from F. S. Lynch, of Kimberley, styling himself the duly authorised agent and general manager in Southern Africa of the Kimberley Water Company, Limited, in opposition to the Rand Water Board Supplementary Water Supply (Private) Bill.

The petition was referred to the Select Committee on the Bill.

stated that the Committee would now meet as on an opposed private Bill.

from the widow of General Nieuwoudt, late District Staff Officer, Orange Free State, who died from illness contracted whilst on duty, praying for relief.

from A. Holmes, permanent way inspector, for leave to contribute certain arrears to the Pension Fund.

from B. J. Bisschoff, of Middelburg, who entered the Cape Civil Service, as Sheep Inspector, in 1894, for a pension.

from W. O. Diplock, formerly Chief Constable, for a pension.

from the widow of the late Sergeant S. Glinane, of the South African Police, for an allowance in respect of the leave due to her late husband.

Finance Accounts (including Trust and Village Water Supply Accounts) and Appropriation Accounts, 1st April, 1912, to 31st March, 1913, with the Provincial Auditor’s reports thereon (Natal); report of Provincial Auditor on the Accounts, year ending 31st March, 1913 (O.F.S.).

The papers were referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

Report of the Chief Conservator of Forests for fifteen months ended 31st March, 1913.

said that while the House had appointed him a member of the Select Committee on the Rand Water Board Supplementary Water Supply (Private) Bill, he wished to point out that he was also a member of the Public Accounts Committee, which met every day, and as he had been given to understand that the former Bill was likely to be opposed, there was little possibility of his giving that committee his attention. He would therefore ask the House to relieve him of his duties on the Private Bill Committee.

This was agreed to.

May I ask that my name be also removed, for the same reason?

said it was very difficult for a member to discharge his duties on the other committee when he was a member of such an important committee as the Public Accounts Committee, which sat every day.

I must point out that this is a very important Bill. No objection? Agreed to.

moved: That the Select Committee on Working of the Miners’ Phthisis Act, 1912, consist of ten members, and that the Minister of Mines be a member of the committee.

This was agreed to.

who was greeted with cheers on rising, and who said that the matter which had already engaged the attention of the House for six days, was not an ordinary, everyday matter, but one which deserved the attention of every member of that House and every man in South Africa. It was a question which had come up, and which went further than anyone had expected it to do. He would not cover the ground which had already been covered by his colleagues during the course of that debate, but he only wanted to say that it was a question which must not be wrapped up, as it were; but the people must be shown the danger and difficulty which had threatened them in connection with that question. He had gone carefully into the question, and knew what was going on in South Africa. He wanted to say that it had not been an everyday matter in Johannesburg, hut one of a real declaration of war against the peaceful people in Johannesburg who were unarmed. It had also been a declaration of war against the women and children. It had been a murderous attack on the freedom of the people and when one went into that matter he wondered that there had been so much calmness in South Africa about it, because if there had been one thing which closely concerned the community, it was that movement. The whole movement had not been with an idea to bring the so-called grievances to an end— these had been beside the question—but the whole attempt ‘had been to overthrow society in South Africa. (Hear, hear.) It was a question of the minority In South Africa desiring to rule the majority. (Hear, hear.) They had heard much about the future freedom of the people; but what he said was that there could be no freedom of the people if a minority wanted to rule. It was nothing but tyranny which had wanted to rule South Africa. That was his view. In that view the Government had taken action. He expected that Parliament would take the same view, and he hoped the public would endorse it. They had been asked what was the first cause of the strike. He thought that his colleague, the Minister of Mines, had clearly proved that there had been really no reason for such a strike, and those who had gone on strike had been asked to come back to their old positions, but they did not desire to do so. Was that not proof that these people did not want their grievances redressed, but wanted to take up a position to which they had no right? The first and most important principle of these people who called themselves the “democrats of South Africa” was that if they went on strike nobody else in South Africa should work.:. Could they allow such a thing to take place in South Africa? (Hear, hear.) They could not, nor should they prevent a man working if he desired to do so. It was those who were willing to work who were entitled to protection, those who were hindered from working by threats. All freedom would cease unless that principle were preserved. Compulsion alone would remain, followed by revolution and the compelling of workmen to cease work against their own wishes. That would be the normal condition of affairs. Some hon. members had spoken there for hours without saying a single word against that, and the speaker hoped the public would read the speeches, so that they could learn what was really going on. Who had been the principal men, the instigators, the leaders, and the generals of these commanders? Were they only those men who were at present on the high seas? No; some of them sat in that House at the present moment, and they had attempted to place a dagger in the heart of the freedom of the people of South Africa. (Hear, hear.)

in answer to a question from the Opposition benches, said that this was on the third of January.

There was another interesting case on the 25th of July. A Native Congress was held in Johannesburg, and all the leading representatives of the coloured people got together to discuss matters. The report of the Director had the following extract: “A European miner attended the meetings of the Council and intimated to the meeting that, it was the intention of the Government to get natives Out of work and replace them by other natives outside the Union. The discussion centred chiefly on the subject of the Native Land Bill. A proposal was, however, made that the meeting should express the sympathy of the natives with the European, strikers. The secretary also announced that a proposal had been suggested to the Council that natives should refuse to go to work as the Government had always promised to settle their grievances, but had not done so, and that the best method to adopt would be to put tools down and refuse to work,”

Give them a trial

said he deeply deplored the statement the-hon. member (Mr. Merriman) had made, to the effect that two stabs had been made at the interests of the British Empire. The hon. member went too far in saying that, and himself did that evil thing with which he charged the speaker. It was unfair. The Government of this country had the right to decide who were undesirable in the country, and no true friend of the British Empire would try to dispute that right. He (the Prime Minister) would return to the question later when the matter before them had been dealt with by the House. They had the right to decide in the country matters affecting this country itself. That was a right of every portion of the British Empire. His Government were anxious to maintain the best relations with Great Britain, and they would do nothing to prejudice or change their relations.

When the Government had discussed the question of deportation, they had done so from all points of view. It was not their deliberate purpose to send the nine men to England. They might have been sent anywhere else. But there was only one ship available, and it happened that the ship was going to England. The hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog) had attacked him in good weather and in bad weather, and in all sorts of places and had charged him with acting in conflict with South African principles. But he (the Prime Minister) was getting accustomed to that now. The hon. member (General Hertzog) now came forward with new accusations. He had made himself the champion of Imperialism. (Laughter.) He also accused him with wishing to do mischief to the Imperial connection. He was dumb with amazement at the two questions which the hon. member had put: “What would happen if England refused to admit the deported men and sent them back again?” and “What would happen if the Government vetoed the Bill? ” Such questions were wonderful coming from a man who regarded himself as the champion of South Africa’s holy rights. They were questions which the Government did not even wish to discuss. They were matters which South Africa had got to decide, and no one else.

Proceeding, General Botha said he was convinced that the steps that had been taken were the proper steps. (Hear, hear.) For what the Government had done they would have to answer the Parliament and the people. The hon. member for Smithfield was now shedding crocodile tears because the Government had sent away, nine men without trial. The speaker, however, knew of the case where the hon. member refused to hear his own people but punished them without trial, and it came well from him to attack the Government for such a thing.

A great deal of feeling had been created against himself (the speaker) and his Government by such speeches as those of General Hertzog. The hon. member had spoken for two or three hours and consistently attacked him, but he (General Hertzog) had never spoken a word of disapproval in regard to the outrages on the Rand. Though he denied that he consorted with those people, he had not said a word of disapproval over those atrocities. The question of the deportations was one for which he felt greatly responsible, but it was a responsibility which rested solely on the Government. The Governor-General had nothing whatever to do with the matter. As to the points raised by General Hertzog that the Imperial Government might refuse to receive these men who had been deported or might veto the Bill, he (the Prime Minister) refused to contemplate such a possibility. (Cheers.)

said that 90 per cent, of, the population of this country heartily approved of the action the Government had taken both in regard to. Martial Law and the deportation of the nine men. Prior to the deportation every nine put of ten men he met wanted to know why these men had not already been deported, for they recognised that a cancerous growth required a surgical operation even if that operation were illegal. But on this, occasion people recognised that such an operation was most justifiable and absolutely necessary for the welfare of South Africa. It was with some hesitation that a young member of the House criticised any statement made by the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman), because they all had a feeling of reverence for him, but he (Mr. Nicholson) would be failing in his duty if he did not do so on that occasion. In his opinion it was entirely unwise for the right hon. gentleman to touch upon the Indian question, and he should know that 99 per cent’ of the population were at the back of the Government in this matter, and would remain at its back even should the heavens fall. (Hear, hear.) But this question was beside the matter before the House to-day. The right hon. gentleman had criticised the Government, somewhat severely for not being prepared for the July riot. But what did the country and what did the Government know about revolutionary Syndicalism, which was foreign to everything “South African, where every pulse throbbed with conservatism? A legitimate strike might have been expected and was prepared for, but the new element was opposed to the natural order of things and was not expected by the country or the Government.

Continuing, he said that if the right hon. gentleman had been at the head of affairs at the time, would he have foreseen or have been better prepared than the Government was? He (Mr. Nicholson) thought not. The right hon. gentleman said that the revolution was an empty affair. The strikers were only bluffing the Government. It was true that after Martial Law had been proclaimed the following of these agitators dwindled away, but if the Ministers had not taken the action which they had done the hon. member for Victoria West would now probably be sitting with a permit in his pocket signed by Messrs. Poutsma, Bain and Co. (Laughter.) The right hon. gentleman also objected to the deportation of these men because it had made them heroes. For his (Mr. Nicholson’s) part he would say let them be heroes of Syndicalism, as long as they were kept out of the country. The hon. member had also spoken about the Bain-Botha treaty, which he called an unfortunate treaty made in an evil moment. It was certainly very humiliating for the Government no doubt. But hon. Ministers were under the circumstances the right judges. They knew that there were 240,000 savages who would soon be without food and who had already begun to “see blood,” and unless something was done to relieve the situation a massacre worse than that which took place during the time of the Indian Mutiny was likely to happen. That this did not happen was entirely due to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence, who at the cost of humiliation sacrificed their feelings for the, good of the country, and what that humiliation was in the presence of men like Bain, and Co., he thought the House had fully realised. With characteristic modesty, the Minister of Defence accepted the humiliation, and ascribed the credit and praise, which is equally his, to the; Prime Minister alone. When the Kleinfontein men struck last year, a considerable amount of sympathy was felt for the men, as the mine management had undoubtedly acted illegally towards them. If he (Mr. Nicholson) lad been a worker, he would have been a legitimate striker too. After a time, however, when the militant agitators took a hand in the game, and took possession of the reins, no one deluded himself for a moment about the pacific nature of the movement. The member for Jeppe, not being a Syndicalist, displayed a weak line of defence, his able speech consisting for the most part of invective, instead of argument. He had stated that if the men had been treated like law-abiding citizens, there would have been no trouble, but he (Mr. Nicholson) wished to point out that the meeting at Benoni was allowed, and they all knew what the result of that was. The hon. member for Jeppe, (Mr. Creswell) also said in his speech: “When it was found that the Government were assisting the Kleinfontein management to procure blacklegs, it was determined to get all the miners to strike, so that there would not be blacklegs to go round.” A few moments afterwards he told the House that there was an endeavour to stop the strike from spreading beyond Benoni; such statements were inconsistent, inconsequent, and contradictory. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan) on Friday last made a point or two, to which he would like to refer. From a lawyer’s point of view, those points might be sound; but from a common-sense point of view, they would not hold water. He told the House, and he (Mr. Duncan) ought to know, as he was a distinguished lawyer of high repute, that the safety of the people and the State was the supreme law. Well, the action of the Government in deporting these men was in absolute conformity with that law. The hon. member also said that the speeches made were much to be condemned, but did not justify the Government’s drastic action. But he regarded the speeches apart by themselves. He did not take them in conjunction with the evil effects and disastrous results they gave rise to. Nor did he consider the real object of the speakers, or what was at the back of them. If he did, he would admit that the safety of the people and the State was endangered by those speeches, made in defiance of that supreme law. The hon. member did partly admit the dangerous character of these men when he said that the evil would arise again, and that, the doctrines preached had fallen on fruitful soil. He (Mr. Nicholson) thought it was the wisest plan to deport them before more evil was sown. After the late war and long after peace had been proclaimed, Ordinance No. 38 of 1902, known as the Peace Preservation Act, was enacted, and in clause 24 the Government took the power to deport those whom they considered to be dangerous people. This law was repealed, but re-enacted in 1903, and was known by the not very elegant or refined name of the “Hou Jou Smoel Wet” (“shut your mouth” Act). The hon. member for Fordsburg says it was never applied. That was perfectly true, because the authorities at that tune had no Syndicalists or revolutionists to deal with. Therefore the Government of that day was not given a chance to apply the law. Did the hon. member know that a most harmless person, for writing a letter to the “S.A. News” in defence of a person who had been attacked and who was highly honoured in the Transvaal, was warned that if he committed himself again, Act 24 of the law would be applied, and that individual made his preparations accordingly having made up his mind, should it be necessary to do so, to break another lance in defence of the person concerned?

“Well, sir,” continued the hon. member, “the country cannot help feeling that had it not been for the prompt, determined and drastic action of the Government, mob Martial Law, otherwise Benoni Syndicalist law, would have extended over the whole of the Union. This last attempt to hold up the whole of the country and upset the present order of things and start a general revolution, in which murder and arson were proclaimed justifiable, was frustrated: in the first place by the loyalty of the Cape Railway Servants and the few in the other Provinces, whose patriotism was greater than the fear of persecution with which they were threatened. (Hear, hear.) I trust that, when the time comes, that loyalty will receive full recognition. (Hear, hear.) The action of the Cape railways tends to increase one’s faith in Cape lines. In the second place, it was frustrated by the splendid manner in which the Defence and burgher forces responded to the call of duty, sinking all political differences and leaving their farms just as the first summer and ploughing rains we had, were falling. In my district, much larger than Holland, being 16,000 square miles, within 22 hours of the departure of the commandeered men, 90 per cent, of those of the Rifle Associations and Defence Force called out were mobilised on the railway line; some having come 30 miles on foot. (Cheers.) How well they deserve of their country! Lastly, it was frustrated by the masterly, cool, resourceful, energetic and determined manner in which the Government met the situation. The South African historian will say more; and I do not think you will find the words ‘Papbroek,’ ‘Lendelam,’ ‘zwak,’ ‘beginselloos’ in that part of the history. But whatever may happen in the future in other countries, of one thing we may be absolutely certain, that not in this generation or the next will the serpent of revolutionary Syndicalism raise its head in South Africa, notwithstanding what the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan) said about the teachings having tallen on fruitful soil. Why, even in America, the I.W.W., the most advanced body of Syndicalists, never raised its head so high or showed its fangs so determinedly, and so viciously as the sponsors of Syndicalism have done in South Africa, and we know their methods—direct action, swift attacks, aggressive general strike, and no arbitration. Instead of the motto ‘a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work,’ they inscribe on their banners ‘Abolition of the wage system.’. (Hear, hear.) When the vision of a united revolutionary Syndicalist movement was not likely to be realised, they changed the tune and talked about the laws of the country, British institutions, and the Magna Charta. They are men, who passed, the death sentence without trial (i.e., if there were to be found a pond deep to drown them in or a rope long enough to hang them with) on citizens who in the interest of law and order, gave their services as special constables without any remuneration except the satisfaction of having done their duty to their country, and who were denounced as ‘scabs’ for so doing. When they find the key of the position in other hands, and when the shadow of the burgher fails across their paths they sing small. (Laughter and cheers.) For a moment a wave of anarchism seemed to be sweeping over South Africa, but its dash was stayed by the mountain of conservatism found on our shores, and ever may it remain to resist any movement of that description. Pierre du Pont, the Socialist poet, says: Socialism has two wings, the student and the working-man. So has Syndicalism two wings—the revolutionary militant agitator and the working-man, but the latter is only a pawn in the game. Well, I am glad that the Government has paid so much attention to these agitators. Nothing succeeds like success. I suppose they (the Government) have their shortcomings, but their action during the crisis will cover a multitude of sins. (Hear, hear.) To some undoubted grievances in the Railway Service that do exist I shall refer when I speak on the railway Budget, if they are perhaps not remedied before that by the round-table conference which the honourable Minister has wisely consented to. If on this question we, as patriots, will sink all party and faction differences, Syndicalism will be unknown in the future history of our country. I shall certainly vote for the second reading of the Bill.” (Hear, hear.)

said that he did not intend to go through all the events of last July and the beginning of the present year, which had been gone through by the Minister of Defence, the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman), and other speakers, and he did not want unnecessarily to take up the time of the House; but he wanted to come at once to what he considered the most important part of that Bill, which was the part condoning the deportation of the nine men whose names were mentioned in the schedule, and also their permanent banishment. He strongly supported the Government in regard to the first part of the Bill, and calling out the Defence Force, and he went further, and said that the Government had been very wise in calling out the Defence Force in such ample numbers, because by doing so they did not only allow the men who desired to do so to work in Johannesburg and along the Reef, but it demonstrated the fact that the power in that country was on the side of law and order—(hear, hear)—and also showed what he thought was of great importance—the utter hopelessness of such measures as had been attempted in July last being successful. Personally, he did not think the price which they had paid was unworthy of what they had gained. (Hear, hear.) He went further and said that, considering the circumstances, he also thought the Government had been justified in proclaiming Martial Law, in view of the seriousness of the position. In view of the fact that they had a general strike to deal with, and also the threats of the leaders, which had been sown broadcast, and in view of the experience the country had gone through in July, the Government could not afford to take any risks, and had to take any measure possible to counteract the designs of the leaders of the strike.

The hon. member mentioned that he had been a member of the Public Safety Committee in Cape Town—(hear, hear)—and had moved in the Chamber of Commerce two resolutions in support of the Government on these points. But what he did condemn, and that very strongly, was the deportation of the nine men carried out. He himself was a large property holder in Johannesburg, and so one could not accuse him of being in sympathy with the methods of the men deported on that occasion. He agreed that their methods had practically amounted to Syndicalism, that that was the principle on which they were going, and that their object had been to bring about a state of chaos in the country. He went further and said that they had been absolutely reckless in their methods and reckless as to the suffering and the misery that would accrue as a result of their methods. In calling out the miners they must have known that they would bring the mines to a standstill, and they must have known that that meant the repatriation of the natives on the mines, and anyone who knew Johannesburg must have known of the utter disorganisation of the life and business of Johannesburg which would have resulted, had the natives been repatriated. The amount of the loss would have been incalculable, and the credit of the country would have suffered to a very large extent. (Hear, hear.) He agreed that these men who had been deported deserved very severe punishment, but he did say that they should never have been punished without due trial in a court of law. As the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had pointed out, many courses had been open to the Government, and they could have created a special court for the purpose of trying these men if they had not wanted to bring them before the ordinary courts. Even a man who was caught in the very act of murder had to be brought before a court of law, and was not condemned until he had been tried before a judge and jury and found guilty. He did not say that the men had been punished too severely, but he did say that they had punished the men without their being heard, and without being tried. He said that that was an act of tyranny. His hon. friend (Mr. Chaplin) had said that they could find many precedents, but he (Mr. Jagger) did not think they could find many precedents in Europe except for two countries, and those were Russia and Turkey. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Chaplin) said that he could give plenty of precedents, but he (Mr. Jagger) did not think that he could, that was, of course, recent precedents, and he was not going back to a hundred years or fifty years. Proceeding, he asked if it was fair or just that they should take men and punish them in that fashion without even the pretence of a trial. As had been said, the leader of these scollie-wallies sat in the House, the general of those gentry who had led the class war. He sat in the House that day. Why should he have been there? He asked that question to draw the attention to the fact that there had been no principle in the action of the Minister. Would the hon. Minister say why some had been taken and another one left? No. It was said that they were under Martial Law and need not worry about the law; but even under Martial Law, before a man was condemned before a man was punished in any way, he had a trial. In those cases there had been no trial at all. Of course, the first duty of the Government of the country was to maintain law and order, but that Government had committed one of the biggest acts of lawlessness that had ever been committed in South Africa; they had sent these men away without trial at the dead of night, in secrecy, an act well worthy of a Russian or a Turkish Government. They were placed on a ship and sent away to another country, unheard, untried, and uncondemned. The lawlessness of those men was not a criterion to go by. The Government were the guardians of law and order, and he did not see the force of their argument at all.

Proceeding, he said he wished to point out one of the results of that policy. It was going to breed among a certain section of the people a contempt of law; there was a large section of the population, who sympathised with these men. What would those men think of the law of the land? It was a hard thing to say, but hundreds would come to the conclusion that there was one law for the proprietors and another for the wage-earner. (Labour cheers.) They did not want that spirit to be abroad. There was another result coming from the action of the Government, and in this matter he spoke from personal knowledge; the Government took the most effective step they, could have taken to strengthen the Labour Party in this country. He had formed that opinion from his experiences in the Salt River district. These deportations had done much to strengthen the Labour Party, and they would get scores of votes in that district which, if these deportations had not taken place, they would not have got. That was a result he believed would be pretty general. Then it had the result of rehabilitating these deported men; they would have been discredited if they had not been deported, but they had been sent Home, and would be made into heroes. The first step taken by the Government, calling out the Defence Force to protect the men who wanted to work and to imprison those who were inciting to strike, was entirely for good, and the action had the support of 80 per cent, of the people of this country. But there is no doubt that the deportation undid a great deal of that good; it rehabilitated the leaders, it offended the sense of justice and fairplay of thousands of people of this country, and it had given a grievance to the wage-earners of the country. To his mind, those were very serious drawbacks to what the Government had done, and were very weighty reasons why it should not have been done. What was the justification for the hon. member for the action of the Government? That we should not be faced with the position that we had been faced with in January or July every six months; that the Government were the best judges, and could not trust the Court; and, further, that Parliament would not pass an Act in cold blood; that it was necessary that the deportations should take place at the very time when feeling was running very high. Those were the reasons held out by the hon. member. Well, they certainly did not want the country to be faced with those positions every six months, hut was there the necessity ? It was said they had not the laws. Was not Parliament in session, however, and could not they pass any law they liked? Could not they have laws adapted to the circumstances as they were to-day brought before the House and passed ?—such laws as were indicated by the right hon. member for Victoria West—a Riot Act or some other law, just as stringent as they cared to make it. Why should not that have been done?

It will be done.

said he believed the House was willing to pass just as stringent a law as was necessary to deal with Syndicalism as it existed to-day. They could pass such laws as a preventive against such similar situations as existed in July, if such situations threatened to develop again. Then again, the hon. Minister said it was only possible to get rid of these people while feeling was running high

I did not say that.

said he did not wish to exaggerate, but his impression as to what the hon. member said was, that that thing must be done while the feeling of the people was somewhat inflamed—was running high, he would put it that way. Well, to his mind, for cool cynicism, he had never heard anything to equal that in any Legislative Assembly. It was in itself an expression of an act of injustice. There was absolutely no difference between that act and that of lynch law as administered in the United States of America. With regard to the argument of his hon. friend, that the Government were better than any judge or jury to decide what was the best for the safety of the public, well, that was a new doctrine. They knew, of course, that doctrines of that kind were always, very popular indeed with the bureaucracy all the world over. Such things were always done for the public good; there was no act of oppression ever committed by a Government which was not done for the public good—in the opinion of the Government and the officials concerned.

Practically this was only carrying on a policy which had been the policy of the Government since it started, and that was the bureaucratic policy. Ever since Union they had passed Bills which left large powers in the hands of the Government to make regulations and the like. This bureaucratic tendency, this tendency to place the people of this country in the hands of officials, was on the increase, and tended to make officials the rulers of the country. That had been the policy of the Government so far, or, at any rate, the result of their actions. Now they had gone beyond that, and they had proceeded to punish men without a trial and send them out of the country by administrative order. This was the doctrine of absolutism, not the doctrine of a free people. If that were to be the doctrine that prevailed, then what was to prevent the Government from deporting other people? His hon. friend drew the line the other day at the “foreign adventurer.” He said that the man who was born in South Africa could not be deported from South Africa. He would like to ask his hon. friend how he came to draw that line. (Hear, hear.) It seemed to him that if they were justified in deporting the man born overseas for any given reasons, then they were justified in deporting the man born in this country for those reasons. One of the men who had been deported was born in Holland. The Government had not sent him to Holland, though he was perhaps on his way. Another was born in Australia, but he had not been sent to Australia. The fact of these men being sent to England was purely an accident. If that were the case then what was to prevent some other Ministry In power deporting some of his hon. friends opposite to Buenos Aires or Rio de Janeiro, for instance? The safety of the individual in this country lay in the Government being compelled to strictly carry out the law. It had been said that they had had to deal with exceptional circumstances. That he granted. There was no doubt that the circumstances as they existed in Johannesburg in January were exceptional, but the Government dealt with them in an exceptional manner which this House was prepared to condone. They called out the Defence Force, they proclaimed Martial Law, and so did without doubt adequately deal with the situation which arose in January. The Prime Minister had said that by these deportations they would save thousands of lives.

Now, what were the facts of the case? The crisis was past. These men were deported on the evening of January 27, and yet he saw a telegram from Reuter’s Press Agency, dated Pretoria, January 24, which read: “Pretoria is normal to-day. The Press censorship has been removed; bars and licensed houses are open with full privileges.” There was not the slightest doubt that the Government had got the situation well under control not only in Pretoria, but the whole length of the Reef from Randfontein to Benoni. The Prime Minister had also stated that it was necessary for the safety of the land that these men should be deported. The safety of the land was assured. Did he suppose after the display of force that had been made recently that there was likely to be a recrudescence of this trouble? No, that was not the real reason. The Minister of Defence gave the real reason—they did not trust the courts of law to deal with these men. He (Mr. Jagger) agreed with What his right hon. friend (Mr. Merriman) said. It might not have been advisable, he quite agreed, that perhaps these men should have been tried before a jury in the ordinary way, but what was to prevent his hon. friend from bringing in a Bill to authorise the creation of special courts, just as they did in 1889 for the trial of Dinizulu and also in 1900 for the trial of treason cases? To his mind there was absolutely no justification for the course that was taken. He should certainly vote for the second reading of the Bill. (Hear, hear, and cries of “Oh.”) He maintained that that was a perfectly consistent line of action, because he supported the action of the Government in calling out the Defence Force and proclaiming Martial Law, and he recognised freely that certain acts were done that must be condoned and put straight. But when they came into Committee of the Whole House, he should strongly oppose clause 4, which condoned the action of the Government so far as the deportations were concerned, because he held that deportation in this case was absolutely unnecessary, and he should also try to show that it was unjust. (Hear, hear.)

said that on a question like this he thought common honesty demanded that they should, in criticising opponents, use the same terms always with the same meaning. That had not been done that day, and the consequence was that they were getting into hopeless confusion. He had set himself the task of discrediting the side of the Government. He would not indulge in personalities, or in any sectional fighting, but would try to discuss this question from the standpoint of the interests of the State. He knew only two of the deportees, and one of them he knew slightly only; but, with the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, he thought it was their duty, as well as their right, to stand up for fundamental principles, and see that they were not violated. If the law could be laughed at or set aside in one particular instance, not only did it create contempt for law on the part of many people, but it certainly took away all their security. If they could not trust the Courts of law in one case, how on earth could they be expected to have faith in them in any other case? Before they located the blame, he thought they must go back a bit and find out what the causes were, and what intensified the evil conditions of which they complained. A great deal had been said about criminals. Well every criminal and every highwayman was honest till sentence had been passed on them. On what did the Minister of Defence rely? In the main he relied on what he (Mr. Haggar) would call faked evidence and a great deal of falsehood. He used these terms advisedly. With regard to the faked evidence, the hon. Minister quoted a document which he said Mr. Ramsay Macdonald had signed. But Mr. Ramsay Macdonald denied that he had either seen or signed the document. Again, the Minister had made a certain statement which was certainly intended to mislead those who listened to him. When the “Cape Times” came out on the following morning these sentences were not there; when the corrected speech came out these sentences were not there. If those sentences could be used in this House to turn the feelings of this House in any direction, he (Mr. Haggar) wanted to know why the Minister had not the common manliness and truth to have these particular sentences put in the corrected report if they were left out of the “Cape Times.” Crawford was nothing to him (Mr. Haggar), but give the devil his due; these sentences were added as if they had been spoken by Crawford. “I will tell you what to do —you know how to use dynamite.”

What about Kimberley?

There was no Kimberley strike—it was a Kimberley lock-out.

What about the Market-square in Kimberley?

The hon. member has a very short memory sometimes. The men were out days before I went to Kimberley, where I went in response to a wire from the hon. member for George Town (Mr. Andrews). The men were out days and days before I ever saw Kimberley. My reason for going there was not in connection with the strike, but I was going through South Africa with a view to forming a Labour Party. Continuing, Mr. Haggar said the nine deported men were put in the front, but they on the cross-benches were the men who were aimed at. He admired the outspokenness of the hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagger) on this particular point. He (Mr. Haggar) regarded this as a political fight for political life. They on the cross-benches were the men aimed at. They accepted the challenge, and if he could not discredit all that the Minister of Defence had said, it would be the worst attack he (Mr. Haggar) had ever made in his life, and he had never had an easier task, notwithstanding all the slobber and all the praise of all these pimps of capitalism and scavengers of finance—they had plenty of them here. The Labour Party had been castigated because they were supposed to have flouted the report of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry. However, he was prepared to accept that report—as far as it went—unreservedly. He was compelled to accept other evidence. But the Minister of Mines, to bolster up a very bad case, had flouted the report, which he said was wrong to his own knowledge. The preamble to the Indemnity Bill said: “That provision exists by law whereby any grievances which wage-earners allege to exist may be considered and redressed.” What was the answer of the Minister of Mines to that? He said, not unless ten person are affected nothing could be done. He (Mr. Haggar) had a bundle of letters in his drawer here, which told him that the writers, year after year, some for twenty years, had tried all known constitutional means, and they had not obtained any redress. They had appealed until they were absolutely tired of appealing. He did not wonder that men revolted—he wondered that some of these men did anything but revolt. But he held that war never yet settled any problem satisfactorily, or removed any real injustice. It was better for those men to fail than for them to join in a fight in which they must be worsted) The Minister of Mines asked: “Why was Martial Law proclaimed ? ” The Minister said in order to protect Lee labour.

Continuing, Mr. Haggar said he wished to quote from a well-known authority in England, Mr. Richard Bell, M.P., who was neither a Syndicalist nor Socialist, but a good old-fashioned Trade Unionist. Referring to free labour, Mr. Bell says: “The advocate of free labour is the advocate for the degradation of the community itself. Slaves are better off than the free labourer, for he is at the mercy of supply and demand and must be content with whatever pay the employer chooses to give him. Free labour is the last to be employed and the first to be discharged.” The member for Victoria West (Sir. Merriman) had made a valuable contribution to the question of free labour. As far back as 1876, when in reporting on immigration and comparing the position of South Africa and other Colonies, he said: “In the Cape, the Government is called on to survey mankind from China to Peru in the hope of creating and maintaining a class of cheap labourers, who will thankfully accept the position of helots and will not be troubled with the inconvenient ambition of bettering their conditions.” He (Mr. Haggar) did not know of anyone who had expressed the truth more clearly than what was conveyed in those words. The question was whether South Africa, was to have an army of helots or an army of men who were anxious to better their conditions. That was exactly the crux of the whole situation. The Minister of Defence had given the House an example of his logic. He had said that they (the Labour Party) were Syndicalists, and also that the movement was a political one. But the Minister had endeavoured to prove from an article which appeared in Hibbert’s Journal that Syndicalists wore anti-political. So much for the Minister’s logic! Why, they had the member for Victoria West lamenting that the object of the Labour Party was political power. Such was the logic of their Ministers. Was it wrong to tell the workers that the political channel was the best channel for obtaining social reforms? because that was what the leaders had always done. They had always told the men that they had the power in their own hands if they would only capture the political machinery.

Replying to an interruption, Mr. Haggar remarked: “I am to be deported? Well, I have been working hard for many years now and I daresay I shall be a rich man before 1 come back. ” He maintained that it was a political channel through which all industrial reform must ultimately come, and he would ask Ministers to say if it was wrong of the Labour Party to adopt that method? Referring to the labour market, Mr. Haggar said, according to the Minister’s statement the army of unemployed had been increased by 1,400 as the result of the strike, but he would ask hon. members opposite what about the 8,000 unemployed before the strike? The Minister of Railways had told them that over this number of men had applied for work, but only 400 had been given employment. Was it the strike that had caused 8,000 men to be out of work? No, it was the bad system of labour which was the cause of it. If some of the suggestions made by members of that House were taken up by Ministers most of the causes of the present unrest would be wiped out. An awful picture had been painted of the danger of a native outbreak and that they were a menace. But whenever were the native races a menace when they were fairly treated? The coloured races had never been source of danger at the Cape because they had been justly treated. He challenged any man who knew the Empire to say where native races had been a source of danger when justly treated. It had also been stated that the effect of the Labour movement had retarded the flow of native labour to the mines. In reply to queries as to how far this statement might be regarded as; correct, deports from over 40 magistrates in the Transkei, Natal, and Zululand, showed that the supply of native labour was in no way affected. Then, much had been said about the 19th of June as being the turning point. But what was the effect of the proceedings on that day?

The strike was on, and the trouble had been spread, and the Government appeared to be quite indifferent as to what had been taking place long before the 19th, and then they were told that the Syndicalists had taken charge. That was untrue. What did take place was this: Before that the Kleinfontein management had been warned that if they brought in strike-breakers there might be serious trouble. He wondered if the right hon. member for Victoria West had ever heard of Andrew Carnegie? Andrew Carnegie had said: “It is more than you should expect of human nature that these men should stand by and see other men take away their chance of earning their daily bread.” He only wanted the truth to be known by that House The Minister should not have stated the one side. If they had stated the whole truth, and if they could find a criminal, by all moans punish him, be he Mason or Waterston. A wiser man than Andrew Carnegie had said: “That you do take my life when you do take the means by which I live.” He was allowed to shoot a burglar in defence of his home, but if a man, or men, came and stood between him and his chance of earning bread, he was not allowed to shoot; but the police and the military and their backing guarded them against him, they might shoot him if he said, “'For heaven’s sake, play the game!” Did they wonder that rough-and-tumble men came to the conclusion that there was one law for the rich and another for the poor? There was certainly in that country one application for the rich and another application for the poor. In the opinion of the judges, the natural reading of section 5 (a) by a layman would lead him to believe that the Industrial Disputes Act had been broken by the New Kleinfontein management. The Minister had thought the same thing —the natural reading. The Minister of Mines rightly blamed the New Kleinfontein management for its precipitate action, and whether the action of Mr. Bulman had been legal or illegal could not do away with the fact that it had been tactless and precipitate. The company should have admitted its error, but instead of doing so had ignored the men. When the Minister of Defence had gone up—they had his own words—had he gone to the men who were injured? He (Mr. Haggar) had seen a good deal of working-men and had seen a good deal of their meetings. They only wanted to see the best position, and they would be prepared to take it. No, as he had always done, the Minister had gone to the other side—to the mine management and to the Chamber of Commerce—the very step to create prejudice in the minds of the men had it not been there before. The judges said that it was quite clear that the companies were bound together in groups, and in all important matters consulted together. He did not say that there was anything wrong in that, but why should not the men do so? “A quarrel between the Kleinfontein Company and its employees which involved the policy of the mine groups is not a domestic quarrel from the point of view of the Kleinfontein management,” stated the report, “but a quarrel between the Kleinfontein employees and the Witwatersrand mining industry. The Kleinfontein Mine is therefore in reality in such a case the representative of the mining groups, and cannot discuss the grievances of its employees with them alone, but must do so with others as well.” It was regarded not as a domestic quarrel, but as a quarrel throughout the whole industry. These men had learned the lesson of standing together and the lesson of brotherhood. The report also stated: “It is quite clear to us that it was due almost entirely to the refusal of the mine management to meet the representatives of the men that the solution as regards the dismissal of the five men became impossible, and that this led to the further complications which eventually culminated in the general strike.” Where were the conspirators? Where rested the blame? Who created the favourable soil? Sometimes he thought that the flouting of the judges had been an act of revenge because they had castigated the Government so severely.

Proceeding, he referred to the speech of the right hon. gentleman, the member for Victoria West, and said that to affirm two different causes for the same event was to deny both. The right hon. gentleman had given them three separate causes for the trouble in July, let alone the more recent trouble. His first cause was the nine men deported. How many, went on Mr. Haggar, of those nine men had anything at all to do with the July uprising. He did not mean in subsequent events. He wanted to take the right hon. gentleman back to the very start. The right hon. gentleman would be surprised to know that some of those nine men were not in the Federation then, and were not to-day. The second cause was given as that unfortunate treaty. That was the second cause, an independent cause, drawn up, it was said, at the point of the revolver. He did not know whether it was that or not. The Minister of Defence had denied it, and they should accept his denial. In principle, every great concession had been obtained, figuratively speaking, at the point of the revolver. The right hon. gentleman had said that if the police had only done what they did at Kimberley in 1883 there would have been no trouble. But why did he not complete the history and tell them that the men won on that occasion. Why did he not say that? He (Mr. Haggar) was as anxious as was the hon. member for Victoria West that they should have peace in this country, but they never would have peace so long as the cause of war was in active operation, and intensified by new conditions day by day. The right hon. member had said that honest workingmen had been misled by the speeches of their leaders. He wondered if the right hon. gentleman meant the working-men on the Rand whom the hon. member for Smithfield had referred to as Veestemmers. If the right hon. gentleman would attend for an hour any ordinary trades congress he would find that man for man they were as intelligent as the members of that honourable House and were not very easily led. But was it wrong to mislead men? At Stellenbosch, not long ago, the right hon. gentleman was given an opportunity of rendering the State a service. But did he do so? No. What he did was to assume the role of Mephistopheles and a clown rolled into one.

He said that the Labour men, or the Labour leaders—so it was reported—had been holding meetings to express sympathy with the perpetrators of outrages. He (Mr. Haggar) challenged the right hon. gentleman to mention one case where any meeting had been held by the Labour men or by the Labour Party, or by the Federation for that matter, to express sympathy with those men who had committed those outrages. He also made a statement to the effect that the troubles on the Rand had been caused by a knot of agitators, who went about trying to upset the present order of society, and who proposed to take property and capital away from the present owners, and hand it over to the manual labourers. He (Mr. Haggar) defied him to show a single instance, even in Socialistic literature, where he would find such a statement or such a demand. Was it wrong to mislead? Why did the hon. member go to that audience and play the cowardly part?

The hon. member must withdraw’ the word “cowardly.”

I withdraw it, and say he was guilty of imposing upon their confidence, when they had no means of knowing the truth. We are the challenged men—we are the men who stand in the dock. Here is another choice little piece: “They came down (I suppose referring to the hon. member for Springs and myself) to pull out the coloured men from the Docks.” I do not accuse him of falsehood, but it is a falsehood nevertheless. We have had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Proceeding, the hon. member said that the right hon. gentleman had also said that they (the Federation) ordered the men by telegraph to put down their tools. Another fairy tale. He should have liked the right hon. gentleman to have been with him at a Federation meeting, where they were asked to go and give their advice. Both in the number of societies and in the votes there was a majority in favour of a general strike in Cape Town. It was not Cape Town merely, but the Cape Province. In the Cape, the Federation had nothing to do with the Transvaal Federation, but the whole of the Cape Province had ballotted whether they should have a general strike or not. He had no hesitation in saying that if his hon. colleague had said to them, “Take it,” on the following morning there would have been a general strike. They sent their officials to that meeting, and every man was prepared to stand, and that was the man who was blackened, and that was the man who more than any other man—or more than any other set of men— saved the Cape Province from a general strike a few weeks ago. (Dissent.) He said what he knew, and what he was prepared to prove from the books of the society. At this stage the hon. member moved the adjournment of the debate.

The motion was agreed to, and the debate was adjourned until Monday next.