from farmers and residents in Geduld, Springs, Nigel and Heidelberg, for construction of a railway from Geduld to Springs, and thence to Heidelberg via Nigel.

from J. F. Mason, gaoler, at Middelburg, praying that his services in the Cape Mounted Riflemen and in the Kimberley Police be taken into consideration in the calculation of his pension.

Annual Report Department of Agriculture, 1912-15 (Agricultural Education).

A rule of the Supreme Court published under Government Notice No. 211, February 13, 1914.

Copy of Government Notice No. 247, relating to amendment of certain regulations published under various Government Notices (Transvaal).

who said that in the first place he should like to congratulate the House on the patience which it had exhibited in the course of this discussion, on the wide latitude allowed hon. members in order to discuss every branch, not only of the Bill, but of any subject which remotely touched upon the Bill. It was right that the country should know that they had approached this crisis with calmness, deliberation, with the determination to let every man have his say, to give every possible opportunity to opponents to lay their views before the House, and with the sense of responsibility that they were laying down principles, that they were making history, and that they were creating precedents for future generations in South Africa. They knew that they would be judged by future generations. He only hoped that all of them, while they approached the subject with due seriousness, did it with the determination to do what was right, and that when they came to a decision they would show no weakness, that they would not fail in respect to themselves, or to the country, and that future generations would see that when they were face to face with a crisis they were not afraid to do the right thing. (Hear, hear.) He put it to the House whether the case laid before the House by Ministers justifying the proclamation of Martial Law had been shaken? Had the evidence been shaken? Some attempts had been made to shake that evidence, mainly by hon. members on the cross-benches. Only the hon. member for Greyville and the hon. member for George Town had stated that there had been violence, and had expressed their regret that it had taken place. There had been violence, but there had been more than violence. There was mob rule. They had evidence on that point, and it had not been shaken. The hon. member for Springs had boasted of the fact that the Strike Committee had run the town of Benoni. After that admission surely it was idle for the hon. member to deny the existence of anarchy. Then, if he remembered rightly, the hon. member for Roodepoort had accused the Minister of trying to mislead the House by adding words to the speech which he attributed to Crawford. He (the speaker) would point out that the Minister had quoted chapter and verse from the report. They had all had the report before them, and they could have followed them.

I said that he added the words.

said that the Minister added the words “You who know he use of dynamite,” but that was not misleading the House. He put it to the House that that was a fair interpretation of the speech that had been made by Mr. Crawford.

How did it read in the “Cape Times”?

said that he did not know; he was quoting from the official report. These were taken from shorthand notes which had never been questioned. Continuing, he said that would show the shifts to which hon. members on the cross-benches were put. The hon. member for Jeppe said that all the trouble was due to the irritation of the police, whereas the hon. member for Springs said that it was owing to the fact that there were not police there that they ran the town.

Among other regulations were that men on strike were confined to their houses and were forbidden to be given food or money because they wore on strike. *

That is not evidence in support of the statement. That was admitted to be a blunder and it occurred at Bloemfontein.

On the Reef, too. Men were arrested and confined to their rooms.

said that the statement was made that the proclamation was issued with this intention. He put it to the country that their justification for Martial Law in January was the condition of things in July, the certainty that unless steps were taken that state of things would be repeated in January. If they went on repeating the statement, he hoped that, as public men, they would in some way endeavour to justify it. (Hear, hear.) They had had a good deal of evidence laid before the House in regard to the administration of Martial Law, and he supposed many of them had had letters of complaint as to inconveniences suffered by the public in its administration Of course, wherever they declared Martial Law they put the administration into the hands of inexperienced officials and they were bound to make mistakes. One definition of Martial Law was that it was the price the country paid in order to save itself from something worse. (Hear, hear.) Administrative acts done under Martial Law must be done in good faith. The criticism of Martial Law centred on deportation. This House had to decide whether deportation was necessary in the interests of the State. As usual, they had had the legionaries of the law ranged on each side in this matter and, as usual, the lawyers differed. He put it that, in point of fact, this was not a legal question, but a question of statesmanship and a question of common-sense. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had used the argument that this was an unconstitutional and illegal act, that other unconstitutional and illegal acts had been committed by tyrants in times past when they had always set up this excuse that it was done in the interests of the State, and the hon. member for Smithfield had given them Nero as an example. The whole question was whether in this case deportation was necessary in the interests of the State. In July there was no doubt that the country was profoundly impressed by what occurred, by the disregard of law and order, the defiance of Government, and the violence that took place. They felt that there was no security in the situation, and in his own experience the question was asked everywhere, “Why not send the leaders of this movement out of the country?” (Hear, hear.) Who were the men they had to deal with in January? The same men who had organised the July revolution. They threatened another revolution; indeed they threatened something worse than the previous revolution—(hear, hear)—the same men, the same leaders whose names appeared in the Bill.

interpolated a remark that there was vindictiveness on the part of the employers.

Oh, no, they left of their own accord without any grievances of their own. Proceeding, he said that there was no strike in Port Elizabeth, but some of the men told him that, if the order came down and if it were generally obeyed, it would be a very difficult job for them. Of course, it was a very difficult job for a man to be treated with contempt by his fellow-workers. That was the tremendous engine that was used by this movement of Syndicalism. The first thing they did was to ‘set aside the only protective, and that was the general ballot.

said that he agreed largely with the speeches that had been delivered by the hon. member for Graham’s Town, and the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. He thought that the House acted rightly in allowing the deportees to be represented at the bar by counsel. He listened with interest to the speech, but he thought that if Mr. Smith thought he had got the House to believe that his clients were angels then he was mistaken. He could not pass by lightly the reference by the hon. member for Barberton that the Minister of Railways always held his nose very high in the air. To that hon. gentleman he would just quote two lines of Burns:

“O wad some power the giftie gie us, To see ’oorsels as ’ithers see us.”

They had been told (he continued) by the hon. member for George Town that the breaking up of the meeting on the 4th of July was responsible for the rioting that had taken place. He wished to dissociate himself from that statement. He had seen what went on. He referred hon. members to page 35 of the Commission’s report, which showed that the throwing of stones was a pre-conceived business on the part of the mob. He thought that if the opposition had placed their case before the two judges who sat on the Commission they would have received every consideration. It had been stated that it was an extraordinary thing that the case for the prosecution was based on extracts from the newspapers. What stronger evidence would a jury want than the spoors of the culprits? The hon. member for Jeppe, as usual, when he wanted to get the ear of the House, abused the House. What good would a counsel do in a court of law if he started abusing the jury from the very start? His hon. friend, said that he was proud of his company. He said that Mason was his friend and that it was a pity there were not more George Masons in the country, and he was supported in this statement by the hon. member for Roodepoort. He thought that the time would come when the hon. member for Jeppe would cry “Save me from my friends.” He thought that the country had had its eyes opened, and he was glad to see that the Government had awakened to the situation and used force. He thought that the country was grateful to the Government for what it had done. He had no hesitation in saying that had the treaty not been concluded on the 5th of July, the greater part of Johannesburg would have been razed to the ground. People he spoke to the very next day were glad it was over; but the Government was prepared for the other side when they started operations again in January.

I was not laughing at what you said.

said he had received the following telegram: “Government’s action saved millions of money and thousands of lives. Deportation approved.”

Will the hon. member lay that on the table?

Certainly not.

Will the hon. member for Springs resume his seat?

said it had been asserted there was no conspiracy, but the fires of disorder were breaking out all over the country, and Government knew, the time had arrived to take the bull by the horns. Martial Law was not proclaimed one single moment too soon, and but for it South Africa would have been ablaze front end to end. With regard to the deportations, he would deal with only one of the nine gentlemen concerned; he had had a very bitter experience of this gentleman, but he would not relate it to the House. Mason’s statement, “Send the King, Flag and Country to-Hell,” was seditious language, and he could have been dealt with for saying this. If he had given ten years’ service to the country in building railways and harbours it would have been a good thing, and we could have got rid of him afterwards. If Mason were a fair sample of the other eight he (Mr. Nathan) would leave it to the House to judge whether or not the country was well rid of them. During January there had been 28 dynamite outrages on the railway, but not one of the perpetrators was caught.

They did not occur.

said that, in regard to the question of a trial in a Court of Justice, what he understood the Minister of Defence to say was that, in a Court of Justice there were a lot of legal technicalities which the accused might avail themselves of, and there was also the danger of a long delay in the trial. If the Minister had gone further, and said he believed that, under the jury system as it existed in this country, it would have been impossible to get a conviction, he (Mr. Nathan) would have agreed with him. What did Mrs. Fitzgerald and Crawford say when Ward was convicted? They said, “If Ward is guilty, we are guilty too.” The hon. member read a telegram which he had received from a juryman protesting, as one of the jury, against the insinuations which had been made in this ease, and asking him (Mr. Nathan) to explain to the House that the acquittals were due to lack of evidence, and that, under their oath as jurymen, they could not convict. He went on to say that when he was first made acquainted with the deportation, he, along with many other lawyers, was shocked that a person should be deported without trial. They had often heard it said that the liberty of the subject was supreme. But there was something which was more supreme than that, for regard for the public welfare was the highest law. It was unthinkable that, in ordinary circumstances, under ordinary conditions, a subject could be deported without a trial. It could not be done, and it would not be done and he thought there was no danger whatever of creating what many had called a precedent. In regard to the way in which the ballot was conducted in January last, he pointed out that, according to the Press report, between 35 and 40 shop assistants in Johannesburg were present when the ballot was taken. He supposed that that did not even represent 1 per cent. of the shop assistants in Johannesburg. He had a little fault to find with the Minister of Defence when he spoke of these gentlemen whose names appeared in the schedule to the Bill as appearing in the “Honours List.” He thought that that description should be changed to “Disgrace List.” He was satisfied that very strong cumulative evidence had been laid before the House, showing that these people were a real danger, and a menace to society in general, and in particular to the men whom they stuffed with their bad advice. He was satisfied, and he thought the majority of the people in the country were satisfied, that the Government honestly did their best in the best interests of the country. It was said that this would not stop the agitation. Of course, it wouldn’t stop it, but it would be an example to others. In conclusion, Mr. Nathan said that if the Government were determined to include this banishment clause in their Bill, he would support it; but he was quite prepared, if the Government in their wisdom decided to delete that clause and allow these men to come back and stand their trial, not to quarrel with their decision.

said that the events of July and January were indeed an eye-opener to the whole of South Africa, and they had stirred the people of the backveld as they had seldom been stirred before. Those events gave to South Africa a very good idea of how far the Labour leaders were prepared to go if they only got the opportunity, and enabled the people to realise what a danger Syndicalism was in South Africa. If there was one determination that emerged, it was the determination of all classes of the community to stand by the Government, and assist them in their endeavour to put down this attempt to bring about an industrial revolution. With regard to the statement that a good many burghers had been converted by what they had seen, his belief was that if they were called out again in Johannesburg it would be a very difficult matter indeed for the Government to restrain them. He thought the weakness or unpreparedness of the Government in July was largely responsible for what happened in January. To his mind, it was clear that all the grievances which were afterwards put forward were a mere pretext. These people were determined to try conclusions with the Government. On reading the report of the Judicial Commission, one could come to no other conclusion than that these people were determined to bring about an industrial revolution and paralyse trade and that their object was to bring the Government and people of South Africa to their knees. To his mind it was clear that if the Government in January had not proclaimed Martial Law these people would have attained their object. With the exception of hon. members on the cross-benches, the member for Smithfield, and, he thought, the member for Barberton, he believed that it was common cause in this House that there was every possible justification for Martial Law. It was difficult to ascertain from the hon. member for Smithfield what he was really driving at. He could well understand that the hon. member felt it a very difficult matter now to approve of the action of the Government. Even in Europe they had nothing but praise for the prompt action which the Government had taken.

The hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog) had said that Parliament ought to have been called together sooner and a Commission appointed to go into the grievances under Martial Law. If such a Commission had been appointed, they would have had hundreds of cases coming before them; and would the House have been prepared to compensate all these people for acts incurred under Martial Law? They knew it was impossible to carry out Martial Law without carrying on allegalities. One could not help congratulating the Government on what they had done, and a large measure of praise was due to the Minister of Defence, who showed that during all that time he had kept a cool head, and was able to show that he had organised well. What he (Mr. Wessels) was more concerned with was the lessons to be learnt from the disturbances of July and January. He did not agree with those people who said that the Government had ended Syndicalism in South Africa. “The tortoise had only pulled in its head,” and the Government would be well advised to be on the watch. (Hear, hear.) These people would come forward again, when it was most inconvenient to deal with them. Proceeding, the hon. member said that he had a letter from his constituents that in certain outlying parts the police had been withdrawn during the recent trouble, and no provision had been made by the Government for others to take their place.

It was very undesirable that the whole country should be unpoliced; especially in outlying places, where they had large numbers of natives. (Hear, hear.) He hoped that the Minister would see that in future arrangements were made for special constables to take the place of the police who were withdrawn. He also instanced the inconvenience which had resulted on farms, because burghers had been taken away. He drew attention to the fact that some men were out of pocket, as a result of the expenses which they had had to incur as burghers, and said that that should not be the case. He hoped the Minister would give that matter his earnest consideration.

Touching on the Labour movement, he said that when Labour went as far as it had attempted to do—adopted Syndicalism, tried to paralyse trade in that country, and tried to secure its aims and objects by violence, it was the opinion of the country that legislation must be introduced—and must be introduced that session—to put a stop to it. (Hear, hear.) It was necessary that the rights of labour and employers should be settled that session, even if they had to sit to June and July. He hoped that the machinery would be able to deal with the legitimate grievances of Labour, but the position of the employer had also to be considered. He referred to the losses incurred by property owners in Johannesburg during the July events, and also to the feeling of insecurity, which had led to a loss of trade, and the bankruptcy or several small men, he was informed.

As to the railways, he was not so certain that those of authority were as accessible as they ought to be. What he wanted was this: that machinery should be established by which a channel through which the men could get their grievances redressed should always be open. The men ought to be seriously punished if they went on strike—(hear, hear)—and not only lose their rights and privileges, because the railway was a most important thing for that country. The wages paid on the South African railways compared favourably with those paid on railways in other parts of the world. If legislation was to be introduced, he hoped that the agitator would be seriously dealt with. (Hear, hear.) These agitators lived by manufacturing grievances for these people, and they knew how easily the people were led away. Why should society put up with these agitators? They were no use to the country. As to the “last hurdle where so many of the horses had jibbed,” these deportees deserved all they got, because one and all were agitators, whose sole aim had been to create trouble. Was there anyone in that House who would say that any single one of these agitators was a loss to South Africa? He would have been more pleased if these men had been brought to trial, but the Minister of Defence had been very frank with that House, and stated that the Government had come to the conclusion, after serious consideration, that it was in the best interests of South Africa that these people-should be deported. As to creating martyrs, they created martyrs very easily in the ranks of the Labour Party—(laughter) —and that argument did not weigh much with him at all. The Government, in his opinion, had done so well in January, that he was not prepared to quarrel with them, and when it came to the second reading he would give the Bill his support. (Hear, hear.)

at the outset referred to the speeches which had been delivered in the course of that debate by hon. members who represented Natal constituencies, and said that he thought there was an opinion in Natal, somewhat between the two extremes of the speeches of the hon. member for Durban, Umbilo (Mr. Robinson) and the hon. member for Durban, Greyville (Mr. Boydell). He did not attach much importance to the speeches from the cross-benches. They had been very long, and it seemed to him that there was a sort of insincerity about some of these speeches. He thought hon. members must have been struck by the fact that when things reached the crisis, or particular work had to be done which might involve danger or great responsibility the hon. members on the cross-benches disappeared from the scene for a time. He did not say they did this wittingly, but they were swept aside by stronger men and took a back seat for a time. He went on to refer to the circular issued to the workers by the hon. member for Jeppe, and said that while this was being circulated through the Transvaal, the strike was declared off. He thought they should devote their attention to the speech of the Minister of Defence, which was the Government’s case for the passing of this measure. He did not think that that speech was entirely convincing, but that it betrayed the weakness of the Government's case. If the Government had such a strong case as they had led the House to believe surely the Minister could have stated it to the House in less than 5½ hours. He was not convincing in regard to the proclamation of Martial Law in Natal. Martial Law was necessary along the Reef, but surely it was not necessary in Natal, where they had previously a big railway strike and when the ordinary laws were found quite sufficient. He thought that under the circumstances the Government might have shown more confidence and respect for the people of Natal. He strongly endorsed everything that had been said regarding the loyalty of the men at the Cape, but he would point out at the same time that there were loyal men in other parts of the Union. He pointed out that in Natal men had greater pressure put upon them than was the case at the Cape. He hoped these men in Natal would be remembered when the time came and would receive their just reward. A sad aspect of the matter was the men who were still out of work. These men the Minister had called the dupes of the agitators and he hoped that their cases would be taken into consideration.

said that the hon. member must coniine himself to the Indemnity Bill.

said he was making a reference to a statement in the speech of the Minister of Railways and Harbours.

said that in view of the notice given that afternoon the hon. member could not refer to the matter.

said in regard to the deportations he thought the Government had lost sight of their perspective in the matter. They not only chartered a special boat for the men, but gave their wives passages at the expense of the country, and he thought these men were going to have the time of their lives in England. He did not see why the Government should deal with two classes of people in different ways. He thought that the Minister did not convince the House that deportation was necessary. He thought the strike at the Kleinfontein Mine was the beginning of the whole business. The Government did not handle the thing properly in July and they were far too weak. If they had taken decided action he was of opinion that all the trouble would have been stamped out at the beginning. He did not blame the Government for coming to a treaty on July 5; under the circumstances they could have done nothing else to prevent further bloodshed and destruction of property. But he thought they could be blamed for all that happened up to that time. Then they took the thing in hand properly, and he thought the whole country was satisfied that the Government took proper action in January. He thought the Government was right in calling out the Defence Force and proclaiming Martial Law, but he was not satisfied that the Government was justified in deporting these nine men. Of course, it was an easy way to get rid of trouble by throwing these men out but he thought that the Government should have taken a stronger course and should have dealt with the men in this country If the law was not sufficient, they could have kept these men in gaol under Martial Law until special legislation had been passed. In Natal under Martial Law they sent a signalman to gaol for a year without trial because he simply tampered with the signal. Why could not the same course have been followed in regard to the nine deportees? The evidence in connection with at least one case was not very strong. In one case there was no evidence at all. McKerrell went to Natal in connection with the coal strike, but surely that was not sufficient evidence for deporting him. Then it was said that he had acted in a defiant fashion towards the Secretary for Mines, but the House had only heard one side of the question.

said the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Sir E. H. Walton) had stated that the country wanted a quiet time, but how the hon. member thought that could be obtained by doing something which was wholly illegal and against the practice of a civilised country, was a mystery. There were more hon. members on the Opposition side of the House who were in agreement with the Government on the deportation question than there were on the Ministerial side. (Laughter and cheers.) One thing which had impressed itself on his mind was the baiting of the Labour Party which had been going on in the House. On one occasion the Prime Minister had stated that it was not cricket to do a certain thing. Did the Prime Minister consider this sort of thing cricket—bringing his own forces and that of the Opposition, and kicking a very dead dog for nearly three weeks? Hon. members were asked to arrive at a fair and solemn judgment of the action of the Government in connection with Martial Law and the illegal deportation of citizens. If the Government could justify the Proclamation of Martial Law, he was prepared to vote for any Indemnity Bill which would he fair, but the deportation was another matter entirely. He had heard nothing which justified the deportation of men from their own country without a fair trial, and that portion of the Bill he was not prepared to vote for under any circumstances.

rose to a point of order, and asked if the hon. member could read from a speech which had been made this session.

said he would quote from memory, and, proceeding, said that the Minister in his speech said that a body of nine thousand of natives broke out of the compound at Jagersfontein, and invaded the town. But did the hon. member know that in the first place there were not nine thousand natives there, that was one of the exaggerations—one of the dabs of red paint—as a matter of fact there were only eight thousand. (Hon. Members: Oh, oh.)

Well, proceeded the speaker, if it was only a thousand it was an exaggeration. Hon. members had enjoyed that, the Prime Minister amongst them, but would he enjoy the information that it was an absolute fact that not a single one of those natives ever got out of the compound. (Labour cheers.) That was not quite so humorous, yet the hon. Minister of Defence had said that a body of nine thousand natives from the Jagersfontein Mines had invaded the town. Men were sent down from the Military School at Bloemfontein and the Burgher Force was called out, but when they got there all the trouble had been settled. The Minister of Finance in referring to that little incident of the Jagersfontein rising, said he thought that the warning was a good one. Why? “Because it tightened up the people for the coming struggle.” For what struggle? lo break the law themselves? Was it used to tighten up the people in this country to pass unconstitutional methods?

said the hon. member who had just spoken had expressed surprise at there being so much support for the Bill from the Opposition side of the House. What had surprised him (Mr. Runciman) was that so much opposition to the measure should come from those who were sitting behind the Prime Minister. (Government cheers.) There had been a good deal of talk about a conspiracy, but if there had not been a conspiracy on the Rand it was very evident that there was a conspiracy on the part of a section of the South African Party to wreck the Government. (Ministerial cheers.) The hon. member for Lady brand, in a most flippant manner, had done nothing but abuse the Government, but not one single word did he utter of protest against the acts perpetrated during the riots. (Ministerial cheers.) Everything, he said, was to belittle the Government and pour contempt upon it. It had been stated in the past that the great South African Party was so united that it was impossible to put it down. Where was that party now? (Laughter.) A party led by the hon. members for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman), Smithfield (General Hertzog), Barberton (Mr. Hull), and Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) was, he supposed, after the next general election to take the place of the gentlemen now occupying the Treasury Benches. That accounted for the attitude they had taken up in this debate—(Ministerial cheers)—and their appealing to hon. members to abandon the Government in order that hon. members might help them. (Ministerial cheers.) If there ever was an exhibition for party purposes it was the speeches made by the hon. members he had just referred to.

resuming his speech, said that when the House adjourned he was endeavouring to point out the real cause of the unrest and disturbances which took place in Johannesburg during July of last year. He had stated that, from personal inquiries which he made at the time, this unrest was due in a large measure to the ravages and stress arising out of miners phthisis. The hon. member for Barberton had put it down largely to the differences between the employers and employees, but he (Mr. Runciman) did not attach much importance to that. His opinions regarding this question had been gained through personal observation. He had gone to the men at their houses and had gained his information at first hand. During the present session a return had been laid on the Table, showing that last year 3,000 cases of miners’ phthisis were presented to that House for amelioration and relief. Those 3,000 men were in Johannesburg in July last year, and what was their condition then? Some of them knew they had only a few months to live, and none of them more than two years; consequently they did not care what took place. Under those conditions they became very easy prey to the agitators who were so anxious to stir up strife in Johannesburg. These men had nothing to lose, they had suffered terribly by the disease, and the spirit of despair had come upon them. It was in a great measure due to that spirit that the trouble arose. Their condition had its influence on their fellow-workmen, who thus became more or less imbued with the same spirit. Proceeding, the hon. member said that he had no sympathy with the extreme measures which were taken by the men’s leaders at that time to bring about the trouble. They went so far as to kill all public sympathy which had been in their favour, and the public rose against them. An orderly protest, against the disabilities under which they were suffering would have gained-them more in the end. It had been said there was no connection at all between the miners and the dynamite outrages, but he had come into contact with some of the miners, who had admitted to him that they had for months been storing up dynamite in preparation. When he (Mr. Runciman) expressed his horror of such things the miners stated that they had been ordered to do so by their leaders.

They were pulling your leg.

said that evidently the hon. member did not like statements of that sort, but he could assure the House that he had had it from the men who had taken the dynamite from the mines for that purpose.

Why did you not hand them over to the police ?

said he only hoped the hon. members on the cross-benches would be able to repudiate these statements, and he hoped as he went on that they would be able to repudiate a few more. They said there was no conspiracy, but as the result of a search made in the native compounds on the Wednesday previous to the 4th of July, hundreds of weapons were found, which had been secreted by the natives in preparation for what was about to take place. They had been advised to do it. When asked whom they were going to use the weapons against, their answer was; not against the Government, but against the white miners.

Did the white miners incite them?

could not say, but the white miners would certainly have been the first sufferers if anything had taken place. The white miners were the first to set the example. A large percentage of the strikers were dragged out and terrorised. Those who had condemned the Government for not taking more severe measures in connection with the putting down of meetings at Benoni would have been the first to condemn the Government for limiting free speech if they had done so. The Socialists at that time found that the time was not ripe enough for their purpose, and made terms with the Government. They set to work to stir up discontent and determined to bring about a general strike through the Union.

No.

I would like the hon. member to quote in support of that. I was opposed to a general strike in July.

I will accept the statement of the hon. member for Jeppe, but let me say that he has identified himself with those who were in favour of a general strike, and that even during the time this debate has been going on he has been supporting those who were in favour of it. (Hear, hear.) I am glad to hear these hon. gentlemen state that they are not in favour of a general strike, because the Federation of Trades will be able to find out the true support they may expect to get from these gentlemen. Proceeding, Mr. Runciman said it was the fear of a general strike which caused the Government to proclaim Martial Law. If such a calamity had occurred, the result would have been starvation and looting, and civil war would inevitably have followed. (Hear, hear) He could not understand how any man in that House could do otherwise than support this measure, not only for deportation, but also for keeping these men out of South Africa. He thought the Government were perfectly justified in deporting these men. His hon. friends on the cross-benches had asked for a precedent. The Government had in one way or another attempted to give a precedent. He would give one from the Socialists’ own books. When the Socialist Colony was formed in Paraguay, one of the regulations laid down was that no intoxicating liquor was to be consumed. A few of the men were used to a little drop after a hard day’s work. Three of these men broke away from the regulation, they went over the border of their country, and they returned in a very drunken state. They were brought un before the directors of the colony, and the directors, being Socialists immediately acted as Socialists did in these circumstances—they became more autocratic than the Czar of Russia. Without a trial, these-men were immediately deported, and to make humiliation more complete, the adjoining countries were asked, to supply a cordon of armed native policemen, in order to march these men but of the country.

said that, before dealing with the matters which brought him to his feet, he would like to deal, firstly, with some of the points raised by the hon. member for Barberton. It was a thousand pities that a member of that House, with great abilities, never made any speech which did not bristle with vindictiveness or malicious imputations.

No, that is too strong. (“Hear, hear,” and cries of “Withdraw.”) No member of this House-is guilty of malice.

Shall I say “poisonous imputations”? (Laughter.) Proceeding, the hon. member quoted what Mr. Mason had said (that he wanted them to be like him, who sent the King, flag, and country to hell), and went on to say that an ex-Minister of the Crown might have had the sense and the goodwill or the taste—call it what they liked—to have poured oil on the troubled waters. The hon. member quoted from the “Transvaal Leader” a report of a speech of the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Hull), who at a dinner had proposed the toast of South Africa, to the effect that that toast had become so threadbare that he was not going to say much about it; it was almost as threadbare as the first toast, but that toast would be honoured, when the first toast had been forgotten. Proceeding, the hon. member said that he was afraid, after that alarming statement, that the not quite complete. (Laughter.) He rose to give unstinted praise to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence for the way in which they had coped with the revolution on the Rand. He was sure he could not go back to his people if he had not got up and upheld the Government, in all their actions over the late strike. (Hear, hear.) He was bound to say that the Government had made one great mistake, and that was when they called someone in authority to arrest the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell), who, as far as he knew, had been in Bulawayo in July, and ignored in January, and who had been discredited, and had to get himself arrested, and so he had written that document. (Laughter.) Dealing with Mr. Creswell's manifesto, which he read, the hon. member said that there had not been any attempt under Martial Law to make any man go back to work. The most extraordinary thing about the speeches which had been delivered in that House was that most hon. members agreed that the punishment fitted the crime, yet they said that these men ought to have been tried. Other hon. members had said that the Government was wrong, and then they said that they were going to vote for the second reading of the Bill. He could not understand that attitude. (Hear, hear.) The common every-day game of life was that a man was either for or against you. He hoped that those who were against the Government in regard to that matter, whether they were on his side of the House or on the other side, would not walk out of the House on the division for the second reading of the Bill, but would register their vote. (Ministerial cheers.) If the House could swallow the big thing, the declaration of Martial Law, they could swallow everything else, because everything else was consequential, therefore he was quite prepared to vote for the Bill. (Hear, hear.) He must admit that the Government had met the extraordinary circumstances extremely well. It was said that by deporting these men they were setting a precedent; that might be if-the Government were going to be there for all time. (Laughter.) The hon. member went on to say that the cause of all the unrest in the Transvaal had not come from within, but when a band of imported agitators had come to that country.

I must point out to the hon. members on the cross-benches that “Shame” is an unparliamentary expression and must not be used.

I was not referring to the hon. member, sir, but to the fact.

The hon. member must not interrupt.

said that these men were living a village life in the happiest possible way. He pointed out that until McKerrell went down to the Natal coalfields there was no grave trouble. But he told them of grievances they had never thought of. No economic or industrial condition was responsible for this revolution. As a matter of fact, the men had no grievances—always excepting the underground men. These men were men of many virtues, and it was an extraordinary thing that they were particularly Susceptible to inflammatory speeches. In conclusion, he said that the nine were deported not by the (government, but by the will of the people.

said that he was not going to delay the House, but he would merely state the reasons why he was going to support the Government for the actions they had taken under Martial Law. To the hon. member for Lady-brand he would like to say one or two things. That hon. member had made a most amusing speech; in fact it had proved more amusing than all the other speeches rolled together. He twitted hon. members on his (the speaker’s) side of the House for supporting the Government on the present occasion. He was going to show that the hon. member should sit somewhere else than the place where he had been sitting lately. When he (the speaker) was elected to represent his constituency in the House, he said that no matter who brought in the legislation, he would support legislation that would be of the greatest benefit to the country. The Government had not introduced the legislation he was looking for, but the Bill before the House was one that he felt that he could support. The hon. member for Ladybrand had made some statements which had very much astonished him. He could not represent the action of the hon. member, sitting behind the hon. Minister as he was, as anything more than stabbing the Minister in the back. If there was such a split in the party opposite, if he and his friends were trying to oust the present Government to catch votes in different parts of the country, they should do it openly and take their seats on the cross-benches. (Ministerial cheers.) Years ago the hon. member was sitting behind the Ministers supporting them, and one of his friends was in the Ministry. Now they were doing all they could to discredit the Government, and for what purpose? It was to get votes. What had Barbary ostriches to do with the matter then before the House? Nothing at all. Proceeding, Mr. Oliver said that he happened to be in Johannesburg on the 4th and 5th of July, and he would like to tell the House a few of the things that came under his notice at that time. He was down at the Park Railway Station when the strikers came down. There were about 20 unarmed policemen, who had been many hours on duty. The House had been told that the strikers were very often provoked to violence by the action of the police, but there was no such provocation on this occasion. These policemen were stoned and forced to retire. It was said that those people were not strikers but hooligans, but the fact remained that a large number were wearing red ribbons and had pick-handles in their hands. They may not have been rioting themselves, but they did not try to stop those who were endeavouring to burn down the station. No; they prevented the police from doing their duty, and prevented the fire, brigade from trying to put out the fire. If they were not actually committing these acts themselves, if it had not been for their support such things would not have happened. They committed all kinds of acts of violence and all sorts of illegal acts. If they called that striking, the sooner they put a stop to it the better. (Cheers.)

declared that he had very little sympathy with people who tried to create disturbances and to bring business of all sorts to a stand still. He had said the same thing before, and he accordingly approved of the steps which the Government had taken in, order to preserve peace and order. The public also supported the Government in that, for they felt that the disturbances of last July ought not to be repeated. When the Ministers signed the contract in the Carlton Hotel with the people who had caused those disturbances the whole people had felt humiliated. The public were also disposed to help the Government because of the great Kafir peril. It was known that if the mines were closed down and the natives sent home, this would cause heavy loss to the country. In addition to that, the sending away of thousands of Kafirs would cause great danger to the Kafirs on the farms. The intention of the strikers to call in the aid of the Kafirs was intensely disapproved of by the general public. The Government needed to make no excuses for having proclaimed Martial Law. In July the armed forces of the country had been bombarded with stones and bottles, and then there was no Martial Law. He was really surprised that they had waited so long before proclaiming it. The burghers would not have remained still so long. That affair by itself was sufficient to justify the Government in introducing Martial Law. It had taught the strikers that they had got to behave themselves. Its result was to damp down the strike without the shedding of a drop of blood.

The Minister had alleged that there was a conspiracy, whilst others denied it. For his (the speaker’s) part he did not believe there was any conspiracy. But why did the Minister wish to prove the, existence of a complot ? Syndicalism was itself an economic conspiracy. The leaders of that movement wanted to alarm the public to such a degree that the existing order of things could be destroyed. In the work by Sir Henry Clay called “Syndicalism and Labour,” Syndicalism was said to be the taking from those who had and who paid wages, and the giving of those who had not and who received wages. In Paris they had recently a Syndicalist at the head of the electric current supply, and he kept the town for a whole year in a state of alarm, cutting the town’s supply of light off whenever he felt inclined. The people in Johannesburg wanted to go to work in the same way, in order to get their demands agreed to.

The Government was not entirely free from blame with regard to the signing of the treaty in July, as appeared from the report of the Commission; but owing to the manner in which they had since put down the strike they had recovered the prestige of the whole people. In this country they knew nothing of Syndicalism and strikes, and yet the Government had so handled the matter that, they had won the approval of the whole world.

In view of those facts he was very sorry indeed that he was bound to disapprove of the deportations without trial. He was not sorry for the men themselves who had suffered deportation, but he feared that a dangerous precedent had been created. Let them assume for a moment that they had presently another Government who favoured, for example, the nationalisation of land, that an agitation was started against it, and that feelings on the subject became strong. Could not the Government, in such a case, deport those persons who opposed themselves to the nationalisation of the land ? It had been stated that people who had been born in the country could not be sent away from it, but for his part he could not see any difference between the two. The deportation of persons born in the country was wholly illegal, and the deportation of people not born in the country was neither more nor less but equally illegal. If they could do the one, so they could do the other. As time went on it would be found that the unlawful deportations would more and more overshadow the good that the Government had done. He had heard some time ago of plans of that kind, but thought with the hon. member for Fort Beaufort that a Bill would be introduced to the House giving the Government power to deport, and that evidence would be laid before them showing that deportation was necessary. The act would then have been a legal one, and he would have been able to vote for it. But it was wrong to send the men away first, and ask for approval of the act afterwards. There was now nothing further to be done.

He deplored most earnestly the attack which had been made by the Minister of Finance on the hon. member for Smithfield. The speaker knew the abilities of the Minister, had known him for fifteen years, and had always regarded him as one of his best friends; but thought that he coupled chivalry with his talents, and was accordingly very disappointed that he should have tried to connect the hon. member for Smithfield with the strike movement. Why had the Minister dished up that stale report in its original flavour and colour, a report which he knew perfectly well was totally devoid of any truth? If they had known there was going to be a strike, there would have been no congress at Bloemfontein. Of course, they would not knowingly have allowed themselves to be let in a trap. It was unfair to spread the report that the hon. member was coming with a commando of 5,000 men to help the strikers. The Minister apparently thought that if he threw enough mud some of it would certainly stick. It was unworthy of him to repeat the rumour in that House. Was the Minister able to give them the assurance that the report was not spread by persons who had reasons for wishing to bring the hon. member for Smith-field under the suspicions of the public?

The speaker would like to know whether in the eyes of the Prime Minister he also was one of the active lieutenants of the hon. member for Smithfield. If not, he was satisfied; but if so, then it was only fair that where they reproached the hon. member for the ill actions of his sympathisers— as the Prime Minister had done in the case of the alleged statements by the hon. member for Uitenhage, they should credit him in like manner with their good actions. At a public meeting shortly after the first strike the speaker had stated that, no matter what their differences might be, they had to support the Government through thick and thin, so far as was necessary in order to suppress public tumults. And with regard to the last strike, although he was not one of those who was liable to be called up under the Defence Force Act, he had immediately placed himself at the disposal of his commandant if required, and had also encouraged the burghers to offer their services voluntarily, in order to show the strikers that they must expect no sympathy for disturbances from the people in the country districts.

He hoped the whole thing would be a lesson for all of them. A rebellion had to be suppressed with violence, but he did not believe that violence alone would solve the difficulty. History showed them that power and violence had never produced anything of abiding value. South Africa was a good example of that. The man who said twelve years ago that the neck of Afrikanderdom would have to be broken, and who had the power of an Empire behind him with which to break it, was to-day a forgotten dignitary, whilst the same people whose necks were to be broken were ruling in South Africa.

The Labour movement with which they had now to do was a world movement, and it was impossible to dispose of such a question by deporting nine men. If they wanted to settle such a question they would have to examine into the causes of such a movement and see whether or not there were grievances which could be removed, or ameliorated. In that way they would free such a movement from danger, for although they would never satisfy the leaders—they would look for grievances if there were not any—they would be able to satisfy the great bulk of the people, who would refuse to follow their leaders in any subsequent attempt to make trouble, for it was quite impossible to say that all the strikers were unreasonable beings. There was another reason why the way he had indicated should be followed, and it was this, that the Labour Party here had practically no chance to get into power, because the class from which they got their followers in other countries, that was to say, the people who did its daily work, consisted in this country of natives. If the persons who had the power failed to treat the workmen with sympathy the men would necessarily come to the conclusion that there remained only one way open to them, and that was by direct action, by strikes, etc.

Well, he intended to vote for the second reading, but when the Bill afterwards came into Committee it would be necessary to delete everything from it which might afterwards be used as a reproach against the people. It had been said that no Government could deport people unless the opinion of the public was in favour of it, but Parliament could confer such power on a Government, and Parliament did not always represent the will of the public. Assume for a moment that the Government wished afterwards to repeat such an action and that the majority of the public was opposed to it, an obedient majority in the Parliament would still approve of the act. There would then remain only two ways open to the public. The one was to submit, however dissatisfied they might be, and the other was to rise in rebellion against Parliament and the lawful authorities, and so follow the methods of the South American Republics, as had been stated by the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman). The nation in South Africa was still a young one. They should keep its history inviolate and do nothing for which they would afterwards have to blush.

said he felt it incumbent upon himself to say a few words with regard to the question before the House. When a great national crisis occurs the ordinary party differences fall to pieces for the time being, and that was how he felt on the question. They had been passing through a crisis, a crisis in which the minority of the land, who had their rights he supposed, sought to impose their authority on the majority, on Parliament, and the Government. The question was whether they were going to rule or whether the Government and the Parliament of this country were going to rule.

said the speeches delivered had been of such a diverse character that it was difficult to come to a conclusion, though if they examined the facts themselves it was easy enough to decide. Ten years ago the country was happy in that it knew nothing of strikes, but now their difficulties were not even confined to ordinary strikes. The strikes they had were of such a character the world had not hitherto had experience of. Grievances ought to be ventilated only in a constitutional manner, otherwise a vast deal of injury would be caused to all industries. He took it for granted that everybody was willing to help the workman so long as the latter went to work in a reasonable way and was willing to accept help. Capitalists ought to see that they were dependent on labour, and conversely the same. Strikes now appeared to have become the fashion in the country, but in that way they only handicapped progress. How could they possibly expect people to invest their capital in this country if it was found impossible to preserve the peace? If it came to a ballot, the great bulk of the working-men would vote against a strike. With reference to the July occurrences he felt that the Government had shown themselves to be very weak, but in January they had taken action in a proper manner. If those disturbances had not been at once suppressed the danger would have grown greater, and the Government were therefore very largely to blame for the occurrences of July. Of course, what had been done in January would cost them a lot of money. Perhaps it had not been necessary to proclaim Martial Law everywhere, but notwithstanding that fact he was prepared to give a certain measure of approval to what had been done. He hoped the old commando spirit would long continue to flourish. The Government were asking for an indemnity not only for what was done under Martial Law but also for what was done prior to the Proclamation, and he thought that was going too far.

How was it possible, he asked, to approve everything the Government had done? The eyes of the world had been directed to South Africa, and they would do well therefore to be prudent in creating precedents. He quite failed to understand how the Government could deport the men without giving them a trial. The Minister of Defence had stated that the existing laws were too gentle, and that the courts of justice and Parliament were unsuitable bodies to decide such a matter. Well, that was going too far. Assuming, however, that the Minister was right, why did not the Government appoint a special tribunal for the purpose of trying these men? Hon. members were placed in a serious difficulty in having to deal with a Bill which covered both the Proclamation of Martial Law and the deportations as well. So far as the proclaiming of Martial Law went he was able to approve of it, but felt the strongest objections to the taking of such a drastic step as deportation of the offenders without trial. He trusted therefore that they would in Committee agree to appoint a tribunal consisting of the Chief justice and two other judges to decide this question. The complexion given to the Jagersfontein occurrences by the Minister was a little exaggerated, the rising amongst the Kafirs having been practically suppressed by the time the burghers and the military forces arrived. He admitted that the burghers deserved all praise for the readiness with which they replied to the call for armed help. The occurrence showed clearly how necessary it was that the Government should take measures as speedily as possible to secure their effective arming. (Hear, hear.)

He failed to understand why the Minister of Defence had dragged the hon. member for Smithfield into the affair. A good deal had been said about hon. members who wanted to make political capital out of these occurrences, but so far as he (the speaker) was concerned he did not care a rush for political capital. The Minister of Defence had taken it amiss that the hon. member for Smithfield had stated on July 20, in the course of a speech, that it was the Government’s duty to do something more than protect life and property, and that it was the duty of the Government to protect the poor against the rich. What harm was there in that?

Working-men would have to be protected against injustice, and it was the duty of the Government to see that they lived happily. Well, could they see anything very wrong in that? There had been a lot of talk about the poor white, and if the thing could be done with talking they would all have been made millionaires by this time. The Minister of Finance was annoyed that the hon. member for Smithfield spoke in that way on the 20th July. But the Prime Minister spoke on the 11th July at Losberg, and said that the workmen must be satisfied and made happy, and it was the duty of the mine-owners to see that their workmen were satisfied. What was the difference between the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Smithfield? Which of the two had done wrong? From the one side they were told it was a sin, but not from the other side. Why was that? The Minister of Finance had spoken in a disparaging manner of a congress of representatives of the people, and had described it as a comedy, and added some references to foreign adventurers. Had the Minister the right to speak in that way? Had not the hon. member for Smithfield given an explanation of his expressions? The hon. member for Smithfield had been generous enough to preserve silence on the subject, but the Minister of Finance was not. The Minister of Railways and Harbours also had described the Bloemfontein Congress as ridiculous, and said that no business of importance was transacted at it. Well, the future would teach them that. How was it that the Minister of Finance had so suddenly got the hon. member for Smithfield on the brain, quoting him in the course of his speech no less than six times. The hon. member for Smithfield, with 5,000 burghers, on the way to Johannesburg. What nonsense! They did not expect things of that sort from a Minister. Such statements were unworthy of him, and he ought to have known better. And then he found it necessary to talk about blatant patriots. There ought to be an end of that sort of thing.

said his constituency was bounded on two sides by native territory, and it was his duty therefore to make known his opinions on the subject. The Bill was of great importance, and he was much astonished to find that the lawyers were not in agreement with regard to it. The hon. member for Albany had clearly explained the real position when he said that extraordinary circumstances demanded extraordinary measures. The hon. member for Uitenhage had stated that the members of the Government were making election speeches, but that was exactly what the hon. member himself had done. He stood with one foot in the boat belonging to the Labour Party and the other foot in the boat belonging to the hon. member for Smithfield.

Whatever might happen in the world off labour, it was quite certain that the country population were not going to allow themselves to be trodden in the dust. Who was the true leader of the Labour Party? It appeared to him that it was the hon. member for Ladybrand. There was a conspiracy in the House. The hon. member had brought the debate down to a very low level and the country ought to take note of the fact. He said that 70,000 burghers had been called up in order to oppose 5,000 strikers, but the fact was that the former were required in order to watch the railways.

The Government had been charged with negligence, but nobody had thought it possible that such circumstances could arise. He felt bound, therefore, to indemnify the Government for everything they had done. He was in favour of free labour, and objected to the posting of pickets, or to any hindrance being placed in the way of those who were willing to work. It was in order to protect those people that the burghers were called out, with the result that the strike died a sudden death. In January the Government had acted as the country had expected they would, and it had not been proved by any hon. member that the Government had done anything in bad faith. The Government had, in fact, done everything in good faith. It was true some trifling matters had been complained of, but they did not weigh against the general interests of South Africa.

The speaker went on to refer to public-meetings which he had attended, and at which it had been declared that the best thing would be to deport the leaders. The ship ought, he said, to have been more fully laden, and if matters did not go properly they would have to despatch another ship. Banishment was the proper thing to do, for it was impossible to provide such people with pleasure excursions. Those people who had been inciting the natives had been playing with dynamite, a most deplorable thing to do.

The speaker concluded by deprecating the speeches which had been made by hon. members who seized every opportunity to attack the Government. It was their duty to protect the Government, and they had failed to do that. The Labour Party was opposed to the Government, but that was not the right way to get their grievances removed.

deprecated the remarks of Mr. Wilcocks in again dragging the old trouble across the floor of the House. They wanted rest and peace in this country, and he strongly denounced the action of certain hon. members who had, against all etiquette, addressed meetings in the constituencies of other members. (Hear, hear.) He held that the troubles of July and January had been created by the troubles which the Government had had last year. He would remind hon. members of the old saying, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Dealing with the trouble itself, he urged the proper training and winning of the burghers. “If you want peace,” he said, “prepare for war.” They could no longer draw on the Imperial troops, therefore it was their duty to see to it that their own forces were properly trained. The hon. member proceeded to deal with “the tyranny of the Trades Hall,” and stated that if the deported men had done elsewhere one-tenth of what they had done here they would have been deported long ago. He held the Government had done a great deal to help the poor man, and referred to what had been done for labourers on the railway, many of whom, he said, were now in a happy and prosperous position. The hon. member proceeded to refer to the native aspect of the question, which he considered the most serious.

said he was well acquainted with the condition of affairs, as he lived in the neighbourhood of the Rand. Every hon. member ought to make known his views, though no doubt the debate was becoming monotonous, the Bill having already been under consideration for nearly a month. Last year the hon. member for Jeppe had proposed a motion of no confidence in the Government. The motion had gone through the country, and the strike had arisen from it. A good deal of criticism had been directed to the actions of the Government in Juy last, and it was easy to be wise after the event. Action had to be taken on the instant. So far as concerned the complaints about low wages, he was in favour of increasing wages, but it would have to be done in a proper manner. Now the strike had been suppressed, it would certainly not occur again for the next twenty years.

Some hon. members were able to approve the proclamation of Martial Law, but were unable to approve of the deportations. He could not understand that. He supported the Bill and intended to vote for it, so that the people now on the water might stay away. They must be kept out of the country, and if there were still more people of the same kind they ought to go, too.

The hon. member for George Town had made some remarks about the burghers who did service in Germiston, but he forgot that whilst he was peacefully sleeping they were keeping watch. The speaker could not believe all those complaints, for the burghers, had behaved themselves well.

Many of the burghers were entirely unarmed and others insufficiently armed. He thought the Government should properly arm the people in the neighbourhood of the goldfields.

said the time had arrived when they must cease to be silent. Although they Laughed, the affair was a most serious one. The Bill was going to become law. But that would not finish it, as for many a long year to come they would point the finger at that Bill. Twelve years ago he belonged to those in the Cape House of Assembly who strongly disapproved of Martial Law, the objections arising out of their conviction that grave injustices were being committed under it. Now that they were in the majority it was their duty to take care that no similar injustice should take place. It was their duty to guard against injustice. Were there no people who had delivered something for which there must be payment?

The hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, had said a good deal about the illegalities, but the Government had acknowledged that their actions were illegal. It was necessary to draw a distinction between law and justice. It was necessary to put an end to the illegal acts, and take care that they could not happen again.

Then a good deal had also been said on the subject of grievances, but nobody had explained what they were. The members of the Labour Party had given a few examples, but those were not real grievances. If people had objections to the railway service, they could leave it. Everyone was free to resign when he thought fit. It was impossible to compel the Government to retain officials against its will.

The members of the Labour Party were opposed to the Government. They spoke with contempt of the Government, and said the Government had no heart for the working-man. During the first session of Parliament those hon. members had stated that the natives on the mines should be replaced by whites. That would make things easier for a general strike. Well, it had not been successful, and so they had set to work to incite the Kafirs. That was so mean that at first he had been unable to believe it. And yet the Labour Party still made out that they were acting on behalf of the poor whites. If the Government had failed to take drastic steps, what, he asked, would have happened in this country? How was it possible that the Government had agreed that the hon. member for Springs should be appointed on the Select Committee to deal with native affairs?

pointed out that the question was settled.

concluded by saying it was his intention to support the Government, in order to guard against further strikes and further disturbances.

considered that very little remained to be said on the subject before the House. If the Government had taken sharp action in July they would not have heard anything more of the question. Whilst the storm was brewing the Minister of Railways and Harbours went on a journey to England, whilst at the same time the Minister of Mines and Industries held a meeting in Malmesbury. The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister were obliged to take over the work of the other Ministers. That was how it came about that they did not get done till January what ought to have been done in July. Like all Afrikanders, he felt sympathy with the working-men, but the day had not yet arrived when it was possible to grant them everything they asked for. Their grievances ought to be settled in a constitutional manner, and not with the accompaniment of violence and disorder. Their thanks were due to the burghers who had stood so faithfully beside the Government, for despite all personal difficulties they had not hesitated to respond to the call. He hoped the Government would not forget that. Some of them had not even got rifles, whilst others had suffered personal losses. He could not understand why the burghers had to be commandeered whilst the mine-workers of Koffyfontein, Blaauwbosch, and Elandsput were able to go peacefully to sleep. With regard to Martial Law and the way in which it had been carried out, he intended fully to support the Government. But with regard to the deportations, he came to the conclusion that the Government had done an unconstitutional thing, though different lawyers had expressed different views on the subject, It had been stated that the will of the people was the highest law, but they must not forget that justice ought to prevail. The Government had done a thing which had never been done before.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence had dragged a man into the debate who ought not to have been dragged into it at all. The House was told of some rumour about the hon. member for Smith-field, to the effect that he was going to Johannesburg at the time of the first strike at the head of 5,000 men. They had no right whatever to drag the name of the hon. member into the debate in that manner. It had been very painful to him (the speaker). Moreover, it was unfair. Did they want to give the public a wrong impression, to do further hurt to the feelings of the hon. member for Smithfield, or was it all done from political motives? If so, that would be a deplorable thing. Why did the Prime Minister use such expressions? And then the Minister of Finance talked of what he called blatant patriots. The speaker did not know what that meant, but the best commandants in the Free State belonged to them. And all the 500 persons who were present at the congress at Bloemfontein went to fetch their rifles and offered themselves for service under the Government. He himself had personally done the same thing, and that was why he felt pained at the remark which the Minister had made. They must forgive the hon. member for Vrededorp, as he did not know what he was doing. The hon. member did not know what he wanted, though he was ready to give advice. He should keep it to himself.

The hon. member for Edenburg had already pointed out where the danger lay, namely, in the speeches of the hon. members for Fauresmith and Ladybrand. It was a prophetic look. If that was all the hon. member knew, he would have done better to preserve silence. The coolie question, scab, everything was held at the door of the blatant patriot. It was unfair and unworthy of the hon. member.

It was not easy to come to a decision, but when it was once done, it should be done in a manly way. He was unable to approve of any action which was unconstitutional and illegal. He trusted it would not form a precedent.

said that while he thought the Government proclaimed Martial Law in the best interests of the country, he must vote against deportation without trial, and he hoped the Government would introduce some sort of amendment so that these people might come back and be placed on trial. He did not think that all the opposition had come from members genuinely opposed to the Bill, but from members who were opposed to the Government and took the opportunity of attacking the Government. (Hear, hear.) He had many notes, but he thought he would create a record by making the shortest speech. (Hear, hear.)

said he thought that some members had failed to grasp essential details of the Bill they were debating. The first point was that it was quite unnecessary to bring in a Bill in order to get Martial Law taken off, a Proclamation would be quite sufficient to effect this purpose. He proceeded to quote authorities to show that Martial Law should only be put in force where there was an insurrection or a state of war. He had hoped that the Minister would give them his full case to explain the necessity for Martial Law in Natal and the Free State. He pointed out that the fines under Martial Law in these two Provinces amounted to £15, and he dealt with cases where men were arrested without charges being preferred. He also pointed out that certain Labour candidates for the Provincial Council in Natal had received more support than they would have done had they not been arrested and released without charges being preferred. He declared that Natal had suffered owing to Martial Law, and said that the credit of a place like Durban would be badly damaged in consequence of what had happened. Natal had suffered, and the pampered part of the Union—the Cape—had gained. As a matter of fact, he thought that the Proclamation of Martial Law had not been necessary. He alleged that the law was proclaimed in Natal so as to give the Government a clear way to the sea, and that arrangements for what had taken place in Natal were made early in December. So far as the deportations were concerned, the Government had tried to get into communication with shipping companies in December to make preparations for the sending away of certain passengers. The hon. member then went on to refer to the Benoni meeting, and traced the history of what happened, quoting the correspondence that had passed between the parties concerned. He also mentioned the running of special trains and the conveyance of over 1,600 people to a district that was already inflamed. He thought that these matters should have been clearly placed before the House by the Minister. The hon. member said that, while it was difficult to find out what happened at Benoni, so far as the Market-square meeting was concerned, he was present and saw what had happened. He said that the meeting was proclaimed in the “Star,” but everybody did not possess a tickey.

seconded the amendment.

rising at 2.10 a.m. It was his duty to say a few words before the debate concluded. The constituency he represented had had to bear the brunt of all that had happened. On one day in July many people there had their heads broken. That night there were shots fired through the streets, and the next day volleys were fired on harmless citizens, which amounted to little less than butchery. Then there was that brilliant, noble and inspiring spectacle, the taking of the Trades Hall, which the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Madeley) had the other night very brilliantly described. He (Mr. Sampson) had seen the whole thing. It was something to commend the Defence Force for. He would suggest that the Minister of Defence should strike a medal by which they could remember the happening. (Labour laughter.) As far as his constituents were concerned, it would be for ever a laughing stock. Quoting from a report of one of his speeches, the only one, which, he said had not been quoted in the House so far, he pointed out that he had then said that he would rather have a general election than a general strike at any time. That had been his opinion all along, and that was the only way they could have avoided troubles through which they had passed.

He wanted to associate himself in the first place with everything his friends on the Labour benches had done. He did not want to be whitewashed. Had he been given the opportunity he would have done what they had done. All they had been doing was to try to get the workers to follow constitutional laws with a view to remedying their grievances. He said that many theories had been advanced during the debate, and he thought that the last speaker had got nearer the truth than any other member. Certainly the hon. member for Tembuland got very near it, but he did not work his own statements out to their logical conclusions, and if he had done so he would have got nearer the truth. His (the speaker’s) theory was that the strike was egged on with a view to creating trouble, so that something might be made to happen in this country to drown the differences in that House. Mr. Sampson went on to say there was nothing in the labour movement with which he had been acquainted since its inception of which he or anyone else need feel ashamed. He thought not very long after the happenings in July that in the minds of more than one Minister this idea of deportation occurred. He thought it was one of the things decided upon a long time ago, and that after events were really created to bring about that end. The plan seemed to be not only to overthrow the working-class movement in this country, but with the idea of getting level with political enemies, including some hon. members who sat opposite. He would like to know from the Minister whether he did not make preparations in July for calling out the Defence Force, and referred to a visit to Pretoria, where he saw maps of the Wit-watersrand area headed “Industrial Dispute, July, 1913,” and an unusual number of officers about the Government Buildings. Then curiously enough the papers for some months past had contained paragraphs to the effect that the idea was prevalent that certain men would have to be deported. It became a by-word in Johannesburg. “You are going to be deported.” In December the “Star” had a programme of what was going on and the strange thing was that these things did actually happen in January. He put it to the Government that they were humiliated after the Carlton Hotel affair, and afterwards acted in a spirit of revenge. He also wanted to know from the Minister whether he had any assistants inside the Federation of Trades egging on the proposed second strike in July. Everything seemed to point to that being the case. These men did not make speeches much outside, but got at the men inside. With regard to the proposed second strike in July, the speaker said that the Ministry were baulked by the politicians, his colleagues on those benches, who succeeded in stopping it, and preventing the Government from carrying out then what they did in January.

The trouble did not begin in July last, but dated back a good many years before there was a working-class political movement in South Africa. It was the failure of the Trade Unions to get redress for their grievances which brought the Labour Party into existence. In the late Transvaal Parliament no heed was given to the representations made by the Labour members. Although it was the custom to pass one industrial measure per session, at the same time no attention was paid to miners’ phthisis and the bigger evils. Blacklisting and the cheating of men by means of wrong measurement was rampant. Another mistake had been made in the Transvaal with regard to the passing of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Government attempted the impossible. This Act took away from the men the right to lay down their tools, and it gave them no equivalent and no proper method of redressing their grievances. That law was in the main at the bottom of this trouble, and the only offences which some of the deportees had committed were breaches of this repressive law.

Continuing, the hon. member said that the country would have been spared anything like the occurrences of the last eight months had it not been for the high-handed action of the mining officials at Benoni. Had the Government not assisted these companies early in the fight by bringing scabs into the mine we might have been spared many of the incidents that had occurred. Government was not prepared to show the sympathy to the men that it should have done but it was very quick to assist the mining companies. (Labour cheers.) Why did the Minister side with the mining companies? A number of the men who had been deported were arrested then for causing a strike which the Minister of Mines said was no strike at all in the meaning of the Act.

That was at the Van Ryn.

You cannot disconnect the two incidents. They were all part of the same strike. The hon. member went on to say that the warnings uttered from the cross-benches last session—now stated to have been used as threats—were given in all good faith with the desire to assist the country and the Government, and prevent a general strike. Continuing, the hon. member said the Government had precipitated the strike on July 4th. While the ballot was being taken to decide whether a general strike should be declared on July 10th or not, the Government were bringing troops on the Rand and bringing soldiers by train, and were making all sorts of arrangements which seemed like the preliminaries of battle. He said that there would have been no strike at all had the Government not precipitated it by leading the workers to believe that they were going to try to crush them. The hon. member said he had seen several large meetings in London, where he was born, but he had never seen such wanton acts of violence by policemen and troops as he had seen performed on Market-square, the police riding like savages with pick-handles, and taking an absolute delight in hitting every head they could see.

I never said it.

said one of the Ministers said it. He was present. In corroboration, he went on to refer to a cutting from the “Sunday Times,” when in the course of an interview Mr. Tom Mathews and Mr. Hindman said they could not understand the attitude of General Smuts to Mr. Bain, and they added that during the discussion General Smuts referred to Mr. Bain as “friend Bain.” He himself had heard Ministers refer to Mr. Bain in that way.

Comrade Bain. (Laughter.)

Oh, no, you were not so friendly. (Laughter.) Continuing, he said that the only charge against Mr. Bain seemed to be that he had been a member of the Transvaal Secret Service. He was told that the Minister was a member of the Transvaal Secret Service at one time. When did such service become dishonourable? Dealing with the statement credited to Mason: “That there is no pond deep enough to drown him, nor is there any rope long enough to hang him,” the speaker said that under cross-examination the reporters and others admitted that this might not be a correct quotation of what Mason said. One witness had stated that he had taken it down on a cuff and made a mark against “him.” Even the police officer was not sure. What Mr. Mason had said was: “There is no pond too deep in which to drown himself, and no rope too long to hang himself with,” describing the feelings that a blackleg should have. The reporters admitted that that was what might have been said and at the adjourned hearing the charge was withdrawn. He protested against the things which had been brought up without proper explanations. Referring to the report of the speeches alleged to have been made by the deported men, the speaker said that on many occasions the men deported had complained that they had been misreported. The statement credited to Waterston had been corrected at subsequent meetings by himself, but these contradictions never appeared in the Press the next morning. Ministers were the first to complain if they were misrepresented. He went on to say that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Railways had led them to believe that the Government’s desire was to avoid trouble while the men were against conciliation and wanted a general strike. He read a telegram from a Mr. Sutherland, Mayor of Volksrust, showing the men there desired conciliation. The Minister of Railways had stated that the deported men were putting their heads together in February last for the purpose of inducing other Societies to declare a general strike. But his only proof of that statement was a selected quotation from a letter which he said was written by Mr. Poutsma during the week ended August 2. The letter was dated July 23, as a matter of fact, but the Minister was anxious to disconnect it altogether from the July incident. After reading the entire letter, he said it was clear that it was not necessary that its writer should be a member of a junta to know that there was likely to be a general strike, under certain circumstances. The Minister implied that there was some connection between the general trades and the railway men at that date, but there was absolutely no connection, as the letter showed.

This is the first time I ever heard of it.

Don’t interrupt.

Why, the Minister of Railways quoted from the letter I have read.

Continuing, he said that hon. members had been telling the House what was the duty of the men to the State, but no attempt had been made to show what was the duty of the State to the employees. (Labour cheers.) The State should be a model employer, and had greater responsibilities than private employers. It should not connive at small wages and long hours. As far as the railways were concerned, the State treated its employees worse than private employers did. The men were afraid of victimisation—now called retrenchment. He had worked since he was eight, and there was nothing a man feared more than being out of employment.

Have you learnt the dockyard stroke?

No, I was mainly employed on piece-work, and earned every penny I got. Continuing, he said that what was attempted by retrenchment was to reduce wages and create in South Africa what hon. members on the Opposition benches had threatened—a reservoir of unemployed—(Labour cheers)—a body of men they could draw on who might be forced by hunger to take work from others at a lower wage. His opinion was that the employers provoked that strike to create a situation of putting many men on the streets, so that at their own time they could re-engage these men at their own rate of wages. There had been no Syndicalist conspiracy, but there had been a conspiracy on the part of the Government and the big employers to reduce wages. He was told by Mr. Mathews that the books of the Miners’ Association were still in the hands of the authorities, and he asked what good purpose was served by doing that unless it was a purpose which was not favourable to the men. He was informed that the membership roll of the T.M.A. had been copied, and that some mine managers had been put in possession of the list of these men and refused them employment. He hoped that this information was wrong, but he could see no other way in which that information could have been obtained. The hon. member went on to say there was no necessity for Martial Law, except as part of the plan to deport men. When they talked about blowing up the mines, surely those who said these things ought to blush for making the statement. Surely the men would like to leave the door open to their future employment. If Martial Law was unnecessary, why should hon. members be asked to condone what had taken place under Martial Law ? The hon. member for Fort Beaufort spoke about the large percentage of Trade Union funds going to administrative expenses. He (Mr. Sampson) could say that in his own union during the past 18 years not five per cent. of the total revenue had gone in management expenses. He condemned the high mighty police officials for having robbed men of their trade union cards, which had been torn un. It was that Card which was a means of identity in the matter of benefits.

Rubbish.

Somebody has woke up.

said the Prime Minister had indulged in a number of catch phrases, giving no justification for what the Government had done. He did not produce any evidence to the House. If all the evidence the Prime Minister had brought forward comprised the whole of the evidence the Government had to go on in declaring Martial Law, then it was a-very flimsy case indeed, and it would prove to the people that Government had tried to assist the big employers to crush out the Labour movement. (Labour cheers.)

Just before 5 o’clock, Mr. Sampson proceeded to say that tyranny of the kind that had been witnessed on the Rand from July onwards could only breed revolution. If there was a revolution, Ministers should not be surprised, for they would have brought it about. They had not considered the people in the least. There was no better breeding ground for revolution than the way in which tyrants tried to tread the people underfoot. After all the men who had been deported were doing no more than trying to get a better life—(Labour cheers)—something better for the workers. There had been no plot or revolution in South Africa. The Minister had tried to evolve a common or garden strike, such as occurred every week in other countries, into a revolution. (Labour cheers.) If he had been dealing with what had happened as an ordinary strike he would not have been able to carry out his plan to crush the Trade Unions. It was only by instituting Martial law that he could achieve that end, but he failed, and he never could accomplish his end. (Labour cheers.)

He (Mr. Sampson) had stated at the beginning of his speech that there were others than the Government who knew of their plans,; and he quoted an article from the “Star” of January 6 regarding the preparations of the Government to deal with labour troubles, the contents of which he said bore a striking similarity to what had since happened. How would this treatment of Trade Unionists affect immigration ? The hon. member questioned whether members of Trade Unions in other countries would venture to come to South Africa, if that was the way the Government treated their fellow Trade Unionists. In regard to what the Minister had said about the ballot which had been taken by the Federation, he (Mr. Sampson) had been present at the trades Hall. He had gone to see that everything was fair and square. The returns had been on the table, and he had taken a check of them himself; and he said that the Minister was not justified in reflecting on the character of the men who counted the ballot. The majority was, as stated three to one in favour of a strike, so high had the feeling of the men grown in regard to the Government’s treatment of the railwayman. These men in other trades had nothing to gain from striking, but had stood by the railwayman. Unless they could show what the whole of the workmen would have gained by striking, where did the conspiracy come in? If the men conspired, they must have done so for some mutual gain, and there had been nothing of that kind proved. He whole-heartedly supported the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppe; but he had seconded the amendment of the hon. member for Weenen, and would like to give his reasons for doing so: he therefore moved the adjournment of the debate at that stage.

rising at 5.14 a.m., asked whether the Minister was going to accept it.

No.

said let the Minister look at the hour. He hoped the Government would accept the adjournment, because there were several members who would still like to speak on that most important subject, and it was not fair to them to go on at that hour. He pointed out that by sitting to such an hour as that the Government was entrenching on the only private members’ day which was left.

The hon. member must confine himself to the question of the adjournment. (Hear, hear.)

With profound respect, sir, if that question was germane to the question of the Bill, is it not germane to the question of the adjourning of the House?

The hon. member will have other opportunities.

said he did not see how hon. members could vote on his amendment unless that question was answered. The question was whether evidence which would come before that tribunal had been destroyed. Then the amendment required discussion.

said that the hon. member must not debate the merits of the question.

said he wished to give other reasons why the debate should be adjourned. He regretted the want of can-dour on the part of Ministers put him in a very invidious position. The S.S. Umgeni would arrive in London in a few hours, and they wanted to get the second reading through so that it would appear in the morning papers and cast a slur on the men arriving. (Labour cheers.)

It was not fair to the House. The Minister’s business seemed to be to follow up the men with slurs. The debate could be adjourned till that afternoon, because there was no other Government business in contemplation.

Wait a bit.

That is a courteous way of treating hon. members. It is on a par with the way Government always treats us. Continuing, he said that a material point to the adjournment was the fact that these men had been discussed without their being able to contradict the Minister’s ex parte statement.

Who seconds the adjournment?

I do, sir.

The hon. member cannot—

I have not spoken to the amendment, sir. Cannot I—

No.

Would you allow me, sir ?

The matter cannot be discussed.

I am rising to a point of order, sir.

Will the hon. member resume his seat?

Am I not in order, sir, in discussing the amendment?

The adjournment has been moved, and that must be discussed first.

There being no seconder the motion to adjourn the debate dropped.

rose to continue his speech, and in his concluding remarks said he was only human, and could not continue very long. He asked why those hon. members who spoke against the deportations did not assist the Labour Party in its appeal when the ship was within hailing distance. They asked for a little consideration. He did not see the need for urgency in connection with this Bill. He thought that as a result of what had happened the Government would be a little better disposed to its employees than it had been in the past. He thought that the Railway Department, instead of teaching the men a lesson had learnt a lesson themselves. He asked hon. members to do justice to those who were poor. He had listened to debates on all sorts of subjects, and why should hon. members laugh when members on the cross-benches brought forward different matters. He thought he would be lacking in his duty if he did not vote for the last amendment. Those who said that they stood for justice must know that by voting for the second reading they would not be doing justice. In conclusion, Mr. Sampson said: “We shall not deny the Government indemnity for acts committed in good faith, but we shall aim at making it impossible for the Government ever to perpetrate another such outrage on the people of South Africa. (Labour cheers.)

rising at 5.32 a.m., said he was sorry Government could not agree to the amendment.

asked if it were competent for the hon. member to speak on this subject, as he had already spoken. The amendment of the hon. member for Weenen was an amendment to an amendment, and was not a fresh amendment at all.

said the hon. member must confine himself strictly to the amendment. He wanted to point out that he was not quite certain whether the amendment of the hon. member for Weenen was quite in order, for no indemnity was required for acts committed by the Government last July. The hon. member asked, the House to refuse to condone unlawful shooting and assaults.

These shooting cases took place on January 18 and 22 and the assaults took place at Benoni in January last.

I understood from the-speech of the hon. member that the matters he referred to took place on July 4.

Three natives were shot on January 18 and 22.

The reference to shooting refers entirely to actions committed prior to the declaration of Martial Law.

I quoted from an answer given last Tuesday by the Minister of Defence.

I am afraid I cannot allow this debate to go on on this amendment.

On a point of order, sir—

Will the hon. member resume his seat?

The amendment refers to three natives and other cases of shooting of natives which occurred during January and also to certain assaults which had taken place during January.

Is it not perfectly in order for an hon. member to propose an amendment without saying a single word in its support ?

ruled that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Weenen was out of order, on the ground that it dealt with events which occurred during last July, and before Martial Law had been proclaimed, whereas the Bill proposed to indemnify acts committed under Martial Law during January of the present year.

I wish to speak to this amendment with regard to the shooting in January under Martial Law. If this amendment has been moved and seconded, are we not entitled to discuss it?

I have given my ruling. The amendment is not germane.

On a point of order, sir, I read out an answer given by the Minister, in which he—

I have given my ruling, and I do not go back on it. (Hear, hear.)

rising at 5.40 a.m., said the debate had lasted so long and they had reached such an hour that he did not think it was expected of him to make any lengthy speech. Before he replied to some of the criticisms he would like to refer to a point raised by the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell) and also referred to by the hon. members-for Weenen and George Town. The hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell) last Friday stated that he had information that on Sunday evening or Monday morning last a telegram was despatched from the Defence Department here to the Defence Department of Pretoria instructing the Department to destroy by fire all censorship regulations and forward a certificate stating that that had been done Then the hon. member stated that on the same day the wire was sent a reply was received stating that certain censorship instructions had been destroyed by fire. The hon. member said an attempt was made to destroy certain evidence which was material to an enquiry to be made under his amendment.

Continuing, General Smuts said: “Last Monday I sent the following wire to Pretoria: ‘Destroy by fire copy number so-and-so regulations of censorship and forward me certificate that this has been done.’ I got the following answer from Pretoria: “‘Copy number so-and-so was destroyed in our presence this, 16th of February) 1914.’ It is perfectly clear that the telegrams to which the hon. member refers are identically the telegrams, I sent to Pretoria. These telegrams did not refer to any matter having reference to the present debate. As Minister of Defence I have in pay possession certain secret instructions belonging to the War Office to use in, an emergency of world-wide importance, which might arise under certain contingencies. These documents I hold on the instructions of the British Government and I have to destroy them as new instructions are issued That was what happened. New instructions have been sent and the old ones have been destroyed. The important point is this: That this matter, which is of very great importance and is an official secret of the War Office, was disclosed immediately after the wires had been sent by me, to the hon. member for Jeppe by some spy or thief who got hold of this telegram. (Ministerial cheers.) I shall insist, and this Government are entitled to insist, that we shall have the name of that thief or spy from the hon. member for Jeppe, and if the hon. member does not state the name of that individual, I shall use the machinery of this House in order to get it. (Ministerial cheers.) This matter has absolutely nothing to do with the subject with which we are now dealing, but it had to do with an entirely different matter, and these censorship regulations were never once used on the present occasion.”

said that he agreed that the circumstances were absolutely everything.

said it was absolutely necessary that they should start from the point of view that such things having happened in the country, which made Martial Law necessary, and that, when the situation arose, the Government were entitled to take such measures as they thought fit in such a crisis. These were not ordinary times, but the gravest crisis possible in the fortunes of the country. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) was entirely wrong when he confused the case with lynch law. It was not a case at all of lynch law. The hon. member for Fordsburg and other hon. members had pointed out that the case he (General Smuts) had made in his opening statement was not so strong as in the preamble. But the preamble of that Bill started with the fundamental facts of Martial Law. The whole case of the preamble resting, as he had rested it in his opening statement, on the basis of a very grave crisis having arisen in that country justified the Government in declaring Martial Law and calling out armed forces in that country. Almost every member had said that in his statement he had said they must not wait for passion to cool down, but he had not referred to passion at all in his statement (which he read again), but said that the deportations were part and parcel of the events which had been occurring. As to what the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had said, the ordinary law courts could hardly have dealt with those cases, and he thought that a special court should have been created. Suppose that had been done, they would have got no further. It was not only a case of a special court, but there was no legal serious offence with which they could have charged these people. They would have had to create a special crime, and besides creating a special tribunal and a special crime, they would have had to create a special punishment also. He asked hon. members whether that was a feasible proceeding. Was it feasible to have those nine men in prison, constitute a court to try them, create a crime with which to charge them, and then lay down some extraordinary punishment? He was sure that no Parliament in its sound senses would have adopted a course like that. The responsibility rested on the Government, who had had to take the best steps they could for the interests of the country. All that they asked that House of Parliament was to approve the action the Government had taken, and that approval was necessary in the state of the law. One question which remained was this. These men, having been deported, should they come Pack? Were they to stultify the action which had been taken by the Government and allow these people to come back? He did not think there were many hon. members in that House, whatever the initial view they might have taken of the deportation, who would say that it was desirable that these people should come back. If any trouble were to recur in that country—and they were by no means out of the wood—and a similar crisis were to occur in the immediate or near future, what was going to happen? They had no standing army in that country, and if their Citizen Army saw that they were playing with such risks, did they think that they would get their citizens to respond as they had responded? (Hear, hear.)

Under these circumstances, he did not wish to labour the point, there was no course open to the House but to confirm the action which the Government had taken and to leave the responsibility where it rested— mainly on the Government. The Government had taken the action. The House would confirm what the Government had done, and if that was done the House would take the best course possible in the interests of the country. They had heard arguments on abstract points, but he did not think it was necessary to go into those points. They all reverenced ideals of liberty and law in this country, but, of course, they must recognise in the last resort the highest constitutional ideals rested on a basis of force. How long would liberty endure if the Poutsmas and the Bains were allowed to go on as they had clone? If they wanted this young country to develop on sound lines in the future, to be a free community, to have its constitutional liberty guaranteed, then it must be based on force, and he said this was the only possible course to prevent danger to those ideals.

then put the question that all the words after “that” proposed to be omitted stand part of the motion, and declared the “Ayes” had it.

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

Ayes—95.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Baxter, William Duncan

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Bekker, Stephanus

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Burton, Henry

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Crewe, Charles Preston

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Cullinan, Thomas Major

Currey, Henry Latham

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fawcus, Alfred

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Harris, David

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Hunter, David

Jagger, John William

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Juta, Henry Hubert

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

King, John Gavin

Krige, Christman Joel

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Langerman, Jan Willem Stuckeris

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Macaulay, Donald

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Nathan, Emile

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Quinn, John William

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Rockey, Willie

Runciman, William

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Searle, James

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

Silburn, Percy Arthur

Smartt, Thomas William

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watkins. Arnold Hirst

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Wessels. Johannes Hendricus Brand

Whitaker, George

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

Wiltshire, Henry

Woolls-Sampson, Aubrey

H. Mentz and J. Hewat, tellers.

Noes—11.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Boydell. Thomas

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Duncan, Patrick

Fichardt, Charles Gustav

Haggar, Charles Henry Meyler

Hugh Mowbray Wyndham, Hugh Archibald

H. W. Sampson land Walter B. Madeley, tellers.

The question was accordingly affirmed, and the amendment proposed by Mr. Creswell dropped.

put the question that the Bill be read a second time, and declared the motion carried.

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

Ayes—95.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Baxter, William Duncan

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Bekker, Stephanus

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J

Bosnian, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Burton, Henry

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Crewe, Charles Preston

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Cullinan, Thomas Major

Currey, Henry Latham

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fawcus, Alfred

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Harris, David

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Hunter, David

Jagger, John William

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Juta, Henry Hubert

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

King, John Gavin

Krige, Christman Joel

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Langerman, Jan Willem Stuckeris

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Macaulay, Donald

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Malan, Francois Stephanus Marais. Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Nathan, Emile

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Quinn, John William

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Rockey, Willie

Runciman, William

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Searle, James

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Serfontein, Nicolaus Wilhelmus

Silburn, Percy Arthur

Smartt, Thomas William

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Riet, Frederick John W.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brand

Whitaker, George

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

Wiltshire, Henry

Woolls-Sampson, Aubrey.

H. Mentz and Hewat, tellers.

Noes—11.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Boydell, Thomas

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Duncan, Patrick

Fichardt, Charles Gustaw

Haggar, Charles Henry

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Wyndham, Hugh Archibald

H. W. Sampson and Walter B. Madeley, tellers.

The motion for the second reading of the Bill was therefore carried.

The Bill was read a second time and set down for committee stage to-morrow.

moved as an unopposed motion that the House on its rising to-day adjourn until to-morrow.

Is there any objection?

Yes, sir, I object.

The motion could therefore not be put.

moved that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was declared carried.

called for a division.

I do not know whether hon. members understand that there is nothing further on the paper.

The motion was again put and carried.