But the speech contained no such sensations. It was all a matter of hearsay, it was based on the reports of speeches—the newspaper reports of speeches—and anything that had come to his notice. Things which he as a lawyer would not have looked at in court were brought before that. House as evidence Why there were rumours flying about broadcast. He (the speaker) received a letter from a friend the other day, telling him there was a rumour current to the effect that when the offices of the South African Labour Party were raided there was found a list of the names of people whose houses were to be burned. (Labour laughter.) If this thing had appeared in any of the newspapers the Minister would have brought it forward as evidence in support of his case. The Minister’s; only excuse for taking such an extraordinary action was that it had to be taken urgently before their passions cooled down. Had ever any Minister, any sane man, advanced such a reason? It showed them the arrogance of the Government. Continuing, the speaker referred to the evidence which had been quoted by the Minister with regard to Crawford, and said he thought that the report of the Disturbances Commission, with all respect to the learned Judges who were on that Commission, should be taken with the greatest caution. He (the speaker) had a telegram from the solicitor of Crawford, which stated that it was proved in Court that neither Mrs. Fitzgerald nor Crawford went to Park Station with the crowd. Crawford tried to stop them going there, and neither were at the burning of the “Star” Office. Of course, that was not good enough for the Minister. When the Minister sat down on the second day many of his supporters were aghast at the flimsy nature of the Minister’s evidence. They went out with hanging heads, feeling that the Minister had not provided a case on which they could subsequently act. (Laughter.) He was prepared for those gibes, and he did not think the country would laugh. They on the cross-benches knew something of the story and they knew that the Minister was going to bring forward a weak case of that sort. Even the loyalty of the Government’s most loyal supporters was being strained to the breaking point. They knew the Minister to be a very clever man. He knew that the question of the deportation was the important point, and the whole of his speech was a defence in the hope that the other acts of the Government might escape criticism in the course of this debate. He thought that everything else would be lost sight of in the fight with regard to the deportations. The Minister stood and cracked jokes on this, that, and the other thing, and the defence was not worthy of the occasion, not worthy of the issues involved, and not worthy of the Minister himself. Having produced the country to a state of paralysis, and hundreds leaving our shores, the Minister said, “Look at the way the Defence Force rolled up.”

Then the preamble went on to say that these scheduled persons “had fomented strife between those wage-earners and their employers.” What kind of strife asked the hon. member. Did not strife exist between wage-earners and their employers all over the world? Were the workers to be denied the right to as much as they could earn for their labours? The hon. member pointed out that there was legislation in the Transvaal which dealt with strikes, and said that the penalties existed in the law for inciting to strike, and if that law was contravened they were welcome to prosecute and have these men punished. There were occasions when an unjust law—the injustice of it— could only be shown up by the men breaking it, but in that case they must take the full penalty of the law, and could one blame them for that? Then the preamble went on to say: “And whereas they 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.” There were no disturbances in January. “And whereas the said acts, words, and conduct of the said scheduled persons have caused great danger to persons and property in the Union and general detriment and loss to the community. ” He remembered a famous letter which had been written and the date left open, in November, 1895, which was filled in at the beginning of 1896 or the last days of 1895, when certain gentlemen had asked Dr. Jameson for help which was to occur six weeks later. They there heard of “danger to women and children and danger to property of great value.” The little moral remained the same: whether there was any justification for that preamble, or what they strove to deduce from the preamble. The preamble stated: “And whereas none of the scheduled persons were born in any part of South Africa which has been included in the Union.” Well, that was another of the reasons. He did not want to quote sacred script, but the Minister seemed to strive to say that unless one was born again one could not live in South Africa. (Laughter.) When the Minister had come to deal with these deported men he had reached the Nadir of lack of generosity, but the allegations in the preamble of the Bill had not been proved, and what had been proved was already under cognisance of the law and the Acts which had been made by that Parliament, made in cool deliberation, and punishment had been prescribed. There was the Bill which the hon. Minister ran away from. Was there any reason why hon. members should defend them? The Minister was perfectly conscious that the preamble would not bear any examination, and had sent his private secretaries searching through files of the Press for the speeches of this or that angry man. The colossal mal-administration of the Government and his own acts about the 4th July were glossed over. The Ministers’ allegations against these deportees were that they were political undesirables. The Minister said,“ Political undesirables from a criminal point of view.” What on earth was the meaning of that? What was a political undesirable from a criminal point of view? He saw several of them on the Treasury Benches at this moment, but that was no reason for their deportation. (Laughter.) But when the Minister spoke of “Political undesirables from a criminal point of view,” his language went into the realms that he (Mr. Creswell) could not follow, and what on earth was the meaning of that phrase he left him to explain to the House at some other time. Then the Minister went on to refer to these police records, police opinions—Colonel Truter’s, he supposed. He should be very careful what he said about Colonel Truter, because he appeared to have enormous power. He did not know whether Colonel Truter played the Strafford to the Minister.

He wanted to appeal to the records. He refused them a trial in this country, he sent them across the water, and then, with unbounded generosity, an act in itself enough to tarnish his name for ever, he made allegations against their characters from police books. That was a dirty conclusion to a dirty action. (Hear, hear.) He knew what the Minister desired was that they should take the fullest responsibility for every word that was spoken in anger or that they should disown these nine men. He (Mr. Creswell) had more generosity than that. He did not play dirty games like that. He was not going to say that he agreed—he had said so often enough publicly—with some of the utterances of these men, but, while he said that, when they were in the political field together he was not going to disown them, when the Minister in his dirty way had turned them out of this country. (Labour cheers.) As far as he knew—and he knew some of these men a good deal, he said that South Africa was the poorer to-day for the absence of these nine men. (Labour cheers and dissent.) Somebody had said “Question.” If the possession of men who had courage enough to take great risks in support of their opinions were something that added to the wealth of the country, then he said that South Africa to-day was the poorer for the absence of these men. The hon. member for East London had said that he did not want to discuss these matters with revolutionaries. The hon. member liked to be on the winning side, and there was more than a little suspicion that he would like to be over on the ministerial side.

Mr. Poutsma had been described by the Minister as the “sinister figure.” They knew the Minister’s little way. Let them hear something of the “sinister figure” and his record, as far as they knew it. He was imprisoned in Holland twenty years ago for an angry speech made against the municipality which offered 4d. a day to the unemployed. What crime! As far as he was informed, Mr. Poutsma came to South Africa a good many years ago. True, he was not born here. He was a Boer War Correspondent during the war. He served in the ambulance at considerable personal expense to himself. He was informed that Mr. Poutsma took part in one or two missions to Europe, and that he accompanied President Steyn to Europe. Did the Minister say that President Steyn usually kept disreputable company? This information had been given to him from parties that he believed to be perfectly correct. There were some matters that he knew from his own personal knoweldge. This “sinister figure ” was certainly a teacher at Grey College. Did the Grey College professorial staff—

He now came to Mr. Bain, this “desperate character,” or, as it was originally reported, “disreputable character.” By way of prejudicing this man, Mr. Bain, the Minister had alluded to him as a member of the Transvaal Secret Service before the war. That was news to him (Mr. Creswell). He believed that Mr. Bain was a member of the Transvaal Secret Service at the time when the Minister was the head of that service. Would not any man with a spark of generosity have been ashamed to introduce that? Bain was good enough then. He had been out here for nearly thirty years. He was a burgher in the Heidelberg Commando during the war. There were many times when he had differed from Mr. Bain, and he differed from him in regard to that, but still he was a man who had the courage of his convictions. He was a burgher in the Heidelberg Commando. That was a good reason for the Minister to say that, because he was not born here, he should be turned out. He was deported to Ceylon for two years, not in the interests of the Prime Minister and his friends, and now he was going to be deported again in the interests of the Prime Minister and his friends. The Minister of Defence greeted him at the Congress with the words, “My good friend Bain.” (Laughter.) Bain was speaking on behalf of men in a desperate fix, but the Minister blackened the character of his best friends simply to get himself out of the desperate fix he had got himself into. He (Mr. Creswell) did not care what the police might say, or the Minister might say, as regards Bain. He (Mr. Creswell) had differed from Bain strongly on many occasions, but he only hoped that when his hair was as white as Bain’s he would have the same youthful spirit and the same courage to stand up for the right. If the Minister had had the same spirit as Mr. Bain had this country would be the richer for it. (An Hon. Member: “Shame.”) Mr. Bain was a man who had courage. Let them look through the past history of both the white races which inhabited this country and see the men who had been in the small minority—they had always been in the right.

He now came to Waterston; he was an Australian, but he asked the right hon. gentleman to forgive him that crime, for a man could not choose his origin. He came here in the Scottish Horse—that also would be a matter that would weigh with the hon. member for East London. Waterston went home with the Coronation contingent. He was three years with the Cape Police, he married a wife who was born here, and he had children who were also born in this country. He was three times a Councillor of Boksburg. He owned property in this country, and that ought to be a recommendation if nothing else was. He was victimised on the mines. Since July he had been arrested three times, but every time he was discharged. He was arrested again because the Minister thought he was a political undesirable. He was deported. Why? Waterston expressed himself very strongly. He (Mr. Creswell) thought that on almost every occasion the burden of his song was that: “If the Government is going to belabour us we are not going to take it lying down, and are going to hit them back.” The events of July were sufficient to make any man mad with anger at the Government. But the beginning and end of his crime was that he said: “If you use violence against us, don’t expect us to take it lying down.”

He (Mr. Creswell) knew little of Mason except that he was a brave man, but he was confined in the same prison with him, and it was a great advantage to have a talk with him, for he knew life, but not from books. It would be worth the Minister’s while to study industrial life from a man like Mr. George Mason. Mason was a man who under this wicked industrial system had bitten the iron so that it has entered into his soul. He saw the injustice of this capitalist system and fought it in season and out. The Government had turned a better man put of the country in George Mason than were most of the hon. members in that House—he was as good a man as sat there. Had the Labour people to sit mum because they did not quite agree with the Minister? Had they to submit to acts of violence in the name of the law or to be deported? Men ought to be judged, not by what they have done, but by what they are, and George Mason was a better man than the Minister.

Then there was Andrew Watson, who had been in this country for 12 years. He had been a Volunteer and a carpenter, and for seven years had been continuously in the service of a municipality in a steady job. Watson’s whole leisure was spent in the labour cause, but he had never received one single penny from any Labour organisation, although he had held honorary offices in many of them. He was so respected by his fellow-workmen that he was elected president of the Federation of Trade Unions. He was deported because on one or two occasions he said that if they were attacked they would not take it lying down. The Minister wanted men who would take it lying down, and was doing his best to get rid of those who would not take it lying down.

David McKerrell was a miner, a recipient of compensation under the Miners’ Phthisis Act—a man whose life was blasted and who was condemned to an early death by the system which hon. members supported. He was deported because he said, “I will go and tell Poutsma. ” The Minister regarded that as convincing proof of a desperate conspiracy, so let them all be very careful under no circumstances not to say that they would tell Poutsma or his successor. The Minister had got rid of Poutsma, but there would be many ready to take his place.

William H. Morgan served with the S.A. Constabulary for some years and was a miner for several years. His health was shattered and he was a recipient of Miners’ Phthisis compensation. The Minister had not mentioned the incident of July 4 with regard to Morgan, for that would not suit the Minister’s case. On July 4 Morgan went to the meeting which the police desired should not take place. The first person he met was one of the police authorities, who told him that Government was prohibiting the meeting. Morgan replied, “The best thing you can do is to let us tell them that the meeting is prohibited.” Accordingly he mounted a trolley and told the men that the best thing they could do was to go away.

Let them take the cases of McKerrell and Morgan. He would ask hon. members: did they expect men with families, who under ordinary circumstances would have expectations of long and useful lives, whose prospect of life was blasted with miners phthisis, and who were subjected to all sorts of injustice, and who were blacklisted on the mines—did they expect men like that, when talking of their wrongs, to speak like sucking doves? If they wanted their delicate ears not to be offended, then let them remove the causes which produced the anger which made men talk like they did. With regard to William Livingstone, he frankly confessed he knew nothing about him.

As to Archibald Crawford, he had been a bitter opponent to the S.A. Labour Party the whole time. He thought Crawford stood against his hon. friend (Mr. Andrews) once. He (Mr. Creswell) thought the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan) might have spoken a word in his favour. The last thing he remembered about Crawford was when the hon. member for Fordsburg addressed a meeting in the Socialist Hall, Crawford was acting as chairman on that occasion. At the conclusion of the address Crawford advised the audience that the Labour Party was no good, and that they would serve their cause better by voting for the Unionists. The Unionist Press supported him. Crawford had his own convictions. If he had offended against the laws of this country, let him stand his trial; but the only difficulty was that the Minister tried to catch him once or twice on the evidence of the police, and the man was acquitted.

Continuing, he said that he wanted to deal with this question from a constitutional point of view, and it would be seen that this deportation under the guise of necessity was unconstitutional, and therefore a dangerous procedure to adopt for this country. The Minister had relied upon the Peace Preservation Act, and he (the Minister) was supposed to be a clever lawyer, but if Lord Milner had used that Peace Preservation Act against any of the persons whom the Minister has now deported, would not the Minister have opposed such a use being made of it, and the Act would no doubt have been set aside. He (the speaker) had a number of authorities behind him to show that his contention was perfectly correct. He then quoted from Lord Mansfield, to show that the Crown in its prerogative for the colonies could not make any change from the fundamental principles of English law, and he the speaker, would suggest that the principles of Ordinance 138 of 1902, by which persons had been arrested without charge or trial was contrary to the principles of British law. He would also like to read quotations from other authorities on the subject, because these liberties which had been handed down to them had not been acquired for nothing. One of these authorities states, “No person shall be seized or put in prison or brought to ruin save by the legal judgment of his peers or the law of the land.” The Petition of rights of 1628 protected the liberty of the subject to the extent that no person could be put in prison without being charged or kept there without trial. He saw the Minister of Defence smiling. He (the speaker) knew why, but these principles would bear repeating, and putting a man in prison and keeping him there without trial, was not that contrary to English law? But the Peace Preservation Act of Lord Milner had not troubled about these matters. Then there was the Habeas Corpus Act, and the Declaration of Rights of 1689. One could go on quoting examples from now for the rest of the week to show that it was repugnant to all English laws and contrary to their fundamental principles. He asked the House to remember this when considering the case of Wade. The Minister, when he was dealing with this point said if he were asked to name what the charge would be, said, ”I should say it was high treason.” But the Minister of Justice said they could not catch the men on that charge! If there was any conspiracy or high treason he (the speaker) would suggest that the evidence brought forward by the Minister showed that it was he who was guilty of this by disregarding constitutional methods. Conspiracy there was in the later stages, but they (the Ministers) were the conspirators. The Minister of Agriculture smiled, he had not expected it of the Minister who had sat in that chamber and for whom they had conceived such well merited respect and affection. It did not become him (the Minister) to add his weight to the Minister of Defence. In effect, the Minister of Defence had given, as his final reason for these deportations, that the men with weak brains must go while I (the Minister) will survive. That was what Earl Strafford said, and he lost his head. That was not the class of men with brains that they wanted in this country, He asked the House to affirm the first part of the amendment, that they will not condone the action of Ministers in what they had done.

He asked the House not to condone the offences on the ground that the Minister had insulted the country by saying that the matter could not be allowed to remain in abeyance. Then he asked the House not to condone the offences on the ground that they were unfit as a jury to deal with this matter. If the Minister was appearing as counsel for the defence in court would he not challenge the hon. member for East London and the hon. member for Troyeville? On the ground that there was not enough evidence in the speech of the Minister to hang a cat, he asked the House to refuse to condone these outrageous acts. On the ground that they were not going to establish the principle that because a man was politically undesirable he should be sent out of the country, he asked the House not to condone these offences. He also asked the House not to condone these actions on the ground of the oppressive manner in which the Government acted to prevent them getting such small protection which the courts of the land were allowed to exercise. He had told the House how they had been prevented from sending telegrams to their friends. The members of the Government were the enemies of justice in this country. If the House condoned these acts the consequences would be felt by South Africa for many future generations, and if the House did do that South Africa would arise and say: “Give us back the liberty which you filched from us.” So far as that was concerned, he felt that the House was with him, and he was satisfied that the country was overwhelmed. So far as what followed, he was conscious that he would not have the cordial agreement, whether expressed or smothered, of the vast majority of the members of that House. He would like to say that they were not merely trying to score off the Government so far as the deportations were concerned. Their arraignment of the Government went far beyond that—not in this matter alone but in their whole policy. There had been maladministration, and they said that the members of the Government had used their high position not in the interests of the general welfare of South Africa, but to thrust the interests of the wealthy and strong down the throats of the poor and the weak They had used their power like Oriental despots.

As they had listened to the Minister so they hoped the House might listen to them, and though hon. members might disagree with them, let them remember that in the history of the past the foundation of new things had been marked by the advocacy of a few. They stood there a small band. The defence of the Minister began with July. Their attack was to commence a good deal further back than that. To begin at the beginning they would have to go back a number of years, and all these things had culminated in the state of affairs which they had just witnessed. A few years ago the Minister treated with contempt the protests on the part of the men and that was applauded in the House. In 1907 there was a strike on the Witwatersrand which the Minister took such great credit to himself at Krugersdorp for having smashed. He was not there to uphold the law, but for the purpose of smashing strikes for his wealthy friends. They brought troops and they allowed the mines to fence in all their works. It used to be unlawful, both before and after the war, to fence in claim rights. The Minister allowed the mines to fence in those properties. The properties were not fenced in because of any risks, not to prevent any violence to individuals, but to prevent the men on strike being able to lay their cases before the proper people. Then the Government brought a number of troops to show the men on strike that the Government was against them—the usual thing was to treat men on strike as rebels instead of citizens with a power of exercising their undoubted rights. They harried them and tried to make them lose their tempers so that they might have a chance of punishing them. He would not object to the Minister seeing that the law was observed, but if the Minister treated the men like citizens and not rebels he would find that their own organisations would be sufficient to maintain order.

But while he (the Minister) treated the men in that way, was he going to see that the law was strictly and earnestly observed by their opponents in their struggle? Was he taking any steps to see that the regulations were not violated every day the struggle lasted and did the Minister not know what every miner knew; that while he brought the full forces of the Crown on the men, he allowed the mine-owners to break the law every day, using natives illegally to break the strike? The Minister said the natives had been tampered with. The natives had been used, not only in time of industrial dispute, but all the time in order that the European employees might be dispensed with. The whole of that system was to enable the employers to beat the men in times of peace and to beat them in times of trouble. He asked hon. members over there what their own theory was. Was the employee free or not to work for an employer? Even the Minister of Mines did not deny that. Their theory was that the men need not work; but in practice it was very different. Always the power of the State was used on behalf of the employers and always used to intimidate and coerce the men, and the men resented the interference which was constantly being made. Referring to the Printer’s strike of 1911, and to the Editor of the “Cape Times,” the hon. member said he was a thick and thin supporter of the Government. Of course he (the Editor) hated strikes. Of course the hon. member for East London (Colonel Crewe) hated strikes. They vastly preferred to work with slaves, which made the management of men easier. When he came to manage “men,” Trade Unions, and Trade Organisations, that involved some capacity. As to the printers’ strike, what did the Government do? The men were out on strike, but the employers as the present law permitted them to do cabled for other men to come out and take the place of the men who were on strike. A contract had to be ratified here. The matter was a very important one to the men, whose livelihoods were at stake. There had not been one scintilla of violence which could be urged against these men, and there was no reason to suppose that when they went to the ship which brought the strike-breakers they would assault these men. They wanted to speak to them, and ask them to side with their fellow-workers. But what had the Government done? They had given help to the employers, and allowed them to go on the Government launch, so that they could get on board first, and have the contract with the strike-breakers ratified on board. They might as well have made the contract at Southampton, if the employers were allowed to go on board to ratify the contract. The Government had aided and abetted the employers, and defrauded the men of their just rights. The strikers had not even been permitted to speak to the men on board the ship. The Government had sided with the employers every time, and laughed at the law’.

In the tramway strike, the injudicious and ever brutal use of the police in trying to break up public meetings had the effect of very nearly producing a riot. There was the persecution of Whitaker because he was a striker, and not because he was a malefactor. By an act of the Executive he had been put into gaol, had been denied access to his solicitor, and had been treated as a criminal, for which he got damages in the Supreme Court. He now came to more recent history, to July, and he wanted the House to remember that the tradition which the Government had established— always using the power of the Government on the side of the employers—was bound to have an effect on the one side, because wage-earners were human like other people, and this earned for the law and the administration of the law contempt on the part of the workers, because they say that the law had not been fairly and justly used to them—because they were the workers and not the employers. If they wanted the law to be respected, and they wanted wholehearted co-operation in respect of the law let the law be equally administered. Alluding to the Benoni strike—and it was here that the Minister tried to bring his charge—his trumped-up charge—against whom he termed the Syndicalists. The hon. member said that the principal conspirators sat on the Ministerial benches, although some of their associates sat on the Opposition benches; a few were in the Rand Club, and some were in the delectable suburb of Park Town., When you harried men about the similarity of their utterances were not conspiracy but they were expressions of their anger in much the same way, whether they were in one part of the country or in another. If they took the Benoni strike, what had been: the cause of it? No emphasis had been laid on that by the Minister of Finance, but at the very outset that strike had been brought about by an act against which the men so strongly protested, and that had been admitted by the Judicial Commission. It was that “sic vola sic jubeo” attitude on the part of the employers—“ yours not to reason why, you have simply got to obey” attitude, that angered the men, and that exemplified what had brought about that strike. It had been the attitude of the employers in the past. In answer to an interruption by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Quinn), the hon. member said he did not deny it, and ten or twelve years ago he knew how often he had sinned in that direction. The traditional feeling was “I must be boss”; and that must go. This sort of principle was nothing new in the field of industry. It was exactly the same principle that in the field of politics gave rise to so much trouble and bloodshed, a couple of centuries ago. It was the divine right of kings, right or wrong. It was the theory that the Minister of Railways and Harbours was so attached to, or perhaps he should say not the Minister of Railways and Harbours but the General Manager of Railways. At the beginning the management was in the wrong. Then the men had to carry on their war in the usual way in which it was carried on by trying their best to prevent the Kleinfontein Mine from getting other men.

The men simply wanted to speak to the blacklegs who were going in, and it was an absurd and a ridiculous proposition to say that they wanted to assault them, because there were only one or two men alone who were trying to accost them and saying, “Don’t go in, play the game,” but they were prevented from approaching them by the Minister’s police, who rode them down. Was that the sort of way in which they were going to get men to feel an attachment for law and order? The Minister talked about tampering with the natives. It was a merciful thing that murder was not committed out there, because the men knew and had seen the natives armed against them. Yes, all things were proper to the owner; anything that the men did was criminal or of criminal intent. The railways came to the help of the people who were in the wrong all the time and smuggled in men under tarpaulins at night. Mr. Hoy could give himself an infinite amount of trouble to help the employers against the men, but if it were a question of helping the men against the employers, then, of course, it could not be done owing to the regulations. The men became exasperated. As the Government were helping the mine owners to beat the men, it was suggested that the only way was to get other men to go out on strike. They went to the Van Ryn Mine. They said it was better they should suffer a bit of punishment rather than that the men from the Kleinfontein Mine should submit to an act of tyrannical injustice. Something had been said about taking a ballot. Now, all the world over when the organised body of labour went out the other fellows generally went with them. Trade Unionists did not take ballots of persons who were not in their Trade Unions, and who decided for themselves. Did the Minister mean to say that the men only went over because they were afraid of Mason and Crawford? If these men did wrong, why did not the Minister use his power to punish them at the time?

On the Friday he went out to Benoni to acquaint himself personally with the circumstances. In these matters Trade Unionists preferred not to be talked over by politicians. What was the position then? The Kleinfontein Co. had conceded the whole of the points upon which the men came out on strike. As the Judicial Commission afterwards found, merely on the evidence of the owners’ side, the owners were in the wrong in this dispute, but in the meantime they had taken on a certain number of blacklegs, and they said to the men: “We are in the wrong; we agree to that; we will give in to you, but, although we are in the wrong, you must pay the costs.” Did that appeal to the sense of justice of the House or of any body of men? They said: “No. You have employed these men If you have got obligations to them, find employment for them elsewhere.” The Kleinfontein Co. said: ” We will take you all back, except about 30 or 40.” Now, the workers had got more generosity than the Minister of Finance. They said: “You will take us all back, or none of us back.” They were given to understand now that this was looked upon as the battle of the whole of the mines. The men said: “If you are under an obligation to these men, that is your business.” No, the men had got to suffer every time, and that was the reason why the strike began to spread. During that afternoon he visited Mr. Coulson, the Magistrate, who had intimated that he would like to see him. That gentleman was anxious, if he could, to be of service, and he said he had a proposal to make, but in his official capacity he could not do so without authority. He (Mr. Creswell) took it upon himself to send a telegram to the late Mr. Sauer, telling him, and suggesting that he should authorise Mr. Coulson to make this proposal. The reply was sent to Mr. Coulson. The suggestion was that the men should be paid half by the Kleinfontein Company and half paid by the strikers. It was absolutely unjust that the men should pay anything, but he verily believed that a compromise on those lines could have been effected within the next two or three days. But, of course, as usual, in jumped the Government with an offer to try and irritate the men more, through ignorance he thought.

The next morning a prohibition of any public meetings at Benoni was published. They could not go and be continually sticking pins into men, expecting it to improve their tempers. Here was this thing very nearly coming to a settlement, when Ministers jumped in and prohibited public meetings.

Did they suppose that Tourney and Watson and Tom Matthews were as powerful in these matters as the irritating tactics of the employers and the Government combined? A body of men subject to continued irritation would say. “All right, you think so; we don’t ” If the irritation spread, the efforts of the Union leaders to confine the strike were weakened. On that Saturday it was the intention of these Trades Union leaders to do everything possible in their power to see that the strike was confined to the Benoni district. These were the desperate Syndicalists. On the following Sunday he was addressing a strike meeting of the Transvaal Miners’ Federation. At that meeting there were present men who were anxious to extend the area of the strike, but the vast majority of those present was against it. The idea at that time was to confine the strike to the Benoni district. At that meeting it was decided to call for a ballot. On that he left for Rhodesia the next day, which, of course, as the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Quinn) had told the House, was to get out of the way. But the hon. member was not in his place, and his remarks on that subject were hardly worth noticing. On the following day he (Mr. Creswell) left for Rhodesia. If there ever was a spontaneous expression of thorough disgust at the doings of the employers and at the attempt to do injustice to the men on the Kleinfontein Mine it was that strike. He did not care a button if they told him that one or two men went pulling out others. Every man wanted to come out—(laughter)—with very few exceptions. When he said every man he did not mean every single individual, but the vast majority of the men who simply wanted the excuse of men coming along to ask them to come out for them to go on strike. Heaps of them were never called on to come out, but came out of their own accord. The Brakpan men sent to Benoni the message, “Why don’t you ask us to come out?” but the Strike Committee told them to remain where they were. That was the feeling from one end of the Rand to the other. That would not be destroyed by tales of men who would not play the game being hammered. Hon. members preferred to take their news from the “Star” and the subsidised Press of their friends. What he had told them was the real truth about the laying down of tools on July 2, 5, and 4. It was the feeling of the men when told to try Conciliation Boards that the employers cared nothing about justice. “Here at Kleinfontein,” said the men, “they are asking our pals to pay the cost—this is absolutism and must be held in check; we will not stand it any longer.” That was the reason of their coming out on July 3 and 4.

The Minister had laid great stress on the Benoni meeting. He, Mr. Creswell, again asked members to take the report of the Judicial Commission of Enquiry with the precaution with which they would take a report of any Commission which told only one side. The blame for that was on the Minister. The Benoni meeting the Minister relied on very much for proof of his terrible charge of the existence of a Syndicalist conspiracy. His hon. friend (Mr. Madeley) told the Minister that there would be no riot if he allowed the holding of that meeting at Benoni. (Hear, hear.) Meetings in connection with big strikes had occurred before. They had been dealt with in other countries by ordinary intelligent methods, but because a crowd of men in a state of great irritation approached the sacred precincts of the Kleinfontein Mine, therefore the Minister of Finance asserted that they were going to murder every man on the Kleinfontein Mine.

The whole thing went on from bad to worse until they came to July 4th. Now they had the Market-square crime—the crime from which the spirit which had been introduced into these things had proceeded. He did not know what the Minister of Mines was going to try to rake up about that meeting. He supposed the Minister would try to show that if the meeting had not been broken up by the police this mob of men would have started at once to riot and to destroy. During the 1907 strike, although the men were then aggravated, he remembered seeing a tremendous meeting of men in the Market square. Marvellous to relate that meeting was not forbidden by the police and there was no disturbance then. Proof could be piled on proof that it was the breaking up of that meeting in July on the Johannesburg Market-square in the brutal way in which it was done that gave rise to all the trouble that immediately succeeded. Proceeding, Mr. Creswell said it was given out, but the meeting was not announced until the morning of July 4th, that it was kept dark so that the authorities would be surprised. Why, at a time like that, when men were running here and everywhere the marvel was that it was really advertised at all in any newspaper on July 4th. They bad let their men know that they were going to hold a meeting, never supposing that the Government would break it up by force. How did the Government act on that occasion? He had heard that definite orders were given at 12 o’clock that the meeting was not to be held, the meeting was to be held at 2.30, but it was not until 3 o’clock that notices were posted forbidding the meeting to take place, could any reasonable person suppose that a body of men could be dispersed without trouble in such circumstances? Surely if they wanted to stop the meeting somebody should have been on the square before it had congregated. If the Government did not know of the meeting until early on Friday morning, how was it that they had the Dragoons from Potchefstroom, they allowed the meeting to assemble, and Messrs. Bain, Matthews, and some others were summoned before the Magistrate and were told that it could not be held, but they very rightly said that they were going to the meeting and that they were going to address it. The Government could not expect to stop a meeting—not at the eleventh hour, but in the last five minutes— without the people congregated there expressing themselves as crowds do in such circumstances. Quoting from the Commission’s report, Mr. Creswell said that it became manifest to Colonel Truter not that violent language was going to lead to trouble with the crowd—no; it became manifest to him that “inciting language was about to be used.”

The crime of the Government was they had not sufficient common-sense to know that they could not break up a meeting already assembled in a historical meeting place. He (Mr. Creswell) did not care a button about the legal position; the legal position was all that the Ministers thought of; as administrators it mattered not a jot to them that the tide was setting in. No! On legal grounds they must break it up, but whatever the legal position might be, the right to meet on the Market square was a historical right which had long been exercised by the people, never had there been an act which so truly stamped them as unfit to govern the people as the breaking up of that meeting at Market-square. They broke the meeting and charged the people up and down, and then they said that bottles and stones were thrown at them. He was not surprised, for the Government did everything in their power to inflame the temper of the people. He wondered what would be the feeling of the most peace-loving man of that House if he found himself hustled on one side by a squad of foot police and on the other by mounted police edging their way in, just because he was in a place where he had been accustomed to attend meetings. He would have a feeling of wrath against the Government, and a feeling of antagonism against the police for the time being.

Continuing, he said he would make no apology for the fact that in May, 1912, or earlier, the present Minister of Railways, then Minister of Native Affairs, had spoken with much sincerity of the horrible disregard for human life at the mines, and that, unless the death-rate in certain mines was reduced, no further natives would be allowed to work on them. But in spite of his pledge they had been sending more men to be murdered on these mines, where the death-rate had not decreased one iota, but had rather increased. He would like to quote again from the same paper, “The Worker.” In a newspaper, one looked to the editorial columns as giving the opinion of those in charge of the paper. The leading article in that same issue which the hon. Minister had quoted from says: “It is therefore above all, necessary to refrain from violence, and while bringing home to the public the seriousness of the position, to do nothing to alienate the sympathy of those who are not directly involved. Although, therefore, the movement appear at present to have got beyond the control of those who were in charge of the original strike at Kleinfontein, and the old Strike Committee has, we understand, been now formally dissolved, it is urgently necessary that prompt steps should be taken to get things in hand again. Nothing can be effected without discipline and unity of purpose, and there is great danger of the whole movement being prejudiced and even ruined by the action of irresponsible firebrands and by idiotic appeals to physical force. ”

He (Mr. Creswell) noticed that hon. members opposite did not quote that part in the paper. He was perfectly certain that the people who wrote these sentences, had they thought they were going to have the meaning placed upon them which there had been they would have kept these paragraphs out; but when murder was going on in their minds, how could they expect these people to speak differently. The Government should prohibit the waste of human life that was going on in the mines. One of the prominent men in the movement, who had seen the breaking-up of that well-known public meeting, had said: “If the Government are going to use that sort of force, I am going to get back again.” He further said: “I warned the speakers against violence, and urged that the proper game was to abstain from violence, although the Government had reported to it on the 4th July.” Then the Minister quoted much to the amusement of the House with regard to the issue of permits to work. That did not mean that it stopped those men from going to work who wished to. A man might say, “I am not going to work until I get permission from my leaders to do so.” What wrong was there in that, he (Mr. Creswell) wanted to know. If the services of these men were indispensable why were they not treated justly, and if a man did not choose to work what law was there to compel him. He had read the report of the Disturbances Commission, but he wanted to know on what grounds that report was founded, because he had been informed that there was a quantity of rebutting evidence brought forward which the counsel appearing on the other side had pronounced to be invalid. He was not going to deny the right of the Government to use the forces at its disposal, but when they first of all created this disorder amongst themselves and then used those forces then they were guilty of the blood of those who had been killed.

Continuing, Mr. Creswell said that he would be the last to make such an innuendo as that which had reference do Sir George Farrar. He thought that Sir George was a pretty plucky individual, though he fought on the wrong side. King Edward’s Schools was one of these harbours of refuge. Continuing with regard to July 5, he said that the town was practically in the hands of the mob. The Government by its actions had infuriated the people, he did not care what a Judicial Commission might say on the point. He would say this that if a crowd of Cape Town people assembled in their own streets and were fired on indiscriminately even, the hon. member for Cape Town, Central,: would turn. He did know that there was a, very little warning. There was the case of a little girl who came to her music lessons. The first she knew of what was happening was a man falling back into her arms wounded. When things like this occurred people were bound to turn. And what did these desperate men whom the Minister stated wished to start a revolution do? On the morning of Saturday they sent two of their officials to Colonel Truter offering a force of 250 special constables for immediate service. He did not know of any force of special constables that could have rendered better services. It would have dispelled from the minds of many men the idea that the Government were using these forces, and that they were being shot down in the interests of the wealthy mine-owners. They would have enlisted on the side of men with whom they were on friendly terms, and restrained men in various other ways. Far from accepting that force there was no further intimation received, and arms were distributed to the special constables at the Rand Club. Ministers were doing their very best to foster this class war. Night was coming on and, fearing excesses under the cover of darkness, there was a meeting. The only substantial thing granted was the reinstatement of the Kleinfontein men What else was there besides the reinstatement of the Kleinfontein men? The Minister did not say that the men would be granted an eight hour day, but that there would be an inquiry into the matter. These men who saw the Government were plain, straightforward men and they took these promises as coming from plain, straightforward men.

For the first time in their history the mine-owners had to climb down from the position which they had held up to that time. He believed, he firmly believed, that they meant this strike to take place. The Kleinfontein expenses, so he was informed, were borne by all the companies as if the Kleinfontein were fighting on behalf of all of them. He was also informed that there were schedules of wages made out before the strike took place—an old rate and a new rate to be paid the men who were taken back. This showed how confident they were of breaking the strike, and that men would be taken back at reduced rates of pay. But when it came to the end of the strike they found that they had to climb down. They were far from joyous; they wanted to get their own back. It was the Minister of Railways and Harbours who gave them the lead. From that date until July 27 the hopes of the men ran high having got these promises from the Government. The Government had said that they had got the authority of the mine owners, and that they would deal fairly by the men. They went with their demands. He understood from his hon. friend that they told the Government with regard to these demands that if they were prepared to have a general election they were willing to cry the discussion off. That didn’t look as though these men were Syndicalists and conspirators, as the Minister had told them. He believed that the Prime Minister was very much annoyed with the way in which the members of the deputation expressed themselves, but if they treated men badly they might make many strong remarks, but they would speak the truth. And if the Prime Minister had had any regard for his country he would have taken notice of these remarks. But as soon as they got into the Conference they changed their tunes. Then the Prime Minister had twitted him about the speeches which he, made about that time. He pointed out that on the 21st, at Braamfontein, he said that he was not going to advocate violence or talk violence at that juncture, and that he deprecated violence at any juncture.

The men had come forward with a number of demands, and said that they were willing to dispose of all of them if they had a general election, so that they could have their own representatives, instead of the employers’ representatives, as at present. The Government said they would give a commission—the men asked for bread and got a commission. (A laugh.) Could one be surprised at their irritation? How had the Government treated these men on July 5? They had thrown them overboard. The Government had not tried to get the mine-owners to try and climb down and give any real and substantial concessions. It was a curious thing how Ministers changed their attitudes. They got the Minister of Finance dealing with “my dear Bain,” and “my dear Tom Matthews,” but when they had made their plans it was “war to the knife,” or as little as possible, or as little as their (the Government’s) friends would consent to. Then the men came back; they had simply this Commission, and they had what was called a suspended strike. The Federation of Trade Unions said they were now going to see whether they were going to have a general strike, but they would not tell them “when.”

Before proceeding with his narrative, he should like to examine some of those “constitutional methods” of the Prime Minister. When they were asking men not to strike they must be able to tell them that there were hopes of getting their grievances redressed in other ways. He wanted to put it to the House and the country what sort of chance had the men got of having their grievances redressed except by calling attention to them by remaining away from work. They had the question of the eight hours a day. There was also the men’s grievance in regard to the wicked wrong done to them under the Miners’ Phthisis Act, where a man was only getting £8 a month for the first year when he claimed compensation in the first stage. Then there was also the question of Sunday labour in regard to which they had just had the report presented after three years. Let them take Parliament and the Railway Appeal Board. Parliament would not tolerate a real Appeal Board which was uninfluenced by Mr. Hoy and the Administration. In the very electoral law the workers were handicapped by reason of the fact that there was no continuous registration so that a man could take his vote from one place to another where he resided. They did not even provide for the proper representation of the people in that House. The Minister had suggested a Bill some time ago, but it did not suit these two parties. They were quite satisfied that the money power should talk as long as possible. He wished now to continue his narrative. They had seen how these so-called Syndicalists came to the help of the Government, the Government stirring passions to breaking point, the men the patriots and the Government bullies. Then things were simmering down, what did these wicked conspirators against the State do? He remembered that in September or October, or, at any rate, the Minister would remember a deputation from the Miners’ Association waited upon him, and they were asked that they should not press the usual Trade Union method of exerting any direct pressure, that when they went down any given mine they would not go down in the same cage as a non-Union man. What was the attitude of these desperate Syndicalists? They said that they would use their influence so that this particular method of pressure should not be used Although there was a good deal of dislike to laying aside for the time being one of the legitimate methods of action, it was agreed that they wanted things to simmer down and they would try to get along in some other way. Were the Government trying to help this simmering down? No, they trumped up some ridiculous charges of sedition against Mr. Wade and various other persons. He believed that the particular seditious action Mr. Wade was guilty of was comparing the Government to a donkey, which was a great disrespect to that humble and useful animal. (Laughter.) Men were being victimised and retrenched right, along the Beef; they could not find means of existence, and many of them said to him, “Why did you counsel us not to have a general strike after the conference with the miners? We could not be worse off than we are now; our families have nothing to eat.” But that was not worth the while of the Minister to take any notice of. Government should have said to the mine owners, “You have caused trouble and you will have to pay for it,” but not a bit of it. As he had a great deal more to address the Minister on he wondered if the Minister would agree to adjourn.

Ministerial cries of “No,” and “Go on until 6.”