from J. S. Marwick, for increase of pension, for payment in lieu of accumulation leave and for the difference between the surrender value of, and the amount actually received on, improvements effected on property held by him under the Civil Servants’ Housing Loan Scheme.

from P. H. Soderblom, formerly in service of the Table Bay Harbour Board, for relief.

from the widow of T. E. Mavrogordato, Late Deputy Commissioner of Police, for relief.

from the widow of H. W. Bean, who served in the Cape Civil Service, for relief.

from J. Burns teacher, for condonation of a break in his service.

from Gow and Taylor, bakers and confectioners, Benoni, whose premises, for which police protection could not be obtained, were attacked by the mob, looted, and destroyed by fire during the strike in Benoni, on the 6th of July, 1913, for relief.

from H. Goddard, clerk in the Customs Department, for condonation of a break in his service.

Second Annual Report of the Public Service Commission upon matters concerning the Public Service, 1913.

Annual Reports of the Department of Defence and Executive Commands, year ended June 30, 1913.

That in view of the statement made in this House on the 20th February, 1914, by the hon. the member for Jeppe, that he had been placed in possession of information that a certain official telegram had been despatched from the Defence Department, Cape Town, to the Defence Department, Pretoria, on the evening of the 15th February, or on the morning of the 16th February, purporting to convey an instruction to destroy certain censorship instructions, a Select Committee be appointed for the purpose of ascertaining the source of such alleged information; the committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers, and to consist of five members, nominated by Mr. Speaker.

He said that the facts which gave rise to this motion had already been brought to the knowledge of the House. On Monday, the 16th February, the Defence Department sent a wire from Cape Town to the Defence Department at Pretoria to the following effect: “Destroy by fire copy of regulations for censorship, and forward me certificate that this has been done. ” This wire was sent on Monday, and on the same day the Defence Department at Pretoria forwarded the certificate as requested, a certificate to the effect that “copy of the regulations destroyed in our presence, this 16th February, 1914.” As he had explained to the House already, these regulations did not refer to Martial Law or the administration of Martial Law in South Africa in the recent emergency, but referred to emergencies which might possibly arise of a world-wide importance, and these regulations had been entrusted to him (General Smuts) as Minister of Defence by the War Office. On Fri-day last the hon. member for Jeppe, in a statement in that House, said his information was that, on Sunday evening or Monday morning, a telegram was despatched from the Defence Department here in Cape Town to the Defence Department in Pretoria, with the following instructions: “Destroy by fire all censorship instructions, and send certificate that this has been done. ” So that the wording of this, as given by the hon. member on Friday afternoon in that House, was practically identical with the telegram as sent by him (the Minister) on the previous Monday; and he said, further, that these instructions were carried out by General Lukin, the Control Officer, or at his orders. Now, the hon. member then proceeded to insinuate that evidence in connection with the late administration of Martial Law, which might possibly be used, in connection with the inquiry which he proposed should be held under his amendment to the second reading of the Deportation Bill, that that valuable evidence was being destroyed. He had explained to the House that the telegram he had sent had nothing whatever to do with the administration of Martial Law or the administration of any censorship regulations in connection with the recent troubles. This raised a point of very great importance indeed. (Cheers.) It was, as far as he understood, criminal to disclose the contents of telegrams which were sent through their service—(hear, hear) and he was astonished when he heard a member of that House openly make use of information which had been imparted to him by either a thief or a spy for purposes in connection with a debate that was going on in that House. (Hear, hear.) Instead of hon. members in that House supporting the Government in suppressing crimes of this kind, here was a member who, by receiving and using information of this kind, encouraged the thief or spy in the supply of this information. (Hear, hear.) It was not the only incident of the kind which had been brought to his attention. He had had other cases of a very grave character where there had been a strong suspicion, and even more than a strong suspicion, that information which should be secret had been divulged to members of the public in contravention of the law, but it was very difficult to lay one’s hands on a specific case. Here they had now a specific case. The hon. member had openly stated in the House that he had received such information from a source which was as reliable as the information which he had as to the deportations taking place.

arising amid Labour cheers, said that the Minister had said that this was not the first occasion that secrets in possession of the Government had been disclosed to persons outside, and he (Mr. Creswell) quite agreed with him. It accounted pretty clearly for the reason why properties on the Rand were insured some time before the disturbances took place. He merely mentioned that by the way. The Minister, in his statement the other day, of which this was merely a little second: edition, said he sent the following wire to Pretoria: “Destroy by wire copy No so-and-so Regulations of Censorship, and forward me certificate that this has been done.” He called the attention of members of the House to the fact that “Copy so-and-so” was not in the telegram he (Mr. Creswell) quoted, though it was clearly the same telegram. The Minister then said that no sooner had the exchange of telegrams taken place on Monday, 16th, than he (Mr. Creswell) raised the question in the House. The Minister of Defence then went on to say that he had in his possession certain secret instructions belonging to the War Office to use in an emergency of world-wide importance, which might arise under certain contingencies. He went on to say, “The important point is this—that this letter, 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.” If words meant anything, it meant that those secret documents had been disclosed to him (Mr. Creswell), and that he denied.

I did not say that.

The Minister did not say it? Continuing, he said the Minister had the advantage over them that when he spoke his words were accurately reported in the gallery. Continuing, he said that the Minister implied that the contents of certain secret documents, upon which the safety of the Empire might depend in certain contingencies, had been divulged. (Hear, hear.) The Minister wanted to set up a bogey as big as his conspiracy. The Minister then went on “… 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 document.” These wires were sent on the Sunday night or the Monday, and it was on the Friday following that he moved the adjournment of the House. The Minister knew that if he (Mr. Creswell) had any matter of importance that he thought should be brought to the notice of the House, he did not, if he could possibly help it, allow any delay to occur. The Minister had given to the world the fact that there were these secret documents, and they were destroyed from time to time. It was not news to any of them— certainly to those who knew anything of how things were carried on in official circles. They knew that in official circles very often messages had to be destroyed. “Let the House mark this. I shall insist, ” the Minister had said. “I—I and my Government,” as Wolsey had said, “I and my King,” “I, Dei gratia, the Minister of Finance,” will Lave the name of that spy, and if the hon. member does not supply the name, I shall use the whole machinery of the law to make him.” (Ministerial cheers.) He (Mr. Creswell) was charmed to hear those cheers. It was quite likely that he would know the inner meaning of those words, but if he had any doubt about it, that new addition to the Government of this country, the Minister Without Portfolio, the Editor of the “Cape Times,” made them clearly acquainted with what was meant. They were talking perfectly frankly now and everybody knew what the Minister and his colleague, the Editor of the “Cape Times,” meant. There were one or two things that he would like to make clear The Minister had expressed himself as much alarmed at a want of fidelity in the public service.

There was no question as to the existence of secret documents. What could not have been known was the fact that the telegram had been sent. He was inclined to agree to that extent. They all desired not to have any shady transaction taking place in the service. But the Minister himself and the Government were doing their best to debauch the public service by using it to outrage the liberties of the people, of whom they are the servants. They were placing a strain upon the service which it could not stand. The Minister smiled. One of the tragedies of the situation was that the Minister’s logical mind caught hold of little logical quibbles at which he smiled, quite missing the broad view. He did not realise the effect of having destroyed the guarantee upon which public life existed. He did not grasp the effect on the ordinary man, who six months ago looked upon imprisonment without trial as impossible, now looked upon the Government as the greatest law-breaker in the country.

asked whether the hon. member was in order in talking for party purposes?

said that he was not inclined to stop the hon. member.

put it to hon. members that there were times when a member of the public service would be doing a public duty by violating these traditions of secrecy.

Nonsense. (Laughter.)

said that they all differed on various points. He was going to put it in this way. He said this, that on that Monday night, when the Minister’s myrmidons removed those men at the dead of night, in violation of a rule of the Supreme Court, calling on them to show cause why these men should not be liberated, if a member of the public service had told him that this was being done, he would have taken the information and used it, and would have taken it to Mr. Justice Wessels, and given him the information he deplored that he had not got on the following day. Continuing, he said that the Minister smiled at these little things, and failed to grasp the big things which held society together. Six months ago, if anybody had thought that the Government of this country would defy the order of the—

said that the hon. member must confine himself to the matter before the House.

This is merely an illustration, sir—

Oh, no, no.

I am merely illustrating, sir—

said that no liberty could be allowed the hon. member. On a particular definite motion, he could not raise a discussion on matters that had been discussed during the last week.

replied that he was endeavouring to do so; he was not introducing new matter. (Laughter.) Continuing, he said that such a thing would have appeared incredible six months ago. Sometimes secrecy in the affairs of a Government could be carried too far. These traditions of keeping things a dead secret might become a public danger when the Government was in the hands of such Ministers as occupied the Treasury benches at the present time.

All that he had said would not excuse for one moment anything so base as suborning a public servant, but when information came to one unsolicited and given out of a sense of duty, he took upon himself the responsibility of using it. But there was a very much bigger question. The Government by this motion presumed to try and gag Parliament. (Labour cheers.) He had spoken somewhat seriously because the matter was a serious one. Like every other member he received information from all sorts of quarters. Hitherto as regards the use he made of this information there were two considerations that weighed with him. First, whether the public interest demanded its use, and, second, whether the demands of public interest were sufficient for him to make his informers incur any risk. Heaps of times he received information and was asked to destroy the letter in which the information was conveyed. It was not only with the Government’ servants that one had to take that precaution, but also with men in private employ. Now the Minister presumed to fetter one’s judgment with threats of personal consequences if one did use such information, because that was what the Minister meant with his little threat and the more ample threat of his colleague on the Cape Times.” Six months ago he (Mr. Creswell) would have said that this was an obviously absurd matter, and he would have spoken to the Minister on the subject, but after his action in January and the Minister’s lack of respect for the court, was he (Mr. Creswell) to assume that the Minister had any more respect for Parliament than he had for the court? The Minister might have said: “This is where a weak man fails.” The Minister now wanted practically to lot members know that anything they brought forward in this House should be done with the possibility hanging over their heads that they might have to suffer pains and penalties for it.

If the Select Committee were appointed, and he (Mr. Creswell) was asked where he obtained the information, he would have to weigh this: “Shall I refuse to give that information, or, in order to save my own skin, shall I put them on the track where the information came from?” If he took the latter course he would not only be unfit to have a seat in this House, but unfit to associate with any hon. members. (Labour cheers.) He had known the Minister of Defence for ten years, and during the time when it was proposed to introduce Chinese labour into the Transvaal they saw a good deal of one another. He (Mr. Creswell) had been racking his brain to try and remember any incident during that time when any action of his should have induced the Minister to assume that in such a predicament he would hand over to the wolves someone else in order to save his own skin. Most of them imagined that any tendency of that sort was spanked out of them before they were put into knickerbockers. One could not help being amused for what was it that the Minister could do? As far as he (Mr. Creswell) could see, he might have him committed to the custody of the very courteous Serjeant-at-Arms. The Minister might do a number of things, but; he could not hurt him (Mr. Creswell), for he could take a horse to water, but not make it drink. Was the Prime Minister going to introduce the rack or thumbscrew—(laughter)—but he hoped they would not introduce the boot, for that was most painful. (Laughter.) A couple of sessions ago he (Mr. Creswell) was a political opponent, then he became a political undesirable, and now he was a political undesirable from a criminal point of view.

He wanted to warn the House not to make itself ridiculous. If the suggestion were adopted they would simply be doing something which was going to lower Parliament in the eyes of South Africa. The Ministry had given a great shock to the public by its doings. It had treated the Supreme Court with contempt, and now it was proposing to muzzle Parliament. Don’t do it. He was not pleading for himself, for he was not on his defence. (Ministerial cries of “Oh, no.”) They would not hurt him, but they were going to make themselves look supremely ridiculous. He wanted to say this, out of the deep respect for what he believed to be the only safeguard from even worse things than the Prime Minister and his colleagues had done—the safeguard of a free Parliament. Parliament could appoint its Select Committee, and bring him before it and ask him where he obtained his information; but he would not be able to give them any information whatever—not one bit. I will, continued Mr. Creswell, only say this here now. I will give them this clue—the information did not come into my hands from a member of the public service, but that is as much as ever they will get out of me. I am not going to establish a precedent which fettered in one iota the independent judgment of a member as to what information he thinks should be produced in this House. (Hear, hear.) Continuing, Mr. Creswell said he was not on his defence, but the Minister was still on his defence. The Minister had brought about all this distrust of everything he did, because he was still living under hallucinations. He imagined that he was levying war on some desperate enemy, who did not exist, except in the persons of those whose liberties he ought to safeguard. The Minister of Defence imagined that he was a sort of heaven-sent-cardinal. By their insensate idea that they were to govern this country by military force, the Prime Minister and Minister of Defence had produced all this trouble, and he warned them seriously that if they went on in this foolish course South Africa would have grave cause to rue it. They could not govern people of our races with an iron hand, nor by military rule without producing far greater evils. (Labour cheers.)

said the attitude taken up by the hon. member for Jeppe was certainly one that was little expected by hon. members. (Ministerial cheers.) Instead of at once throwing himself on the clemency of the House and making adequate apologies for the position he had taken up, he had now tried to justify himself and said that if that position were departed from, the prestige of Parliament would be lowered. But if there was anything that would lower the prestige of Parliament it would be members becoming parties to tapping public servants. (Cheers.) It was on that account that he (Sir T. Smartt) strongly supported the motion. Certain officials of the Government were committed to secrecy, and no matter what the character of the messages they dealt with might be, if they disclosed their contents, they were guilty of the gravest dereliction of duty. (Ministerial cheers.) Further, if a member should lend himself to encouraging public officials to do that, he was taking up a position which was derogatory to hon. members. (Ministerial cheers.) The hon. member for Jeppe said that if he went before the Select Committee he would practically flout it. That committee had not yet been appointed, but when it was appointed it would know how to deal with the threats of the hon. gentleman. (Cheers.) He felt perfectly certain that the committee would discharge its duty. He wished the hon. member to realise that this was not a matter of political significance, but of the honour of this House and the honour of public officials—(Ministerial cheers)—because if there was anything that was more detrimental to the Service of that country it was the fact of information leaking out, and the unfortunate individual who was not guilty being suspected. (Hear, hear.) Under those circumstances he did hope that the Select Committee, when it was appointed, would do all it possibly could to get at the bottom of that matter. Was it a noble cause for members of that House to get officials to break their obligations? It was also in the interest of the public service of that country to appoint that Select Committee and whether he had got the information direct from a public official or not, the hon. member knew that it had come from an official source. If hon. members made a statement solely for electioneering purposes they should bear the responsibility. He was perfectly certain that the vast majority of members of the House resented the attitude of the hon. member for Jeppe. He was sorry that the hon. member had not apologised to the House because that would have made a better impression. They were not prepared to see the House flouted and addressed in the brazen manner which the hon. member had done. (Cheers.)

said that the hon. member who had just sat down was surprised that his hon. friend the member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell) had not thrown himself on the clemency of the House. They had learned, and he thought his hon. friend (Mr. Creswell) had learned, during his experience of that House that he, or anybody there on the cross-benches, was not likely to receive much clemency at the hands of that House, whether at the hands of the hon. member who had just sat down, or at the hands of the other side of the House; and in his (Mr. Andrews’) estimation, his hon. friend had not been guilty of any offence for which he should ask the clemency of that House. The hon. member (Sir T. W. Smartt) had accused, as he had understood him, officials of breaking their oath of secrecy, and the hon. member getting them to break their oath. The hon. member had done nothing of the kind, and had not even been accused by the Minister of Defence of that. The hon. member had said that he had not received that information from a public servant, and therefore he could not be accused of soliciting information from public servants, or encouraging in any way their giving the information. Then the hon. member had been accused of threatening the House, but he put it to hon. members in what way had his hon. friend threatened the House that afternoon? In his (Mr. Andrews’) opinion, the whole of his hon. friend’s remarks were courteous. They might have hit the Minister a bit, but they had not come to that House to arrange their thoughts and words to please everyone there—he (Mr. Andrews) had not, for one— and they had been sent there to oppose, and they were going to oppose, whenever they saw or heard things they disapproved of. (Labour cheers.) They on those benches were just as jealous of the honour of that House, of the honour of Parliament, and of the honour of South Africa, as the majority of members of that House, as had been shown by a certain division not many months ago. He thoroughly agreed with, and wished to associate himself with, all that the hon. member for Jeppe had said—that it was the fault of and the atmosphere which had been created by the actions and attitude of the Minister of Defence, and the Government generally during the past few months, which had made such things as those not only possible but inevitable. The public service generally was still riddled and seething with discontent and disaffection, notwithstanding Martial Law, and the right of British subjects and all free men had been denied them, to come out in the open and come to the public—the right of free speech and association, the right of all free men—and the fight for liberty would not cease, but other methods would be adopted and other channels. It might be said that they were using threats, but he was not making threats, and it was obvious, and should be obvious to every thinking man of that House. If the Minister could find out from what source the information had come he would not remedy it—there were other sources, and there were other people in the Civil Service who were just as willing, if they were denied the right of free citizens to take an active part in politics and any other movement they wished to take part in. They would find others willing to do the same thing, although they had not looked to them. And they deplored that in the future methods might have to be adopted similar to those in Russia and elsewhere. They need not go to Russia. They had seen during the past few months in the country what the Government had done—offices raided, books stolen, others taken away—every means taken by the Government forcibly to obtain information which they had not the right to obtain. (Labour cheers.) If they were to be treated like that, and the workers’ organisations were to be treated like that, they would find means to retaliate, notwithstanding the shadow of the burgher or of Martial Law. He thanked the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt) for the words he had said. They would be thoroughly useful to them in the country in weeks to come. He felt perfectly certain that the hon. member for Jeppe would carry out his determination, and he felt convinced, notwithstanding what the majority of that House might think, that the vast majority of their fellow-citizens of South Africa would applaud the hon. member’s action. (Labour cheers.)

The motion was declared carried.

called for a division, which was taken; but As fewer than ten members (viz.: Messrs. Andrews, Boydell, Haggar, Madeley, and H. W. Sampson) voted against the motion,

declared the motion agreed to.

was received with cheers on taking the Chairman’s seat.

On clause 1, withdrawal of Martial Law,

moved; To omit from the clause all words from the beginning of the clause down to and including “1914,” in line 31, and to substitute, “As from the date of the promulgation of this Act in the ‘Gazette’ Martial Law is withdrawn from operation in every magisterial district or division which was placed under Martial Law by Proclamation No. 19 of 1914, and thereupon that Proclamation”; and in line 34, to omit, “that particular district or other area,” and to substitute, “each such district or division” He said that the object of the amendment was to provide that Martial Law should disappear ipso facto by the coming into force of this Bill. As soon as it was promulgated, Martial Law would disappear. As the clause stood at present, the Bill would first have to come into operation, and thereafter the Governor-General might repeal Martial Law. Exception was taken to that course during the second reading debate, and the Government then gave the undertaking which he was now carrying out.

said the Minister had stated that the object of his amendment was that Martial Law should disappear ipso facto with the passing of this Bill. It seemed to him (Mr. Boydell) that there was very little difference between the amendment just moved and the original clause in the Bill. The original clause stated that Martial Law should be withdrawn from a date to be fixed by the Governor-General by Proclamation in the “Gazette.” That might mean that, after the Bill had been passed, this Proclamation might not be published in the “Gazette ” for a considerable time. The Minister had now moved an amendment which was supposed to have the effect of repealing Martial Law with the passing of this Bill. He submitted that the amendment was very little better than the original clause. The Bill might be passed by the House, and, in spite of the amendment, it need not be gazetted until the Minister’s pleasure. It seemed to him that if the Minister had had any intention of repealing Martial Law with the passing of this Bill he might have hit upon a more fortunate way of wording his amendment. What could be the object in the delay of the repeal of Martial Law? Martial Law was supposed to be proclaimed in order to maintain law and order and preserve the public safety, but neither the Minister nor any other member of that House could get up and say that the safety of the public was in danger at the present time, or that there was any likelihood of disorder or violence in any part of the country.

Why, therefore, shouldn’t the Minister put something in the Bill which would state definitely that Martial Law should disappear with the passing of this Bill? The reason, he thought, why the Minister liked to hang on to this strong weapon of Martial Law at his pleasure, probably would be found, in his attitude of mind towards the Labour movement generally in preventing political and other meetings throughout the country, particularly in the Transvaal. He had got the power to prevent any political meeting, any open-air meeting, or any meeting to discuss the incidents of the past six months by the people, so long as Martial Law was maintained. It was because they on those benches were under a strong impression that the Minister wanted indemnity for all the acts he had done and still wished to retain the weapon of Martial Law in order to prevent the Labour organisations from holding meetings that they had placed on the paper an additional amendment to this clause, which they thought would go some way towards meeting-the position. He would, therefore, move to omit this clause and to substitute the following new clause, viz.: “As from a date not later than the day following the assent of the Governor-General to this Act Martial Law shall be withdrawn from operation throughout the Union and shall everywhere in the Union thereupon cease ipso facto to be of force and effect.” He submitted to the Minister that, if it were his desire that Martial Law should disappear ipso facto with the passing of this Bill, he should accept the foregoing amendment. He had also given notice of the following proviso, but this he would withdraw, because it seemed that it would not serve any good purpose: “Provided that the Governor-General may at any earlier date by proclamation withdraw Martial Law from operation in any part of the Union.”

said he did not think it was necessary to accept the amendment, and he was very much surprised at the arguments which the hon. member had put forward. He seemed to be under the impression that when this Bill was through there would, for some reason or other, be a delay in gazetting it and bringing it into force, and, consequently, repealing Martial Law. “I need not assure the committee,” the Minister went on, “that that is an entirely impossible view to take of the matter. Nobody can be more anxious to get this Bill through and have Martial Law repealed than I am, and when the Bill is passed 4 assure the hon. member that it will not take many days or hours, after it has been assented to by the Governor-General, before this Bill is promulgated and is in force. Martial Law is maintained for the protection of the Government, because if there is no Martial Law the Government is exposed to all sorts of actions in all sorts of courts. Meetings in the open and processions in those areas where Martial Law has been proclaimed, are not allowed, but no embargo is placed upon meetings in buildings or other closed premises. As soon as the Bill is through both Houses, and it has been assented to by His Excellency, it will at once be promulgated. I do not think it will be necessary to wait for the next day even, because we are extremely anxious to have it promulgated.”

said that if he thought the amendment of the hon. member for Durban, Greyville, would be an additional guarantee that Martial Law would be withdrawn any sooner than under the amendment of the Minister, he would vote for it with two hands. But there was no more security in the one case than the other, and he saw nothing to be gained by the amendment.

said that if the amendment was accepted then surely hon. members knew that the assent of the Governor-General did not make a thing law until it was promulgated, and between those times it would be open for people to proceed against those whom the Government was asking the House to indemnify. They only wanted the law removed when the Bill became law.

said that if the Governor-General assented to it and it was not promulgated within 24 hours, there was a hiatus during which an illegal action might be committed for which Parliament gave no indemnity. He asked the Minister of Defence to explain more fully what was the meaning of keeping Martial Law still in effect. He understood that the courts had refused, pending the consideration of the Indemnity Bill, to hear any application by the general public against the Government or its servants in respect of matters done under Martial Law, taking the view out of courtesy to the House that they could not do so while the Indemnity question was still under consideration. There was no practical reason why the Government should not withdraw the Martial Law the next day and not depend on the passing of that Bill.

said he could quite see that if they could secure Martial Law being withdrawn immediately by putting something in that Bill it might be useful, but he would point out that that Bill was not in force till it became Jaw. He thought the Minister’s amendment met the case as far as they could meet it. He suggested whether it was not inadvisable that restrictions on public meetings and peoples’ liberties should be kept up until the passing of the Act. Now was a good time for the Minister to satisfy himself whether he could safely do away with the restrictions and withdraw all the restrictions at the earliest possible time.

said that perhaps the Minister did not know the extent to which these powers were still being used. The other day he said that the censorship of the Press had not been in force since the first day of the month. The proprietor of the “Sunday Times” had told him that no later than last Saturday week Major Douglas telephoned to them not to put in any reference to the departure of the deportees’ wives the next morning, and sent round an inspector to the office to see about it.

When?

Last Saturday week. Continuing, he said that these things were still being done. He need hardly say that the paragraph in question was published. He thought that if anything was published subject to penalties those regulations would be put into force.

said: there had been no censorship of the Press in existence for some time. This request that the hon. member referred to must have been merely a request. It was certainly not a case of censorship. With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Fordsburg, that they should now withdraw restrictions under Martial Law in regard to public meetings, he would point out that only one request had come to his notice for holding a public meeting, and that was a public meeting on the Market Square, Johannesburg. That was some weeks ago. He thought at the time, and he thought still, that it would not be advisable to hold a concourse again on the Market Square. It would serve no useful purpose; on the contrary, it would only do harm. No one was more anxious than he was that any feelings of irritation should die out as soon as possible, and he did not see how that could be achieved by allowing this gathering to take place on the Market Square. If there was no sign of abuse of these restrictions another application might be made. If the police had no reasonable objection the decision might be changed, but nothing had come before him since a couple of weeks ago.

said that the Minister had stated that any fresh application for holding a meeting on the Market Square might be considered. The fact was that the probability of refusal would deter the probable promoters of any meeting from asking for permission, especially the particular political party with which they were connected. They were convinced —the public were convinced—that the whole and sole object of the Government keeping, on the Martial Law restrictions was to prevent the growth of popular opinion in favour of the Labour Party. Wherever a meeting was desired by the Labour Party to further the candidature of their men for the Provincial Council, the Martial Law regulation in the hands of the police had proved most effective. He had received a wire to the effect that the storekeepers of Benoni, who wished to form an assocition, had been refused permission to hold a meeting. That was forbidden by the police.

It is not true.

I say it was perfectly true, but the embargo was removed immediately after. Does he deny it now? Concluding, Mr. Madeley said there was too much power in the hands of the police, who could stretch the regulations as they liked.

read the following letter from the “Cape Times,” signed M. Chester, Bloemhof, Transvaal: “Is it possible that the honourable and intelligent House of Assembly will pass the Indemnity Bill without making some provision for compensation or redress at law to such innocent victims of the Government's ‘strong hand’ as myself? I am editor of the local paper here (the Digger’s News”), correspondent for Reuter’s, and the ‘Rand Daily Mail,’ etc. I am known as a peaceful and law-abiding citizen, and my views are also well known to the local authorities and the public to be strongly opposed to the aims and methods of the Labour leaders and agitators, etc. Martial Law has never been in force in the Bloemhof district, yet on the 17th of January last I was arrested without a warrant or charge of any sort and taken down to Christiana gaol and flung into a convict’s cell. When I saw the Magistrate in prison and demanded that some charge be laid against me, that I could defend in open Court, he said the papers in my case had gone to the Attorney-General. This is all the official information I received for deprivation of my liberty and the outrage of arrest and gaol suffering. After seven days’ detention I was released without a word of explanation. What will Mr. Merriman say to this?”

Continuing, Mr. Merriman said it was one of the most extraordinary instances of brutal tyranny—if the statements contained in the letter were true—that could ever be heard of, and it showed how we were drifting. (Opposition and Labour cheers.) It showed how the appetite grew on what it fed on. If the letter were true the writer should not be prevented by the Act under discussion from bringing an action against the Government, for if he were prevented it would be a gross violation of justice. He hoped the Minister would give the House an assurance that it was not asked to protect the Crown against the results of outrages of that sort.

said the Bill would only protect the Government for acts done under Martial Law.

said he had information in support of the letter read by Mr. Merriman.

said he did not think the committee could discuss individual cases under this clause.

pointed out that the Provincial Council elections were pending, and in a great many constituencies in the Transvaal there were not suitable halls for the holding of political meetings. Pending the passing of the Bill the Minister should issue instructions that bona fide election meetings should not be interfered with whether they were held indoors or out-doors.

asked what was the idea of keeping Martial Law still in force in the Free State and Natal. He moved that the whole of clause 1 should be deleted. There never had been any necessity for the proclamation of Martial Law in the Free State and Natal. The clause was only being used to throw dust in the eyes of the members. The Minister was keeping on Martial Law for the purpose of striking terror in the minds of men for times to come. The Government was doing an absolutely illegal act in still enforcing Martial Law.

urged that political meetings should be allowed to be held in the Transvaal, for it was very important that the electors should have an opportunity of hearing the views of all the candidates.

said that surely all that was required—if the Minister’s point was a good one, that he could not formally withdraw Martial Law until the Indemnity Bill had passed— was to abrogate the regulations. The Minister had not yet answered the point which he (Mr. Creswell) had raised—had the Supreme Court in the Transvaal refused to entertain any application arising out of Martial Law while that Indemnity Bill was pending?

said that the hon. member was, he thought, mistaken in the view of the question which had been brought before the courts in the Transvaal. The fundamental question was, was the declaration justified and was it legal? When that question had been raised, the court had said that that matter of Martial Law was now being discussed in the higher court (Parliament), to which they ought to pay deference, and whilst that question was not disposed of, it was only right for them to postpone it sine die. With regard to the point raised by the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman), he had not yet had time to go into it.

You should read the papers.

went on to say that the statement might or might not be true, but he thought it would be better to wait until they had the full facts of Mr. Chester’s case before them. Members on the cross-benches continued to press him with regard to a statement about removing the restrictions on public meetings on the Rand. Well, there was that ground for the argument which hon. members had been bringing forward: that elections were pending in the Transvaal, and that all over the Transvaal elections were being contested. He would go into the case, and consult the police authorities, and see whether it was not possible to withdraw the restrictions.

said that he himself had suffered under Martial Law, and knew what it was. He had an utter detestation of it. The point about the letter which he had mentioned was that there had been no Martial Law, and his hon. friend the Minister had acted as Governor Eyre had done—he had seized a man not in a Martial Law district, and had put him in a Martial Law district.

said that the Minister had not shown that there was any need whatever for proclaiming Martial Law in Natal, and had not answered the point raised by the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Meyler). Would it not be a compliment to withdraw Martial Law in Natal without waiting until that Bill passed?

said he would like to ask his hon. friend the Minister, as a lawyer, whether there was any necessity for that clause at all. Surely the Government had the power of withdrawing Martial Law by abrogating the regulations ? The same authority which had issued Martial Law surely had the power of withdrawing Martial Law, either wholly or in part?

said that the point was rather different; his hon. friend was quite right as he had stated it. The clause was rather introduced there as a safeguard, as a protection, because, as hon. members would have heard from members of the cross-benches, there was a suspicion that if that Bill went through Martial Law would not be repealed. He was sorry he had forgotten to answer the point raised by the hon. member for Weenen. Martial Law had been proclaimed in Natal because the Government thought it necessary to protect the main line to the coast, because there was a danger at that time that if they had not kept the line open, there would have been serious suffering owing to food supplies not being able to be sent up; and the interests represented by the hon. member (Mr. Henderson) would have suffered very seriously. To keep the food supplies to the interior intact, that proclamation had been issued. It would have been very unsafe, Martial Law having been proclaimed in certain areas in the Union, to withdraw it, unless he had the protection which that Bill afforded. There would be no repeal piecemeal of Martial Law.

said that he would like to ask how that would affect the cases pending.

said that that was not the question before the Committee now. The question was when should Martial Law be repealed?

pointed out that the Martial Law regulations, in so far as they affected Provincial Council election meetings, meant a great increase of expense to candidates, because open-air meetings could not be held. The Minister had got sufficient power under the existing law, without continuing the regulations, in so far as they affected Pro-prohibit a meeting if he had reason to believe that it was not going to be properly conducted.

said that he had received a letter from someone in Boksburg whom he did not know, which showed the necessity of removing Martial Law as soon as possible. His correspondent said that on January 15 three detectives came and searched his house. They found 14 sticks of dynamite and three coils of fuse which he had there for sinking his well. After that they came to the Modder Deep Mine and arrested him on the engine, and put him in Boksburg gaol for a fortnight. He was tried before a martial tribunal, found not guilty, and discharged. His correspondent went on to point out that he was not a striker, that the dynamite had been at least three months in his house before the strike, and that he had had no chance of seeing the proclamation, yet he was suffering to the extent of £150, and he had lost his job into the bargain.

said he understood that if Martial Law were put on illegally it was necessary to get an indemnity. He was rather amused at the Minister’s argument that he had put on Martial Law in Natal, because he wanted to protect the food supplies for the Rand. He thought that that was all the more in favour of his contention that Martial Law should be taken off at once in Natal. The Cape had been entirely exempted; they in Natal did not grumble at that, but they said they should have been treated exactly the same as the Cape. He hoped the Minister would see his way to take off Martial Law in Natal and the Free State immediately.

said he would like to ask the Minister whether, while he was contemplating the possibility of consulting with the police as to the removal of the embargo upon open-air political meetings, he would at the same time instruct the police at once to return to the Trade Unions the books they had filched from their rooms, and return the list of office-bearers to the Trade Unions, and also instruct the police to demand from the mine managers or officials the list of trade officers now in their hands. He would also like him to instruct his department to cease to act as private informers of the mine managers on the Reef and other big employers as to who were or who were not prominent in the Trade Unions.

said that hon. members would show their bona fides for having Martial Law withdrawn immediately by making as short speeches as possible. (Hear, hear.)

said he would like an answer from the Minister of Defence.

I do not reply, because it is not a question, but an insult which the hon. member has addressed to me.

said that no insult was intended, and he was simply stating facts. The Trade Union officials were known by name, and their whole histories were known—

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is that pertinent to the matter now being discussed ?

The Chairman knows whether I am in order or not, without being taught by the hon. member.

Is that remark justified by my rising to ask your ruling on the subject, Mr. Chairman?

I do not think the hon. member for Springs should use violent language like that. It is not conducive to good debate.

said that, if he had said anything that offended the Chairman’s sense of good taste, he unhesitatingly withdrew it. He must maintain, in spite of the hon. member’s intervention—

I rise again to ask your ruling on the point, Mr. Chairman.

said he knew he was perfectly safe in the Chairman’s hands. He was anxious, before this Bill was passed, because it might take weeks, or even a couple of months yet, before it was through both Houses, to obtain an assurance from the Minister that he would remove the disabilities experienced by Trade Union officials from the fact that their books were not to their hands, as well as their records of correspondence. If the Minister really were correct in his statement that he did not wish to Crush Trade Unionists or the movement, he would insist upon the police returning immediately all the books, and demanding back from the mine managers the list of officials which he knew they possessed. It was a dastardly act. He was asking the Minister to instruct the police to depart from that position.

said he hoped the Minister would reply to his hon. friend.

The Minister has stated that he does not intend to reply.

said he would appeal to the Minister to reply to his hon. friend, who had mentioned the fact that this was felt to be a most grievous act by large numbers of men. It was most unfair that the list of Trade Union officers should have been handed to the mine authorities.

said that surely the hon. member did not seriously require him to attend to this last point. Was it thinkable, he asked hon. members, that the police authorities would obtain lists of names from the books and records of the Trade Unions, and proceed to hand over this list to the mine managers and mine authorities! Surely it was unthinkable.

But it is done.

It is practicable.

said that the hon. member himself had said that he had no conclusive authority for making an outrageous statement like that He had heard it from hearsay.

With regard to the other point about the books of the Unions still being in the possession of the police, he had no information on the point, but he would make inquiries.

said he knew of no such information being offered or received.

The Minister says that it is unthinkable. Some years ago would have thought the same. But these things have been done. I say deliberately—

That does not affect the question under discussion—whether such a thing has been done or not.

said that he was not assuming that Colonel Truter handed these things over.

It is a gross charge against the police.

Let us get rid of this business of building up a gross charge.

That does not affect the question.

was understood to say “they are cheek by jowl and these things get out.”

The amendments of the Minister were adopted, and the clause as amended was agreed to.

said he would like to refer to the Bloemhof incident which had been mentioned by the right hon. the member for Victoria West. The man was imprisoned at the hands of the commandant at Bloemhof, but the Magistrate there said there was no case, so he was taken to Christiana. There was no Martial Law there at all. Then he would like to ask the Minister the cost of all these proceedings. Could the Minister give the committee even an approximate idea of the cost of these disturbances?

wished to know whether this Bill also proposed to indemnify the Minister against claims from such people whose rifles, bandoliers, and even horses had been commandeered by commandants of the Defence Force, and who in many cases had not been given a receipt. Some of the commandants had not acted properly.

said that with regard to the point that had been raised by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, that was being worked out now. The hon. member would understand that it would take some time to ascertain even approximately the cost of the operations through which they had gone. These inquiries were nearly at an end, and he hoped that he would very soon be able to give the committee an idea of the approximate cost of these proceedings under Martial Law. Replying to Mr. Van Niekerk, the Minister said these people referred to by him need only send in their claims and would, after investigation, be duly compensated.

said he was pleased to hear this, as the matter was a serious one. Every burgher who had suffered should receive justice.

drew the attention of the hon. Minister to cases of officers of the Defence Force getting themselves interviewed by public newspapers and delivering public speeches in various parts of the country, speeches which, in his opinion, had caused a great deal of ill-feeling. He would ask the Minister if it was right in times of civil trouble that those engaged in leading the forces in military operations should allow themselves to be interviewed by public newspapers and deliver speeches on purely political matters? The hon. member referred to an interview with General De la Rey, who was in command of certain forces in the Transvaal, which had appeared in the “Rand Daily Mail” on the 20th January last. In this report the general referred to the many thousands who had responded to the call of their party, which was represented by the Government then in power. Was that a discreet thing? asked the hon. member, for a gentleman in his position to tell the people of Johannesburg ? The Prime Minister might laugh, but it was evidence of the reprehensible principle to which he (Mr. Alexander) was drawing attention. The suggestion was that if any other party had been in power they would not have responded so well. He was not going to vote against indemnifying the Government, but he felt that he could not do less than draw attention to the reprehensible principle. Again, the officer in charge of the forces delivered a speech in Johannesburg—reported in the “Star” on the 21st January—which, in his (the speaker’s) opinion, was likely at a time of public excitement to have caused ill-feeling. Had the hon. Minister himself delivered this speech it would have been different, but he would like to know if it was to be admitted in future as a good principle that officers should be allowed to make these speeches. General Beyers went into the whole position with regard to the strike. He would ask the hon. Minister if he would not issue some order so that officers would not be able to spend their time granting interviews to newspaper representatives and delivering political speeches? In his opinion they should leave politics and such matters alone.

agreed that it was an undesirable practice, but said the hon. member must bear in mind that they were at the beginning, and it would take some time before the machinery worked quite properly. It was not a highly trained army with which they had to deal, both men and officers were ordinary citizens of the Government, and in many cases they had been politicians before they were soldiers. It was not easy for them to jump out of the old groove and fall in, so to speak, with the tight-lacing of official life. The hon. member, therefore, should not labour the point unduly, especially as in respect of those speeches no indemnity was asked for. The hon. Minister moved: In sub-section (1), line 37, after “shall” to insert “on or after the said date”; and in lines 67, 68 and 69 to omit “date when Martial Law has been withdrawn from every district or area of the Union,” and to substitute “promulgation of this Act.”

said it was very interesting to hear the admission of the hon. Minister that they must not forget that some of those military gentlemen hid been politicians in the past, and as a consequence were apt to take their politics into their military operations. The same thing seemed to apply in the inverse order. Many of those occupying seats in the Ministry had been military men in the past, and were carrying their military methods into the government arrangements of this country.

He did not know whether the hon. Minister was offended, or only pretended to be offended, by their charges of information having been given to the mining houses, etc., by the police, but he wanted to bring one specific case before the House—one of many—-and he thought after the Minister had listened to it he would come to the conclusion that they were right and he was wrong. Proceeding, the hon. member said it was a case of one Writing, a pumpman, who was employed on the Kleinfontein Mine. This man did not go out on strike, he remained at his post. Strike Committees were not such fools as some hon. members in the House seemed to think. They desired to keep the water out of the mines as well as anybody else. Quoting from a letter, Mr. Madeley said that this man stuck to his work up to the 16th. On that date his boss told him to lay off, as there was no necessity for him. Seven days later he was sent for again, and remained working at the Kleinfontein Mine until the 5th February of this year, when he received notice, and asking the reason for his dismissal, he was told that Bulman had ordered him to be sacked because he had put a red flag up on a tree outside his house. He certainly did have a red flag hanging there, and Detective Murphy came along and asked his wife who had put it there, and when told that Writing had, said. “Well, he will lose his job through this.” The detective then ordered the production of Writing, who was asleep in bed. The man was hauled out, and Murphy welcomed him by saying, “You will lose your job for this; I will see that you do.” Mr. Madeley then read a letter from Writing’s immediate boss, the cyanide manager, who wrote: “Dear Writing,—Will you be good enough to come to the office for your pay and discharge from the company, as your services will not be required any longer?” The hon. member also read a testimonial from the man’s immediate employer, who stated that he had been employed as a pumper from the 17th June, 1910, to the 5th February, 1914, and that during that time his work had been efficiently done, and that he had always been attentive to his duties. Proceeding, Mr. Madeley said that the man had evidently given satisfaction, and there was therefore no reason on the score of his work that he should have been sacked. He had remained at work until his boss had laid him off, and had then returned to work until he got his discharge. He was not a striker in the ordinary sense. It was because he flew a red flag outside his house, and that the information was conveyed to his employer by Detective Murphy, that that poor fellow was kicked out to find work as best he could, while his wife had to go through the sufferings contingent upon her husband being out of work at such a time.

Once hon. members knew the cruel way— absolutely regardless of the feelings of others—that the representatives of the Government had adopted in the carrying out of Martial Law, he was sure they would not be prepared to indemnify the Government for all the acts supposed to have been done in good faith. He felt convinced that if the Minister knew one quarter of what had transpired, he would have put his foot down. There were numerous instances in his (Mr. Madeley’s) own constituency—Benoni—of the most base cruelty and deliberate provocation on the part of men who should have acted differently, and who were deliberately bringing about a state of affairs which rendered it impossible for men to maintain law and order.

The hon. member proceeded to read a letter, the writer of which stated that a man, known as “Wee Jock,” was walking along a street at Benoni at 7.45 one evening, pushing his bicycle. A policeman shouted “Halt,” and there were several people about at the time, and before “Wee Jock ” realised whom the policeman was shouting to, he was shot at. Fortunately the shot missed him, but he was arrested, and charged with refusing to halt when called upon to do so. Then the police at Benoni broke open the door of the Workers’ Hall, and broke open all the boxes and cupboards of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers and the Transvaal Miners’ Association. Then they took away a notice-board, and left the place in a horrible state. The Minister should inquire into the application of Martial Law right along the Reef, especially at Benoni, to see whether the special constables—“hirelings,” he (Mr. Madeley) called them—had been abusing their powers.

said he was not prepared to record his vote in, favour of indemnifying all the acts done by officers during Martial Law. He alluded to what had taken place in the Old Arcade, Johannesburg, a matter which had been referred to by the hon. member for Commissioner-street (Mr. Sampson) at an early hour the previous morning. He (Mr. Haggar) had put a question to the Minister of Justice on Tuesday about the conduct of a certain constable—(A311)—and the Minister replied that an inquiry had been held, but that there was no truth whatever in the allegations. Since he had asked the question, and before the Minister had given his answer, he had received a telegram from Mr. Russell in Johannesburg (whom he did not know): “Authorities have made no inquiries as yet into complaints, Old Arcade, regarding brutal conduct of constable A311, and authorities so far have ignored complaints.” Continuing, the hon. member said that there was something wrong, and he brought the question up that day because the last had not been heard of it. He would like the Minister to say whether the passing of that clause would prevent any departmental inquiries being held into acts done during Martial Law. They could not allow their women and children to be outraged as these people bad been outraged in the Old Arcade in Market-street. Dealing with the man in whose house dynamite had been found, the hon. member said that £250 was not a small item to a working-man.

Go down to the Docks and face the men. (Laughter.)

said he was prepared to do so. Continuing, he said the last time he had been at the Docks was when the Armadale Castle was in. No one challenged him when he passed through the gates, and he wanted to see whether he could see that man, who he might say, had since died. Coming back an officer in the most insulting manner wanted to know “What the devil I was doing there. ” (Laughter.) He (Mr. Haggar) had replied, that he had gone to see that man who was sick, to which the officer had replied, “You know as well as I do that that is not true.” He (Mr. Haggar) replied that he knew better. He had then been taken in a motor-car to Wale-street Police Station and had to wait for half an hour. Chief Constable Butler was all that a gentleman could be, and had been very nice to him. He had asked whether he (Mr. Haggar) had not been told not to go to the Docks, and he replied he did not know. If he had had his revolver when he had been treated in that insulting manner, he would have shot the man who had been so insulting. He was entitled to protect himself from outrage. Subsequently one of the police officers had shaken him by the hand and congratulated him on the good order which had been maintained. If that indecency could be meted out to one man, why not to others?

said that if that clause passed it would practically prevent those people who had claims from bringing them against the Government. It was invoking a principle which would affect the people in many ways in the future. He thought those cases should be exempted from this Bill. He did not see why, because of the provisions of this Bill, those cases which were started before this Bill was even read a second time should be affected, and be dismissed, when the people who started them would have to pay the costs.

said that he did not think the reply of the Minister was at all satisfactory with regard to the expenditure. They were asked to pay the expenses, but he thought they should have the particulars. The strike ended a month ago, and even if his hon. friend did not have the information, the Treasury should have it.

said that his hon. friend way surely under a wrong impression. He was not asking authority for the expenditure of money. He intended to come before the House with estimates, and these were being prepared at the present time…. What they asked for was an indemnity for acts done in good faith for the suppression of internal disorders. An hon. member had raised the question of the action taken by the police on certain occasions, and he mentioned certain cases and asked whether this Bill included a departmental inquiry into such cases. No, certainly not; but if the hon. member could bring to the notice of the Minister of Justice any occasions where the police had acted beyond reasonable limits then he was sure these cases would be inquired into, and Martial Law would not stand in the way. The hon. member for Commissioner-street had raised the question of acts done after the 8th January and before the proclamation of Martial Law. As there seemed to be some misunderstanding, might he explain what these three sub-sections meant. In the first sub-section hon. members would see that an indemnity was asked for in respect of acts committed at this time. The first asked for an indemnity for on and after the 8th January and prior to the proclamation of Martial Law. The second asked for an indemnity for acts under Martial Law in the districts where it was proclaimed, and the third sub-section dealt with acts committed in any district or area not so placed under Martial Law after the proclamation of Martial Law. He would explain why the clause was put in this form. Hon. members would remember that the railway strike took place on the 8th January. From that date to the 14th January, when Martial Law was proclaimed, the Government had to take extraordinary precautions for the protection of certain places and railway areas in the Transvaal. On the 7th the Government took possession of various stations and workshops. Of course extreme steps had to be taken for the protection of these places.

said he did not object to giving the Government an indemnity in the cases mentioned by the Minister of Defence, but he did not think the Bill expressed in words the intention the Ministers had made out. They might eliminate sub-section 2. Subsections 1 and 3 were rather contradictory and overlapped. But more than that, they were somewhat conflicting. Sub-section 3 had no dates. It was not limited in time, but whereas the first sub-section was limited to areas where there was no Proclamation of Martial Law, and between two dates, sub-section 3 was unlimited, and therefore it seemed to him that sub-section 1 was unnecessary, in the face of sub-section 3. If they were going to have indemnity for all acts done in an area where there was no Martial Law, they did not need another section to say the same thing with regard to some specific period. He did not think they would like to give indemnity to the Government for an unlimited period. Subsection 3 might cover ten years back. That sub-section would cover all acts, no matter how far back, and over the whole Union. Of course, that was not the intention of the Government, but he would suggest that the two sub-sections might be re-considered, or the difficulty might be met in sub-section 3 by inserting “on and after January 8.”

said that the hon. Minister gave a very fair explanation of the intentions of the Government, but unfortunately the Courts did not go by intentions, but by the letter of the law, and by the letter of the law they were going to give them indemnity for acts committed all over the Union, both before and after this Act came into force. That would be prospective indemnity. They could be indemnified for putting any hon. members under lock and key, or if a newspaper editor, as somebody suggested, was thrown into prison, they could say they did it in food faith; they could say they considered him a dangerous rascal, if such a term could be used in respect to a newspaper editor. He hoped his hon. friend would agree to report progress, so that that matter could be considered further. If the hon. Minister himself had brought his intellect to bear upon the drawing up of the thing, they might have had a decent clause.

said they were drawn up by one of the most capable officers in the Union. He admitted that sub-section 5 ought to be made so as to limit the provisions of the section, and he had no objection to progress being reported.

Progress was accordingly reported, and leave granted to sit again to-morrow (Thursday).