from inhabitants of Smithfield for construction of a railway from Edenburg to Rouxville via Smithfield. Col. C. P. Crewe (East London), from J. Williams, formerly blacksmith, Cape Railway Department, for condonation of a break in his service.

from E. Woolard, formerly outdoor officer, Customs Department, for a pension.

from J. M. Corderoy, formerly in Cape Civil Service, for relief.

Reports relating to the payment of pensions to Miss Muriella Emilie Frazer, Miss Jessie Dora Smith, Miss Violet Ann Miller, Mr. T. G. Ross, and Captain H. H. Gordon.

These reports were referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

Second Interim Report of the Royal Commission on the Natural Resources, Trade, and Legislation of certain portions of His Majesty’s Dominions; Minutes of Evidence taken in New Zealand in 1913, in Australia in 1913 (Part I. and Part II.), and in London in November, 1913, and papers laid before the Commission.

Regulations framed under the Customs Management Act, 1913.

Additional Regulations under the Miners’ Phthisis Act, 1912.

stated that, in accordance with the resolution adopted yesterday by the House appointing a Select Committee for the purpose of ascertaining the source of the alleged information contained in a statement made on the 20th February, 1914, by the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell) on the subject of the destruction of certain censorship instructions, the members of the committee to be nominated by Mr. Speaker, the following members would form the committee, viz.: The Minister of Justice, Sir Henry Juta, Messrs. Cronje, Krige and Henderson; Sir Henry Juta to be chairman.

proposed as an unopposed motion, in view of the motion given notice of by the Minister of Justice for the introduction of a Bill which dealt largely with the subject matter of a Bill of which he (Mr. Nathan) had given notice, that the first reading and the order for the second reading of the Public Meetings Bill, set down for Wednesday, March 11, be discharged, and the Bill be withdrawn.

The motion was agreed to.

moved for leave to introduce a Bill to make special provision for the maintenance of order and public safety in times of actual or apprehended grave disturbance of the public peace and to amend the law as to riotous assemblies and the dispersal thereof, and further to amend the criminal law in certain respects.

asked if the Bill were the same as the one that was gazetted just before Christmas.

No, Mr. Speaker. It is not the same Bill, though some of the provisions are the same.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a first time, and set down for second reading on Monday, March 9.

moved, that Sir Jan Langerman be discharged from further service on the Select Committee on Working of the Miners’ Phthisis Act, 1912, and that Mr. Myburgh be appointed in his stead.

The motion was agreed to.

said he wished to refer to a letter which appeared in the “Cape Times” of that morning, signed Henry C. Nefdt, of Lytton-street, Observatory. He did so, not only because of that letter, but in view of the extremely derogatory remarks made in the Press by individuals and also by the Press itself. The letter was as follows:

“Sir Jas. Molteno, as Speaker of the House, is supposed to be impartial to both sides. Yet what do we find? He has one ruling for the Unionist-Nationalist side of the House, another ruling for the Labour side. When Mr. Boydell, in the course of his speech on Thursday, was talking about the few members of His Majesty’s ‘great Opposition ” who were present while Mr. Madeley was ‘defending himself from the untruthful, malicious, and contemptuous attacks made on him by the men (“scum ” is more the word), who sat on those benches,’ he was called upon by Mr. Speaker to withdraw those words and at the same time apologise to the House. Yet, when the ‘Great’ Sir Thomas Smartt rises and calls the Labour members ‘six grasshoppers,’ that, in the Speaker’s estimation, is Parliamentary language. So much for Mr. Speaker’s impartiality. Personally, I do not think that Gallant Six will trouble their heads over Mr. Speaker or the rest, because, after all, it’s not Parliament that counts, but the people of the country. Their answer to the Government will shortly be given through Liesbeek. Trusting, sir, that you will not consign this to your waste-paper basket, but give me fair play and publish this letter. I sign my name.” Concluding, Mr. Mentz said that he hoped that, having brought that to the notice of the House, some means would be devised and some action would be taken to put an end to these most derogatory remarks, directed not only at the Speaker, but also to the House.

My attention has already been called to the letter quoted by the hon. member, but, as far as I am personally concerned, I would prefer the House to treat it with the contempt it deserves. (Hear, hear.) Reflections such as those contained in the letter in question in the public Press are, no doubt, calculated to bring the members of this House and the proceedings of this House into contempt, and the hon. member was therefore perfectly right in drawing the attention of this House to the matter. The best course of dealing with the question raised would be by means of an inquiry through a Select Committee. The fact, however, that the hon. member has called the attention of the House to this matter will, no doubt, serve as a warning, and I would suggest to him and to the House that the matter be not pursued any further on the present occasion.

said that when progress had been reported on Wednesday, sub-section 3 of clause 2 was under discussion, and the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour (Sir H. H. Juta) had pointed out that there was some overlapping between sub-section 1 and sub-section 3, and he recognised the justice of the hon. member’s remarks. Hon. members would see that sub-section 1 referred to actions which had been done under Martial Law between January 8 and 14, and subsection 2 dealt with the period for which Martial Law had been enforced for the areas over which it had been proclaimed. Sub-section 3 was intended to deal with those areas where it had not been proclaimed, and he therefore proposed that the following words be added at the end of paragraph 3: “Subsequent to the proclamation thereof and prior to the 31st day of January, 1914.” The operation of that sub-section would be limited to that period from the proclamation of Martial Law to the meeting of Parliament, and no acts done under Martial Law or otherwise in suppression of disorder after the 30th January would be protected by the provisions of that Act.

submitted that was not sufficient, and referred to sub-section 2. He said that there also they must say during what period, otherwise, as it stood there, anything done prior to the proclamation of Martial Law, as long as it complied with the other conditions, would be in the same position as any act done under sub-sections 1 and 2. He hoped that the Minister would have the same limitation in sub-section 2.

said that the hon. member was quite correct, and that limitation ought to apply to subsection 2 also. He moved that the words “subsequent to the proclamation thereof” be added at the end of sub-section 2.

asked whether that gave indemnity for a case such as had been brought up the previous day — the case of the unfortunate Mr. Chester? Certainly. Surely his hon. friend could not mean that. He thought the Minister ought to give some safeguard in a case of that kind. As the Bill had been originally framed, the intention of the framer (he did not say of the Minister) was to give a plenary absolution, which was, he believed, an indulgence of the Church absolving the man, not only of all the sins he had committed, but of all he might commit to the end of his life It was a very fine thing that indeed. (Laughter.) Jesting apart, it would be a monstrous thing if they were to prohibit or put to expense anyone subjected to such an outrage and to debar him from ordinary redress.

said that he would like to say, in regard to the case of Mr. Chester, that he had examined it, but had not the full reports yet. If the facts were as stated in the letter, it would not come under that Indemnity Act for acts done in good faith for the suppression of disorder. It would be a malicious act.

said that his hon. friend had not had the same experience he had of Martial Law, otherwise he would know the onus lay upon the man to prove that what had been done was not done in good faith. He could tell him it was a denial of justice and an outrage on every sense of justice; and they looked upon the Minister of Justice to see that these things were not done and guard them against them.

said that there might be hundreds and thousands of cases other than the case of Mr. Chester. They did not know. He did not mind voting for the Bill, provided they made provision for a case like that of Mr. Chester. He knew what they had suffered under Martial Law, and they must make the matter quite clear

said that exactly the same outrages had been committed in areas where Martial Law had been proclaimed. If the whole burden were placed on the complainant to prove bad faith, it was practically impossible for anyone, either in a district where Martial Law had been proclaimed or where it had not been proclaimed, to get redress.

pointed out that he was not in charge of the Bill. From what the Minister of Justice had said he thought he had grasped the situation, and wanted to see justice done.

said he wanted to move an amendment to sub-section 2. On the paper he had an amendment to move a separate clause 5, but after consideration he had seen that if he allowed clause 2 to pass he would eventually be ruled out of order, as it would be somewhat in conflict with clause 2. He wished to move the following proviso to sub-section 2: “Notwithstanding anything in this Act contained, the Court of Appeal, consisting of the three ordinary judges of appeal, or of at least two of the said judges and one extraordinary judge of-appeal, shall have the right and shall be competent to institute an inquiry, after the ordinary manner of a court of first instance, into and to hear any case which may be brought before the same either by way of action, petition, or other legal proceeding arising out of any act in respect of which the claim to restitution or compensation as against the Government has by this Act been discharged or made void; and every person having an interest in such action, petition or other legal proceeding shall have the right to bring the same before the said court. In the event of the Court of Appeal, thus constituted, finding that the act which has given rise to the injustice forming the subject matter of complaint, is one of such a nature that, although bona fide, the limits of what was necessary under the circumstances were thereby transgressed in such a manner as in the opinion of the court was not justifiable, and that according to right and equity restitution or compensation, in part or in whole, should be made, the said court shall make such recommendation to Parliament as it may deem right and just. The legal remedy hereby afforded shall be prescribed within six months after the coming into operation of this Act.”

said on the previous day that the Government would inquire into these cases and do what was right. He submitted that they had no right first to take away the right of a man going to court, and then trust to the mercy of the Government. The Government might decide against a man, and that man would have a grievance for years to come. But if they gave him access to a court of that kind they would not only be doing what was right, but they would for the future secure what ought to be done—they would not have laid down a bad example to be followed by future generations. This remedy would be prescribed in six months. Any man to whom any injury had been done would have access to the court, and so would the deported men. They would also have the right of coming to this court and saying, “I, or we, have been dealt with unjustly under the circumstances.” It was more than likely it was probable, that there were one or two cases of men deported against whom no case had been made out, and these men ought to be given an opportunity of coming to an impartial tribunal and saying, “We challenge the Government to prove to us that it has done what is right and necessary under the circumstances in order to place this judgment upon us of excommunicating us from South Africa.” If the court found that there was no real grounds for deportation against one or more of these men it might recommend to Parliament. Parliament was not only asked to indemnify the Government against what had been done—that they were prepared to do— but to go further and turn deportation into banishment for life, and that without any judicial evidence before them, without opportunity being given to these men to lay before Parliament the facts from their point of view. It was in order not to establish a precedent of this kind that he had moved in this direction. That was the very least that they as a Parliament ought to insist upon. If the Government did not desire to do that then it could bring in an Act providing for all cases of a similar kind that happened during July and January, providing punishment by law and a special court.

said he would challenge the hon. member (General Hertzog) to show him in any of the Indemnity Bills which had been passed in this country and the various colonies of South Africa a precedent for what he proposed. (Hear, hear.) He had looked for one and he could find he provision to that effect, and for the very simple reason that the Indemnity Act fell to the ground at once. (Hear, hear.)

Oh, no.

I do not think the hon. member has read carefully this involved amendment himself. I shall go through the clause and show the House what it means. Proceeding, the Minister said that the Court of Appeal was to be the Court to hear these cases as a court of first instance. The South Africa Act had laid down positively that the Court of Appeal should be a Court of Appeal only, and should only hear cases which came to it on appeal for review from other courts of first instance. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member was not satisfied with the South Africa Act, of which he was one of the framers. He now wished to make the Court of Appeal a court of first instance to hear cases ab initio. What would be the effect of that? Supposing his amendment were accepted, a case might be brought before this Court of Appeal, and that court might make a recommendation to Parliament, as was proposed in the amendment. At the same time the individual concerned started an action in a court of first instance, because the action taken by the Government had not been bona fide. The other courts of first instance were open to him, and a provision was made that if a man had acted mala fide the courts were open to him. The individual concerned went to the court of ordinary jurisdiction, and that court came to a certain decision, an appeal was made from that decision, an appeal on a point of law. To whom was that appeal to be made? Should the appeal be made to the Court of Appeal, which had already sat in the case as a court of first instance? It must be plain to the committee that it was quite impossible to make the Court of Appeal a court of first instance under this Act, and at the same time allow it to retain its functions as a Court of Appeal under the South Africa Act. It was unworkable. Let them proceed further. The hon. member proposed that the Court of Appeal, sitting as a court of first instance, should be competent to institute an inquiry into and to hear any cases which may be brought before the same by way of action, petition, or other legal proceeding, etc., so that any person who felt himself aggrieved under Martial Law by acts done by the Government or its servants could go to this court and have his case inquired into.

How can you ?

But the recommendation can only be made in cases where the limits of what was necessary have been exceeded. In a question of a man having acted in good faith, if by using his fists he could have achieved his object better than by using a pick handle the case may be reported. I can only say that it is absolutely preposterous to think that every action which has been taken in good faith under Martial Law shall now be inquired into to find whether the force which was used was not more than was necessary in that particular case. I say that it is novel, that it is extraordinary and unprecedented in cases of this kind, and that the Government would stultify itself if it accepted this amendment. (Hear, hear.)

said he would ask the Minister to consider this amendment. His excuses were of the most flimsy kind. They were not worthy of a big thing like this. (Hear, hear.) In the first place, the Minister had stated that he (General Hertzog) was not satisfied with the South Africa Act. Yes, he was very much satisfied with the South Africa Act, but was there any reason way that high tribunal should not also be asked by Parliament and by the country to do special work of a very extraordinary nature for this occasion? Surely there was not the least reason. If the Minister found such a great difficulty in the way, let him (General Hertzog) ask him to show a way of getting some other tribunal which would be acceptable to him. The Minister was the person who had objected to the ordinary tribunals of the country. He was trying to satisfy the Minister’s squeamishness. The Minister’s next point was that this tribunal would sit both as a court of first instance and might afterwards sit as a Court of Appeal. Was there any likelihood of the same cases coming in appeal before the Court of Appeal and at the same time in first instance? Let him remind his hon. friend that this court was there only for special cases whereby under this Indemnity Bill the action had been taken away from that person. Then it was said, “Why an Indemnity Act?” Did not the Minister see that the Indemnity Act was to indemnify them—to indemnify the wrongdoers—(Labour cheers)—to protect them against lawful claims which the country and private individuals might have against them. Were those people who had suffered from these illegal acts to remain unprotected? Even in time of war the military went and they said that certain fortifications should be raised, and fortifications were raised, but when the time was over these people went to a proper court, although the military had been indemnified. The Minister wanted to have himself and the other members of the Government indemnified and protected, but he did not want the innocent men who had suffered to be compensated for the evils they had to undergo because of circumstances.

Although they had the fullest confidence in the Ministers, was it fair that these men should be made to rely, solely on what the Ministers deemed to be right? Could the Minister point to a single incident to serve as a precedent for his asking that the men sent out of the country should be banished without trial? (Labour cheers.) All the court could do, proceeded General Hertzog, would be to make representations to Parliament, and Parliament would decide. He could not conceive of anything which would be fairer. The Minister’s objections had been too hasty, and if he wished to do what was just he should adopt something of the kind he (General Hertzog) had proposed. By all means let there be a judicial inquiry—-an inquiry in which the whole of the country would have faith. If the Minister did not want people to be knocking at the doors of Parliament for years to come and complaining that they had been unjustly treated, let him do something in the direction he (General Hertzog) had indicated, and if the Minister did that he (General Hertzog) was prepared to withdraw his amendment.

said he wanted to get from the Minister what he was going to do by way of limiting sub-clause 3 as regards area. If sub-clause 3 remained in he saw no need for subclauses 1 and 2. The reason for proclaiming Martial Law in some districts and not in others was that the stringent conditions of Martial Law should not be extended over a larger area than was necessary, but if they indemnified the officers of the Crown and others for illegal actions committed in districts not under Martial Law what was the use of proclaiming Martial Law at all? If the clause was intended only to cover commandeering by burghers while on their way to Martial Law areas, that should specially be provided for. He did not think the amendment of the hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog) would quite meet the case, for the only additional safeguard it gave was that it made an officer liable if he went further than the necessities of the case required. If they admitted the necessities of Martial Law at all it was very unfair that officers who had to administer it should come before a tribunal and be judged after the events in order to see that what they did was more than the necessities of the case demanded. It was very easy after an event to show that it was not necessary. (Hear hear.) Parliament would not be acting fairly to those officers who had been carrying out the commands of Government if they were punished for going beyond what Parliament now thought was absolutely necessary.

said if no illegal acts had been performed it would not have been necessary to come to Parliament, but it was just because illegal acts had been done that an Indemnity Bill was required. Did the amendment mean that everybody who thought they had been illegally treated could bring an action against the Government? If the amendment were adopted he did not see why they should have an Indemnity Bill at all. If the deported men had the right to bring an action against Government he did not know what position the country would be placed in. The Government had fully admitted that these acts were illegal under ordinary circumstances, but it now asked to be indemnified from the consequences because these acts had been done under Martial Law.

said the Court of Appeal under the amendment would make representations to Parliament, but if the latter had to deal with matters of that kind it would be utterly impossible for it to carry on its ordinary work.

Proceeding, the hon. member asked whether such cases would be impartially considered in Parliament. He wanted to draw attention to sub section (c). It was absolutely necessary that officers who got such enormous powers put into their hands, as happened under Martial Law, should be schooled in the nature of their duty, so that, should Martial Law ever again become necessary, there should be some uniformity of application. Some of the acts of some of the officers the Minister of Defence would explain by their being new to their work, and actuated by political bias. The sentences and penalities depended upon the temperament of the officer in charge, and had little of the judicial uniformity associated with the civil courts. Referring to the case of the signalman in Natal who had been sentenced to 12 months’ hard labour, the hon. member said he desired to make a correction. He had been reported as saying that the man had had no trial, but what he meant to infer was that he had had no trial in the civil courts, because the man had been tried in a court under Martial Law. He wanted to make that matter quite clear.

said he wanted to refer to what had been said by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan) in regard to the objections he had raised to that amendment. The hon. member had taken the view, with which one sympathised, that a man who had a great responsibility placed on his shoulders and in an emergency had made a decision, later on should not be put under the microscope as to what he had done being or not being in excess of what he should have done under ordinary circumstances. While what the hon. member had said was perfectly true, or would be true, in a state of war, it did not cover the situation which they had been through. When Martial Law had been declared it had been declared in a situation in which it had never before been declared, and that did away with the objection raised by the hon. member. Martial Law had not been declared against enemies in the field or against a foreign invasion, but it had been declared, as they on the cross-benches had stated, under the excuse of cheeking excesses, for the purpose of crushing a perfectly legitimate organisation. When people failed to distinguish between use and abuse of a thing, and when they said that they were going to declare war against the people and their legitimate organisations, the objections raised by the hon. member no longer applied. The utmost care was required and the utmost possible safeguards were necessary in giving indemnity under such circumstances. If, according to the Minister’s own statement, there might have been hundreds to thousands of cases where acts committed by officers had (been so greatly in excess of the needs, surely all the more reason for having such an inquiry—if all these cases had arisen in that short period. It bore out all that they on the cross-benches had said.

The hon. member again referred to events which had taken place at Benoni and elsewhere, and said that they asked for nothing better than that these cases should be taken to a proper tribunal of judges of the land. They (the Labour members) were so confident of their case that they asked for such a tribunal to be set up. He did not want to refer to these cases ad nauseam.

Hear, hear.

went on to say that the hon. member said “hear, hear,” but these things would be long remembered, and for years and years to come, in that country. (Labour cheers.) Proceeding, he said surely it was wrong for a man who had been wronged during the time Martial Law was in force or while Martial Law had not been decreed not to be allowed to go to the courts. Was it right for the House to make a general indemnity? Anything that would secure some measure of justice to those who had been wronged would have his most hearty support.

said that there was another set of people who had been wronged, and about whom they had heard nothing from the cross-benches. There was the case of that nurse which had been mentioned in the House, and the case of the burning down of the premises of Messrs, Gow and Taylor. He was astonished at the remarks of the hon. member for Smithfield, and was glad to see chat he had reformed. He admitted there was a good deal in what the hon. member for Jeppe said about compensation, but he instinctively thought of the others at the moment. Were they going to compensate these other people? Did Parliament really mean to pay compensation, and if so, who was going to find the money? What steps had been taken to bring justice home to those people who had committed these crimes? As far as he knew, practically none. Not a word had been said by the hon. member for Jeppe about those people who were practically ruined through what had happened. They were not workers, he supposed. Justice was a beautiful thing if they got all-round justice.

said he thought that the hon. member had gone a little too far. He (Mr. Merriman) had taken up the attitude he had always adopted when—

said he would point out that he was not referring to the right hon. gentleman at all.

said that, in connection with the point mentioned by the hon. member (Mr. Quinn), he believed there was a petition, which seemed to have dropped through the floor. He thought that by this time there would have been a Select Committee at work, which would have brought up a report and discovered who was responsible for these outrages, how it was the police were not there, how no attempts were made to protect these people, and see whether Parliament could not give the aggrieved ones any redress. Now they were dealing with an entirely different thing. The hon. member for Troyeville could not see that there was another class of people who had grievances, and who were no more to blame than he was himself. What did his hon. friend say about the editor who was removed to another district where there was Martial Law, so that he might be punished? The Minister of Justice had acknowledged that it was a serious thing.

said that the amendment was hardly more workable than the other.

You frame one then.

was understood to say that he had a bias in favour of legal forms. The only persons who would benefit by the amendment of the right, hon. member for Victoria West would be the lawyers. He could see that the right hon. member’s point was to deal with eases of real injustice, and he thought the only possible way was to take the whole question on the broad basis as to which tribunal should deal with these cases.

In the case of the amendment of the hon. member for Smithfield they had this curious position, that any case of any description arising since January 3th was a case which might be brought before this Court of Appeal as now constituted by the hon. member. This court had to decide, first of all, whether the claim was bona fide, whether the Act was done in good faith, and afterwards to make a futile recommendation. Was the Court of Appeal going to lightly take on this job of being asked to sit as a judicial court without giving a final decision? Then the question arose, who was to find the money ? Parliament, of course. He would point out to the hon. member that should judges recommend that a man be paid, if the case were as clear as crystal, when the case came before Parliament and the Government did not recommend it, they were absolutely powerless. Not a single member of the House could move that a penny of compensation should be paid to that man. It seemed to him that the only way to deal with the matter was to constitute courts on the lines of the special Compensation Courts instituted after the war, where people went to make out their cases and the courts had to decide whether they were proper and to make their awards. He would urge upon the Minister to consider the question of leaving the onus on the Government of proving that the act was done in good faith. He thought the Government was pressing it too far when it said that every claimant must show that the official complained of was not acting in good faith.

said it seemed to him that the question they were discussing was a little bit involved. When two great authorities like the right hon. the member for Victoria West and the hon. member for Smithfield did not understand each other in the least, he might be forgiven if he could not follow what they were about. (Laughter.) As he understood the hon. member for Smithfield, what was at the back of his motion was that this was an Indemnity Bill indemnifying certain persons, and they followed the ordinary course of an Indemnity Bill by throwing the onus of proof on the man who said that the act was not done bona fide. “Well,” said the hon. member for Smithfield, “I leave that; I do not touch that, but I say that there are a certain number of cases where people have suffered an injury owing to excessive force being required. I do not want any action to be open against these persons, but I say that the country in whose interest these acts have been done shall compensate the people.”

Hear, hear.

said that the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman) misunderstanding that, wished to reverse the onus of proof, but that had nothing to do with the point made by the hon. member for Smithfield. He was quite willing to stand by the Act of Indemnity, indemnifying the persons who had done the acts, And, therefore, the right hon. gentleman’s amendment to alter the onus of proof did not in any way fit in with the object of the hon. member for Smithfield. He (Sir Henry) did not understand the hon. member for Newlands in respect of the onus of proof. It seemed to him the two things were entirely different. He adhered to the principle of indemnifying all persons who had acted in good faith. It appeared to him that the hon. member for Smithfield would really bring about chaos.

To throw, for instance, upon a judicial court, the Court of Appeal, the burden of saying whether a deported person should remain outside or not was throwing upon them a political burden which they should not for one moment be asked to deal with. (Hear, hear.) He had voted for the principle of indemnity and he saw no reason why they should alter that. It was the common ordinary form of indemnity which they had always maintained, the form both here and in England, and it was a form which had stood the test of time. At the same time he was not afraid of a precedent, in fact he thought monuments should be erected to those people who had had the courage to establish precedents Now came the other principle which was put forward, in other words should they establish some court or some body which would deal with compensation for injuries committed? That was what was really at the back of the amendment of the hon. member for Smithfield, that as to the people who had suffered injury unnecessarily in the public interest they should do something for them. There was a great deal to be said for that, and he thought the hon. member would have a good deal of support, but surely this was not the place for that— where they were dealing with the indemnity of individuals for acts done in good faith to establish a body or court to adjudge compensation, whether this Act did not apply or did apply.

said his hon. friend (Sir H. H. Juta) had misunderstood him, and he thought he might venture to cross swords with him. This Act went a great deal further than the Acts of Indemnity in England. The case of Governor Eyre went far beyond the ordinary case of indemnity in England. He took it that a man must establish his right, whether they called it compensation or whatever it was, by proving his case before the Court. The difficulty in this Bill, as it was now drawn, was that that man had to prove a want of bona fides against the Government.

As against the individual who did the act.

continuing, said that the action would really be against the Government, although the person sued might, for instance, be the man who commanded the troops. It was a very difficult thing indeed to disprove good faith. The hon. member for Newlands had entirely misapprehended him. He did not want a judge to try a case and give any judgment upon it or say whether it was done in good faith, or not in good faith. He did not want these compensation courts, because they would be a very great burden, but a man should have the right to appeal to the ordinary courts.

said the Secretary of State for the Colonies had stated in the House of Commons that, with the exception of the clause regarding deportation, the Indemnity Bill did not contain anything further than the ordinary indemnity clauses. Supposing, during Martial Law, his (Sir Henry’s) house was burned down in consequence of Martial Law operations, and he could not bring an action against anyone, he understood that the point of the hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog) was that the country should pay for that. (Hear, hear.) In a compensation court one did not deal with the question of bona fides at all—the question was whether a certain Act was necessary. (Hear, hear.)

God forbid that the hon. member’s house should be burned down. (Laughter.)

It is insured.

I am glad to hear it. If a man’s house were burned down he would have to bring an action and the Government would at once say it was done in good faith and the Bill would stop him from getting any compensation.

said the amendment of the right hon. member for Victoria West was concerned with the onus of proof, but he (General Hertzog) was concerned with compensation payable to people who had been asked to make heavy sacrifices in the interests of the country. The objection raised by the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour (Sir H. H. Juta) was that the amendment was foreign to an Indemnity Act. However, he (Gen. Hertzog) submitted that it was part and parcel of an Indemnity Act unless the Government was going to give them the assurance that it would bring in a Bill to deal with the complementary question, but they had had not a single word from Government that it intended to do anything of the kind. Ordinary justice demanded that people should be compensated by the State which had benefited by the act from which these people suffered. It was rather invidious to ask any of the judges to undertake recommendations of a political kind. The Minister of Defence had openly said that the Government had not done certain things because the judges of the Transvaal could not be trusted.

I did not say that.

Because the courts made a farce of these cases.

The courts are not the judges.

I should say at least one judge is included in a court. If you cannot rely on the judge and jury let us have a tribunal on which we can rely. Do let us have some body which will act as a medium for restoring confidence and doing right to the people. Continuing, General Hertzog said as to the point raised by the right hon. member for Victoria West—that any man who thought he had a cause for complaint entitling him to compensation being allowed to make a claim would involve too many cases—the difficulty was to get a law which would open the way to giving compensation to those who deserved it, at the same time withholding it from those who did not deserve it. If that was the difficulty of the Government, he was quite prepared to meet the Government, but they should not deprive people of their just rights without seeing that they had another way to obtain compensation.

asked for the Chairman’s ruling as to whether the amendment of the hon. member for Smithfield was in order. He (Mr. Struben) thought it was out of order because it entailed expenditure and also because it was outside the scope of the Bill.

stated that he had already considered the points raised and ruled that the amendment was in order.

said it seemed to him that the object of the amendment of the hon. member for Smith-field was outside the scope of the Bill in that it was not open to the ordinary courts to claimants, but to provide a general inquiry into the operation of Martial Law in its bearings on people who had suffered with a view to considering whether compensation outside that which could really be claimed could be given to them. He did not think such a provision should be put into this Bill. There were many men who had suffered severely during Martial Law who would not be able to obtain compensation, because they would not be in a position to bring an action against any one particular person as being responsible for what they had Suffered.

Many of them would find it much easier to pass that section if they knew that those who had suffered would have an inquiry into the losses they had sustained.

said he could give no undertaking whatever. The question was, of course, an important one, but he was not prepared to say now on that Bill what the Government would do apart from that question. He did not think it was necessary to reply at length to the amendments which had been moved. The amendment of the hon. member for Smith field (General Hertzog) was quite out of what the Bill was intended for. The amendment of the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) was unworkable, and he did not think the results which the hon. member aimed at would be attained. The right hon. member had raised a point in sub-section 3, that it was very wide, and that acts were condoned which had taken place in districts which were not under Martial Law. The Government, although the strike had been a general one, and many of its operations had spread over South Africa, had not thought it advisable to declare Martial Law generally, but the proclamation had been so worded that, in a sense, it covered the country. “I do,” stated the proclamation, “hereby call upon all persons resident in the Union…” The final paragraph said that, as a temporary measure and until a further proclamation, the districts set forth in the schedule were declared to be under Martial Law, as Martial Law was understood in His Majesty’s Dominions. Under the state of affairs which had arisen, exceptional measures had had to be taken in areas which were not under Martial Law. If they took a district like Volksrust, it had not been under Martial Law, but the railway system had been hung up there. Special measures had had to be taken to clear the line, to control the situation, and to get the traffic through. If special measures had been taken there, he wanted the Government and the officers to be indemnified, although no Martial Law had been proclaimed there. These were the acts to which sub-section 3 would apply. He, therefore, thought that the amendment which he had moved in sub-section 3 sufficiently covered the difficulty, and that it was not necessary to take further exception to that sub-section. He hoped that, after the long discussion which had now taken place on that clause, it would be possible to come to a vote on these amendments. As to the sub-section dealing with bona fides, they had a similar provision in the two Cape Acts of 1900 and 1902, and in the Transvaal Acts. He was simply following the existing precedents in the case, and proposed no novel legislation there.

said that the Government did not appear to apprehend the importance of the matter which had been brought forward by the hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog). Why had not the Minister taken the precedents in regard to the matter brought forward by the hon. member for Smith-field? He should like to point out to the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour (Sir H. H. Juta), that a very similar provision was contained in the Indemnity Bill of 1900 to deal with Martial Law, for which a large number of members on that side of the House and some of the Prime Minister’s own colleagues had been responsible. It had been forced into the Cape Bill by the right hon. member for Victoria West, seconded by the late Mr. Sauer, that there should be an inquiry. He did not think that the Government should put them in the position of refusing an inquiry now that hon. members had felt the iron heel of Martial Law after insisting on it, when they had felt Martial Law themselves in 1902. At that time the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Schoeman) had said that he was prepared to vote for the Indemnity Bill, provided there was a Commission. The present Minister of Education (Mr. Malan) had also wanted a Commission at that time, which, he said, would smooth over the differences. (Labour cheers.) The impression might now be created that the Minister was prepared to protect his friends, and not the others. (Labour cheers.) He (Mr. Fremantle) wished to eradicate that impression in the country, by doing the same thing now as they had done in 1902. The present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Van Heerden) had then said that if they wanted to pacify the country, they must have an inquiry into the working of Martial Law. (Labour cheers.) He was glad that the Minister of Defence had not definitely announced that he was not prepared not to do so, but why could not the Minister have said that there would be fair inquiry into the matter, when the Government would put itself in a more favourable position with regard to that Indemnity Bill—and he (Mr. Fremantle) was prepared to support indemnity. Dealing with a statement made in England that the Bill should be brought before the Privy Council, the hon. member said that they were all opposed to the English authorities interfering with their legislation, but he pointed it out to show that it was felt in England that there ought to be a judicial inquiry before the whole matter was blotted out.

said he supposed that there was hardly a person in the Transvaal who had not suffered, in some way or other, under Martial Law.

said he was amazed to learn from the Minister of Defence that he was not going to compensate people, who, through the action of our forces and troops, had suffered something in the public interest. Surely that was an extraordinarily callous position to take up. In file Free State potatoes and meal had been commandeered, and nothing so far had been paid for them, and people in the Free State knew that it was most difficult to get money out of the Government. If the clause were passed, he did not know where the people who had supplied large quantities of goods without the price being fixed were going to be paid. There ought to be some provision for some sort of court to settle these cases, and in common fairness to the people, the amendment of the hon. member for Smithfield should be adopted. Much harm had been done directly on orders from headquarters.

opposed the amendment, and said he hoped Government would stand by the proposals contained in the Bill. It would be ridiculous to accept the suggestions which had been put forward as it would destroy the purpose of the Bill.

said it was a great pity that compensation should be discussed at this stage. For many days the House had discussed the whole question of the principle of Martial Law, and had come to the conclusion that Martial Law was justified. The question of compensation was never raised at all during the second reading debate. If hon. members thought that question should have been introduced, they should have moved an amendment to put it into the Bill, but that they had not done. Whether it was right or wrong to compensate people, this was not the time to discuss it. The point the House had to consider now was not whether compensation ought to be paid, but whether the limitations under which it was asked to condone what had illegally been done were adequate and sufficient protection for people who had been unjustly treated. The indemnity was not limited to acts done during the period of Martial Law or in districts where Martial Law was enforced. It was very difficult to say what else could be done. Otherwise, the only course would have been to impose Martial Law throughout the country, and the inconvenience that would have caused would have been far greater than the inconvenience resulting from acts done in districts adjoining those in which Martial Law was enforced. In his own constituency people suffered very grave inconvenience, and naturally they did not like it, but it must be remembered that the people who suffered that inconvenience were, in all probability, relieved from suffering very much greater inconvenience, but for the presence of the forces, who were able to prevent disorder taking place. (Hear, hear.) In conclusion, he said he thought they should pass the section as it stood.

moved the deletion of “(a) His Excellency the Governor-General; or. ” He said he did so for the purpose of bringing to the notice of the House the shooting of certain natives under Martial Law. One was shot on the railway line at Heidelberg on January 15; one on the Van Ryn Estates on January 7; one at Randfontein on January 18, and one at the Robinson Central Deep on January 22. The reason he mentioned His Excellency the Governor-General was that he was the person who authorised Martial Law, and he had a dual liability in this matter not only in South Africa but in Great Britain, where the shooting of a native was looked upon as a more serious matter than it was by the Minister of Defence, who had refused to consider the cases of the people who had suffered wrongs under Martial Law. Proceeding, the hon. member referred to a case that happened on an island off the coast of Africa in 1782. The Governor of the island, considering that certain men had mutinied, found out the ringleader and sentenced him to a number of lashes, with the result that the man died. Twenty years after the Governor, Joseph Wall, I went to England, where he was tried and hanged. Continuing, he said that here they had a definite instance of natives being shot, and not one word of explanation except the short details furnished in the reply to a question had come from the Minister. With regard to the Van Ryn affair, it was stated that the natives refused to work, but a censored newspaper report stated that 100 natives broke out, that they were rounded up by burghers, and that one of the natives was shot in the leg. The Minister has since told the House that this native had died. The remainder were brought before the court and fined £1 each.

The question was, were the men to be killed under Martial Law for offences which the court thought could be met by a fine of £1? Were they to submit quietly to that sort of thing in a British Dominion? With regard to the case at Heidelberg, it appears from the newspaper reports that Major Kemp’s men saw two natives on the line, and the one was shot in trying to escape, and that dynamite was found on the line. He (Mr. Meyler) did not notice this case mentioned in the report of dynamite outrages. When people began to use firearms it was a very serious thing. The Minister certainly said that in one case the man had been shot accidentally. With regard to all the cases, he pointed out that they had happened over a month ago, and surely the Minister was able to furnish them with a further explanation. With regard to sub-section 3, Mr. Meyler pointed out with regard to the Jagersfontein affair that an official of the Native Affairs Department who gave evidence stated that the shooting was unnecessary. Yet the Minister did not give them any explanation of this affair in his second reading speech. They had to deal differently with natives than they did with Europeans, and he said that there was far more danger of a rising among mine natives by the use of firearms than by all the strikes that took place among the white men.

said he thought the committee was indebted to the hon. member for bringing these cases forward. He pointed out that the House took an extraordinarily different view of the destruction of human life and the destruction of property. They first thought that the amendment of the hon. member for Smithfield meant that every person who thought he had been injured would have an opportunity of coming before that particular court and pleading his cause with some hope of redress. It was only when the member for Cape Town, Harbour, discussed the matter that they found what was really behind it. So soon as the committee learnt that that blessed word “compensation” was behind the whole thing they pricked up their ears and jumped up to express their views on the question. It had also been explained that in the 1900 Indemnity Act the same sort of amendment was put in the measure.

He entirely agreed with the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman) in his desire that the onus of proof as to bona fides should be cast upon the Government. There had been so many instances, glaring instances, of deliberate cold-blooded actions on the part of the emissaries of the Government that it was necessary that the Government should have to prove its bona fides in each individual case wherever an individual desired to bring an action. The hon. member for Weenen had brought up the case of the Kafir who was shot at Van Ryn. He (Mr. Madeley) had received the testimony of no fewer than four individuals who were present on the Van Ryn Mine on that occasion. His information was that two Kafirs were shot. He did not propose to deal with the shooting. These natives went into a plantation, where they were herded up and driven back to the compound, not by the most direct route, but by the most circuitous route, so as to be an object-lesson to the men in the single quarters. They were driven by burghers, who had sjamboks. They were called upon to halt, but they did not understand what was meant, and when they did not halt they were sjambokked.

That is untrue.

I am telling the truth.

I say it is untrue.

The Prime Minister can deny it as much as he likes. I am giving the evidence of four witnesses. I am sorry if it hurts the Prime Minister. He does not like the deeds he has done by proxy. Continuing, Mr. Madeley said that if these natives halted when they were not called upon to halt they were again sjambokked. He could not understand how this committee could be sitting there discussing how far indemnity should carry. They should be considering whether they should grant indemnity or not. He thought the majority of members in that House should decide that no indemnity at all should be granted.

This is not the second reading debate.

said he was trying to point out to the House how essential it was that the House should understand the facts before they passed that clause, and he thought the committee had not read the list of outrages which had been quoted with great effect by Mr. Harcourt in the House of Commons.

It is to indemnify the Government for acts done.

said he was endeavouring to influence the committee in the right direction. The Government wanted indemnity for having engineered a revolution, so-called; they wanted indemnity for making distinct and definite charges against the working classes of this country, and he was there to repudiate those 38 charges. There was one in particular, a case where the Cape mail was derailed and the wheel damaged. For some reason or other the Minister of Railways had had the wheels which had been blown off the engine placed in the Industrial Exhibition.

The Government only claims indemnity for its own acts, and not for the acts of hooligans. The hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

said that if he was not in order he would content himself by asking hon. members to go into that. Proceeding, he said the Government had engineered the trouble, and had caused people who would not otherwise have done so to break out of bounds. The Government had brought about an industrial upheaval, all with the object of crushing the Trade Unions. They took a most extraordinary course in order to gain their object. They had been spending, were spending, and hoped still to spend, public money in bringing to their knees the larger portion of the population.

said he hoped there was a little more truth in the other statements made by the hon. member for Springs than in the one he was going to refer to. Mr. Madeley had exclaimed, “I am speaking the truth,” when mentioning this matter, but he (Mr. Alberts) wished to say that he (Mr. Madeley) seemed to know very little about the truth in regard to the subject dealt with. The point in question was where he had dealt with the shooting of natives. Now, he (Mr. Alberts) had been the commandant of the burgher forces concerned, and under him he had had at the Van Ryn mine a most trustworthy officer in Field-Cornet Van Rensburg, The facts of the case had been very carefully investigated by him, and they were riot as the hon. member for Springs had represented them. The trouble was in regard to the natives on the Van Ryn Mine, who had been incited by one of the friends of the hon. member, had broken away from that mine. The man who had incited them had subsequently been arrested at his (Mr. Alberts’) instructions. He knew the man was guilty, because he had first arrested the man’s father, who, however, had told him that his soil was the guilty person. And if the man’s father said so, surely it must be true. When the natives broke away and the police were unable to stop them, Field-cornet Van Rensburg was at once communicated with. By the time be had given his instructions and had the horses saddled the natives had succeeded in getting away some distance. They were, however, overtaken, and spoken to in several languages and called on to stop. This they refused to do. Field-cornet Van Rensburg told his men not to shoot and again warned the natives in many Kafir dialects to stop. Instead of doing so, they rushed into a neighbouring plantation. The burghers followed them, and were bombarded with stones, bricks, and other missiles. Even Field-cornet Van Rensburg was struck by a stone. A few shots fell then, and one native was shot. Another native had climbed a high tree, and a shot was fired to make him come down. The shot was never intended to hit him, and, as a matter of fact, it did not hit him, but the native got such a fright that he fell out of the tree, and was hurt somewhat. (Laughter.) That was all that occurred. The natives were rounded up and taken back. If the House was not satisfied that that was the truth, inquiries could easily be made. The story told by the hon. member for Springs certainly was not correct, and he trusted, for the sake of the hon. gentleman, that there was more truth in the other allegations made by him. As to certain excesses which had taken place, which had been referred to by the hon. member for George Town (Mr. Andrews), he regretted them exceedingly, and he could assure the House that, as soon as he noticed what was going on, he had done his utmost to stop the burghers. He hoped, taking the circumstances into consideration, these excesses would soon be forgiven and forgotten. (Hear, hear.) Dealing with the amendment before the House, Mr. Alberts expressed the opinion that, if it was accepted, they did not require an Indemnity Bill at all, and he hoped the Government would not accept it, but would stand by the clause as it was. (Hear, hear.) Good order had been preserved by the burghers, and it was not true that they had run wild amongst the people with rifles in hand. Order had been well preserved, and all that talk about the actions of the burghers had been published with a certain object.

said he wanted to say a few words about the case of the natives which had been referred to. A question had been asked by the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Meyler) about that matter, and a reply had been given by the Government, from which it appeared that inquiries had been held in the matter, and that the papers had been forwarded by the Public Prosecutor to the Attorney-General for decision; and that the Government promised to lay on the Table of the House the evidence taken at and result of such inquiries. On the whole, the thought the reply of the Government was satisfactory, considering that there had been Martial Law, and they knew that those things did take place, that there was disorder, and the hon. member for, Standerton had shown that certain people might act too hastily, and that bloodshed might occur. When he said that he was in favour of indemnity being given, he included these acts too. He regretted that the value of the lives of the natives in this country were not considered by some people of the same value as the lives of white men, but he saw no reason on that account to unite with those who refused to give indemnity to the Government because of those events. While they regretted some of these events, sad and deplorable as they were, they should not put an amendment into the Bill such as had been moved. Proceeding, he said that there had been an attempt made to rouse racial feelings between Dutch and British owing to occurrences in Benoni and Boksburg; but to attempt in that house, and in that country, to rouse racial feeling was infinitely worse and a greater sin than anything which had happened. They saw Mr. Bain in England doing the same thing, trying to rouse racial feeling, but Dutch and British were united in the determination to put down Syndicalism.

Referring to the amendment, he said it did not seem right to him to put the duty on to the Court of Appeal to make a recommendation for Parliament to consider. He could not agree with that at all. It was possible that the House might think it was necessary that a Compensation Bill should be brought in. When he thought of compensation he backed up what the hon. member for Troyeville said. It was the people who had their houses burned over their heads at Benoni who ought to be compensated. If there was such a Bill it ought to go back to the happenings of July. Those people should be compensated, because they attempted to do right. It was a big question, however; there would be a great amount of compensation claimed, and when they heard what Martial Law had cost, the whole country would feel that they had better pull in their horns and not allow claims for compensation.

said that before the hon. Minister replied he wanted to explain that he had been dealing only with the facts he had got from the Minister of Defence. The other matter mentioned by the hon. member for Springs he had not heard of before. He was dealing with the admitted cases of the shooting of three natives under Martial Law. He hoped the hon. Minister would take the opportunity and give some particulars to enable the House to judge of the reasons for the shooting, as to whether it was malicious.

The hon. member has used that argument already.

referred to the remarks of the hon. member for Tembuland, whose sincerity he said no one could doubt in matters of that sort, but he was far too easily pleased. The hon. member was quite satisfied because the Government had sent the papers to the Attorney-General; but once the Government was indemnified against those acts the paper might just as well be in the waste-paper basket for all the good it would do. Proceeding, Mr. Meyler said it was the absolute duty of that House to insist upon getting some information about the shooting of those people. He was glad there were no other cases of shooting, except that of a trooper accidentally killed. They might possibly have had many more. It was only fair to see that in a Parliament in a British Dominion—

The hon. member has said that before.

urged that the late Mr. Rhodes contended that it was sometimes necessary to repeat an argument three times before most people would absorb it. He realised that the members of this Committee were above the average of intelligence, so he had only repeated his argument twice.

said he was as surprised as the hon. member for Weenen at the easy way in which the hon. member for Tembuland was satisfied when a native was killed. The hon. member appeared to arrogate to himself the right to be the only member in that House who had the interest of the natives at heart, and he frequently twitted the hon. members on the cross-benches, if they did venture to interfere in the region of native policy, with hostility, and practically accused them of hypocrisy, because they ventured to say sometimes that they thought the natives were not treated as they ought to be on all occasions. The speaker next referred to the hon. member on the back benches who had said the use of the sjambok on the backs of the natives was the best way to treat them. (Hon. Members: No, no he did not say anything of the sort.) In that case he (Mr. Andrews) would apologise to the hon. member, but he was informed that he had said something that would bear that construction. Whether he said so or not, the speeches of hon. members on that side of the House in his experience of Parliament led him to believe that it was their opinion, that the natives should be hewers of wood and drawers of water. In spite of the fair words of the hon. member for Tembuland, and in spite of what he said, he was as anxious to play up to the capitalist outlook as, any hon. member in-that House. If a native could have sat in that House that afternoon and have heard the feeble remarks of the hon. member, made in defence of one of their race who had been foully done to death on the Rand during that Martial Law business, he would hesitate before using his influence to put the hon. member into that House. The hon. member for Germiston, alluding to the round up in Germiston in January, had said that the Germiston incidents had been explained to some extent. George Town was a part of the Germiston Municipality, and he (Mr. Andrews) was not satisfied with what had been called an explanation on the part of the Minister of Defence. He believed the hon. Minister would give a further explanation of those particular incidents. He might call them regrettable incidents—a term that was much in evidence 14 years ago. He (the speaker) did not intend to go into the round-up of the 15th January in Germiston; what he was anxious for was not to have an inquiry into that incident alone, but into all incidents which occurred during Martial Law or even immediately prior to the proclamation of Martial Law. Proceeding, he said he wanted to remind the Prime Minister that his son was in Germiston during that affair, and was, to put it mildly, afflicted with an excess of zeal. He would read the answer to a complaint which was sent, he believed, to Lord Gladstone, by a lady in Germiston, Miss E. Parker, regarding women being treated in the way they ought not to be. There was a formal answer, and a letter from Major Kemp, dated 2nd February, 1914, stating in reply to Miss Parker’s letter, that General Botha’s son was never in plain clothes during the period referred to.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

proceeding, again read the letter which the lady had received from the Department of Defence signed by Major Kemp, which was as follows: “Madam,—I am in receipt of your further letter of the 26th inst., and in reply I must inform you that General Botha’s son was never in plain clothes. Your statement is, therefore, beside the truth. That the burghers were ill-treating any English people is certainly incorrect, and your report to Lord Gladstone is welcome, so that the world may know that your information is without foundation.” It was not of particular interest to the people of Germiston to know that General Botha’s son was not in mufti. That was not the question to which he wished to direct the attention of the Committee. The point of this letter was the statement made by Major Kemp that the burghers, during the roundup on January the 15th, did not ill-treat the people. That statement was incorrect. Nobody in that House had denied the statement that had been made that the burghers ill-treated the citizens of Germiston generally. That was the point he wished to make. The Minister of Defence said the other day that if there were any complaints against officers or men of the Defence Force, there might or could be a departmental inquiry. But how much confidence could they repose in a departmental inquiry, when they found a major, the Control Officer in that particular district, making such a statement as this, which he (Mr. Andrews) knew of his own knowledge was incorrect. From personal observation, he knew it was incorrect. They, on those Benches, thought these things should be made public—that the people of the country should know what had been taking place— and they were surprised that that Committee was apparently willing, with little discussion, to pass this clause, in order to give indemnity to the Government, without knowing anything more about the things that took place under Martial Law, prior to Martial Law, and in districts where Martial Law was not carried into effect. They wanted the information placed before the House and before the country. There was another point in connection with the working of Martial Law to which he would like to draw attention. They had heard a lot about the committees of public safety. He thought that term was used during the French Revolution, and it was strange that a party that was going to nut down a revolution and a conspiracy should give that revolutionary name to bodies whose duty it was to maintain law and order. He wished the Minister to explain that every man, without exception, who served on those committees belonged to one particular class of the community—they were either Nationalists or Unionists. They knew what that meant.

In Germiston—hon. members might smile when he made the remark—he was never asked to sit on that Committee of Public Safety. He wanted to know why? Was he such an undesirable?

A political undesirable!

That is my point. Continuing, he asked why was he, as member for George Town, having been given the confidence of the majority of the people, not asked to sit on that committee? Then there were three members of the Germiston Town Council, who sat there in the interests of the Labour Party—he knew that one was in gaol for political reasons. There was Spencer and Van der Lingen—a good Dutch name, and one that should appeal to the Minister. The latter would have rendered quite as valuable service as Mr. Beit, who was well known to the hon. member for Germiston, and Mr. McAllister, who was giving out or refusing passes as he chose. He asked why these men were not considered fit to sit on the Committee of Public Safety. Members talked about class bias—they saw class bias and tyranny throughout the whole of the affair that took place last January. He was glad to say he was able to refrain from suffering an indignity by going to that Committee of Public Safety, who were his political opponents, and asking for a pass. When this round-up took place, Mr. Van der Lingen and another Dutchman—who had been the finest driver in Germiston and who had been victimised—were kept back when all the other people, including Mr. Brammer, Unionist member on the Provincial Council, were released. Mr. White, who was a member of the Provincial Council and a town councillor, told Van der Lingen that he ought to be kept there altogether. He (Mr. Andrews) asked what right he had to say such a thing—to be insulted by this man who had been temporarily put into office. That was typical of what took place, and the common expression was “We are top dog now, and we are going to rub it into you,” and then that Committee was asked to pass the clause without discussion. They might not have the House behind them, but they had a large proportion of the population in this country.

said he did not agree with those members of the Committee who thought that this clause should not be carefully considered, and that it should be passed by the Committee. The only important clauses in the Bill were the one they were now considering, which proposed to give complete indemnity to the Government, and clause 4, which dealt with the deportations. On his first reading of clause 2 he was rather disposed to swallow the whole thing, but, after listening to some of the speeches, he was not so anxious to take the clause as it stood.

said that 98 per cent. of the dynamite taken from the Rand mines had been removed with malicious intent. If dynamite explosions on the Rand had been so common as the hon. member for George Town would have the House to believe, he (Dr. Macaulay) would have heard of them, but during an experience of 14 years he had never heard of a case of an explosion of dynamite in a mortar box. He would like to protest against the aspersions which had been cast on the police and Defence Forces from the cross-benches. (Hear, hear.) He had seen many strange things happen in Johannesburg, but if anyone had told him that he would welcome the burghers to defend his liberties he would have said “Nonsense.” But during the recent troubles he welcomed them, and he had never seen a better behaved lot of men in his life. The men from Lichtenburg and Ermelo were not dressed as household troops, but they behaved themselves as soldiers and gentlemen. (Hear, hear.) Hon. members on the cross-benches had tried to convince the House that dynamite was scattered about by these people in order to throw suspicion on the strikers; that was a calumny on the burghers which was quite in keeping with what was said from the cross-benches. (Hear, hear.)

said he was not prepared to vote against the clause, but he would point out that it was very rare that actions committed under Martial Law had been indemnified without steps being taken to find out whether individual cases of hardship had followed from its administration. The Government had indicated that thes inquiry instituted into, the July disturbances had been of the greatest value to them.

Why should not those same judges, or other judges, inquire into the execution of Martial Law or its administration? It was not an unusual thing. If the Government still thought that there was no precedent, he would like to refer to the precedents of that country. In 1900, when the war had been at its height, and when the Indemnity and Special Tribunal Bill had been brought forward, the war was still going on—the war which had split the country in twain, and when feeling was at its height and very bitter. It had been possible in 1900 for the Government of that day to come to the House, and under the Act of Indemnity, establish a special tribunal for offences of a political character, and in the same Bill to provide for a commission to go not merely into the administration of Martial Law, but all losses which the war had caused to persons in that country. The war had gone on; and it had been found that the commission which had sat and inquired into that matter, had in many cases rejected, claims for compensation for losses sustained during the war; but they had a different majority in those days in the House to the one they had today. The Government in 1902 was the Government of the late Sir Gordon Sprigg, and had not been the Government of the present Minister of Mines, the Minister of Railways and Harbours, or the Minister of Agriculture. The Government had brought forward the War Losses Compensation Act of 1904, when Dr. Jameson had been Prime Minister. The proposal made was that because the War Losses Compensation Commission, which had sat and adjudicated, had rejected a large number of claims, it was only fair that a number of claims should be re-opened. Parliament had agreed to that inquiry, and allowed these compensation claims to be re-opened, and as a result, thousands of people obtained redress. That was the spirit in which the matter had been dealt with after a war which had split the whole country in twain and where brother had fought against brother. Here, where Martial Law had only lasted a short time, and there had not been many acts so that the compensation could not be very large, the Government turned a stony heart to the appeal to have some sort of inquiry made into the administration of Martial Law. What bad the Government to lose by granting that request for an inquiry? Surely, judges of the Supreme Court could be trusted to present a fair report to that House! If there had been a dozen cases of hardship, why should these cases not be put before judges of the Supreme Court? It did not conclude the matter; but it gave men who thought they had great grievances an opportunity of going to the judges and saying: “Here and there I suffered under Martial Law.” If the complaints were frivolous, the judges would say so in their report, and if there had been hard cases the judges would say so in their report. The only case they could bring an action for was if an officer had acted out of spite—if a man believed he was doing right he was protected. If they protected “acts of good faith” they protected all acts. The case which would be brought up under Martial Law was if a man had suffered under Martial Law. If the Cape Colony could pay an enormous sum as compensation for war losses, surely the Union could pay a comparatively small sum as compensation for acts committed under Martial Law. The amendments which had been moved did not, in his opinion, seem to be going the right way of setting about it. He (Mr. Alexander), as a private member, could not propose the appointment of a commission, because the Chairman would rule him out of order, as it involved additional expenditure. He hoped that the Government would have an inquiry, for it would not only be just but generous. Do let them give a man an opportunity of bringing his grievances before two judges of the Supreme Court; and that would satisfy everybody except a small minority.

supported the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog), and urged that by accepting it the Government would, at any rate, be placed in a position of redressing some wrongs. He could not see why the amendment should not be accepted, and urged the Minister to see what could be done. If something of the sort were not done they would soon be hearing talks of scandals said to have been covered up by the Government. He was in favour of giving the Government the fullest possible indemnity, but there should also be an inquiry.

said the hon. members for Standerton and Springs had contradicted each other, but after the explanation given by the hon. member for Standerton (Mr. Alberts) he certainly believed that no such outrages as alleged by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Madeley) had taken place. For the rest, however, he could not see eye to eye with the hon. member (Mr. Alberts), and he held the Government should accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog). The effect of the amendment, if accepted, would be to strengthen the Government’s prestige.

Where were all the civil actions coming from which the hon. member (Mr. Alberts) feared if the irregularities were so trifling as the hon. member had stated ? It looked as if the Government were afraid to let the things done under Martial Law be submitted to inquiry. If the Government allowed the inquiry they would maintain their dignity, and would protect the rights of the subject. The Minister of Defence should accept the amendment.

said that the hon. member had overlooked one thing which should be borne in mind. Every citizen of the Union who had suffered hardship could come to the High Court of Parliament with a petition. There were, no doubt, many cases of extreme hardship suffered by citizens of the Union, which had been brought about by persons ill-disposed to the State. If matters were dealt with entirely separately, if separate chapters were provided for compensation of people in the Indemnity Act, the same thing would have to be done. There would have to be special and very elaborate machinery provided. If they were going to allow special claims to be made for acts which had taken place under Martial Law, that would be doing a great injustice to those who suffered hardship through the-lawlessness which took place in July last year. Unless the Government was going further, and going to see that something was done to compensate all people whose property was destroyed, and whose bodies were damaged in July, he could not see his way to vote for the clause which was then before the House. Everybody was still entitled to come to Parliament with a petition.

What is that worth?

said that that remark was not fair to Parliament, and it only reflected an opinion. He thought that petitions got good consideration in the House.

said the suggestion which had been made by the hon. member was just such a one as they expected from him. Those petitions would have to be made to a private member, who would put it down for consideration on the following Tuesday, and on the last Tuesday of the session it would be still waiting to be considered. The two matters were not on all fours at all. There had been no suggestion that they should close the courts to those who suffered in July. Because some people had suffered in an earlier stage and were not able to obtain redress through the courts, they were going to say to those who had suffered since that they were not going to give them an opportunity for getting redress. Proceeding, Mr. Creswell said he had listened to the hon. member for Barberton, but as he was not a lawyer, he could only admit that that long amendment of the hon. member for Smithfield seemed rather heavy. It seemed to him that it was as easy to take-a claim before an Appeal Court as before any other court.

He would like to have the opinion of the Court of Appeal as to whether Martial Law was justifiable, and what measures were justifiable, not to maintain law and order, but to force men back to work. The Government had introduced a totally new principle into the government of the country, a principle new to the civilised world, and what attracted him in the amendment was whether they would have the opinion of the Court of Appeal as to what acts were justifiable and what were necessary for the objects for which Martial Law was ostensibly proclaimed. Had the Minister of Justice the effrontery still to say to that House that not a single man had been made to work? If he did still hold that opinion, was he, then, not willing to submit the point to the Court of Appeal, or did he not want to let the world know that the object of the Proclamation of Martial Law, or at least nine-tenths of the object, was to force men who did not want to work to go back to work?

Why don’t you bring an action for damages?

I did not catch the intelligent ejaculation of the Minister of Justice. Continuing, he said that, of course, the Minister did not suffer; as a Cabinet Minister he looked down upon them. But he was a servant of the public who felt these things, and he submitted that though this amendment might be clumsy, he was certain that no Judges of Appeal would hold that all these things were necessary to preserve law and order.

said he did not want to assist in wasting the time of the Committee, but he thought it would be as well if he said a few words in reply.

It was the duty of the hon. member to have passed that letter on to him. As a matter of fact he saw a report on the Arcade affair in a newspaper, and sent it down to the Commissioner of Police, and he had seen statements in which these charges were explicitly denied.

Public?

said there might be other people who might say that these statements were wrong, but he could not evolve any witnesses. He could only inquire from people who he knew were on the spot. If these people said it was all nonsense, then he could only believe them in the absence of evidence to the contrary. He was quite willing to investigate.

That is all we want.

said he had done so of his own accord. The hon. member for Jeppe seemed to be following the procedure that was adopted in connection with the Disturbances Commission. His friends refused to give information. He (the Minister) called all the evidence he could get, and he found the charges were not true. The police put a different construction on the alleged buying of fruit. They said that these people pretended to be buying fruit when the police appeared on the scene. He was quite ready to investigate any charges against the police, and he was quite prepared to take outside evidence from people who wished to submit it to him.

I wish to say that this letter—

What’s that got to do with the matter?

It has got everything to do with the matter. It is fortunate that the hon. member for Albany is not in charge of this Committee. Continuing, he pointed out that he did not bring the matter forward prior to hearing the other statements, for the reason that when one got a charge against an individual it might have been brought out of spite. He went on to say that outside people were not likely to know what was going on in Col. Truter’s office. Perhaps, the people who were at the Arcade desired to give Col. Truter a wide berth. He thought the Minister should have let people know that the investigation was taking place.

supported the amendment of the hon. member for Smithfield, but thought the onus of proof should not rest on the applicant, but on the defendant. Most people were agreed that something would have to be done for those who had suffered injury, but they all seemed alarmed at the length of the amendment which had been moved, and it had even frightened the hon. member for Jeppe. It would be most difficult for the plaintiff to prove that the Government had not acted in good faith. The Minister of Defence had said it would take the Court of Appeal years to go into all these cases. That argument had rather frightened him (the speaker), because it gave him the impression that very many wrongful acts had been committed. The argument only strengthened the case against the Government. Surely, he said, the Government need not be afraid of a Commission of Inquiry. There were undoubtedly people who had suffered injuries, and he thought the wrongs of these people should be redressed, and the costs in this connection should be borne by the whole country. From the speech of the hon. member for Durban, Berea, he thought that although sitting on the Opposition side, he supported the Government.

And you sit on the Government side, but you do not support them. (Laughter.)

said that he was not prepared to support the Government if they were in the wrong. The members of the Opposition, however, all seemed to be strong supporters of the Government. The speaker was also a supporter of the Government—(hear, hear)—but on his side of the House there had been so many bombs exploded that he did not know where he stood. The hon. member for Durban, Berea, had said that things had been done by the Government which would not bear the light of day. In that case an inquiry was most necessary. Proceeding, he urged the necessity of Government carefully inquiring into all wrongs. In the past when they had had Martial Law they had the opportunity of going to a court of inquiry with their grievances. Why should not the same right be given them now? It had been suggested that certain acts had been committed which would not bear the light of day. He (Mr. Wessels) did not wish that stigma to rest on the Government, and that was another reason why he wanted an inquiry. He could not agree with the members of the Labour Party, nor with their sentiments; but there must surely be some truth in all their complaints. They could still remember what Martial Law was in the time of the war, what a number of complaints there were, and how many tears were then shed. A court of inquiry had been set up then in order to examine the claims for compensation. As to the remarks of the Minister of Defence, it seemed to him that the Minister was making a mountain out of a mole hill. In the past they had clamoured for an inquiry, and they had got it. The Free Staters had then held a congress in order to draw up a statement of grievances to be laid before the British Government. Those grievances were pooh-poohed, and he personally had felt indignant at the remarks of the authorities on the subject. Today they might think themselves top-dog. If they were strong, it behoved them to be generous. The day might come when they would again require the votes of the labouring classes to get into power, and then they might be sorry. The Court of Appeal proposed in the amendment was not suitable, and the people would prefer to leave it alone. That should be prevented.

said if he had wished to support an amendment of this kind he would have voted against the second reading of the Bill. Did the hon. member know that the effect of the amendment, if accepted, might be a recurrence of the troubles they had just had, because all the deportees would be able to return? As to the prestige of the Government, he thought it certainly would not be strengthened if the deportees were allowed to come back. The hon. member for Bethlehem had not said what amendment he intended to vote for, and seemed very quickly to have forgotten his constituents, who, he had said, had instructed him to support the Government on the subject. The hon. member for Kroonstad said he wanted to support the honour of the Government, but did he not know that if the amendment were agreed to, not only the Government, but the whole people, would be made ridiculous? He would never agree to permit the men who had been proved to be the sworn enemies of South Africa to return to the country.

said he could not agree with the previous speaker, who seemed to suggest that if his (General Hertzog’s) amendment were accepted, it would take away from the Government that indemnity which they asked for.

I never said that.

Well, the hon. member certainly gave the Committee to understand that that was his opinion. Continuing, General Hertzog said, as to the prestige of the Government being weakened by his amendment, he wished to ask the hon. member whether he would sooner see a great wrong committed to any number of people, if he wished to see these men exiled for ever without being able to have a fair trial, simply because he did not wish the Government’s prestige to be weakened? The hon. member had posed as if on this question he represented the feeling of the Free State. He (General Hertzog), however, was prepared on this point to meet the hon. member’s own constituents on the same platform as the hon. member himself. He (General Hertzog) denied that the hon. member represented the feeling of the Free State on the subject. Did he think that the Free State was prepared to banish these people for ever without a trial? He (General Hertzog) had felt it his duty to try and do something that was right to everyone who had suffered during recent events, not only to the deportees, but to everyone concerned. But in this case they could see the results of the caucus. If there was freedom of thought and speech, the hon. member for Winburg would be the first to say that deportation was such an extreme punishment that it could not be allowed without trial. The hon. member was a faithful supporter of the Government, but he did not represent the Free State. The amendment only proposed to compensate for direct losses, and to afford an opportunity for bringing forward claims which otherwise did not exist. If the terms of his amendment did not meet with the approval of the Government, he would ask them to propose some amendment of their own, so as to meet these people who had suffered injury or damage. If they did so he would be quite prepared to withdraw his amendment.

denied having said that he represented the feeling of the Free State. He knew, however, that the general opinion had been expressed that these men should be sent away. He, for one, did not want to see them back, and neither did the country. (Hear, hear.) These people were sworn enemies of the South African community, and should not be allowed here. (Cheers.) Why did the hon. member for Smithfield make that personal attack? The caucus had never discussed the subject. The members of the commandos were in favour of deportation, as they did not want to be called up every six months.

said he had hoped the Government would have made some provision to meet the people who had suffered injuries or damage, and on that understanding he had voted for the second reading. He wished the Minister to make some statement to that effect, as otherwise he could not vote for this clause. It was not right that people should be expected to suffer without any chance of compensation, and he asked the Government not to close the door in that respect. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Smithfield was too complicated. Still, the Government ought to hold an inquiry of some sort, because many unjust things had been done under Martial Law which must be inquired into and put right. The people approved of what had been done, but they must have justice.

said he was sorry the hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog) had put something at the end of his amendment which made it practically useless, to his (Mr. Boy-dell’s) mind. The hon. member had got in his amendment that the judges should refer their recommendations to members of that House, and if that were done, they would know what would happen. When the Minister of Defence had said on the previous day that when officers had exceeded their duty he would have some inquiry made, he (Mr. Boydell) thought at the time that the Minister was favourable to an inquiry being made. The Minister of Defence had been an interesting psychological study, because the stronger an agrument was made in favour of having an inquiry, the stronger appeared to be his determination that he was not going to have one.

I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that there is a quorum in the House.

The bell was rung, and shortly afterwards, the necessary quorum having been obtained,

went on to say that they were asked under that clause to indemnify the Government for “acts of good faith,” and he submitted that there had been three motives which had actuated the officers: firstly, where they had acted in good faith to prevent any violence and disorder, and in that connection all hon. members on the cross-benches would, he thought, indemnify the Government. But, secondly, there were other acts which had been committed for the specific purpose of preventing the men from conducting their legitimate organising work in connection with the strike. Those acts they could prove by much evidence, and these acts had been prompted by the Government determining to smash up the men’s organisations and so put an end to the strike. The third motive had been where individuals, who had been invested with large military power, had lost control over themselves, and had outraged many innocent people whom they were supposed to protect. Dealing with the second motive, he would refer the Minister to the cases of Mr. Tole and Mr. McKerrell, in Natal. The Minister had told them that Martial Law had been proclaimed in Natal to protect the main line, but by the proclamation of Martial Law in Natal the Minister of Defence had been enabled to kidnap two men, who had come down from Johannesburg to Natal to assist the miners in Natal in regard to the coal strike, which was then going on. He defied the Minister to show that either Tole or McKerrell had been guilty of any act of violence or incitement to violence. Tole had been imprisoned for a fortnight in Johannesburg, and had been released without a word of explanation whatever. He thought the Minister of Defence would find it hard to deny that it was on his direct instructions that these two men had been arrested in Natal. The hon. member went on to deal with the case of Richardson, a signalman in Natal, who had been sentenced to twelve months’ hard labour for committing what apparently in the eyes of the authorities had been a most heinous crime—for not doing anything whatever. Richardson, after his release, had told him (Mr. Boydell) that the night after he had been arrested he had been taken to the office of one of the “military tyrants,” and there were four witnesses—railway officials—to give evidence against him. But he had had no opportunity of bringing in witnesses to defend himself. This officer said: “I will sentence you to 12 months’ hard labour and make an example of you, so that strikers will know what Martial Law is.” That, said Mr. Boydell, was an illustration of the acts of supposed good faith done by the military authorities. As the hon. member for Jeppe said, it had been stated that not a single man was forced to work, but those men were practically told that if they did not get back to work they would be liable to be sentenced to 12 months’ hard labour. In the other case the man was sentenced to 6 months’ hard labour for a very small offence.

Who was the thief?

said he knew who was the thief, but he did not suppose they would have any Select Committee to go into that man’s action, because the Minister of Defence would say that it was done in good faith in order to prevent disturbance or violence within the Union.

said a good many allegations had been made by hon. members on the cross-benches of persons having been ill-treated. If there was any truth in these allegations hon. members on the cross-benches themselves were the responsible parties, and he hoped the day would come when a good many more of these agitators would be deported. (Hear, hear.) As to the amendment proposed by General Hertzog, it seemed to him that it was the intention of the hon. member, who had not voted either for the first or second reading, to break up this Bill and render it valueless, and he hoped the Government would not accept it. If the Government complied with the demand for an inquiry, large sums of money would have to be paid out to persons having demands to make, and if the burghers had to be called up again to suppress disturbances the certain result would be a revolution.

said before the clause was put he would like the Minister of Defence to reply to the charge he had just put. He thought it was a very important and serious matter.

said he had no information about these two men Casey and White, but he could say that under Martial Law no other persons had been deported or were being deported than those nine men who figured in the Bill. Criminals had been deported from time to time under the Immigration Act, but whether these two persons whom the hon. member had referred to came under that Act he did not know until he had made further inquiries.

said that the hon. member could not discuss matters that did not come under the Bill.

was understood to say that he was not going to lose the only opportunity he had of saying that he wished to put a stop to this kidnapping.

said he had been waiting to see whether the Prime Minister would give any explanation with regard to the shooting of natives, and he wanted an assurance from him to the effect that the papers in connection with these cases would be laid on the Table of the House before the measure went through. The hon. member was proceeding to deal with the cases that he had quoted during the afternoon, when

said that the hon. member was merely repeating the whole question again.

said that that afternoon he did not go into the details of the Jagersfontein affair, and he would do so now. Martial Law was not in force the night this happened, and so he did not think they could hold His Excellency responsible. But he thought that the members of the Executive Council could be held responsible, and he would move as a further amendment the deletion of sub-section (b). He had looked up the “Cape Times” report of the inquiry, and he found that while the European witnesses were agreed that the natives were excited, there was a divergence of opinion as to whether the shooting was necessary. Mr. Ratsey, of the Native Affairs Department, said he thought it unnecessary and that firing overhead would have proved just as effective. It was some time since the papers had been sent to the Attorney-General, and surely these could be laid on the Table. Surely hon. members did not grasp that the clause indemnified everybody connected with the affair at Jagersfontein. The only independent witness was of the opinion that the ’shooting was not necessary. The Ministry were absolutely callous so far as human life was concerned and was criminally callous when it referred to black people. The Minister had talked about the affair in a flippant manner, and had said that it was providential flashlight on the situation. (Labour cheers.) The Minister had said that the natives invaded the town, but this statement according to the evidence, was not correct. Six of the natives had been shot dead, and 35 were wounded, five of the latter subsequently succumbing. He was not the least surprised to see the Minister smile—niggers were only niggers to him. It was remarkable that black people, whom they were supposed to protect, should be treated this way in a British Dominion.

You have said that over and over again. (Ministerial cheers.

He has not got anything to say. (Hear, hear.)

said that the hon. member for Vryheid had said he had nothing to say. That hon. member had a certain amount of experience with regard to the shooting of natives. He (the speaker) knew that the views held by people in his neighbourhood were disgusting to civilised people. He moved to omit paragraph (b) of sub-section (1).

said that while listening to the hon. member for Weenen, one might come to the conclusion that these natives were shot for amusement, and that the Government were looking on simply for amusement. The hon. member did not know anything about what happened at Jagersfontein. (Hear, hear.) He had simply taken advantage of something that had appeared in the newspapers in order to attack the Government. The Government were not there: they could not possibly have anticipated what was taking place at Jagersfontein. He was Chairman of the company, and he knew something about it.

Were you there?

The Protector of Natives was not there, the man on whom the hon. member relies for his information that the shooting was unnecessary. Proceeding, Sir D. Harris said that for four hours the management endeavoured to pacify these natives without success. The natives set fire to an office in the compound, they broke open the safe, they took all the money that was in it, and they armed themselves with very possible weapon they could lay their hands on. They sang their war songs, and he was told by white men who were there that these natives meant mischief. They smashed down the compound wall and some of the white men who saw the danger rushed to the town to obtain rifles and the people in the town also got possession of their rifles. They knew, if the natives got into the town, what that meant. The hon. member had not said a word about the six white men who were injured. The hon. member wanted to make the Government responsible. The Government knew no more about the matter than the hon. member. The Government were asked to send assistance, but before the Government forces arrived the citizens had protected themselves. The hon. member now got up to defend natives, who, if they had got loose, would have murdered every white man and woman in that town. He had himself thanked some of the residents of the town for their courage in helping the mining people to prevent the natives from getting into the town. These people simply had to defend themselves. The hon. member was merely trying to make a little political capital, and it did not do him any credit.

said that if the hon. member for Beaconsfield knew what a great authority on natives the hon. member for Weenen was he would not take much notice of what he had said.

said that the complete answer to the hon. member for Beaconsfield, if things were as he had stated, was, why did he want an indemnity in this Bill at all in regard to this matter? Supposing that had occurred in November, would the hon. member for Beaconsfield have sanctioned the Government asking for an indemnity in regard to it? The question had got no more to do with the railway strike than the hon. member had to do with the Empire of Japan. The hon. member for Weenen was perfectly right. The Prime Minister had absolutely refused to utter one single word in explanation of his desire for an indemnity in regard to the shooting of these 41 natives at Jagersfontein. With the discourtesy to which some of them were becoming accustomed, he had refused to give any answer at all in regard to the other matter raised by the hon. member, namely the shooting of the men at the Van Ryn. He would suggest to the hon. member for Weenen that he should move a proviso to the effect that this did not apply to the Jagersfontein case.

said, he could not entirely agree with the clause. What of the goods which had been commandeered by the Government? The Minister of Defence had stated that such goods were to be paid for, but would he pay full value? The Minister had not given them any promise on that point, and he hoped the Government would give an assurance that for all the goods that had been requisitioned or commandeered, market value would be paid. An officer might offer £3 for an article worth £50, and the person concerned would have no recourse in law. If the Government promised to pay market rates he would be satisfied. Otherwise, when Parliament prorogued they might hear that for a horse valued at £30 only £10 was offered.

replied that the Government would pay, and was paying, fair market value for all requisitioned goods, and, so far, not a single complaint had been received. There should be no doubt on that point; and if any complaint was made on that score, they should apply to him (the Minister). Where the railway had had to be watched for long distances goods had had to be commandeered, and for those goods the market value would be paid.

said if he were to repeat the tales he knew were facts as to the shooting of natives, he did not suppose the Cape members would believe them, so he would leave it to the good sense of the hon. member for Vryheid. The hon. member for Beaconsfield had completely mistaken the line that he had taken. Mr. Meyler was proceeding to refer to certain circumstances in connection with the Jagersfontein incident, when

stated that the hon. member was repeating his argument over and over again.

Explain to me, Mr. Chairman, which argument I have repeated. (Cries of “Order.”)

The hon. member will please resume his seat, and keep it.

On a point of order—

Will the hon. member keep his seat?

I wish to rise to a point of order. (Cries of “Order.”)

On a point of order—(Renewed cries of “Order.”) Do you refuse to hear a point of order?

What is the point?

I wish to know whether you wish me to retain my seat for the whole of the sitting of this Committee? (Hear, hear.)

I wish to know if I can bring up other matters in connection with this case?

If the hon. member will desist from repeating arguments, he can speak; but if he repeats them, I must request him to resume his seat and keep it.

Is not a member entitled to press an argument—is not one allowed to mention a subject again? The Minister of Defence, who finds a good deal of amusement in this Committee, treats this as a jest. I do not know how one can press an argument without some amount of repetition.

said that the rules laid it down that the Speaker or the Chairman, after calling attention to a member who was guilty of tedious repetition, might direct him to resume his seat. (Hear, hear.)

I am merely submitting that you may have to use an argument again in some other way. It is a most important point to all of us, and I would call the attention of the Leader of the Opposition, or rather the leader of the bottle-holders of the Government, to this.

I have given my ruling, and I am not going to depart from it.

said he would now deal with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog). He thought that they should have some machinery in that Bill for matters about which they had been kept in ignorance to-day, and about which no information had been given to them. They had seen some reports in the newspapers, censored reports, but they had no information—

said that the hon. member was repeating arguments which had been used over and over again by other hon. members. It was tedious repetition.

Surely tedious repetition refers to an individual member!

Tedious repetition of his own arguments or those of other members.

said he would endeavour to avoid repeating the arguments of other hon. members, but some of the speeches had been in Dutch, with which he was not familiar. The procedure which had been adopted with regard to that Bill was most extraordinary, and left no loophole for the redress of grievances.

said surely the hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog) would see that if the clause passed with his amendment, it would destroy the whole Bill.

said that that argument had already been used by an hon. member opposite. (Laughter.)

said he would not be guilty of using arguments which had been used before. He moved as an amendment, at the end of the clause, to add a new sub-section 4, as follows: “Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the Governor-General shall immediately after the taking effect of this Act appoint a commission, consisting of two judges of the Supreme Court, who shall inquire into any case which may be brought before them by any person who feels aggrieved, and who claims that he has suffered injury for or on account of, or in respect of, any act or matter done by any of the persons mentioned in sub-section 1 of the clause: provided, however, that the commission shall not inquire into any case unless the aggrieved person establishes, to the satisfaction of the commission, a prima facie case that the act or matter complained of by him was not done in good faith, or was of such a nature that, although bona fide, was unjustifiable. If the commission be satisfied that according to right and equity restitution or compensation should be made, it shall make such recommendations to Parliament as it may deem right and just. Any claim preferred under the provisions of this sub-section shall be brought within six months after the coming into operation of this Act, failing which the same shall be prescribed. ”

Proceeding, the hon. member said that he hoped that his proposal was framed so that it could be readily understood by members of the Committee. In supporting the amendment he would say in the first place that he did not propose to put the country to any expense, it was only adding another function to the existing functions of the Supreme Court. The aggrieved person would have to make good one of the alternatives. He would have to make up a prima facie case. He would have to satisfy the commission that his claim rested upon an act not done in good faith or that his claim was of such a nature that although the act was bona fide, it was unnecessary or unjustifiable. Then the commission had to be satisfied that the claim fell outside the Act of Indemnity. If they were satisfied that a prima facie case had been made out and that the claim fell outside the Indemnity Act, then only would the Government have to present their side of the case to the commission, and when the commission had heard both sides they would make recommendation to Parliament for Parliament was the final court. He recommended the appointment of two judges because the Government in connection with the disturbances of July adopted that course. He submitted his amendment would find a way out of the difficulty and give them an opportunity of dealing with the cases such as referred to by the hon. member for Victoria West. He did not think anybody would be able to say that they were shutting their eyes to acts of injustice or were not prepared to appoint a commission of some sort to investigate the grievances.

asked if the hon. Minister would give him some further information before the matter was put. They had had a very sultry discussion during the last four or five hours a great deal of which discussion had not added to the dignity of that House. It had been a discussion of a personal character, and was such as would have a tendency to bring discredit on the House. He would like to call the attention of the House to the fact that the clause dealt with the indemnifying of the Government for acts done in good faith-That was the position which every hon. member in that House, except, perhaps, those on the cross-benches would endorse. The question was whether there might have been so many cases under the administration of Martial Law in good faith where certain persons had suffered loss that would open up such a large inquiry that it would be a difficult thing to get the House to endorse. As had been said, there were no petitions before the House dealing with matters of that kind, and he would like the hon. Minister to make a statement to the House that where petitions of that kind were laid before the House, the Government would not object to their being inquired into for the possibility of a Select Committee being appointed to inquire into them. He did not see that the House could accept the amendment of the hon. member for Smithfield, or, without the fullest investigation, that of the hon. member for Barberton. He would have thought the best course would be to adopt clause 2, and the hon. member for Barberton should put his amendment on the paper as a new clause. The two should not be dealt with together. He did not think that this was the proper place for it. He thought that the Minister might say he was prepared to meet these eases and some machinery might be evolved. To flood the commission with thousands of cases was a thing which he thought hon. members did not desire. Nobody wished an injustice to be done to anybody, and he did not think that any great injustice had been done. Those people who came out on duty with the Defence Force were also entitled to consideration.

did not think it was necessary to deal with the latest amendment, for the reason that it boiled together the amendments of the hon. member for Smithfield and the right hon. member for Victoria West, and subject to the same objections that he had raised against those amendments. Why the man who had left his farm for duty and whose crops had not been tilled would be able to come forward and claim to be heard.

It does not mean that.

Mr. Poutsma and Mr. Bain could also come before the commission and revisit these inhospitable shores. He pointed out that there would be two sets of proceedings before the matter could come before the Government, and then they would have to spend the time of Parliament listening to all these cases. He did not think that it would be business. He pointed out that this was an Indemnity Bill, and that the amendment was not germane to the issue. He did not think that it was workable. As the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had said, they had had no complaints of a serious character. If before that House were brought any serious or substantial complaints in regard to the administration of Martial Law, he thought it would be the duty of the Government and of the House to conduct an inquiry into those cases. Until that had been done they were not going to invite it; they were not going to publish a general invitation to the country to come forward with an endless list of grievances.

suggested that this would be a convenient point at which to adjourn the consideration of the clause, so that they might have an opportunity of studying the amendment of the hon. member for Barberton. He would move that progress be reported.

said that the discussion on this clause had now extended over two days. The Government was extremely anxious before the House rose that night or to-morrow that they should dispose of the clause.

said he would press his motion. The fact that they had discussed this clause, which was practically the heart of the whole Bill, yesterday and to-day, was not sufficient reason for hustling the Bill through. On the second reading of the Bill, this extraordinary act of deportation was discussed so largely that almost all other matters were lost sight of.

Helping to obstruct.

Look at the Leader of the Opposition, look at his attitude on this most important subject. Sir it is a disgrace. (Loud cries of: “Order.”)

The hon. member must confine himself to this motion.

My remarks are most germane to the motion. I was pointing out the attitude of the so-called Opposition, but really supporters of the Government. If it had any vestige of an idea of the duties of an Opposition it would support us in asking for time to consider the amendment of the hon. member for Barberton.

I hope the Minister will accept the proposal to report progress. (Ministerial cries of: “No.”) Are hon. members afraid to see the amendment on the paper? I am certain they cannot understand the full import of it without reading it. I cannot understand why the Government should be so anxious to press the clause. This method of transacting business is bad for the country, and does not help to inspire confidence in Parliament.

My hon. friend does not represent all the opinion on this side of the House. It is a perfectly fair proposition that the amendment should appear on the paper, for it is a most important one. It is not very dignified for Parliament to sit here until the early hours. I was sitting at 10 o’clock this morning on public business. To get the Bill through in this fashion is doing no good to the Government or to Parliament.

said he wished to support the clause standing over in fairness to the country, and that the amendment should be threshed out although personally he intended to vote for the clause as it stood in the Bill. He would vote for the clause as it stood, but it was only fair to the country that they should have further consideration of the clause.

also asked the Minister to agree to progress being reported. He asked what had been brought against this amendment. What had the Minister done—

said it was the question of reporting progress that they were discussing.

said that, if there was anybody in that House, it was the Minister of Defence who needed a little time to consider proposals to amend the clause. That clause was of such great importance that it would redound to the honour of the House if something answering the purpose were devised, even if the Committee had to sit for a week to do it.

said it was extraordinary how chickens came home to roost. They had the appeal of two hon. members who were ex-Ministers, who wanted progress reported. He remembered very well, when the hon. member for Barberton was Minister of Finance, asking that progress should be reported at 10.45, and the hon. member had refused, depending on the majority behind him. He hoped that the Government would rely on its majority to refuse the request

said that, as one who unlike the two members, took his Parliamentary duties seriously—

Has the hon. member any right to say that I do not take my Parliamentary duties seriously? (Laughter.)

They had an amendment there, he said, which it was the duty of every hon. member to study closely. So many important happenings had taken place in the North—

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion.

said he was only endeavouring to give reasons why they should adjourn. It was only right that every hon. member should insist upon having an opportunity of studying that amendment, which could not be done unless it was put upon the paper.

put the question as to whether progress should be reported, and declared the “Noes ” had it.

at 10 minutes to 12, called for a division, which was taken with the following result:

Ayes—19.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Boydell, Thomas

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

De Jager, Andries Lourens

Haggar, Charles Henry

Hertzog, James Barry Munnik

Hull, Henry Charles

Jagger, John William

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Sampson, Henry William

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brand

Wilcocks, Carl Thodorus Muller

H. E. S. Fremantle and P. G. W. Grobler, tellers.

Noes—67.

Alberts, Johannes Joachin

Baxter, William Duncan

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Bekker, Stephanus

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Crewe, Charles Preston

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Duncan, Patrick

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Graaff, David Pieter de Villiers

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Harris, David

Henwood, Charlie

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

King, John Gavin

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Langerman, Jan Willem Stuckeris

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert.

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

Macaulay, Donald

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh. Marthinus Wilhelmus

Nathan, Emile

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Smartt, Thomas William

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

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

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Wiltshire, Henry

Wyndham, Hugh Archibald

H. Mentz and J. Hewat, tellers.

The motion was accordingly negatived.

The amendment of the Minister of Finance, on line 37, was agreed to.

was about to put Mr. Meyler’s amendment to omit sub-sections (a) and (b), when

rose, and said that he would withdraw his amendment, so far as sub-section (a) was concerned.

This was withdrawn.

That paragraph (b), proposed to be omitted by Mr. Meyler, stand part of the clause, and a division was called.

called for a division at three minutes to twelve. The division bells were rung, and after the Chairman had put the question, members divided.

As fewer than ten members (viz.: Messrs. Andrews, Boydell, Creswell, Haggar, Madeley, Meyler and H. W. Sampson) voted against the question the Chairman declared the question affirmed, and the amendment accordingly negatived.

moved in line 44, after “1914,” to insert the words, “other than those involved in the deportation of citizens from this Union.”

The Hon. Member said that it was necessary that they should fully discuss every line of the Bill.

asked whether that amendment was not covered by cause 4.

said that the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell) was anticipating discussion which might take place on clause 4.

submitted that clause 4 would be redundant if they passed that amendment. Clause 4, in point of fact, merely repeated what clause 2 had already indemnified.

The hon. member may proceed.

said it had been pointed out in the second reading debate that if there was one act in the Government proceedings which had stirred not only South Africa, but the whole British Empire it had been the deportations. The position was that before allowing the clause to go through it was necessary they should have something more than the information the Minister had put before the House. On Tuesday morning he (Mr. Creswell) was trying to show why we should not precipitately pass this Bill. From the 26th January to last Tuesday morning those men had not been in a position to challenge the hon. Minister’s statement. The Minister had depended upon police records to justify the second reading debate. Would the hon. Minister say whether he would accept the debate?

No.

asked for a reason. It was difficult to steer between the hon. Minister’s silence and the Chairman’s ruling with regard to avoiding tedious repetition. If the hon. Minister would not answer one could only assume that the meaning was not made clear, and the only way appeared to be to repeat in another way. The next point he put was that they should have fuller information with regard to charges against the accused. Did the Minister deny that this act of kidnapping had created a profound sensation throughout the civilised world?

pointed out there was no quorum present.

said this was typical of the interest hon. members took in the matter. If this was not one of the Minister’s dodges to get over a difficulty then he should agree to the insertion of the words.

said that he was not prepared to give his vote to anything which would justify the kidnapping of these nine men, for they had no grounds for justifying it. They wanted to know what amendments would be placed before the House, because at present they did not know. Members were placed in a considerable difficulty.

hoped that the Minister would depart from his stone-wall attitude. He moved, as an amendment, to insert after the word “whatsoever,” in line 54, the words “other than those falling within the provisions of section 4.” He hoped that they would concentrate discussion on clause 4.

would like the clause to stand over until clause 4 had been considered.

said the hon. member’s amendment was more comprehensive than his own, and if the Minister would accept that he would like to withdraw.

intimated that he would do so.

The amendment of the hon. member for Jeppe was accordingly withdrawn.

The amendment moved by Mr. Duncan was agreed to.

appealed to the Minister to report progress, and pointed out there was on the paper an amendment to delete clause 5, which was a most important matter. The hon. Minister ought to use his majority with some degree of reason. He (Mr. Creswell) would move to report progress.

You can’t do that, the amendment has not been put.

The amendment has not been put.

The amendment having been put,

appealed to the Minister to report progress.

I am not prepared to accept such a motion.

asked if the Chairman called their arguments obstruction?

I have given my ruling.

asked if the hon. member was correct in again discussing the question?

protested at 12.30 a.m. that the Minister had not given an adequate explanation of the illegal acts that had been committed.

The Minister knew there had been no violence, and yet he had said he was compelled to do a number of illegal acts owing to acts of violence committed.

at 12.30, called the attention of the Chairman to the fact that there was no quorum.

A quorum having been formed,

said he would like to ask if it was relevant to point out that the Minister could not keep a quorum in the House. Continuing, he said the Minister admitted committing a number of illegal acts at Volksrust, and until they had an explanation of those acts, the clause ought not to be agreed to. The Defence Force from the Waterberg district had been called out under the impression that a native rising was imminent. Proceeding, Mr. Creswell said that when once these men had been brought there, the whole authority of the Defence Act was put on them to keep them there. He alluded to the case of Mr. Fry, who “refused to shoot down his fellowmen,” and was imprisoned in a cell at Marshall-square. What right had the Government to incarcerate Mr. Poutsma, Mr. Nield, and the others, who had not incited to any violence at all; but they were now asked to indemnify the Government for the shady acts they (the Government) had done. The hon. member referred to the silence of the Leader “of the so-called Opposition,” instead of backing up the efforts of the members on the cross-benches in opposing the Government.

Stick to the clause.

Stick to the clause!

felt they were very much in the dark. The amendments were deserving of close study, but they had not been able to study them; they had to deal with the clause as it stood in the Bill. He went on to acquaint the House with what took place in connection with the revolt at Jagersfontein, and said the action of the Government was a correct one. Jagersfontein was a place where the miners were not wealthy. Fortunately the mining company had provided them with weapons, and they had to thank the company for that provision. The natives had been discontented for some time, and the management had tried to pacify them. They broke out unexpectedly, and if they had been allowed to get into the mining area, there was no telling what might have happened; and if they had got into the town, an appalling massacre would probably have taken place. Every possible precaution was taken to prevent anyone being killed, and it was only as a last measure that firing was resorted to. It is absolutely malicious for any hon. member to suggest that the shooting was reckless. In relation to what took place at Jagersfontein, it was necessary and it was wrong to say it was malicious.

rose to a point of order. Was the word “malicious” a Parliamentary word?

said he would withdraw the word.

said that one of the facts emerging from the speech of the hon. member for Fauresmith was that the Government, with its native policy, had established a compound and taken 8,000 natives to be a source of danger—

I never said it was a source of danger. There are three compounds, which are well guarded.

said they were spoiling for trouble at Jagersfontein by leaving three compounds there. One fact, however, had not emerged, and that was the source of the unrest amongst the natives.

pointed out that they were not discussing the causes of unrest. The hon. member must address himself to the question.

said that the cause of the trouble was that one or two of the natives had been so kicked that later they had died. Instead of trying to pacify the natives by treating them with justice, the Government brought up the troops. Was that the way of quieting the natives, who were seething with discontent? The burghers had been placed at the disposal of the mine managers. The Government was like a mole, and consistently worked in the dark. They were afraid to have light thrown on the darkness.

Nonsense!

Ah, it is the hon. member for Vrededorp! It is one of his illuminating remarks! The hon. member went on to speak of the want of interest which members of that House, with the exception of hon. members on the cross-benches, were taking in the subject.

Keep to the clause!

went on to deal with the case of Mr. Nield, whom the hon. Minister should have treated better than he did. Had he tried to absorb some of that gentleman’s ideas the question of whether they should or should not give the Government indemnity would not have arisen. There was no cause for Mr. Nield’s arrest. The reason he was incarcerated was because he offered a solution of the original difficulty, which caused the whole trouble. But the Government did not want a solution. Mr. Nield, in conference with the Minister of Railways and Harbours, together with Mr. Poutsma and another, after all efforts had proved unavailing, Mr. Nield said: “If you find it necessary to retrench, order your workshop staff to work one hour less per day.”

Is it right to discuss the policy of the Government at this stage?

The hon. member may proceed.

asked if there was ever a more reasonable proposition than that when there was not sufficient work to keep all the men going? The Minister now came to the House and asked in cold blood at 1.10 a.m. to give them an indemnity for the imprisonment of Mr. Nield before Martial Law was proclaimed. Then there was the case of Waterston, who was arrested, heaven only knew what for, except that he was a political undesirable from the Minister’s point of view. He was arrested because he was secretary of the South African Labour Party. Was it right that the Government should refuse a little information? He did not simply refuse, but sat there calmly, and said nothing, and said it well. Were the members on the cross-benches not entitled to a statement regarding those crimes which had been committed in good faith. Let them look at the empty benches on the Opposition side of the House—

The hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

said a most important clause was being put through without any opposition.

said he accepted the information that had been given by the hon. member for Fauresmith and the hon. member for Beaconsfield. He had been blaming the Government, but now blamed the hon. member for Fauresmith. The person who was to blame was the gentleman who controlled the Native Affairs Department, who did not contradict what appeared in the Press.

said that he had not said that the burghers had been placed at the disposal of the mine managers at Jagersfontein. It was not the case; and they had been under their officers. It just showed what value could be attached to some of the statements of members on the cross-benches.

said that here they were to give the Government absolution, and yet were not allowed to go into the antecedents of the trouble at Jagersfontein. They, (the Labour members) were not obstructing, although they might be talking long. (Laughter.) The hon. member spoke of the rights of minorities, and that the rights of minorities to discussion should not be stifled. One day the Prime Minister might find himself in a minority, and he would appreciate the rights of minorities then. He would ask that progress be reported.

At 1.20 a.m.

moved that the clause stand over.

On the motion being put the “Noes” were declared to have it.

wanted to ‘know on what grounds Poutsma and three others were arrested on January 9 if it was not the intention of the Government to smash the railway strike? He pointed out that Mr. Poutsma told the railwaymen not to provoke trouble, and started for Johannesburg in order to get the Federation not to call a general strike. Nield was also arrested on the way to Johannesburg. Then the only crime alleged against Buckley and Carnon was that they went on the platform at the Town Hall at the railway meeting because there was no room in the body of the hall. Neither had held any official position in the Railway Society. Now they were asked to indemnify the Government for an act of this description. It was outrageous to think that a Committee of that House would condone such an action. These men were out on bail, and the Government would not dismiss nor reinstate them. The Government said it could not interfere until the court had decided the matter, and the result was that these men were out of employment. The Government was actually taking the bread out of the mouths of their children. At 1.45 a.m. Mr. Boydell detailed the cases of Richardson and Fireman Trevers, the latter being sentenced to six months’ hard labour before Martial Law came into force. He pointed out that this could only have been done under Martial Law regulations, which only came into force the day after sentence was passed. They could not be expected to indemnify the Government for that act, let alone others that he had mentioned. He would also point out that the maximum sentence under the regulations was one month’s hard labour and a fine of £30. He thought that the fireman had a claim for damages against the man who sentenced him, and who had clearly exceeded his powers. If they went through all the Martial Law sentences they would find the next highest was six weeks’ hard labour. He said they would be false to their trust if they were prepared to condone these acts done between January 8 and the time Martial Law was proclaimed. The worst thing the Government had done was to make allegations against the deportees when they were speeding on their way to England and could not defend themselves. He denied that Mr. Poutsma had been in prison for violence. He had been in for inciting to violence, but under the circumstances he (Mr. Boydell) would have done the same. But if they went into police records, the records of members in that House, let alone the people of the country—

said that the hon. member must not refer disrespectfully to hon. members of that House.

said that he had made the remark because members of the Government had referred disrespectfully— and quoted police records—to those who had been sent out of the country. He thought that the Government had played a low-down game towards these men. Mr. Poutsma had never incited to violence in this country; on the contrary, he warned the men against violence.

In conclusion the hon. member moved that progress be reported, and leave asked to sit again.

said that he could not take that motion, in view of the division taken only a short while ago.

then moved that the Chairman leave the chair.

That’s the same thing.

submitted that it was not at all the same thing. If agreed to, it would mean that the Bill was shelved.

ruled that he could not take the motion.

in continuing the debate, said the Minister of Defence, after three hours, had not yet answered the questions he had asked. It was the members of the cross-benches who were the real Opposition in that House, although the so-called Opposition had been returned on the plea that a strong Opposition was necessary. The country would note what had been done by hon. members. The hon. member alluded to the Waterberg incident, and the false rumours which, he said, had been circulated by the Government about a native rising, because of which the Defence Force had been called out there. He warned the Minister of the results of trifling with the Defence Force like that.

said that they had not as yet heard of the agreement of the Government with the shipping company whose ship had taken these nine deported men away.

ruled that any matter in regard to the deportation could be discussed when they came to clause 4.

asked whether the Minister of Defence would clear up the Jagersfontein matter, and reply to the question raised by the hon. member for Jeppe. What effect would the indemnity have on any finding of the court, the hon. member next asked, with regard to the occurrence at Jagersfontein? Why had Mr. Wade and himself (Mr. Andrews), when walking peaceably along in Germiston, been asked to come and have a chat with the police sub-inspector by two detectives? They were thunderstruck when, after waiting for over an hour, Mr. Wade was informed that he was to go to gaol for 21 days, under the Peace Preservation Act of the Transvaal.

While Mr. Andrews was speaking, Mr. Neser left the chair, and

took the chair.

on a point of order, asked by what right the hon. member (Mr. Mentz) took the chair.

Read Rule 202. (Ministerial cheers.)

read the rule, the latter part of which was to the effect that when the House was in committee the Chairman could call upon any member of the House to take the chair during his temporary absence. (Ministerial cheers.)

then went on to deal with Mr. Wade’s case in some detail.

at 2.30 a.m., moved that the Chairman leave the chair.

On the motion being put, the Noes were declared to have it.

called for a division.

As fewer than ten members (viz., Messrs. Andrews, Boydell, Creswell, Haggar, Hull, Madeley, Meyler, and H. W. Sampson) voted in favour of the motion,

declared the motion negatived.

said that in view of the important amendments on the clause before the House and the overwhelming majority in favour of the Bill, and in order to make it as effective as possible by further consideration, he would move that progress be reported.

ruled the motion out of order.

said that as Sub-sections 1, 2 and 3 were the most debateable parts of the Bill, and as he had several amendments to move providing that certain information was not available the following day, he moved that the clause stand over.

The motion was declared to be negatived.

called for a division, which resulted as, follows:

Ayes—10.

Andrews, William Henry

Boydell, Thomas

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Fremantle, Henry Eardley Stephen

Haggar, Charles Henry

Hull, Henry Charles

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Sampson, Henry William

C. T. M. Wilcocks and H. M. Meyler, tellers.

Noes—61.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Bekker, Stephanus

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Cullinan, Thomas Major

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Duncan, Patrick

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Harris, David

Henwood, Charlie

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

King, John Gavin

Langerman, Jan Willem Stuckeris

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

Macaulay, Donald

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Schoeman. Johannes Hendrik

Silburn, Percy Arthur

Smartt, Thomas William

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

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

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt. Thomas

Wiltshire, Henry

Wyndham, Hugh Archibald

H. Mentz and J. Hewat, tellers.

The motion was therefore negatived.

moved a further amendment to omit in line 56 the word “eighth” and substitute “tenth.” He said this would get the House out of the difficulty, as the matter in dispute would be excluded from the Bill.

The hon. member was constantly called to order for repeating himself.

Continuing his speech at 3 a.m., he said he had never heard of a Bill being asked for to condone acts committed before the declaration of Martial Law. Dealing with damages, he understood that the company was indemnifying the relations of the men killed at Jagersfontein—

Don’t repeat a private conversation.

said they knew that the company was very generous. Unless the Government was concealing something, the sum that would be needed for compensation would not be very much. At any rate he thought that the rights of British subjects should be respected. Mr. Meyler was proceeding to deal with the onus of proof, when

said that that point had already been argued.

went on to deal with the positon of natives in the Free State and Natal, who, he said, had no means of expressing themselves except through the courts. He was proceeding to deal with another matter, when

said he must apply rule 82 to the hon. member.

I am dealing with—

called upon Mr. Meyler to discontinue his speech in consequence of irrelevance and continued repetition.

Mr. Meyler resumed his seat.

said it became more and more apparent why hon. members wanted to steam roller that Bill through the House. He was referring to Mr. Poutsma, when

said that the hon. member was repeating himself.

I am not, sir.

On a point of order, sir.

The hon. member must sit down.

On a point of order. (Cries of “Order.”)

The hon. member must sit down. The hon. member for Springs can continue if he does not repeat himself.

On a point of order, sir, I,—

What is it?

It is not a new rule, but a new ruling since you, sir, have been in the chair that if an hon. member is told to sit down and not to continue speaking if he has used arguments—

read rule 82 and said he had called attention to the fact that the hon. member was repeating himself.

On a point of order, sir. (Cries of “Sit down” and “Order.”)

The hon. member—

I appeal to the Speaker. (Cries of “Order.”)

Can I raise a point of order?

If the hon. member does not sit down I will have to name him and call in Mr. Speaker.

Get Mr. Speaker’s ruling on the point.

I have not actually named the hon. member, but if he persists I will name him, and call in Mr. Speaker.

Shall I proceed, sir?

Yes.

The Minister of Justice just made the remark “chuck him out.” I think that the Minister should be called upon to withdraw the expression. Is it a parliamentary expression ?

I suppose he won’t deny it?

said he would withdraw.

And apologise to the Committee ?

That’s the way they teach us manners in this House.

proceeding, said that this man Poutsma had the confidence of three-quarters of the men in the Service. Simply because he got the confidence of the railway servants the Government arrested him. They had no right to ask the House to pass that Bill, because the Government was the primary and deliberate cause of the unrest. A general strike would not have occurred if Poutsma had not been arrested. Continuing, Mr. Madeley related his experiences at the Cape while the strike was in progress and said that he and the hon. member for Roodepoort were followed about not by detectives but by hangers-on of the C.I.D., who were willing to do any sort of dirty work for money. How would hon. members like to be dogged about by these men. He then went on to relate his attempts to address the engine-drivers who had expressed a desire to be addressed. There were two engine-drivers whom he mentioned by name who were employed by the Government to go amongst the loyal men and keep them loyal.

You ought not to mention those men by name.

Why not?

You are not worthy to mention these names.

declared that this was a most contemptuous expression, and the Minister had no right to use it in that House. He demanded that the Minister be called upon to withdraw the statement.

The Minister—

Do you call on me, sir, to withdraw?

Yes.

The hon. member was referring to two men. (Labour cries of “Withdraw.”)

Order! (Ministerial cries of “Order.”)

On a point of order, sir, will you ask the Minister to withdraw!

The Chairman has granted me leave to explain. The hon. member for Springs referred in a sneering tone to the loyalty of two men in the Cape service whose loyalty was outstanding, and whose actions in connection with the strike more than anything helped to keep the Cape men loyal. I said that it was not worthy to mention those men by name.

The Minister has not withdrawn. The Minister has said that what he said was that it was not worthy to mention those names in contemptuous tones. What the Minister said was that the hon. member himself was not worthy of mentioning those men.

The Minister withdrew. (Labour cries of dissent.)

If you call upon me to withdraw, sir, I do so, and—

No qualification, please.

The hon. member at the time was endeavouring to get—

On a point of order, sir. The other day an hon. member on the cross-benches was told to withdraw without any qualification, and we claim that the Minister should do the same.

The Minister has withdrawn the statement.

The incident then closed.

said that he was not the only one who had read the clause with amazement, and thought that the Minister would have given an explanation, but he had not done so. What had been the situation on January 8? He thought that the Government anticipated proclaiming Martial Law on the 8th, but the strike had only taken place some days later. Hon. members on the cross-benches could not agree to that clause, and they felt that there was a skeleton in the cupboard of the Government. He was, he thought, entitled to have an explanation of the matter. He had to go back to his constituents and explain to them why Martial Law had been proclaimed on January 8. Why had it not been on the 6th or the 9th? Why had that day been fixed upon? They wanted to know, and had got no satisfactory explanation.

amendment was put, and negatived.

A division was called for, but was withdrawn.

moved, as an amendment at the end of paragraph (i) of sub-section one, to insert the following words: “in so far as they relate to matters undertaken for the protection of railway property and the calling out of the Citizen Defence Force.” He said that these were only the matters, as indicated by the Minister, for which the Government required indemnity.

said that he could not accept the amendment. There were other acts for which they wanted indemnity.

heartily congratulated the Minister on at last breaking his sphinx-like silence. What were the “other acts” which the Minister had referred to? What did the Minister want indemnity for?

asked what would have happened if a general strike had not been provoked? All the evidence went to show that the Government had provoked the strike.

Mr. Hull’s amendment was negatived.

called for a division.

Too late! The amendment has already been negatived.

I call for a division.

The division was taken at 3.55 a.m.

As fewer than ten members (viz.: Messrs. Andrews, Boydell, Creswell, Fremantle, Haggar, Hull, Madeley, Meyler and H. W. Sampson) voted in favour of the amendment,

declared the amendment negatived.

Mr. Madeley’s amendment, to delete paragraph (i), sub-section one, was then put and declared negatived.

declared the question affirmed and the amendment accordingly negatived.

moved, as an amendment, to add at the end of paragraph (ii) of sub-section (1) “except the taking by the authorities of certain papers, books, documents and other assets of Trade Unions and the removing of the private papers and correspondence of the S.A. Labour Party.”

He complained of the manner in which the Trades Hall had been surrounded, and the books and papers belonging to certain Trade Unions taken away. This was an unwarranted action and likely to cause hardship. He said, that apart from the strikers, there was a certain percentage of unemployed and a book was kept by the Unions which was a check on those members-whom they expect to sign the out-of-work register from day to day. That meant to say, that those men that did not sign the register did not get out-of-work pay owing to the action of the Government. A large number of men, not strikers, had been deprived of their pay. The office of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers was entered and the safe opened: and the books taken away. He hoped the Hon. Minister seing that this was a serious accusation, would give an undertaking that all the documents removed from Trade Union and the Labour Party offices would be handed back to the people they belonged to. Members on the cross-benches would not be pacified until they got an assurance that this would be done.

The charge which the hon. member has just made has been repeated every day—that we are in possession of these papers and are keeping them. Inquiry has been made of the police, and I am informed that the books of only two societies were taken, viz., Amalgamated Railway Servants and the Amalgamated Engineers. These were the only societies of which the papers were taken. The books of the Society of Engineers were returned some time ago. The documents and books of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants were returned yesterday. No records or books were taken other than those stated by the police. This statement, continued the Minister, is in respect of the charge that was made that possibly some lists of members of these Unions may have been shown to the mine authorities. No such information was given or lists furnished. There was some papers belonging to the Federation of Trades, but these were in the hands of the Law Department, and were still under consideration, but will be returned in due course. That being so, I do not think there is any necessity for the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Commissioner-street (Mr. Sampson). It was to be regretted that there was any necessity.

What was the necessity?

The necessity is explained by the discussion which has been taking place for some time now.

said the information just given did not tally with his, but of course the statement they had heard was from the police. He (Mr. Sampson) had his information from a trustworthy source. They had heard that the Railway Servants and the Engineers’ Societies had had their books returned. The miners had also their documents sent back, but he knew for a fact that the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters, who held two meetings in the Trades Hall had their correspondence taken away. Had that been given back?

After the police visit to the Labour Party rooms he missed a book—an address book—and with his own eyes he saw papers and correspondence taken. He thought that there was room for further inquiry. Why had the offices of these bodies, perfectly legal in the eyes of the law, been raided? Was it to supply lists of the members to the employers ? He referred to the fact that men had been taken on again and worked one shift and then been dismissed because they were members of the Miners’ Association. It was unfair that men should be dogged this way all their lives, and he said that much of the bitterness on the Rand had been due to the blacklisting after the 1907 strike. He did not think that the Minister should place such implicit reliance on the word of the police. He thought that if these Trade Unions could prove that papers had been taken away and not returned, they should have access to the courts.

said that in speaking he was not actuated by a desire to obstruct, because if this came at the end of a forty hour sitting he would move in the same direction. It was the most important amendment they had placed before the House, because it put in a few words what was their whole view of these proceedings on the part of the Government. He would like Ministers to study the history of Trade Unionism, and he would see—

Stick to the point.

I do ask you to give me a little latitude. I am speaking with the bona fide idea of explaining the points. Continuing he said he did not think that Ministers understood what Trade Unionism meant to the people of the country. He was sure that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture would listen to him.

said the hon. member could not go into the history of Trade Unionism.

appealed to the Chairman for latitude, saying that this was the most important aspect of their case.

The hon. member must stick to the point.

How can I explain the evil of breaking up labour organisations without to some extent dealing with the value of institutions Ministers have tried to destroy?

said that that aspect should have been dealt with on the second reading debate.

I appeal to you, sir. I assure you, sir, that I am not obstructing.

said that the rules of debate laid down that only the details could be discussed in committee.

said he would merely make the assertion that Trade Union organisations were of infinite value not only to the men but to the State, because the State depended on men with a certain degree of independence. Ministers had done damage in ignorance of the real facts of the case. If Ministers, disguised, went among the men they would be appalled at what they had done, and the helpless position of the men, who had lost their only plank. There had been a deliberate attempt on the part of the Government, in close alliance with the large employers—

Are we going to be compelled to listen to a second reading speech, sir?

There would have been no necessity for the hon. member doing so if he had voted for the adjournment of the debate when it was proposed. I am afraid he is experiencing just a little specimen of real active opposition. Continuing, Mr. Creswell said that the Government, by its actions, had frightened away labour from the country, and declared that the taking away of these papers and books was war against the people whom the Government should have protected. The papers of the Miners’ Association were taken away. His information was that the office was in the hands of the police for some time, and that the place was thoroughly ransacked. Anyhow, he would prosecute the matter further. The papers of the Trades Federation were taken away, and he understood that these had not yet been returned. The individuals had been taken to Marshall-square Police Station and then to the Fort, where they had been kept for ten days. Then the office of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers had been raided and their papers removed. Why had that been done? It was that way in which these underground movements started, and the Minister did not seem to see it. It was said that they (the Labour Party) was in favour of class distinction, in class war, but did not the Minister know it was their object to remove class distinctions?

In the whole of the Minister’s speech there had not been a word which recognised that the Labour Party was like any other political party: and the Minister should have apologised to the Labour Party for having raided its offices. It was a political outrage. Did the Minister not see what an insult it was? Where could the Minister show that they had incited to sedition? On the contrary, they had done their utmost during the past six months to prevent incitements to sedition. Those actions of the Ministry tended to drive the people into those devious ways, which they (the Labour members) wished to prevent. The Minister of Defence was a clever man; but the others were not fools. He had learnt something from the July riots, but so had they. The reason why special constables of their own had been appointed in January was because of the July riots, and they wanted to prevent lawlessness and a sort of debauched riot. Martial Law had simply been against the Trade Unions, and so it was looked upon by the workers of the world—a brutal attempt of capital to crush the workers. The attitude of the Prime Minister towards the Labour movement reminded him of a big Newfoundland dog which tried to kill an insect, and tried to put its paw on it, with the result that the insect stung the dog. The Prime Minister did not understand the position or the importance of the movement, or the good which Trade Unions did.

warned the hon. member that he was wandering from the clause.

Thank you, sir. I shall be finished soon. Thank you, sir, for the latitude which you have allowed me. Continuing, he said that he would like to know from the Minister of Railways and Harbours how much he knew of the measures taken to get information as to what had gone on in the Unions. Talk of spying! Who had tapped the telephones ? What would have been said if the offices of the Unionist Party had been raided?

said the Ministry, to judge from their faces, had been not a little impressed at some of the points made by the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell) in the eloquent speech he had made.

Nonsense!

went on to protest against the proclamation of Martial Law in Natal, as well as in the Orange Free State.

That argument has been repeated over and over again

said that he had not done so.

said that the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Meyler) had done so. The hon. member must accept his ruling. If he repeated that argument over and over again the hon. member would not be allowed to go on.

said two men had been incarcerated in Durban gaol, who, being members of the Defence Force, refused to bear arms for the purpose of repressing the strike among the railwaymen. They had been there for a month, and were in the next cell to his, when he (Mr. Boydell) had had the honour of wearing the uniform. The hon. member went on to combat the statement of the Minister of Defence that nothing had been done to interfere with a Labour organisation as such.

warned the hon. member not to repeat the arguments used in that respect by the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell).

went on to ask that the papers which had been removed which belonged to the Labour organisations should be returned. He supported the hon. member for Jeppe in condemning the Labour organisations being singled out, and their offices being raided.

Am I in order in speaking?

No. (Laughter.)

said he could not say he was in favour of giving indemnity for Martial Law at all. But the amendment had been proposed in order to bring the matter more prominently before the House. It was not the fact that the books and documents had been in the hands of the Government that they objected to. It was the act of taking them. They quite realised that in the Minister’s own good time they would return those papers which had been raided. He repeated again: It was the taking that he wished to draw attention to, therefore no part of the Minister’s statement touched the point. He (Mr. Andrews) was a member of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, which had its offices, not in the Trades Hall, but in a respectable quarter, and not only were the papers taken but the members of the Executive Committee. Those six or eight men were quietly discussing how they were to pay the benefits due to its members. It was playing low down, and such an act had never been done by any authority since the inception of the society in 1850. Such action was totally unnecessary in the interests of law and order, and was done in order to break the strike. It succeeded, but whether finally it would be for the benefit of the Minister and his party or for South Africa generally remained to be seen.

again appealed to the Minister to report progress.

said Ministers could not accept the suggestion until the clause had been put through.

hoped the Minister would accept the amendment of the hon. member for Commissioner street.

Continuing, the hon. member went on to say that the membership of the Trade Unions in South Africa, whose offices had been raided, exceeded the whole of the white population of the country—men, women and children. Did they think that the Amalgamated Society of Engineers was going to sit down under the insults that had been levelled? Not a bit of it. The Amalgamated Society of Engineers’ executive sat in London; the South African branch was only an outpost. They would move the mother of Parliaments and—

Let them.

That indicates how much can be placed on the protestations of patriotism. That shows us what is behind all of this.

Proceeding, at 6 a.m., Mr. Madeley was checked by the Chairman, who warned the hon. member to stick to the point. They had charged the Government in collusion with hon. members on the Opposition benches, of having deliberately set out to destroy Trade Unions.

The hon. member must keep to the point.

Those charges have not been refuted.

pointed out that these matters had been dealt with by the hon. members for Jeppe and Georgetown.

then went on to refer to a statement that a police officer had told the men on the Van Ryn Estate that there was to be no more collective bargaining— no more Transvaal Mining Association or Amalgamated Society of Engineers.

That is not the question.

I respectfully submit to you, sir that —

The question deals with the raiding of books and papers.

In that respect I say that it was a deliberate attempt on the part of the Government to smash Trade Unions.

That is a matter for the second reading debate.

I am speaking to the amendment. Why did not the Government raid the offices of the Chamber of Mines?

That question has been asked before. (Laughter.)

They would have found evidence of real conspiracies. The hon. member went on to refer to lists of officials’ names, when

said: That has been argued three or four times.

But I am not using it as an argument, sir. (Laughter.) In conclusion, he said that there had been a deliberate attempt to smash the Unions.

also protested against the seizure of these documents.

Hear, hear.

said that the other party was slowly growing, and when they reached the top, as they would, he hoped they would be magnanimous to those on the top now. It was a low-down and dirty game that had been played towards the Unions at Johannesburg. The speaker went on to criticise the harshness of the Martial Law regulations which were enforced at Durban, and said it was not right to terrorise men in the way the authorities had done. They should have given the fullest information about the expenditure before they were asked to indemnify the Government. He dealt with the presentation of rifles to burghers, and inquired about the cost.

said that for the terrible crime of “advising” the men not to come back to work unless they all came back, he had been fined £10 or fourteen days’ imprisonment.

Mr. Sampson’s amendment was put at 6.35 a.m., and declared negatived.

called for a division, which was taken.

As fewer than ten members (viz.: Messrs. Andrews, Boydell, Creswell, Haggar, Madeley, Meyler, and H. W. Sampson) voted in favour of this amendment,

declared the amendment negatived.

The amendment proposed by the Minister of Defence to paragraph (iii), was agreed to.

Paragraph (iii), as amended, was then put.

called for a division, which was taken.

As fewer than ten members (viz.: Messrs. Andrews, Boydell, Creswell, Haggar, Madeley, Meyler, and H W. Sampson), voted in favour of paragraph (iii) as amended,

declared the paragraph agreed to, and the amendment proposed by Mr. Madeley negatived.

The amendment proposed by the Minister of Defence in lines 67 to 69 was agreed to.

On page 6, to omit sub-section (3).

The amendment was negatived on the voices.

put the question: That sub-section (3), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause.

A division was called for.

As fewer than ten members (viz.: Messrs. Andrews, Boydell, Creswell, Haggar, Madeley, Meyler, and H. W. Sampson), voted against the question,

declared the question affirmed, and the amendment proposed by Mr. Madeley negatived.

General Hertzog’s proviso was negatived, on the voices.

called for a division, which was taken.

As fewer than ten members (viz.: Messrs. Andrews, Boydell, Creswell, Haggar, Madeley, Meyler, and H. W. Sampson) voted in favour of the amendment,

declared the amendment negatived.

Mr. Merriman’s amendment was negatived.

at 6-55 a.m., moved that progress be reported, and leave asked to sit again.

The motion was negatived.

Mr. Hull’s amendment was then put and negatived.

said he wanted to make a few remarks on clause 2.

said that they must vote for it or against it now.

said that surely he could make a few remarks on clause 2 as a whole, before it was put? Hon. members had spent a tedious night, and he gave them the assurance that Labour members had not been moved to obstruction.

You have obstructed.

said that they could have gone on, but they were afraid that the Opposition Whips, overcome by sleep, might have voted with them, the Labour members. (Laughter.)

Clause 2, as amended, was declared carried, on the voices.

called for a division, which was taken.

As fewer than ten members (viz.: Messrs. Andrews, Boydell, Creswell, Haggar, Madeley, Meyler, and H. W. Sampson) voted against the clause as amended,

declared the clause, as amended, agreed to.

moved that progress be reported, and leave asked to sit again.

This was agreed to, and leave obtained to sit again on Monday.

moved, as an unopposed motion, that the House at its rising to-day, adjourn until Monday next.

There was no objection, and the motion was agreed to.