The order was discharged, and set down for Wednesday, 4th March.

The adjourned debate on the motion for the second reading of the Indemnity and Undesirables Special Deportation Bill was resumed by

And the House, he was glad to notice, had taken that view. He made this statement because he did not want any misunderstanding to arise, the idea to be taken that there was any intention on his part to burke a full discussion of these matters. There was a proper time for the further discussion of these matters. They might discuss them fairly on the Bill of which he had given notice this afternoon. Then they could deal with the whole position; but he thought a more fitting time would be on the discussion of the Estimates. There was one thing that had struck him not only in the discussion in that House, but the attitude adopted throughout the whole country with regard to the events that they were dealing with. That was the curious avoidance of the true nature of the cessation of Work which led to their troubles in January. These things were spoken of as though there had been a cessation of work between an ordinary employer and his employees, as though the men who ceased work had a right to cease work. The right hon. member for Victoria West had rightly called attention to the matter, but it had been curiously lacking, not only in the course of that debate, but in discussions that had taken place throughout the country. What was the true nature of the strike? It was not a cessation of work in the ordinary sense. What happened with these railwaymen, unhappily deluded, bamboozled, duped by the rascals who had misled ‘them into their ruin. (Ministerial cheers.) They committed mutiny against the State. They were in exactly the same position as soldiers and sailors were towards the State. (Ministerial cheers.) They had not only broken their contracted obligations as between employer and employee, but an obligation rested on them as servants of the State to stand by their duty. They broke their duties and they rebelled against the State. They could not possibly discuss this matter unless they recognised that fact.

This was in every respect a mutiny, just as a mutiny of sailors or a ship or soldiers against their commander. It was a mutiny, and in that respect the matter had to be settled and dealt with. By the law of this country there was no excuse for such an action. It became a statutory offence—really a criminal offence. Some pernicious arguments had been raised about a lawful excuse, but anyone well acquainted with the reading of their laws would see that that was irrelevant. The law allowed no excuse—no excuse whatsoever. For the man who deliberately deserted his post the law made no provision. He agreed with the right hon. member for Victoria West— there was one omission from their law on this point, unhappily, else various gentry would have been laid by the heels, the people who incited railway men were, unfortunately, in certain parts of the country, not liable to the law. In the Transvaal they were. Had hon. members of that House, who had made speeches in Cape Town, and other people, made these speeches in the Transvaal they would have been extremely lucky to have escaped prosecution. He thought it right to emphasise this aspect of the matter. Members who had made speeches and who ought to have known better, ought not to escape public criticism for their action. He would begin with the leader of the Labour Party in this House, a gentleman of education, a gentleman who ought to have known, if he did not know it, what his duty was as a lawgiver. Upon his shoulders rested the responsibility of framing laws for the people of this country, and he had to bear his share of the law and was in fact a party to the measure which had now been broken. The hon. member so far forgot his duty that he actually incited railway men to stand firm—by what? By their duty to the State? No, in their treason to the State. He so far forgot his duty, that at Johannesburg in the time of their trial, he incited the servants of the State to abandon their duty. (Ministerial cheers.)

But much the worst offender in this respect had been the hon. member for Springs. (Labour cheers.) (Mr. QUINN: He glories in it.) The glory and the shame displayed by the hon. member he did not want to deal with. (Ministerial cheers.) The hon. member for Springs, together with the hon. member for Roodepoort, took it on themselves to come and attack a fort which he, the speaker, was happy to say they found impregnable. They came to pay their attentions to Cape Town. Although they met with a certain measure of success he was glad that their mission failed. He would deal with one matter of a long list—a long list and he was sorry to say a black list. He understood that both hon. members gave this House to understand that they were in no way responsible for the cessation of work on the part of the dock labourers of the Harbour. He paid particular attention to the speech of the hon. member for Springs, and he noticed that he was very careful to say whether he had been there at all.

He (the Minister) did not know whether the hon. member still denied that report, but there was a letter addressed by him to one of the newspapers explaining things; he thought it was the “Eastern Province Herald.” He dared say that the hon. member by that time had found out that he had made a mistake! He supposed his hon. friend did not deny the letter. The letter stated that the writer had been anxious to elicit the views of the strikers, and at that stage the hon. member was going to the strike headquarters to see whether he could find a solution of their difficulties. Yet he was a member of Parliament, responsible for the passing of the law, responsible for carrying it out—still he went to see men who had rebelled against the State, who had failed to carry out their duty and had not been faithful to the conditions of their service. The hon. member went to see them and to cheer them. If the Government had forfeited his confidence a hundred times the hon. member had no right to incite men as he did. The hon. member had said he would express no opinion as to the merits of the strike. That, continued the Minister, was his conception of his duties as a member of the Legislature of this country— there was an exhibition of an entire lack of an appreciation of his duty by a responsible member of that House. The hon. member in his speech at Bloemfontein had led the men to understand that he was with them, that they were right, and that the Government was not to be trusted, and that they must go on. That was the construction he put on it—“Go on; my heart is with you. ” (Labour cries of “Quite right.”) Any man who had used those words at that time had earned the contempt of every hon. member of that House. (Cheers.)

The proposals were: (1) Making the conditions of labour such that they may provide a contented and happy career for any self-respecting citizen. (Laughter.) This was to be secured by (2) creating a feeling of confidence and sympathy between employers and employed and (3) establishing a sympathetic and impartial Government with sincere care for the workers’ interest, with due regard to the interest of the employers. (Laughter.) There was no doubt (observed Mr. Burton) that this was epoch-making. (Laughter.) Then it was also proposed (4) to create a feeling on the part of the workers Of content for the present and confidence for the future. (Renewed laughter.) Well, he supposed these Utopian conditions would be reached when the hon. member for Uitenhage held the portfolio of Minister of Railways in a Government to be formed by the hon. member for Smithfield. (Laughter.) He could quite imagine that those happy days, those halcyon days, would come to this country when that happened. He could not conceive anything more effective in the way of comment than the comment of the editor of the “E.P. Herald,” who said: “If anyone can extract comfort from the extremely vague and wishy-washy resolutions which Mr. Fremantle quotes with so much unction he is welcome to do so.”

“He came to me,” the Minister went on to say, “and I must tell the House that he cooed like any sucking dove. I must confess I was taken in. More than that, he took in one of the most hard-headed men in this country, the General Manager of Railways.” Mr. Burton proceeded to say that this was during the latter part of 1912, when Mr. Poutsma, in the course of a statement, said he had assumed his duty on the distinct understanding that the Society would stand aloof from politics and establish friendly relations between the Administration and the Society. He also added that he did not believe in revolutionary weapons. Mr. Poutsma, as he had said, met the Administration. They hoped that, if he were honest in his representations, there might be a prospect of getting matters placed on a more satisfactory footing. But very soon they found out that Mr. Poutsma cooed in a very different way indeed. They found out that, as soon as he had got into the confidence of the Administration and had obtained information which he could not have got otherwise, he proceeded to instil into the men with whom he had influence the very worst sentiments and views in regard to the people who were their masters. He proceeded with the propaganda that the Administration was hostile to the interests of the men and that their natural attitude and their whole attitude was one of hostility. No more unfair charge could have been brought in this matter than the charge against the General Manager of Railways, who was one of the most devoted public servants in the country, but when they had people who were “out” for trouble and whose object was to create an atmosphere in the men’s minds of utter hostility to their chief and their Administration, they would, of course, produce the results that Mr. Poutsma produced. Now the claim has been advanced very briefly by the hon. member for Jeppe that this trouble started with retrenchment. That was the merest pretext. If they wanted to get the true history and find out how things ran and what really happened in the railways and in the Society, he would recommend hon. members to study the most instructive letter written to the “Cape Times” by a man in the railway service called Holt, who was not merely a member of the railway service, but till last January the General Treasurer of the Amalgamated Society. It was a courage-ous and manly account of what took place. Holt described how this thing began as far back as February, 1913, when, whilst there was no question of retrenchment, invitations were issued for the purpose of meeting representatives of other societies in order to discuss the advisability of declaring a general strike.

On February 2nd last year these gentlemen were putting their heads together to draw in other societies for the purpose of declaring a general strike. During the week ending August 2nd, 1913, Mr. Poutsma wrote to various branch secretaries as follows: “A general strike has been decided upon. Be prepared. The date is to be kept secret, but it may be in a month or a week or a day.” This clearly showed; how all this talk of retrenchment was a pure pretext to hoodwink. (Ministerial cheers.) On July 7th Mr. Poutsma’s paper came out with the following: “The railwaymen stand disgraced because by their inability to help the miners they have been compelled to help the mine-owners. … You are yourselves open to the epithet, scab.” On July 11th a meeting of railway workers was held at Johannesburg, at which Mr. Poutsma was supported by Messrs. Creswell, Andrews, Watson and Bain, and he made a speech, in the course of which he said that: “In future the railwaymen were not going to work on their own any longer.” Mr. Poutsma was asked if he were in favour of a revolution, and he replied that “It was not in the men’s power to declare a revolution or a general strike.” Meanwhile, Mr. Poutsma was the man of the moment; he was giving permission to run trains and was issuing ultimatums to Lord Gladstone and the Government. In this very last occurrence the Government had found from the secret code of these gentlemen that they had made the same preparations. The poor innocent strikers and the innocent Mr. Poutsma had a code which provided for such messages as “Executive agree to the running of a mail train,” and “The Executive do not agree be the running of the Imperial mail train.” They had it all thought out and carefully arranged—not with a view to the rectification of the men’s grievances, but with a view to getting possession of the machinery of the State —(cheers)—and doing what they called “running it.”

On July 12th, Mr. Creswell and Mr. Andrews awaited Mr. Poutsma’s arrival at Park Station. Interviewed by a Labour representative, Mr. Poutsma said definitely that “the railwaymen would federate with the Federation of Trades, and would be bound by the latter’s decisions. Although not actually affiliated with the Federation, the railwaymen would co-operate with it as though they were affiliated.”

If the House wanted to hear at what stage this sucking dove had arrived by that date, and if it wanted to see the whole theory of Syndicalism and anarchy fully and openly displayed, then he (Mr. Burton) would call its attention to one of Mr. Poutsma’s articles published on July 14th. In this article it was stated: “Government made a fatal mistake, because it brought upon itself a sympathetic strike. During the whole of Monday the control of the railways was transferred from the office of the Minister and the General Manager to that of the railwaymen’s executive, by whom it was decided what trains should run or should not run. It was apprehension by the Government of the railwaymen’s action that was the deciding factor in the strike. They had decided to combine forces, thus making white labour a solid body for the purpose of industrial war under a common generalship. (Ministerial cheers.) If the Government’s answer was riot satisfactory all the labour organisations would be required to come out on strike. Government will now have to meet one united army under one leadership. What they are threatened with is the universal simultaneous paralysis of industry. They are up against Syndicalism, not as a theory of the text-books, but as a working proposition—(Ministerial cheers)—as a mobilised industrial force on a war footing— (Ministerial cheers)—and if they are wise and conscientious men they will receive the fair terms that are going to be demanded in a fair and reasonable spirit without subjecting the country to an ordeal of such horror that no man can gauge.” (Ministerial cheers.)

Well, they, had tried it since, and, thank God, they had failed. On August 6, Mr. Poutsma—this gentleman whom it was desired to have back in South Africa—(Ministerial laughter)—no doubt to resume hi pleasant and peaceful occupation—(laughter) —was the principal speaker at a mass meeting convened by the Labour Party and the Federation of Trades. At that meeting Mr. Poutsma moved a certain resolution. In the course of his speech, he said that he had consented to the running of the Imperial Mail from Pretoria, because he was anxious that his organisation’s letters should be sent to England. What a precious mail that must have been, Mr. Burton exclaimed. (Laughter.) Even the driver and fireman of that train, Mr. Poutsma further said, had to receive their instructions from the organisation. He further said that they must get the running of the country because they constituted nine-tenths of the population. On this occasion a speech was made by Mr. Sampson. He (Mr. Burton) presumed it was the same Mr. Sampson who represented Commissioner-street.

What was this vision of power? Was it a vision of power obtained by ordinary and constitutional methods, or was it a vision of power obtained by force and violence? Was it a vision of power obtained by constitutional methods or Benoni methods? It had been alleged that the labour. Organised labour was as free in this as in any other country. (Labour laughter.) But it was not so when criminal methods were adopted.

In December there were more rumours of railwaymen being in a state of unrest and about Mr. Poutsma taking action. On December 31, at a meeting, Mr. Poutsma appealed to them as workers to show the Government that it was not master, but the servant of the railway workers. He said that they should show the united front in order to rule. Later a number of incidents—he would call it “melodramatic bunkum”—took place. To show the House what the value of all this stuff was, to show what they were really out for and the true position, would the House credit his statement that before he arrived at Pretoria upon this urgent Written summons the Executive of the Railway Society had already decided to strike. It was stated that the temper of the railwaymen was blacker than ever, and in his innocence he met a deputation. On the night he arrived they issued a circular calling a meeting in the Town Hall for the purpose of informing the men of the decision of the executive with regard to striking. On the Tuesday they came to see him, having decided to strike. He met four of them, and he would like to say it was soon plain to him that the other three men were completely in the hands of Mr. Poutsma. They fired off their ultimatum at his head, and whenever any of the other three were inclined to discuss some of the difficulties Mr. Poutsma whipped them up with a round turn. He (the Minister) got tired of it. After he had tried all means in order to discuss these matters he saw that the gentle Poutsma was determined. The minds of the railwaymen were whipped up because of the alleged discourteous way in which the deputation had been treated. At the meeting one of the railwaymen who came to see him specially thanked him for the courteous manner in which he had received them, and said that if the men could always rely on such a reception things would be better. The fact was that he (Mr. Burton) would not allow Mr. Poutsma to browbeat him in his own office—he was overbearing, truculent. While the strike was going on—to show the fatuous condition of the minds of these people, and while things looked as though the strike would, as it did, fail—he received a series of ultimatums from the committee, from different gentlemen, because some of them went to gaol. (Ministerial laughter.) They sent a letter on January 9 and laid down five conditions for the basis of settlement. The fifth condition was the retrenchment condition, and the other four had already been referred to the Commission of which Mr. Poutsma was a member. (Ministerial laughter.) On January 13 he received another practically to the same effect, and the last came to him on January 15. As a final condition in this letter they stated: “The future administration of the railways and harbours to be in the hands of the joint boards composed of equal numbers of workers and a Government nominee and an independent chairman.” (Ministerial laughter.)

It might seem hard for some hon. members to follow that, but once they admitted that the Government was justified in declaring Martial Law, then he said the question of the deportation was a question on degree. On what grounds could they distinguish between that act and any other under Martial Law? They were considering a Bill which would give the Government indemnity for all illegal acts, or he would call them extra legal acts. There was one test, and that he would abide by. The House was to consider actions and pass judgment, and they have got one test of the Government’s conduct. Let them take the Bill. What did they propose to indemnify the Government for ? For all acts done in good faith. That was the first essential. The second was that the act must have been done for the maintenance of good order and public safety.

What was it that this country required, and required with practically a united voice, in regard to these people? It was not their punishment; it was that the country should be rid of their presence and their presence, whether they were free or whether they were in prison, would have been a danger to this country. (Cheers.) The sentence they would have required, the only sentence to meet this case, would be banishment. They all knew that this was an obsolete sentence and that no courts of law passed that sentence now. These people had not been too harshly treated. The right hon. the member for Victoria West suggested that these men should come back to be tried. Well, he (Mr. Burton) thought that that was not practicable. (“Why?”) The first and strongest reason was that they didn’t want them back. (Laughter and cheers.) The second was that if they let them come back—and he was not sure that there would be a great rush back to the Cape to face the prospect of a trial— even then they could not have this sentence of banishment, which was, he might say, the only thing that really met the case, imposed upon them, except by ex post facto legislation. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman) made great play of the danger of this principle of deportation, and he was afraid that he was in danger himself, or might be. He was afraid that the hon. member for Smithfield might be.

The right hon. gentleman had said that the general strike was a fiasco. It was a fiasco, but let him tell the right hon. gentleman that it was only a fiasco because they proclaimed Martial Law. Had not Martial Law been proclaimed they would have seen a very different state of things. (Hear, hear.) They could not have demobilised at that stage unless they had sent their friends, Messrs. Bain and Co., across the water. There was no question that when they went the thing was by no means over. The general strike was only declared off “until further notice.” It was believed that these people were “undesirables,” undesirable in the highest degree, not merely politically, but socially, and in other respects. They were antagonists to the State and to society. The state of public feeling in the matter was clearly established by the wonderful response made by the whole community to this call. An observation had been made that these occurrences had revived racial strife and all sorts of things in this country. He knew of nothing that had gone so far to bring the two white races together in common defence in this common cause. (Cheers.) Young South Africans, both English-speaking and Dutch-speaking, their common action on this ground had done wonders in that direction. So far as language was concerned, so far as the “taal” was concerned, he would tell them that what had taken place in this matter had done much more for it than all the propaganda of the hon. member for Smithfield. (Hear, hear.) The deportation and prohibition of people here was not based upon crime alone. It was not even based upon crime as crime. The common ground of all, the principle which underlay the whole thing, was the principle that they were dangerous to the State. (Hear, hear.)

In conclusion, Mr. Burton said: A complaint has been made by the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) that we have struck a severe blow at the Empire. I regret very much that he should have said that, because, although we might have caused a good deal of embarrassment to the present British Government and the Liberal Party, it is difficult to see in what way we have struck a blow at the Empire. I do not know how our action can be construed as a blow against the Empire. Unhappily we have by our action undoubtedly caused serious embarrassment to a Government which from our point of view has consistently shown itself most friendly to this country. This has been a matter of the deepest regret to us, but before we took this action we realised perfectly well that embarrassment and difficulty would be caused, but we took the step we did because in spite of that, and having been actuated by the friendliest possible feelings towards the British Government and the Empire as a whole, we still felt that in the interest of South Africa, which should come first—(Loud Ministerial cheers)—we took the right course.

With reference to the speech of the hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog) I listened to it the other night very carefully, but throughout the whole of that speech the hon. member did not say a single word in condemnation of the actions of the strikers. (Ministerial cheers.) But he was largely concerned with the troubles which we had caused the British Empire. The hon. member has made South Africa ring with academic discussions of all sorts about our relations with the Empire at a time when things were peaceful and orderly; at a time when such a discussion was entirely unnecessary he made South Africa ring with his great principle, “South Africa first.” He has taken up the most determined attitude about the interests of this country coming before the interests of the Empire. But, alas, for the difference between precept and practice and theory and practice this is the first occasion that has arisen when we are faced to that extent— not a very great extent—with a concrete case, we are faced with a difference in the interests of this country and the interests of England. Here the very first time you get to a concrete case the hon. member’s principles, which have caused so much trouble, are thrown to the wind. (Ministerial cheers.)

Reference has been made to the Indian question, and here I regret the matter has been dragged into this debate. I only want to say in regard to that matter, as well as in regard to the matter with which we are now dealing, we may have made mistakes, we may have gone wrong here and there, but our action in regard to the Indian question and the deportations of these men has been dictated purely by our desire that the interests of this country must come first. (Ministerial cheers.) If we were faced with similar circumstances in a similar position, all I can say on behalf of myself, as well as on behalf of my colleagues, is that we should be forced to do exactly the same thing. (Ministerial cheers.)

The only excuse that could be possibly made for the Government was that not having foreseen what the condition of affairs would be, it was so busy with its own internal affairs that it did not attempt to investigate the condition of affairs existing at that time. During the middle of June the position of the country was brought before the House and the Minister of Railways and Harbours, who stated that practically all the grievances had been dealt with, and the few that had not been dealt with were on the way to be thoroughly considered. The Minister added that hon. members could go to their homes, and that there was no danger of any sort of calamity such as occurred 14 days later.

In connection with these occurrences at Johannesburg he (Sir Thomas) would say that before the police were armed or a shot had been fired the most outrageous state of affairs existed in the streets of Johannesburg. How people could now come forward and say that it was the action of the Government that led to this dreadful condition of affairs, it was utterly impossible to understand. The country was largely indebted to the citizens of Johannesburg for coming to the assistance of the State. If they had not assisted to maintain law and order it would be dreadful to contemplate what might have been the position of affairs on the Rand. But if the Government, had taken the responsible people out of the Trades Hall last July an end would have been put to the trouble. However, the humiliation which the Government suffered on July 4 and 5 led it to put its house in order, and it made adequate preparations in which it had the support of the vast bulk of the people. In the declaration of Martial Law and in the calling out of the Defence Forces the Government had behind it the support of the vast majority of right thinking people.

Continuing, the speaker said that the first duty of a Government was to preserve law and order, and there were certain times in the history of a country such as this when the Government, in the interests of the State, had to take special precautions, and when taking these precautions in the interest of the State the interests of the individual must be sacrificed for the interests of the whole. What was the position last January? The question was, whether they agreed with the Government or whether they did not, and whether the Government was the properly constituted administrative authority for ruling the country or the Trades Hall junto? That was the question. It was not a question of party, it was a question of whether law and order was to be maintained by the hon. gentlemen who sat on the Ministerial benches. It was under these circumstances that he, and he thought a good many others wholeheartedly, outside of all party considerations, considered it their duty to stand by the Government in its day of trial. If there were people who did not consider it was their duty to stand by the Government and to follow party considerations, then it was for them to render an account to the country. Because, after all, the seriousness of the position was laid down in this Blue-book. The cold neutrality of two impartial judges showed what the condition of affairs was like. They showed the true condition of affairs in June and July, when nobody’s life was safe, when people, who were brutally injured and beaten and kicked, were afraid to complain to the police, because there was no protection, Did anyone attempt to argue that these things would not have occurred again? When people here talked of a legitimate strike he thought that the report before them clearly showed that if the Citizen Forces had not been called out a more disgraceful state of affairs would have occurred in January than had occurred in July.

Under these circumstances the thanks of the House and the country were due to the Citizen Forces of this country for the manner in which they responded to the call of duty. He himself saw in the streets of Cape Town boys of 17 taking their places in the ranks of the Citizen Forces and defending railway and other property against outrage. This was a thing of which the country might be proud—the response of the people of this country to the call of duty. The hon. member for Jeppe had criticised him (the speaker) and the Opposition for the attitude they had taken up in this particular state of affairs. The hon. member was, he believed a student of history, as he believed he spent much of his time in the Library, and was a great admirer of Burke, he would quote the latter as sufficient justification for the action they had taken. “When bad men combine the good must associate.” (Ministerial and Opposition laughter.) It was difficult for hon. members on the cross-benches to understand that in times of crisis members of that House should stand by the Government, irrespective of political considerations or party advantages. The hon. member went on to quote a statement from Burke that when half a dozen grasshoppers in the ferns made a field ring with their importunate voices it must not be thought that they were the sole inhabitants of the field. (Ministerial and Opposition laughter.) After what they had heard from hon. members on the cross-benches one might really imagine that this quotation of Burke’s had been written, as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth remarked, in anticipation of the six hon. gentlemen who represented, or rather misrepresented, the Labour interests in this country. Those hon. gentlemen had the assumption to come to that House and charge the Government with regard to the hundreds of people who were leaving the country. Whose fault was it that these people were leaving? These people were leaving because of the pernicious doctrine preached by the hon. member for Jeppe and his friends. (Ministerial and Opposition cheers.) Then the hon. member for Jeppe talked about the vague allegations that had been made on the characters of those righteous men. (Laughter.) Were these allegations vague? asked the hon. member, holding up a copy of the report of the Disturbances Commission. Were the statements of the hon. member for Troyeville vague allegations? Were the allegations of the Minister of Railways and the allegations of other hon. members who had spoken in the course of that debate, and the statements of the right hon. member for Victoria West, vague allegations? The hon. member for Jeppe had said that he was not going to disown his friends now. He dared not do that. He knew that. They were talking of burning the hon. member in effigy until hon. members on the Ministerial benches opposite made him out to be a hero. He had been rehabilitated by the Government, and he was not satisfied. (Ministerial laughter.)

Then the hon. member for Jeppe thought there was some justification for the attitude taken up by some of the gentlemen who had gone because they were persona grata with hon. members on the Ministerial benches—because Mr. Poutsma was teased in that House that there was very good reason why he should be kept in the country. Because the Minister of Finance, showing that extraordinary social manner which characterised him, clapped Bain on the back and said, “Hullo, Tom Bain,” the hon. member for Jeppe thought there was justification for saying that he was of an upright character, and was a fit citizen for this country. If there was any doubt as to the character of the movement in July and the character of the movement in January, he thought that that doubt had been removed by the many quotations that had been made in that House. But nobody removed it more strongly than the hon. member for Jeppe, who said, “That they regarded the condition as war.” He made a charge upon him, the speaker, because he went to the Salt River Works and told the men that the proper place for the discussion of their grievances was that House. He thought that the reason why grievances were not more readily redressed was owing to the action of hon. members on the cross-benches, who did not want these grievances redressed. They heard a great deal about Trade Unionism. He believed that the vast majority of the members of that House were in favour of legitimate Trade Unionism, and he would quote a few statistics dealing with Trade Unionism in Australia, which, he thought, might prove of interest to the workers of that country, and he hoped that the railwaymen of the country would take these statistics well to heart. In Australia, in 1912, the total Trade Union receipts amounted to £199,000, made up of contributions of members £179,000. interest £1,600, and other receipts £18,000. He hoped the working-men would take notice of the fact that out of that amount—out of the total expenditure—the sum of £24,610 only was spent in benefits.

During ten years, up to 1912, the sum of £1,130,311 had been paid into Union funds by way of contributions. Of that sum, £1,054,000 had been expended in management alone. Was it any wonder, therefore, that there were troops of agitators of that sort? (Hear, hear.) He hoped the working-men of this country would take note of those figures. When the House dealt with industrial legislation, he hoped it would be their duty to see that funds were rot squandered for the purpose of establishing agitator after agitator, whose occupation would be gone if those funds did not exist. It reminded him of an excellent quotation— of the large number of people who put a penny into the urn of poverty with one hand, and with the other took a shilling out. That was borne out by the figures he had quoted. His hon. friend

Whether they called it a conspiracy or not, whatever they called it, he did not know that it made any difference. He thought a large number of people acknowledged that the deportations were a mistake. He would tell them what he thought should have been done. The first day the House met was on a Friday, and he would have brought down a Bill to that House for the deportation of those people. He thought there would have been other names added in that Bill. (Cheers and laughter.) That, he believed, was the proper policy. That course would have been more straightforward than that special legislation for dealing with cases after the event. There was no doubt there was difficulty in this country, as the report before them said, in dealing with the extraordinary condition of affairs which had existed, and the laws of the country were not competent to deal with the cases of the deported people. But the proper course of the Government would have been to bring the matter before Parliament, for Parliament to deal with it. If such legislation had been introduced, it would have been adopted by the majority of the hon. members of that House. He was sorry that that course was not adopted, because many members of that House had been placed in a very peculiar position. They recognised that the Government had committed an illegal act, a particularly illegal act, on the eve of Parliament sitting, but what they had to face was the actual position of affairs as it existed at the present time. If the Government had followed the course he had suggested, they would have been placed in a legal position, and probably the number would have been added to and agreed to by the House. He had tried to follow the arguments of the right hon. member for Victoria West, but he could not understand the position he took up. He said they might condone the arrests and they might condone the deportations, but he was not prepared to condone the clause in the Bill which prevented those deported people from coming back. He, Sir Thomas Smartt, disagreed entirely with the manner in which the Government had acted, but the point with which he was face to face was that if he undertook the responsibility of voting against the Bill it might allow those people to come back to continue to spread their nefarious doctrines throughout the length and breadth of the land. Would his hon. friend, the member for Cape Town, Central, be prepared to vote for those people coming back? He thought not. Would the hon. member for Fords burg be prepared to take that responsibility, with the possibility of their being acquitted, according to the character of the laws of this country, and be made heroes of, and with the possibility of a repetition of the events of July and January? That would be the position which this country would be faced with. The responsibility was an enormous one.

The hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell) and some of his colleagues on the cross-benches had said that Poutsma was a man of a really excellent character. The right hon. member far Victoria West had referred to the disgraceful statement that these gentlemen, on the fifth of July, when negotiating with the Government, had revolvers in their pockets and were prepared to use them when necessity arose. The hon. member for Jeppe had contradicted the right, hon. member. He (the speaker) had taken some pains to get information on that subject, and found that on the 12th of September Mr. Poutsma came down to Cape Town and addressed a meeting of railway and harbour servants, when he said. “if further massacres had ensued revolver shots would have followed in the Carlton Hotel. ‘Another shot and you are dead,” said Mr. Poutsma, were the actual words used by the miners’ deputation to General Smuts and General Botha at the Carlton Hotel.

They were all very great on constitutional authority, and they were all very great on maintaining the law at all costs. He knew somebody—this would appeal to the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, and it would appeal to many other members in that House—who had uttered some very important phrases which might well be applied to the position of affairs in this country. Sir Thomas Smartt went on to quote from a speech by Oliver Cromwell to his second Parliament. “Good laws,” Cromwell said, “may have frailty and weakness, but if nothing should ever be done but what is according to law, the throat of the nation might be cut while we send for someone to make us a law.” (Cheers.) Proceeding, Sir Thomas said it might have been argued that different conditions prevailed, but this quotation was very applicable to the condition of affairs and the condition of law which existed in this country to-day. It was too pitiful, Cromwell had further said, that extraordinary methods should not be applied where, extraordinary circumstances arose. They here were placed in an extremely difficult position. Although the Government had blundered in a most unjustifiable manner in sending these men away—this House could have sent them away with certain additions to their numbers—seeing that they had been sent away he was not going to vote to have them back again. They had come to a condition of peace and order, and good government had been restored. Having achieved that, he hoped the Government would not be unmindful of the necessity of inquiring into legitimate grievances in a legitimate manner, if those grievances were brought before the House and before the Government in a proper manner he believed that the House would recognise its duty and responsibility. The House realised the advantage to the country of having a permanent, contented service. (Cheers.) When they had the depression in the Cape Colony between 1906 and 1910 people said that the railways were not being run on business lines. His answer to that was that the State had got a duty to its employees; in the interests of the State itself if there ever should be a great upheaval the people who were going to stand by the country were those who had been treated well by the State by being placed on the fixed establishment and provision being made for their old age. The Government should not be unmindful of real grievances. He told the Salt River men that he recognised that they had grievances and that they would be redressed if properly brought forward. When the men’s grievances were redressed there would be a contented service. Too much consideration could not be given to the permanent staff of the Cape Colony, who stood by the country so well in the day of trial. It was impossible to tell him that the men who went out on strike broke their agreements; many went out under considerable pressure, and there must have been great difficulties and responsibilities. There were certain ringleaders who could not be allowed to go back to work cheek by jowl with the others and be placed in exactly the same position as those who had remained loyal. The House should go out of its way to make recognition to those people who had done abnormal service in the interests of the country. He knew what pressure had been brought upon these people and upon their wives and children, and there was a feeling that they were not going to have protection until the calling out of the Defence Force made it clear that the Government was going to protect them. They remained loyal, and there should be greater consideration than the more expression of the high regard in which that House held their action. There might come another time when their loyalty would be tested. He did hope that they were not going to allow this House to rise without dealing with measures necessary to industrial legislation. (Hear, hear.) it might be said that it was not the proper time to deal with matters of that kind in a period of excitement, but he did say that these Bills were prepared after the regrettable occurrences of June and July, and that this House would be wanting in its duty if it rose without making a determined effort to deal with important legislation of this sort. They must recognise that in the twentieth century the whole trend of thought was to improve the conditions of all sections of the people, and by all possible means to bring comfort, intelligence, and as much leisure as possible to the many which in the past were only brought to the doors of the few. That was the character of the legislation which should guide this country. An Industrial Disputes Act, a General Compensation Law, which would refer to agricultural labourers as well as industrial workers—and he would point out that this could be secured by a very small premium of insurance—with these, he hoped that good out of evil might come, and that the future of this country might be of such a character as to make the workmen entirely contented, and make it utterly impossible for agitators, whether they were in that House or outside, ever to bring about such a regrettable state of affairs as this country had recently witnessed. (Cheers.)

Another difficulty in arriving at a sound and wise decision was due to the fact that, rightly or wrongly, many members in that House and a vast number of people outside, hated and detested the men whom they described as “labour agitators.” He was not going to discuss whether there was any justification for this hatred and detestation, but it was quite obvious from the speeches which had been made that the feeling against the so-called Labour agitators was very strong in that House. It seemed to him that hon. members who had such feelings could hardly be described as fair and impartial judges in an important question of this kind. On the other hand, imputations, sometimes of a very sinister and gross kind, had been made against members of the Government that, for political and other reasons, they had been actuated by certain designs in what they had done. In regard to those members, if there were any there who held those views, it seemed to him that they were hardly fit and proper judges to come to a proper decision in this matter. This decision was going to be the subject of debate for many days, many months, and many years to come. There was one other consideration that he ventured to touch upon as further showing the difficulties that some members of the House must have in arriving at a decision. He said it with all respect, and he intended to make no reproach and no reflection on any hon. member, but he knew from experience in past years that one of the reproaches that had frequently been made, he regretted to say, by the political party opposite against some members who sat on that (the Ministerialist) side of the House, was that some of those hon. members did not think for themselves, but were prepared to follow the opinions of their leaders blindly without any consideration and without thought. He did not think there was any justification for that charge. He wanted to impress on hon. members to show on that occasion that the charge was entirely unmerited and unjustified.

He had listened to the admirable and able speech of the Minister of Defence in moving the second reading of that Bill. The picture the Minister drew, the narrative he placed before the House of the events which led up to the disturbances of January, were drawn with consummate skill, In fact, the Minister was a most skilful artist. He said, with the utmost respect, because there was no one in the House who respected the Minister’s talents more than he did, that the Minister possessed the marvellous gift of being able to skate over the thinnest ice and being able to gloss over the most difficult, question. He did not want to say anything which might sound offensive, but the Minister of Defence possessed the marvellous gift of being able to suggest little things and little facts and to suppress other facts which were material. The result was that his auditors were completely led off the trail, and the real and true issues were obscured. The Minister referred with great unction to the great coup which was brought off by the Government on July 5, and he dealt very effectively with the great conspiracy that was contemplated for upsetting the Government. But as skilfully as he did that just as skilfully did he avoid the real and true issues. He (Mr. Hull)1 frankly disbelieved the theory of this widespread conspiracy—(hear, hear)—that theory was entirely an afterthought for the purpose of justifying the deportation. (Labour cheers.) If there had been no deportation, but merely Martial Law, we would not have heard a word about this colossal conspiracy. He ventured to suggest to his hon. friend that he himself did not believe this theory of a conspiracy. He (Mr. Hull) watched the Prime Minister while this theory was being propounded, and he ventured to think that no one was more surprised to hear of this theory than the Prime Minister himself. Later on they found the Minister of Mines quite frankly disavowing this conspiracy.

Continuing, Mr. Hull said that his strongest supporter against the theory of a conspiracy was the Prime Minister himself. The other day the Prime Minister stated that he convinced himself on July 5 or 6 that there was this gigantic conspiracy afoot. He (Mr. Hull) was curious to know which version of the Prime Minister’s they ought to accept as correct—the rendering he gave here the other day that there was this great conspiracy on foot, or must they go to Losberg for the truth. He (Mr. Hull) suggested that this theory of the conspiracy was purely an afterthought and that the Government decided to put it forward when they determined to deport these people. There was a time, long after the events of July, when the Prime Minister had no notion of a conspiracy. On July 10 the Prime Minister addressed the electorate at Losberg, which was a place where sometimes we got the truth from—(laughter)— sometimes they found the truth in Mr. Poutsma’s speeches. On July 10. which was several days after the Bain-Botha Treaty had been signed, the Prime Minister was reported as saying that the strike was a quarrel between the mine-owners and their employees, and questions of that kind should be settled by common sense and without violence being resorted to. He (Mr. Hull) entirely agreed with him. Surely if the Prime Minister satisfied himself that there was some gigantic conspiracy afoot it was his duty to have said something about it at Losberg on July 10. Then the Prime Minister went on to say that the question of strikes had now reached its end. But what had become of the conspiracy? The other day the Prime Minister stated that he had satisfied himself early in July that there was a conspiracy.

He was once accused of being a conspirator but he pleaded not guilty. (Laughter.) They had talked just as violently as human men had done, but they talked amongst themselves. Surely they did not say that because these men made stupid speeches, there was a criminal conspiracy at the back of it. He asked she Minister of Defence whether he really believed in this conspiracy? Did they believe that the general body of workers in this country were behind these nine men? He was told that less than 10 per cent, of the men came out on strike. There was another point to which he would like to refer, and that was the manner in which the Government presented its case to the House. He thought it was the duty of the Minister of Defence to place the case before the House without endeavouring to prejudice the minds of members. He submitted, with all respect, that in some respects the case was not fairly put, and that it was put in a way calculated to prejudice the minds of members. Let them take the reference to Jagersfontein. What in the living world had the outbreak at Jagersfontein to do with the trouble in Johannesburg? Absolutely nothing. He could not understand the object of the Minister in introducing it at all. He suggested that it was dragged in for the purpose of prejudicing their minds. The Minister admitted now it had nothing to do with the affair. Was it brought in to help the case against the nine men? Was it part of the conspiracy? Had it been brought in to fit in with the Government's case? Then the Minister dragged in some bar story or street talk about the hon. member for Smithfield marching on Johannesburg with 5,000 men. He suggested that if anyone had come to the Minister of Defence in Johannesburg and told him that story he would have disbelieved it. Why was it brought in here? Was it dragged in in order to prejudice the minds of hon. members or the political future of the hon. member for Smithfield? Proceeding, the hon. member said these were not the only instances. The Prime Minister followed the lead of the Minister of Defence. He dragged in letters and interviews given by natives. Had that anything to do with the question? A regrettable part of that case for the prosecution—for it was a case for the prosecution —was that the Prime Minister, who was supposed to be a protector, of natives in South Africa (he filled the post of Minister of Native Affairs), used letters for such a purpose. He should have been the last person in that House to use evidence of that kind which had nothing to do with the matter. Why was that done? Perhaps when some other Minister spoke, and he hoped other Ministers would yet speak, there would be some explanation. Proceeding, he said they should rid their minds of all idea that there was a conspiracy. The more the evidence was looked into the more would the bottom be knocked out of the theory that there was a conspiracy.

Let them consider for a moment what led to the troubles of July and January, for the January troubles arose out of those of July. The Minister had refused to discuss the question of the unrest in the Government service, but he thought it was the duty of that House, before it came to a decision, to try and ascertain for itself what were the real root causes. In his opinion the root and fundamental cause of July and January troubles was the unfortunate condition of things which existed between masters and men. The thing did not start last July. It was much older than that, but there was no doubt that the root cause of the unrest in the Transvaal, and he was glad to say it was principally in the Transvaal, was the unfortunate relations between the employers and their employees. He referred to the speech made by the Prime Minister at Losberg in support of his contention. This was shortly after July, when the events of July were still fresh in his mind. In that speech the Prime Minister told the people of Losberg and the people of South Africa that the root cause was to be found in the unfortunate relations existing between masters and men. He (Mr. Hull) did not think this House had any right to depart from that understanding. If the House came to the conclusion that these unfortunate relations were the main cause then it was the duty of this House to see to it that steps were taken to compel the Government to bring in legislation to bring about better relations. Because unless this root cause was removed they might deport as many men as they liked, they might deport men every month, but they would have similar troubles every year. (Labour cheers.) This thing had been coming on for years. He was not going to express an opinion now whether the men or the masters were right. So far as he had been able to investigate, the rate of pay in the mining industry on the Rand was probably higher than anywhere else in the world. But pay was not the only consideration. Unless these men were treated with sympathy, unless these men were treated with human consideration, they would always have troubles. But the House should not at the present stage investigate that question. He thought the position was due to want of consideration and sympathy—and he knew the Prime Minister agreed with him. (Labour cheers.)

Another factor which accentuated the position was the political consideration. For some reason or other in the years that had passed, employers of labour thought that in political matters as well as in mining matters the men should follow their employers. The masters claimed that the men who worked for them should, if they had political views, make these political views coincide with the political views of their masters, or if they did not do so, they wore—to use a common expression on the Rand—they were “Pymmed.” In other words, the employers of labour who had political aspirations claimed that the men should go with them in these aspirations. The fact, of course, that the men were expected to vote as desired by the masters accentuated the position. When they had a large industry, Mr. Hull went on, and there was a feeling of that kind, then it was quite easy to see that the feeling of discontent would spread to other channels of industry. The men working on the mines were in constant contact with the railwaymen and the postal men. Strikes or labour troubles were just as infectious as measles. (Laughter.) It was quite easy to foresee how these “troubles would spread, and that was what happened. It was all very fine for the Minister of Railways and Harbours to say that, that was high treason—so it was. But strikes would continue in spite of Acts of Parliament. If the men in the army or in the navy were treated wrongly, one had a strike or a mutiny. It was the duty of this House, he repeated, to inquire into the root causes, and if the House was satisfied what these root causes were, then it was their duty fairly and squarely to deal with them.

At this stage the hon. member, who said it would take two hours to finish, moved the adjournment of the debate.

The motion was agreed to, and the debate was adjourned until to-morrow (Thursday).