from H. Coetzee, chairman, and others, members of the Holpan School Committee, drawing attention to the low salaries paid to teachers in the Cape Province and praying that the House may take their case into consideration and grant such relief as it may deem fit.

laid on the table the report of the Sunday Observance Commission.

said that the examiners of the Rand Water Board Supplementary Water Supply (Private) Bill reported that notice had been given to the riparian owners along the Vaal River for a distance of 45 miles below the point of abstraction but they were unable to say whether this was sufficient compliance with the standing order No. 291 owing to the impossibility of their being able to say whether the rights of riparian owners below that point would be affected or not. With that reservation the examiners reported that the standing orders had been complied with.

moved as an unopposed motion that indulgence be granted in accordance with the report

The motion was agreed to.

Is Counsel present ? The Serjeant-at-Arms will introduce Counsel to the Bar.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, I appear at the Bar of this House on behalf of certain citizens of this country who have been deported beyond the borders of the Union. I have no power to appear on behalf of one Livingstone, but I have power to appear on behalf of all the others. I do not appear to place any delay or to gut any impediment in the way of the business of this House but as an advocate to help this House to come to a just decision on a matter of great public and private concern, and I appear on behalf of the private interests of these individuals. Sir, the obstacles in my way in presenting to this House in a clear manner the case of my clients are enormous. These men, having been arrested, were kept in detention without any opportunity for their friends to see them, and without any opportunity of getting legal advice, and I have had no opportunity of consulting them; and at this moment, when these men are detained on the high seas, I have no opportunity of getting into communication with them. Consequently, sir, if I delay the House longer than I hope will be necessary, I hope the House will bear patiently with me. It is my object to present the case I have in two ways: I want, first of all, to deal with the condemnation of these men and the execution of sentence against them without trial, and then I will endeavour to go on and discuss the alleged facts which have been placed before this House. Now, with regard to the condemnation of these men without trial, we come to a matter which is directly taken away from these men—the ordinary liberties of the subject—liberties without which many men would not desire to live;liberties which have been taken away, sir, at a time when the fire of passion has been blinding the eyes of reason, when men’s minds have been so blinded by the tremendous danger which they have thought was before them that they have not been able to think of each of the liberties of these individuals.

I appear, sir, to talk not from the political aspect, but simply and solely to talk of the matter as concerning the individual liberties of these men. Now, sir, why has not the ordinary justice of the land been granted to these men? We are told, and it has been said, sir, that these men are guilty of high treason, and their it has been said that they have not been guilty of the crime of high treason. The Bill before this House states the crime with which these men are charged, and I will draw your attention to the exact words in this Bill. There is no statement that these men are guilty of sedition or high treason. “Whereas certain persons are set out in the schedule of this Act as having by various acts, words and conduct during the year 1913 and the present year created unrest among the wage-earners in the Union, and notwithstanding that provision exists by Law whereby any grievances which wage-earners allege to exist may be considered and redressed, these scheduled persons have fomented strife between those wage-earners and their employers, and incited those wage-earners to act unlawfully, and unlawfully to cease work, and have thereby caused the public disturbances which have resulted from such unrest, strife, and unlawful acts and cessation of work.” And, sir, when I examine what, prior to this time, Parliament has provided for such a thing, I find that the Parliament of the Transvaal dealt with this matter. In the Industrial Disputes Act of 1907, it is provided, under section 6, that “after the coming into operation of this Act, it shall be unlawful for any person to incite or encourage another man to go on strike until the dispute shall have been brought before a Conciliation Board ”; and this section goes on to provide “that any person found guilty of contravening this section shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £250, or to imprisonment not exceeding six months, or such imprisonment without the option of a fine.” There is the voice of the Legislature speaking with regard to the matter dealt with in this Bill, yet in this case we find that these individuals were not treated under that Act, and there was no attempt to penalise them by the penalties provided by Parliament. The executive penalised them—so far as this country is concerned, to a sentence of death. In this Bill, if it amounts to anything, there is a charge of conspiring against employers, and the charge goes on to state that, on account of this action, there was unrest. Well, sir, that latter fact is something which hinges on the change. I propose to deal with this charge, when I come to deal with it, as a charge of Conspiracy.

Whatever the charge may he, the fact remains that these men have had no trial whatever. In justification, the first reason was, it was stated, that they were guilty of high treason; the second, that the Court very likely would not convict them—in other words, that judges are too lenient and the jurors too fickle. Now sir, I bring to your attention that when a man is charged on evidence by the prosecution in an ordinary case, he is allowed to put forward a defence and sift the evidence of the prosecution. In every case where a man is acquitted, the prosecution has failed to prove its case, and an ex parte statement has been refuted. It has been stated that Crawford and Mrs. Fitzgerald in July had led the mob to Park Station and incited them there to burn that station. The evidence upon which that allegation rests—the evidence of Detective Mynott given before the Judicial Committee—was the evidence which was produced in a court of law to convict Crawford and Mrs. Fitzgerald. The same detective appeared in the box, and was subjected to cross-examination, but on cross-examination his evidence fell to the ground. It was not a case of a lenient judge or a fickle jury when these people were acquitted. They were charged in connection with a third person, named Ward, who was found guilty by the same jury and condemned by the same judge. Sir, I refer you to a case that happened two years ago, in which I happened to be counsel—the case of Whittaker. I shall refer to the report of that case in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of our Union. In the judgment of Lord De Villiers it is stated: “In regard to this last allegation (which was, being in possession of dynamite to blow up the tramway lines—he was acquitted of that and the charge was again brought against him when suing the officials for damages) I am surprised that it should be made, seeing that defendant has been acquitted of placing explosives on the line, and gave a full explanation at the criminal trial.”

There was a strong case of an ex parte statement being refuted when the evidence for the prosecution was subjected to cross examination; and the prisoner was given an opportunity of presenting his evidence on oath before the Court. His Lordship went on to say: “By all means place prisoners under lock and key … but they can only be declared guilty when their guilt has been established by a court of law.” Counsel then proceeded to quote from the judgment of Mr. Justice Innes. His clients had been deported, exiled from this country without being able to sift the evidence of the prosecution on oath or produce evidence on their behalf, subject also to cross-examination by counsel appearing for the prosecution. It had been said that the ordinary courts of the land were inadequate to deal with these men. There had been cases in this country when it had been thought that the ordinary courts were not proper tribunals, where special tribunals had been appointed. Dinizulu was tided before one of these special courts. Cetewayo was tried before another. To those men justice was given. They were afforded an opportunity of presenting their cases—the widest scope was given them of placing their cases before those tribunals. They were given every opportunity of bringing forward everything that might be said in their defence. The same opportunity had not been allowed his clients in this case. It was an elementary principle that a man should be tried before he was convicted. Every man was presumed innocent until it was proved against him that he was guilty. Every man Lad the benefit of a reasonable doubt as to whether he was guilty or not guilty. That principle was established 700 years ago by the King of England in Magna Charta (which counsel quoted). In this case his clients had been outlawed or exiled without any trial before their peers. These men had been sent out of the country, and an attempt was being made to prevent them from coming back and being tried. They were not only deported, but an attempt was being made to say that if they came back they should have no trial. Counsel proceeded to detail the procedure of Courts of Law in the cases of prisoners charged with criminal offences. The Government in dealing with the men had acted as judge, jury, counsel for prosecution and defence, and sheriff. It was not a question of a single individual. It was not a question of this policy or that policy. It was a question of men being condemned without being given the opportunity of a trial.

said there would be no burden of injustice resting on his head as counsel for these men. That obligation would rest on the Parliament of the country. He would deal now very shortly with the second part of his argument, the case which had been presented to the House, the case on which his clients were not to be allowed the ordinary liberties of the subject. He had referred to the charge in the Bill, he had referred to the fact that for that charge a penalty upon conviction had been provided by the Industrial. Disputes Act, and he desired to call attention to the fact that neither high treason nor sedition was alleged in the Bill. In regard to the attempt with which his clients were charged of inciting workers to refuse to work, thereby causing great unrest and all the trouble that had happened, the first point he would like to make was that until the charge had been made and proved up to the hilt against each one of these men separately, it could not be said that because one man had this idea or that idea the others must necessarily fall with him. Some, therefore, might be guilty and others might be innocent. He was expressing no opinion on the question of policy he was simply and solely urging the case of men who were charged with the offence provided in this Bill. To justify each man being deported, the charge must be proved against each one separately.

who said that the House was embarking on one of the most serious debates that it had ever known, and he thought that hon. members could not fail to be impressed by the speech, delivered with all sincerity, which they had just listened to. He did not propose to deal with this question from a party point of view. He thought that it was a question that was far removed from party considerations—(hear, hear)—although he hoped that he was a sufficiently good party man to be able to make a party point when the opportunity offered. It was a thing that affected not only the interests of those in the country at the present time, but the interests of those who were to come in the future. It struck at everything that they held dear. He proposed to look at the question from the point of view of a citizen of this country, who loved the country, and wished that it should do well. He thought that there were many questions that they might be justified in asking the Government. These questions were being asked all over South Africa. There was the question as to what the Government were doing prior to the trouble of last July. That the Government would, he thought, admit was a very serious question to answer. The Minister has admitted in a very handsome way that the Government were taken unawares on that occasion. It was a confession that he was prepared to condone in the circumstances. Why, people were asking, was the famous meeting on Market square allowed, after it had been forbidden? The Minister did not say anything on that point, and he did not justify the action the Government took in the matter. After that a certain number of rascals were taken in charge and put in prison, and then allowed to go free. Why, people asked, if all these men were taken, were not others who were equally bad arrested, and why was the hon. member for George Town, who had uttered more poisonous and mischievous nonsense than anyone, allowed to be at liberty?

Why was the hon. member for Springs, who, according to the sworn evidence in the report of the Commission, which every member had before him, had been at a meeting of the Strike Committee when it was decided that a trader in the town of Benoni should not be allowed to carry on his business? And they had evidence that the hon. member was in the crowd that was present when that building was burned down. Then there were those unfortunate people who, after having accepted, in fear of their lives, the decision of the committee as to whom they might supply with bread, had their premises burned down two or three days afterwards. That long list should not have been cut down as it had been. (Laughter.) And here was the hon. member for George Town, with employment guaranteed at a minimum wage for This year at least. Mr. Quinn went on to deal with the results, and said that some men had been killed and others had been treated in a most brutal fashion. Men were brutally kicked to pieces, and he would remind the House that he was not quoting from newspaper reports, but from the sworn evidence that was contained in the report of the Commission. He went on to refer to the woman who had a blind husband and was the support of six children, and who was treated in a most unmerciful fashion. This woman had a daughter of eighteen, and she had a young man, who became what these people called a “scab,” and he hoped that in the future the name “scab” would be a badge of honour in that country. (Cheers.) This man became a scab, and he went to see this girl. He went to this house, and because of that, and for no other reason, this woman was treated in a most unmerciful fashion, and had to seek refuge in the police station. She was surrounded by mounted police, and even her escort was attacked. The furniture was taken out of her house and burned. It was a thing like this the a made men think. This was what the hon. member for Jeppe called liberty, but he thought it should be called licence. He saw men from Cape Town and from Durban, policemen, splendid fellows, and he would not have thought it possible that men could have endured the insults and tortures that these men were called upon to endure. He remembered one case where he saw a policeman who was sitting quietly on his horse struck on the face with some object and his cheek cut open, but he never moved. There were a large number of men in the gaol—the dupes and fools of the others. Others were on the water He hoped the voyage would be a long and pleasant one. (Laughter.) Immense damage had been done to property all over the place, damage which would indirectly come back on the men who had caused it.

Still, things might have been much worse, and so, amid all these calamities and all this loss of life and property and all this misery, the House might be thankful for one thing—that the Labour members were all there intact and that they were all there unscathed. (Laughter.) In the late war the leaders as a rule were the men to fall first, and no doubt members on both sides of the House would recall the names of many leaders who fell on the field. But they had a new kind of leader here on the cross-benches. They were not the dying kind. (Laughter.)

They are quite alive.

Yes; they are very much alive. When the fighting was on, they were not there. Proceeding, he said he must say this for the hon. member for Jeppe, that he was not in Johannesburg on the 5th July. He was hundreds of miles away, but when he came back he, like the hon. member for Jeppe, published a statement, he was interviewed, and said what ought to be done, and, characteristically like the hon. member for Jeppe, made many statements, wrong statements, which were contradicted a few days afterwards. These gentlemen went and made these speeches, led the men on to this action, and then they deserted them.

was understood to interject; “Why not speak the truth? ”

said that if he spoke the whole of the truth the hon. member for Jeppe would be ashamed to come in the House again. The fact was that these men went about and talked as much as they could, but not one of them was there when the danger was on. The hon. member for Springs was in the street and stood and watched a citizen’s property being burned down. These gentlemen did not mean liberty, but licence. It was licence that the hon. member for Jeppe preached. When he did speak he could not be on his feet for five minutes with out making the most dreadful attacks on employers of labour. The hon. member himself was an employer once—one of the worst on the Rand, too. One of the first strikes that he (Mr. Quinn) ever saw in South Africa was about ten years ago. He saw a brass band coming along Pritchard street and he followed to the Union-square, where there was a big meeting. He was utterly dumbfounded when he discovered that the speakers were denouncing in the most unmeasured terms, and threatening to burn alive—whom did ‘they think? The hon. member for Jeppe. (Laughter.) It was their tribute to him as a kind and ‘considerate employer. The hon. member for Jeppe occasionally showed a glimmering of common-sense. In the course of his speech the other day he made a passionate appeal to the hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog). Why did he do that ? Did he remember the kindly treatment that the hon. member for Smithfield meted out to the School Inspectors a little while ago? He (Mr. Quinn) did not think much of the hon. member for Smithfield. He frankly said that he did pot respect him as a politician, but he did think that he was too big a man ever to allow himself to be used to stick a knife into the back of his own people, as he was asked to do by the members on the cross benches. One could not reflect upon what one saw and the injustices one endured without becoming impassioned.

They could not understand January unless they understood July. It required a knowledge of July, where an example was given of what was going to happen, provided the necessary opportunities were given. (Hear, hear.) As regarded June and July, he did not think he was using too strong a word when he said that the Rand was in a state of tyranny and terror. He had a number of small business places on the Rand. He remembered one Saturday morning when the town was particularly quiet, as far as one could see, on going to one of his places he found that it had been locked up and that some 30 or 40 girls were outside in a state of abject terror. The manageress informed him that a number of people had been and told her that unless she shut down the b—shop they would burn it down. Like a wise girl, she had shut it down. The other shops had also been called upon in the same way by the Red Flag people. Yet they were told about the peaceful intentions of these people. He did not cay that the gentlemen who were now having the fresh air of the ocean were directly responsible for this matter, but the speeches they made unquestionably led to that disorder amongst the public of Johannesburg. He went over on that day to the Rand Club for lunch. Amongst the members of that club was the hon. member for Jeppe. There was no reason why the club should be a particular annoyance to anybody. He had not been there many minutes before he saw that there was going to be some trouble. A crowd rapidly gathered and he got outside. There was no semblance of aggravation on anybody’s part at that club. In his opinion, the great bulk of the people who were concerned in the attack on the Rand Club were not strikers. There were a few strikers, but the bulk were hooligans and it was a thing worthy of very careful consideration that the bulk of these hooligans were young Dutchmen from Vrededorp— jongs. No sooner did these young fellows begin to earn a decent wage on the mines than they had this poisonous stuff instilled into them by the hon. member for George Town and others. The fact was that the real trouble on the Rand was not that there were so many Labour leaders, but that there were none. There were men like the gentlemen sitting on the cross-benches who called themselves Labour leaders or allowed., others to call them Labour leaders, but they were the blind who led the blind with the inevitable result that both fell into the ditch. (Hear, hear.)

There were one or two good Labour leaders, but they had not appeared in this nonsense. They had tried the old worn out shibboleths. At one time the right to work was claimed. That was tried in Paris in 1848, when national workshops were established. Within a few months the right to work resulted in 15,000 men, women and children being slaughtered in the streets of Paris. If the Union Government had no means of dealing with the late condition of affairs on the Rand, then, for heaven’s sake, let Parliament give Government the power to meet it. (Loud cheers.)

Continuing, Mr. Quinn showed how the Federation of Trades exercised tyranny over men, relating his personal experience. He had a considerable number of men, some of whom had been with him over twenty years. The scheme was that every man should be compelled to join a union, and that every union should be attached to the Federation of Labour. Six or seven of his men joined the union, which he recognised. It was made impossible for the others to remain out, and they all joined the union. The next thing was to have a strike. A conference was held between the employers and the men, and the dispute was settled. The beautiful periods of the gentleman who had just addressed the House from the Bar had moved him greatly, but what moved him more was the strike. (Laughter.) Owing to the foresight of the Government he believed South Africa was saved from something too terrible for words. (Cheers.) If the Government had not acted as strongly as it did, the country would have been in an awful skate. The Government came to him for supplies for the troops, and he said he did not want the order, but he took it. Then his men came to him and said they would have to go out unless he refused to supply bread to the troops and the police. He told his men that he regarded such a suggestion as an insult.

Once a community woke to the danger of what Syndicalism meant, explained Mr. Quinn, Syndicalism would be stone dead. The citizens of Johannesburg were awake to the danger. One leading architect carrying a rifle patrolled his works, and seeing that, he (Mr. Quinn) thought what a mean cur he would be if he refused to carry on his ordinary business. (Cheers.) Re refused the demands of his men, and they went out. When he asked one of his men, who had been with him twenty years, why he was going on strike, the man replied, with tears in his eyes, “You don’t know what it means to be called a scab. ” The hon. member for George Town, who was, more than any other man, responsible, now sat in the House at his ease enjoying the fun, while his poor dupes were in gaol. (Cheers.) Some of his men came back. One of the men who went out on strike used threatening language, so he (Mr. Quinn) took care that he should not come back. (Cheers.) Yet that was what the Labour Party called victimisation.

The men had succeeded in establishing a reign of tyranny and anarchy right along the Reef, and he was warned as to what was to happen to him, but it had not happened yet. (Laughter.) Sufficient unto the day were the Labour leaders thereof. (Renewed laughter.)

He wished to associate himself in the strongest possible manner with the conclusion arrived at by the Minister of Defence. We have been told that the men were wrongly reported; it was bad luck for them if they were, but at any rate they had not been bady deported. (Loud laughter.) We had been told of one particular gentleman what a fine fellow he was, but this gentleman said to the people, “You know what you did last time.” “Last time” they kicked people to death in the streets, destroyed life and property, and tried to usurp the functions of the Government. This particular gentleman added, “Do it again.” He (Mr. Quinn) felt it very keenly to see swept on one side a free Government—no freer Government existed—(cheers)—every man being entitled to a full measure of freedom— but they had seen how some of these people used it. He was absolutely convinced from his experience of life here that if Government had not taken care it was in for a similar state of affairs this year. The strikers were foolish men, but sometimes foolish men and mischievous children had to be put in cages. He was personally perfectly satisfied that if Government had not acted promptly last month we should have had something in the nature of civil war. Think of the cost of it! When he heard that the Prime Minister had signed the paper that day he felt sick, but now he was convinced that they had done the best thing at that time. What were they to think of men who went about with revolvers in their pockets. He was convinced the whole country was with the Government in the declaration of Martial Law, but many people seriously and anxiously disagreed utterly with the deportation of these people. When he remembered that they were here face to face in that country, with a state of things that had never happened before, they must make their own precedent, as otherwise they would never have any. (Laughter.) He would rather walk out of the House for ever than not vote for that thing, which he was convinced had saved society. (Hear, hear.) He was convinced that they had been up against a conspiracy which went to show that if they could have got the chance they would have destroyed half the Rand. Proceeding, Mr. Quinn said that the men who had been kicked about the streets last July were crying aloud for vengeance, and it had come, and some of them would have liked to see it come about in a more drastic fashion. If he had been in the position of the Minister he would not have troubled to deport these men at all. (Laughter.) He was very keen on personal liberty, but what did these men expect; did they expect that every man could do as he liked? Having quoted Mill on liberty, he said that the Government had another chance, and had distinguished themselves in that matter, but had still a lot to do. The Government must be sure that complaints had been freely heard, that they had deeply considered them, and must be equally sure that they had, as far as possible, been remedied. If the Government had done that, the country would forget much what the Government had done. He believed that in the Railway Department some twelve hundred grievances had been remedied, and there must have been many complaints, otherwise so many would not have been remedied; and he believed that there were still more. There should be strength and firmness, otherwise the employer would fail, but there should also be fairness, right and justice. In the Railway Department and in the Postal and Telegraph Department there were, he was sure, many just complaints, and the postal and telegraph employees had never threatened to strike. Concluding, the hon. member said, that as long as the Government tried to govern, the country wisely and well, they must stand together in the national emergency, where the whole of society was threatened, and prove themselves worthy citizens of a grand country. (Cheers.)

rising after a considerable pause, said he thought it would have been a disgrace to that House, if they had come to a vote, when Mr. Speaker just now was about to put the question, and so he offered what he had to say in the hope that some hon. members would take the view, that the country and the people outside the country were looking to that country for an expression of opinion on an event that had interested the world, and that the House should not take it as a matter of course that what had been done had been right, but that they should discuss principles rather than expediency— the principles that had been the guiding principles of Parliament ever since it had existed. He thought that the Bill should not have been introduced as one Bill, but that there should have been two Bills, the one dealing with the proclamation of Martial Law and the other dealing with the proscription of the names of the persons contained in the schedule. The banishment or the deportation of these men had taken place under Martial Law, and therefore, to that extent, it was covered by the indemnity which the Government got—if they did get it—for what was done under Martial Law. But the Bill went further than that, and passed an act of perpetual banishment on these men, and he thought that the House should consider that matter separately. Possibly there were more people in that House who had had experience of Martial Law than in any other similar deliberative assembly in the world. Martial Law meant the complete suspension of law, and the placing of absolute power in the hands of the executive, and such a thing should not take place without the gravest reason, and without it being established for the safety of the State if it were in peril. Without laying down any legal principle, he thought it was generally accepted, not only by lawyers, but by men of common sense, who loved liberty, that the declaration of Martial Law was only justified when the greatest national perils threatened the country, and that the maintenance of Martial Law was only justified so long as these events existed. That matter should be considered not while these passions existed, but in their capacity of men almost judicial, and it should be considered whether the events of that last strike justified the proclamation of Martial Law. He fully admitted that, having regard to what had taken place on the Rand in July last, and the Government having reason to believe that that might take place again, they were fully justified in proclaiming Martial Law. Undoubtedly after Martial Law had been proclaimed, excesses had been committed, for instance, there was a meeting of the executive of a Trades Union privately in their own office, without any attempt to foment disorder. These men were arrested, and such a policy was likely to, provoke resistance rather than maintain peace. Most of the men had been brought before the Magistrate, and even under Martial Law, had been acquitted. Proceeding, the hon. member said that the Government should have been careful not to overstep the limits required. It was not his plan to criticise the Government for any indiscretion here or there, or for any mistaken policy, but was the Government justified in proclaiming Martial Law. He did not think that these mistakes of policy were such as to justify them in reusing indemnity. Martial Law was infinitely preferable to “Benoni ” law. The disasters which had overtaken the country and the infractions of liberty had been brought upon the country by the leaders and their friends. By the doctrines they preached among the working classes they were largely responsible for the calamity which had overtaken the country, and for the infraction of liberty of which they complained.

He now passed to the other part of the Bill, which authorised the perpetual banishment of nine men. It was a very grave thing that men without trial or charge, without any possibility of repelling the charges against them, should be taken and: perpetually banished from the country. He need not insist upon the importance of the right of trial, or that every man should be presumed innocent until he had been found guilty. Those maxims had become so familiar that we were apt not to realise their value and would not do so until a few more inroads had been made upon them, but the time might come when some of those who most applauded the application of that sort of thing at the present time, would take a different view, principally because the men concerned were different. Was it right that that House should consider the application of the infringement of such matters merely upon a personal issue. Was it right that on that account they should lightly overrule the principles at the root? He would like hon. members to get away from the personal view. Let them get their minds away from those disturbances at Johannesburg which horrified this country. They were not dealing with those persons or with the nine individuals, but with the application of principles which governed anywhere; principles which had been hammered out in the hard school of experience and were held there by people who understood them; because without them liberty and good government could not go on. But valuable as those principles of liberty were, he thought that circumstances might arise in a country when an Executive Government would be justified in taking the stand that had been taken in South Africa.

The safety of a State and of the people must be supreme—(cheers)—and Government was the power in whom the responsibility rested for the safety of the nation. They were justified in using every force at their disposal to safeguard that and have their conduct indemnified afterwards. But they had listened to a long and eloquent speech during the last three days, but during that speech there had not been a shadow of evidence brought forward that the country had come to such a state of extreme gravity as to justify such a course. He had heard nothing to prove that it was impossible to get together a judicial tribunal to give those men a trial. (Cheers.) They had heard that juries in Johannes burg were unjustifiably weak—(An Hon. Member: “Preferably weak”)—and some were of opinion that they should do away with the jury system, but the judge and jury system was the last word in civilised society. If those men were guilty, surely the House might have been called together to set up a tribunal which would have tried them; a tribunal which would not be liable to be melted by arguments or pathos? Was there any reason why that should not be done? If Parliament had been called together, could it not have set up such a tribunal? He had heard no such evidence. Let them remember what they had heard against those men—they had heard speeches made by them, most unjustifiable ones which in all probability were punishable by law—but was there any speech which approached to the gravity of the necessity for banishment for life? No! The arguments brought forward during the speech showed how dangerous it was to deal with a man’s liberty without a judicial tribunal. He had heard nothing which convinced him that the circumstances in the country were such that it was impossible to get together a judicial tribunal before whom these men could have been tried and before whom they could have had a chance of defending themselves. Proceeding, he said it was interesting to him to compare the speeches made in justification of the Government’s action and the Bill they were asked to pass. This speech made by the Minister alleged a vast conspiracy. Was that alleged in the Bill? Not a word. Did it say in the Bill even that those men were dangerous to the peace and good government of the country, or that they were guilty of high treason? Not a word. The Bill alleged, that they created unrest among the wage-earners of the Union. If that was going to justify names being put on that list which the Minister kept, he feared that it might grow very much larger. It was a very dangerous principle to lay down that if a man incited his fellow-workers, he was on that account liable to perpetual banishment. What sort of a principle was that to ask the House to sanction? The Minister had said that he did not work in bad company. He was referring to the Peace Preservation Ordinance in the Transvaal, which was passed shortly after the war. The Minister dealt with that matter at some length, but he (the speaker) would ask hon. members to remember the conditions which existed now, and compare them with the conditions existing in 1903, when the Transvaal was not trusted with Responsible Government. Legislation considered then could not be considered necessary now. Some of those men concerned in administering that regime were anxious to see it come to an end.

In 1903 it was repealed and re-enacted. That was true. He only asked hon. members if they were prepared to admit that legislation, which might have been thought necessary under those conditions, was thought necessary still. But even in those times they did not give the power to any executive officer to take an inhabitant of the country, and without a charge, without notice, and ship him over the borders of the country without trial. He heard the Minister say that they had not a chance to exercise those powers, for the reason that the country was quiet, and he was prepared to admit that his hon. friend and his friends preserved the compact that had been arranged. He was not prepared to admit, however, that when these people were sent out of the country on January 28, the country was less quiet than at the time the Ordinance was passed. There had been a big industrial disturbance, but was any member of that House prepared to say that that House could not have set up a special tribunal, before which these men might have been tried? He said that it was inconceivable that hon. members could take this view, considering the circumstances of the country at the time. Hon. members might say that if they condoned the proclamation of Martial Law, they must also condone this act, which was executed under Martial Law. That argument did not appear to him to be correct, because the second part of that measure did not concern Martial Law, but the sentence of banishment which had been passed against these men. The Act was nothing more than a denial of justice—the application of force at a time when no evidence had been brought before them to show that there was such extreme national necessity for the setting aside of all constitutional safeguards and the substitution of government by force. Government by force would not die when the Martial Law Proclamation was withdrawn. They had not finished with this thing. They would not be finished with this thing when the Bill was passed.

Oh, yes.

said he would tell his hon. friends that these disturbances did not spring out of the heads of these nine men. (Labour cheers.) No doubt these men were, responsible for the action that was taken in bringing men out and inciting them to do these acts. The words of these men fell on fruitful soil because of the unrest, and the Government were also to blame for the way in which they had handled the grievances that had been placed before them. For these reasons these disturbances would not have taken place. But there was unrest in the country, of which these men could take advantage. All this would not be stamped out by sending these men across the sea. Even if these men did not come back they had still to deal with the trouble on which these men worked, and he hoped that they would be able to settle this trouble by very much more peaceful methods. Now the Government had decided to drop its programme of industrial legislation, because it was stated it was thought that such measures should be dealt with in a calm and judicial atmosphere. He thought himself that if it was desirable that those measures should be dealt with in a calm and judicial manner, then it was also necessary that they should deal with the liberty of these men in a similar manner. He was sorry that they were to deal with this subject while the fire still burned, because it was things of this sort that tended to keep the fire burning. It would be better if these did not have such a precedent as was sought to be established. If the House passed this Bill it would have a precedent—

I hope so.

said he always thought that his hon. friend was a most pacific person. He did not think that anything would arouse him but a Budget statement from the hon. the Minister of Finance. (Laughter.) But he thought that his hon. friend’s aspirations now were not to live in a country that was governed constitutionally, but in some place like Mexico. (Laughter.)

Let them not do away with this great principle of a judicial trial; if that principle was thrown aside, then there was nothing before this country but government by revolution. They were told that the circumstances of this country were very different to those of other countries, and that the precedents of other countries were not applicable to this country. They must be careful how they discarded in this country principles that had been hammered out by civilised men and that had been found applicable in other countries of the world. The reason why he objected to the second reading of this Bill was because the Government had not put forward reasons which, in his opinion, justified the statement that when these men were deported the circumstances of the country were such that they could not have been given a judicial trial. He did not say that these men should have gone before a judge and jury, that they should have been taken before a Magistrate, but he did say that they ought to have had a judicial trial and that the House should have formed the tribunal. They had not heard reasons, and they ought to have heard reasons, why this action was taken without this being done.

said that he had not intended to take part in the debate that afternoon, but he could not let the speech of the hon. member for Fordsburg go forth from this House to the country as the view which would be taken by members on his side of the House. He was compelled, much against his will, to answer some of the arguments that had been brought forward by the hon. member for Fordsburg, and to give expression to the reasons which animated some of them in their firm intention of supporting the Government in this measure. He knew how serious were the issues that were before the House. He had sat through debates on Martial Law, and he knew the time when Martial Law was over this country for some years, when he had to abandon his home for two years under conditions which he was not likely to forget. And he had ruled under Martial Law, and knew the rule of the iron hand, and he said that the proper place to discuss it was in that House and in no other place.

He wanted to say something about the necessity for the application of the law which had been so eloquently stated by the hon. the Minister. The Minister went back to July, and said that the events that occurred in that month were justification for the application of Martial Law. But the Minister was not entirely blameless for the growth of Syndicalism in this country. This was the time for straight speaking, and he thought it well that the country should know exactly what they thought. Was the Ministry not to blame in 1910 when they helped the Labour Party on the Rand in the general election for reasons of their own ? The result came to light the following session, when hon. members belonging to the Labour party voted for the Government when the Leader of the Opposition moved a vote of no confidence in the Government on the ground that their Civil Servants were not being treated properly. That was part of the compact, and they hoped to get something in return. The Government was thus to blame in the early days of the Union owing to the fact that it played up to the Labour Party in order to break down racial divisions that existed. They broke up the English-speaking portion of the people for good, but they had used their worst enemies for their own ends, and the troubles of July and January were in some degree the result. Let them take the printing trade, which was allied with the Federation of Trades. What was the home of that trade union in this country—the Government Printing Works at Pretoria. They might as employers fight it, but they were faced by the fact that the Government were not prepared to take the action it should take to protect itself as an employer and others in the same business. He cited that as an example. Was not the Government to blame there? Let them take the position of the railways? When Mr. Poutsma became the secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Railway and Harbour Employees the society was not as strong as it had become recently, owing to the troubles that had taken place. And why? Because Mr. Poutsma, unchallenged, made the statement that he was the channel of communication between employees and the Government for the rectification of their grievances.

He never was.

said that the point was that that statement was made and that it went unchallenged, and the old influences for good such as that exercised by members of Parliament were done away with. The result was that hundreds of men who were not trade unionists at all were compelled practically to join the Amalgamated Society. In his own town, a man who was one of the oldest servants of the public, an eloquent speaker an extremely forcible character, was compelled practically to save his position among the men and his influence, to join the Amalgamated Society. He asked him (Colonel Crewe) for advice, and told him that all the men were going into this society. He advised the man to join. He was thankful to say that this man was one of those who assisted in keeping the men from striking at East London.

Spies.

I have no discussion with the hon. gentlemen who sit over there. One of them, only the other day, spoke here in this House of the revolution that is to come. (Hear, hear.) I have not come out to discuss things in Parliament with revolutionaries. (Hear, hear.)

Then why don’t you sit down?

Because I happen to be a member of Parliament of this country, with a duty to the people of the country, and I am not prepared to discuss these matters with the people whom I consider the worst enemies of the working men in this country.

You are discussing it; you can’t help it.

went on to say that the result was that in the Amalgamated Society the numbers were enormously increased by the action of the Government in not repudiating and indeed in tolerating Mr. Poutsma as the means of conveying communications between the dissatisfied men and the Government. He was well aware that this was not the place to discuss the men’s grievances, and he was not going to do so, as there would be a more fitting opportunity. He considered that that, contributory cause as it was, had been shown not to be the chief cause of the trouble because, after all the grievances in the Cape Province were just as great, he had no doubt, as they were in the Transvaal, and yet the Cape Service remained loyal throughout, and this country owed them a great debt of gratitude for that. The fact was that we had all sat idly by and watched the growth of Syndicalism in this country, and both employers and people, until it had become an intolerable nuisance, never set their faces against it. They had allowed in Parliament, even in that House last session, the most extravagant speeches to be made without having dealt with them. They had passed over these remarks as the idle talk of foolish people, but that idle talk brought about something that was very near a grave disaster in this country in July last. Now, in regard to the strike in July last, he took the trouble, when he came back, to inform himself as to the conditions which had been seen on the Rand, and what astonished him more than anything else was that, when the strike took place last July, the person who was responsible for the maintenance of peace and order on the Johannesburg Goldfields, the Minister of Mines, was not there and, what was more, he did not appear there until the Tuesday after the trouble was over. He thought this House and Parliament was indebted to the Prime Minister for the action he took on that Saturday when he went and faced an angry mob and came to a settlement which, as the Minister of Finance had rightly said, was a very painful settlement tor any people to come to. But what else could he have done? Call in more troops? There were no more troops. Call in the people from outside in the country? The result would have been that the Burghers in the Transvaal would have been shooting down the Englishmen on the Rand, and he (Colonel Crewe) ventured to say that the Prime Minister saved South Africa and saved the Empire from a serious trouble on that account.

The General Officer commanding the troops said that he could hold the town of Johannesburg, but he could not hold the Reef and the suburbs, so that if those people along the Reef, those miners who were out on strike and were tampering with the natives, had succeeded in inducing the natives to strike, the wives and the families of the miners themselves were the people who were going to be in the gravest danger. That position, to his mind, was too dreadful to contemplate—what might have happened if several hundred thousand datives had got on the loose along the Reef. It would have taken weeks to restore order, and in this country Syndicalism could not be tolerated and Socialism could not be tolerated—(laughter on the cross-benches)—for the simple reason that we had a duty to our own race, and when We tolerated Syndicalism and Socialism we were practically committing race suicide. (Hear, hear.) Now, many of them in that House felt that the natives and coloured people had political rights in this country, but what did the Labour Party at their last Congress go and do? They gradually allowed the thin end of the wedge to come into their policy, because of their Socialism, the brotherhood of man, whether black or white, and they brought these people in on level terms. What was going to be the effect on the Trade Unionists and workmen of the country? He ventured to say that they did not understand, they were ignorant people, foolish people, who did not understand the weapons with which they were playing in this country. (Hear hear.) They were playing with the most desperate weapon there was; they were doing so at the risk of the people of their own race and of their own colour.

He now came to Martial Law itself. He did not think there was one sensible man in South Africa who would deny, with the events of July, after the preparations of which they all knew for January or some subsequent date, that the Government was right in enforcing Martial Law on January 14. He was also aware of the difficulties in the administration of Martial Law, how an order sent to a subordinate official got either misread or misunderstood, and how in consequence the subordinate official did actions such as those in Germiston, which were naturally wholly regrettable and really very trying. But, making allowance for that, he thought that on the whole Martial Law had been administered, as this House would desire to see it administered, with sense and with justice. (Hear, hear.) He had made some inquiry as to the reason for the Germiston ebullition, and he found that a person did not understand what was meant by an order sent to one man and repeated to another. It was one of the mistakes that were often, he believed, made by officers who were not acquainted with staff work. If there were any reason why Martial Law should be enforced, it was because there was an endeavour on the part of a minority to dictate by force to a majority. The minority intended to use their weapons if they had the opportunity; they were prevented from doing So by the fact that the Government was able to lay its hands upon a very considerably superior force. At the outset he feared himself that the Defence Forces, which were really but six months old, would neither be ready nor adequate to deal with the disturbances, but he thought that, if this country had one thing to be thankful for, it was that the Defence Forces were there to answer the calls of the Government. For the way in which the Rifle Associations, speaking of section B of the Defence Force Reserve, known as the commandoes, collected together, he thought they were all, and a great many of them as Englishmen especially, exceedingly grateful. It was one of the pleasures of the situation to know that it was the English people and the Hutch people standing together and working together who were of such service in such a great crisis in South Africa. (Hear, hear.) If another reason were wanted for the necessity of. Martial Law—in the quieter parts of the country, in the Cape, they were more fortunate in having practically no disturbances—but he ventured to say that the application of Martial Law in the disturbed areas had a great deal to do with the quietude that prevailed over the rest of the country. Martial Law applied on the Rand had the effect of steadying the rest of South Africa. But it was neither Martial Law nor the Defence Force, nor the rapidity of the movement of these people who mobilised that defeated this attempted criminal rebellion and revolution on the Witwatersrand. It was the public feeling of the whole of South Africa that was against them and made their position intolerable. (Hear, hear.) That was the reason why the strike was unsuccessful—because South Africa, was not prepared to tolerate Socialism and Syndicalism, the Federation of Trades, the organisation of revolutions, and that kind of thing. The whole of the feeling of South Africa was against them. He now wanted to come to the deportations. He was not going to follow the hon. member for Fordsburg in the legal quibbles over the phraseology of the Bill, nor in some of the arguments that he had used, the legal arguments. He wanted to deal with, the matter rather more from the common-sense point of view than the legal technical position. (Hear, hear.)

He thought the deportation of these men was an extremely dangerous precedent. It was dangerous to seize British subjects without trial, and to deport them and to banish them practically for life from South Africa. But if the action were in the best interests of South Africa, then the Government ought to be supported, even to the deportation of a number of British subjects without trial. (Ministerial cheers.) There was not much difference between deporting a man who had been tried and acquitted and deporting a man who had not been tried, for fear that he would be acquitted. He came merely to the common-sense question: Was the deportation in the best interests of South Africa, and was this step necessary for the restoration and maintenance of peace? If so, it was justifiable. If it were not so, then it was unjustifiable.

He happened to be one of his hon. friend’s “foreign adventurers” he was liable to deportation or to refusal of acceptance here under the Immigration Act, but it, was not going to trouble him, for the simple reason that he was certain that this Government, and indeed no Government, could ever possibly deal in that way with a person who was a law-abiding citizen, (Ministerial cheers.) As a “foreign adventurer,” he was prepared to take the risk, even under the iron rule of his Right Hon. friend. But if people conspired together to commit acts that were dangerous to the peace of the whole community, then deportation was a punishment they richly deserved. In war time such men would be tried by court martial and would be shot. (Hear, hear.) It had been said by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan) that Government should have called Parliament together and should have established a court for the trial of these people. He (Colonel Crewe) could imagine his hon. friend coming down and protesting against the establishment of a special court. He was quite certain that every lawyer in the House would have opposed the Government on that point, and would have said to it, “You are responsible for your acts, and the proper thing to do is to get an Act of Indemnity ” not to create a special Court as an insult to the intelligence of the existing Courts, which if Courts were needed were surely sufficiently competent.

It had been asked why these people had not been tried by court martial? He understood it would have been, impossible to have done that unless the court was presided over by a high official of the permanent service of the country, and was composed of officers of the Defence Force. The Government could not have succeeded in getting an Imperial officer to try these men for criminal conspiracy. The members of the Court would have been put in this intolerable position. Either they would have to release the accused or they would have to convict them, and on them would have fallen the onus which should rightly fall on the Minister. (Ministerial cheers.) Government would have shirked the responsibility if it had put the responsibility on the permanent officers of the Defence Force, and if the latter had found the accused guilty, they would have been marked men for fife. As far as the establishment of a special Court was concerned, the arguments of the hon. member for Fordsburg were not likely to carry great weight. He understood the hon. member for Fordsburg contended that persons were deported because they were, political enemies of the Government of the country, and those who sat behind the Government.

I said, in considering a matter of this kind, involving the most important principles, we should not allow our judgment to be guided by regard to the fact that the persons concerned may be objectionable to most of us.

I entirely agree with the hon. member, but the implication left in my mind was that it might be said they had been deported because they were obnoxious to people with whom they disagreed in politics. That carries no weight with me, but the question is, whether they were detrimental to law and order? Continuing, Colonel Crewe said that the Minister’s position at the end of his speech was that of a person skating over thin ice, he heard the ice crack when he referred to those sacred Courts and made for the shore. He fancied the Minister felt that he had over-ridden the acts of the Courts, and that gave him some anxiety Why did the Minister of Defence not go on with his justification? The House would gladly have listened to him longer, for it would have liked to have had from him two or three things more. First, the number of attempts that had been made on human life on the railway. Then the hon. gentleman would have been wise if he had told the House the ultimate cost of this little game in the interest of the freedom of speech. This country was not going to allow a number of people to get together and to disturb the whole peace and progress of South Africa every six months. (Ministerial cheers.) He was sorry the Minister did not tell the House that the Defence Force could not be called upon every day to put down such serious disturbances as these. In addition to the deportation of Mr. Galbraith Cole, there had been others. There were deportations from South Africa of British subjects during the war, but he would not go into that. Martial Law would deport people again, if there was any necessity. The reason there was no bloodshed in January was because Government put its foot down—(hear, hear)— but were they to suppose that the people concerned would not have used the same weapons in January as they did in July if they had the chance? They knew that it was the case that they used these measures in July last, and were prepared to use them in January, and use them again next July if the opportunity offered. He was prepared to see the panishment of these men. He knew perfectly well that he would have to answer his constituents, and he was certain that his constituents were just people. At least a thousand of them were working people, who did their work and scorned agitators. He was not going to justify, or attempt to justify, himself to these men, who wanted to bring endless trouble on South Africa, who did not care for their race, and only wanted to gain their own ends; who never worked with their hands, who shifted their ground from day to day, and used any argument which they found suitable. He was convinced that there was not a shadow of a doubt that these people were a danger to the States and he would suggest to the Minister of Finance that he should put on the Table of the House the dossier and the crimes with which these people were charged. His vote must go in favour of the second reading of that Bill, and with regard to the deportation question, he must confess that, much as he regretted it, and much as he disliked voting for arbitrary procedure of that kind his vote must go in favour of it. (Hear, hear.)

said that he thought that on many occasions they on the cross-benches had been gibed at and twitted by the hon. member for Fordsburg, and other hon. members, who had expressed their disgust that they (the members on the cross-benches) were never satisfied, although they had seen eye to eye occasionally with the hon. member. There were points in the hon. member’s speech to which he took the heartiest exception, but might he congratulate the hon. member on the courageous spirit of his speech, where he had vindicated the true spirit of liberty and justice. The hour was late, and three or four hours of the Minister’s speech had been directed to incriminating Labour members in the indictment he had made against these nine men, and against the whole movement. The House would only expect that they who answered his charges should state their opinions fully, and he thought that the Government would have no objection if he now moved the adjournment of the debate. (Cries of “No.”)

said that he thought that the sense of humiliation which they all had in that House yesterday afternoon after the conclusion of the speech of the Minister of Finance had only been equalled by the bitter sense of humiliation they had felt when they listened to the speech of the hon. member tor East London (Colonel Crewe). Surely the speech made by counsel at the Bar of the House convinced every hon. member that these men had had no fair trial, and that they were being convicted on the ex parte statement of the Minister of Finance, and was there any hon. member of that House who was accustomed to take the statement of the Minister of Finance without investigation? Was it not a commonplace in politics of that country that whoever returned from an interview with the Minister returned with a different idea of the interview that the Minister of Finance himself had of it. He referred to Mr. Gokhale and the £3 tax. He did not say that the Minister of Finance did not give the story according to his lights, or that he did not give a true account to the world, but what he did say was that he was a very clever man, and if they had put a phonograph in the room where the interview had taken place he thought that they would find that Mr. Gokhale was right in what he said had taken place, and that the Minister of Finance had got a “word in” as to what had been said. The Minister of Finance rose on Wednesday afternoon, and had to account to that House and to the country for the state of things to which the Government had reduced a large portion of the country, and had to account for a state of affairs unprecedented in His Majesty’s Dominions in a time of peace. He had to account for the fact that men's liberties had been at the mercy of the Government. Hon. members who had not come from the Rand had little idea of what the position of affairs up there had been. Men had been imprisoned because they had been found a short distance from their house doors in their shirt sleeves at ten minutes past eight of an evening. He had to account for a state of things where the rights of subjects had been at the mercy of the executive, and men had been imprisoned and wrested from their wives and families for no alleged crime whatever, but for such irregularities as he had mentioned in contravention of Martial Law. How had the Minister dealt with that position? He had read a considerable number of extracts from speeches, and with jests and gibes attempted to scorn hon. members who sat on the cross-benches. He had tried to score off his political opponents as a partisan and not in any statesmanlike manner. There was a little rift in the party on the Opposition benches, but the Minister had an enormous backing on his own side, who had backed him so complacently that they were willing to allow him to take the first step without challenge. Referring to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt), Mr. Creswell said that he could not term him the Leader of an Opposition, although he posed as such, and had set up the paltry plea that on leave to introduce the Bill there need be no statement on the part of the Minister. Was it the business of the Opposition to consider the convenience of the Government? It was the business of the Opposition to challenge the Government at every stage of the proceedings. Yet these great pundits of Parliamentary law stated that when a motion like that was introduced it was never debated but the nearest tyro like himself—he could remember from his own knowledge—and he was corroborated by Hansard—and such authority might even pass muster with the hon. member for Fort Beaufort—that Mr. Gladstone had spoken for four hours when he introduced the Home Rule Bill. That Opposition had tumbled to the ground. They had let the Government advance a stage and had thus made the Minister’s position easier. He (Mr. Creswell) was thankful that be began his remarks by expressing his gratitude to the hon. member for Fordsburg for stepping into the breach on behalf of the side he claimed to represent, the British Party.

I don’t, anyhow.

You represent the Shangaan.

Not the hooligans.

At this point the hon. member moved the adjournment of the debate, which was agreed to.