from Helen C. Greening, who served as a teacher in Natal for thirty-six years, for a pension.

from T. Kenyon, of Umtata, formerly captain of the Cape Light Horse, for an increase of pension.

from T. Snider a constable in the South African Police, praying for recognition of his services in Cape Police for pension purposes.

from Frederika I. Adams, of Kuils River, who entered the Cape Civil Service in 1902 and on her marriage retired in 1913, for refund of amounts contributed to the Pension Fund.

from E. S. Williams, a teacher in Selborne College, East London, for condonation of certain breaks in his service.

from the widow of C. G. H. Bell, late Civil Commissioner, Port Elizabeth, for relief.

from J. S. G. Douglas, Deputy-Commissioner, South African Police, praying that the period between the date of his joining Brabant’s Horse and transfer to South African Constabulary be regarded as extended service.

from L. Eaton, Principal, Peddie Public School, for condonation of a break in his service.

from the widow of R. B. Stewart, formerly a major in the Cape Mounted Riflemen, for & pension.

from H. A. wan der Merwe, Scab Inspector, praying that on his retirement he may be granted a pension.

from W. Mposi, an employee in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, praying for a pension.

from the widow of T. Schiff, late sergeant, Cape Mounted Riflemen, praying for a pension.

(for Sir Bisset Berry), from I. Kawa, a teacher, for condonation of certain breaks in his service.

from A. L. Auret, High School at Caledon, for condonation of certain breaks in her service.

from W. Bnayshaw, machinist in the Salt. River Railway Works, for condonation of a break in his service.

from R. M. Loverock, formerly in the Criminal Investigation Department, Natal, for payment in lieu of accumulated leave.

from J. L. Lee, who served in the Kaffrarian wars, for relief.

from H. Mead, Messenger of the Court, Umtata, for increase of pension.

from J. Key, who, while acting as District Surgeon for Glen Grey, was instructed to purchase a cart and two horses for Government service, but suffered, financial loss, for relief.

from Sister Mary J. Berchmans, teacher in St. Agnes’s; School, Woodstock, for condonation of a break in her services.

from H. G. Humby, late Consulting Engineer, in London, to the Natal Government, for increase of pension or gratuity.

from R. Moor, praying that his Services in the Natal Mounted Police, be added to his; term of Government service in Natal for pension purposes.

from W. B. Hartley, Railway Station Inspector, for condonation of a break in his service.

from C. D. H. Braine, retired owing to injuries received in the execution of his duties as a Circle Engineer, for increase of pension.

front M. S. Maurice, formerly first-class clerk in the Cape Civil Service, for increase of pension.

from J. T. Lambley, clerk in the office of the Administrator (Cape), for condonation of a break in his service.

from the Rev. G. F. Bird, of Slagberg, drawing attention to the low salaries paid to teachers in the Cape Province and praying that the House may take their case into consideration.

from Charlotte A. Lanchester, who served as music instructress at the East London High School, for a pension.

from Helen Munro who has been engaged in teaching in Natal since 1865, praying that on her retirement she may be granted a pension.

from C. J. White and other inhabitants of Cape Town for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Veto.

from S. Bornman and others registered voters in Boshof and Hoopstad for the construction, at Christiana, of a bridge over the Vaal River.

from C. W. R. Dük, Assistant Magistrate, Lady Grey, for condonation of certain breaks in his service.

from P. M. Sheehan, formerly Gaoler at Jacobsdal, for a pension.

from C. W. Methven, formerly Engineer-in-Charge of the Natal Harbour Works, for relief.

from R. S. Betty, Assistant Superintendent, S.A. Railways, for condonation of break in his service.

from J. J. F. Britz, who was wounded during the late war, for relief.

from the Sea Point Women’s Temperance Union, for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Veto.

from F. C. Botha, wounded at Magersfontein, for relief.

from the widow of James Tilbury, late Controller of the Post Office, Maritzburg, for relief.

from D. H. Jacobs, who was wounded during the late war, for relief.

from J. A. McCarter, who served in the Frontier Armed and Mounted Police, for relief.

from J V. Bester, retrenched officer in the Transvaal Native Affairs Department, for relief.

from J. J. M. Jacobs, who was wounded luring the late war, for relief.

from E. Wilson, formerly in the Police Force, and discharged owing to injuries received on duty, for increase of pension.

from the widow of C. S. Sargent, late sergeant in the Transvaal Police, for relief.

from G. Bell, praying that his service in the Cape Police be added to his present service.

from the widow of S. Lorimer, who joined the Cape Police in 1885, and died 1913, for relief.

from W. H. Pringle, who served in the police for six years and as lock-up keeper for fourteen years, for a pension.

from R, G. D. Dunning, who served in the Natal, Transvaal, and Union Civil Services for fifteen years, for relief.

from R. T. Dorrington, who entered the Cape Civil Service and resigned, for a gratuity or for a refund of amounts contributed to the Pension Fund

from A. H. J. Doubell, Locomotive Works, Uitenhage, for condonation of a break in his service.

from J. A. Heineman, formerly of the District Mounted Police, who was retired on account of injuries received in the execution of his duties, for a pension.

from J. P. Cilliers, and others, in support of the above petition of J. A. Heineman.

announced that the Select Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had appointed the following members to form the Select Committee on the Rand Water Board Supplementary Water Supply (Private) Bill: Messrs. Krige (Chairman), Hull, Robinson, Nathan, and C. L. Botha.

asked the Minister of Defence: (1) Whether the Transvaal Federation of Trade Unions was yesterday forbidden to hold a meeting by the Johannesburg Police Authorities; and (2) if so, whether he will give immediate instructions to the said authorities to allow Trade Unions to hold meetings to discuss the policy and actions of the Government?

With regard to the first part of this question, I notice from the newspapers that the request was made to be allowed to hold a mass meeting on the Market-square, Johannesburg. This request was rightly refused. With regard to the second part of the question, instructions have been issued to the police that while all restrictions on ordinary public meetings can be withdrawn, and while there is no objection to indoor meetings being held to discuss the policy and action of the Government, the Government will not as yet allow large out-door public demonstrations.

That Messrs. Chaplin, Creswell, Duncan, Geldenhuys, Sir Jan Langerman, Mr. Nicholson. Dr. Neethling, Mr. Runciman, and the mover be members of the Select Committee on the working of the Miners’ Phthisis Act, 1912.

Agreed to.

That the following papers be referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts for consideration and report, viz.: Estimates of Expenditure of the South African Railways and Harbours, year ending 31st March. 1915; and Statement of Accounts of the South African Railways and Harbours 1st April, 1912, to 31st March, 1913, and Assistant Controller and Auditor-General’s Report thereon, with Memorandum by the Controller and Auditor-General, transmitting same.

objected.

That a Select Committee on Native Affairs be appointed; the committee to have power to take evidence and Call for papers.

said he wished to take this opportunity of putting before the House some facts with regard to the Select Committee on Native Affairs. He hoped that what he was going to say would lead to more use being made of that committee in the future than had been the case in the past. Some of them, owing to what had happened, had wondered whether it was worth while sitting on that committee. In the old Cape House the Select Committee on Native Affairs dealt with all matters appertaining to Native Affairs. He thought that a similar custom would be followed under Union, but that had not been the case. The Government chose whatever matters it thought, fit to place before the committee, and most of the matters handed over to the committee for decision were matters in which the committee could act as a buffer for the Government. He went on to say that several important reports of the committee had not been considered by the House, and some bad not even been laid on the Table, and he pointed out that though there had been substantial differences of opinion none of the members of the committee had had an opportunity of bringing their views before the House. One session they considered the important question of native taxation, and took the best evidence possible on the subject. There was no report, and the evidence was not published. Members of the committee were given copies of the evidence on the understanding that they would not show it to anybody else. The question was whether it was worth while members spending time and labour in this way. Even if the evidence which had been taken with regard to native taxation had been published, it would have done a great deal of good, but he pleaded in vain, and the evidence had not been published, even to the present day. He pointed out that tour members of the Senate were appointed for the purpose ? of watching the interests of the natives, but very little to do with native affairs came before that House. He was not going to oppose the appointment of a Select Committee, but he hoped that what he said would bear fruit.

said he could not agree with the view of the hon. member. He (the speaker) had served on the committee for three years, but so far from thinking that its investigations were valueless he thought they were of supreme value, because they had been able to thrash out matters of which a good many members knew nothing about. With regard to what the hon. member for Tembuland had said about the question of native taxation, the speaker pointed out that from the beginning it was clearly understood that there was to be no report and no publication of the evidence. Members were asked to stand by the undertaking to say nothing about the matter for the reason that native taxation was, so to speak, in the melting pot. A question of such extreme importance as native taxation should be tackled with the utmost care. No conclusion had been come to by the committee, and it was impossible in the space of time of one session to come to any conclusion, and in spite of what the hon. member had said, the committee had not come to a unanimous decision or opinion. He had not agreed with the hon. member (Mr. Schreiner), and he and the hon. member had not agreed with the rest of the committee, so there had been no unanimity as to the taxation methods, or whether they should impose taxation. What he did complain of, and he supported the hon. member there, was the broken nature of the committee’s investigation. At the end of the session they had broken off the investigations of native taxation, and had gone on to some other matters. Then he agreed with the hon. member, that although not a great deal had been done in the way of reports, yet valuable work had been done by the committee, and as a consequence certain hon. members who were not well acquainted with native affairs had learned something. The report which had been laid on the Table during the first session of Parliament, had been a most important report, although it had been consigned to oblivion, and it should have been brought up the following year. In conclusion, the hon. member said that more time should be given to the committee in question.

said that he must express his astonishment and regret that the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Schreiner) should have made the criticisms which he had made, because although one might differ from him on certain lines of policy or in detail on any particular subject which might happen to crop up in regard to native affairs, he thought that they all, on both sides of the House, recognised the deep and devoted interest that the hon. member took in these matters—(hear, hear) —and he thought they all recognised the value of his services on that committee. Really, he did not think that the hon. member had reason to complain. He (Mr. Burton) was speaking for himself; but he did not think the hon. member had reason to complain of the way in which he had been treated on that committee.

There is nothing personal.

I am not speaking personally, but as a member of the committee. He went on to say that the hon. member had been of extreme use to him, and he was bound to say that he had never, until that afternoon, heard a complaint from the hon. member in the direction of the complaint which he had made that afternoon. The hon. member had never complained to him in this sense: that enough matters had not been referred to the committee. Dealing with the grounds of the hon. member’s complaints, the first was that everything with regard to native affairs had not been handed over to that committee. But it had never been the Government’s intention that everything with regard to Native Affairs—Administration and policy and the like—should be handed over to that committee; not at all; and that had never been the practice and policy in the old Cape Parliament committee to which the hon. member had referred. The Native Affairs Committee was of extreme value, particularly because of the extreme importance and the delicacy of the matters which arose in regard to Native Affairs, and because in the walls of the committee-room one could deal more satisfactorily with these delicate things than if they were bandied about there in the House. That had been one of the reasons why they had adopted that system in the Cape and in the Union. Of course, from time to time, the Government referred matters of the utmost importance to the Committee of Native Affairs—the whole of the question of squatting and cognate matters and the question of native taxation had been referred to it, for instance. What more important matters could they have than that? The hon. member had said that nobody had read the report of the Committee of Native Affairs with regard to the squatting question, but the Government was not to blame for that. Two and a half years ago the evidence and the report had been laid on the Table of the House. Now the hon. member complained about native taxation, and-not allowing that matter to be discussed in public. The House would recognise the extreme desirability that the whole of the evidence should not be made public property, when they conceived for a moment what the Government had in mind and what he had told the committee; of the undesirability from many points of view of not publishing the evidence, especially from the point of view of those natives who were paying more in the way of taxation than other natives, and the advisability of considering some scheme of uniformity in regard to native taxation in the Union. The publication would have created a great deal of agitation unnecessarily, until the Government could come before the House with definite legislation. The public, of course, was not aware of what taxation was going to be brought forward until the Government laid its proposals before the House. It was simply with a view to that, and the particular need for caution in regard to native taxation that he had asked the committee to adopt that course. They had in the evidence taken the most valuable collection of opinion and thought in regard to the whole matter—most valuable —and how the hon. member could say that the work of the committee had been useless he could not for the life of him understand. With regard to what the hon. member had said about a joint committee, he (Mr. Burton) had always taken the view that it was not desirable that one should act with a joint committee of the Senate. The Senate, by the constitution, had been given a special reviewing position, and provision had been made for the appointment of four of the Senators to watch the course of native affairs and take a special interest in that matter. If they had a joint committee, they would lose in the Senate a great deal of the character and the value of the discussion there with regard to native affairs. If the Senators specially appointed for their knowledge of native affairs were on the joint committee the discussion in the Senate would lose much of its reviewing character. Under the Cape system, which they regarded as eminently satisfactory and useful, it had never been thought necessary to have a joint committee with the Legislative Council. He hoped that the hon. member would not press that, but that he would consent to remain a member of that Select Committee.

said that as he had done on previous occasions, he again wished to draw attention to the inequality at present existing in regard to the native poll tax in the various provinces. In the Cape, he said, the tax was very low, with the result that the natives went to live there, and the farmers in the Transvaal or in the Free State living just across the Cape border lost their labourers when their natives had to pay this tax. The natives, when the time came when they had to pay their taxes, just slipped across the Cape border and remained away until it suited them to come back. Thus, owing to lack of labour, the farmers on the borders were unable to compete in the market. This was a most important matter, which should be taken into consideration by the Select Committee, so that steps might at last be taken to deal with the subject. They should not shirk the issues, but should settle the matter once and for ever. It might be true that the committee had done good work, but the committee was not Parliament, and it was necessary to have equality of taxation.

said although the reports of the Select Committee on Native Affairs were laid on the Table of the House very little opportunity was given members of discussing these reports. Again, the Native Land Bill, which was a most important piece of legislation concerning natives, was not discussed by the Select Committee on Native Affairs at all. To withhold from the committee the one piece of practical legislation dealing with this subject was hardly in keeping with what the Minister said just now.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the committee consist of twelve members.

moved that the number of the committee be increased to 13, so as to provide for the inclusion of the hon. member for Barkly.

The amendment was negatived.

The motion was thereupon agreed to.

then moved that the committee consist of Sir Bisset Berry, Col. Crewe, Messrs. Clayton, Henwood, Keyter, King, Madeley, P. G. Marais, Mentz, P. G. W. Grobler, Schreiner, and the mover.

moved the omission from the committee of the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Madeley). The mover said he could give many reasons for this proposal, but he thought sufficient reason had been adduced in connection with the hon. member’s action during the July riots on the Rand to show that the hon. member was not, entitled to sit on any Select Committee, more particularly that of native affairs.

seconded.

put the question: That the name “Madeley ” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

The amendment was declared carried.

called for a division, which was taken, with the following result:

Ayes—50.

Andrews, William Henry

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Bekker, Stephanus

Bosnian, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Boydell, Thomas

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Creswell, Frederick Hugh Page

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Cullinan, Thomas Major

De Beer. Michiel Johannes

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Haggar, Charles Henry

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Krige, Christman Joel

Langerman, Jan Willem Stuckeris

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Madeley. Walter Bayley

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Sampson, Henry William

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Wiltshire, Henry

H. Mentz and G. A. Louw, tellers.

Noes—40.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Baxter, William Duncan

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Crewe, Charles Preston

Currey, Henry Latham

De Jagger, Andries Lourens

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fawcus, Alfred

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Hunter, David

Jagger, John William

Juta, Henry Hubert

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Macaulay, Donald

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Merriman, John Xavier

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Nathan, Emile

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Quinn, John William

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Rockey, Willie

Runciman, William

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Smartt, Thomas William

Steytler, George Louis

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Venter, Jan Abraham

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Whitaker, George

Woolls-Sampson, Aubrey

H. A. Wyndham and J. Hewat, tellers.

The question was accordingly affirmed, and the amendment proposed by Mr. Rockey negatived.

said, that he thought that it was of great importance that the members of such a Select Committee as that of Native Affairs should be persons who to some extent at least possessed the confidence of and would be approved by the greater part of the population of this country which had no representation in the House. He had still something against the Government with regard to the list of members proposed. (Laughter.)

Whom does the hon. member take exception to?

The hon. member for Ficksburg.

I must point out to the hon. member that he is too late, as the name of the hon. member for Ficksburg precedes that of the hon. member for Springs, on which a vote has just been, taken.

The original motion was thereupon agreed to.

who said he was conscious of the difficultly in joining together the threads of the narrative that had been broken by the interval which had taken place. He did not intend to travel over the ground which he travelled over yesterday when trying to give some sort of an account of the evidence which to his mind justified the Government in proclaiming Martial Law, and which to their minds was justified by the language used in July last and also by the language of the men engaged as leaders in that movement. At the same time he had got to that stage when he felt obliged to differ from the Government, because he maintained that they had misjudged the case by the deportation of a certain number of men. He did not wish the House to express disapproval of that action now; but he was trying to point out that the Government had committed an act for which there was no necessity, by deporting subjects of the King without trial, to which the meanest subject was entitled. They no doubt thought that such action would settle once for all a movement which was on foot, and which was creating disturbances in the so-called interest of Labour. The Government had taken some sorry creatures who were discredited in the eyes of the country and deported them to England. They had done great harm by sending them to England, where they would no doubt try to incite the labouring classes thereby making statements which would stir up forces in England likely to shake the foundations of the State. He (Mr. Merriman) had expressed the view that the wisest thing the Government could do was to bring these men back. But the Government had no powers to bring these men back to South Africa, as when they got to Las Palmas all they had to do was to appeal to the British Consul” and they could not be interfered with. He would suggest that these men should be allowed to return, and then put them on trial either by special court or the ordinary courts, or try them at the Bar of this House, if the House wished it. He (Mr. Merriman) would give them that right which the meanest subjects had, and he implored the Government to take his advice because he saw grave dangers opening up before the country and the whole Empire unless some steps were taken to set things right. He repeated they had done a most dangerous thing. They could not tell how far-reaching the effect might be. He would mention as an example of the spirit abroad two facts that came under his notice. A friend of his, travelling by train, heard a lady remark, “What a splendid thing the Government has done. But they have made one mistake.” “That is, in not trying the men,” was suggested. “No,” was the reply; “they ought to have deported Hertzog.” (Loud laughter.) Hon. members might laugh, but it is possible for it to become a reality. Once having started on this role, where were they going to stop? He (Mr. Merriman) might have been deported some years ago; so might the Minister of Railways, if the principles which they were asked to adopt had been adopted fourteen years ago. Another incident came under his notice, showing the way in which certain classes of the population regard the matter. A man said, ‘I suppose it is all right, but I do not understand why they deported these men and left Mr. Creswell here”—(loud laughter)—“but I suppose it’s because he is a gentleman.” (More laughter.) He would now come to a much more important instance, which showed the effect which this deportation of men without trial was producing. He did not know whether hon. members read an article which was written by the Chief Press Adviser of the Government, the editor of the “Volkstem,” who had a worthy record both in and out of journalism, and who had conducted that paper on a high level. Referring to the deportations, the “Volkstem” says: “Parliamentary government tends to weaken the’ executive, in so far as its independence is concerned, and to obviate any autocratic action. This is, especially to young States, the great danger of Parliamentarianism. A country like ours, for example, has need of a powerful and self-reliant Government, if the white population is to remain steadfastly by its rights and obligations, and if political power is to remain in the hands of the Afrikander element, using the word in its widest sense. The social mechanism of our State is far more complicated than that of any other large country.” Really, that was one of the most comical things he had heard of. (Laughter.) “And history teaches that, whenever immigrants, however well-intentioned, obtained political influence, the exercise of that influence is always followed by harmful results.” (Laughter.) Here in South Africa it could hardly be said that immigrants at the present time had obtained political power. He remembered in the Transvaal years ago there was a great outcry against a certain class of immigrants who had obtained an immense lot of political power, but he did not remember hearing the editor of the “Volkstem ” declaim against that. He remembered in the brave days of old, the days of Paul Kruger, their ears were deafened with aspersions levelled against what was called the Hollander clique, who were immigrants like anybody else. “That our Government is not afraid in critical times to assume responsibility for thoroughgoing methods and for harsh measures is a matter for congratulation and thankfulness.” That showed the dangerous spirit in this country. If they were going to subscribe to a doctrine like that, all he could say was that the liberties of the Afrikander people in this country, and every person living in this country, were in a very dangerous state.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has referred to the “crimes” of hon. members on these benches. I think he should withdraw that word.

was understood to say that he thought the hon. member did not use the word “crimes.” The hon. members had not been tried or convicted of any criminal offence.

No, they ought to have been tried. (Laughter and interruption.)

The hon. member should withdraw the word crimes. ”

I will withdraw it in the most ample manner. I say “regrettable mistakes.” (Laughter.) I cannot conceive how anybody can imagine the people who commit those “ regrettable mistakes” are suitable for the service of their country in this House. (Cheers.)

What are they?

I wonder that the hon. member can have the shame to ask the question. I say the mere fact of trying to pull out the dock labourers and turn a lot of these poor fellows loose on the street. I say that alone ought to unfit a man for service in this House, because it is a grave mistake to do anything like that, in my opinion. (Hear, hear.)

said he would like to ask if the hon. member was entitled to refer to the members on those benches as “hon. friends.”

said it was a matter of Parliamentary custom.

It is a kind of address of courtesy that is usual in this House, but I do not want to extend it to them, if they don’t like it. (Laughter.)

That has all been repealed.

There is one clause repealed, peaceful picketing, and that repeal has done more harm, according to judges, than anything else. (Cheers.) It has exposed people to these hideous outrages which everybody so much regrets. I say we want legislation of that sort. Legislation of that sort would be welcomed by this House. Why do you listen to the insidious pipings of the “Volkstem, ” and say that a strong Government does not want legislation like that? You want a law: more than anything else to regulate the railway service. It is regulated partially, but you want that to be stiffened up. You don’t want to delude these men. Show them once for all that a person in the railway is like a person in the army—he is a servant of the State, and anybody who tries to persuade him that he is not and to break his contract of service, that man is committing a crime and should be punished for it. (Hear, hear.) Proceeding, he said that if they passed legislation where was the administration? They wanted strong administration and they wanted strong legislation. At the same time, while on the railway service, he disclaimed altogether the attacks which had been made upon that excellent public servant, Mr. Hoy, and the Minister of Railways. He knew the Minister of Railways pretty well. He had served with him (Mr. Merriman) something like three years ago. He had to carry out a most distasteful task, cutting down the Service and lowering the status of the men, but at any rate he did it so that there were no disturbances. Continuing, he said that in those days he had had many quarrels with him, and he had always been pulled up by his hon. friend, who had been a most rigid observer of the law in those days, and had said that the law was against him (Mr. Merriman), and that he could not do things. Therefore he wondered what had come over his hon. friend, and that he—that scrupulous observer of the law—could have gone headlong into that foolish and ill-advised scheme. He could not understand it.

Lynch law!

I regret to find a: gentleman who has occupied a high position in this House so ignorant that he actually thinks the American Commonwealth is held together by lynch law. I do not wonder at a man holding those views with that political information approving the actions of the Government. But even supposing it was true, we are improving upon lynch law here, because we punish men without a trial. That is what I complain of. No, the reign of law and liberty we have secured by law represents English ideals. Often, no doubt, those ideals may be departed from here or departed from there, but that is the English ideal, and it is following those ideals that has made England great, and it has-spread over the whole world, so that nations, alien in race, alien in colour, when they want to put their institution on a sound footing imitate English ideals in these matters. And I say South Africa will be better in every possible way if she clings to the old condition of things, because here there is no alien race. We have got a kindred race, and a race which has taken English ideas of liberty, English ideas of free speech, English ideas of law and improved upon them to the fullest extent, so that men a few years ago were found to sacrifice everything in order to fight for the ideal of liberty—that ideal of liberty which is going to be shattered to pieces if you lay down these precedents and depart from these principles. I implore the House not to judge this matter in the heat of passion—always a bad thing to do, because you will regret it bitterly ever afterwards. While protecting the Government and its agents in what has been done, even if we think it not wholly wise in certain respects, while recognising that they are entitled to protection for what they did in good faith, let us not throw aside the traditions of the past, and let us not embark upon a new and dangerous career by condemning men to lifelong punishment, unheard and untried, and set a precedent fraught with evil and danger to this country. I shall vote for the second reading. I will give the Government every indemnity I think they ought to have, but as at present advised I cannot be brought to condemn people, unheard and without a trial, to a punishment which is new to South Africa, because I feel by doing that, so far from laying the foundation and making this the great country we hope to see it, I should be doing one of the most evil things that could possibly be done for the future of South Africa. (Cheers.)

said that there was so much in the eloquent speech which they had heard the day before and that afternoon with which they must so whole-heartedly agree, that he regretted to feel compelled to differ with some of its conclusions. When the right hon. member had begun, he had put the matter on the highest plane, and had said that what they had to consider was not the welfare”of that particular Government, and that they were not bound to render assistance to any party or any Government, but what they had to do was to consider the sequence of recent events, and to decide whether these events were such as to justify the Government of the day in the extreme action, admittedly illegal, which they had taken whether it had been in the interests of the whole country and whether a course of action must be excused which they otherwise would have condemned. They had listened to the able exposition of the Minister of Finance, who had told them, in effect, that there was, in effect, what had amounted to conspiracy. The right hon. member had fallen rather foul of the word “conspiracy.” He had read an extract from the English Statutes of which, however, “conspiracy ” was a leading feature. It did not matter what they called it, but what did matter was whether there had been certain events which justified the action which had been taken. They had heard a long argument from the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell), disfigured, in his (Mr. Chaplin’s) opinion, at any rate, in many parts by the venomous vituperation with which it had been filled; but they were bound to take the hon. member as the chief exponent of the doctrine which he preached, and they must look upon him, in effect, as counsel for the defence, and they were bound to examine somewhat narrowly the case which he had put forward, which, in effect, was this: the hon. member had said that the working men in that country, and in the Transvall he supposed, in particular, had been victimised with what he called intolerable injustice, and he said that they had intolerable grievances which bad not been redressed. The hon. member had gone on to say that, in effect, what had taken place had been the result of a plot, for which he produced two motives.

In the first place the hon. member told them that it was a fight between the Government and the great employers of labour to pull the men down and to bring the Rand to the level of Kimberley. He further told them that it was a plot on the part of the Government to re-establish its prestige and to smash the Trade Unions. Let them take the injustice and grievances and want of consideration of which the House was supposed to have been guilty. Could it seriously be said, that the House had not shown itself sympathetic to genuine grievances? (Cheers.) How much time had been occupied in the last three years in discussing matters brought forwards by hon. members on the cross benches? (Cheers.) Then the hon. member related that in 1907 the Transvaal Government came to the rescue of the mining companies by allowing them to fence their mines against the attacks of malefactors. Then the hon. member went on to detail certain matters in which he asserted that he and his friends had been badly treated, but he skipped over 1910, when, whatever might have been the failings of the Government in other respects, at any rate the members who supported the Government supported the hon. member (Mr. Creswell) and the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Madeley) to retain their seats. He (Mr. Chaplin) feared that was a bad bargain. The hon. member had given the House an example of the want of consideration with which he stated their grievances had been treated and maintained that the employers had declined to accept the findings of the Board appointed under the Industrial Disputes Act, but he forgot to mention that the delay in establishing a Board was caused by his friends declining to comply with the law, and he forgot to mention that the people affected were not altogether disposed to accept those findings on which he and his friends differed from the rest of the Board, because these people remembered that before the hon. member went on the Board he expressed himself forcibly on the questions to be submitted to it. The hon. member also forgot to mention that the clauses which he complained of were not given effect to, because they were an attempt to establish by a side wind the principle of the minimum wage, and to secure the recognition of Trade Unions.

Shame.

said that there had been other warnings. In the annual report of the Transvaal Miners’ Association for 1912, the whole scheme for paralyzing the mines, and thus the whole of the country, was set out. It did seem to him that there was fair warning up to that time. But the point of most interest at that time was the Bain-Botha treaty. On that Saturday afternoon when he (Mr. Chaplin) and others were sent for by the Prime Minister, and were told that an armistice had been arranged, and that the mining authorities were expected to assist in removing the strike-breakers from the Kleinfontein Mine, he was against. The Kleinfontein was the only mine working. The men engaged there had been promised continuous employment, and all that the men asked for was protection against attack. When he was told by the right hon. gentle-man and the Minister of Defence that peace could not be maintained, he thought that it was a very disastrous state of affairs.

But they do not want it now. Continuing, he said the question of weekly payment of wages was only brought forward in order to find favour with shopkeepers on the Reef.

Were there no other grievances?

Yes, but I referred to that because the hon. member had mentioned it in his speech. Proceeding, Mr. Chaplin said the member for George Town proceeded to Pretoria on the 21st July and asked the railwaymen there to adopt the same attitude as the miners. There the member for George Town (Mr. Andrews) told them that the working-men were never so much respected as when they would not work. (Laughter.) They also had had the hon. member for George Town at Bloemfontein telling them that the nation was to be held up. Hon. members on the cross-benches had suggested that it was a plot on the part of the Government and the employers of labour to ruin the town of Johannesburg and bring the population to its knees, but how could that possibly improve matters, or the position of the employers. The loss which would have followed the repatriation of the natives would not have been wiped out for many years to come. All that was done was done in the interests of public safety, and the Government was justified in adopting the course it had done. They had the whole case given fully by Mr. Mason, who came down to Cape Town, and he (Mr. Chaplin) thought that the people here might flatter themselves on the amount of attention they received from the strike leaders. They had such a law-abiding population in Cape Town that it was felt that Salt River was the crux of the whole position. During the time Mr. Watson was down here, in reply to a question, he stated that the General Workers’ Union was in course of formation, and that men who did not belong to any specific trade could join that. He supposed that particular Union was for men who had no trade. (Laughter.) The action of the Labour leaders left no doubt as to their intentions, for the Government were informed that the next time there was an industrial war “the country would get such a shaking as would electrify the world.”

It was approved of.

Oh, yes, it was quite approved of. He went on to say that some of their friends tried to convince the world that it was not the work of the hooligans. Mr. Crawford, however, said that their enemies called the rioters in the recent strike the hooligans, but he called the hooligans the inspiring force of a grand fight. But when it came to this House these gentlemen said, “We don’t approve of violence. ” They came down here again, and he found there was a gentleman called Anderson. This man said that the sooner they had a French Revolution the better, that the situation was wholly in their hands, and that if they would unite, whether they were white, black, or green, they who created the wealth of the world, that wealth belonged to them. Later on at the Labour Congress in Pretoria, shortly before the last strike, the hon. member for Jeppe proceeded to secure the admission into his own party of the coloured people. (Hear, hear.) So when they said there was no determination to make a general movement, no anxiety to paralyse the country, no war against the nation—really, he thought one must judge them by what they had said themselves. Even the Indians were to be roped in, if possible. The redoubtable Mr. Bain attended a meeting of the Indians in Johannesburg and expressed his sympathy with them. He (Mr. Chaplin) took steps to inquire whether Mr. Bain was there with the approval of the leaders of the Indian community. He was assured that they had certainly not invited him, and they were not thankful for his presence. He came now to the organisation of the coal miners. That began in Natal. It then went on or was attempted to be made to go on to the coal mines in the Transvaal. That was part of the original scheme. After all it was not an impossible thing to do. If they could paralyse the coal mines and prevent coal being brought to two or three of the power stations which supplied the power to the Witwatersrand, inside a week, the whole industry would be paralyzed. It was not at all a bad idea from that point of view. Fortunately it did not come off. The redoubtable Mr. Poutsma, he supposed, had exploded his bomb too soon. Of course, the whole thing could not be done without the railways, because the mines could manage to produce the coal, and if the coal could be got to the power stations, the industry could be kept at work. So the railways had to be paralysed. If the railways came near to being paralysed, the whole of the credit or fault was due to the mission of the hon. member for George Town and the hon. member for Jeppe which they carried out in the country. Of course, they had the assistance of Mr. Poutsma, who was paid by the country all the time.

Who is the authority?

Mr. Wybergh. (Laughter.) Proceeding, he said that it was immaterial who the authority was. He did not take Mr. Wybergh as an authority on many subjects, but in that particular case he expressed the thought which a good many of them in that House had in their minds. There was another aspect of the matter. Supposing that House said in effect that it censured the Government for having deported these people, the logical result was that the House would be willing to have them back. Was the House willing to have them back? (Hon. Members “No, no.”) The right hon. gentleman had argued that they might be allowed to come back for trial. Well, if some of them knew there was going to be a trial he doubted very much whether they would care to come back. The House was told by the Minister of Defence that there was no legislation which was really applicable to those particular circumstances, therefore if they were to be tried by a special tribunal or in any satisfactory way, new legislation would have to be passed, and it did seem to him that if they were asked to introduce new legislation to deal with the matter they would be stultifying themselves and the position would be made worse. It had been said to him more than once that he might be the next, that any of them might be the next. That was an argument that was in the minds of many people. His answer to that was this: No Government was going to resort to steps of that kind unless two conditions existed. The first was that there must be a state of affairs which warranted the proclamation of Martial Law and the second condition which must take place was that the vast majority of the people must be behind the action of the Government. He believed that in that specific case they were. But he thought they would be making a very grave mistake if they expressed censure of the Government’s action on this occasion, because if they did it would be an encouragement to those gentlemen to start their campaign afresh. In this case the Government had not acted as party Government. It had acted on behalf of South Africa, and if the Government was to be censured for its action South Africa was going to lose prestige. He believed that whatever might be the rights or wrongs of the case—it was one of those cases—whether they liked it or not—in which they were bound to support the action taken, and for that reason his vote would be for the Bill.

said that for the last three days they had listened to three very important speeches on that important matter, the Indemnity Bill. He referred to the speeches of the hon. member for Jeppe, who represented what had been called the counsel for the defence.

The prosecution.

proceeding, said they were not the accused in that case. They were in the dock now. They were in the box now, although they had been in the other place.

Is it correct for the hon. Minister to say in this House that I have been in the box?

The hon. Minister does not say that if the hon. member has been in the box he would have been convicted. All he says is that in his opinion he ought to have been in the box

Is it offensive language in the terms of the Standing Orders for an hon. member to say that in his opinion another hon. member should be in the dock.

I think, under the circumstances in which it was said, it is within the rules.

said he did not impute any criminal motives; it was only a colloquial expression. (Cries of protest from Labour members.)

said he wished to draw the attention of hon. members on the cross benches to Rule 6, which stated that no member should interrupt another while speaking. The, hon. members would have their opportunity, of addressing the House. ,

said he was thankful to Mr. Speaker for correcting the hon. members on the cross benches. He had not attacked them unnecessarily, and they would have the opportunity of addressing the House.

Do not insult us.

said they had heard during the last six months a good deal about intimidation. There was intimidation on one side. There was destruction on one side. If hon. members could not obey the rules of the House they must be taught to do so. There was plenty of scope for free speech within the rules of the House. The second speech they had listened to was from the right hon. member for Victoria West. That was an eloquent speech. It was a characteristic speech. In two senses it was a characteristic speech; firstly, it lifted the debate to a very high level indeed, and introduced principles and argued the matter from that high standpoint which they all appreciated. It was altogether characteristic in the sense that he spared neither friend nor foe. He laid about him on every side, whether, it was the men over there or on the Government benches. He believed that the only people-in that particular speech who had not been criticised were the leaders of the mining industry.

You are repudiating your own report!

This is not the Government’s report, but it is the report of the Commission. He went on to read extracts from the evidence given be fore the Commission, questions 491 and 492 as follows:

Proceeding, he said that, as a matter of fact, subsequent to that some more of the leaders had been arrested. What had happened? They had come before the Magistrate, who had thought it was not a serious matter, and let them out on £50 bail, and Mr. Bain, while out on bail, was one of those who had negotiated with the Prime Minister. As far as the Van Ryn mine was concerned, when the trouble spread, the Government did take action, and had the leaders arrested, but they were let out on bail by the Magistrate, and the Government had no control over the discretion of the Magistrate. An attempt had been made to put the whole blame on the Government, because it was said that they were so unsympathetic with the Labour movement, or with organised labour. That was the great charge which the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell) brought against the Government, and the hon. member said that they (the Government) wanted to crush labour, and that they had conspired with the mine-owners for the purpose of effecting that object.

Is it still to be introduced ?

The Government is not going back on its industrial programme.

This session?

That will depend on circumstances. We cannot say that at this time. Continuing, Mr. Malan said the men refused to co-operate in a commission that would inquire into the subject, as Government thought it was necessary to have more facts before legislation was introduced. That Commission, which was presided over by a very eminent gentleman from abroad, had prepared its report, and he thought that would tend very largely to facilitate the measures Government intended taking. The Industrial Disputes Bill contained a provision against violence and intimidation, and in the Trade Unions Bill there was a clause which stated that a man must not be intimidated to join a union against his will. If they took those two clauses out he thought the hon. member (Mr. Creswell) would sing a very different song. Government required legislation to enable it to do things which at present it was unable to do.

Brotherly love.

When these gentlemen intimidate workers and burn their property and terrorise their families, that is called the ordinary methods of trade unionism.

What, continued Mr. Malan, was the result of this on the workers themselves? He was not thinking now so much of the harm done to the country by the reduction of its credit but of the harm done to the men themselves. As the result of the strike of July last 12 to 14 hundred white men on the Rand were thrown out of employment.

Who by?

These men who smile in the House wish to put the blame on other men, and they forget that this is the result of their agitation (Cheers.) They forget that if they sow the wind they must reap the whirlwind. Continuing, Mr. Malan said the poor, deluded men were led by the nose very often, and; they came to realise that the object these so-called leaders had in mind was not to improve the conditions of their followers but their object was a political one —(cheers)—not so much to get seats in this House—that was a legitimate object, and for that he had no objection, but when they wanted to upset, the form of Government under which we lived then it was time for Government to take drastic steps.

It was somewhat difficult, he continued, to get the figures in connection with the voting on the strike by the Rand Labour Organisation, but so far as the Transvaal Miners’ Association was concerned, 2,900 men voted for a strike in January last and 971 against. Later on he tried to make some investigations, and find out how the voting went. He was informed by the Transvaal Miners’ Association that 4,000 men voted for the strike and 1,300 against; making a total of 5,300 men who participated in the ballot. The total number of white men employed by the mines on the Witwatersrand was 22,500, so that there voted only about 17 per cent.

What about the engineers?

Your ignorance is so collossal.

The hon. member must, not interrupt

said that, if they took the Society of Amalgamated Engineers, it would be found that 344 voted for the strike and 170 against, or a majority of 174 out of a total membership of 2,972, which was only a percentage of 17.3. He thought that if the members of that society had the protection in the sense that men wanted to work, and not be intimidated, they would not have voted for a strike. It would be asked: why was Martial Law proclaimed? It was for this very purpose that, unless they had an overwhelming force to protect the men who wanted to work the Syndicalists’ element, this new terrorism would have prevented the ordinary work of the country being proceeded with. He did not think it was necessary to argue the necessity of Martial Law, because he thought the whole House was satisfied, with the exception of the cross-benches, that it was an absolute necessity. They had to strengthen the hands of the Administration, and in no other way could that have been done except by the proclamation of Martial Law. Of course, the deportations of these men was against the law, and they could not contend that it was otherwise, but he begged to remind them that it was absolutely essential, and in that sense it became legal, because the safety of the State was the highest law. (Cheers.) The right point of view to take was that the country had to be rid of these men. Had they been left in Johannesburg, the same state of affairs would have happened again. It was not so much that these men had to be punished, but if they were not sent out of the country while the whole community realised the sense of danger, the same thing would have happened again. Deportation was net a punishment known to our ordinary law, and therefore it could only be effected by an act of the Executive; The state of feeling in Johannesburg was such that it was impossible to leave these men in the country, and to Minister could have been responsible for the observance of law and order while they remained in the Union. It would be asked why there was any delay in deportation of these men? He might gay that the decision to deport them was arrived at while the strike was on, and they would have been deported very shortly after their arrest, but for the fact that there was no steamer available just then by which they could have Been sent away. He contended the proper time for the deportation was while the community realised the danger of their remaining in the country. The question of making martyrs had been raised, but, as a matter of fact, some of the greatest criminals that had been known had been made the greatest martyrs. It was also said that a large number of men had been driven into the ranks of the Labour Party, and that probably fifteen members would be returned to the next Parliament, but that, to his mind, made no difference whatever. He thought if the effect of this action by the Government would be that in future men would be induced to take constitutional methods, then the action of the Government would be welcomed. The one great moral that had been taught the country was that free labour must be protected, and he trusted the House would have an opportunity of shortly dealing with this matter. The Government would do nothing to suppress Trade Unionism, but if Syndicalism took the place of Trade Unionism, it would be considered a declaration of war against law and order. He supported the second reading of the Bill.

said he was grateful to the Minister of Mines for making it plain on behalf of the Government that they had not yet grasped the fact that the labour problem was not solved. The Minister had stated that they had the great lesson to learn that the free worker must be protected, but that was the last lesson which could be deduced from the line of action which had been taken by the Government.

The speaker had repeatedly asked himself whether the Government really understood what a violent blow they had dealt to free labour, and now they had to hear that that was the greatest lesson which they had to learn from the Government.

He felt bound to admit that, especially whilst the Minister of Finance was speaking, he had spent one of the most painful times in his life. Parliament was the country’s court of appeal, the only court for those who had suffered under martial law and the other illegal acts which had been performed by the Government. Parliament was the final court, and when he listened to the Minister of Finance giving his reasons why that highest court was to be disregarded, he felt Pound to say that the Minister was mocking at the authority of the House, as he had done at the authority of the court. And now the Minister came to Parliament and asked them to approve what he had done.

The Government said in the first place Make legal all the, illegal things we have done, not only under Martial Law, and not only within the districts placed under Martial Law On, no. Martial Law was not proclaimed until the 13th January, but the Government asked for approval of all it had done from 8th January onwards, of all it had done, outside the districts under Martial Lew and apart from Martial Law. The question at once arose: If the Government asked for approval of all these acts, why did not they make the proclamation, apply everywhere? Parliament was, asked to approve something which was not relevant to the Bill. The House was asked not merely to approve the deportations, but to go further and to pass a law that under no circumstances were the deported persons to return to this country. That might be right. He did not complain of the steps which the Government had taken. All the steps which the Government had taken might be good. He referred merely to the Bill as it lay before them. The House was asked to pass an Act of Indemnity, not only for the acts of the Government up to to-day, but until such time as it suited the Government to repeal the proclamation of Martial Law v. In that way the House would give the Government the right to keep up a state of Martial Law as long as they wished, whilst giving the Government an indemnity against all they might still do. They were not told when Martial Law was to cease. Well, he would not deal at present with that point any further. He merely wished to show the House exactly what they were being asked to do.

proceeded, by urging that if the Government had acted in regard to Parliament in this case as they ought to have done, and as in any other case should have been done, a good deal of the debate which was now taking place would have been superfluous. It would incidentally have saved him (the speaker) a good deal of time, and would have made it unnecessary for him to discuss some points to which he would now have to draw their attention. There could be no doubt that if the Government had desired to act fairly towards Parliament and the public, they would have given a frank explanation of what had taken place. Then the Government should have asked for an immediate inquiry to be undertaken by a Select Committee, so that the many persons who had suffered injustice under Martial Law would have been given an opportunity to explain what that injustice was. When that had been done the Government would have the right to ask the House for exemption from processes at law by those persons. But as the Government had not taken that course the House was being asked to take away the rights of persons who had suffered injustice without knowing even what the nature of that injustice was. They did not know whether they were approving of misdeeds, the victims of which might be suffering great injury. Before the Government asked the House for an indemnity they ought to have asked for the appointment of a committee, and so provided an opportunity to persons who had suffered injury to describe what that injury was. Only in that event had the Government the right to come to Parliament and ask for forgiveness for its sins and the removal of the aggrieved persons’ right of action. Under all the circumstances he did not intend to oppose the second reading of the Bill. Whether he would vote on it was a point on which he would have something further to say. It would depend on what the Government considered its duty in regard to the question referred to by the Minister, namely, the permanent declaration of banishment He proposed to return to that point.

It was their duty to inquire whether Martial Law had been properly applied. He wished in the first place to point out under what circumstances Martial Law could be proclaimed in France. It could only be proclaimed there in the event of great danger to the State arising, that is to say, owing to war or the actions of persons with arms. Only in that case had the President the right to proclaim Martial Law. In all other cases it was Parliament alone which had that power. But if Martial Law were proclaimed by the President, then within two days thereafter the Parliament met without being specially called. If this Government had acted rightly, then as speedily as possible after January 13 they would have convened a meeting of Parliament. That was a positive necessity, and it was the law in England itself.

said they had to do here with South Africa. (Hear, hear.)

asked whether the Prime Minister had read the Proclamation of Martial Law. In that Proclamation it was stated that Martial Law was to be applied as Martial Law was understood, and applied in His Majesty’s Territories. That was signed by the Prime Minister. England was a portion of those territories. The Prime Minister wanted to creep away from that position, but the speaker had got him there. In the Ordinance relating to the preservation of peace it was stated that the Governor-General had the right to proclaim Martial Law as that was known in the British Empire. That consequently was the Martial Law of England. If it were not so, what Martial Law could they apply in South Africa? It was accepted in all the courts of law that in connection with such matters as that the customs observed in the British Empire were to be followed. If the Government wanted extraordinary powers in order to get command of the position, then they ought as speedily as possible to call Parliament together in order to obtain that power from Parliament. If that were not done by a Government they would be able to imagine what might happen. The Government would take all power into its hands and would do with the people and its rights whatever they thought fit. It was true that Parliament had afterwards been convened, but by that time everything had been done. What was the result of the Proclamation of Martial Law in England. Holland, and elsewhere, all constitution countries such as South Africa is? What were the relations between Martial Law and the courts of justice? The Constitution of Holland laid it down that in order to preserve the safety of the country the Government could proclaim Martial Law as laid down in the law, and with the results as foreseen by the law. And he wished to draw attention to one of those results. It was laid down in the Constitution that no one’s rights were to be denied except in time of war. In South Africa the Government had formally created the Court-martial. They had caused persons to be brought before the Court martial for ordinary crimes, persons who ought to have been brought before the ordinary courts. In that respect the Government had committed a great blunder. In saying that he had in his mind the man who was charged with laying dynamite on a railway line. That was an ordinary crime which should be punished by the ordinary law, and the man charged should have been brought before the ordinary judges. What justice could the public expect to get when such a powerful instrument was given to the Government enabling them to bring people before a military court instead of before the ordinary courts ? What was done in England ? In England the ordinary courts were in no case closed. In cases of war only, when the judges could no longer sit owing to the operations of the enemy, only in those cases did the military appear in the stead of the civil authorities. But so long as the civil authorities were there, the courts could not be closed. Here, however, they had gone to work without paying the least attention to such considerations.

said that was not correct.

replied, that the Minister had stated the report to be incorrect. The Minister had said that in a certain point it was not correct. The Minister accepted the report so far as it suited him. It was more painful for him (the speaker) to hear such a thing from the Minister than from the members of the Labour party. The Government ought to know what persons comprised the Commission, seeing that they appointed them.

asked them what ought to have been done. Well, that was not the first strike they had had on the Rand. There had been a strike in 1910, when the speaker had had the fortune to be Minister of Justice. The matter was by no means trivial, and the mayor and other inhabitants of Johannesburg had come to him and begged him to call out the military. He had replied to that, that so long as the police were there and could in any way contrive to do the work, they should do it. He had not allowed the strike to go so far that they had to resort to firearms. But that was not the case at Benoni, and it was there that the Government were at fault. In 1910 some 700 police constables went to Johannesburg armed with pick-handles, and with that the strike was finished. Why was not the same thing done again? The strike of July began in a small way until it grew to a riot in a big town, with the result that innocent persons were shot to death. If the Government had done its duty in June, the events of July would never have taken place, and the Government would have been spared the deep humiliation of the 5th July. The Minister had spoken with a quaver in his voice of the humiliation to which the Government had to submit. The whole of South Africa had felt humiliated as much as the Government did, who had come to an agreement with men who, four or five days ago when the debate began, could not be painted black enough. The speaker was glad to learn from the Minister of Mines that those men were not conspirators. There was, in fact, no question of a conspiracy. No, it was a Syndicalistic movement.

said that when the speech which had just been delivered by the last speaker was made known in the camp of the Syndicalists there would be a great rejoicing. The hon. gentleman was a representative of a country district where the strike caused alarm, but it was hard to conceive that fact. The hon. gentleman wanted to give them lessons in morality. The hon. gentleman was not going to oppose the Bill, but he attacked the Government for it. Surely if he were consistent in attacking the Government for that Bill, he should vote against it? If he voted for it, then his two and a half hour assault on the Government was not straightforward. According to his reasoning the hon. member was unable to advise anybody to vote for the Bill. And yet the hon. member had recently written letter, in the course of which he declared that he stood at the side of the Government, but now he attacked the Government for two hours and a half. The hon. member was annoyed with the Minister for making use of rumours, but yet thought, fit to repeat the chatter of a police official What was the difference? If the hon. member for Smithfield voted for the Bill, then his speech would only serve the purpose of creating bad blood, and the speaker was prepared to repeat that every-where. What otherwise was his object?

The Minister of Finance had stated that £47,000 had been paid to help free labour, and he explained clearly under what conditions the money had been spent. But the hon. member for Smithfield said the £47,000 had been paid out in order to set the strikers at work again. How was it that some hon. members who at first said they were going to support the Government had applauded the hon. member for Smithfield ? The country was at present in serious difficulties, and all speeches made went from one end of the country to the other. They ought, therefore, to know exactly what they were saying. The hon. member for Smithfield was in a great state of alarm concerning the interests of England, but the speaker rather thought that the interests of South Africa came first. (Laughter.) In his mind South Africa was the first consideration, and if the deported men were admitted into England, he did not care a rush what became of them. The hon. gentleman wanted, to allow the deported men to return to this country, but would the Government and people of this country allow themselves to be so humiliated? Never. He hoped there would very soon be an end of these mean attacks on the Government. How was it possible for the Government to call a meeting of Parliament during the time of the strike ? They knew well enough there were no trains, and the best argument that could be adduced against the convening of Parliament was that debate itself. The debate had already continued for a long time. How long would it have lasted in the other event? The hon. members of the Labour party thought there was a disposition amongst the country farmers to sympathise with and support them. The farmers were unable to deliver long and hollow speeches full of abuse, but they knew how to preserve peace and order in the country. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Roodepoort wanted to start a, revolution, and if he wished to do that in the same way as the strike, then the farmers would be against him as one man.

If these deportations had not taken place the whole country would have been brought into a state of uproar. It was necessary to deport those men because the farmers were not going to be called up every six months in order to deal with strikes. The man who was settled in this country demanded from the Government that peace and order should be maintained. He was averse both to Syndicalism and to Socialism.

moved the adjournment of the debate.

This was agreed to, and the debate was adjourned until to-morrow.