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

The labour unrest was not confined entirely to the Witwatersrand, although it started there, but it had gradually spread, until today they had labour troubles and disagreements between employers and employees in almost every branch of industry. He thought there were two contributing causes which led to the troubles of July. One was the failure of the Government to deal quickly and effectively with the condition of affairs on the Witwatersrand. Another cause which led to the subsequent troubles of January was the elation which the Labour leaders evinced after what they conceived to be the victory in July. Violent speeches were made and disgraceful advice given by the leaders to their followers, and that had led to the condition of affairs in January. If there had been no July trouble there would have been no trouble in January. What were the causes which led to the trouble in July? He did not think it would be necessary for him to rely upon any evidence outside the report of the Commission. He did not think sufficient tribute had been paid to the two judges of the Court of the Transvaal who were appointed Commissioners to inquire into the causes of the trouble on the Witwatersrand in July. He knew that hon. members looked askance at Blue-books when they received them, but he thought that that Blue-book and, the notes of evidence would well repay perusal. (Hear, hear.) The most valuable information and the most complete narrative of what took place was reflected in that book. It seemed to him that the most damning indictment, the most serious indictment ever put up against any Government, was to be found in the findings of those two judges. It was a curious thing, an extraordinary thing, that although four Ministers had spoken during that debate, they appeared to have evaded and carefully ignored the findings of those two judges upon the conduct of the Government in June and July. (Hear, hear.) That report was so important that he hoped the House would bear with him while he referred to some of the findings which he regarded as of first importance in considering the matter. He hoped his hon. friend for Jeppe would allow him to say that in his calmer moments he would never think of repeating the unfortunate expressions he had thought it his duty to apply to the judges who made the report. He (the speaker) would like to lodge a protest against the utterances of the hon. member for Jeppe regarding the judges. He did not think that men like judges of the Supreme Court, when they were called upon to do a public duty, should be assailed in that manner. (Hear, hear.) He thought that a lot of the labour trouble and the unrest on the Witwatersrand and on the railways was caused not so much by the employers, but very often by the men whom the labour people put at the head of their affairs. He believed substantial grievances existed in all avenues of employment, on the railways, the telegraphs, and everywhere else, but he did not think that hon. members on the cross-benches and their friends outside adopted the right attitude when in presenting the case from their point of view they frequently did it in such insolent language and made the demands in such an impertinent fashion that a decent self-respecting employer hesitated before he could deal fairly with them, (Hear, hear.)

He said that in the interests of the working classes themselves, their case was spoiled by their leaders because of the unfortunate manner in which they couched their demands. It was quite clear from the evidence taken by the Commission that the troubles of last July were due (a) to the fault of the employers; (b) to the failure of the Government; (c) to the fault of the Labour leaders. In other words, the judges who formed that enquiry had found that all three parties were guilty. It had been found by the judges that at the Kleinfontein the employers were the guilty parties and that the Labour leaders were correct. But the Labour leaders when they found that the employers had made a mistake, instead of keeping their heads, got out of hand and put themselves in the wrong by making impossible demands. (Hear, hear.) The Government which ought to have seized the opportunity of coming in between those two parties and of dealing quickly with the position—what did they do? The Minister of Mines, whose department was mainly responsible for dealing with such a crisis, was conspicuous by his absence. He would have thought that the Minister of Mines’ place at a time of trouble should not be Cape Town or Malmesbury, but the Witwatersrand. (Hear, hear.) Surely the functions of a Minister of Mines were not to be exercised in Malmesbury or Cape Town; it was his duty to be on the spot. He was quite certain that the Prime Minister could not have read the finding of the judges, because it was perfectly clear that the Government instead of intervening at once had done nothing of the kind. Unless the Prime Minister was wrongly reported in the “Cape Times,” he had said that the Government had intervened at the earliest opportunity. The attitude of the Government seemed to him to have been a most extraordinary one. The Minister of Mines said that he could not interfere because he had no evidence that the trouble was going to spread so rapidly. But did the Minister of Mines forget a telegram he himself had sent from Cape Town as early as the 28th of May, in which he said, “explain to the mining industry that owing to the illegal and precipitate action of the management, industrial peace is in danger”? So that as early as the 28th of May the Minister realised the danger of that industrial dispute spreading through the whole industry. Yet the Minister came there and said he had no suspicion that there was going to be a general strike.

Continuing, he pointed out that Mr. Steyn, one of the Minister’s own clerks, on the 28th of May stated that the crisis was becoming acute, and “that this was the last opportunity to bring about a satisfactory solution of the trouble.” Later on the Chamber of Commerce at Benoni telegraphed to the Minister informing him that the position was terribly serious owing to the Kleinfontein strike, and that it demanded the presence of the Minister of Mines. The Minister replied on the 6th June that the Government could not interfere in the dispute, but must maintain an impartial attitude. The Government could not say that it had not ample notice of the seriousness of the dispute. Government officials and local bodies warned them and yet they said they must maintain a neutral attitude. The trouble that occurred in July was due to the fact that the Government failed to realise its duty, and it was clear from the conclusions of the judges that the Government hopelessly failed to maintain law and order. They allowed the Benoni mob to do what they pleased. They refused to act, and only sent two clerks, who had no prestige and no authority. Worst of all, the Government ref used to prosecute law breakers; the Government really encouraged the mob and the Strike Committee to do what they pleased. Now they were told that the Government had made a great coup by signing the Bain-Botha treaty. Even the hon. member for Germiston said he was aghast when he heard that the Government had signed the treaty.

Was that why he had ceased to be aghast ? It was not a coup so far as the mining industry was concerned. Was it a coup to pay compensation to the amount of £50,000? It was suggested that the signing of this treaty was the signal for the termination of the riots. But were not the riots stopped before that was done? He (Mr. Hull) said that the military and police by their decisive action stopped the hooligans, and that all this talk about the treaty stopping them was the biggest flapdoodle and rubbish in the world. The Government failed because it had no united and decided policy. The Minister of Mines said that the Government was remaining neutral, but the Minister of Defence intervened so soon as he got to Johannesburg—and rightly intervened. Were the members of the Government in those days in water-tight compartments? Was the Minister of Mines paddling his own canoe? The Minister of Justice put the old Transvaal law of 1834 dealing with public meetings into operation. But the Minister of Defence a day later allowed the Benoni meeting to be held. What conclusion could these excited people come to, when they saw the Government do one thing one day and something else the next? Then the Minister of Defence, after allowing the Benoni meeting to be held, went round to the Minister of Railways and protested against any special trains being run. What were they to make of such a position of affairs? Was it not a fact that the Government was actually on the horns of a dilemma? The Minister of Mines said that the Government could not interfere, and when the Government did interfere, they paid compensation. He thought some Minister ought to explain the position. He thought that the failure of the Government to grasp the situation was responsible for what happened in July. The Labour leaders, seeing the inefficiency of the Government, thought they could do what they liked, became inflated, and then made these violent speeches. He thought the same want of consideration and tact which was evidenced in the relationship between employer and employee on the Witwatersrand was also found between the Government and the railway servant. He did not want to give offence to anybody, but he thought it was only right that they should talk frankly in that House. On the one hand, they had a perfectly impossible man like Poutsma—perfectly impossible, because of his truculence—to represent the workers.

On the other hand, as representing this great department of State, they had the Railway Minister and the General Manager, both of whom were most efficient and competent: but the former would forgive him when he said that, quite unwittingly, the Minister of Railways did possess a little something in his manner which rubbed people the wrong way. (Cheers.) There was a little quiet dignity about him which, instead of being dignified, really caused offence.

Continuing, Mr. Hull said a lot of the trouble on the railway was, in his opinion, due to the considerations to which he had just referred. Therefore, yesterday, when he listened to the very able speech by the Minister of Railways, he felt quite depressed about the future. The Minister made an excellent and an eloquent speech, but not a word did he say suggesting to the men that their grievances would be dealt with sympathetically. If the railwaymen should again elect on their executive men of the Poutsma type who were truculent and impertinent and they brought these two parties together, trouble must again ensue. He referred to these matters because he wanted to impress on the Government that legislation would not cure this thing—(hear, hear)—increases of pay would not cure this thing. The very men who were loyal to the Administration in the Cape Province had grievances. They might promote and compensate these men, but they would not get out of the trouble unless Government dealt in a sympathetic manner with the men’s grievances. (Hear, hear.). The Railway Department ever since Union had been a self-contained department run in watertight compartments. The Prime Minister knew no more about the condition of the railways than that piece of (blotting paper.

In the first place, continued Mr. Hull, he did not believe in the theory of this conspiracy, and in the second place his case was that the troubles were mainly due to the unfortunate relations which existed between employers and employees throughout South Africa, and the contributing causes to the troubles of January last were the failure of the Government last July and the elation of the Labour leaders over the victory they thought they had achieved.

The real issues of the Bills were of a fourfold nature—one, was a proclamation of Martial Law absolutely necessary; two, was it absolutely necessary to call out the Citizen Forces, and was that step justifiable; three, were the deportations justified; and four, was the Government entitled under all the circumstances to ask for an indemnity?

With regard to the first point, the proclamation of Martial Law, in his opinion, was absolutely necessary. In spite of the failures of the Government during June and July, he thought the Government would have acted most unwisely if, in view of the threats held out to it, it did not take steps to proclaim Martial Law. He would, therefore, as far as that part of the case went, give his strongest support to the Government in its actions. It might be argued that the case for the proclamation of Martial Law at Bloemfontein, or certain other parts of the Free State and certain parts of Natal, was not justified, but in a matter of this kind Parliament should not examine too microscopically every act of the Government. If once Parliament came to the decision that the case for the proclamation of Martial Law was justified, then it should give Government an indemnity for the whole.

The next point was—was the Government justified in calling out the Citizen Forces? Here was very largely a question of executive action. The Government was the beet judge as to the, number of troops required, and it was impossible for the House to say that fewer troops should have been brought out. The Government acted wisely in making every preparation for the prevention of a repetition of what took place last July.

He now came to the most serious question—that of the deportation. While he was prepared to support the Government, und all citizens who wished to see law and order maintained must support the action of the Government in the maintenance of law and order, he ventured to think that the same fate which overtook the victorious loaders last year and made them lose their heads, overtook the Ministry. Ministers became so elated with the success of Martial Law that they lost their heads, and proceeded to carry out a very foolish and unfortunate act. The Government was guilty of a grave error of judgment in deporting these men.

Ho was glad that the Minister of Railways yesterday recognised that the action of the Government was illegal, but he justified that action by saying that it was required by the safety of the State. This was on the 27th January. He could understand the Government seizing these men or any number of men on the 14th, 15th, or 16th of January or any other day before normal conditions had been restored and while matters were still in a critical stage—(hear hoar)—but to come and say that the safety of the State required their deportation on the 27th January, within two days of the meeting of Parliament, at a time when conditions wore normal and when the burgher forces had all been returned to their homes, seemed to him rather wide of the mark. Did any hon. member on that side of the House think that such an action was necessary on the 27th January—(Voices: “Yes”) when the Government’s own notices showed that the crisis was past and that things wore normal?

We had had, he thought, three conspiracies within the last 20 years in South Africa, and it was curious that in each of these conspiracies the question of deportation was raised, and a significant thing was that there had been, so to speak, progress in deportation. The first conspiracy or treasonable plotting was dealt with in the Transvaal. One of the objections that the conspirators had against President Kruger and his Government was that he wished to pass a law to deport people who did not behave themselves. That was in 1895. About ten years afterwards there was another conspiracy afoot in this part of South Africa, where certain people, he believed, conspired to take, away the Constitution. Because certain public men in the Cape Colony objected to that course, it was recommended by the Government in office, according to one of the speech which had been made by a Minister of the Crown that the people who took the other line should be banished to South America. In that case they had gone a step further, because they had said, “Let us banish certain individuals.” Ten years later still—that is, to-day—the names were scheduled in the Bill of the men who were actually banished. Didn’t that show remarkable progress? (Laughter.) If this House were prepared to condone an act of this kind, it meant that they were laying down a principle which they would bitterly regret afterwards. (Hear, hear.) It seemed to him that, taking the preamble of the Bill as it stood, the Government was upon the horns of a dilemma. The case they put against the nine men who appeared in the schedule was that they caused unrest. The case put forward on behalf of the Government by the Minister of Defence was a totally different case—a case of conspiracy. He asked hon. members upon which case were they going to justify their action, or were they going to adopt both? If they did, then they would have to alter the preamble. This House was asked solemnly to deport every one of the nine men whose names appeared in the schedule. Except Mr. Poutsma, who spent a few hours in his (Mr. Hull’s) house, when he endeavoured to bring about a settlement of the railway troubles, with the complete knowledge of the then Minister of Justice (Mr. Sauer) and other members of the Government, he did not know any of the deportees except Mr. Bain— “my old friend. Bain.” (Laughter.) The extent of his knowledge of Mr. Bain was that, for the last three or four years, on several occasions Mr. Bain had thought it his business to refer to him (Mr. Hull), and on each occasion to recommend that he should be hanged. (Laughter.) The question he wanted to put to hon. members was, assuming that the whole of the statement of case as given by the Minister of Defence was correct, and that the facts could be proved in a court of law, were they satisfied that a case had been made out against the whole of these nine men? The newspaper extracts which had been quoted by the Minister for Defence did not cover the whole of the nine. What evidence was there, for instance, against McKerrell ?

What evidence was there against McKerrell? That man went to Natal, where there was a strike brewing, and he was perfectly entitled to go there. He understood that McKerrell helped to settle the strike. Was that an unlawful thing? (“No, no.”) That was the statement that had been made by the Minister of Defence. They had no other evidence before them. There was a private letter from the Secretary of Mines, in which he said that McKerrell said he was going to report something he had said to Mr. Poutsma. Hon. members could go through this statement of the Minister of Defence as that was the only evidence. Were they going to sit there and condemn those men to perpetual banishment upon evidence that was not divulged? Upon the evidence as it stood the House would be doing a very unwise thing if they were to say that those nine men were equally guilty. (Hear, hear.) He was prepared to support the Government in its action in proclaiming Martial Law, he would support the Government in calling out the Citizen Forces, but he was not prepared to support the Government in the action of deportation and the banishment of those men without a trial. (Hear, hear.) It was practically admitted that the Government had no right legally to do such a thing. If there was one thing that Government had still to learn, or to unlearn, it was that they could not govern this country by force. (Hear, hear.) No Government could exist by force. Unless the Government depended on good laws they would always have discontent and troubles of that kind. By the last mail he had received a cutting of an article which had appeared in the “Daily News,” and which he thought fairly reflected the dangers of “Force.” The article said:

To his mind, what the Government had to deal with was what was called in plain and simple language a general strike, which meant the waging of war of a certain section of the community upon all the rest of the community. There was nothing new in this thing, although now it was called Syndicalism. He remembered the time when it was a combination of workers in all countries who should throw down their tools and terrorise the whole of the world into a compliance with their demands. It was an attempt by the minority through the rule of terrorism to inflict their demands on the majority: he said the minority because if there was a majority in this country, with its franchise, with its easy facilities for men to get into Parliament, and for men to have their demands put before that House, they could have easily attained their ends. They could not attain their ends, and so it was a war on the part of the minority against the majority. The Minister of Defence tried to make out it was a particular and special conspiracy against the State. The hon. member for George Town called it a revolution. Some body called it an Industrial Republic, and the hon. member for Jeppe called it Industrial Democracy. Words did not mean very much, and they really wanted to find out what it actually meant. He remembered a revolution in the 18th century, when a junto ruled so well that men were afraid to open their lips, were afraid to go out of their doors, that women shuddered at the name, and hundreds and thousands were killed. If he remembered rightly the name of the body was the Committee of Public Safety—(laughter)—so that they used not go by names. The thing was what was the object of it all? “To Hell with the King, the Flag, and the Country,” were words used by one gentleman to stir up the people. The object of the speaker was perfectly clear. But what was the common object and intention of these people? The hon. member for George Town very shortly gave them the meaning of a general strike. It was a speech made on the 29th of July on the Robinson Mine at Randfontein. He would merely give the outline, the skeleton, and enlarge upon it later. He said, “The community depends on the worker.” That was fallacy No. 1. It depended on the worker, but he would proceed to show that it was because other people were prepared to take the part of the worker that all these strikes were attended by the concomitants and the appendages of war.

He went on, “The moment they stopped working they became disorganised, the nation being held up, must capitulate or become annihilated, which was an unthinkable position.” This idea of waging war against the community was held by a considerable number of persons who went under different names. It was the danger it might do to the State. He would draw attention to this point, because it would bear on what he would subsequently say with regard to the deportations. It was from one point of view a great danger to the State, because their object in waging war was to do away with the existing form of Government altogether and their methods were not limited to me rules and regulations of civilised war. There were no Geneva Conventions about such a war, and what were the ideas? They must deprive the community of the ordinary means of existence—take away water, take away light, and so on. They knew what the consequences were of depriving a large community of water and light. They must stop the means of living by way of stopping the transport of foodstuffs. Starvation must look the whole of the nation in the face. The railway service and every other means of transport must be stopped. They had seen in this case—he was sorry it was ever done because there had been a good deal of sympathy with a number of the men—they did not hesitate to stir up strife among the native barbarians of this country. When the country heard of this he could assure hon. members on the cross benches that they lost a tremendous amount of sympathy.

The hon. member for George Town was guilty of a very improper thing when, in the course of a speech, he cast reflection on the Bench—it was all part and parcel to show that everything was against the workman. According to them the whole country was rotten, the Bench was rotten, the Ministry was rotten, every official was rotten, Parliament was perfectly rotten— (laughter)—nothing was sound except, of course, the hon. gentleman who had said so.

Every time a difference of opinion existed in that way, were they to draw the inference that the judges below were biased? That doubt was as paltry and puerile an excuse as he had ever heard given as a reason for not going before the Commission. If he had ever had any doubts about the truth of the statements contained in the report of the Commission, he had no doubts now after such an assertion. (Hear, hear.) The evidence in the report of the Judicial Commission was amply sufficient to show anyone that the object of the Labour leaders was the waging of a class war upon the community, a war in which —according to the statements of the strikers —there was no reason that it should not be accompanied by arson, murder, and destruction of property. What the Government had to deal with in a declaration of a general strike was a declaration of war against the community at large by a certain section of the community. We knew from experience that a strike was attended with violence. The whole object of the strike was that no one should be allowed to take the strikers’ places—otherwise what was the use of a strike? But the other men would not be kept out, and then there was a collision, and of course, there was violence. The duty of the Government was to maintain law and order, and to see that no man was assaulted while he was doing a legal act—(hear, hear)—but in a social war there must inevitably be violence, murder, arson, and destruction of property. Could any man hesitate to say that Government was perfectly justified in meeting this general strike by the measures it took? (Cheers.) The Government’s conduct had been the admiration of the civilised world, in that the only organised attempt at a general strike was met by the Government without loss of life and without any injury. (Cheers.) Therefore, he could not see how anyone could hesitate to indemnify the Ministry for taking the only means to stop this by declaring Martial Law.

The Labour leaders had deluded a number of people into the belief that there would be no violence. Theoretically that was perfect. They said that if every worker laid down his tools at a certain hour, there was no need to have any violence or destruction of property, because there would not be enough men to take the place of those who had stopped work, and then the country must either be annihilated or come to terms. But the greatest mistake the workers made was to think that the rest of the country was going to be put to death by inches. (Cheers.) When men in all classes of life were learning more and more of the mechanical arts, strikers, if they tried to stop transport and other public utility services, would find that there were hundreds of men quite capable of filling the places of those who ceased work. (Cheers.) “Don’t try to get your aims by force,” continued Sir Henry, amid cheers. “The Labour men talk of their wives and children; we also have wives and children. They talk of their rights; we also have rights. They talk of their being starved; we don’t want to be starved either, and when they wage war on us, we will step in and try to run the transport and lighting services. (Cheers.) Then the workers will object, and you would have the inevitable conflict, and the forces would have to be called out. The nation cannot get along without its workmen, but there are other men who can work, and the artisan is not the only man who labours.” (Cheers.)

How did the workers, continued Sir Henry, get the idea that a general strike would be successful? It was because they thought they had brought the Government to its knees last July. It was a terrible state of affairs in any country when a large number of the population believed that by the display of a little force it could bring the Government to its knees. Then a very serious responsibility rested on the Government. They knew the Prime Minister’s past, and none of them would believe that he was brought to his knees by any other consideration than what he believed to be best for the people. (Cheers.) But two such experienced men as the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence had shown a lack of the knowledge of human nature in signing the Bain-Botha treaty. If they had for one moment considered what the object of the Labour leaders was. The Labour leaders were tired of commissions, and they were not aiming at the redress of grievances. They were aiming at much bigger game, and the Ministers must have been aware of that. How near were they to the fulfillment of their objects and desires by the signing of that treaty? Just as far off as ever, and that should have shown the Ministers that the leaders knew that they had failed. If the Labour leaders thought that they were on the high road to success, would they have made that agreement? They were to get nothing by it. Therefore, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence might very well have seen that the Labour leaders were not on the road to victory and success, and that they thought it a very fine opportunity to come to terms.

Who was responsible for the state of affairs which made the Government come to its knees, as the Labour leaders called it? Attention had been called in that House, by the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Hull) and the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens (Mr. Baxter), to certain findings of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry, as to what were the causes which led up to the terrible state of affairs which prevailed on the Rand last July. It was a terrible indictment. Could anyone read these findings without coming to the conclusion that the Ministry were responsible for allowing the dissatisfaction, the destruction, the injury, and the criminality to extend to the extent to which they did, so that when the Prime Minister went to Johannesburg he had no option but to sign the treaty? He did not wonder that the Labour leaders went rampant throughout the country, and said, “We have secured a victory such as Labour has won in no other part of the world.” Yet, if they looked at the document, they would not say they had gained very much.

The Commission found that the spread of terrorism at Benoni was due, “(a) to the insufficiency of the police and detective force at Benoni during the early part o! the strike; (b) to the fact that minatory and inflammatory language on the part of the strikers and their leaders was allowed to pass unpunished. ” They had been told on several occasions that they ought to pass legislation in order to deal with these men who had been deported. What was the use of passing legislation to punish people when they did not punish them with the legislation they had already got? The Commission went on: “(c) to the fact that the Industrial Disputes Act was treated as a dead letter.” What was the use of asking Parliament to pass a lot of legislation in regard to industrial matters when this extra Judicial Court found upon the facts that the Industrial Disputes Act, which was in existence, was absolutely disregarded? The Commission also found that the spread of terrorism was due: “(d) to the fact that actual open incitement to violence was not more firmly dealt with at the beginning of the trouble at Benoni.” Surely they had in the law sufficient to deal with people who were actually and openly inciting others to violence: “(e) To the fact that the pickets of the strikers could assault men with impunity and that no prosecution followed.” The hon. member for Springs was there. He should have a good deal to say with regard to the hon. member, as he had a good deal to do with an injury that might be inflicted on certain men in his (Sir H. H. Juta’s) constituency.

The hon. member for Springs had told this House that he and the hon. member for Roodepoort never tried to stir up any of the men at Salt River or the Docks to strike, and that they certainly never incited them to violence. No; what the hon. member for Springs did—of course they were very careful in their language— was to deal with picketing. Some political humourist had got this down on the Statute-book as “paceful picketing.” They had seen it at work. It was “peaceful picketing ”; it was not violence. On, no, not in the least. What the hon. member for Springs did was, when he was not inciting to violence and not stirring up the men at the Docks, to call upon the running staff and the Docks to rise on the 11th January. He asked them to see that every place where men were going back to work was adequately picketed, and the they did not work, it was like sending half-a-dozen ruffians, armed with pick handles, crowbars, etc., to some defenceless man to see that he was adequately picketed, so that he did not do his work. They knew what that meant in plain language. This new method of preventing people from going to work was to “simply appeal to their sense of manhood. ”

Lastly—and this was the worst case of vacillation on the part of the Government, and he drew attention to it because it was a matter which he could assure the Ministry was more often spoken about than anything—the Commission said: “The permission of the Government to hold the public meeting at Benoni on June 29, notwithstanding the fact that it had been prohibited by the local authorities, was misinterpreted by the strikers.” Was it possible to read a stronger allegation against the Ministerial body responsible for the maintenance of law and order than this? It was not acts of commission so much, but the reckless giving of authority. How that came about one did not know. They had to deal with a number of men, upon whose minds any vacillation of this sort was immediately interpreted by their leaders, who had to make capital out of something, as a confession of weakness on the part of the Government. They could not avoid the conclusion that the Ministry was responsible, through its conduct, for allowing the little strife to increase until it became a great insurrection and until all the dogs of violence were let loose throughout Johannesburg and, owing to that situation which they brought about through not being strong enough at that time, what was the use of talking about being strong enough and deporting the nine men? Why did they not put the law in force at that time and deal with the men who were inciting to violence? He could not resist the conclusion that the Ministry was not firm enough at the time.

He could not help expressing the conviction that if the Ministry had done what it ought to have done at the time and had taken the matter in hand they would not have been in the position in which they found themselves when they went to Johannesburg to settle the matter. That state of affairs ought never to have existed. After the treaty had been made there was only one opinion among the working-men— that if they came out in their thousands instead of hundreds they would control the country. One could quote a great deal with regard to that matter, but so much had been spoken that it would only be a repetition. He would like to quote what had been said at a meeting in Cape Town by Mr. Lyon, President of the Railway and Harbour Servants Union, a man who was very much respected and looked up to. Mr. Lyon did not advocate a general strike, and for that reason he fell very foul of the hon. member for Springs. Mr. Lyon had said on January 15 that if it had not been for the hon. members fox Springs and Roodepoort there would not have been the slightest trouble. (Cheers.) They could not have stronger evidence than that. Yet they had those hon. members telling them that they were never in favour of a strike and that they had done everything they could to stop it. Mr. Lyon had gone on to say that the hon. member for Springs had had the goodness to tell him that he was weak-kneed. It was clear enough, said Mr. Lyon, that he could not mould him as he had moulded Mr. Arnold Smith, and he (Mr. Lyon) would like to tell him that it was better to have weak knees than a badly balanced brain. (Laughter.) Mr. Lyon claimed that he had done more for the railwaymen than the hon. members for Springs and Roodepoort combined. (Cheers.) “Everybody knows in Parliament,” said Mr. Lyon, “that a good many sound suggestions have been defeated in the House by the blundering stupidity of the members for Springs and Roodepoort.” (Cheers.) Continuing, Sir Henry said that for three years he had sat there next to the hon. gentlemen who said they represented labour. It would have been noticed that in those three years he had never attacked them, very often to the astonishment of his political confreres. He had told them that he was “a chiel amang them takin’ notes.”

He had wanted to see what the Labour Party was going to do for the workers, and all he could say was that he cordially endorsed what was said by Mr. Lyon. Everybody knew that a good many sound suggestions had been made in the House and had been defeated because of the blundering and stupid manner in which they were brought forward. (Hear, hear.) On more than one occasion he had said to the Labour members, “Do be quiet, and let my unfortunate constituents have a chance of getting some of their grievances redressed,” but he had not said it that way. (Laughter.) They had taken his advice, and the reason some of the grievances had been redressed was that they had kept quiet. He quite endorsed what the hon. member for Barberton had said. The unfortunate way in which questions affecting railway and harbour men were put forward put up the backs of everybody, and members wore not in a condition to give a calm and dispassionate consideration to the questions. The hon. members for Springs and Roodepoort were for four or five days at the Salt River Works doing everything possible to induce the men to strike. Hear, hear.) When he heard them in the House saying they had never done anything to bring about a strike he could not believe what he was hearing. One thing was perfectly clear, and that was that if they maintained what they had said in the House that they had never incited men to strike he could only say that they had lost their recollection of what had happened in the past, and were no longer responsible. (Laughter.) There was no question that they had done it day after day. When the unfortunate coloured labourers came out at the Docks, did those hon. members say, “do not strike ” ? No, the hon. member for Springs said, “look how the black men have come out, that is an example for the white men to follow.” The speeches of those members were on record for every man to see. Those two gentlemen were responsible for the starting of the trouble in the Peninsula. Were not the laws of the country sufficient to prevent men inciting to the breaking of the Statutes? He felt very strongly for those unfortunate men who had not wanted to come out, but had been compelled to do so.

Now he would say a few words in regard to the deportations. The Minister had said that the time to deal with the matter was before the fires burned down. He (Sir Henry) believed he knew what the Minister meant—they must not wait until so much time had elapsed that they would get a false perspective of what happened. His own view was that the Government had made the trouble too great. If the Prime Minister would look back upon the situation of 5th July, he must see that his fears were somewhat exaggerated. He would see that the position of the Labour Party was not one of going on to victory. He would not say that the fears of the Prime Minister with regard to a native rising were not properly put, but looking back calmly and dispassionately they must recognise that those men were not on the road to victory and they knew they were not. Every man in a time of stress was naturally disposed to look upon the danger as greater than it was, but he did not believe as the lion, member for Barberton had suggested, that the Government was suffering from swelled head with their success over the crushing of that general strike. He thought that the Government was actuated by a distorted view of the real danger that existed. He would say candidly at once that he was not going to look at the question of the deportation from its constitutional point of view. It was a bigger thing which they had to look at. Of course, it was all illegal, Martial Law was illegal, but it was no use talking about illegality. The question was, was there any necessity for the action at the time when it was taken. They must remember that the punishment of exile or deportation was something which had been used on various occasions in the history of the world, and he was quite ready to put forward the argument which he had found nobody had put forth on behalf of the Ministry that the manner of dealing with ordinary criminals was not applicable during a state of affairs when they had what was really a revolution. When the general strike was declared it really amounted to a revolution, and he was quite prepared to acknowledge that the ordinary legal punishments did not really apply in such cases. But it was not the first time they had had revolutions, and they must gain some lessons from the teaching of history. If they took note of such lessons they would realise that similar methods of crushing revolutions had not resulted in the objects sought. As had been stated, Parliament was just on the verge of sitting, and he had not heard that there was the slightest difficulty in anybody coming down to Parliament. Where was the revolution ?

They were very glad these then had gone, but he could not quite agree with that. There were other points of view from which they had to consider the position. He did not say the action of the Government was going to do no good, but he did not see that it was going to eradicate the evil. He did not see that it would gain the object sought, and by this banishment they were going to do more harm than those men would have done. The Government should do its duty with a firm hand. (Cheers.) They must let the people see that they cannot have strikes. As Mr. Crawford said, you could not have strikes without violence and attendant violence. His actual words were: “There was no hope of working a strike on the Rand by peaceful methods; violence was incidental to all strikes.” That was what the Government had to recognise, that the essential of all those things was violence. He did not like the idea of going a whole year without legislation on the subject. If the law was not good enough to deal with men who were inciting others to violence in that way, what was going to happen between now and the next session? Or, if that election came on which they heard about from the little birds, what was going to happen during all the intervening time ? They really could not go on proclaiming Martial Law. If the law was not in a sufficiently proper state now, surely they ought to have that legislation brought before them. He believed it was sufficient for the Ministry to bear in mind that the essential of these things was violence, which the men did not want. Law and order should be administered properly and firmly, so that every man would know that he could look to the Minister of Justice and the Ministry, and there would be no necessity for deportations or Proclamations of Martial Law.

With regard to what has been said by the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, that men had made speeches down here inciting others to break the law and that no action had been taken, he could tell the hon. member that he personally brought this matter to the notice of the Attorney-General of the Cape. The Attorney-General of the Cape told him that he had carefully considered the question, and as the law appeared to be so doubtful in all probability he would not get convictions if prosecutions had been instituted. In the Transvaal the law was somewhat different, and he hoped that that law would soon be incorporated in the general law of the Union. Continuing, the Minister said he would like to say a few words of praise as to the conduct of the members of the public service during the late disturbances. (Hear, hear.) He wished to associate himself with every word of commendation uttered both inside and outside that House with regard to the service rendered by the police and military forces in July, and the police, citizen and burgher forces during the recent trouble. At the same time a word of praise was due to the members of the public service who gave the Government every assistance, and he instanced the fact that five hundred public servants at Pretoria enrolled as special constables out of a total of 600 enrolled, and cheerfully and efficiently carried out police work at night and their own duties during the day. He thought that the occurrences of July were closely interwoven with the occurrences of January, but at the same time it seemed to be irrelevant to consider whether the Government was to blame in doing this or not doing that during the July troubles. There had been a good deal of criticism of the ex post facto, arm-chair character. It was very easy to criticise in that way. They had an illuminating example in the speech of his hon. friend who had just sat down. He gave the House his views with regard to the Bain-Botha treaty, and those were his conclusions. He first said that the men got practically nothing. In the next breath he went on to say that the men were elated by their victory—how could it be a victory? If it was difficult now to decide whether it was a notable victory or not, what must have been the position of those gentlemen who were present at the time? Was it not the more correct view to take that at that time the men considered they had gained certain things. Was it not more reasonable to take the attitude that the Ministers thought it was best in the interests of the country to avert this great catastrophe that was hanging over the country, by coming to some terms and giving the men some concession? It was all very nice now to say that they ought to have seen at once that a great conspiracy was afoot. Let them take that meeting of the 29th June. Supposing the Government by main force had stopped that meeting and there had been bloodshed and riot. Then he was quite sure that. with this after-event wisdom members would have said: “If the Government had only left that meeting alone.” (Ministerial cheers.) There had been no violence, and after-events really corroborated the action of the Government. They had the same sort of meeting on the Market-square on the 11th January, and it was earnestly considered whether the Government should prohibit that meeting. They decided they would not. What had been the result? There was no bloodshed. Of course the reason for the quietness of the proceedings was not that advanced by hon. members on the cross-benches, but the reason was that there were a couple of thousand burghers in the neighbourhood. He only referred to these matters to point out difficulties and to show how easy it was to criticise. Supposing they admitted that the Government was absolutely and criminally negligent at that time—how did that affect the present case as to whether they were justified in declaring Martial Law in January? That would not affect the point at all, unless they went the length of saying that there was no danger at all of disturbance or uproar or commotion. Only two questions arose in the Bill: Was the proclamation of Martial Law necessary? Was deportation necessary? These two questions should really not be put separately, as the second depended on the first.

He could understand the argument that Government ought not to have proclaimed Martial Law, but once it was said that Government was justified in proclaiming Martial Law surely it must be admitted that Government was not only justified but bound not only to stamp out the conflagration but to remove the cause of the conflagration. (Cheers.) It had been said the Government’s action was directed against the right of the workers to combine, but the hollowness of that contention had been exposed already. The last speaker had misunderstood the Prime Minister, who did not intend to introduce a discussion on the right to work, but only meant the Tight of the person who wished to work not to be interfered with.

Reference had been made to the need for legislation to enable the Government to deal with such situations in the future and he hoped before the House rose Government would be able to produce such legislation. (Cheers.) He wanted to remind the House that in the industrial Bills published last December, hon. members would find the very provisions which had been recommended by the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman). There were riot provisions in the Public Assemblies Bill, and in another Bill there were measures for preventing “pulling out” and intimidation, and that was one reason why some of the gentlemen who had been deported were so very anxious that this legislation should not come before Parliament. (Cheers.) That was one of the main reasons why the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell) snapped his fingers at that legislation. It was not a question of Government not wanting to amend the law. After the July trouble Government was prepared to take certain steps to give it greater powers than it had at present. The hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour (Sir H. H. Juta) had called the leaders of the forces of disorder enemies of society, and he (Mr. De Wet) would like the hon. member to have stated how he would have prosecuted them. Then the hon. member for Jeppe had stated that this House was not a jury. Nor was it a Court of Law. If it had been, a good deal of matter introduced into the debate would have been ruled out as irrelevant. (Laughter.) Hon. members had to sit there as men of common-sense, not trammelled with legal technicalities and niceties, but to draw conclusions from the facts.

Precedents were dangerous, but he would refer to one or two regarding this question of deportation or banishment. On the latter point, however, he would point out that the’ Government was not sending the deported men away from their native country, but was deporting them to their country of origin. (Ministerial cheers.) An hon. member had asked for precedents from a Constitutional Government. Perhaps he called the Government of Downing-street an unconstitutional Government because the deportation of the Hon. Galbraith Cole was done by a British Government.

Proceeding, the Minister said that most hon. members were agreed with the Government on the question of Martial Law, but they feared to take the last portion of the Bill—deportation. What were their arguments founded upon? The right hon. the member for Victoria West had stated that there was no conspiracy. He had cavilled at the word “conspiracy.”

The Government gave the most earnest and careful consideration to this case. They were convinced that these men, if not all the ringleaders, were some of the principal ringleaders. They were put in prison. If they did not deport them, they would have had to let them out on bail, and they would have had to turn these declared enemies of society loose on society again. The hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, had said that they were not going to stop this movement by the deportations. That might be so, but it was one way of making an attempt. Then it had been said, why should they have put in the Bill the words, “And whereas none of the said scheduled persons were born in any part of South Africa which has been included in the Union.” It was true that they could deport men who were born in the Union, if they could get a country willing to take them, but, if they could not get a country willing to take them, they would have to take them back. There was no sinister reason for putting these words in the Bill, but the question that had been raised was not so innocent as it looked. They were quite aware that people in the backveld were being told that so-and-so would be deported next when they got a different Government and so-and-so would be dealt with. If any person were guilty of conduct and acts such as had been admitted by the strongest opponents of deportation in that House, then let him be deported. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. the member for Victoria West had said that necessity was the only justification. He (the Minister of Justice) thought that on all the facts which had been stated and all the circumstances which had been laid before the House, the Government had shown the overwhelming necessity not only for the proclamation of Martial Law, but also for the deportation of these men who were responsible for some of the main occurrences which led to the necessity for the proclamation of Martial Law. (Ministerial cheers.)

The fact that over 1,000 grievances had been remedied was an instance of it. He would also like to acknowledge that Mr. Hoy, within a week of the recent happenings, had removed the last of the grievances that remained with the men who had taken part in the previous Natal strike. There had unquestionably recently been a better disposition on the part of the Administration, and the fact of the last strike having come along with its reprisals in its train was most regrettable. Coming to the more important factor, he referred to the pressure of social economic developments throughout the world. It was possible for agitators to inflame a multitude, but he did not think he could accept any proposal which had as its objective that risings could be developed merely by agitators. The movement they had seen in South Africa was only a part of a much wider movement—a world movement on the part of the workers. It might have local peculiarities, it might have local causes, but he did think that students of politics should realise that it was not a local movement. (Hear, hear.) He believed that the movement was a phase of the awakening of the proletariat, and of an appreciation of the conditions under which it Laboured. He had not socialistic leanings, but he had a great appreciation for the work Socialists had done in drawing attention to the conditions under which working-men lived. His only object in going as far as he had on that matter was that the hon. gentleman opposite had not shown the slightest apprehension of the movement, but had suggested that the only remedy was a policy of reprisals. He hoped they would not be led away to introduce legislation of the drastic nature which had been foreshadowed; nothing was so calculated to create a repetition of that movement than a policy of reprisals. (Labour cheers.)

Coming to the question of the proclamation of Martial Law and the deportations, the hon. member said he was one of those who believed that the preaching of a general strike was a criminal act not only against society but against the working-men and labouring classes themselves. Nothing was more dangerous or more reprehensible than to try and improve the conditions of working-men by means of a general strike. On all hands, whether that movement was to be regarded as a conspiracy or as a Syndicalist movement, on all hands, even by the hon. members of the cross-benches, it would be admitted that there was unquestionably a systematic attempt on the part of those men who had been deported to bring about a general strike in South Africa. What happened as a result of their efforts was common knowledge; the events that took place justified the proclamation of Martial Law, but there was a certain amount of inconsistency on the part of certain hon. members of that House. They accepted certain acts as justifying the proclamation of Martial Law, but not as justifying the deportations. There was the evidence of the Commission, the evidence of those who had personally heard the speeches of the deported men and the newspaper reports. How then could hon. members accept that evidence as justification for Martial Law and reject it as not justifying the Government in regard to the deportations? Probably there were certain acts which by reason of their notoriety would be accepted in Courts of law without any special proof. Those hon. members who had been clamouring for legal proof in order to justify deportation were accepting, the evidence of the report of the Commission and the newspaper reports as being literally true for the purpose of Martial Law only. He was prepared to go the whole hog, and would accept the facts as established. He accepted the evidence of the Commission’s report that the acts of those men were publicly notorious. He was satisfied that the deported men did incite to violence and over and above that they urged the general strike. For the latter offence alone the deportations were justified. He understood that if once those hon. members were satisfied that what was alleged against these men were facts, their difficulty would be removed in regard to the deportations, that was to say, all that hon. members were asking for was that these men should have a trial. If it could be proved, he understood, that these men were guilty of the offences laid at their door, then the hon. members would agree that they should be deported. Well, he thought that the proof should be sufficient for that House, for those men had been tried practically by that Commission. They had got the report of the Commission and had got their evidence. They had the reports in the newspapers, which had been accepted and used by hon. members on both sides of the House when it suited their purpose, and they had the testimony of men who had heard some of the speeches.

In his opinion, then, the only questions he had to ask himself were, is the punishment of deportation too severe for the offences that had been committed? Secondly, had they sufficient evidence that all those men were equally guilty of the offences laid at their door. So far as punishment was concerned, when he looked, back at the punishment meted out to men from time immemorial who had taken such part in social reform he could not honestly think that deportation was too severe a punishment for these men, having regard to the enormity of their offences. But he did feel uncomfortable on the matter of the degree of guilt of each individual. But he remembered that all those who took part in a conspiracy were liable to be judged as one man, and all those deported were implicated in agitating for a general strike. He would suggest that when the House went into committee discretion should be given to the Governor-General-in-Council to take into consideration the petition of any of those men. He would move as an amendment that discretion should be given to the Governor-General to allow these men to return after such a lapse of time as seemed fit or upon such terms as may seem fit, and give them an opportunity of presenting their case to be re-admitted to the country.

Business was resumed at 8 p.m.

Resuming the debate on the Indemnity and Undesirables Special Deportation Bill,

It was absolutely inconceivable that Parliament should proceed to do what it was going to do. With regard to the precedents brought forward by the Minister of Justice in the Sigkhoma case, the High Commissioner acted entirely within his powers, and his action was absolutely legal under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act. Then there was the Egyptian precedent. (Laughter.) He thought these precedents were very unfortunate, and there was no precedent to be found in a British colony or dominion under Responsible Government having deported a man. (Opposition cheers.) They who objected to these deportations were generally triumphantly met with the question: “Would you take the responsibility of bringing these men back?” He objected most strongly to having that question put to him at all—(Ministerial laughter)—as he had not been responsible for sending these people away. (Opposition cheers.) It was astonishing that Government, having done an illegal act, should now say to the House, “You have to agree with us, because you have no alternative.” That was a perfectly monstrous attitude to take up. But people were not going to be deterred from disapproving of the wrong done by the Government by the dilemma in which the Government had cleverly put them. Then there was this extraordinary fact, none of the people who have been deported had been born in South Africa. The people who had been born in South Africa were going to get off scot free. It was going to be known throughout the world that one could do anything one liked here, so long as one was born in South Africa.

Continuing, Mr. Wyndham said he considered it was contrary to all the lessons of history that we should meet a revolution by a counter-revolution. The whole of the success which had attended the British Empire had been due to the fact that, as a general rule, it had avoided extremes, and the result was that it carried out reforms gradually without any loss of life. In South Africa, however, we had now started on a new system—the Labour Party had gone to one extreme and we had gone to the other. Government should have met the extreme of the Labour Party by adopting a constitutional course. (Cheers.) The Government should have shown that the constitutional system was capable of coping with the trouble, especially when it was backed by 90 per cent, of the people. Unfortunately the whole tendency of the Government was to become more and more autocratic. The result was that the more autocratic it became, the more it took action without consulting the true democracy, the more it failed to consult Parliament, the more they would see Syndicalism grow. (Hear, hear.)

In conclusion, Mr. Wyndham said that they who objected to the deportations were on the horns of a dilemna. They approved of the declaration of Martial Law, but they objected to deporting people without trial and banishing them for life. He did not admit that the evidence was sufficiently strong to prove that this action was necessary. By voting against deportation hon. members voted against the Bill; by voting for the Bill they had to vote for deportation. (Hear, hear.) That being so, his vote was going against the second reading.

The greatest enemies of white labour in this country were the hon. gentlemen on the cross-benches. The best friend of the working-man was the good employer. They were always preaching about the liberty and freedom and right to work. They wanted so much liberty and freedom and licence themselves that they could not spare any for others who did not see eye to eye with themselves. They boasted that they would die for liberty of speech, but they would crush an anti-Syndicahst who desired freedom of action. They were so keen on the rights of minority, especially when they were in the minority themselves, that they invoked all the enactments for the preservation of individual liberty and the rights of minorities for the last seven hundred years, from Magna Charta down-wards The genuine lover of liberty and freedom did not desire it for himself and his followers only; he desired it for all men—(hear, hear)—but those gentlemen who sat on the cross-benches only desired it for themselves and those who agreed with their ideals. When he heard them talk of liberty and freedom, he thought it was arrant humbug, and to him it was nauseating hypocrisy. (Hear, hear.) The worst feature of this business was the endeavour to coerce the natives to go on strike. Now, a lot of damage was done in Johannesburg during July. What did the leaders of the strike say? They could not control the hooligans. Very good. Supposing one hundred thousand natives had hung upon the fringe of the hooligans and they had been let loose on Johannesburg, what would the hooligans have said? They would have said the same as the strike leaders said about them—they could not control the natives. It was only those who had had experience in Kafir wars who had any idea of what these natives could be guilty of when their blood was up. He had seen women and children butchered, outraged and mutilated. The same thing would have happened in Johannesburg if the strikers had succeeded in coercing the natives into coming out. These savages would not have discriminated between the wives and families of mine-owners, directors, staff and miners. The most diabolical feature of the whole of this movement was the attempt to secure the co-operation of the natives, invoking the aid of the knobkerrie and the assegai. He thought that no white man in this country would have been so low as to seek the assistance of savages in a matter of this kind. (Hear, hear.)

During July, Syndicalism got the upper hand in Johannesburg. The result was terrible. There was loss of life, and fires, and the Fire Brigade were not allowed to play upon these fires. On page 38 of the Report of the Disturbances Commission, it was stated: “Mr. Podesta, the third officer of the Fire Brigade, on instructions from Mr. Hinde, proceeded to the ‘Star Office in charge of three machines. The crowd stoned him and attacked his men and as he was unable to work under those conditions he went back to the Fire Station… Just after the fire engine had been sent off Captain Leighton and a squadron of Dragoons came up to the ‘Star’ offices. They found that one of the firemen was being attacked, by the crowd and severely kicked. He galloped up. The crowd ran away and left the fireman.” When people set fire to a house and prevented the firemen from playing upon the flames, he, as an ordinary commonsense man, came to the conclusion that they intended to set fire to the whole town. Then they had the speech of Mr. Mason. He thought that of all the violent men sent to England Mr. Mason was the worst. The Minister of Finance had read an account of a speech given by Mr. Mason, in which he said that he had to stand his trial to-morrow for inciting the men to strike, and he would repeat what he had said then, that no scab had a right to live as long as there was a rope long enough to hang him and a pool deep enough to drown his carcase. The hon. members on the cross-benches said, when this was mentioned, that it was not true.

To his mind the statement was a direct incitement to murder. This speech was not reported in “The Leader,” in the “Star,” or in the “Rand Daily Mail.” The report of this speech was in the “Strike Herald.” Surely hon. members could understand why it was not proved to the satisfaction of the magistrate. The man who reported this speech was engaged by the “Strike Herald” as a reporter. If he had gone into court and sworn that the report of that speech was correct he would not have been called a “scab,” but he would have been called a “scab” with an adjective. That was the reason why these utterances were not proved to the satisfaction of the magistrate. During January the Government controlled the situation and nobody was hurt, not even a “scab.” Syndicalism in this country had got ahead, a start of the law. If it had been allowed to run its full course, Johannesburg would have been devastated, and if a general strike had taken place, the doings of July would have been repeated in many large towns of the Union. The Government were bound to act promptly, and the country owed them a deep gratitude for the action they took in a great national emergency. It had been said that before deporting these men the Government should have come down to this House. He felt instinctively that the Government had taken the right course, and he was not going to pore over law books and records of Parliament for the last two or three centuries to find authority. The Government acted on the principle “salis populi suprema lex.” They had completed a great task and they deserved well of the country. The vast majority of the people in this country would approve of the action of the Government, and he was convinced that an overwhelming majority of members in this House would pass the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. (Cheers.)

Continuing, he said there was no necessity for the Government declaring Martial Law in any other part of South Africa except along the Reef. Certainly no declaration was needed in Natal or the Orange Free State. It would have been different if the Government had come to that House with a promise of a Commission to investigate the working of Martial Law, and he pointed out that the Minister of Mines and the Minister of Agriculture, when they spoke on the question in the Cape Parliament in 1902, took a different view from that which they adopted at present. If there had been only this declaration of Martial Law and the promise of a Commission to go into the working of that law, he would not have felt compelled to vote against the second reading of the Bill. When it was coupled with this and other vicious principles, and no promise of an inquiry, then he felt free to vote against the whole Bill He quoted from a speech made by the late Minister of Railways in the Cape Parliament when Martial Law was under debate, and said he thought that if Mr. Sauer had been alive he would not have seen eye to eye with the Government in this matter. He pointed out that the Minister of Mines in the debate then said he thought that they should try to redress grievances, and not create fresh ones. Of course, the Minister was the under dog then, and it was wonderful how sympathetic the under dog could be. Then the present Minister of Agriculture, in that debate said that if they wanted to pacify the country they needed an impartial inquiry into Martial Law. He also said that if anybody had a grievance it should be investigated. Continuing, Mr. Alexander said he felt sure that in his heart of hearts the Minister of Agriculture agreed with what he said in 1902, but he had now come under the rule of the Oriental despot sitting in front of him. (Laughter.) He only wished that the Ministers he had mentioned would deliver similar speeches on the present occasion. He considered that Martial Law had been kept in operation far too long, and he thought the Minister must admit that he did not spend any sleepless nights now on account of the great conspiracy. He would say that the Minister’s able and brilliant speech disappointed him so far as the deportation question was concerned.

The Minister of Defence had shown his utter contempt of the law and constituted authority. If the House condoned this contempt of ordinary judicial procedure, then one of the greatest securities on which the freedom of the people rested had gone. The Minister’s implication was that in certain matters the courts could not be trusted. A more serious blow was never delivered at the prestige of the courts and juries than that dealt in the speech by the Minister of Defence. Unfortunately this was not an isolated instance. In fact the Minister seemed to have an absolute contempt for anything but the Executive Government. He had persuaded this House to give him powers which had brought the country into nothing else than a state of bureaucracy. (Opposition cheers.) Now the Minister had gone a step further. But Parliament was considerably to be blamed for the present state of mind of the Minister, for Parliament had heaped powers upon him. His (Mr. Alexander’s) honoured leader had brought Oliver Cromwell into the matter. (Laughter.) That was exactly the position the Minister of Defence was playing for—to become the Oliver Cromwell of South Africa. They knew how Cromwell came into the Long Parliament with forty musketeers, and told them to “take away that bauble,” but the Minister would call in forty trusted burghers— (laughter)—for he showed an absolute contempt for Parliament. No doubt the Minister did this on the authority of the Cabinet. However, the voice might be the voice of the Cabinet, but the hand was that of the Minister of Defence. (Laughter.)

This hand had dealt a blow at Parliamentary institutions in South Africa, from which they would never recover if Government were given carte blanche. When the disturbances were over, the ringleaders were under lock and key and members were proceeding to Cape Town for the opening of Parliament, the deported men were smuggled out of the country at dead of night without any trial. A greater contempt of Parliament was never shown. What was the good of people electing their representatives to come to this House if Government was going to treat it with such absolute contempt? If the members submitted to this, then it would not be the Minister’s fault if irregularities took place in the future. If this did not shock Parliament’s equanimity nothing would ever do so. Quotations had been given from Burke. He (Mr. Alexander) would give another. Burke, referring to a suggestion that men charged with high treason should be brought from America to be tried in England under an Act of Parliament, wrote: “To try a man under that Act is to condemn the man unheard… Such a person may be executed according to form, but never tried according to Justice.” The Minister of Defence told the House to act in the heat of passion.

The hon. member went on to say that he had never listened to anything with greater pain than the contemptuous references of the Minister to an old Roman-Dutch authority, Mattheus. He thought it would be a bad day for this country when Ministers of the Crown got up and made speeches like that in regard, not to irresponsible persons, but to writers upon whose views our judicial system was based. What was the use of coming to this House and pretending that they had not got enough authority under our common law to deal with any rising of this kind? He thought it was a very unfair thing for the administration of justice in this country, when the Government wanted to take highhanded proceedings, to come to this House and say that the ordinary law was not sufficient. The ordinary law was perfectly adequate to deal with this case. The Minister might search high and low, but he would find no precedent in any country where Parliamentary government was in force for the high-handed proceedings which had taken place. The Cole case had been quoted, but the Minister must see how little that applied to the present situation. He submitted that the Government had set in this matter a most vicious example to South Africa, and that in future days this would always be looked upon as a precedent and by none more so than by the thousands of people who came and sought the hospitality of these shores. It was a strange thing indeed that a Government which had behind it the historic precedent of the flocking of the Huguenots to this country should lay down in an Act of Parliament that freedom for the future was only for the South African born. (Hear, hear, and cries of “Oh.”) There was no other interpretation that could be drawn by the thousands and thousands of misguided persons who had sought naturalisation in this country, and had been told that naturalisation conferred upon them the same rights as those who wore born here enjoyed. When they looked at this Bill and found it stated that: “Whereas none of the said scheduled persons were born in any part of (South Africa which has been included in the Union,” they must conclude that it was a new version of the old doctrine that the Afrikander (meaning a small section of the nation) should be the baas in South Africa. (Cries of “No.”1 There could be no other interpretation of this, otherwise why put it in the Bill? If it were right to deport a man because he was a danger to the safety of the State if he were not born here, was it less right to do so if he were born here? What difference was there in moral or legal principle if a man was born here? During his speech the Prime Minister had given an amusing illustration of the general error of the Government on that matter when he said, and he could not have had the rest of the Ministers with him, that the deported men were put on a ship that just happened to be going to England. Apparently if the ship had been going to France no doubt the men would have been sent there. The Government never considered the possibility of a friendly nation refusing to take any human beings whom they cared to send. Supposing France or Germany or South America refused to take people which the Government sent there, were they going to spend their lives on the ocean wave, or was the Government going to use force of arms? It was a pure declaration that there was going to be a future distinction in the case of those not South African born. He hoped the people resident in this country would ponder well before they gave their votes, and he hoped hon. members would consider well when they were asked to pass the second reading of that Bill. No doubt the Goddess of Liberty had been deposed from her high pedestal, but she would once more attain that honoured position which she should ever occupy in the hearts and minds of a great people.

Well he submitted that if other evidence had been found in other quarters it was up to the Minister to produce it to the House. The Minister went on: “Because it established beyond doubt they had to deal with a criminal conspiracy against society of a dangerous and disastrous character, and it was only by taking drastic measures that the Government could hope to effectively deal with the situation.” They had the Minister of Defence getting up and saying this and the Minister of Mines coming along and saying that it was not a conspiracy at all. Then the right hon. the member for Victoria West got up and said that the Minister had not adduced sufficient evidence to hang a cat upon to prove his conspiracy bogie. The conspiracy seemed to consist of embroidered fabrications a few extracts from the newspapers, suggestions and innuendoes and police records which had not been produced in that House. The sentiments which had been loyally applauded by a certain section of the House were made by speakers who had urged and spoken in the direction of bringing further legislation for doing something drastic which would prevent a man refusing to sell his labour if he preferred to withdraw his labour from the labour market in other words, which was going to prevent small or big strikes in the future. Those sentiments had been cheered to the echo time and again, and the adoption of that policy would be a very bad augury for the future peace of this country if that was the way in which the House was going to legislate.

The Prime Minister said he had no objection to strikes, but all the men must not strike together. He wanted the workmen to strike one at a time and give a fortnight’s notice before doing so—(Labour laughter)— on the instalment system. The whole stock-in-trade of the labouring classes was their power to sell their labour exactly the same as other people sold butter or cheese and there was no power and no law to stop any man from refusing to sell his labour at his own price if he wanted to. Hear, hear.) It seemed to him from the tone of the speeches delivered in the House that every step was going to be taken to prevent a man stopping work if he chose. (Hear, hear.) What people had to recognise was that the whole of our national industrial life was being built up in the main on native labour. In the past these men had been living in a state of semi-barbarism, but they had been induced to come into our labour market and they had come into contact with our civilisation, because while employers desired to make a profit out of them. The longer they stayed in our industrial life the greater their wants would become, and the larger their demands would be. He did not care whether it was white,’ yellow or black labour if they were given opportunities of learning, then sooner or later they would revolt against oppression in any form “whatever. If they intended to build up their industrial life on native labour then they must expect the native to follow in the footsteps of labour throughout the world, to withdraw their labour when they considered the terms on which they were working were not suitable. If they deported every white man from South Africa he guaranteed that the natives would be on strike in ten years time for a greater share of the wealth they were producing. (Hear, hear.)

Perhaps the most alarming and at the same time the most pathetic feature of this discussion had been the views expressed by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence and other speakers that once and for all they had killed the labour movement in South Africa. He (Mr. Boydell) could not conceive it possible that any man who had read or travelled at all thinking he was going to crush a movement like this, which to many thousands of people was almost a religion. They would not be able to crush it with a bayonet, although they might send nine men away. The Minister of Railways had said that it was impossible for the Government to demobilise 70,000 soldiers whilst certain nine men remained in the country. (Labour cheers.) He (Mr. Boydell) did not think it was possible for any responsible Minister in any Government in any part of the world to make such a preposterous and absurd statement. If this policy of deporting strike leaders was going to be extended, probably other countries would follow our example. The position then would be that if undesirables were sent here from Canada. Australia, or England, the Minister would give instructions for these men not to be allowed to land. Then all the undesirables would be roaming the high seas on a Flying Dutchman, or as the lion, member for Jeppe had observed, flying the red flag. Proceeding, he said he would like to refer to the dispute at the New Kleinfontein Mine, which gave rise to the upheaval in July last. On page 16 of their report the Judicial Commission said: “It would seem that neither the Kleinfontein Co., nor the industry, nor the Government realised during the early part of the strike the fact that unless it were brought to an end speedily it would spread throughout the mines of the Witwatersrand.” A reference to the speeches made by his hon. friend the member for George Town (Mr. Andrews) in the House in June last would show that every effort was made by the members on the cross-benches to get the House to take steps to prevent this dispute from spreading, so that the judges were quite wrong when they said that the Government did not know that it was going to assume such alarming proportions, in view of the warning which had been so clearly given by the hon. member for George Town. At that time, however, the House was much more concerned as to whether Cape dop or wine brandy should pay 9s. or 5s. excise duty on going into the Transvaal or other centres of the Union. Mr. Boydell quoted from speeches given to the hon. member for George Town on June 3 and June 11. If, he asked, there had been any conspiracy at all, was it likely that it would be blurted out in that House by the hon. member for George Town? That evidence would prove, at any rate, that it was not for the want of being told, it was not for the want of a warning, which, the judicial report said, the mine-owners or the Government never had As a matter of fact, they ignored it, and they all knew the unfortunate consequences. Another point which the Minister of Mines skimmed over very slightly—while he was reminded of the hon. Minister of Mines, he would like to mention that, if they were to take the Minister’s speech in that House on those very important happenings during the last six months as any criterion of his ability to fulfil the position and handle such momentous issues, it is no wonder that the strike spread, and that they had the catastrophe which they did have in this country. The hon. Minister made a most lamentable display. He showed he was not in touch with the affairs of his own department, and (said Mr. Boydell) I do not think he even grasps now the seriousness of the whole situation. In the first place (continued the speaker), he said there was no dispute within the meaning of the Act, because only six men were affected, and consequently, if more men came out, he could not have had the leaders arrested, because the dispute had started, as it were, outside the scope of the Industrial Disputes Act. But when the Kleinfontein Mine management began to introduce “strike breakers,” then it was time for the Kleinfontein strikers to take steps to bring out the men from the other mines. Now, immediately steps were taken by the strikers to bring out men on the Van Ryn Mine, on the 19th June, what happened? The leaders were arrested, and no meetings were allowed to be held which consisted of more than six people, but if the Minister of Defence was justified in arresting the men on the 19th June, because they went to the Van Ryn Mine, then they were equally justified in arresting them when the strike started on the Kleinfontein Mine, for the simple reason that right from the first the strike consisted of a dispute between the Kleinfontein men and the Chamber of Mines, which of course included the Van Ryn Mine.

It developed into a dispute between the Transvaal Miners’ Association and the Chamber of Mines, and the way that the Government showed their impartiality was in taking the first step they could to have the leaders of the men arrested, long before any violence was committed, because the men were brought out on the Van Ryn Mine. There were no serious incidents nor outrages before the 19th June. Immediately under the protection of the Government and their officials, the Kleinfontein management started introducing strike breakers, these men, who were to get so much protection in the future, and immediately they started introducing strike breakers, as the Judicial Commission pointed out, there was bound to be trouble. The trouble then consisted in trying to prevent strike breakers from going in to fill the vacancies. Hon. members seemed to forget that a man who went in to fill a vacancy which had been made vacant by someone leaving his work in order to make better conditions for himself and his wife and children, a man who deliberately went in and did that work might just as well go into a man’s house and take his furniture. (Labour cheers.) No wonder the people concerned do get a little bitter when strike-breakers are encouraged and introduced to prevent the strike The Prime Minister would say that every man should be allowed to work who wanted to do so, but that was a very dangerous doctrine for him to put forth. On the 1st March last year, when they asked the Minister of Railways the question. “How many men in the country were applying for work that could not get work,” the reply was over 8,000. Had the Prime Minister any consideration for those free men who were looking for work ? “No.” But let those men offer their services during the time of an industrial dispute, and 70,000 soldiers would be called out to protect them going in to fill the vacancies of the men who were trying to better the conditions for themselves and their wives and families. He would like to come to this point. None regretted the unfortunate incidents which had occurred in July more than the hon. members on the cross-benches. That statement had been made many times. No one regretted certain unfortunate incidents which took place during those upheavals. They were blamed for everything that went on. He saw from the morning papers that there had been a strike in Australia, and they actually had a riot, where many people were injured. He had been expecting all day someone getting up in that House and attributing the riot in Sydney (Australia) to hon. members on the cross-benches. But neither Poutsma nor Bain even had had time to reach Australia. He would point out to the Prime Minister that these things were not singular to South Africa, and it was no use his deporting nine men in order not to have such things again.

He wanted to refer to the Benoni meeting, as the Minister of Defence had made a great deal of capital out of that tremendous meeting which was hold at Benoni for the direct purpose, according to what he had said, and according to the judicial report, not to claim the right of speech or to air their grievances, but boldly to attack the Kleinfontein Mine. Anything more preposterous he had never heard, and it had been proved by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Madeley) that it was a preposterous assertion for any body of judges to make, or any Minister to make in that house. If nine thousand or ten thousand men had been invited to come armed to that meeting on the Market-square for the purpose of attacking the Kleinfontein Mine, did they mean do say that two hundred or three hundred mounted police were going to stop these nine thousand men ? It was an impossible proposition. If that meeting had been called for the purpose of attacking the Kleinfontein Mine, that mine would have been attacked despite the two hundred or three hundred police. The reason they had gone to the mine was because the Kleinfontein Mine resembled something like a fortress; these men had come from the other end of the Witwatersrand and had a natural curiosity to see all those wonderful defences at the Kleinfontein Mine, and it was quite possible that if he (Mr. Boydell) had been at Benoni that day he would have said that he would go and see the defences of the Kleinfontein Mine of which they had heard so much. Let him just read out what His Excellency the Governor-General had to say on the subject of the holding of this-meeting in his dispatch, which had been sent on July 5 to the Imperial Government. His Excellency’s dispatch stated: “Under all the circumstances the Government were probably well advised in permitting the demonstration, as it is not improbable that the exasperation resulting from active opposition would lead to bloodshed.” No more true prophecy had been made, because he (Mr. Boydell) was convinced that had there been active opposition there would have been bloodshed. He would like to read a portion of a letter which His Excellency the Governor-General had sent to the Minister of Defence, and which he had embodied in his dispatch to the Imperial Government: “As the troops were on the spot I felt bound to accede to the request of the Government. But from the first I have plainly said to the Minister that the troops should be used for the defence of mine and other property, and that every effort should be made to avoid any actual collision with strikers. The troops have been placed under the direction of the Magistrate of Boksburg, to whom instructions have been given to avoid all provocation and risk of collision with the strikers, and to confine the troops to guarding mine property and only to use force as a last resort when an organised attack is made on the mines.” Proceeding, the hon. member said that His Excellency the Governor-General had experience of industrial warfare in the Homeland, but hon. members on that side of the House had not that experience of handling large crowds of men, and he did not think there was any member of the Ministry who was really qualified to deal with the matter as it should be dealt with to prevent trouble. But although these instructions had been given by one who knew from experience what would happen if the troops were brought in conflict with the strikers, they found that on July 4 the troops were used.

On the following day a meeting was to be held on the Market-square, Johannesburg. The Minister of Defence tried to make out that this was part of the conspiracy, and they did not give the Government any chance at all. In the “Daily Mail ” of that morning there was an advertisement that the meeting was to be held. The meeting was timed for 2 o’clock, and at 5 o’clock, when the mounted police and Dragoons were charging wildly about the Square, smashing people’s heads, the servants of the Government were posting up notices that the meeting was not to be allowed. Could anything be more ridiculous or wicked. The Judicial Commission, on page 53, reported that Mr. Buckle and Colonel Truter came to the conclusion that the exhibition of military on the Square would probably be a greater deterrent to violence. It was the very thing to incite the people to violence. (Labour cheers.) They could get that experience from any part of the world. Strange to say, the Minister of Defence, the Prime Minister, and most of the members who had spoken during this debate had not dealt with this the most important event in the whole of the trouble. (Hear, hear.) They had skated over this. Evidently it was of no importance, although it was responsible for a great deal of that which followed. ’

The point he wanted to make was this, that the cause of all the trouble on that day, the cause of the burning of the “Star” Office and Park Station and everything which followed that, even at Benoni and at Boksburg, was the brutal way in which the police and military authorities used force to disperse that meeting. That was very clearly shown from the evidence of several witnesses who appeared before the Commission. Their statements were clear proof that it was only after the crowd had been charged by the mounted police and soldiers that showers of stones were hurled. One of the witnesses stated that he thought the action of the police had an extremely bad effect on the public generally. He (Mr. Boydell) contended that any crowd in any part of the world, if it had been treated as that crowd was, would have retaliated in exactly the same way. The Government themselves caused the hooliganism and infuriated the people on that day, and it seemed to him that the breaking up of the meeting on Market Square was a deliberate, organised massacre on their part. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member said that at this point the Bain-Botha Treaty was signed. He was not one of those who agreed with the hon. member for Barberton when he said the Bain-Botha Treaty was unnecessary, because the military authorities could have put down the trouble. If the Bain-Botha Treaty had not been signed thousands of people were so infuriated at the action of the military that during that night there would have been a good deal of Johannesburg tumbling to the ground. People who had scorned the idea before and who were on the square at the time, peace-loving citizens, but who were prepared to stand up for constitutional Tights, had said to him (Mr. Boydell) that if they had had a revolver that day they could not have resisted shooting. Owing to the brutal attacks made by the soldiers and police. Those were business people, quite outside the strikers, who had made those remarks. Well, that truce was declared not with the mine management, who were the cause of the trouble. They were some three or four miles out. It was left to the leaders of the men—Tom Matthews and others—to go into the street and run the risk of being shot, till the crowd had dispersed. Certain concessions were made by the Minister of Defence and the Prime Minister in order to prevent any further trouble that night. The truce was declared, but in what sort of a spirit was it carried out? When that truce was signed the men were under the impression that the Government were determined to play the game, but the Government only used it as an opportunity to put their house in order, as they called it. They mobilised more troops on the Rand. The same day their reply to the men’s demands was issued it appeared in the columns of the newspapers that they had got, he thought, 10,000 armed men ready to meet the strikers next time they came along. Such methods naturally led to further trouble, and the workers, rightly thinking that they had been fooled by the Government, took steps to bring about greater cohesion between the forces of the workers right throughout the country. They got into touch with the railway workers organisation and the Federation and the Railway Society then worked together. The hon. member was proceeding to quote from a publication, which, in reply to Mr. Speaker, he said, was entitled “The Syndicalist Conspiracy in South Africa.”

The Minister of Defence had made a statement against a man he would not have dared to have made outside the House, had the man been in this country. He libelled Mr. Poutsma, but he took jolly good care that Mr. Poutsma was speeding away, and had no opportunity to defend himself. A more contemptible thing he (Mr. Boydell) had never listened to. The Minister of Defence said, “We had a record of Mr. Poutsma from Holland, where he had been an undesirable and had been imprisoned several times for violence and inciting to violence. The Minister of Defence might at least in fairness to the man he was condemning, slandering and blackguarding like this, have given members the real facts of the case, which must have been in his possession. Mr. Poutsma had been in gaol in Holland about 20 years ago because at that time there was a large number of unemployed. The municipality offered employment to them at 4d. per day for breaking stones. Mr. Poutsma told him (Mr. Boydell) on the. Durban Beach a few months ago that he said to the crowd, “Well, I should have felt inclined to take the stones they told me to break and throw them at the heads of the municipality.” That was the wicked crime, but never once was Mr. Poutsma guilty of any act of violence, and only this once was he found guilty of inciting to violence. He went to gaol not many times but once. He was sentenced to 18 months for this offence. At the end of the first month he was offered his discharge if he would withdraw the words he had used, but he said, “No, I am convinced that any municipality that offered 4d. a day to men to break stones deserved every word I levelled against it.” He was kept in prison for nine months, and then let out owing to a breakdown of his health. That was the record of this sinister Mr. Poutsma. Mr. Poutsma was not an undesirable when he came here on an errand of mercy and helped the Government side during the late Boer War. (Hear, hear.) He only became undesirable when he took up the case of the poor against the rich, the down-trodden, the oppressed, the railway workers; he then immediately became a very sinister figure. The Minister of Defence might have heard that he was going to contest the seat in Parliament that the Minister himself held, and that was probably the reason why Mr. Poutsma at once became a political undesirable and one who had to be got out of the road.

Mr. Poutsma was not a conspirator going about the country organising the general strike. When he went to Johannesburg he went to try and prevent a general strike, but the Government was responsible directly for the general strike, because they had in two telegrams the cause and effect of that strike. The cause was when Messrs. Poutsma, Nield, and other leading officials of the Railway Society were arrested that night for sedition, although there had been no violence. That was on January 9. On January 10 the Federation replied protesting against the arrest of the representatives of the workers and calling for their immediate release, failing which they said they would recommend to the General Council on the following day that a general strike should be declared forthwith. As to Martial Law, Martial Law was declared, not to maintain order, but simply for the purpose of crushing and killing the strike. The regulations framed under Martial Law were not the ordinary regulations which were issued in such circumstances, but were designed to crush the cause of the workers at every possible stage. He pointed out that Martial Law was declared in Natal, where there was not even a cat fight and certainly no signs of violence. At the most there were never more than a thousand men on strike in Natal during January. In 1909, when the hon. member for Victoria County was Mayor of Durban, they had a strike in Natal on the piece-work question. At that time there were about 3,000 men on strike, but no steps were taken to declare Martial Law, and everything was quite orderly. He would like to have quoted from the speech of the Minister of Defence to have proved that. On the 11th June, the Minister of Defence said, was the most critical period of the whole crisis. He was referring to the speech of the hon. member for Smithfield, who he said was showing his patriotism at the most critical period of the whole crisis. Why did the hon. Minister consider it the most critical period. It was, so he said in his speech, because men at Bloemfontein and at Durban had come out on strike, and a portion of the men at Salt River had come out that day. He did not consider it was the most critical because there was any violence, it was simply because more men had come out on strike.

Proceeding, the hon. member said he had two or three notes which he wanted to read to prove that Martial Law was not proclaimed in good faith. The Government were asking to be indemnified because Martial Law was proclaimed in good faith in order to maintain law and order. But men were arrested without any charge whatever being preferred against them, men who had committed no crime. Why was that done? Why were telegrams stooped except those that suited the purpose of the Government? Why were the offices of the Trades Unions raided and their books confiscated? Was that to maintain law and order? No it was to crush the strike. Even the headquarters of the S.A. Labour Party were raided, although the party had nothing to do directly with this strike. He supposed the Government thought they would get some evidence to prove that there was that wonderful conspiracy which only existed as a matter of fact in the imagination of the Minister of Defence.

Why did not the hon. member bring out some evidence in support of his contention? Did he suppose he could treat political undesirables like that. He (Mr. Boydell) suggested the Chinese method was a better one. It was only a few weeks ago that the Chinese Government put into prison every member of the Opposition, because they were impeding the progress of the country. He did not think the Opposition in that House could be accused of a similar charge, because they did nothing either for the good or bad of the country. They might as well not be there at all.

The railway strike would never have happened unless the men had been suffering from grievances which had been accumulating for a good long time. If Parliament had taken a quarter of the interest in the workers that it had done in pedigree stock, tick fever, and such things, then this crisis would never have happened at all. If these grievances were not redressed there would be a recurrence of trouble until the country got to the root cause and dealt with the cause instead of the effect. The hon. member maintained that public servants had a perfect right to go on strike, and denied that they should be regarded as soldiers or sailors in this regard. The trouble had not aroused racial feeling amongst the workers, but through the blood of those men who were killed on July 4 it had cemented the Dutch workers and the British workers. It had also cemented the Dutch and British capitalists, and racialism did not enter into the dispute at all. Instead things would go forward on national lines. The workers against their exploiters, the workers demanding a fair share of the wealth they produced. (Cheers.) What we wanted in South Africa was fewer soldiers and generals in our Government and more statesmen. Men who would legislate so as to make South Africa a good country for people to live in instead, of a paradise for blacklegs. (Cheers.)