Hon. members will admit that we were placed, as a Government, in an unprecedented situation. The Government, as the executive authority of the country had, in the absence of Parliament, to incur very grave responsibilities. Not only had it to call out that enormous military force, but it had to suspend the ordinary law of the country in a large measure, and to declare Martial Law; and after operations of a very unusual character in times of peace, had to close the matter by deporting the leaders of the revolutionary band which had started and had directed the whole of that disastrous movement in South Africa. (Cheers.) We have at the earliest opportunity come to the House for ratification, for sanction of what we have done. Of course, we knew all along that in the last resort it would be for the people of this country and their representatives in this House to pass judgment on what had happened, and we quite confidently submit our whole case to the decision of Parliament. In doing so, I am afraid I shall have to traverse over a large ground, and I hope I shall not weary hon. members unduly. (“No.”) The incidents which have happened quite recently, which happened in January, do not stand by themselves, but are the culminating point in a great movement which has been going forward ever since Parliament was prorogued last year, and I therefore propose, without going into too much detail, to take hon. members back over the ground which has been covered since, to point out to them the salient features of the events that have transpired since Parliament was prorogued, and to point out how all these various incidents that happened fit into the great plan, which culminated in the incidents of last month. Whilst I shall have to cover a large area, I do not want to introduce any irrelevant matter, and certainly there are many questions of far-reaching importance which came to the front during that period with which I shall not deal at all. Questions of industrial grievances or industrial disputes have, I think nothing to do with the matter which is before the House.

We have to deal with methods. We have to deal with the methods by which a large portion of the working population of the Union tried to seek redress for grievances which they had, and which may have been legitimate, or may not have been; but the legitimacy or illegitimacy of those grievances is not germane to the present discussion. I will take hon. members back to the events of last June. Whilst Parliament was still sitting last year, on May 26, a strike took place on the New Kleinfontein Mine, near Benoni. From that strike as apparently their proximate cause, have flowed all these evils which have overwhelmed South Africa since then. On the 26th May that strike occurred. I shall not go into the question of the rights or wrongs involved in that dispute. A Judicial Commission has gone into the matter, and hon. members have their report on the merits before them, and, as I say, these industrial disputes are not really germane to our present discussion. The Commission, I notice, in its report, has laid a certain amount of blame on the Government for not having been sufficiently early on the spot—(hear, hear)—to deal with the situation which arose there. (Hear, hear.) Well, sir, that may be so or it may not, but I am not going into that matter now, but this I know, that as soon as Parliament was prorogued I left for the Transvaal. My hon. friend the Minister of Mines was occupied here by important business, which did not allow him to go up at once. Parliament was prorogued on the Monday, and on the Tuesday I went to the Transvaal. On the following Thursday, on my arrival in the Transvaal I immediately met a deputation, with whom I discussed the difficulties that had arisen. (Hear, hear.) The Friday I spent with the departmental officials there in getting au fait with what had occurred during the previous few weeks since the dispute had arisen. The following day, Saturday, I met a deputation from Benoni consisting of, I believe, mostly representatives of the Chamber of Commerce at Benoni, who laid before me the extreme gravity of the position from the point of view of the commercial people of that township. They also pointed out to me that they thought it might still, although it was past the eleventh hour, serve a useful purpose if I immediately went to the spot and consulted with the strikers to see whether a way out of the difficulty could not be found. That was on Saturday morning, and I immediately arranged for an interview, and on the next day, Sunday—I hope I shall be forgiven for having spent Sunday on a mission of peace—(hear, hear) —the next day I spent in interviews with the mining people on the one hand and representatives of the strikers on the other. The whole day was spent in a most honest and searching attempt on my part to get these people together and, if possible, eliminate the difficulty that had occurred. The whole of the morning I spent with the representatives of the mine owners, the employers, not only of Kleinfontein, but of the neighbouring mines and other areas on the Rand, and in the afternoon I met representatives from the miners who had gone on strike, not only at the New Kleinfontein but at the Van Ryn, the Modder and other mines in the immediate neighbourhood, that had either gone on strike or were on the point of striking. It became to me perfectly clear that it was impossible to get these two parties to take the same view of the question or by amicable means to settle that strike. That was on Sunday, the 22nd. I convinced myself as clearly as I could that day that no effort at peace or amicable arrangement would succeed. There followed a week during which matters rapidly developed, and the methods that were employed by the strikers and the results are reflected in this Report which hon. members have before them, the Report of the Judicial Commission on the Witwatersrand disturbances, from which I shall quote to-day, and which I think cannot sufficiently deserve the close attention of hon. members of this House if they wish to understand clearly the inwardness of the events to which I am referring. (Hear, hear.) Hon. members will see extended findings made by this Commission in reference to the methods that were adopted. In the first place, from the very start the strike assumed the appearance, not of an ordinary strike, in which, of course, a certain amount of illegality and disturbance is to be expected, but from the very start this strike assumed forms of violence to which we in this country are entirely unaccustomed. (Ministerial cheers.) The most violent methods were resorted to and the most violent speeches were made, speeches such as I think we probably have never listened to before in this country. Hon. members will see on page 18 of this report some of the statements quoted which were made in order to incite the workers to strike and make this strike spread further.

The Commission on page 18 of its report states:

Then follow some extracts which, I think, hon. members will pay special attention to. Here is an extract from Mr. Crawford’s address on the Market-square, Benoni, on Monday, 26th May, 1913:

Mr. Crawford is one of those whose names appear on the schedule to this Bill. (Hear, hear.)I hope the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell), who has been very eloquent in this House on the liberty of the subject and other constitutional matters, will listen to these words. (Cheers.) Well, sir, that is the sort of advice which was given by Mr. Crawford to these people on the very day of the strike at Kleinfontein. And in other parts of the Witwatersrand; and all over the Reef they were making similar speeches to stir up feeling and create a strike. (Laughter.) Having read extracts from one of Mr. Mason’s speeches and one of Mr. Brown’s speeches, the Minister of Defence said: Well, I could go on quoting, and I am afraid that in the course of this afternoon—in traversing the history of the past six months—I will have to quote a good deal, but I quote to show hon. members that this was no ordinary strike, but that from the very start methods of violence were adopted, and the true methods of syndicalism were introduced into this dispute at Kleinfontein. These speeches were made to white miners; but they did not stop there, and, as the judges point out, from the very start these people attempted to tamper with natives. (Cries of “Shame.”) They incited the natives, and threatened the natives that if they went underground the strikers would do them some injury or other, and they induced the natives to come out on strike ultimately, on the plea that they wanted higher wages. This afternoon I shall have to show the House the extreme importance of this aspect of the question, and I want to read an extract from the evidence given before the Commission on this point.

Continuing, the Minister of Defence quoted from the evidence of Mr. Taberer, who (he said), as members of the Transvaal know, was one of the most experienced officers on the Native Labour Bureau of Johannesburg, and now controls the native compounds of a large Recruiting Corporation on the Rand. From his position and experience, Mr. Taberer had a great influence with natives, and when the strike of natives on these mines took place, he was sent to cope with it, and in his evidence before the commission he says:

They (the natives) applauded this lustily, but some glimmering of sense was still left in the white auditors of Mr. Waterston, and it was they who did not quite approve of the doctrines of the minimum wage and the eight hours day for the natives. When they came back to work they made the natives believe that they had got higher wages, and the natives struck because they thought they were entitled to their share also. (Laughter.)

The gravity of this as bearing on what happened later I shall refer to at a later stage. I quote this as being one of the methods that were used by the militant leaders, at the start, in order to produce a general debacle if possible on the Rand. Their next method was “pulling out,” which proved such a striking success in the early period of the strike. There is a paragraph on page 19 referring to this.

This method of pulling out was adopted universally in those days. Although the miners might be perfectly willing to work they were at once pounced upon by these truculent leaders, who called those that went on with their work “scabs ” and who marshalled the sheep on one side and the goats on the other. Wherever this happened the men came Out, notwithstanding that they had decided by ballot to remain at work. This method of nulling out proved to be one of the most successful methods resorted to by the strike leaders. They surrounded themselves with so much fear and exercised so much intimidation that these poor, ignorant people who were working on the mines, although they voted against the strike, followed the strike leaders when the latter visited the mine. The result of this is shown on page 19 of the Report of the Commission.

A complete state of terrorism prevailed. (Cheers.) This is the constitutional method. (Cheers.) The “Strike Herald” of June 28 stated:

Here you see quite early in this movement Syndicalism in its true colours, worked up by violent methods; everybody intimidated, and honest, quiet citizens being afraid to give evidence. This is what Syndicalism led to in the very earliest stage of this business. That was the state of affairs prior to June 29.

After the meeting of June 29, the strike spread like wild-fire all over the Rand. A great deal of blame has been attached to the Government in connection with that meeting. (Labour cheers.) The hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell) on Monday made his charges against the Government. One charge was that the workers were quiet and law abiding, but that it was the Government which had incited them to violence, and was the cause of all this trouble. His other charge was that this state of affairs which we saw later on on the Rand, was due very largely to the suppression of free speech by the Government on the following Friday, July 4. Here, on the 29th June, we had to deal with a case in which the freedom of speech was not interfered with by the Government. (Cheers.) The Strike Committee, of which Mr. Bain was secretary, advertised this great meeting which was to be held in defiance of the law on the Market-square at Benoni. In consequence of the state of affairs I have just referred to, the Magistrate in that area (Mr. Thompson) after he had consulted the late Mr. Sauer, decided to put in force the law of 1894, which gives the Government the power in times of disturbance to lay down that no meeting of more than six persons shall be held, unless special permission is obtained from the authorities. The police were very strongly of opinion that the Magistrate had acted correctly, and that in this case it would be most inadvisable from information which they had to allow this meeting to be held. The police feared the consequences that would result.

The Commissioner of Police was convinced that the meeting was to be held for one purpose only—to get together a vast concourse of people—not to assert the rights of the workers, but for the object of attacking the Kleinfontein Mine, rushing the mine, killing hundreds of people in it, and of starting the revolution they were aiming at. The Government considered the facts carefully. True, there was this abnormal state of affairs prevailing at Benoni but the Government was not convinced that the strikers would proceed to the lengths that were apprehended, and they thought that the fears of the police were exaggerated, and that it proper guarantees were given it might not be necessary to interfere with free speech. The meeting was to be held on the Sunday, and I believe it was on the Friday morning preceding when the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Madeley) came to my office and endeavoured to persuade me that the meeting should not be prohibited. He gave me an undertaking that if we did not interfere the meeting would pass off quietly. I communicated at once with the Magistrate at Boksburg, and asked him to get in touch with the Strike Committee and to ascertain from them whether this undertaking of the hon. member for Springs was justified. The Committee also gave that undertaking.

Mr. Bain was actually taken by the two Magistrates over the area, and the route for the procession was agreed upon, as shown by the evidence given by Mr. Thompson, the Magistrate. On page 54 the following evidence was given: “I went with him as I had hardly had time to put him in full possession of all the facts. Mr. Bain met us at the charge office, and the route was laid down for him. He was told he was not to go east of the Market-square, and he was told why, viz., that east of the Market-square the mob would be too near the fence of the Kleinfontein and there was always a danger, even if they had given a guarantee, that some of the irresponsible in the crowd would break away. He asked us several times what would happen if the irresponsibles did break away from the rule. He also told us more than once that the Strike Committee had not asked for permission to hold this meeting, and that he himself had told General Smuts that the meeting would be held whether or no, either with or without permission.” There was a distinct agreement, however. The men were to hold the meeting under certain conditions which had been agreed to by the Strike Committee and by Mr. Bain. On those conditions free speech might be exercised that Sunday afternoon. What happened? Let me first refer to one particular point. On this Saturday afternoon a notice appeared which will be found on page 38 of the evidence, calling upon the workers to roll up to the Benoni meeting. It was brought to the notice of the police after they had made all the arrangements for the meeting that this notice had been written be, fore that day and kept by Mr. Bain, and it had to be decided whether the meeting should notwithstanding the notice be held or not. The police therefore looked upon the notice as if it had been cancelled, and they did not interfere with the meeting. The notice in question reads as follows:

That, continued the Minister of Defence, entirely supports the police theory of the meeting—that it was not called to exercise the ordinary Tight of free speech, but to bring together an enormous assembly of people, who, after their feelings had been played upon, might be led to any work of destruction.

The Commission goes on to deal with the results of all this business.

These were all unblushing boasts of the hon. member for Springs. (Laughter.) I think that the Government acted with extreme moderation in the steps that it took. Benoni has been under Martial Law and Benoni has been under Syndicalist law, and I think that if we were to ask the people of Benoni which they preferred, they would know the answer to give.” (Cheers. )

After that the strike spread, rapidly, and Bain and the Strike Committee controlled area after area. They issued permits for the ordinary work of the town of Johannesburg, and in the report of the Commission we have examples of the permits that were supplied by these high authorities. (Laughter.) Permits were issued for the supply of power and water and to the “night service sanitary inspectors”—(laughter)—to perform their duties in all parts of the town with the exception of Parktown and the mines. (Laughter.) in a few short days, by the methods which I have described, this state of affairs was produced in the township of Benoni, and Mr. Bain and his friends legitimately asked if they could do this at Benoni, why not all over the Rand, and all over South Africa? The experiment was begun on a small scale, but it was most effective and successful, and if extended, would probably hold up South Africa.

Then the strike spread like wildfire. The mob went from mine to mine, and no number of police could have protected every property though we had collected numbers from all parts of the country. Mobs of men marched here and there, until there was a reign of terror, not only at Benoni, but right along the Reef Johannesburg.

Let me quote the following:

The “Worker ” describes itself as the official organ of the South African Labour Party. These extracts which I have read are a commentary on the speeches which we have listened to in this House. (Cheers.) Hon. members on the cross benches have talked about Magna Charta and freedom here, but when it comes to business, you find the real thing in the columns of the “Worker.” The workers have been incited to this pitch. He was speaking of the methods that were adopted. The methods of Mr. Bain and his friends undoubtedly were to collect huge crowds—and in a place like Johannesburg, of course, hooligans and ruffians are a large percentage of the community—to collect huge crowds, inflame them with this sort of oratory, and when their feelings had been worked to the due pitch then lead them on, working on them as the artist works on his material.

This succeeded on several occasions, particularly at this Sunday meeting at Benoni, and the next stage was to start on a much larger scale in Johannesburg—Johannesburg, the Mecca of the hooligan. (Laughter.) Notice of meetings was no longer given, it was unnecessary to call on the people to come armed because they were masters of the situation. We had police and military galore, but the mob had tasted blood, their methods had been successful, and they were determined to conduct operations on a grander scale. A big meeting was called quite suddenly without notification for Friday, July 4, on the Johannesburg Market-square. Nobody knew about this meeting till Friday morning. On Friday morning the Government got information that there was to be this concourse on the Market-square, Johannesburg. Now, I ask hon. members in this House, with the facts before the Government of what had happened at Benoni the previous Sunday, what course was open to the Government? Although it was very late in the day—the meeting had been called for 2 o’clock—it was quite clear that this meeting could not be allowed, and there had to be an interference with what the hon. member there (on the Labour benches) calls free speech and free movement. The Commissioner of Police was sent to Johannesburg, and he arrived there between 12 and 1. From 12 o’clock that Friday morning the people had started to collect. The whole operation I saw in full force the next day when the Prime Minister and myself were in Johannesburg. The whole method was perfectly simple. It was to get the people from all parts of the Rand to congregate in huge numbers, and then set a mob like that going with inflammatory oratory. What can you do with a mob like that, a mob of thousands and tens of thousands? You can kill them, you can shoot them down by the hundred, but who takes a delight in shedding blood? The object of Mr. Bain and his colleagues was to collect this mob, and by inciting and goading them on to lead them on thereafter to any crime they might wish. When Col. Truter arrived on the Market-square he stopped the speaking, but found it impossible to stop the crowd. They were not all of them strikers, not all of them hooligans, but there are always in a place like Johannesburg thousands and thousands of sightseers who attend in order to see the fun, and, of course, when it came to serious business, as happened that day and the following day, they; were amongst the chief sufferers—these idle sightseers, men, women, and children who wanted to see what was going on, and who wanted to be witness of any violence that might ensue. The meeting could not be prohibited, but an attempt was made to prevent the oratory. As hon. members will remember, this attempt was a failure, and as a result Mr. Bain and other gentlement that afternoon made some violent speeches and worked up the mob.

The crowd left the Square that afternoon, but the real work started at night. I will not take hon. members through that dismal story of unrestrained destruction that reigned in Johannesburg on that Friday night. They went to the Power Station first and wanted to pull out the workers there. They succeeded in doing that, but happily the lighting of the town was maintained by the officials, so that this foul design to put the whole town in darkness that night and destroy it thereafter was nipped in the bud. They then marched to Park Station, Mr. Crawford and Mrs. Fitzgerald leading a huge crowd. We know what happened there. The police were not armed, and it was impossible for them to withstand this enormous crowd, and the place was set on fire and destroyed. After that they went to the “Star ” office and wrecked the place. After that the Corner House came in for its share, but after what had been done at the Power Station and Park Station, it became necessary for the police to be armed, and when the mob appeared at the Corner House it met an armed force of military and police—(hear, hear)—with the result, as hon. members know, that there was on that occasion very serious loss of life. So that dreadful night passed away. They wound up the orgies of that night by looting the gun shops, arming themselves, and preparing for the battle, which was to follow on the next day.

The Government was kept informed of what was going on, and the Prime Minister decided on that Saturday morning to proceed to Johannesburg and go into matters there, and he asked me on the way to go with him, and so it happened that we appeared on that morning in Johannesburg. I do not want to refer at great length to what happened there. The Prime Minister and myself consulted the Commissioner of Police and General O’Brien, who was in command of the Imperial troops, and we went over the whole matter very carefully, and thereafter we met a deputation from the leaders of the Strike Committee, Mr. Bain among them. At this, stage I may say Mr. Bain and some of his colleagues, who were actively leading the whole of this disastrous movement, were out on bail. They had been arrested at an early stage of this business at Benoni, but a kind hearted Magistrate had let him out on £20 bail, and not only was this movement engineered by a man who was out on bail, but ultimately, for the good of the country, the Prime Minister and myself had to conduct negotiations and sign papers with these gentlemen on bail. There was no doubt that, although the country did not understand the enormous gravity of the situation at Johannesburg on that Saturday, the members of the Government were fully informed and their officers and the Imperial officers who were there, fully realised that Johannesburg was faced with a crisis as great as any community had ever been faced with. To me, that afternoon in Johannesburg, it was a wonderful thing to see how people can live in a doomed place without knowing it, walking about the streets, going about their ordinary avocations, sight-seeing, and going into streets where any moment they might be shot because firing was taking place in all directions.

After we had consulted with these gentlemen it came down to this that they were prepared to use what influence they had with their fellows and with the mob and the hooligans to stop this business that was going on, to stop further shooting, and to stop the strike if the Kleinfontein strikers were reinstated, about 170 of them, and the Government undertook to appoint a Commission of Inquiry into the grievances of the workers. These were the two conditions: the Kleinfontein workers had to be reinstated at Kleinfontein, and the grievances of the industrial community had to be inquired into by a Commission. The Prime Minister and myself, in the course of the afternoon, saw a number of the more important men among the mine-owners, the employers, and discussed with them very fully the situation, and pointed out to them what the situation really was, and after a long discussion, they came to the conclusion that, for the reasons which were pointed out, and which they considered paramount, they would leave it entirely in the hands of the Government to make any arrangement they might think fit to stop the bloodshed and disorders that were going on. The chief trouble occurred over the reinstatement of the strikers at Kleinfontein. As I say, 170 fresh men had been taken on. The employers there had given a guarantee to all these men of permanent employment—(hear, hear)—and of course it was impossible for them to break their word, or for the Government to press them to break their word. The object of the Government all through this has been the protection of the free labourer. (Cheers.) Whatever happened, we had to stand by the free labourer, and here were a number of men—170 of them— call them “scabs,” call them “blacklegs,” call them by whatever name you like, who had volunteered at that time to continue operations on this mine, and the employers, who had given them a guarantee of permanent employment, had to stand by them. Ultimately the thing was solved in this way, as hon. members know, that the Government said: “Very well, if it is impossible for you to deal with these men, leave that to the Government, and we will deal with them ”; and hon. members know that the conclusion we came to was that we would take these men over and compensate them ourselves, so that the reinstatement of the strikers could take place at the Kleinfontein Mine, and the men who had been taken on in the meantime would have adequate protection, and would be compensated for the positions they had lost. The strikers’ representatives would not hear of compensation being paid to “scabs” and “blacklegs”; they could not understand how the Government could do a thing like this, because the whole battle they were fighting was against the “scabs,” and now the Government came forward and were going to compensate these people on a fair basis. However we stood firm, and the result was that in the end this was done.

Next Monday they returned to the charge, and said that the crowd would not accept it, and that they were very much dissatisfied with the terms come to—to compensate the strike-breakers of Kleinfontein. I submit to hon. members that it was the proper thing to do, and that it was not a question of amount—whether it was £20,000, or as it turned out to be nearer £50,000. The question was one of principle, whether the Government would stand by the free worker and protect him. (Cheers.) We have also been criticised for buying off the evils that were threatening us in a time of great violence and impending disaster, but hon. members will see that that was not at all the matter, and it was not a case of paying £50,000 to the strikers to keep them quiet. We were paying £50,000 to the strike breakers to satisfy the honour of this country, and to discharge the duty of this country to protect the free worker. (Hear, hear.) The position was settled that afternoon, and on that basis, and I have here the original document which was signed at the Carlton Hotel that afternoon. I admit freely that it was one of the hardest things I have done in my life to put my name on a document together with that of Mr. Bain and the others, but very often in life—and I have learned it in my own previous experience— you have to incur humiliation and disgrace to do a great public service—(hear, hear)— and I feel as certain as I stand here this afternoon, that but for the action of the Prime Minister in going to Johannesburg and settling that dispute that Saturday afternoon, there would have been not fifty thousand pounds to pay, but we would have to pay a price which would have been appalling to the world. (Hear, hear.) The disgrace has been incurred: the expense has been incurred: and we come to this House to ask it to ratify what has been done, under the most abnormal conditions. Continuing, the Minister said: Some further looting and dynamiting took place that evening, but, on the whole, the difficulty for the time being was over. But I felt—and let me say that every thoughtful man must have felt on that occasion—that that was not the end of the business, and when the strikers appeared on the following day and spoke about a truce, I felt that there was a deep truth in what they said. They had tasted blood, and looked upon what had happened there on that Saturday afternoon as a complete victory for the strike movement, and a complete victory for the methods that had been adopted; and most people felt that we were not at the end of the matter. (Hear, hear.) Here was a solemn document signed, which should have ended this matter, and which promised inquiries into their grievances, but in effect they did not look upon it as concluding the matter; and thereafter things actually became worse, as I will show hon. members. On the following Monday Mr. Bain with his colleagues appeared in the office of the Prime Minister and explained that their people were very much dissatisfied with the terms which they had arranged and that some of them said that they had been called traitors, that they had been accused of bribery and corruption, and that their lives were threatened. That may have been meant for our consumption, but I doubt, continuing the hon. Minister said: “By the appearance of the Prime Minister that Saturday afternoon the whole movement that they were aiming at—the spread of the strike throughout the whole of South Africa—was brought to a stop by one bold coup. On Monday they thought a great mistake had been made by coming to terms with the Government. I see the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Madeley) smiling, but I will road later what he said in reference to it. They saw, of course, that by this coup they had been deflected from their course, and that at all costs this movement should be resumed, and that an attempt should be made, by hook or by crook, to urge on and bring into existence this general strike over South Africa.

We, therefore, from that point—after we had had that discussion with the committee and Mr. Bain—-saw at once greater trouble coming. And now at this stage a new figure, much more sinister than Mr. Bain, appears on the scene, and this is Mr. Poutsma. Some time ago before the present strike I read an interesting book in Dutch written by one Domela Nieuwenhuis, who was for a number of years the Syndicalist leader of the Socialists in Holland. The title of the book is “Van Christen Tot Anarchist.” The author describes the evolution of this revolutionary Syndicalist movement in Holland, and gives with great detail what happened in connection with the railway strikes in Holland Mr. Poutsma was a lieutenant of this gentleman and graduated in the school of anarchy—(laughter)—and had actually gone through all this process in Holland. When Mr. Poutsma saw that this general strike, this movement, had been brought to a dead stop by the Prime Minister on that Saturday afternoon, he was a very disappointed man. (Laughter.) Mr. Poutsma addressed the railway workers at Braamfontein, and at the same time notices began to appear in the “Rand Daily Mail” which in those days was apparently the accredited organ of the party— (laughter)—and in other papers. Threats appeared in this paper, and in other papers also, that the business was not over and that it was only beginning, and that the Government would be faced with the situation that the railway workers had grievances under which they had been groaning for a number of years, and that a forty-eight hours’ ultimatum was coming. After that there would be a general strike of railwaymen and everybody else, if these grievances were not attended to. Well, that was the new campaign. Mr. Bain had not the education and the wide experience of this gentleman who had graduated in syndicalism in Holland and on the Continent. (Laughter.) There was tremendous organisation, not only on the railway, but all over the country, with all classes of workers, and there were vast preparations for a general strike. “What had been done” (it was said) “at Kleinfontein could be done all over the country) and the Prime Minister, as the hon. member for Springs said, had hood winked them.” On July the 11th Mr. Poutsma made a speech at Johannesburg, and said that the railwaymen had given their pledge and word of honour that they were not going to act on their own, and that in the future they would act in concert with the other workers, that was, the Federation of Trades. Their work had only just begun, and they were going to submit to the Government a list of grievances which they had been unable to get redressed in the past, and they must have an answer yea or nay. … Proceeding, the Minister said that the document signed on that Saturday July 5 contained the following: “The representatives of the workers are at liberty to lay any other grievances before the Government, who will inquire into them;” but Mr. Poutsma said that it was not a question of inquiry into them, but a question of yea or nay, and that now was the time to act. On July the 13th Mr. Poutsma, who now becomes an active figure, and simply aeroplanes over the whole of South Africa, addressing the workers of South Africa, at all sorts of places, addressed the workers at Germiston, and said that every body would soon have to starve for want of supplies. There was a time (said the Minister) when I would look upon this as clap-trap, and rhodomontade, but we had been taught by experience, and after the settlement of that strike on Saturday afternoon, and after Mr. Poutsma had appeared on the scene, I felt that a very serious business was pending. Mr. Poutsma was far more educated than the rest of them, and far more plausible, and having been taught to wield influence over the workers, wanted to bring, the railway into this business, and by starvation compel the country to surrender.

The Government, of course, could not sit perfectly still all this time. It was not merely a case of Mr. Poutsma speaking, but all business came to a standstill. Government took a very grave view of what was going on and so did the whole of the community. The recruiting of natives had to be stopped. Something had to be done, to forestall a disaster. An effort was made by the Government to get into touch with the railway workers. After all, the railwaymen were our own officials and servants, and an effort was made to see whether we could not meet them in a reasonable way. (Hear, hear.) Some friends in this House and outside offered their services to help the Government, and ultimately on July 14 the Minister of Mines and myself met Mr. Connerty and Mr. Poutsma and some delegates of the railway servants. They said that their grievances had been placed in the hands of the Federation of Trades and that they could not discuss them independently. I was astounded at this declaration. We expressed ourselves to that effect, with the result that the next day they appeared again and said there was some misunderstanding, and although they had no power to act they could discuss the matter with the Government. The result was embodied in a letter which Government sent to them. Of course in the meantime the disaffection had spread to other branches of the public service. The Union postal and telegraph employees also became very active at a most inopportune time, but they wished to join in this Armageddon which was going to be fought. Finally on July 16 the Federation nominated its delegates to discuss with the Government the terms they would present. These terms were presented on July 17 with an intimation that a reply was expected on July 23. Mr. Bain wrote to the prime Minister—he never corresponded with anybody else than the Prime Minister —(laughter)—giving a list of the grievances which they required redressed, and requesting a reply within five days. This was not so drastic an ultimatum as we expected. Hon. members know this document—with its enormous list of grievances. I would point hon. members to the speeches delivered by this revolutionary junta during the period when Government was supposed calmly to be considering the position. We had the flood-gates of oratory opened. On Sunday, July 20, Mr. Waterston, speaking at Bloemfontein, said they were talking of forming a provisional Government? Of what? Of the representatives of the men. (Laughter.) What they had in view in the formation of this revolutionary Government was not a Government representing the people of South Africa, but a Government of the men and the ousting of the present incompetent Government. (Laughter.)

Of course we had not been asleep all this time. The Government and the country had been taught a very bitter lesson during that July business, when but for the assistance we received from the British troops we should have been in a very terrible position, and we can never be sufficiently thankful to the Imperial authorities and the galiant officers who assisted us. (Cheers.) We were given notice by these events and we set our house in order. Mr. Waterston said: “They were like Lord Milner. They were going to fight and damn the consequences.” (Laughter.) But this is a rough world, and those who take the sword perish by the sword. I do not think the consequences are now being damned on the high seas. Referring to the calling out of special constables, Mr. Waterston said:

I don’t think he learned that from Lord Milner. (Laughter.) In the next strike, Mr. Waterston advised his hearers to

Well, Sir, these were the speeches delivered in the interim while the Government was calmly deliberating over this list of grievances. That same Sunday there was a great meeting at Pretoria by the S.A. Labour Party, when the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell) made the following statement.

Then too the hon. member went on to the general statement that the “workers on the Rand had brought the Government to its knees.”

I don’t think that we could have carried out the terms of the agreement in a better way. My hon. friend the Minister of Mines was at the time interviewing the employers, with the object of seeing what concessions they would make. As the House knows, a number of important concessions were made by the employers without waiting for the Commission. I will say again, that the employers made such important concessions that these should have eased the situation at once. With regard to the railway workers, we adopted a different line. We said: “You have your society.” We said that we were—one of their principal grievances was that their society should be recognised—prepared to recognise their society, under certain conditions which were laid down, and these were to the effect that the society should be of a non-political character, that it should be composed of railway and harbour servants only, and that it should not be associated with any outside organisation. With regard to the grievances, a great number, as the House was told by the Minister of Railways yesterday, have already been remedied. The balance we proposed to refer to a Statutory Commission, provided for under the Railway and Harbours Service Act. That was the answer we returned. But these things did not meet with the approval of these gentlemen. On July 27 the Federation held a meeting, at which Mr. Poutsma was present, and they passed certain resolutions, and I would direct attention to these resolutions. One of these resolutions was to the effect that the reply of the Government was not considered adequate, and that if the demands were not conceded a general strike would be declared. And after all the work we had done in order to meet the grievances that had been presented to us, we were met by the threat of a general strike. Then it was resolved that a Strike Committee should be formed, and that the strike should be waged on scientific lines. This was the diabolical move now. There was no declaration of a general strike at once, but a declaration that a general strike was coming. Nothing could be more disastrous to the economic life of this country, and hon. members not only in the Transvaal but in other parts of the country, knew of the state of affairs that ensued after the passing of these resolutions. This threat was held over the heads of the people of South Africa. Everything came to a standstill. Mine after mine closed down, businesses were closed up, people were retrenched, and the streets of Johannesburg were full of men who were retrenched because of this threat of a general strike. Then a secret Strike Committee was formed. Nobody ever heard the names of the members of that committee, and their names were not even known to the workers themselves. Mr. Tom Matthews explained the resolutions in plain, unvarnished language, for which he is noted He said that they were “going to wait until it suited their book to strike, and that they were sorry for the inhabitants of Johannesburg, but they could not help it. They were not, he said, satisfied with the concessions, and would approach the Government for further concessions on the following Tuesday. They would, he added, call a general strike in their own time, and their own time would be the most opportune time. Everyone (he concluded) must be ready for the signal.” On that same Sunday. July 27, he mentioned that to show what their policy was — to terrorise the community by disorganising its industries — that same Sunday they posted this notice. “The Federation of Trades makes it public that any man signing on as a special constable will be posted and treated as a scab throughout South Africa.” Thus they had the old strategy again. Then there was the speech of the chairman of the party, the hon. member for Georgetown, at a meeting at Germiston that Sunday afternoon, who said the position was as serious as it possibly could be. What concessions the Government had made were not satisfactory to the Federation nor to the vast army of workers. It might be, he added (and these were prophetic words, said the hon. Minister) that South Africa would be in the throes of a struggle the like of which the country had never before seen, and which would cause the events of the 4th and 5th of July to fade into significance. (Shame.) Thus spoke the two prophets. The hon. member clearly contemplated that that state of affairs was going to arise. Well, it had arisen, but not in the way that was anticipated. The moment came for every man to decide a momentous issue once for all. At the railway meeting at the Grand Theatre, the chairman of the amalgamated society referred to the unsatisfactory reply of the Government to the deputation, and said that never had a deputation of men been treated in such a manner, and went on to as that possibly the executive might find it expedient to say that they would now not require Government recognition for their society. Those were the last words they heard of the question of recognition by the Government of the amalgamated society. They had some similar speeches from Mr. Poutsma, who stated that although they were not affiliated to the Federation of Trades they were working in concert with that body and would continue to do so. Mr. Poutsma had said that never had a deputation spoken to the Government as they had done. That, he (the Minister) could corroborate. He had had a large experience of deputations, and he could say — and the Prime Minister would bear him out— that never had they been spoken to with the insolence and truculence shown during these attempts to negotiate with Mr. Poutsma. The object of that truculence seemed to be to make it impossible for the Government to meet them in any way. Their object was to further a general strike, to throw the Government into opposition to their wishes, and at the same time to educate the people of South Africa into a realisation of how reasonable they were in their demands, and how impossible was the Government. Mr. Poutsma added they were not going to tell the Government when the blow was to be struck, but when they did strike the onus would be placed on the Government. War might be declared at any moment. It was difficult to think that a body of men in their sound senses should take those steps. On the Saturday following, Mr. Waterston repeated his Bloemfontein speech, and he added the words: “The man who fired to kill was nothing more or less than a murderer. ” At the same time there was a meeting held at Krugersdorp, and Mr. Waterston said that at the Federation meeting at Johannesburg that day a general strike had been determined upon, and that strike would be called in the workers’ own good time. He added: “We are ready and will beat the Government at their own game. The order will be given to down tools. It seems cowardly, but we want to catch them when they are asleep.” He was averse to taking a ballot for or against a general strike; that was too slow to bring things to a head.

When these speeches were published in the Transvaal Press another speech appeared, made by the hon. member for Smithfield to his constituents. This was at a time when every wise man in this country was staying his hand and trying to get the country out of the frightful mire into which it had been dragged by these revolutionaries. That was the time chosen by him to make a speech on the situation which had arisen on the Rand. He said he would not go fully into the matter because the position was too critical, but added that had the Government taken the warning given in Parliament that situation, with its bloodshed, would not have arisen. The whole blame of the revolutionary movement in South Africa was not put at the door of these gentlemen, but at the door of the Government. The Government, he stated, had to do something more than to protect life and property, they had to protect the poor against the rich, the workers should be protected against injustice, and the Government should see to it that their lives should be made as happy as possible. They should be given the hope, if nothing more, that their position, and that of their wives and children, might be improved. Blessed word “Mesopotamia,” said the hon. Minister, adding that was the contribution of the ex-Minister to the enormous cloud of trouble; the hon. member denied that he had any desire to join the Labour Party, but it was quite clear that Mr. Bain had captured the hon. member for Smithfield. (Laughter.)

On Monday, the 28th July, the day of the meeting of the Federation, Mr. Bain also attended a meeting of the Amalgamated Society of Railwaymen, and declared after that meeting there was perfect unanimity between the two bodies. It was not true. There was a rift in the lute by that time, because the railway workers were not all mad. (Cheers.) But the enormous pressure was now being felt by the workers as well as employers, and there was not perfect accord. Mr. Bain published a notice to the members of the Defence Force, pointing out that in the event of a general strike they might be called upon to shoot down defenceless men, women, and children, and he asked them to send in their resignations at once. This was the last step; there were no other negotiations. The Government refused to have anything further to do with them, but they were called upon to nominate two of their members to this Commission of Inquiry. That was treated with contempt, as they never wanted an inquiry at all. Afterwards the Federation of Trades met again. The natives were returning in enormous numbers to their territories. The Government knew the vast struggle that was going to come, and they did not want to have savages to, contend with on the Rand in addition to white workers. They were being sent away in large numbers, and in proportion white men were being thrown out of employment. This suspended strike was thereupon followed by a new resolution of the 30th July, to the effect that that meeting of delegates viewed with disgust the attitude adopted by the Government towards the workers of South Africa, and declared a general strike off. But they had not the decency to do so in honest terms. Pressure on those people had become so great that they drew back, and said that no general strike would be declared at the present juncture. The explanation was that the railway men had broken off. Mr. Poutsma had failed to carry the Cape railway men with him. They should not forget the meed which was their due for that action. (Cheers).

A writer in “The Hibbert Journal” of last month contributes an article on “Syndicalism in France.” from which it may be useful to quote in regard to the nature of the movement which has been taking place in this country. Speaking of Syndicalism, he says: “Its great organisation is the ‘General Confederation of Labour,’ which was formed in 1895, and aimed at getting rid of politicians and securing what is called direct action’ and ‘direct control.’” I think some of them (interpolated General Smuts) are amongst the Young Unionists opposite. (Loud laughter.) “It is independent of all parties, and free from all tutelage of State or Municipality. It is based on an intense class-consciousness, and is organised definitely for a class-war. The very breath of life to it is that capital and labour are deadly enemies, and are incapable of reconciliation. The organisation proceeds from simple to complex. First you have the Syndicate, which is an aggregate of workers; then comes a union of syndicates; and then a general federation of unions. Each part is autonomous. In the syndicate are those of the same or similar trades or industries. The grouping is spontaneous, not following a pre-arranged plan. Any workers whose interests are identical with those of a group can join the group, without considering any conception or theory, philosophical, political, or religious. We are told that one characteristic of the syndicate is that it does not limit its action to claim only for its members; it claims for all workers. Pouget calls this ‘profoundly social.’ We must remember, however, that it does not take in society, but only the working class. The General Assembly is supreme. Its Council of about ten, with secretary and treasurer, have only power to execute its decisions. A union of syndicates or of labour exchanges (labour exchanges in France are entirely controlled by the working people) is a union of groups in the same town or region. The great business of the organisation is the class-war. It must so act as to intensify working-class feeling against the employing class and the wage system, against all the forces of exploitation manifested in capitalism, and against all forces of oppression held by the State, such as the army; it must eliminate the modern State, because the modern State is the upholder of the present system. Syndicalism at its height proclaims war on the Parliamentary system, and ‘Down with democracy!’ is one of its rallying words. No hope of deliverance lies in electing Labour representatives to Parliament. They soon lose their fighting nerve and become conciliators; they soon surrender to the influences that play upon them from the upper and middle classes, and forge) their old enthusiasm. A Labour Party Parliament, therefore, becomes a hindrance to what the Syndicalist regards as the only possible emancipation for the workers.

“The one thing to do for this emancipation is to enter upon a deadly war for the elimination of the employing class, and of all the forces that tend to support it. The syndicate must keep the employer in dread, restrain his insatiable desires of exploitation, secure from him every possible improvement of conditions while he remains, and despatch him at the earliest possible moment.

“The main weapons with which this class war is to be fought, are the strike and sabotage. Sabotage is, however, condemned by Sorel, who may be called the philosopher, of Syndicalism. It is undisguisedly and boldly advocated by Pouget and others to the C.G.T.‘ Pouget says that the maxim of Syndicalism is: ‘For bad pay, bad work.’ It makes itself effective now by a slackening of production, now by bad work, and again by attacking the instrument of production, such as damaging a machine. In commerce it will often spoil the things sold in order that the seller may lose his custom. The object of sabotage is to hit the master, not the consumer. Pouget defends it and says: ‘Sabotage is in the social, war what guerilla fighting is in national wars.’ There is no sanctity in laws. It is held that the laws have been made in order to defend what is, and it is therefore necessary to go outside them in order to obtain anything. They give us what they take to be examples of the efficacy of sabotage, e.g., the hairdressers’ assistants in Paris put a caustic ingredient in paint that was to be used for shop fronts which caused it to deteriorate quickly. In three years nearly 2,000 shops were treated in this way, with the result that the masters granted shorter hours of labour and a weekly day of rest. The method is recommended all round. If it were adopted all round, society would collapse. That is what the Syndicalists want. The main weapon of this class war, however, is the strike, sectional strikes being preliminary to the great general strike which is to overturn society and make possible a new economic world. Great emphasis is laid upon the moral value of strikes, quite apart from any material benefit gained by them. They are splendid drills for the feeling of solidarity and common interest, and they thus prepare the proletariat through the discipline of common action, and through the intensification of their hatred of the employing class, for the one great strike which is to end the present order.”

This was the theory, continued the Minister, which emerged from all the speeches already quoted in that House, and there was no doubt that the views expressed in the article were completely shared by and even improved upon by Syndicalists in this country. “I have no doubt that Syndicalists are prepared to go to the same extreme lengths in other countries as they have done in this,” the Minister added, although they have not done so. He would like to say that as a result of the negotiations which took place in July last in order to remedy the grievances of the mine workers, the Minister of Mines had for some months been preparing a mass of legislation for the consideration of Parliament and the country. Messrs. Berman and Walmsley were appointed by the Federation of Trades to discuss this proposed legislation with the Secretary for Mines. It was the same Mr. Walmsley about whom such a storm was being raised in the Johannesburg Town Council the other day; The greatest discussion took place and the utmost interest was taken in the question of the recognition of Trade Unions. The Government were given to understand that the Federation had established its position in the country as the governing-body of labour, and that as the Government imposed its will upon the population by utilising the forces at its disposal, so the Federation as governing a part of the people would impose its will upon the country by using its powers in a similar manner. Thus they were faced with having two Governments in the country—the constitutional Government and the Syndicalists as the government of labour, who were always prepared to fight the laws of the land, because they were not made by them. It is quite clear from this statement that this was the theory held by the Federation of Trades. It is not recognised so clearly in the speeches I have read, but generally it is recognised that in the country there are two Governments, and these two Governments come to loggerheads and they fight it out in the class war or civil war two great attempts up to now had been made to bring about the general strike.

The one failed because of the intervention of the Prime Minister; the other failed because in the end the railway workers drew back, and now another attempt was to be made. The two failures proved they had to reckon with two facts. If the general strike was to succeed the railway workers must on any account be included in it. The other was that the easiest way of hitting at the country and the population generally was to get a strike among the coal miners. In a country like ours coal is of the very essence of industrial life. From this time onwards the attempt is made along these lines. The railways were organised into the highest state of efficiency and combination for the purpose. In August you will find that two organisers of the Transvaal Miners’ Association were sent to Natal to start operations there, and it seemed clear that an attempt was going to be made at this time to start, if possible, with the coal miners. The first thing that happened was a strike among the engine drivers in Natal. The employers considered the demands, and, on the whole, decided to meet them fairly, so that that danger passed off; but the organisers went on in the meantime, and finally, owing to the efforts of these men, when we got to the end of the year, the coal miners were ready for a strike. The railway business, which was the proximate cause of the strike in January last, was parallel with this movement in Natal. If the strike was not coming one way it would have come in another, and as a matter of fact the strike on the coal mines preceded the strike on the railways. At the end of the year the position was very threatening. Things seemed to have ripened for a strike of coal miners in Natal, and Mr. McKerrell, who returned to the Transvaal, was sent back again to lead the movement in Natal. At the same time Mr. Haynes, chairman of the Strike Committee at Benoni, was sent to Witbank, which was just as vital, or perhaps even more vital a coal centre of the country than the Natal collieries. Mr. Morgan, another gentleman in the schedule, was sent to Vereeniging. They had, if possible, to bring about a strike simultaneously. These three very active gentlemen were now busy and pushing things ahead. The Secretary for Mines, Mr. Warington Smyth, was sent to Natal when these demands were made by the white workers on the coal mines, to see whether something could not be done. He met certain representatives of the colliery proprietors at Hattingh Spruit to discuss these demands.

During this interview Mr. McKerrell, who had been sent down from the Rand, entered the room. His manner, according to the report, was defiant, and he threw on the table a piece of paper, which he said was the ultimatum of the executive. He warned Mr. Williams, the representative of the coal owners, that unless the ultimatum was accepted by January 1 he would telegraph to Mr. Poutsma. Now the body that sent him was the Federation of Trades. He was the official of the Transvaal Miners’ Association, but he was going to telegraph to Mr. Poutsma, with whom he stated he had been in conference, and the Transvaal Miners’ Association, and the result would be a strike of the railways and of the Witbank coal area in sympathy. He pointed out that the shutting down of the Witbank coal area would stop the Transvaal mines. Now this was actually what was brought about. A long interview resulted from this ultimatum, and in the course of that interview Mr. McKerrell took up a very strong attitude, and, inter alia, stated that it was now a war of classes, and that he hoped the matter would not be settled. Quite true; they had never wanted a settlement. Turning to Mr. Smyth, he said, “Your Bills will never come before Parliament.” (Hear, hear.) When asked why, he stated, “We shall not allow them to—(Ministerial cheers)—we shall hold up the country to prevent it.” I must say when this report was brought to our notice, and that before things had reached the Last stage on the railways, it was becoming quite clear that they had decided to avoid their old mistakes, and this time the start was not going to be made by the Transvaal miners, but by the coal miners and the railways also, if possible. Of course, events were moving fast. We were now at the end of the year, and on the same day, that this remarkable interview took place in Natal the annual Congress of the Labour Party was held in Pretoria. On the 1st January a motion was brought forward by Mr. Weinstock, “That this Conference demands the immediate liberation of the prisoners unjustly incarcerated for the alleged crime of inciting to violence.” Afterwards an amendment was moved to delete “unjustly.” Speeches were made by a number of notable gentlemen, and I think it is due to the House to draw attention to one made by the secretary, Mr. Waterston, in the course of which he said, “As to the assaults on life and property— let property go to the devil.” (Laughter.) He went on to say that he was not going to dissociate himself from anything done during the strike, and added, “I say my class, right or wrong.” The chairman of the party, the member for George Town, lay very low at that time, but the member for Jeppe said that the doctrine preached by Mr. Waterston, “My class, right or wrong ”—this is not the doctrine that Mr. Waterston preached; he has preached quite a different doctrine—but the member for Jeppe said that the doctrine preached by Mr. Waterston extended to the justification of acts committed at such times was one of the most dangerous doctrines that could be laid down. He pointed to the use of agents provocateurs in America by the capitalists against the workers, and protested against the doctrine that anything done by an unauthorised person should be taken as being approved by authorised bodies. Well, I was astounded when I read that. Here was a gentleman preaching the most violent revolutionary doctrines possible, and their Parliamentary leader of the party was not rebuking him for this, but rebuking him for saying “My class, right or wrong.” There was not a word of condemnation for what was done at Benoni. The real lead had passed out of his hands and was taken by the Bains, the Poutsmas, and the Waterstons, who ordinarily were what I consider windbags—'(laughter)—but in this movement were the real actors.

Now I come to the railway position. As hon. members know, some little trouble had arisen on the railways early in October, after the return of my hon. friend (Mr., Burton) from Europe. There were rumours in the Press of large schemes of retrenchment, and the result was that there was a great unrest amongst the railway workers generally. My hon. friend then took the course, not only in public speeches, but in circulars issued to the railway workers, of explaining exactly what the position was, and that there was no large scheme of retrenchment contemplated, but that the financial position of the railways was such that, in view of the Railway Board having to conduct its affairs on business principles, it was necessary to reduce the expenditure on the railways, and as part of this scheme it had been necessary to have a certain amount of retrenchment. Hon. members will remember that my hon. friend had before Mm the report of the Railway Commission, which had gone into the workshops. I am not arguing the propriety of the course which was adopted, but leading up to the methods adopted by the Amalgamated Society Tater on. Nothing further was heard until some time in December, when in pursuance of the policy which my hon. friend had announced, that certain men would be got rid of, the Railway Board gave notice of retrenchment to a certain number of employees in the workshops. What this number was does not really matter. It may be TO or 80, or more. The question is not one of number, but one of principle. (Hear, hear.) The Railway Board, as the Railway Government, had determined that it was necessary for the proper conduct of their business, that there should be a reduction of expenditure, and this is one of their functions. If they go wrong, their policy may be discussed in Parliament. Well, there was a fresh flutter in the dovecotes—(a laugh)—and another meeting of the Amalgamated Society was held to consider the position. A letter was sent on January 3 to the Prime Minister, stating that the Executive Council of the A.S.E. had resolved that the retrenchment now being carried out should be stopped, and that those already retrenched be re-instated; further, that it considered retrenchment at that time uncalled for, and in view of the serious situation, would be obliged to receive a reply from the Prime Minister without delay.

As I said (continued the Minister), I am not going to argue the question of legitimacy or illegitimacy, and the Amalgamated Society might have been perfectly right in their opinions that these retrenchments were uncalled for, but that is not what matters and is beside the point. The issue rests on this notice and resolution, and on the dispute which followed upon it; and it is whether it was possible for the Government of this country to entertain an ultimatum like this from its own servants. (Hear, hear.) I should like to know how any Government could be held responsible for the administration of its affairs, when a body of its servants, whoever they may be, can come and fling an ultimatum like this at it. Their procedure is laid down in law, and they can have recourse to the procedure laid down by law, but they have not the right to fling an ultimatum like this at the head of the Government. (Hear, hear.) If the Government, did not take up an ultimatum of this kind, the Government was not worth its salt.

I think Mr. Poutsma was very lucky, because now the issue was not a mining issue, and not a coal issue, but a railway issue, and he had always had the greatest difficulty in getting his team together. This retrenchment might fall on the people in Cape Town, East London, Uitenhage, Durban, or wherever there were railway workshops, and this action taken by the Railway Administration consolidated the movement, and gave him (Mr. Poutsma) the chance he had been working for so hard. (A laugh.) On January 2 the coal strike had broken out in Natal, and a large number of men had come out on the mines, and were followed by more than a thousand natives, who had at once proceeded to ask for higher wages. Those who had been receiving £3 per month on the coal mines immediately demanded £5 per month. The Native Affairs Department sent their representative (Mr. Addison) to the coal mines to argue with the natives, and luckily for us he is one of the most influential men with the natives in South Africa. He is an experienced gentleman who has spent all his life amongst these people, and whom they trusted apparently more than these people who incited them to ask for higher wages. He talked them round, and the result was that at an early stage of this coal business they returned to work. But the white men remained on strike in Natal, and in the meantime on January 3 we had received an ultimatum from the other party. As I explained to the House, it was their policy to start with the nerve centres, and if they could stop power and transport the country would soon starve, as Mr. Poutsma had said at Germiston. They did not know how limited the supplies were in the country and how easy it was to bring about such starvation. This letter of Mr. Poutsma was brought to the Prime Minister, I believe, on Saturday, and a reply was immediately sent that Mr. Burton was away, but was expected back, and that as soon as he came back the matter would be dealt with. We had been taken completely unawares in this matter, and the Minister of Railways and Harbours and the General Manager were away, and it was impossible for the Government, in the absence of these officers, to consider the position seriously. The Prime Minister left on Saturday night to keep an important engagement in the country, and on Monday Mr. Poutsma proceeded to complain to the Governor-General that he was contemptuously treated by the Government: that Mr. Burton was in Mafeking, and that the Prime Minister had gone somewhere else. He (Mr. Poutsma) impressed on Lord Gladstone the, extreme gravity of the situation. We knew that ourselves. He, was sent to me, and I informed him that he must wait till Mr. Burton returned., My hon. friend (Mr. Burton) arrived in Pretoria, I believe, on that Monday night. The next morning we discussed the whole matter—those of us who were in Pretoria —and we made un our minds that it was impossible to accept any ultimatum, especially from our own workers in this country. (Hear, hear.) We decided that Mr. Burton should meet this deputation and discuss the position with them, and explain to them what the position was, because they might be labouring under an entirely false apprehension as to what the position really was. After that a circular was to be sent to the railway servants informing them of the situation. He met the railway representatives on Tuesday afternoon, and explained at great length what the position was. Some of the men were prepared to consider alternative courses, but not Mr. Poutsma. He knew perfectly well it was impossible for Government to concede what was asked. On the evening of July 7, Mr. Poutsma held a big meeting of railway workers at Pretoria, when he said that “the population was divided into two camps. That unfortunate war between the classes was declared in July, and they knew what impetus the happenings of July had given to the labour movement in South Africa.” Mr. Poutsma referred to the statement of my hon. friend in the interview that afternoon, and he proceeded: “The Amalgamated Society made it plain to the Minister and to the Administration that if they could put their hand on twenty-five retrenchment notices they would advise the men to take drastic action,” he proceeded to announce that no other weapon was left, and if the Government did not stop retrenchment and reinstate the retrenched men, the railway and harbour men would be advised to stop work on the following morning. He added if they just ceased their work and went home there would be no one to shoot at.