfield should therefore be discharged on the grounds that when he gave notice he anticipated the discussion of a proposal already fixed for consideration. The notice is accordingly discharged.

That this House desires to express its deep regret at the loss sustained since the prorogation of Parliament through the deaths of the Hon. J. W. Sauer, late Minister of Justice and Native Affairs; the Right Hon. Abraham Fischer, late Minister of the Interior and Lands; and the Hon. Sir Richard Solomon, G.C.M.G., K.C.B., K.C.V.O., K.C., late High Commissioner for the Union of South Africa in London, and resolves specially as a tribute to their memory to place on record its sense of appreciation of the distinguished services rendered by them to South Africa during their long public careers. In the opinion of this House the people of South Africa are under a deep debt of gratitude to these three of her worthiest sons, for their untiring devotion to duty and for their varied and important public services both as honoured Ministers of His Majesty and in other capacities. This House resolves, further, to convey to the relatives of the deceased statesmen its sincere and deep sympathy with them in their bereavement.

In the course of his remarks the Prime Minister said he was sure that he was voicing the feeling not only of this House but of the whole country in proposing this motion. The three men whose deaths had occurred during the prorogation had been worthy sons of South Africa, and their demise had come at a time when they could but ill be spared. A remarkable point in this connection was that all three men had been born in the same year and that all three had received their education at the same college, and that all three had chosen law as their profession. It was difficult at a time like the present, while so many wounds were yet unhealed, to give to these three men all that was due to them from South Africa. At the age of 24 the late Mr. Sauer was elected a member of the Cape Parliament, namely, in 1874, and for about forty years he had served South Africa. He had served in five Ministries, and for 13 years had held various portfolios. Anyone who had known him and anyone who had an eye for the country’s history would admit that today he was sorely missed in South Africa. (Hear, hear.) All members of the Convention were aware of the influence exercised by the late Mr. Sauer in getting a good and sound Constitution for this country. As an administrator, Mr. Sauer was among the ablest. He stood in the foremost ranks of members of Parliament of his time, and was a highly gifted speaker in Parliament. He was a courageous champion, a true friend, and an intrepid and esteemed opponent. (Hear, hear.) But he was a friend not only of the white people of this country, but also of the coloured population, and it was greatly due to him that the present relations between the white and the coloured races were of such a satisfactory nature. He was a worthy son of South Africa, whose loss in all respects was to be deplored.

In regard to the late Mr. Fischer, in him this country had also lost one of its most worthy sons. At an early age he had settled in the Free State as a lawyer, and at the age of 28 he became a member of Parliament there. He played a most important role in the history of the Republic, and had contributed much in critical times to ease the situation. Very few people were more deserving of the love and respect of their co-citizens than the late Abraham Fischer. When the unfortunate war broke out Mr. Fischer stood by the side of those whom he firmly believed to be in the right. He was a member during that war of an important deputation to Europe. Even before that, however, Mr. Fischer was a man of peace, and he (the Prime Minister) as a member of the old Volksraad well remembered how repeatedly Mr. Fischer used to come to the Transvaal to make endeavours for the maintenance of peace. After the war he took an important leading part in trying to secure self-government for the Free State, and his attitude as Prime Minister was still greatly admired and appreciated. (Hear, hear.) As a member of the Convention he did much towards achieving the Union of South Africa. His lovable personality would never be forgotten in South Africa.

Coming to the late Sir Richard Solomon, the Prime Minister said the latter was an eminent member of an important South African family. He was a man personally beloved by all and a lawyer of exceptional ability. To South Africa and the British Empire the late Sir Richard Solomon had rendered great services. Proceeding, the Prime Minister gave a brief sketch of Sir Richard’s career, stating that in 1097 he was elected member of the Cape Parliament, and in 1898-9 became Attorney General. In 1901 he was appointed legal adviser of the Crown Colony Government in the Transvaal, and was afterwards a member of the Executive and Legislative Councils. From 1902 to 1907 he was Attorney-General, and in 1905-6 was Lieutenant Governor of the Colony. He was not only a brilliant lawyer, but an extremely able, tactful and sympathetic administrator. From 1907 he acted as Agent-General, and subsequently, when Union was brought about, as High Commissioner for South Africa in London —and none could have represented the country in a more worthy manner. (Hear, hear.) He was a diplomat as well as a business man, and he (the Prime Minister) personally had always had the greatest respect for his ability. Concluding, the Premier said, “In these three men South Africa has lost three of its most worthy sons, men whom we could spare but ill, especially in these times.”

in seconding the motion, said, on behalf of the hon. members on the Opposition side of the House, he would like to give the fullest recognition of the great services rendered by these distinguished South Africans. Hon. members on that side of the House wished to join hon. members on the Government side in expressing to the relatives of the deceased their sincerest and deepest sympathy at the great loss which had been sustained both by them and the country. Those of them who for years had been members of the Cape House of Assembly required no words to inform them of the great Parliamentary ability of Mr. Sauer, who, in the Cape House, was recognised as perhaps the most brilliant debater who had ever sat in it, and since then he had been recognised as the most brilliant debater in the Union Parliament. (Cheers.) Mr. Sauer held the strongest possible views, and although many of them might often have disagreed with him, they always recognised that Mr. Sauer possessed the courage of his convictions and the determination to support whatever he thought to be right. So far as Mr. Fischer was concerned, many members of the old Cape Parliament learnt to know him only during the Union Parliament, but for courtesy, consideration and gentlemanly bearing as a Minister of the Crown he set a great example. (Cheers.) He (Sir Thomas) had often wondered in the course of debates, when, perhaps, feeling ran exceedingly high, at the extraordinary courtesy which was characteristic of Mr. Fischer, a courtesy which ever prompted him to give the fullest information to hon. members.

In regard to Sir Richard Solomon, a gentleman who was a personal friend of his (Sir Thomas) for many years, he believed not alone that this House, but the country, had lost a very distinguished servant—a gentleman whose abilities at the present moment in connection with the many affairs of this country in the money market of Europe would have been of incalculable service to the Minister of Finance, Many members recognised how Sir Richard Solomon went out of his way during the late Coronation festivities in England to do all he possibly could to assist every visitor from South Africa. (Cheers.) One of the most difficult tasks the Government had before it was to find a gentleman who could fittingly follow such a distinguished representative of this country as Sir Richard Solomon was. He was recognised by every Dominion within the Empire and by the people of Great Britain as perhaps the most distinguished representative of any of the outlying portions of the Empire.

said he desired to associate himself with the remarks made by the Prime Minister and member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt). Perhaps one of the things which appealed to them there was that, in spite of Mr. Sauer’s hard hitting, there was always that kindly feeling towards the minority. He would also like to endorse what had been said in regard to Mr. Fischer. However irritated the right hon. gentleman might have been, he was always a kindly old gentleman, trying to smooth over things. Many of the members on the Labour benches had not the same chances of understanding or had the same acquaintance with Sir Richard Solomon as he (Mr. Creswell) had He earnestly hoped that the memory of these deceased gentleman would help them.

said he could hardly allow an occasion like this to go past without paying a tribute of praise to one who had been a close companion of his during his Parliamentary life, for a period of something like 35 years. With regard to the other two gentlemen, he could add nothing to the feeling words of the Prime Minister and the member for Fort Beaufort. He had known Mr. Fischer for many years, and he knew very well the services that that gentleman rendered to South Africa in the troublous days of the Free State, when the Free State had to carry on negotiations with this country, and to shape its policy between the Transvaal and Cape Colony was not always a very easy task. When he entered the Union Parliament, he was always the most assiduous and courteous of Ministers. In every respect he was a most worthy citizen and a good friend. Sir Richard Solomon had been a friend of his (Mr. Merriman’s), and his colleague upon former occasions. He set an example of an honest, clean-living man in every possible way. He was a fine specimen of an English gentleman. Of his ability it would be impertinent upon his (Mr. Merriman’s) part to speak. He was one of the best lawyers who had been turned out in this country. They had felt proud to know that South Africa should turn out such men, who were able to hold their own with the best men to be found anywhere. Many of them felt that, with his honesty and brilliant gifts, perhaps the political was not the best line he was fitted for, but he was admirably fitted for the post that he filled at the time of his untimely death. He represented the Union of South Africa in such a way that they felt they were as creditably represented, and more creditably represented, than any colony in the British Empire. It was a melancholy thing to think that he was taken away before his great abilities in the diplomatic line could have come to their full fruition. Mr. Merriman went on to say that he did not know that he should have risen had it not been to say a few poor feeble words in testimony of the merits and great services of his lamented friend, Mr. Sauer. For forty years he was a member of Parliament, of the Cape first, and then of the Union. He died in harness. He remembered seeing Mr. Sauer a few days before he left Cape Town to go to the North, on what proved to be his last journey, when he was not in a fit state to travel. He was weak and suffering, but he was one of those who were always ready to devote himself and to sacrifice himself to the call of duty. (Hear, hear.) He went up there at a most troublous time, and, as they all knew, he died almost in the execution of his duty.

Never a man, he supposed, sacrificed himself more than Mr. Sauer upon that occasion. He had now gone, he had gone to the land where all things are forgotten, but he hoped that Mr. Sauer’s memory at least would live within the walls of this Parliament, because it was impossible to overestimate what he was to the Parliament of South Africa. He was imbued to the fullest extent with the traditions of Parliament. He loved it; it was his life. In the cause of Parliament he “scorned delights and lived laborious days,” and he was the greatest ornament, He (Mr. Merriman) made no hesitation in saying, that this Parliament possessed, and they would miss him particularly at the present time more than he could possibly say. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Sauer was a man who was born in South Africa, without a drop of English blood in him, and yet he was more English than the English themselves in his ideas of all matters connected with Government. He was imbued to the fullest extent with the highest traditions of English public life. (Hear, hear.) He was, above all, the strongest possible supporter of the reign of law and an opponent upon every occasion and at all times, whether in a majority or a minority, of (He reign of lawless violence of every kind. (Hear, hear.) He was a strong sup porter, against any odds, of the rights of minorities. (Hear, hear.) He had to the fullest extent taken that lesson laid down in the line of the Roman poet—“parcere subjects et debellare superbos.” He was never a man who would trample upon the fallen. He was a man who was very ready to oppose anybody if he thought he was wrong, no matter how strong that man might be. Above all, he loved the Parliament of the country. He believed that Parliamentary Government was the best form of Government that our imperfect He disliked the caucus; he had little use for the platform, and he suspected the Press—(laughter)—the three great rivals; human nature Had yet managed to evolve, of free Parliamentary Government. There was no need for him to enlarge upon Mr. Sauer’s Parliamentary career. Those great gifts of oratory which he possessed had been used on many occasions to attack the most powerful and the strongest and generally He came off not second best. Many of them would remember many of the remarks of Mr. Sauer and his great power of sarcasm, but nobody could say that he exercised those powers upon those who could not reply to him. He was never so pleased as when he tasted the delights of combat and he was more pleased than ever, as his hon. friend opposite would know, when he found a foeman worthy of his steel. As an administrator no man had sounder judgment. He was an extremely sympathetic man, and when he was administrator of large departments he got over the most difficult tasks because of that gift of sympathy. He did not believe that any man except Mr. Sauer would have tided over the troublous times that they had in 1908, when their hands were heavy upon the departments, but the men always felt they had a friend in Mr. Sauer. He possessed the great gifts of courage and of tolerance. No greater gifts could a statesman have than courage and tolerance. In unpopular causes he was always ready to defend the weak. Who would ever forget the courageous way in which he, with public opinion against him, stood up over and over again to defend the coloured man in Parliament and to defend the British Indian, who had very few friends in Parliament? Those gifts, he thought ought to ensure Mr. Sauer a lasting memory in this House. In private life he was remarkable for the entire absence of that most undesirable quality which was known by the vulgar name of “side.” He was the most accessible of men, and he was the most forgiving of men. “I could go on,” said Mr. Merriman, in conclusion, “because one could say much more about a character with whom one has lived and known intimately for 40 years, but he has gone. His untimely decease brings to my mind how so many have gone that were with us in the Parliament when he first came into Parliament. The leaves fall from the tree one by one, until at last one feels like some old withered leaf that clings on the bough waiting for its turn to come. But the tree still stands; the Parliament of this country is still here, and well would it be for the Parliament of this country if, in the future generation, every young South African is trained up with the gifts that Mr. Sauer had, the gifts of courage and tolerance, respect of the right of minorities, and determination to see that justice should be done though the heavens fall. Then only can this country become a great country, not by force, not by riches, but by the cultivation of those gifts which have made my mother country great, and which, I hope, will make South Africa great, too. (Hear, hear.) I hope that the memory of Mr. Sauer will live long in the minds of men, and will be handed down as a brilliant example of how a South African became imbued with the best qualities which have made the country to which we owe allegiance so great in the past. ”(Cheers.)

The motion was agreed to, the members rising in their places.

proposed the following resolution: “That this House desires to record its deep sense of the great loss sustained through the death of the Right Hon. Sir Walter Hely-Hutchinson, G.C.M.G., and, whilst expressing its high appreciation of the distinguished services rendered by him to South Africa as Governor of the Colony of Natal and as Governor and Commander-in-Chief of the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope, specially emphasises its recognition of the exceptional abilities displayed by his late Excellency during that period in the history of South Africa, when this country passed through one of its severest trials.”

The Minister went on to say that after eighteen years of Imperial, Colonial, and diplomatic service in different parts of the Empire, Sir Walter came in 1893 as Governor of Natal and Zululand. He filled that position till 1901, and was then appointed Governor and Commander-in-Chief of the Cape Colony. It was a critical time when he accepted that position, but he did his duty and acted with tact. He was a capable and sympathetic Administrator, and was honoured by all with whom he came in contact. He was of a most amiable disposition, and had travelled about a good deal in the Cape Colony in order to make himself personally acquainted with the position of affairs. In order the better to do that he had learned the Dutch language, so that he was able to converse with every one. He was the last of a long succession of Governors, and the speaker deeply regretted his decease.

in seconding the motion, desired to associate himself and the members on that side of the House with every word that had fallen from the right hon. the Prime Minister, because if ever there had been a servant of the Crown whose services deserved recognition, that recognition was deserved by the late Sir W. Hely-Hutchinson. (Hear, hear.) He (Sir Thomas Smartt) did not think there was a single individual in the country who did not look upon Sir Walter as a friend when he was Governor of the Cape Colony. He had to discharge his duty manfully at a most difficult period in the history of this country, and when he left he carried with him the gratitude of every subject of the King in this country. He (Sir Thomas) had reason to know that when Sir Walter’s term of office in South Africa had expired and he had gone to England, his interest in this country never waned. On every possible occasion when there was any opportunity of doing anything to explain the true position of South Africa and to assist in the development of its resources, nobody was more willing or anxious to do what possibly could be done than Sir Walter. (Hear, hear.) To Lady Hely-Hutchinson and her family he was sure that not only from this House, but from the whole of the country would go forth an expression of deep and sincere sympathy. It was extremely to be regretted that the life of Sir Walter Hely-Hutchinson should have been put an end to at a time when he was capable of doing further good work for this country. He was perfectly certain that Lady Hely-Hutchinson and her family would recognise that this was no ordinary resolution; it was one which bore with it the deepest feeling of all sections of the community in South Africa. (Hear, hear.)

The motion was carried unanimously, every member rising.

moved, as an unopposed motion: “That this House desires to place on record its deep sense of the loss sustained during the recess by the death of Sir Thos. Phillip Brain, member tor Frankfort, as well as its high appreciation of his valuable services, and resolves to convey to Mrs. Brain and other relatives of the deceased its sincere and deepest sympathy with them in their sad bereavement.”

The speaker said that the deceased gentleman had devoted his whole life to the service of South Africa, and had grown grey in the service of his country. He was always to be found on the side of justice and fairness, and was respected by all.

in seconding the motion, said he desired to associate himself with the remarks which had fallen from the Prime Minister. Mr. Brain was one of those extraordinary compounds so seldom met with in any Legislature; that was, although he always had the strength and courage of his convictions, he was the friend of everybody in the House. (Hear, hear.) He was perhaps the most popular member of the House, and those words conveyed a great deal more than any others he could use as to the admirable character of the deceased member. (Hear, hear.)

The motion was carried unanimously, all the members rising in their places.

moved the adjournment of the House in order to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, “The advisability of the Government immediately taking steps to remove the stigma as present resting on the reputation of the Union as a Dominion enjoying civilised Government, by having the steamship Umgeni intercepted at the earliest possible moment and offering the nine citizens of this Union on board that ship who were kidnapped and illegally deported an opportunity of at once returning to their homes and their country.” (Labour cheers.)

I wish to point out that the subject matter of this motion is identical with the motion on which I gave a ruling last Friday. I then ruled that a motion falling within the subject matter of the motion which the Minister of Defence will presently propose, would be in conflict with Standing Order No. 29. I cannot therefore accept this motion for the adjournment of the House.

May I, with all respect, point out that this ship is getting further and further away? (Ministerial laughter.)

I cannot allow the matter to go further.

moved for leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the withdrawal of Martial Law from operation in certain districts and areas of the Union, to indemnify the Government, its officers, and other persons in respect of acts advised, ordered, and done in good faith for the prevention and suppression of internal disorder, the maintenance of good order and public safety, and in the administration of Martial Law, and to declare that certain persons who have, under Martial Law, been removed from the Union shall be liable if they return thereto, to be again removed there from as prohibited immigrants

seconded the motion.

expressed surprise at the extraordinary course adopted by his hon. friend. It was usual for the Minister introducing a Bill to reserve whatever remarks and arguments he desired to bring forward in favour of the Bill until the second reading, but the position they were faced with was not a usual position—(Opposition cheers)—and the least they might have expected from the Minister was that he would have taken the earliest opportunity to give the House the fullest explanation with regard to all the information in his possession, and the reasons that actuated the Government to take the course it had taken. (Opposition cheers.) They on the Opposition side were placed in an exceedingly disadvantageous position—(hear, hear)—because he did not think anybody desired to approach a question of that great importance in a manner in which a deliberative assembly should approach it should desire to give a verdict without having all the information before it. It was on that account that he was exceedingly sorry that the Minister did not make a full statement in regard to all the information in possession of the Government, and lay all the facts before the House. (Opposition cheers.) He (Sir Thomas) wished his position to be thoroughly clear. He did not rise for the purpose of opposing the motion, because he recognised most fully that the country must go into the whole of the question. He recognised that it was the first duty of the Government to use every instrument within its power to maintain law and order throughout the length cheers.) Every Government which sat on those benches, irrespective of the party behind it, would be wanting in its duty if it did not at all costs and hazards maintain and breadth of the country. (Government law and order. But having maintained that, it was the duty of the Government to seize the earliest opportunity to place the full facts of the case before the House and the country. He was exceedingly sorry that the Minister had not taken that course. People might say that until Wednesday next was a very short time, but he believed it would have been better if Government had placed the fell facts before the House last Friday. He (Sir Thomas) regretted that the Minister had not taken that course. He would say to hon. members, more particularly on the Opposition side, that as unfortunately they had to wait for the second reading of the Bill on Wednesday, they should reserve their opinion until they had a full statement of the case. He hoped when the time came that his hon. friend would recognise the enormous seriousness of the position, and no matter at what length the House would be prepared to listen to all the arguments the Government was prepared to bring forward to justify it in the extreme course which it had considered necessary to take. (Hear, hear.)

said he thought the hon. member was entirely unreasonable in expecting a full statement to be made on the motion for leave to introduce the Bill. In all his (General Smuts’) Parliamentary experience that had never happened. He did not think there was any reason to depart from the usual course on the present occasion, and it would be most improper to make a partial statement. We were dealing with one of the most unfortunate matters which had occurred in this country, and he did not think Government could be accused of not having used all possible expedition in bringing the subject before the House. He hoped he would have the support of the House in bringing the full case before it with all possible expedition, but he did not think that could happen before it came to the second reading. He would ask that the second reading be taken next Wednesday, and he hoped on that occasion to make as full a statement as the importance of the case warranted and of the facts connected with the late disturbances and the action of the Government in connection therewith. He thought that was all that need be said on the present occasion. He did not think it would be of any use to divide the discussion into two parts—to have a partial discussion today and a fuller discussion on Wednesday. He would, therefore, reserve whatever remarks he had to make for the full discussion on the second reading. (Hear, hear.)

extended his congratulations to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort for having at last awoke to the importance of this question. The Government should have taken the very earliest opportunity of informing the country in regard to the matter, and if the hon. member had been more mindful of his duties as Leader of the Opposition and had defended the rights of private members and had insisted on the House debating the motion on Friday last he (Mr. Creswell) had introduced, then four days ago we would have had some information from the Government. He proposed to move as an amendment: “The action of the Government in surreptitiously deporting nine citizens of this Union without trial and, in the case of two of them, in contempt of a rule of the Transvaal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court, calling upon the Government to show cause to such Court why they should not be set at liberty, in preventing the said citizens from appealing for protection to the Courts and in obstructing the efforts of their friends to invoke that protection on their behalf, merits the censure of this House.” It was a matter of infinite regret to him that under the rules of the House it was not possible to raise the question on Friday last. The first function of that Assembly was the protection of the liberty of the subject against’ arbitrary acts of the Government. That had been almost the one thread running through the Parliamentary history of Great Britain. The House met on Friday and started its duties while a grievous and wicked wrong was being done to these nine men. He wished to make clear the reasons why they had put the motion in the form it was. Hon. members on the cross benches had bitter differences with hon. members on both sides of the House on other questions which were not concerned in that motion. On many questions they differed as widely as the poles, but on this question they claimed the support of hon. members throughout the House. (Hear, hear.)

The acts of the Government on those matters on which they differed they would be prepared to fight out another time, but here they were dealing with certain acts of the Government which went to the foundation of civil liberty—acts of tyranny, brigandage, and lawlessness on the part of the Government which the House could not and should not tolerate. The deportation of these nine men was the culmination of a large number of despotic acts on the part of the Government, and the responsibility for some of the acts rested on hon. members on the Opposition side. Unthinkingly hon. members whose duty it was to oppose the Government ran and offered the Government every assistance they could. Let him relate some of the salient facts. On July 8 a certain number of the railwaymen went on strike. On July 6 or 7 Mr. Poutsma had a public meeting in connection with the proposed strike, and urged the men in the most clear and emphatic language to remember that they must avoid violence. The Prime Minister smiled. That was Mr. Poutsma’s prime. The Prime Minister and Minister of Defence were the criminals, the plotters, and the villains. (Ministerial laughter.) He knew the Prime Minister would laugh. He would laugh as long as he had the thick end of the stick, but the time would come when he would find that he had only the thin end of the stick, because he was daily losing the confidence he had six months ago.

He wished to call the attention of the House to the fact that industrial dispute— strikes—were not unknown in other countries, and on a very much larger scale, but the civil power in those countries were able to deal with them, without all this tremendous display of violence and force. In this country however, the leaders were imprisoned, and he asked why these arrests were made. Had they been guilty of any sedition? If they had, why were they not under the Peace Preservation Ordinance brought before a magistrate, and charged with the crime of sedition? The reason they were not was because the Government knew that they would not have a leg to stand on. The Prime Minister’s plot was very well laid. He anticipated a riot on or about the 11th of January. Government notices were posted that, in view of the possibility of a riot or tumult on or about the 10th or the 11th of January, all bars must be closed. The Government were not satisfied at this non-violence of the people, and with the extreme orderliness of the men, and so, wishing to irritate them, they imprisoned their leaders, in order that they might have some excuse for their murderous and wicked acts of July 4. Even that failed. They knew what the Government’s game was. The tumult did not take place. On the Sunday a meeting took place on the Market-square, Johannesburg, and it was attended by some 14,000 or 15,000 persons—all disorderly persons, kept in order by guns and special police. A more orderly meeting never took place in any of His Majesty’s Dominions. Their arrests had the direct effect of so irritating the men that a general strike was balloted for, and resulted in one. Martial Law was proclaimed on the 16th, and the Prime Minister issued regulations which were unparalleled in the history of His Majesty’s Dominions, and had nothing whatever to do with Martial Law, and were entirely alien to the whole object of Martial Law. On January 17 Bain and others were arrested at the Trades Hall, and the first time they were called upon in the name of the law to surrender, they surrendered.

Up to that time no official demand for surrender was made. On the following Saturday Mr. Morgan was arrested, and he (the speaker) had the honour of being in goal at the same time. Advocate Lucas, on behalf of Messrs. Glendon, Kendall, and others, applied to the Transvaal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court, calling upon the Government to show cause why they should not be set at liberty. Messrs. Glendon and Kendall were liberated on bail, and he (the speaker) was released in order to attend to his Parliamentary duties. That was not the real reason for his release. It was merely to get out of the Court case the next day. He knew perfectly well he should be there now, had the Government not known that they could not possibly keep him there. No Court would have supported the absurd decision of the Magistrate. Continuing, the hon. member detailed the conversation he heard while in gaol on the night of the removal of Morgan and others. He heard a warder tell Morgan that he was going to be transferred, and he (Mr. Creswell) understood that the transference would be to Pretoria. When he was released he found that his friends were in a state of excitement, because it had been stated in a newspaper report that four men had been removed from gaol and were going to be deported. They sent telegrams to Durban, East London, Port Elizabeth, and Cape Town, to friends asking them to seek the assistance of the Courts. They sent these telegrams, and he wished hon. members to take notice of this matter, because it might happen to them some day. The telegrams were handed in for dispatch, but were returned, stating that they would not be sent, and signed by the Censor. It seemed to him that there was something a little bit sickening in the laughter which one heard from the Ministerial benches. He thought there was behind it all a feeling that they had gone too far, a feeling that the country reprobated them and had found them out, and a feeling that the Minister of Finance now knew that the country had found him out. The Minister of Finance would perhaps tell them what the telegram that he sent to the Censor at Maritzburg contained. This sort of transaction could not be allowed on the part of any Government.

The Minister of Finance had said that he was not going to give a statement that afternoon. They did not want any statement from the Minister of Finance. What he (Mr. Creswell) had already detailed to the House had not been contradicted by any authority, had been confirmed by the Provincial Division of the Supreme Court of the Transvaal, and anyone who cared to read the newspapers could read the remarks of Mr. Justice Wessels in that Court. (Hear, hear.) He submitted, whether the Minister did or did not speak, nothing he had to say could touch the point he had raised, which was the flagrant violation of the right that every man possessed in this country. This was not a conspiracy on the part of the workers; it was a conspiracy between the Government and their friends, the capitalistic school of Johannesburg, to run the country in their own interests; it was a conspiracy to deprive the people of this country of the benefits of the work done in this country. It was a conspiracy to try and grind down the workingman of this country, simply for the benefit of themselves. When new lists of wages were issued at a lower rate than the previous ones they sometimes got that information, and they saw what the intention of those people was if that July strike had gone in favour of the mining magnates. What was the use of the right hon. gentleman’s conciliatie? When it was the poor Dutchman or the poor Englishman there was very little conciliatie. That was reserved for his own friends and for the benefit of the comfortable classes. Let him recall the remarks made by President Steyn in December last, when he said that it was no use to build monuments to the women and children who had fallen long ago if they were going to allow the women and children of this country to perish. What would be the Minister’s defence? What could be his defence? He would say—and they were quite prepared for it—that these men were dangerous, that they had other evidence against them to show that they were concerned in some desperate, illegal, and consummate conspiracy. He submitted to this House that if the Minister’s statement made out the strongest possible prima facie case against the men, then the Minister’s defence for his present action was all the weaker. If he had the strongest evidence, why was he afraid of the courts? Why not go before the courts and make these men suffer for their crimes? Hon. members would remember another matter which was debated in this House a few sessions ago, because it had a very pertinent bearing indeed upon the present position. They had heard of such things as informers in these cases, of agents provocateurs in these eases. They knew of the Whittaker case. When that case came before the court it was found that the Crown witness upon whom they relied was the inciter, that Whittaker was innocent, and that their own man, Sherman, was the man who was really guilty. If there was any evidence of that sort, they were the criminals who were sitting upon that bench.

They were afraid to stand the investigation of a trial before the court, and they spirited away these men in the dead of night in order to prevent any real open investigation into the matter. It seemed to him that the Ministers sitting there wished to trump up a charge against those whom they thought politically dangerous to them, and they were going to get them out of the way so that there should be no possibility of a trial where their participation in these things would be brought to light. They had refused these men justice. They carried them away in contempt of court, they obstructed their friends who were endeavouring to get the court to come to their rescue, and this Ministry, he said, was a Ministry which should be sent neck and crop out of any possibility of exercising any further influence. He claimed the support of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, in this motion and of those who followed him. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort gave a speech at Stellenbosch the other day in which he proclaimed himself an upholder of law and order at all costs. When was order ever threatened but by those men on the Treasury Benches?

Who broke the law?

Who broke the law? Who on the 4th July introduced violence into these matters? Who at the beginning of this dispute broke the law? Who brought the Peace Preservation Act into force and did not obey the law themselves? As to the Government supporters, I would like to ask them to realise that this may be some day brought against them. If I happen to be in the House when that is done, if I am not already deported myself—(laughter)—I promise them that I shall be just as strong in my denunciation of any Minister who dares to play fast and loose without sacred rights as I am in the present case. I do not care whether these men are my most bitter enemies. I would insist that they should have a free and fair trial, which is the undoubted right of everyone of His Majesty’s subjects. Proceeding, Mr. Creswell said he would appeal to the hon. member for Smithfield and his friends. The hon. member for Smithfield and his friends stood in that House to claim the rights of South Africans. Let him now support them (the Labour Party) in demanding that the rights of South Africans should be upheld. In this matter he did not care a button whether Mr. Poutsma was a Hollander or a German or whatever he was, and he did not care whether Mr. Bain was a Scotchman or an Australian. These men were South Africans domiciled in this country, and they had been unlawfully deported. He would also appeal to the right hon. gentleman for his support, because, although their ideas were to him anathema, his reverence for the traditions of the country and his love for Parliament were stronger even than his hatred of themselves. He did not think he would go so far back upon every tradition of his long public life as to wink; at or condone the action of the Government in deporting men who were politically or in any other way repugnant to themselves.

rose to second the amendment, and said it seemed that again the members on the cross-benches had to stand alone for the liberties of the citizens of South Africa. To-day the House was asked to allow the Government to introduce a Bill to make legal their illegal acts, and he thoroughly endorsed every word which had fallen from the hon. member for Jeppe. The origin of this matter went back to 1904, when an attempt was made in the Transvaal and Free State by the Railway Administration of those days to tamper with the existing rights and privileges of the railway employees. The committee which sat at Bloemfontein in that year had made certain recommendations, but the Administration had persistently flouted what the committee had suggested. There was a policy in the north of treating men as machines, and it was inevitable that an explosion should take place. Whether the men walked unwittingly into the trap set for them or were led into it, he would not say, but they came out on strike, and the Government resorted to military force to break up what was a peaceable demonstration. The hon. member related some of his own experiences in Germiston, where he was one of the first to have the honour of being taken before the police on some charge of which he was utterly ignorant, even before Martial Law was in existence. That was not to be compared with what took place in Germiston after the law had been put in force and the burghers had occupied the town. On the 15th of January, he believed, there was a demonstration of armed burghers and members of the Citizen Defence Force in the streets of Germiston. There was no meeting being held or attempted to be held, but these men charged up and down the street. They rode on to the sidewalk and hustled the citizens of Germiston for a matter of two or three hours. There were incidents which would disgrace any civilised or other country; there were outrages in Germiston; there was brutality and savagery and absolute want of anything approaching discipline on the part of these men, who had been put on a horse and given a rifle and a bayonet to molest and intimidate peaceable citizens in the towns on the Rand. The hon. member quoted instances of alleged misconduct which had occurred, to his own knowledge, in Germiston.

He heard—but he could not vouch for it—that a detective with a prisoner in charge was arrested, and that in the general confusion the prisoner escaped. Nothing was too petty, mean, or despicable for the burghers to do while they were at large. An office boy of Mr. Wade’s was standing in the doorway. He was wearing a red tie, and he was ordered by an armed man to take the tie off or be sent to prison. Then Mr. Spence, a foreman fitter at the Simmer and Jack Mine, who was leaving this country, informed him that he was walking along the streets of Germiston to go to his rooms when an Officer of the Defence Force held a pistol at his head and ordered him to stay where he was. But there were worse things than that—he was giving to the House only what he could vouch for. They had heard of men pointing pistols at strikers and saying to them, “Come out and fight, you cowards.” The whole object of this demonstration, which was not the outbreak of a few lawless men—it was an organised affair, and organised with one view only— to break up the passive resistance which was so objectionable to the Government. It objected to the orderliness of the strikers. Only two men lost their lives—one was a member of the Defence Force who was shot by one of his comrades, and the other was a Burgher who lay down across the railway line and a trolley went over him. Did the House realise the tremendous restraint the men on the Rand exercised in not retaliating? Mr. Brown, the organiser of the Transvaal Miners’ Association, told him that he saw men sjambokked in the streets of Boksburg—men who had committed no offence. From 150 to 200 of these men were driven into gaol although they had committed no offence.

He wished to draw attention not only to the reckless disregard of the rights of citizens, but to show that this exhibition of force was not in the interest of law and order, but it was an attempt—successful as it turned out—to break the strike. The whole machinery of the country was set in motion in order to smash up the men’s organisation and to prevent the strike being successful. One of the first acts of the Railway Administration at Germiston was to turn the single men out of their rooms— the next was to threaten the married men with ejection. Armed pickets were placed round the railway camp to prevent the railway men entering their own houses unless they were prepared to get a permit. Every attempt was made to intimidate and to throw into the clutches of the authorities these men who said they would not work under conditions the employers sought to impose on them. Certain men of Roodepoort lived in some rooms on the Main Reef-road, the boarding-house at which they obtained their meals being located some considerable distance away. They applied for permits to go to the boarding-house and get their meals. The applications were made to a police sergeant, who said they would either have to work or starve, and he refused the permits. Worse things than this, they were told, happened at Bloemfontein, where they understood that tradesmen were forbidden to supply strikers with food under certain conditions. It was laid down in the Martial Law regulations, that “no person shall render assistance to any striker, directly or indirectly, with funds or with goods in any way, provided that this prohibition shall not apply to ordinary commercial transactions.” He took it that that would prevent anyone charitably disposed who might wish to give strikers’ wives and children food, from doing so. Notwithstanding all the attempts made by the authorities to incite the people to do something to justify the enormous display of armed force, the people remained faithful to the advice of their leaders to maintain a passive resistance attitude. They were warned before the strike started what the Government was likely to try on. He remembered one instance in the Strike Committee room at Germiston; he was sitting at the table, and a parcel was thrown in by a railway employee, who said he had done with it. Four war medals were found in the parcel belonging to that man, medals which had been won in South Africa, Egypt, and the Soudan; his record would show to an unbiased mind that he was a man of some courage. There were many of such cases. Let members on the Government side of the House remember that there were many Dutchmen among the strikers; were those men to be called cowards because they did not retaliate? A great many of them had seen service in the late war; he would fling back the charges into the teeth of those who had made them; it was not a matter of cowardice, it was a matter of policy. The ordinary calling of a miner was not followed by a man who was a coward, and many branches of the railway service required courage as well as skill. How often had they seen miners risking their own lives in the endeavour to rescue others; those men were not the cowards some would make them out to be. He did not think that the passive resistance was due to cowardice; they were told it was the method of the Government, who cowed the people into submission, and that the effect was to prevent violence; but it was calculated to have the effect of provoking violence, and not to prevent it.

He had not yet spoken, so far, of the latest move of the Government in deporting these men to what to some of them was a foreign country; they did know the ultimate destination, for instance, of Waterston. So far as they could gather, he was going to England; but he was an Australian. He did not know whether the Ministers remembered the fact that Bain was a burgher of the old Republic, and that he suffered imprisonment during the late war. He came over here on an errand of mercy, and was a member of the Medical Corps during the war. Did hon. members remember, too, that Waterston went to England as a representative of the Colonial troops? He was a hero then, because he had been fighting in the interests of the capitalists; but he was a criminal to-day, because he had been fighting equally hard and unselfishly in the interests of the working classes. What was the position of Mr. Waterston’s wife? Were hon. members aware of the fact that she was an Afrikander born? Supposing that Waterston, who was an Australian, eventually landed in Australia: she was faced with two alternatives, either to be exiled or to be permanently separated from her husband. What sort of wickedness was that? To the best of his knowledge, he believed that Mrs. Waterston was Dutch, born in this country. He had reason also to believe that Morgan’s wife was an Afrikander, and others might be similarly situated. It had been said that all those things were justified, but the Government would regret all that had taken place; they would weep crocodile tears, and he could imagine the Minister of Defence, who was an adept in the art, getting up and saying how sorry he was. The only justification for the plea of reasons of State was success. Ministers may flatter themselves and their supporters may believe that the move was successful— that was where he submitted they had made a very great mistake. (Labour cheers.) They made a great blunder, and as time went on they would understand that, notwithstanding that they had succeeded in their purpose, they had absolutely failed to crush the spirit out of the people of South Africa; they would learn that, as time went on, and then perhaps the laugh would be on the other side.

He would ask them whether, from an historical point of view, it was a good thing; was it a good thing for Spain that they had the Inquisition? Had it been beneficial to that nation to burn and exterminate vermin, for that is what hon. Ministers look upon them, they looked upon the men they have deported as heretics or worse. It failed in Spain. He would remind those on the Government side of the House that their Dutch ancestors were against tyranny. Why did the first Huguenots come to South Africa; was it not because they could live under laws that they believed to be just? England had benefited enormously by the influx of undesirable immigrants hundreds of years ago, men driven from other countries, men of intellect and independent views, many of whom were Capable of teaching the English people something. Those people were welcome, they were the kind of men who had at any rate helped England to be the country that she was at the present time. He would put it to the statesmen, if there are any left in the Government, if it was in the true interests of South Africa, they could dispense with the citizens who are now leaving the Rand in their hundreds, they were mostly going to Australia; he could imagine some of them saying “good riddance,” but there was amongst them some of the very best men in South Africa, who were leaving the country to-day as rats do a sinking ship. Why was that? It was because their liberty was being taken from them, some of them were even going back to antiquated old England, where they would have more freedom than in this young country. South. Africa could not afford to lose these men. (Laughter from Government benches.) The hon. member for Vrededorp would not be missed if he were absent ten years; he, like several others of his kidney, was doing no useful work for this country; it was for the benefit of South Africa that they should keep men of independent thought in this country. They should be treated as human beings, and their criticisms of the Government would be found in the long run to be for the benefit of the country, the House had no right to give a Bill of Indemnity to the Ministry for what they had done in the past, rather they should be brought to book for the harm they had done and would continue to do if they were allowed to reign for any length of time.

said he did not think it was necessary to explain that the actions of the hon. members on that side of the House were not exactly what the hon. member who had just spoken had tried to make out. What had happened they did not regard with that spirit of levity that the hon. member could like to attribute to them and which seemed to be adopted by some hon. members on the Government benches. They did not look upon it as a trivial matter that people should be sent out of the country without charge or trial, or that such things should be lightly condoned, but the Government had rightly brought forward a Bill of Indemnity and asked the House to indemnify them for what they had done, and although they had not seen fit to introduce that Bill with some statement of the reasons, they had told the House that it could expect, at the second meeting of the Bill, a full statement to be placed before the House of the reasons that actuated the Government for doing what they did. It was quite inappropriate at the present time, as they were asked to do by the amendment, to pass a vote of censure on the Government for what was admittedly an illegal act, before the House had heard from them what were their reasons.

Make them answer for that, if they do not, judge by default.

said the House was no hasty tribunal set up by Martial Law. Its decision ought to be given with cool deliberation after hearing and discussing to the fullest extent all the reasons that had moved the Government. He thought it was their duty, as members of that House, without expecting or being thought to expect or entertain any condonation of what had been done, even if it had been done under extreme necessity, to hear the Government and listen to their case before they passed any vote of censure.

What is to prevent them from giving their case now ?

continuing, said he did not know what was to prevent the Government from giving their case now, but he was not prepared to say that a delay from now to Wednesday was going to prejudice the case. For that reason he was not prepared to vote for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Jeppe.

said that this was about the most painful moment he had ever experienced in that House. The remarks passed by the last speaker had certainly not tended to remove that feeling. A great many hon. members did not appear to be taking this matter seriously at all. (Hear, hear.) He had no doubt that some of the Ministers were taking it seriously. To his mind it was a most serious time, more serious in many respects than 13 or 14 years ago, when men belonging to different sides of the House were at each other’s throats. This was not a case of two or 200 strong men met face to face. It was a question that went to the very depth of the foundation upon which they were trying to build. In more senses than one they had come to their Waterloo, and he was quite satisfied, whatever others might say—and he did not think that members of that House could say he was afraid to defend either his opinions or his principles—that they had never yet discussed a question or faced a problem so serious as this. The seriousness was expanding. It might be to some extent localised now, but every day that went by the seriousness would expand and expand until they might be in a worse condition than if they were spreading human blood over the surface of the Union. If they had any care for the well-being of this nation, they would go right down to the root causes, whatever it might cost. He was pained, for many reasons. He was glad the Prime Minister was there in his place. He could only say that he felt compelled to tear himself from him in a very keen and a very real manner. He had looked up to the right hon. gentleman as the representative of Government, with all that it meant. He had been to him more than a Prime Minister; he had been to him more than a man in a position of honour. He had looked upon him as a man who desired to do right all the time. He had looked upon him as a man who had a conscience and a belief that his conscience was the voice of God. He looked upon him now as having been forced or hypnotised, to trample his conscience and his honour and his loyalty in the mire, and it had been trampled so deep that no amount of repentance and no amount of effort could ever bring that conscience back to the surface or make it clean again. In being asked to allow such a Bill to be introduced, they had been asked to repudiate all that was dear to British traditions. Racialism meant nothing to him but everying that was hateful and degrading and unholy, but where racialism could have no existence race consciousness and race pride were deep. They had to go back 800 years to the struggles of those men who laid the foundations of which they were so proud. They had been taught by the bitterest experience, their fathers, their brothers, and their sisters, that where they had gained one single reform it had been absolutely wrenched from those Governments that were dominated by capitalism. Hopes had been raised and aspirations had been kindled, but now hundreds and thousands had lost their confidence and their hope and they were dying in despair. He wanted to congratulate the Government on coming out into the open and showing their hand. They knew now that the Government would do the same thing to some of those who sat on those benches, if they had only the chance and the power—how they would sweep them out of the country and write up in letters more vivid than those Dante saw: “Let those abandon hope who enter here.” The best of our citizens were leaving the country and going to where a man might be a man and say the thing he would. He was sorry not so much for the working classes who were suffering; he was more sorry for the men who sat on the Treasury benches. They were staggering on the edge of the precipice; over they would go, like Aaron of old their chances would be taken away, and their future would be a dark vacuum. (Laughter.) England had gained by the immigration of what some nations might call undesirables; South Africa had gained much by the coming in of such people. He had met many Jewish people who were afraid that the Minister of Defence, with that quintessence of all that was despicable, would use his spies and traitors, bring some charge against people who had been unfortunate, and have them torn away from their dear ones and sent away over the sea. (Labour cheers.) It was a disgrace to men who had such a great opportunity as had never yet been given to men in any part of the British Dominions. (Labour cheers.) They had dragged that opportunity in the mire. They had spat in the face of the future, and they cared not what might happen so long as they wielded the sword. Let him remind the House of the old saying about those who used the sword should perish by the sword. (Labour cheers.) What did the present Minister of Defence say at Krugersdorp a few years ago, when he claimed to have settled the strike? How was it that we had these recurrences of strife from year to year? The strike was not settled. He warned the House that before long not only would this country see something equal, but we should have something unparalleled in the history of the civilised world, unless the House was prepared, in this session, to go to the root of the matter and deal with the causes of this unrest. (Labour cheers.) Had the Government with its forcible measures defeated the movement? They had sent men out of the country, but was there ever anything so absurd as to charge these few men, in one little spot, with being the force underneath this world-wide, irresistible, and growing movement? It was absolutely absurd. No cause was ever smitten to the earth because its leaders were smitten down. Once again the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the church. The Prime Minister, he went on to say, was now the white-haired boy of the “Cape Times.”

Only a few days before the hon. member for Smithfield was thrown out of the sleigh, to the hungry wolves of capitalism—(laughter)—the “Cape Times ” charged the Prime Minister with telling his people that they must have a slippery policy. To-day they had him on the box, and they had put the reins into his hands; but if he dared to turn aside for one moment, they would pitch him into the mire. These were they who in their Press flooded him with falsehoods, and made him believe that which was not true. And he was not the only one. But he was hopelessly lost. He had lost the confidence of the country and all possibility of ever regaining it. But he had the confidence of those who created the E.R.P.M. scandal— of those men who ground down the poor, not only the miners—of those men who engineered the Raid. (Labour cheers.) That confidence would drag him down to the darkest and most putrid of pits it was possible for any man to know, but the loyality of the toilers and of the women who wept and the children who starved was gone To-day he stood with one foot in his political grave, and the other on a piece of orange-peel. (Laughter.) As to the unhappy men who had been deported, we had no Magna Charta and no Habeas Corpus here. There was only one case in modern times when anything equally infamous had occurred, and that was in the United States, when two men—Haywood and Moir—were kidnapped, and even the U.S.A. rang with indignation. The Prime Minister had praised the police, and he (Mr. Haggar) had no doubt they did their duty. He had no word to say against either the police or the soldiers, but he could not help wondering whether the Prime Minister was sincere. Did he mean to recommend his policy as the ideal policy in the general rising which was coming to this country, and was coming soon? There was no question about that. All the speeches of agitators could never do so much to consolidate the workers as had the bringing out of the batons of the police and the bayonets of the troops. The question would only be settled by right, and not by the sword. The revolution was coming, and he wondered if the Prime Minister would sanction his policy in a general revolution. when the weapons would be on the other side.

The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Madeley) and he had been blamed for the way they had acted in Cape Town during the strike, but if they said the word—and they had sufficient influence—scores and scores of young men and boys would have flung their rifles away. (Ministerial laughter.) In the train and on the stations, these youths said to them: “What shall we do? Do you think we are going to shoot our fathers and brothers? ” (Labour cheers.) The reply he and his hon. friend gave was: “Do your duty, and be quiet! ” In the general rising which was coming, the weapons would be on the other side, and then they would not point an empty gun. The Prime Minister dare not go to Johannesburg unprotected, and he dare not come straight to this city; but he had to change trains and go across country. Was that possessing the love and affection of the country? On page 3,362 of Hansard was the warning which the hon. member for Georgetown (Mr. Andrews) gave the country last year. That warning was unheeded. He (Mr. Haggar) would give another warning now to the Prime Minister, who had gone about the country actually threatening them. Was it not an insult to the House to ask it to take a leap in the dark, when it did not know whether the Minister had a title of evidence? The House was asked to allow a Star Chamber to be revived. Who broke the law? The Commission which inquired into the disturbances on the Rand last July said the Government was seriously to blame because it flouted the whole thing at the New Kleinfontein. He wished we had an impartial Government. Proceeding, Mr. Haggar said with regard to George Mason, the phrases attributed to him were such as he (the speaker) could not use, but they only heard part of them he would ask the Prime Minister, did that George Mason solemnly keep the compact made in Johannesburg. Apart from his language, had he not proved himself a clean-minded man? (Labour cheers.) Would they had dozens more as genuine as George Mason, keenly as he resented his language. He did not want to see the Government thrown out with the disgrace of the whole world upon them, but to become converted and pass through a moral revolution.

said although it was unusual for anyone to object when leave was asked to introduce the Bill, there had been several instances in that Parliament of leave to introduce a Bill being debated. There was an instance last session when an explanation was demanded from the Minister of Defence before leave could be given to introduce the Part Appropriation Bill into the House. They, therefore, had a precedent in the matter. They had now a different matter before them. They had the Government in the position of self-accused malefactors coming before the House and begging mercy that the illegalities which they have committed might be condoned. He thought the House would have been justified in refusing to grant leave to introduce such a measure as that into the House until the Minister of Defence had put the whole of his cards on the table. He would remind the hon. Minister that the general public of South Africa got their information through the newspapers of the day, and for the last three weeks they had only got such news us the Government themselves through their Press Censor had seen fit to allow to be published in the various parts of the country. The people in Cape Town had been in the dark as to what had happened. It was only during the last few days since people had come down from the Rand that they had learned all about the wholesale arrests by Burgher forces in Germiston. They had heard nothing down here as to the reasons that led the Government to believe there was danger of a rebellion in Natal or the Orange Free State. They knew there was some trouble in the Transvaal, and he had reason to know what a general strike there might mean. He was there when the bullets were flying in July last, and he had seen and heard what had led up to it. It was the ineptitude of the Government to deal with the situation when it arose.

There had been an armed insurrection then, but where was the armed insurrection this time? There might have been threatened insurrection in the Transvaal, but the peaceful people of Natal never threatened insurrection, nor did the people of the Free State, and still they had Martial Law. And now the Minister asked leave to introduce a Bill that only came into their hands a few hours ago. The House might do it by force or because the House considered that the Government should be treated with a certain amount of magnanimity which they themselves failed to show to those whose only crime was loyalty to their fellow-workers. They had two matters, there was the main motion and the amendment moved by the hon. member for Jeppe. They had before them the greatest crime of all, the crime of interfering with liberty and of persons being prevented from bringing matters before the ordinary courts of justice. To spirit men away in the middle of the night was opposed to all British traditions, which they could hardly expect the Minister of Defence to have. They were asked to condone that also. But he would warn the Minister of Defence that they wanted his fullest explanation and candour in bringing his claim for mercy before them. (An Hon. Member: You do not get candour from him.) Proceeding, the hon. member said they would expect it this time. They would want to know from him why Martial Law had been put in force in the Province of Natal and the Orange Free State, as well as in the Transvaal; they would want to know how it was that natives were shot by burgher forces under Martial Law in the Transvaal; why Parliament had been insulted; why a miserable trumped up charge against a member of this House had been kept in abeyance until the doors of Parliament had almost opened? They would want to know, before they could pass Bills of that sort, what the Government proposed to do in the future. Were they going to the root of the matter and institute proper legislation dealing with their social system ? They would want to know whether they would continue the policy of giving more to him who hath and stopping him who hath not from ever obtaining anything.

Would the Government throw the doors of South Africa open and establish a large white population in the country, where a few agitators would be swallowed up by numbers? It was only so long as they starved the country of white population that the agitators would have any effect upon it. They wanted a definite promise from the Government that they would refrain from inciting the people to violence. (Labour cheers.) It was not only in the Transvaal, they had seen that in Natal since July last and before the troubles in January, and unless the people were violent the Minister did not know what to do. He feared passive resistance. Passivity he did not know how to fight against, but against violence he did. Then they would want to know if there was any connection between the movement and the approaching general election, so as to get the workers off the roll; and the removal of the man who was nursing the Minister’s own seat in Pretoria, the man who would have beaten him. They wanted replies to these things; the people were not going to be misled. If the Minister was not frank, he took it that Parliament was under the supreme necessity of substituting for the nine orders for deportation nine orders for halters for other people. (Laughter.) A man said to him the other day that this was a daring action on the part of the Government. His reply to that was that it would be a daring action if he (Mr. Meyler) came and broke into his safe, and it would be far more moral. (Hear, hear.)

He would say one word to the mover of the amendment. He had been speaking against the deportation of men without any trial, and the condemnation of men absolutely contrary to any British justice before they had a chance of defending themselves. Now his hon. friend (Mr. Creswell) was in rather the same position. The Minister had told them that he would not put the full information before the House that day, and yet the hon. member (Mr. Creswell) was asking them to condemn the Government unheard, and he would suggest to him that he was going into the gutter for the same weapon as the Government had employed.

There they are; they can speak.

said they could not speak. He thought the hon. member who had moved this amendment had adopted a mistaken attitude. Let him be magnanimous and wait till Wednesday. He was not going to support this amendment. (“Oh.”) He would not go for his weapons to the same place as the Ministers went for their weapons and, although he would not vote against such a motion, nothing would induce him, even though he had not heard the evidence to vote against an amendment of this sort, but he would wait till Wednesday, and hear what the Government had got to say, and then he hoped they would be able to treat them according to their merits.

said the hon. member had just told the House that he required information before he came to any decision on the point, and then proceeded to say that it was his intention to wait till Wednesday, because the Minister desired him to do so. Now what more information did any decent-minded individual require than the fact that the Ministers had broken the law? The object of the amendment of his hon. friend was to prevent the legalisation of that very illegal act of the Government, the deportation of these men. The object was not to throw out the Indemnity Bill. They were prepared to deal with the Indemnity Bill at the second reading stage. The real object was to prevent this House from committing a greater crime by reason of the fact that it was condoning a crime on the part of the Government. Supposing the hon. member were a bit hazy, was it not a fact that there were eight Ministers sitting on those benches who were able to supply the information to the hon. member? If they were not able to do so, then the whole of the knowledge as to the inception and carrying out of this heinous crime rested upon either one or both of those two gentlemen who were sitting on those benches and trying to look so unconcerned. He did not believe that the House realised what had been done, or they would not have seen so many empty benches that afternoon. Then as to the great supporters of law and order, constitutional authority, “don’t proceed to strike,” the hon. members on the Opposition side, where were they? With the possible exception of two little feeble quacks from the Unionist decoy ducks, the Young Unionist Party, they had had nothing at all from that side of the House. Here the Government had deliberately and with full intent broken the constitution and outraged every feeling of liberty that any liberty-loving person possessed, and yet hon. members on that side were absolutely silent. His mind went back to certain other happenings in this country for which the authors deserved deportation, if anybody ever did deserve it, but so far from their being deported they had had them honoured individuals in this country and actually sitting in that Union House, making the laws, under which the people who had the real interests of this country at heart, had to live, and he might say, suffer. Did the House realise the conditions under which these men were spirited away? Did they know that most of them were married men? Did they realise that at the very moment these men had been placed on the ship for deportation an application had been made for a rule and the justices were contemplating their action in that particular matter. Two of Mr. Poutsma’s daughters were actually in court listening to the case that was going on. The wives and children of the men who had been deported had received no consideration at all, and several of them were in very great straits already. He would like to refer to the conditions obtaining before the strike, which, in his opinion and in the opinion of the majority of members on those benches, at all events, actually led up to the strike. The fundamental reason underlying the whole of the unrest was the contemptuous indifference on the part of the Government and its allies the magnates of the Rand and, might he also say, Kimberley?

That is not true.

One is touched evidently. Proceeding, he said that this contemptuous indifference was never so well exemplified as it was by the attitude of the Minister of Railways when the representatives of the Railwaymen were endeavouring to get an interview with him. In the first place, he could not be found. He had got lost en route. Then the men wired the Governor-General, but, naturally, he could give them no answer at all. He had to refer them to the only Minister in Pretoria, and he might say that the experience was that he seemed to be the only Minister in South Africa, because he ran the show. He informed them that they might wait until the Railway Minister came up. It was this sort of thing, this indifference to the welfare of the men, the deliberate ignoring of their representatives, that was really at the bottom of the unrest. That deliberate ignoring of the representatives of the railwaymen was engineered by the Government, together with their allies, having met in solemn conclave with that object in view. The Minister of Mines shook his head. He had a distinct recollection of the Minister of Mines going to Benoni during the July trouble, and he formed an impression and a very shrewd opinion of what was underlying the attitude of the Minister of Mines on that occasion. So far from taking up an impartial attitude, it was increasingly evident to those who came into close contact with him that his whole and sole abject was to side with the mining magnates. He was present at three interviews with the Minister, to whom most reasonable requests were made by the men. The Minister was not laughing then; he was in a state of unholy funk on that occasion. (Laughter.) Those men were met by a brickwall of refusal by the Minister and his friends, the mining magnates. If ever an inducement was offered to the workers to employ force it was offered on that occasion, because the workers were actually told that the only way to get anything at all was to force it out of their employers and out of the Government. It said a great deal for the strength of the workers on that occasion that they did not actually rebel. (Labour cheers.) He was not going to traverse the whole industrial trouble at this particular stage, but it was, he urged, the solemn duty of this House to prevent the deportation of these men. What crime had they committed?

That is what we want to know.

Why don’t you get up and ask? Processing, the hon. member said the Minister had said he hoped to carry his Bill through all its stages on the one day, by the aid of his docile majority.

They cannot.

said the hon. member knew perfectly well the Minister had only to get up to take away their liberties, as he had already done. He called upon the House to support the amendment, with a view to proving to the world that they were not so uncivilised as they were supposed to be. The Government had committed a crime such as had never been committed before in this or any other country, and if this House condoned an offence like that it might just as well shut up shop.

There was no need for Parliament if the Executive might do as they thought fit. It was only necessary for them to do as they had recently done—engineer a little bit of trouble, declare Martial Law, and “deport the whole lot of you and get a Bill to indemnify what is passed by an attenuated House.” (Laughter.) On, it might be the turn of hon. members next. (Renewed laughter.) The only crime these men who were deported had committed, was the crime of having an opposite political view to the Government, and being sincere in that political view. He appealed specially to the hon. members for Smithfield (General Hertzog) and Victoria West (Mr. J. X. Merriman), because the Government had only to get up a bit of trouble in their ranks, raise an agitation, declare Martial Law, and deport the whole lot, and then they would have a little family party left. (Laughter and “Nonsense.”) He called on the House to accept the amendment, in order to see that justice was done. (“ Move the adjournment.”) If the Government would accept such a motion he would move that the debate be adjourned.

seconded the motion

said he objected.

said that by agreeing to the motion every difficulty raised on both sides would be met. By Wednesday the ’Minister would be able to make his statement, and the House would be in its right position in refusing to take one step in this matter of the Indemnity Bill until it had had that statement from the Government. They had had opportunities during the whole afternoon. The Ministry did not consist of one man. There were eight of them, but apparently there was only one of this dumb Ministry who could deal with the subject, and he promised to make a statement on Wednesday.

The motion for the adjournment was put and negatived.

called for a division.

declared the motion negatived, and said that the names of the minority would be recorded.

said that the deported men had a right to be heard before a court of law in this country, and it was an important point that they were on the high seas, and when the Minister was going to make an ex parte statement which would be absolutely worthless, the Minister had no right to deport the men. He (Mr. Sampson) could tell the House a good deal about the history of the past six months, but he did not wish to go over that this evening. But how did the Minister expect the country to take his ex parte statement on the second reading of the Bill, when a portion of the Union was under Martial Law, the Press was censored, private letters were opened, and people were not allowed to know what was going on in different parts of the country? Certainly in matters like this there should be free speech. He had seen men with bloody heads, which had been cut open with pickaxe handles of the puppets of the Ministers. These people should be allowed to tell the circumstances under which these blows were struck. There was no necessity for all this urgency, although when people had done wrong, they liked to have their unlawful acts condoned as early as possible. In the case of an ordinary Bill, its principle was explained at the second reading; but by taking the first reading of the Indemnity Bill to-day, members were asked to set their seal on its principle. Hon. members should be very careful of what they did. Government were not trying to practise what was right, although it knew what was right.

Mr. Creswell’s amendment was put, and declared negatived.

called for a division.

As fewer than ten members (viz., Messrs. Andrew s, Boydell, Creswell, Haggar, Madeley, and H. W. Sampson) voted in favour of the amendment,

declared the amendment negatived.

The motion that leave be given to introduce the Bill was declared carried.

called for a division, and while the division bell was ringing, he cried out two or three times, “Vote British.”

As fewer than ten members (viz., Messrs. Andrews, Boydell, Creswell, Haggar, Madeley, and H. W. Sampson) voted against the motion

declared the motion agreed to.

Leave was accordingly given for the introduction of the Bill.

The Bill was read a first time.

moved that the second reading be set down for Wednesday next.

asked if by that time the Bill could have been circulated all over the Union? With Martial Law in the Transvaal, it was a difficult matter to get to know things.

said it was useless to expect any help from the Opposition; they were assisting the Government in getting the Bill through. He would suggest that there was no hurry in the matter; were they afraid of new facts coming down from up-country? They were trying to hustle the Bill through, but it should be first understood in the constituencies, so that pressure could be exercised on hon. members from the Witwatersrand.

The motion for the second reading to be taken on Wednesday was agreed to, and