presented a petition from Frederick Hugh Page Creswell, praying that the petitioner might be allowed to appear before a certain Select Committee with Counsel. Mr. Sampson proposed as an unopposed motion that the petition be read.

The motion was agreed to.

The CLERK read the petition, which stated that on a certain statement made by the petitioner in debate a Select Committee had been appointed to inquire into the source of the said information, and as no doubt the petitioner would be summoned before this committee in due course the petitioner prayed that he might be allowed to appear with counsel.

proposed as an unopposed motion that the prayer of the petition be granted.

I think notice ought to be given.

I don’t think the House would take any exception. I beg to give notice.

from certain registered voters, for the extension of the Wolvehoek-Heilbron Railway to the town of Lindley and thence to Lindley-road (two petitions).

from Z. Hanns, formerly a native messenger, Colonial Ordnance Department, for a pension.

from W. M. Fraser, Principal, Douglas Public School, for condonation of a break in his service.

from registered voters, for the extension of the Wolvehoek-Heilbron Railway to the town of Lindley and thence to Lindley-road (two petitions).

two similar petitions from Lindley.

from inhabitants of Hope Town and Strydenburg, for erection of a platform and a gentlemen’s waiting-room at Krankuil Station.

That the Comparative Classified Summary of Ordinary Expenditure from Revenue (excluding Railways and Harbours), 1904—’05 to 1912-13, and the Estimated Expenditure for 1913-14, presented to this House on the 3rd March, 1914, be referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

Agreed to.

had moved in line 6 to insert the word “political” after “and.”

said that after the speeches which had been made by members, the House must be convinced that the charge of conspiracy laid against the deportees had been entirely disproved. He thought the last links in that conspiracy charge were shattered the other evening by certain affidavits which he placed before the House. He thought they ought to have a little common honesty in this matter and that, if the majority of members thought these men were political undesirables, they should say so. It would be wrong to use a term in this Bill which might imply that these men were criminals. It was clear from speeches made in the House by most members that they looked upon what these men had done as a political offence. He contended that an amendment was necessary, either to introduce the word “political” or delete “undesirables.” The Minister had no police records against these men.

put the question and declared that the “Noes” had it.

rose, and said that he was about to address the Committee when the Chairman put the “Noes.”

said that the hon. member was too late.

said he was going to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that clause 5 had not been passed. He wished to move the deletion of the clause, because it did not convey in its wording exactly what it covered. His hon. friend had been endeavouring to convince the Committee that in common honesty they should put in the word “political.” Everything said in that House both on the second reading debate and during the committee stage pointed to nothing else than the fact that these men were looked upon as political undesirables.

Order. The word “political” has been negatived. The hon. member cannot go back on that.

said he was not arguing now that the word “political” should be put in. He was pointing out that these men were deported because they were political undesirables, and because the word ‘Political” had not been put in that was a sufficient reason why the clause should be struck out. Not a single criminal action had been proved against any one of them. The whole of the Minister’s indictment against them did not contain a single grain of proof that they had been concerned in a conspiracy of a criminal nature or committed criminal acts, individually or collectively. Whatever they were supposed to have done was always linked up with the Labour Party, which was a political party. He challenged the Minister to give them, in support of the wording of this clause, any specific instance of criminality on the part of these men which would warrant them in calling this Act an Undesirables Special Deportation Act. Why were they undesirable?

Because of their line of thought.

Yes; one of them in particular had such a direct line of thought that the Minister was afraid to stand up against him in his own constituency. Continuing, he said that the wording of the clause was equal to calling Mr. Poutsma, for instance, a criminal, viz., that he was an “undesirable.”

He asked hon. members not to condemn these men unheard, because that was what was being asked for in that clause. They should not be branded as criminals until members had heard both sides of the case. Hon. members must have recognised how flimsy was the evidence brought before the House by the Minister.

said he must warn the hon. member not to repeat himself. The hon. member kept repeating the same arguments over and over again.

If I refer to the clause, sir, I am repeating again. It is inevitable. I submit most respectfully that I am bound to repeat something because I can’t recollect everything I have said. Continuing, the hon. member went on to say that no crime had been proved against the nine.

That is the third time the hon. member has repeated that argument.

It is so evident, sir, that hon. members are unable to absorb— (Cries of “Order, order.”)

If the hon. member cannot argue without repeating himself, I must ask him to resume his seat.

was understood to say that it was evident that hon. members of that House were unable to absorb the truth unless it was repeated over and over again. Continuing, he said that the House was asked to condemn these men because of their speeches, and not because of their acts. Would any hon. member say that these speeches were of such a violent character as to warrant the assumption that these men should be termed criminals?

He pointed out that a statement made by Mason was made in the heat of passion, and hon. members must agree that the newspapers were sometimes the direct descendants of Ananias. If Mason did use that expression, why was the editor of the “Volkstem” not deported, because he made the same statement, though in different terms? Mason was a crude man, and his language was very blunt. The House did not know what had caused him to make the remark. They did not know what came before and what came after. He did not condone the expression, but under the circumstances he did not see how that could make Mason an undesirable.

The hon. member is anticipating the schedule.

(in conclusion) appealed to the House to reject the clause.

also protested against the use of the word “undesirable.” In his opinion, and in the opinion of his friends on those benches, these nine men who were deported were not undesirables. He admitted that some of the words used he (Mr. Andrews) did not approve of, and, as his hon. friend had said, the whole of the case was based on speeches. These men were men who knew of the things that mattered, and they were only different from others because they were able and willing to express the views they held and take the consequences. The whole pyramid of the conspiracy amounted to this, that these speeches would bring about a general strike. The organisation of a strike was a crime in the eyes of hon. members, but the organisation of a general strike was worse than a crime.

A blunder.

But if a man blunders, it does not constitute him a criminal. Continuing, he proceeded to refer to the report of the Economic Commission.

The hon. member cannot discuss that matter now.

Can’t I refer to a report laid on the Table of the House?

The hon. member cannot discuss the whole report or the merits of the matters of the Commission.

asked whether he could not refer to a paper which was the property of the House?

said that the hon. member could only deal with quotations which affected the point at issue.

said that in this report the Commission stated that certain things were desirable, which hon. members in the course of that debate had declared to be undesirable and revolutionary. The Commission said that it would be unwise not to recognise Trade Unions, because by means of negotiation peaceful settlements might be arrived at, the alternative of which would be a strike. The Minister of Railways and Harbours (continued Mr. Andrews) refused not only to meet the Federation but the Executive of the Railway Society. The alternative was a strike, and the strike took place. Who was to blame? They learned from the report that the Federation was the second line of defence against the troubles of a strike. The Commission also stated that a Federation in its own interests would not rush a strike, and that (said Mr. Andrews) they had learned from experience. According to that Commission, the Government had no right to call the men undesirables, to put them into prison, to call them rascals and names of that kind, and associations of hooligans and “schorrie morries.” The Ministers were not justified, on the authority of their own Commission, in using such language. Hon. members in that House and the Government and its supporters had grown up with the traditions that the average worker, whether black or white, should have no rights. That was the idea at the back of the heads of many hon. members representing the employer and the capitalist class.

said the hon. member could not make a second-reading speech on the short title.

went on to say he was trying to show that these men were the natural products of the industrial system as it was seen in South Africa, just as it was seen in all other industrialised countries. He wanted to show it was untrue to call these men undesirables; and, rightly understood, it was right they should have men who had the confidence of the workmen and who would not be afraid of the fear of being victimised by their employers. It would be a sorry day for South Africa if there were no others in the places of men who had been deported. In conclusion, the hon. member moved, as an amendment, in line 6, that the word “undesirables” be deleted.

was understood to say that if that accelerated the passage of the Bill, why could not the Minister accept it ?

said he supported the contention of the hon. member for George Town (Mr. Andrews). So far from these men being undesirables, if history taught them any lesson at all, it was that these men were highly desirable. The world owed its progress to discontented men. Would they be better off under social stagnation or under social or industrial activity? In the report of the Industrial Commission they had evidence which was strongly in favour of the position of the Labour Party, and strongly against the position of the Government. He could wish that members of that House were equally thoughtful and equally active as these men, who had done so much for the service of their fellow-men and were now considered “undesirables.” The “Rand Daily Mail” had said that they were reasonable men of excellent character, and just the class of which South Africa stood most in need. The real sin of these men was that they had asked for status, and it was the first time that there had been a strike for a different status. The “Daily Express” referred to these men as “inoffensive Trade Union officials” before these events. In what sense, asked the hon. member, were these men undesirables? He could find nothing in the speech of the Minister of Defence, which he had read carefully, and listened to carefully, to show that these men were undesirables, and the only objection he had heard was that advanced by the Leader of the Opposition, which was that these men had taken up a certain line of thought. It was not long ago when men had been burnt at the stake for having a certain line of thought, and when he (Mr. Haggar) was a boy men had been denounced from the pulpit for having a certain line of thought, and one of these men had been buried in Westminster Abbey. The second step was that that line of thought found a response in the minds and hearts of the nation. That line of thought was gaining to-day a great deal of support, was working at the root of the nation, and was bringing about social, industrial and political revolution, with no violence, no crime or anything of the kind. Were they going to dishonour themselves by banishing men on evidence flimsier than that of any police court where a man might be fined id. ?

If the House took that step it would be inflicting: an irreparable injury on the nation. They should not punish these people because in an unguarded moment they made speeches which, after the fires had burned down, they would certainly not have made. Some speeches by hon. members, if quoted without their context, would seem very terrible indeed. He protested against branding men as undesirables because of some train of thought. The Leader of the Opposition has asked what would the effect of the deportations be on a native mind? Well, Mr. John Dube, of whom the nation should be proud, said that the effect on his mind was that Parliament would not help the natives. Another intelligent native wrote to him “If they deny justice to the whites, we have no guarantee that we shall be any better off. Your Government has killed justice, and is now dancing on its grave.” The House should pass legislation which would give the whole world a little more confidence in it than the world had to-day. He had read in the paper that the Government of South Africa was the most corrupt on God’s earth, and at the time he read this he strongly resented it. If there was any blame in this matter, it was not on the shoulders of the deportees. They did not initiate the movement, and there was nothing against them except that they were political rivals. No advantage was to be gained by their banishment. Had the Prime Minister forgotten that it was the feeling of the great public, which, after all, determined the issues with which they had to deal? The feeling was that Parliament was not doing right over this matter, and was inflicting a terrible blow on the principles of righteousness, justice and truth. A meeting of natives was going to be held to-night, but it was not his business to say where it was going to be held, and he was not going to be there. (Laughter.) “For heaven’s sake,” concluded Mr. Haggar, “let us keep our young Parliament clean and start our nation on a proper basis, and because a man protests against what he thinks is wrong, don’t send him across the sea.”

hoped the Minister would consent to the deletion of the word “undesirable,” which wa3 not legal, but was a slang term It had caused the Dutch translator some difficulty, and he had used the words “Ongewenste Personen.” Government was making a legal “word of a slang English phrase. We did not speak of undesirables, “but of undesirable inhabitants.”

No, sir, I am sorry I could not agree to the deletion of the words. (Ministerial cheers.) I am not going the length of the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman), who said that he held that these people were the declared enemies of society.

That is good English.

I adopt a much more moderate line, and although the word may not be good English, it indicates the view we hold. I hope the name will be allowed to stand.

said that in his opinion the word “undesirable” was put in the Bill when the fires were still burning fiercely. The word gave offence not only to the nine men concerned, but to some 9,000 or 10,000 men they represented. These nine men were not self-elected, but they were elected by the Trade Unions. By putting this word into the Bill, a slight would be given to the whole of these men. The word “undesirable” was used in the sense in which it was used in the Immigration Act—that was that a man guilty of a crime could be deported. The Minister wished to put these men on all fours with criminals. Parliament had no right to brand the deported men as criminals until it knew for a fact that they were criminals. He would like to know where the report of the Judicial Commission said that these men committed any of the crimes mentioned or were present when they were committed.

said he hoped the Minister would not accede to the appeal which had just been made. The hon. member had only quoted a portion of the preamble. There was another portion that he (Mr. Nathan) would like to quote, viz.: “And whereas the said acts, words, and conduct of the said scheduled persons have caused great danger to persons and property in the Union and general detriment and loss to the community.” If the word “undesirables” were deleted, it would destroy the whole value of the Bill. He would not have voted for the second reading or for the Bill at all if that word had not been there. The intention of the Government was to show that these people had been a danger to society, and for that reason they desired to get rid of them.

said that in regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Roodepoort as to the natives, it seemed to him that the natives had very carefully kept from any deliberate expression of opinion as to what they thought of the action of the Government in reference to Martial Law and the deportations. He, at all events, had not ascertained their opinion, but his impression was, as one who had some knowledge of these people, that if the Government had failed to take the steps they had taken, it would have done infinite harm, that the natives felt when a revolution like this—

The hon. member must confine his remarks to the amendment.

said he thought they were dealing with the question as to whether the word “undesirables” should appear in the clause. On that the hon. member for Roodepoort brought up the question of what the natives thought about it. He wanted to know if the hon. member would tell them what gentleman it was who said that Parliament “had killed justice and is now dancing on its grave.” He understood him to give the impression that it was the Rev. Mr. Dube. He (Mr. Schreiner) did not think the Rev. Mr. Dube would have said that. As far as he knew, the reference of the natives or their leaders to the shortcomings of the Government in regard to justice did not refer to this question at all, but referred to their opinion that they had not received what was justice to themselves in regard to quite another matter, viz., the Native Land Act. The Bill before the House referred to people who tried to throttle the Commonwealth and bring, it to its knees. That was why he voted in favour of indemnifying the Government. If these men were responsible, as the country believed, for the unrest and disorders of July and January what reason was there not to have the word “undesirables ” in the Bill?

said he wished to lodge this protest against the word “undesirables ” being left in the title of the Bill. All over the world the “powers that be” had got their undesirable section in the community. In Russia it was a persecuted race striving for liberty and freedom that was “undesirable.” In this Bill they were not saying that this race should be “undesirable” or that race should be “undesirable,” but that a certain section was “undesirable,” viz., the Trade Unionists, their leaders, and organised labour. Who were these men who were referred to in this Bill? Simply Trade Union leaders who had been appointed by their respective Unions to hold office. Not one act of violence had been brought to the door of these individuals, nor had it been proved that they incited anyone to violence. These men were under the Bill deemed to be “undesirables” under section 21 of the Immigrants Regulation Act of 1915, which meant that they were classed among men who had been guilty of murder, arson, theft, receiving stolen goods, forgery, burglary, robbery with violence, etc.

said that the right hon. member for Victoria West and the hon. member for Queen’s Town saw the reasonableness of their contention. They had united in their appeals to persuade the Minister to accept the deletion of the word. There were two reasons why the Minister did not want it removed. The first reason was that if he removed the word “undesirable ” he removed all hope of his being able to keep these men out of the country under the Immigration Act. The second was a more sordid reason and a most contemptible reason—it was an order that these men might eternally be under the stigma of criminality. The hon. member for Tembuland would not accept the assurance of the hon. member for Roodepoort with regard the natives, but he was prepared to condemn these nine men on less evidence.

Rubbish!

said he would leave it to hon. members to decide. They seemed to swallow anything as long as it was opposed to the workers, and that was the reason which underlay the action of members of this committee. They said they wished to encourage Trade Unions, but it significant that all the men sent out, with the exception of Livingstone, were members of Trade Unions. Such being the case, how did they expect to bring about such a desirable state of affairs ? They were showing their sympathy by branding the leaders of Trade Unionism in this country as criminals. The fact was that in their heart of hearts, they were afraid of Trade Unions, and they were attempting to smash them. He did not blame them but he thought they were using contemptible methods. The House had agreed to give indemnity to the Government agreed to send these men out of the country, and agreed to banish these men and now they wanted to rub it in.

was understood to say that he was not quite satisfied that what the hon. member for Roodepoort had said in that House with regard to the Rev. John Dube was actually the truth.

The hon. member cannot say that; he must withdraw.

withdrew, and went on to say that he did not think the phrase in the letter referred to this Bill at all, but to another Bill, which had been exercising the minds of the natives. The evidence had satisfied him that these men were undesirables, and his evidence was the facts of what had taken place during the last eight months.

then read a phrase from the letter he had referred to, and said it was dated February 20. The House had discussed the Bill before that date.

asked for a statement from the Minister of Defence.

said he hoped the Government would not stick out on this one word.

The Government is going to stick out,

said that the object of clause 4 was to lay down that these people should be deemed undesirables. He thought a great deal could be said in support of the view—it might be a sentimental view—that these men should not be branded as criminals, undesirables, or diseased persons.

The Bill would be quite as strong without the word.

put the question: That the word proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause, and declared it affirmed.

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

Ayes—76.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Bekker, Stephanus

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Burton, Henry

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Clayton, Walter Frederick,

Crewe, Charles Preston

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Currey, Henry Latham

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Harris, David

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Hunter, David

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Juta, Henry Hubert

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

King, John Gavin

Krige, Christman Joel

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Macaulay, Donald

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Nathan, Emile

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Quinn, John William

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Rockey, Willie

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Searle, James

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 Philippus

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brand

Whitaker, George

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

Wiltshire, Henry

Woolls-Sampson, Aubrey

H. Mentz and H. C. Becker, tellers.

Noes—13.

Andrews, William Henry

Berry, William Bisset

Boydell, Thomas

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Duncan, Patrick

Fichardt, Charles Gustav

Fremantle, Henry Eardley Stephen

Haggar, Charles Henry

Hull, Henry Charles

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Sampson, Henry William

Morris Alexander and H. M. Meyler, tellers.

The question was accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. Andrews negatived.

before clause 5 was put, said that he would like to draw attention to the word “special,” He moved, as an amendment, that the word “special” be deleted. Why should that, he asked, be any “special” Act? If that was to be the policy of the Government in the future, he could see no reason for including that word “special.”

The amendment was negatived Clause 5 was agreed to.

A division was called for, but withdrawn.

moved, as an amendment, the deletion of the words “(1) Hessel Jakob Poutsma (Holland).” In doing so, the hon. member said that they were dependent entirely on the speech of the Minister of Defence for the reasons which had actuated the House in deciding to deport any one of these particular gentlemen, including the one whose name he had mentioned. As they had said generally in the course of the debate on that Bill, the evidence against Mr. Poutsma was of the most flimsy character—if not non-existent. Quoting from the Minister’s speech on the second reading, the hon. member said that the Minister of Defence had called Mr. Poutsma a Lieutenant of the Dutch writer Nieuwenhuis. What was the meaning of that? If Mr. Poutsma was a Lieutenant of that writer because he had read his works, members on the cross benches might be called Lieutenants of Karl Marx, because they had read books by that writer. As to Mr. Poutsma having been in gaol in Holland, the answer to that had been most convincingly given by the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Fichardt).

So far from Mr. Poutsma being undesirable, such men as he were desirable in any country, and the more they had of them the better. There were other kinds of heroism than leading a charge at Spionkop. The Minister tried to show that Mr. Poutsma was very disappointed when the arrangement was come to between the Federation of Trades’ representatives and the Government on July 5. The Minister might be a thought-reader of course. Another crime that Mr. Poutsma had been guilty of was that he had been aeroplaning all over South Africa addressing the workers. The crime was that he travelled all over the country addressing the workers. What kind of a country was it where it was an offence going round addressing the workers? Like all the rest of the deportees, Mr. Poutsma’s crime was that he was simply carrying out the duties of a Trade Union organiser. What he did, he (Mr. Andrews) had been doing for five or six years before he entered this House; but if there was a difference, Mr. Poutsma did it with a little more success than he (Mr. Andrews) was able to do it. The crime was to make it possible for the men of South Africa to organise.

He knew nothing at first hand of Mr. Poutsma’s career, and there was a time when he had not a very great opinion of Mr. Poutsma as a leader of the workers, and it was not long ago that he had to chide Mr. Poutsma for his methods. Two or three years ago Mr. Poutsma was the white-haired boy of the Ministry. He was then a friend of Mr. Hoy. His (Mr. Andrews’) knowledge of Mr. Poutsma at first hand began about July last year. Ever since then he had always found him to be a clean-living, straightforward, honest comrade. When he pledged himself to a course of action, he had done his level best to carry out what he had undertaken to do.

Exception had been taken to Mr. Poutsma’s conduct in going to see Lord Gladstone, as if he were acting in concert with the men who burned down Park Station. Mr. Poutsma heard that the Government were using the Imperial troops at Johannesburg to butcher innocent citizens, and he became violently angry, and had a meeting at Pretoria, at which he expressed his indignation, and, on the spur of the moment, the crowd decided to see Lord Gladstone, to try and have a stop put to the hideous atrocities being perpetrated by this panic stricken Government.

What of Mr. Poutsma’s attitude in January? Every time he heard Mr. Poutsma speak in private or public, he was, above all men, the apostle of peaceful resistance. On every possible occasion he deprecated anything in the nature of violence, for the same reason adduced by the hon. member for Roodepoort, because the methods of violence did not pay, to put it on a low footing. Mr. Poutsma knew, and every reasonable man knew, that if the men gave the Government the slightest opportunity of using their military machine, nothing would have delighted the heart of the Government more. (Labour cheers.) They knew the Government was waiting and praying for the chance to use that machine. (Labour cheers.)

Mr. Poutsma was put in gaol after a meeting at Germiston without trial, without charge, and without being brought before a magistrate, as far as he (Mr. Andrews) was aware, and thence he was taken to the Fort and subsequently conveyed through Natal, placed on board ship, and taken away to England. He did not think anything that had been said in that House could justify the Government in the least in placing Mr. Poutsma’s name on this list. He, at any rate, could not be said to have either practised or preached violence, or to have been an accessory either before or after the fact, so far as the events of July were concerned. He was convinced that the Government were actuated by vindictiveness in deporting this man, and fear of the power of organisation of which he was the elected head. He was convinced that it was decided that Mr. Poutsma should be made to suffer for the attitude he took up in July. What was his attitude in July? When his fellow-workers on the Witwatersrand had decided to “down tools” in support of a great principle, from their point of view, the principle that men should not be victimised for standing out against their employers, and in support of conditions of labour that had been fought and won for them years ago in England and elsewhere—he referred particularly to the Saturday afternoon holiday —he gave his word that, as far as possible, the railwaymen would, if necessary, back up the men on the mines. The men on the railways did cease work for a day to show their respect for the victims of the Governmental butchery in the streets of Johannesburg on July 4 and 5. This was the “crime” for which, he submitted, Mr. Poutsma had been deported, not for what he did in January. He had no doubt that this particular name, whatever he might say would be allowed to remain in the schedule, but he had no doubt that what he was saying was meeting with the approval of a vast majority of the workers of this country to-day, and as time went on, as the months and years rolled by, the great majority of the people of South Africa would come to see that they, who were pleading for these men and moving for the deletion of their names from this list, were right.

said he felt very considerable difficulty in trying to make up his mind as to what one should do with the names mentioned in the schedule. He could understand that the Minister on the second reading debate had to content himself with a merely general statement of the case. It seemed to him that in the committee stage some further information and some important information ought to be vouchsafed to them. Surely the bald and general statement made by the Minister in regard to the nine men whose names appeared on the schedule was not the only evidence which the Government had acted upon. Surely it was the duty of the Minister to place those further facts before the Committee.

said that the schedule in connection with clause 4 placed him and some others in a very awkward position indeed. (Hear, hear.) If the schedule referred only to one portion of clause 4, he could understand how this Committee came to be considering each individual case in the schedule, but how the Committee came to be considering every individual case and every individual item in face of clause 4 he could not understand, and he did not know how he was going to vote. It was impossible for him to vote. It would seem to show that there was something wanting in their Rules when they could place a member of the House in such a position that he was unable to follow any logical course in regard to voting. The schedule as it stood referred both to the deportations and to the subsequent portion of the clause which entailed continuous banishment. He had previously said that he was prepared to support the action of the Government in regard to deportation, but he was not in favour of that part of the clause which dealt with banishment. Now, how was he going to vote against the schedule or any item of the schedule? The moment he voted against any item of the schedule he also eliminated that item in regard to deportation. It had been suggested that names could be left out of the schedule without incurring any risk of actions at law, but he was not in the least satisfied that if any name were left out of the schedule, so far as the first portion of clause 4 was concerned, an action would not lie. It was by no means clear to him that, if any name were omitted from the schedule, that person would not have a right of action under clause 4. He might add that he was not the only member who was in this anomalous position.

said he would suggest to the hon. member who had just spoken that, if he were prepared to endorse the first portion of clause 4, he should at any rate, as a distinguished lawyer, require some evidence against these persons before he agreed to the deportation of each of them. The House had been hoodwinked by the eloquence of the Minister of Defence, ably supported by the capitalist Press of this country, into believing that there had been some desperate criminal conspiracy. This “conspiracy ” was a mere bogey, but, even supposing there had been a conspiracy, the Minister should produce evidence that each one of these persons was concerned in that conspiracy. The name now before the Committee was one that peculiarly interested the Minister of Railways, but, so like the attitude of the Government throughout all these transactions, he had taken the opportunity of absenting himself from the chamber. The Minister of Defence, in his speech in opening the debate could not go into minute details, but surely at this stage be could produce the evidence upon which he had relied, those police records that he had referred to, and tell them exactly the information upon which the Government went in deporting these particular men from the list they had before them.

said if they passed that vote on the evidence in the Minister’s speech of a month ago, they would bring upon them a record of shame which bad never been approached in the history of South Africa. He did not know any single action before or after the war which was more scandalous than to vote in that way without evidence and pass sentence upon those men. He was not well acquainted with Mr. Poutsma, and as a matter of fact had been Particularly annoyed with an action he took as regards the Railwaymen’s Union, for immediately after railwaymen were encouraged to join the Union on the understanding that there was to be no strike, the strike took place. He did not think the record of Poutsma in this respect was a creditable one, but he would not vote under the circumstances, with nothing before them, for the banishment of these nine men. That should not be done without his registering his emphatic protest against it. If the Government was going to force it through with their majority there would be a stain on the good name of the country which would take many years to wipe out.

said there had not been sufficient evidence before the House to justify the deportation of Mr. Poutsma. He knew Mr. Poutsma, but, as a matter of fact, for many years rather distrusted him. Mr. Poutsma had nothing to do with the Federation of Trade Unions: he never advocated a strike or anything else before the 5th July. They had only the evidence of the report of the Commission which took into consideration the incidents on the Rand prior to July 5. Mr. Poutsma had nothing to do with those incidents. What happened on July 4—and that was the first time Mr. Poutsma came into the matter at all—was that a crowd accumulated in Johannesburg the night after the meeting in the Market Place had been broken up by the police, and went to Park Station. There they tried to stop the trains running; but no strike had been declared. Mr. Poutsma would not consider a strike. It was the crowd that stopped the trains running on that night. How could they possibly connect Mr. Poutsma up with the report of that Commission? The only evidence that had been before the House was when the hon. Minister quoted from a letter to the members of the union over the signature of Mr. Poutsma. The hon. Minister extracted a small paragraph, which read, “The date on which a general strike is to be declared has been fixed, but it is to be kept secret until the moment has arrived. The Federation will decide when the blow should be struck.” Proceeding, Mr. Sampson said that Mr. Poutsma was simply showing that the Federation of Trades were considering the possibility of a strike, and he was mentioning that fact to the members, not on the Rand, but to the members all over the country. The hon. Minister had given a wrong impression. He said the letter was a letter sent out on the week ending August 2. If he had read the actual date (July 28), he would have conveyed to the House that the letter had a bearing on the July strike, but he wanted to get away from July, and linked it up with January, to show that when Mr. Poutsma wrote that letter he was planning a general strike. That was the only evidence that had been alleged against Mr. Poutsma. Where were the police records which the Government was supposed to have? If there were any let the House have them. Hon. members could not, as conscientious men, pass a schedule without knowing something more about the offences of the men. If they were asked to vote without knowing more, hon. members would be placed in a false position. The hon. Minister should put the country right, the country which he said was backing him up in his action. Was there a man, concluded Mr. Sampson, in that House who could prove that the deported men had committed any crime for which they should be deported ? There was not a single one. Never had there been such an extraordinary position.

said he was amazed that they should be asked to banish any men without the least sort of evidence. That action was a disgrace to any Parliament. The Minister of Defence might lightly laugh whilst he had the power, but he might have a different expression if he had to come under the harrow. He (Mr. Fichardt) might, if it were Parliamentary, refer to the accusations of the hon. Minister in his speech as a series of cock and bull stories, on the strength of which these men had been deprived of their liberty. What crime had been laid at the door of Mr. Poutsma? One crime appeared to be that he was a disappointed man. Another that he was addressing the workers, and again that he was working in harmony with the Federation. Were those things for which a man should be deported from the country? There had not been, as the hon. member for Victoria West had said, sufficient evidence on which to hang a cat. The hon. Minister himself could not advance one single title of evidence. He (Mr. Fichardt) would appeal to the Opposition, for it seemed futile to appeal to the Government side of the House. He would appeal to the sense of fair play of the hon. members on the Opposition side of the House. Those deported men were lawlessly arrested at a time when Martial Law was not even proclaimed, and were banished from the country. It was amazing that they could find free people and representatives of free people in that Parliament who would descend to such unlawful actions as they had seen. He did not know how any Free Stater who had known Mr. Poutsma could condemn him on the evidence the hon. Minister of Defence had served up. During the past 12 or 14 years Poutsma had served the Free State, yet to-day, on little or no evidence whatever, Free Staters were prepared to throw him overboard. Twelve or 14 years in a man’s life was at least some indication of what a man was, and he (Mr. Fichardt) would challenge the hon. Minister to substantiate the base insinuations which had been made against the man. It will be a disgrace to that House and to every hon. member who voted on that occasion for the banishment of those men unheard. The hon. Minister was asking the House to depart from a principle which their people had followed ever since they came to the country. They had no sense of justice left, apparently. Apparently without inquiry they were going to lend themselves to something which would be regarded as the most disgraceful action ever taken by any free Parliament.

said that they were hoping that some further evidence would be brought forward, because they had made up their minds that the evidence was not sufficient. This was the last occasion the Minister would have to bring forward any further evidence. If the Minister had no further evidence, he (the speaker) hoped he would get up and say so. He had no desire to obstruct, but only wanted to know on what grounds this action, which would be a great blot on the history of the country, was being taken. If there was any evidence, let the House have it. If there was no evidence, then lot the Minister say so, and they would know where they stood. The Minister of Railways, in the course of a speech, had said that these nine men had convicted themselves notoriously in public, and he (the speaker) believed that that was the basis of the Government’s case. If that was so, he wanted to know why other men who had convicted themselves notoriously in public were not going to be punished. The Minister of Railways and the Minister of Minos had said that it was necessary to remove these men to preserve the safety of the State. There were members who were of opinion that the safety of the State did not necessitate the removal of these men; on the contrary, they thought the State would be in less danger if the men were here. He hoped the Minister would furnish the information asked for, and he regretted that such a measure was going to appear on the Statute book so early in the history of the Union Parliament.

said they were asked to approve of two things — one of which had already been done by the Government, and one of which was still to be done. He again wished to explain his position, and he thought that of those who had voted for Mr. Merriman’s amendment, they had protested against the deportations without trial, which showed a certain amount of weakness on the part of the Government.

asked the hon. member to confine himself to the schedule.

said he had strongly opposed the permanent banishment of Mr. Poutsma. It was unnecessary for him to vote or speak on this point again; but he was now asked to approve of an act which the Government proposed to do. He would, in the circumstances, not vote on any names in the schedule.

said he wanted to know the position of the members who voted for the amendment of the right hon. the member for Victoria West the other evening ? If they voted for a single name on the schedule, the implication was that they were stultifying themselves with regard to the vote they gave that evening. By doing so, they would be saying that it was right, not only that these men should be deported, but that they should be banished. He could not accept the whole of the schedule. He could not vote for a single name on the schedule, owing to the action he took the other evening.

said he supposed it was hopeless appealing to the Government. He felt so strongly on this matter, and felt so certain that the Government was adopting a wrong attitude, that he was going to make another effort to get information. He would move that the further consideration of the schedule stand over until the Government furnished evidence against the persons named on the schedule.

said he regretted the hon. member’s motion was out of order. He could not attach a condition to the motion.

said that, in that case, he would move that the further consideration of the schedule stand over. The Government would know what his object was in doing so. Surely the House was entitled to further information from the Government? Were hon. members going to sit with their eyes closed, and going to vote blindly, without getting further information? His request was not an unreasonable one, and in common justice, even to the biggest criminals, he thought it necessary that further evidence should be produced. The Government appeared to be satisfied with its case, and he thought it should satisfy the House.

said that he wanted to point out that of the nine men whose names Were mentioned in the schedule, the only one who had had anything to do with the railway was Mr. Poutsma, and the Minister had nothing to say about him. Mr. Poutsma’s offence was that he would not bow to the autocracy of the Minister of Railways and the General Manager of Railways. It was a positively shameful thing, it was a wicked thing, that any hon. member in that House could vote for the banishment of Mr. Poutsma on the evidence which had been, put before it. It pointed to the malicious refusal of the Minister—if he might use that term in the House—to afford the House any information at all on which they could pass such a serious sentence as the banishment of these men.

said that the Minister had no evidence against these men—

said that the hon. member must deal with the motion before the Committee, which was that the schedule stand over.

went on to say that it was surely fair that the House should have an opportunity of reading the police records of these men, which had been referred to by the Minister of Defence in his speech, so as to decide whether these records were, or were not, sufficiently serious to warrant the action which had been taken. Surely Parliament as the supreme tribunal in that country, should have a right to inspect these records!

said that the hon. member should not now go into Mr. Poutsma’s case.

was speaking on the same lines as the previous hon. member, when

warned the hon. member to deal with the motion, which was that the schedule stand over.

said that it was his intention to give reasons why the schedule should stand over. There was one reason that ought to appeal to them very strongly, and that was the attitude of the Opposition. He wanted the schedule to stand over in order to give the Leader of the Opposition and members of the Opposition an opportunity of getting up that strength of which they had talked so much.

again warned the hon. member to speak to the motion.

said that they had nothing before them in the way of evidence in regard to these men.

Surely it is not necessary to waste the time of the House with repeating that argument over and over again.

went on to say that he hoped they would insist upon the Minister giving the Committee information about the deported men.

warned the hon. member about the rule dealing with tedious repetition, and ruled the hon. member out of order.

said that that “tedious repetition” could be put a stop to by the Minister if he gave them the information.

asked whether an hon. member could not repeat the arguments of another hon. member.

gave a ruling similar to the one he had given on a previous occasion, to the effect that tedious repetition of arguments already used by hon. members would be ruled out of order.

said he wanted to support the amendment of the hon. member from a totally different standpoint—that of a member of Parliament. They, as members of Parliament, were flouted, and were asked to bow in silence to the decree—that was all it was—of the Government. The Government had brought in what amounted to a decree, and all that they (hon. members) might say was absolutely flouted. They might ask, they might argue, they might point out— and there sat the Minister without a single word. They must not repeat and must not give the reasons given by another hon. member. He appealed to his privilege to state his position in that House.

said that the reason for the adjournment of that discussion, which had been proposed by the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Hull) was this. He wanted to make it plain the injustice the Committee was doing by going on with that discussion at the present moment. They had been compelled to accept the general principle of deportation, although many of them had not liked it. As he had pointed out, there were two distinct and totally different matters in the Bill, and in one clause there were also two distinct, different matters, which put hon. members in a considerable difficulty. Now when they came to the Schedule they got no information. The country could not proceed with the trial or the impeachment of these men without information. The right course for the Government to pursue was to state the case against each man—(Labour cheers)— one after the other. Let the House have the matter fresh in their minds, and then judge the case of each man.

said the Government was the prosecutor, and it was customary in courts of law for the charge to be stated, but that had not been done in this instance—not a single charge had been made from the Government benches.

The question before the Committee is that the schedule should stand over.

said in view of the fact that no indictment had been made he was anxious to obtain information. If the schedule stood over it would give an opportunity to those who represented the northern constituencies to get direct information. Their constituencies had a right to express an opinion on this matter. (Hear, hear.) Martial Law still prevailed in the Transvaal, and letters, he expected, were still being censored—at all events they came through with difficulty.

The motion that the schedule stand over was put and negatived.

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

Ayes—13.

Andrews, William Henry

Boydell, Thomas

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Duncan, Patrick

Fichardt, Charles Gustav

Fremantle, Henry Eardley Stephen

Haggar, Charles Henry

Hull, Henry Charles

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Sampson, Henry William

Wyndham, Hugh Archibald

Morris Alexander and H. M. Meyler, tellers.

Noes—75.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Bekker, Stephanus

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Burton, Henry

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Clayton, Walter Frederic

Crewe, Charles Preston

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fawcus, Alfred

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Graaff, David Peter de Villiers

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Harris, David

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Hunter, David

Jouberr. Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Juta, Henry Hubert

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

King, John Gavin

Krige, Christman Joel

Langerman, Jan Willem Stuckeris

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

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

Quinn, John William

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Rockey, Willie

Runciman, William

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Searle, James

Silburn, Percy Arthur

Smartt, Thomas William

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph Philippus

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem Wiltshire, Henry

H. Mentz and H. C. Becker, tellers.

The motion was therefore negatived.

While the members were returning to their seats after the division had been taken.

called out “Shame.”

Do I understand that the hon. member for Springs cried out “Shame”?

I did so.

The hon. member must withdraw.

Certainly.

He must apologise to the House.

Mr. Chairman (loud cries of “Order”)— on a point of order—

Order.

On a point of order, sir—

The hon. member must resume his seat.

May I not address the Committee? (Cries of “Order.”)

The hon. member for Springs must withdraw and apologise to the House.

If I thought I had done anything wrong I would have no objection to apologise, but why should I apologise for saying “shame?”

The Prime Minister said it.

Is it not fair that I should have some opportunity of knowing why I should apologise?

It is a reflection on the vote that has just been taken.

That is frequently done in this House. (Cries of “No.”)

The hon. member must withdraw and apologise, or I shall have to take another course.

You insist on my apologising for doing something I don’t think is wrong ?

If the hon. member does not apologise he must leave the House at once for the rest of the sitting.

Very well, I will apologise.

I ask you to call upon the Minister of Justice to apologise for his shameful interjection the other night.

Order. If the hon. member for Jeppe does not behave himself decently and in order, I shall have to ask him to leave this Chamber.

On a point of order, I ask you to ask the Minister of Justice to apologise for an offence which is equally as bad as this. I am perfectly entitled to say that.

The hon. member will resume his seat. Questions like this cannot be dealt with days afterwards.

I asked you at the time that he should apologise to the House.

Arising out of this, may I ask, for future guidance, if you rule that a statement must be withdrawn and apologised for? Are we to understand that the word “schande” is ruled out of order?

I am not going to allow this ruling to be discussed. (Hear, hear.)

On a point of order, are we to understand that your ruling is that an hon. member shall be ordered to apologise by anything else than a vote of this House being taken? Is it competent for the Chairman to insist upon an hon. member apologising? He moved: That the Chairman report progress in order to obtain Mr. Speaker’s ruling as to whether the Chairman had the power unless supported by a vote of the Committee to that effect, to order a member who had used an unparliamentary expression, to apologise to the Committee.

I put it to the Committee that my ruling be submitted to Mr. Speaker for his decision.

rose but was inaudible owing to the cries of “Order.”

The hon. member for Jeppe has proposed that I should ask the Speaker’s ruling as to whether it is unparliamentary, or whether the Chairman has a right to call upon a member to apologise to the Committee without a vote of the Committee.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order— (Cries of “Order.”)

Mr. Chairman, I wish to address you on a point of order. The point of order is this: cannot any member of the House ask for the ruling of Mr. Speaker without a vote of the House?

No. I will put the question.

Is it not in order, before you put that motion, for an hon. member to address the House?

said that he wished to draw attention to Rule 83, which said that any member using objectionable words, and not explaining or retracting the same, should be censured or otherwise dealt with. The expression used was “or”: he must either retract the word or apologise to the House.

The question is that I ask Mr. Speaker’s ruling on the point.

The motion was then put, and the Noes were declared to have it.

called for a division.

I propose to put the amendment put by the hon. member for George Town.

I said “Divide,” sir. I called for a division.

said that a division would be taken on a motion by the hon. member for Jeppe that Mr. Speaker’s ruling be asked on his (the Chairman’s) ruling that an hon. member be asked to withdraw an unparliamentary expression, and apologise to the House for having used it.

Before you put that, sir, I should like to say that the expression was “Shame.” In putting that motion it should be stated that the unparliamentary expression was “Shame.” I want it to be defined whether that is unparliamentary.

That is not the question.

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

declared the motion negatived.

said that the Committee were discussing the amendment of the hon. member for George Town. He would suggest to the hon. member for Queen’s Town and the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, in regard to the objection that they had raised as not being able to vote for this amendment because they would stultify their previous vote, surely that could be put right, because if this name were deleted they might be perfectly certain that at the next stage the Minister would take care to insert some words in clause 4 which would enable the hon. member to vote for condoning the deportation while eliminating the reference to perpetual banishment. He would like to ask the Minister of Railways who were his Shermans in this case? The Minister seemed to treat the whole matter as a merry jest and he was supported by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. How splendidly the hon. member for Fort Beaufort would appear before the country when he got up before a popular assembly to wave the flag which stood for freedom! Let the hon. member for Fort Beaufort and the hon. member for Germiston go over to the Ministers, to whom they belonged.

said that the Minister of Defence had stated that when drawing up the “honours list;” which caused him a large amount of anxiety and long consideration, they had to take into consideration the part these men actually played in this vast organisation of conspiracy. Now, many members in that House had been asking for proof of this conspiracy, but up to now it had not been forthcoming. They had been told that they had to take the police records of these men into consideration as bearing on each individual case. Following that up, the hon. Minister said, in reference to Mr. Poutsma, that they had official information from the Dutch authorities that he was an undesirable and had been previously in gaol for violence and incitement to violence. If the hon. Minister of Defence had got those records, if he had got the information as to the number of times Mr. Poutsma had been in gaol, he should, in fairness to the Committee, in fairness to the country, and in common fairness and justice to Mr. Poutsma, he ought to produce that information in order that they might have something to go upon. But there had been nothing but vague aspersions that in some way or another he was connected with the alleged conspiracy. Proceeding. Mr. Boydell said that he noticed that Mr. Poutsma’s name was at the top of the list on the schedule, and as the names were not in alphabetical order, he could only assume that he held premier place as being the most dangerous, if not why was he put on the top? Mr. Poutsma had been used many times by hon. members on the Government side of the House for their own purposes. They had even used him when the country was running with blood, and they had valued his services. He was a man those on the Government side of the House were proud of then. Now he was an undesirable. After Mr. Nettleton was superseded by Mr. Poutsma as secretary of the Railway men’s Union he was very friendly with the Minister of Railways and with the General Manager, and after his appointment he was successful in getting some grievances remedied so far as individual cases were concerned. Mr. Poutsma said that when he started as secretary he was under the impression that he could do away with a good deal of friction which had previously existed between the men’s society and the Government.

Mr. Poutsma thought he could succeed where others had failed. The hon. Minister of Railways had said that Mr. Poutsma took him in, but let him (Mr. Boydell) tell the Minister and the General Manager that Mr. Poutsma said that the hon. Minister and the General Manager had taken him in. They promised him that the men would receive fair play, that many of the grievances would be remedied, and that they would do justice to the railway workers. Poutsma said he was foolish enough to believe that. If the hon. Minister of Railways, who was generally absent from his place when railway matters were under discussion, would read the early issues of the “Railways and Harbours Gazette ” he would see from the leading articles written by Mr. Poutsma that he was anxious to work amicably on behalf of the men’s society with the Railway Department, but he found out that the Government was fooling him and the railway workers. He (Mr. Boydell) would like to refer to a statement made by the hon. Minister of Railways in answer to an interjection. He quoted the “Railway Gazette, ” in the leading article of which Mr. Poutsma had said that the railway regulations were working most successfully. That only went to prove that Mr. Poutsma was at that time doing his utmost to prevent friction between the men and the management.

At this point there was some discussion as to whether the Committee could report progress and be able to sit again later in the evening, but business was almost immediately resumed

said the point he wanted to make was that Mr. Poutsma took no part in the conspiracy to overthrow the Government, nor yet did he take part in the meeting, as he was alleged to have done, to bring about a general strike. The Minister said Mr. Poutsma had gone to the meeting at Pretoria for the purpose of engineering a general strike in February of last year. That meeting, held at the head office of Pretoria, discussed weekly payment of wages and rules and regulations. The Minister declared that at that time all meetings were held to engineer a general strike, whereas nothing of the sort was the case. Now Mr. Poutsma had been deported for doing what it was his duty to do, and as was being done in every other civilised part of the world. It seemed that the reason why Mr. Poutsma was deported was because he was obnoxious to the Government, having gained the confidence of the workers. Had Mr. Poutsma been tame and allowed the Minister to twist him round his thumb for all time, then he would have been in the country still. If they wanted to know the attitude of the Government let them remember the official telegram sent to different parts of the Union asking the men to vote for the hon. member for Fordsburg in preference to Mr. Poutsma. It only showed the attitude of the Government and its officials towards Mr. Poutsma at this time.

There they had Mr. Poutsma’s crime— he had been returned by a very large majority and the railway workers showed that they had implicit confidence in him as being a fit and proper person to represent them on that Commission. That had not suited the Railway Administration, and being of a vindictive nature, they had said that the first chance they got they would get their own back. There had not been one speech reported of Mr. Poutsma’s in which they could find any incitement to violence; and he had told the railway workers that, whatever they did, they should avoid violence and should do nothing to provoke violence. He had told them to go home and read a book, and there would be nothing for the police and for the military to do. Mr. Poutsma had been arrested before Martial Law had been proclaimed, and under the Peace Preservation Act. In spite of the order which was made by the court, that the Government should show cause why they should not release Mr. Poutsma, he had been sent at dead of night out of the country without any trial. He thought that was the first time such a thing had happened in the British Dominions. It seemed to him that by doing that, the Government had dragged South Africa below some of the South American States. Whether Mr. Poutsma’s name was deleted or not, the time would come when Mr. Poutsma would say “Good morning,” in South Africa to the Minister of Defence and the others. The world was a big place, and South Africa was a big place. There were many ways of getting into South Africa, if not by the front door, then by the back door. (Labour cheers.) Probably an Act of Parliament would open the gates to the men who had been outraged, and probably the time would come when members now sitting on the Ministerial benches would be digging potatoes in their back garden. They would never bring peace, contentment and prosperity in any country by brute force. Brute force had not paid in any other country, and would not pay in South Africa in the long run. The hon. member went on to refer to a cartoon which he said might be found on the wall of the caucus room of the Labour Party, and which had appeared in an English paper, a paper with a circulation of a million, a paper which had for many years been the friend of the Prime Minister. The cartoon depicted the Prime Minister with his heel on the neck of the British working-man, and pointing a gun at his head. He thought that the Prime Minister would live to regret the part he had taken in that diabolical act of banishing men from that country without trial—men who had been seeking the welfare of their fellowmen. South Africa would be the loser, and not the gainer, through the deportation of these men.

It would be a sorry day for South Africa if deportation was set up as a precedent for future Governments to follow. If the workers were going to be treated like this, it was quite possible that they would organise in a stronger way than before, but he was not saying it as a threat. The men had been accused of being conspirators, but not a single firearm had been found in their possession. If the Government adopted a policy of smashing and crushing the men’s organisation with brute force, it was quite possible that the men would reply in a similar way, and that would lead only to disaster to South Africa and those interested in the country. Mr. Boydell then moved that progress be reported and leave obtained to sit again.

hoped the Minister of Defence would agree to this. The Minister treated Parliament with the same contempt that he treated the law courts and the country. A refusal to accept the motion simply meant that the Government wanted to burke discussion, and that they desired the discussion to go on when, owing to the exigencies of the telegraph service and of the Press arrangements, the least possible portion of the proceedings of the House would be reported. The Government wanted to do everything underground. The Labour members had things of the utmost importance to say the other night, but the Government so arranged matters that they had to talk during the small hours. The Ministry was going on the lines of trying to ride rough-shod over every interest except their own.

said it was unworthy to suggest as a reason for not reporting progress that any hon. member would take advantage of the rules to prevent the Committee sitting again this evening.

pointed out that other parties in the House were sufficiently numerous to allow portions to go away and still leave a sufficient number in the House, but if the Labour members desired to do their duty they had to go without food.

In reply to Mr. H. E. S. Fremantle (Uitenhage),

said the only difficulty was this: Government was quite willing to report progress, but there was opposition.

Will the Government go on and let us see where the opposition is? Let us see who are the churls? (Hear, hear.) Possibly that opposition might disappear at the last moment.

Is it impossible to close down for an hour?

The motion to report progress and ask leave to sit again was negatived.

called for a division, which was taken at 7.10 p.m.

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

declared the motion negatived.

said that the deportation of these men was one of the most glaring instances of class war that had ever arisen in the country, and he hoped hon. members on both sides of the House would give support to the deletion of Mr. Poutsma’s name.

The hon. member said he wished to move a further amendment to add that the name of Hessel Jakob. Poutsma be deleted for the purpose of inserting the name of Louis Botha. He thought that, after all, they must be just. They all understood that the alleged crime for which Poutsma had been banished from the country was for having stated very publicly that men had a right to strike, or, in other words, to refrain from working, and had encouraged them in the use of violence. That was the substance of the whole matter alleged against him. His offences in those respects were no greater than those of dozens of other men, but he had been fixed upon for that condign punishment because he held a high position in his society. How much greater, then, was the crime of one using exactly the same counsel who occupied the exalted position of Prime Minister? The Prime Minister had said, speaking at the South African Club on the 9th of August: “I think everyone will agree that if a man does not wish to work any longer he is free not to work any more.” Was that any different from what Mr. Poutsma had said? The Prime Minister thought it was a jest, but he would appeal to that House not to let him think it was a jest. Let the Prime Minister cast his mind back to a few years ago and think of his immense popularity then. Let him think of the kindly way in which he was received. Could he not see that that popularity had declined almost to vanishing point?

No, no.

said it was no use the Prime Minister’s henchman denying it. If the Prime Minister went to a meeting anywhere six or seven years ago he was greeted with applause. All had a kindly feeling towards him whether they agreed with him or not. But that was changed to day. Continuing, Mr. Creswell said that Poutsma advised the men to lay down their tools. Was not that speech of the Prime Minister a parallel when he said if a man did not wish to work any longer he was free not to work any more, “But I maintain he has no right to endanger life and property,” said Mr. Creswell, quoting further from the Prime Minister’s speech. That was just what Mr. Poutsma said, except that Mr. Poutsma’s words in that respect were more positive and less negative. Poutsma said “must not,” while the Prime Minister said “had no right,” yet Mr. Poutsma was deported and the Prime Minister sat in that House. The similarity broke down there. He (Mr. Creswell) had not access to the police records, and he could not say whether there were any records against the Prime Minister, but it was just us likely in the one case as in the other. Frankly, he (Mr. Creswell) did not believe in the police records of Mr. Poutsma.

The Minister of Railways had admitted that Mr. Poutsma and the railway servants forming his society were in the right. He broke his own regulations in appointing the Commission, of which Mr. Poutsma was a member. The perfectly spontaneous laying down of work by the railwaymen on July 7 out of sympathy with the men who had lost their lives was resented by the Administration. Poutsma was looked upon as the head and front of the offending. The railway servants believed and the country believed that this retrenchment measure was announced as a way of getting their own back against the railway-men for having dared to elect their man on the Commission. There was no need for that retrenchment. Was the Service today more efficient that it was in January? Had this action of the Minister not resulted in tremendous indirect losses to the country ? Granted that the Railway Society at the last moment did not act judiciously, and that they adopted rather a peremptory tone, was it for the Ministry of this country to consider little questions of a peremptory tone? Ought they not rather to be large-minded enough to look at essentials? He wanted to draw the attention of the House to what the Economic Commission had to say on the question of labour organisation. What the Minister did delight in was manufacturing Commissions. Their point, as members on those benches, was that Mr. Poutsma’s only “crime” was that he had been a representative of an organised body of labour, that the Government and the Minister of Railways, with their archaic ideas that the railway was theirs, thought all that they had got to do was to say a thing and no one else had got a say, and that the men had no right to have a combination among themselves. The Economic Commission said: “There is one point in connection with the machinery for the settlement and prevention of industrial disputes to which your Commissioners must advert again. It is the question of the recognition of Trade Unions. Your Commissioners met with many employers who seemed strangely averse to having any dealings with Trade Union officials. Probably their attitude has been determined by occasional reports in the Press of unrestrained language on the part of Labour leaders. … But it must be remembered that in the initial stages, of Trade Union organisation the entire absence of intemperate speech is too much to expect of human nature.” Mr. Creswell went on to say that, in regard to the January strike, he would like to ask if the Minister of Railways alleged that Mr. Poutsma and the Strike Committee at Pretoria did not do their utmost to restrain from violence? Did this House know that the Town Council of Pretoria passed a resolution thanking the strikers’ special police for the good work they had done in preventing any violence and in keeping and maintaining order? Continuing, he said that after he business those who had been deperformed a special police force of their own to restrain wilder ones from violence. He declared that the Opposition had proved false to the pledges they gave during the elections, and it was one of the most lamentable features of the present position. He said that the Prime Minister had lost the affection of his people by violating every tradition, and if he went to England he would be booted, not cheered, by the multitude, and he would receive no better a reception if he went to Holland—he had fallen from the pedestal on which he had been placed by his people. After reading the utterances of the Prime Minister he thought he was correct in moving that the name Poutsma be replaced by that of Botha.

said he was not troubled about Poutsma as Poutsma. What he was concerned about was this: What did this debate represent? What did the name Poutsma represent in that debate? That was what concerned him. Continuing, he said that there had been brought about this greatest of national evils—that sense of insecurity. So long as that continued no progress could be made in that country. The financiers knew that, and these actions had intensified the conditions of industrial unrest and deepened the sense of insecurity, and Ministers knew that. The Government had to choose between, on the one hand, the vote of that House on the question, and the execration of intelligent civilisation. Continuing, he said that his constituency, a large portion of which was Dutch, demanded that he should protest, and in the plainest possible language, against the actions and proposals of the Government of the country. What had been the charge against Mr. Poutsma? That he wanted the railway-men to have a say in the administration of the railways. That was the “conspiracy against the State. In order to secure industrial peace the working-men must have a say in the terms and conditions of their labour. That was the view of the Archbishop of Canterbury, down to the meanest workman. Then Mr. Poutsma had refused the bait which had been offered him by an official in authority. When he met Mr. Poutsma on the platform of the Cape Town railway station, the latter showed him an envelope marked “On His Majesty’s Service,” offering him an official appointment if he withdrew from the contest against Mr. Duncan. Mr. Poutsma ceased to be the “white-haired boy ”when he refused to take the bait. Another reason was that Mr. Poutsma had told the truth. When had he ever incited the railway workers to violence? He had not advised the railway workers to go on strike, but advised them to go to their society. A railway official had said to the Minister of Railways and Harbours that what they wanted was a few officials at the head of Departments who told the truth. What they wanted was the truth, and they could not get it in that House when they asked questions on railway matters. The hon. member went on to read a long extract from the “Daily Telegraph ” dealing with the causes and origin of the late strike. It accused the Government of deliberately provoking the strike and of espionage.

The hon. member quoted the following sentence from an English newspaper: “The Prime Minister guarantees when he has finished with the strikers that there will not be another strike in South Africa for a generation.”

Hear, hear.

I warn the Government, if this Bill is passed, there will be such a strike as the world has never before seen. (Ministerial laughter.)

Nonsense.

said that it would not be a strike such as the Government wanted. Mr. Poutsma, he went on, was a naturalised Britisher, and in spite of that, he had to go. What injury had been done by this man? He (Mr. Haggar) would rather be one of those men on the cross benches, he would rather be deported, he would rather die in the gutter, than he would have the responsibility resting on the Government today. (Hear, hear.) When Mr. Poutsma spoke at the Docks in October last, he said nothing about violence. Force would never make the workers free, and they desired peaceful methods, and so did Mr. Poutsma and the others who had been exiled and disgraced.

said the Committee was rather indebted to the hon. members on the cross benches, who had kept the name of Mr. Poutsma in front of them. Nothing had been proved against Mr. Poutsma. He was sorry the Prime Minister was leaving the House, but he supposed the Prime Minister wanted his dinner, like the rest of them. Hon. members who had condoned the banishment of these men by voting for the second reading would eventually find themselves in a difficult position. Not one single member who had voted would get up and defend their action. Why did they not join the hon. members on the cross-benches in their demand for information? People had been expecting something astounding in the committee stage of the Bill, but no further evidence had been brought forward. Why were they called upon to condone the deportations and vote for the banishment of Mr. Poutsma as a criminal undesirable? No Parliament was ever placed in the position of hon. members there, pleading for evidence with Ministers walking out of the House.

said that the hon. Minister of Defence had said that Mr. Poutsma could have been deported under the Immigrants’ Restriction Act, which was passed last year, and he did not need a special right to deport Mr. Poutsma. He said he had no power to do that except in Mr. Poutsma’s case. It was stated that the Government had official information from the Dutch authorities, and he (Mr. Meyler) would like to know what that information was. There were two subsections under section 4 of the Act under which Mr. Poutsma possibly might have been deported, one which said that on information received from the British or a foreign Government, through official or diplomatic channels, which would justify the hon. member in deeming a person to be undesirable, he might deport. Mr. Poutsma might possibly have been dealt with under that section, but it was right that the House should have any information regarding any person dealt with under that section. He was not sure that any person had been deported from South Africa under that section. Then there was the other sub-section, regarding people who might be deported for various offences, unless a person had received a free pardon. Had not Mr. Poutsma got a free pardon in connection with the period he spent in gaol for the crime of trying to get men more than 4d. a day? It might have been to come out to the war, but they should know in that House whether he did receive a free pardon. The crimes mentioned in that section were very serious ones, and they did not include the charge of inciting to violence, for which Mr. Poutsma was put into gaol in Holland. Why should Mr. Poutsma have been included with the others if he could have been dealt with on a different basis? The House was quite without information.

Mr. Poutsma surrendered at the end of the war, and he came under the terms of peace concluded at Vereeniging, under which the personal liberty of the burghers in the field was safeguarded, and which he looked upon as their Magna Charta. There was an understanding that if they came under the British Government their personal liberty should not be interfered with, except, it was understood, in strict accordance with the law. He considered that they got certain rights when they came into the British Dominions, that they were to have their personal liberty safeguarded, and that they were not liable to be seized and put on a boat and sent out of the country without trial. The hon. member went on to say that Mr. Poutsma was now on trial before the Supreme Court of Parliament, and he should be tried according to the approved rules of evidence, in regard to which the hon. member quoted at some length from Taylor. He claimed that if the Minister of Defence had been prosecuting before a jury he would not have been able to secure a conviction against Mr. Poutsma on the evidence which had been brought forward and which had been so discredited. Mr. Meyler went on to refer to Mr. Poutsma’s election as a member of the Railway Commission, and to urge that this action of the Government was an absolute affront to the 14,000 railwaymen who were responsible for Mr. Poutsma’s election on the Commission. It had, he added, surprised him that those men did not come out on the day Mr. Poutsma was taken out of the country. He was convinced, from what he had seen, that they would show in the future that they were not to be muzzled. In conclusion, he asked the hon. member for Durban, Central, whether he was prepared, holding the Christian principles that he did, to condemn a man unheard?

said that they had endeavoured to extract from the Government the evidence upon which they had acted in this matter, but without success.

Continuing, he congratulated the Minister of Mines on taking charge of the Bill.

Stick to the point.

I am trying to point out that the Minister of Finance is so satisfied with his dead-weight that he is willing to leave the Bill in charge of the Minister of Mines. Proceeding, he said that the Minister of Railways was not there to hold his end up. He was the man who could explain the whole situation. The trouble among the railwaymen was due to the overbearing, arrogant, and insolent bearing of the Minister of Railways towards the men. That was why the trouble started. The report of the Disturbances Commission had been flaunted in their faces, but he asked hon. members to do them the justice of reading through that report and they would not find the name of Mr. Poutsma there. It had been said that there had been a conspiracy to overthrow the State; if that had been a conspiracy, it was not a conspiracy to overthrow the State, but build up the State. He met Mr. Poutsma first prejudiced against him, but he was charmed by him at the interview. He found that he was working for the real advancement of the men he was representing, and that that was so was evidenced by the number of votes recorded for him. Dealing with the Railway Commission election, the speaker said that the “Friend” at Bloemfontein refused to insert letters advocating the candidature of the hon. member for Fordsburg because they were convinced those letters came from the Administration or the officials of the Administration. The conspiracy started a long time ago. (Labour cheers.) And it started on the Cabinet benches. One of the things that rankled the Minister of Railways was the happenings of July 7, when the railway workers came out in order to do honour to the men who were murdered on the Market square. All he could find against Mr. Poutsma was that he had seceded from his allegiance to the Government. Was it not in accordance with British ideas of fair play that they should get a hint, just a hint, of what Mr. Poutsma had done? Had they no means of forcing from the Government that information, only the charge? Mr. Poutsma’s crime was that he wanted to build, up a nation, a real nation, and not to raise servile creatures such as the Minister wanted. Would they rather have a nation of men who would stand up and say to your face, “I want this” or “I want that,” or did they want the crawling individuals which he was afraid that country was beginning to see? In conclusion, the hon. member asked the House to compare the position of the Jameson raiders with the men who had been deported. There had not been a hint of sedition or treason about Mr. Poutsma. Where was the sense of justice and fair play in that House? Every member ought to join a cricket club and learn to play the game.

put the question: That the first item, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Schedule, and declared that the “ayes” had it.

Mr. Andrews’ amendment was therefore negatived.

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

Ayes—64.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Bekker, Stephanus

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Crewe, Charles Preston

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Graaff, David Pieter de Villiers

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Henwood, Charlie

Jagger, John William

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

King, John Gavin

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Langerman, Jan Willem Stuckeris

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

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

Rockey, Willie

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Silburn, Percy Arthur

Smartt, Thomas William

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Whitaker, George

Wiltshire, Henry

Woolls-Sampson, Aubrey

H. Mentz and F. R. Cronje, tellers.

Noes—13.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Boydell, Thomas

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Duncan, Patrick

Fichardt, Charles Gustav

Haggar, Charles Henry

Hull, Henry Charles

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Sampson, Henry William

H. A. Wyndham and H. M. Meyler, tellers.

The question was accordingly affirmed, and the amendment proposed by Mr. Andrews negatived.

said they had a number of other amendments— they had to discuss each name on the schedule—(cries of “Go on”)—and he would therefore move that progress be reported. (Ministerial cries of “No.”) The motion was only reasonable. The schedule related to nine separate persons, and the House had to pass judgment on each one of them. So far, the House had dealt with only one person. The Ministry, in thorough accord with the way in which it had left every principle of fairness behind it, sat there like Sphinxes, and refused to give the ground on which they asked for the banishment of the men. The Leader and the big guns of the Opposition took the same course. If the Leader of the Opposition realised the effect of his action in throwing aside all the duties of the Opposition—

The question before the committee is to report progress. The hon. member must keep to the question.

Surely, sir, it is competent to show reasons to various members why they might support the motion? The hon. member for Fort Beaufort might be brought to use his very great influence with the Government to enable us to deal with this matter decently. It is not decent that we should condemn men unheard, that we should allow their fate to be discussed in the small hours of the morning by a tired House. It is absolutely indecent that Ministers should ask a House to pass sentence on men without saying one single word in support of their accusation. (Labour cheers.) The Prime Minister thinks he is omnipotent to-day, but the country does not approve of his action. I am certain that the Minister of Agriculture, if he had not got into bad company—(laughter)—would support the motion, for we had experience of his fairness while he occupied your chair, sir.

said he would, think one man a day was enough. (Laughter.) It was not the usual practice to pass sentence on men with such extraordinary haste, as revolutionary courts were in the habit of dealing with men in droves.

They want the tumbrils to work.

said the House was going to multiply the impression of injustice. They had exhausted the railway question, and were now going to deal with the industrial question on the mines, and therefore the Committee should come to the work with a certain amount of freshness. How was it possible to pretend that this Committee—a jaded Committee, which had sat for seven hours without an interval —was capable of doing its work conscientiously as jurors? If they went on in this way, they were bound to produce an impression among industrial people all over the world that they did not wish to do justice. He would appeal to the Government—he hoped an appeal would go to the country, it had been too long delayed—not to allow a smirch to be put on the good name of South Africa.

supported the motion for the adjournment.

The motion was put, and declared lost.

said they had eight more names on the schedule, and they on the cross-benches believed there were many hon. members of the House who, while they might agree to the deportation of Mr. Poutsma might object to vote for the banishment for life of say, Mr. Bain or some other name on the schedule. Consequently they would move the deletion of the different names, and he begged to move the deletion of the name of James Thompson Bain, of Scotland. Hon. members of the Committee would know that the “dear old friend” of the Minister of Finance was now a very desperate character, one of the most desperate characters the Minister ever knew. Many of the members of the Government probably knew Mr. Bain better than did he (Mr. Boydell) himself, and they would agree when he said that for the last 25 or 30 years Mr. Bain had been a resident citizen and a burgher in South Africa. He took the oath of allegiance in the old Republican days—the old days of the Transvaal.

Mr. Bain was one of those who believed if he was a member of a community he owed a duty to the community, and for that reason he took the oath of allegiance and became a burgher. During the stormy days of 12 or 14 years ago, of the people whom the hon. members on the Government side represented, the Dutch section of the people, he proved himself prepared to make some sacrifice on behalf of the people with whom he had taken allegiance and against his own people, because he believed at that time that that community was right in its demands. No greater test could be placed upon any man than that he should be prepared to lay down his life if necessary to uphold the traditions of a community which was foreign to him, because he lived under their protection and was anxious to have a say in the laws under which he lived he sided with them. He was brave enough to take his stand on the honest conviction that he had formed. At that time he was not a desperate character. He was a worthy son of the Transvaal Republic. He was a member of the Secret Service Agency, he was made use of by the Minister of Defence, who now slandered him when he was far away and unable to defend himself. He was a personal mend of the late Paul Kruger. He was a friend of most of the great men of the Transvaal, and this was the way they treat ed their friends when he took the side of the oppressed worker and did his duty, as he did his duty in the first place to the Republican Government. He had always taken the place of the oppressed against the strong. That was one of his main characteristics. Before the war he was the General Secretary of the Workers’ Union in the Transvaal. It was nothing new to him to hold the position of secretary to the Federation. The Transvaal Government might have deported him years ago if they had wanted to for being in the position of secretary to Labour organisations, but it did not suit the book of the Minister of Defence at that time. Mr. Bain was using his influence to oppose the forces to which the Minister of Defence was also opposed, the mine-owners and capitalists on the Rand, but now the Government had got into the confidence of the mine-owners as represented by the Opposition Benches, and they had found that Mr. Bain was altogether a different individual—-he had become a most desperate character, as was stated by the Minister of Defence in his second reading speech.

He believed he was right in saying that Mr. Bam used to be in the direct service of the Minister of Defence. If the Minister looked upon him as a desperate character, why did he utilise his services? What was the first mention of Mr. Bain in connection with this great conspiracy? He thought he had been condemned largely for the action he took in the July proceeding’s. On reference to the “report of the Judicial Commission they would find that Mr. Bain made every attempt to bring about an amicable settlement of the Kleinfontein dispute and to prevent the strike from spreading along the Reef. The first charge brought against Mr. Bain by the Minister of Defence was when he referred to the meeting at Benoni, held on the 29th June. The Minister tried to make out that in some way or other Mr. Bain was responsible for a great amount of violence which took place in consequence of the meeting being held. The Minister had yet to bring before this House evidence that any violence took place at the meeting or in consequence of the meeting. They had been told that Mr. Bain signed a notice asking the workers to come armed. The reason of that notice was in order to prevent any violent attack which might be made by the military or the authorities on innocent miners who were out on stride Then they had been told that Mr. Bain had broken his contract. Hon. members on those benches had been informed by people who were there that they never heard Bain either incite people to go to the Kleinfontein Mine or say that he was going to go back on any pledge that he had made. They had no evidence whatever that Mr. Bain had said anything which was calculated to incite to violence, that he led any men on to commit any acts of violence, or that he himself committed an act of violence. All they had had was vague suggestions and extracts from newspapers, which might or might not be correct. As to the meeting on the Market Square, Johannesburg, on July 4, the Minister of Defence had said that “the meeting could riot be prohibited, but an attempt was made to prevent the oratory. Hon. members will remember that this attempt was a failure, and as a result Mr. Bain and others that afternoon made some violent speeches and worked up the mob.” They had not had any report of any violent speech made by Mr. Bain that afternoon. It was not in consequence of anything Mr. Bain had said that afternoon that the bloodshed had occurred. The Minister of Defence and his legions, the hired assassins who charged the mob and committed all the atrocities that happened that afternoon, were the cause of all the bloodshed and acts of violence which followed. Probably the reason why Mr. Bain was kidnapped and spirited away in the dead of night was because he signed what was known as the “Bain-Botha Treaty.” Mr. Bain thought when he was signing that treaty the Government were going to play the game, but not so the Prime Minister or the Minister of Defence, because they looked upon it as a great coup.”

Then came the dramatic arrest of Bain at the Trades Hall. Bain and his fellows did their work there, and there they could be found at any time of the day or night. They locked the doors, it was true, bur the first time they were asked in the name of the law the doors were opened. What evidence did the officers find which incriminated Bain or anyone else? There was a suggestion that there was evidence, but none had been forthcoming. Bain was kidnapped and shipped away at the dead of night, without being given an opportunity of defending himself. There was no doubt that they would come back here and have something to say about this business. It was not outside the bounds of possibility that any one of them would come back, arid might even in the future be found seated in that House. Government should not run away with the idea that it had settled all its difficulties.

asked whether these remarks had anything to do with the question before the House?

said there was not a quorum present.

Oh, never mind.

Go on.

referred to the reception accorded the deportees in Great Britain, and asked how the Government would like a retaliatory movement. Supposing the men who had been deported started a movement at Home among the railwaymen and the dock workers that they were not to handle South African stuff, would that not be an effective reply to the Government. It would touch their pockets and then they would hear something. This was a thing that was not outside the range of possibility. Let the Government produce the evidence and hon. members would see whether they were justified in deporting Mr. Bain (Labour cheers.) Bain had been a good and faithful servant to South Africa. Formerly Mr. Bain had been a friend of Ministers, but when Ministers took the side of the wealthy Mr. Bain took the part of the workers, and that was the gentleman who was now undesirable and whom the Minister of Defence said was the most desperate person he ever knew. He hoped the hon. members of that House would demand further evidence of these vague charges, and he moved that Mr. Bain’s name be deleted.

called the Chairman’s attention to the fact that there was no quorum present.

A quorum having been obtained,

said he hoped the Minister would give his reasons for deporting Mr. Bain. This was a name with which he was very familiar, but up to the present the only testimony with regard to Mr. Bain had come from the cross-benches. Mr. Bain had been secretary of a certain public body recognised by the laws of the Transvaal as a perfectly legal body. It was not alleged against Bain that he had exceeded his orders. The secretaries of these organisations affiliated to the Federation had been imprisoned and made the scapegoats, and the hon. member asked why they should be held responsible for their organisations. By what right had one person been prosecuted instead of the whole of the members? It was curious that the first two names which figured on the schedule were those of men who were bilingual, and it backed him up in the view that the action of the Government was a political movement. Mr. Bain had been a very useful man in times past in building up the political movement amongst the workers. In Mr. Bain’s speeches to the workers there had been nothing to incite them to violence, and nothing against constitutional procedure. He was prepared to say that Mr. Bain was right in the days of the war when he had said it was not a miners’ war, because it was a capitalists’ war. The case of Mr. Bain was a particularly cruel one, because he was an elderly man and had just passed through a severe illness and had now been sent to a cold country, after having lived in South Africa for 35 years. There was his wife and children, and how would hon. members like to be deported and parted from their wives and children? Then it had been said that Mr. Bain had tried to avoid arrest, but that was not the case. He had said to the detectives that when they wanted to arrest him they knew where to find him. Dealing with the Trades Hall incident, Mr. Sampson said that Mr. Bain had never been called on to surrender until the last half-hour, when the police called upon those in the Trades Hall to surrender. There was not a single scrap of evidence which would connect Mr. Bain and the Federation with any act of violence. As to what the Minister of Defence had said about a scrap of paper having been found, on which was stated that they must form commandoes, the hon. member said that Mr. Bain meant that the Trade Unions must keep their members together. He knew that if they did so no violence would occur, because the Trade Union officials would be responsible. He thought that the Government was keeping back information in regard to that matter.

said the Committee presented a most extraordinary spectacle—a band of six trying to drag the truth from Government while the Opposition sit and pine. He suggested that the Opposition members go home as they were losing their beauty sleep. What, he went on, was Bain’s real history? He was a friend of the weaker side and was never afraid to present a bold face to the foe in the interests of justice. It made one’s blood boil to see how base was the ingratitude of hon. members on the Ministerial side over their treatment of Mr. Bain. He (Mr. Madeley) was closely associated with Mr. Bain last year. Mr. Bain was the secretary of the Benoni Strike Committee. Whenever there was the slightest hint of violence during the July troubles, Mr. Bain put his foot down heavily. It was untrue that Bain incited the strikers to pull down the New Kleinfontein fence. In fact, Mr. Bain did everything he could to stop the men. Continuing, Mr. Madeley referred to the evidence given before the Judicial Commission of inquiry by Mr. Richard Colston, the Assistant Magistrate at Benoni. Mr. Colston had attempted to act as a peacemaker between the strikers and the New Kleinfontein Co., but although the men considered his proposals, the other side would not. So far from being deported, Mr. Bain should have a gold chain put round his neck.

said there were only two points he could see upon which the Minister was building his case. They had to look at what the surroundings of these men were The Minister had said that Mr. Bain resisted arrest. But what were the facts of the case? The police desired to arrest Bain under the Peace Preservation Act, and the workmen, realising that Bain formed part of the brains of the movement, decided that he should not be imprisoned, so they surrounded him, together with others, and escorted him to the Trades Hall. A great deal had been said about Mr. Bain not having walked out of the Trades Hall and surrendered himself to the police, but neither he (Mr. Bain) nor his confreres were ever asked to surrender. Instead of that, the authorities made a ridiculous demonstration with a 13-pounder and a large display of military force in order to capture these 27 men who had never been asked to give themselves up. Suddenly the military bethought themselves that they had not complied with the law, and a detective went to the door of the Trades Hall and commanded the inmates to surrender, which they did at once. So much for the Minister’s statement that Mr. Bain had resisted arrest. Another of Mr. Bain’s crimes was that he enabled—

pointed out that there was no quorum.

After a quorum was formed,

said he could quite understand the Minister of Defence, or he might more properly say the Minister of Offence, absenting himself from the House while the merits or demerits of his “old friend Bain” were being discussed. (Laughter.) the Minister had made reference to Mr. Bain in connection with the Benoni meeting. That meeting was called to take place upon the Market-square, but the police foolishly prohibited it. Mr. Bain said that he would hold the meeting, as any Britisher would have done, because one of the rights of a British citizen was about to be taken away from him. When he (Mr. Madeley) went to Pretoria to see the Minister of Justice, not the present Minister of Justice, but the late Mr. Sauer, who had he been alive he (Mr. Madeley) ventured to say that there would have been no such trouble as then took place. He (Mr. Madeley) interviewed the Minister of Justice about the case of some men who had been knocked about in prison cells. Then he subsequently interviewed the Minister of Defence, who, in the course of conversation, asked him what was going to be done about the Benoni meeting. He (Mr. Madeley) told him that it was the intention to hold that meeting.

And break the law.

said that not everything the Minister cared to promulgate was law. The law was a statute which the people wanted, but the law that was put in force at Benoni was not a law which was applicable to those conditions. He told the Minister that he and other intended to keep the law, and that was exactly Bain’s position. If it was breaking the law to hold the meeting, why did not the Minister tell him (Mr. Madeley)? On the contrary, the Minister said, “I think we might allow it,” and he (Mr. Madeley) said, “I think so, too.” Then they came to the question of the guarantee that he (Mr. Madeley) was supposed to have given to the Minister. The Minister of Defence asked him, “Will you guarantee, if the meeting is held, that there will be no violence?” and he (Mr. Madeley) said “No, but I will pledge my word that we will do all in our power to prevent violence.” It was evident the hon. Minister did not expect him to guarantee Mr. Bain, and the police were instructed to intervene, and every undertaking was absolutely kept to the last letter. The Government did not want those men here because they were a danger—not to the State—but to the enemies of the State. Hon. members who sat on both sides of the House said nothing and voted. Those hon. members were the enemies of the State. Mr. Bain was arrested, together with others, and had to be released because there was no evidence to convict him on any single charge, and that was why the Minister spirited him away. What sort of a Parliament was that who would condone the banishment of a man against whom they could not get a conviction, as the hon. Minister himself had admitted. He had qualities that did not commend him to the Government. He was secretary of the Federation of Trades, and the Minister of Finance feared him because he could not diddle him as he had diddled others who lacked the education and the mental sinuosity of the Minister. The Minister wanted to go on for ever. It was when he was appointed secretary of the Federation that the Minister realised he was a dangerous character. It was extremely probable that the hon. Minister knew what would appear in the report of the Economic Commission when he removed these men from the country. Mr. Madeley quoted from the Economic Commission’s report to show that it was the well-reasoned opinion of the Commissioners, based upon their experience, that the workers had a right to be represented by their Federation officials. That was an unanswerable argument of the Commissioners, but the Government had seen fit to remove the principal representative of the workers from the country. Other countries had got infinitely beyond the stage of the oppression of Trade Unions. He would warn them that their decision, which would shortly be taken, would be reversed after the next general election. In conclusion, Mr. Madeley made a final appeal to hon. members to vote for the deletion of Mr. Bain’s name.

said that he supported the motion for the deletion of Mr. Bain’s name from the schedule. He thought that, as far as Mr. Bain was concerned, if he were a dangerous character and had got a large following, the fault was very largely due to the dealings of the Ministers with him. They had treated him like the ambassador of a foreign Power. He thought he had perhaps misapprehended Bain’s reason for asking the people to come armed to the Benoni meeting. He found from the evidence that he merely called upon the people to come armed in order to resist any unlawful force which might be used against them.

said he regretted that, owing to the way in which the clause was worded, it was impossible for many of them who supported the amendment of the hon. member for Victoria West, to vote for the present amendment, as they wished the schedule to apply to the first part of the clause, giving the Government indemnity, but not to the second, which banishes the men.

in supporting the amendment, recalled J. T. Bain’s association with the cause of the South African Republic, and mentioned that his first personal acquaintance with Mr. Bain was as a fellow-workman in the Braamfontein railway workshops, where Mr. Bain was a fitter. Subsequently Mr. Bain was transferred to the Pretoria work shops, and later on he drifted to the Premier Mine, where he was prominent in organising a branch of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers. He became a Labour Party candidate for the Pretoria North Division.

Proceeding with the history of Bain, he said that later the latter found himself outside the gates of the Premier Mine. Men who helped their fellow-men usually came off badly, and Bain had rather a rough time. He was at that time out of a job. Just then the Federation of Trade Unions— an insignificant body—was formed. Groups of men saw how the employers were combining and dominating the politics of the country, and recognising their helplessness, this movement was started, and it spread with a rapidity that astonished its founders. Bain was elected—not by any backstairs influence—as secretary, at £1 a day the salary he would receive if working at his trade. The Federation’s object was to take up the cudgels on behalf of the weak. He would not go into the history of happenings in July, but there was not the slightest doubt in his mind that the events of July, 1913, had had more to do with the treatment of Mr. J. T. Bain than the events of January. He was deported in revenge for July happenings. The greatest crime laid to the charge of Bain was that he issued a handbill, but more particularly with urging the crowd to attack the Kleinfontein fence after the Benoni meeting. He (Mr. Andrews) was at the meeting. After the speeches, he spoke to Bain and his wife, and then strolled on to the Kleinfontein fence. He did not see Bain there or any excitement, and he doubted the accuracy of the statement of Captain Kirkpatrick. He Mr. Andrews) saw Colonel Truter, and spoke to him, and the latter said that all was quiet. Colonel Truter saw none of this excitement. He (Mr. Andrews) found that things were very uninteresting, so he walked down to the station and went home to Germiston. Proceeding, he asked: What had Bain done in January? In January the Federation felt in honour bound to answer the call of the railwaymen, and they did so. Why should the secretary of the Federation be held responsible for the doings of his executive? The secretary had only to record what happened and settle knotty points, and perhaps he was the most helpless man in a body of that kind.

There was one point to which attention had not been drawn in the whole of that, debate. They had read in the Press one morning that owing to the records of these men having been published in the “Daily Chronicle,” there had been a great revulsion of feeling against the deportations. He would be very much interested to see those records, but as soon as the deportees got to England Mr. Bam had sued some of the papers for libel. Who had sent those records to England, and for what purpose had they been sent? It seemed to him (Mr. Andrews) that such conduct as that, if it was the conduct of anyone in authority at all, could only be described as cowardly; and if these records had been sent by one who was not in authority, would the Government take steps to see who was the thief or spy who had sent those records to England to damage the reputation of Mr. Bain and the others who had been deported? He (Mr. Andrews) was simply rising to speak for a comrade whom he had known for many years—a man he had disagreed with on several occasions, but a man whom he respected, and who was of a most lovable character. (Labour cheers.) He rose to protest against Mr. Bain’s name being included in that schedule. Let them remember that the end would not be when that debate had finished. The final act of that drama would not be closed when that Act had been passed—the play would begin. There were other weapons; there was such a weapon as a boycott, which had been effectively used in a country like Ireland, in Turkey, India, and other countries. That Federation of South Africa was linked up with the Federation in England and other countries, and if the machinery was brought into existence, and the workers in England would not handle South African produce, the hon. member over there would not grunt as he did, but would begin to squeal a bit. Hon. members must not think they had got the whole of the Labour movement on the cross-benches, and they did not realise that it was a world movement. Members were apparently asleep when one mentioned the case of Bain or referred to humanity and justice, but once appeal to their pocket, or their banking account was affected, and one wakened them up at once.

said that the Minister of Defence was asking them to put aside all ordinary feelings of justice, and he was ably backed up by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. Did gallant little Natal, did loyal little Natal approve of that idea when the one representative of Natal in the Ministry was running with the rest, not daring to raise his voice, and denying to the deported men what they had a right to have. He did not think that gallant and loyal little Natal would approve of his action. Let the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs go to Pietermaritzburg, and he thought he would have a very warm and a very rough time indeed. The Government had levied war upon the workers and upon their institutions, and if their fellow-workers were to take the same methods of showing their disapproval, these workers would deserve the thanks of the workers of the world for their loyalty. If he had any voice in the matter he would say to the workers over there, “You can help us in this matter.”

There had been talk about the King refusing his assent to the Bill. That was a proposition which he personally viewed with the greatest disapproval, because we knew what the effect of that sort of thing would be in South Africa where we liked to consume our own smoke. But when their comrades in England could use their huge force in defence of justice and liberty, then he said “good luck to them.” This was not a threat, but simply a prognostication of what might conceivably happen and what, in his opinion, should happen. It might be that at the present moment this was an idle threat, but don’t let them think when they passed the Bill that the curtain had dropped. Tom Mann was sailing for South Africa on Saturday. He might not be allowed to land here, but he was not the only Labour agitator in the world. Did Government think that by sitting on a safety valve they could put down such a big movement as this? They would not be able to turn all the men out, for they could not get on without them. (Ministerial laughter.) How terrible it was when such absurd ignorance was displayed as that opposite. They were making this country stink in the nostrils of organised Labour throughout the world.

The hon. member must stick to the point.

That is what I am coming to. By deporting such men as Bain, by Ministers refusing to give one scintilla of evidence in defence of their conduct, they are making the name of South Africa stink in the nostrils of organised Labour throughout the world. Continuing, Mr. Creswell drew the attention of the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Chaplin) to the report of the Economic Commission, for, he said, the hon. member for Germiston was one of the arch enemies of Trade Unions. He hated them, and he had the honesty to say so.

The hon. member must stick to the point.

said there were two reasons for deporting Bain. The first reason was that he was not born in South Africa. But did hon. members opposite, when they went through the days of stress during the late war, did they care whether those who helped them were born in South Africa or not?

Three hon. members preceding you have already dealt with this point.

When an act touches almost the lowest point of meanness to which it is possible for Ministers and a party to descend, does it do any harm to call attention to it seven times or even seventy times seven? Is it not one of the most pitiable pieces of meanness any political party has ever been guilty of to say that an old comrade of theirs must leave the country because he was not born in South Africa?

The rules of the House are against repeating it.

I think the rule says tedious repetition. It may be very tedious to the wrong-doers to have their crimes repeated, but it may be very useful to the country that they should he repeated. It will be repeated from every platform in the country, and questions will be put to hon. members on the subject by their constituents.

They have none.

At last one has arrived at some intelligent reason for the presence of some hon. members in the House. (Laughter.) Continuing, he said that he and Mr. Bain had differed most violently on many occasions on political matters. Bain’s clear, crystal sincerity made one love him. (A Ministerial interruption.) Mr. Bain was a better man than the hon. member over there; he would not condemn a man unheard. The only way to rouse hon. members opposite was to do something which touched their pockets; he hoped the wharfingers on the other side would interfere with the hon. member’s fruit.

at midnight, called attention to the fact that there was no quorum.

A quorum having been formed,

went on to say that Mr. Bain’s connections with the affairs in January last ended on the 14th of that month, so what had he to do with events subsequent to that date? The House had not one word in support of the condemnation of this man from Ministers. The fact was that Bain’s only crime consisted in his having been secretary to the Federation of Trades, although the Commissioners in their report spoke of the Federation of Trades and Trade Unions generally as useful institutions. Whichever of the names of the deportees were taken, only one conclusion could be arrived at, it was, that the whole of the January proceedings were got up by the Minister of Railways and his friends for the only purpose of crushing Trade Unions, and Mr. Bain in particular for being secretary of the Federation of Trades. The effect of the Hill was going to be that there would be more and more unrest as time went on. He might tell the House that when in prison with Mr. Bain, that gentleman had but one idea, which was that when the Government had crushed the strike a federation of workers would establish for themselves farms of refuge and labour colonies, which would be run in connection with the industrial centres in the towns. As for the movement and its leaders frightening the State; that was all rubbish. He would remind Ministers that they had done a mad act in turning these men out of the country. Every name on that list was a sign of the imbecility of Ministers or the result of hysterical fright. He could only associate the policy they were pursuing with the bar of a club than the policy of a State.

said he had occasion to sound a note of warning during the course of the debate that trouble was brewing somewhere else. All they had to do was to cable from headquarters to Ben Tillet and South Africa would know the rest.

The speaker went on to refer to the; reasonable attitude that had been adopted by Bain all through. Dealing with the Kleinfontein affair, he said that Bain’s attitude was changed by a change of circumstances. This was the introduction of strike-breakers, which, it was agreed, was a means of inciting men’s passions. After reading various portions from the Disturbances Commission, he said that these showed that Bain was not a person who incited men to do violence. He read extracts from the evidence, and said that if the Minister was defending a case in Court, he would scorn testimony of that sort. After further quotations from the report of the Commission, he said that in the early part of the trouble Bain did all he could to maintain peace. He pointed out that, in regard to work on Saturdays, Bain had been backed by the Minister, and this was the man who was now declared to be an undesirable.

pointed out that there was no quorum present.

A quorum having been formed,

said it was stated that Bain had been in the Market-square, that he spoke in an excited manner and used extravagant language. Were not members of the House guilty of these things? Bain expressed resentment at a wrong in strong language, and he thought that this was a tribute to the man rather than a crime. The Minister admitted that the management had done wrong. The speaker referred to the influence of Bain, and said it was a tribute to him that 100,000 had been called out. The Government were panic-stricken. He quoted an English paper on what had happened. That paper stated it believed the Government concocted the plot and talked about Syndicalism in order to throw the onus on others. Bain was a political worker, so how could he be & Syndicalist. The protested in the strongest possible terms against the deportation of Mr. Bain. If they persisted all the Labour people would have to say to the people of England was “We want your practical sympathy.” By doing things of this sort they were casting mud at the future of the country.

said he would like to refer to another fictitious crime alleged against Bain. During “this fearful trouble at Benoni the police were sent to the mines. When those conditions obtained the hooligans got going, and Bain and his fellows organised a protective force. This was another of the heinous charges against Bain. So effective was this organisation that when the galloping police found a detachment in charge at any point the police were satisfied to leave the strike picket in charge. Let the Minister inquire of the magistrate—not the police —and he would find that these were facts. Did that look like a peace-breaking organisation? Was Bain a sinister figure? Would the magistrate have gone down and congratulated the committee if things had been otherwise ?

The hon. member went on to deal with the accusation that Mr. Bain had “pulled out” men, which he denied was the case. Mr. Bain was accused of being a lawbreaker, but Mr. Bain had nothing to do with the men striking. They had come out of their own accord. Mr. Rain had committed a “heinous crime” because he would not allow himself to be deceived or to be “diddled” by the Minister of Defence, and that was what the Minister could not tolerate—because Mr. Bain committed the crime of not agreeing with the Minister, and because he was a foeman worthy of his steel. Mr. Bain was domiciled in South Africa and would return to South Africa. There was a blot on South Africa owing to the deportation of these men, and that blot would be erased by means of a general election.

The amendment was then put, and declared to be negatived.

called for a division, which was taken.

put the question: That the second item proposed to be omitted, stand part of the schedule.

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

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

at 1.2 a.m., again moved that progress be reported.

said that he was not prepared to take the motion, as the sense of the Committee was against it.

said that he would then move that the Chairman leave the chair.

That is a similar motion. I must ask the hon. member to resume his seat, as I cannot take that motion. He referred to Rule 33.

If I move that the Chairman leave the chair, and that is carried, does not that kill the Bill?

Yes.

The hon. member must resume his seat.

at 1.5 a.m, moved the deletion of item No. 3 in the schedule, “Archibald Crawford, Scotland.” He said that the trouble in Johannesburg had not been caused by. Mr. Crawford at all. The hon. member cited the report of the Commission on the July disturbances. Referring to reports of what Mr. Crawford had stated, the hon. member spoke of the Biblical story of the sower and the seed; and said that it was not the words which mattered so much as the conditions on which they fell. If the Minister could give any evidence which a respectable man could receive, he (Mr. Haggar) would sit down. No evidence was, however, given, either in Mr. Crawford’s case or in that of any of the others.

At 1.25 a.m.,

pointed out that the House lacked a quorum.

stated there was a quorum, and asked Mr. Haggar to proceed.

asked if this man had committed a crime why was he not arrested and tried by his peers instead of being “scooted” out of the country.

said Mr. Crawford was a member of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, like himself. He was an active man, and became what is known as an agitator, and for that reason found it difficult to retain a job, but like many others, that did not alter his opinions because of that. He succeeded in getting work for varying periods until it was found that he had the reputation of being an outspoken man. He became at one time the editor of a newspaper, which was not particularly friendly to the Labour movement. Mr. Crawford was not a political friend of his (Mr. Andrews’) holding that the Labour Party was quite wrong in many of its methods. He might also mention incidentally that Mr. Crawford carried his antagonism to the Labour Party so far that he stood as a candidate in the elections of 1910 for Fordsburg in opposition to him (Mr. Andrews), and plainly told the voters that if they could not vote for him they ought certainly to vote for Mr. Patrick Duncan.

He just wanted to show that at one time Mr. Crawford was not friendly disposed towards members on those benches. The “Star” said he was the real worker, and Crawford at one time was a correspondent of the “Leader.” Crawford confessed that during the strike. This fact did not make any difference to members on those benches, because they were dealing with injustice. As his hon. friends had shown, the allegations against Crawford had broken down. Crawford made speeches to induce the men on the Van Ryn to come out, as he had a perfect right to do. The fact was, as had been shown, the soil was in good condition. The Government, employers, and the public of South Africa generally were responsible for what had occurred. He made bold to say that the general public had a right to suffer because if the general public was alive to its responsibility it would rise, and say that such conditions should not obtain. The general public did not care until somebody trod on its toes. He had no sympathy with them; they deserved all they got. Crawford and others might have precipitated the crisis, but it was bound to come. If the July affair had nothing to do with the deportations, what crime did Crawford commit in January? He had been deported because he was undesirable from the political point of view. He wondered what the country would think of the accuser sitting silent, while the debate went on. The Minister of Railways had said that these men were politically and socially undesirable. In what way was Crawford socially undesirable? He (Mr. (Andrews) would as soon mix with Crawford as with the Minister of Railways—perhaps a good deal sooner. (Labour cheers.) Both the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Defence said they did not want them back because they knew the courts would not support them. It was purely political prejudice. The Government and the people who supported the Government wanted to make this country a semi-servile State. Every member on the other side believed that he had the Divine right to be a master. Continuing, he said there could not be any comparison between soldiers and sailors and the railwaymen. The Minister had no right to count on their loyalty. If they wanted loyalty let them give the men fair play and justice. Such a state of affairs as suggested by the Minister could not go on. It it did last they could expect this country to be no more than a slave state. They knew the division would go against them, but they had the satisfaction of knowing that they had registered their protest against this iniquitous principle.

said his hon. friend had missed the essential point of the position—that the Prime Minister and his colleagues had been on strike all the evening. Their duty was to answer legitimate questions.

They haven’t any answer.

said that in the face of these insults it was almost impossible to restrain Oneself. The Government had deported Crawford on a charge that had proved untenable. Did they think they would keep Crawford out of this country? Not they. His one crime was that he was in the Trades Hall when it capitulated. It was outrageous! That deportation had wakened up people all over South Africa and it was only the Ministerialists who would have it all their own way. If that was not Oriental despotism, he did not know what was.

said that his hon. friend had made a mistake in asking the Prime Minister for information, because all the Prime Minister knew about the deportation was that the man had been deported. It was the autocrat of the Cabinet who knew about it, but he had vouchsafed no information. In a court of law, if no charge was brought against the accused, the case could not be gone on with, and in that House no charge had been brought up against Mr. Crawford. Yet he had been deported! Far from Mr. Crawford being an undesirable, he was an acquisition to that country. The hon. member alluded to the attitude Mr. Crawford had adopted in the Transvaal with regard to the unemployed and what he had done on their behalf. He had tried to get them work, and had led a procession of unemployed from Johannesburg to Pretoria, where they had been put off, as usual, with vague promises by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence. There were about; 12,000 men out of work in South Africa at the present time, and Mr. Crawford would have proved invaluable in dealing with that, problem. Mr. Crawford, like Mr. Bain, had not pulled men out in July last, because they had come out. He had been arrested because he had the temerity to address his fellow Trade Unionists at the Van Ryn Mine, which he had a perfect right to do. There had been no trade dispute on at the time, so Mr. Crawford, could not legally have been arrested under the Transvaal Industrial Disputes Act. The fact that Mr. Crawford had been acquitted was a complete answer to the charge that he had incited to violence; and they could not again charge him with that offence. Why had Mr. Crawford been deported? Can any hon. member hint at why he had been deported ? Not one! The great “I am” had said that he must be deported, and so he had to go. Hon. members simply took the position was that elevating that Assembly?

said that that argument had been used over and over again. The hon. member must cither proceed with other arguments or sit down.

said that it was very awkward to be gagged like that.

said that the hon. member must withdraw that word.

said that he would do so. Proceeding, he said that Mr. Craw ford was one of the most peaceful men who had lived in South Africa, and that had not fallen in with the views of the Minister who had wanted them to bear arms and rebel. The House by its attitude had blackened its reputation for all time.

said that that argument had been repeated over and over again. If the hon. member could not use any other argument, he must sit down.

resumed his seat at 2.37 a.m.

said that the only case that had been put before the House was that put by the Minister of Defence. The only evidence submitted to the House was in respect of certain speeches made by Crawford, not in January, but in July. The very speeches which the Minister had quoted had formed the subject of a criminal trial in which Crawford had figured and had been acquitted. Was the Committee going to try Crawford again on those charges, after he had been acquitted by a duly constituted tribunal in the Transvaal? Others had been tried with Crawford, and had they been deported? He must register his protest against the deportation of Crawford.

rising at 2.45 a.m., said it seemed strange that members on the cross-benches were found standing up to defend a man who had done his best in season and out of season to oppose them. That point, he considered, had not been sufficiently brought out in the debate. He repeated, that for the past two years Crawford had endeavoured to hinder the progress of the Labour Party and to damage its members. In fact he had opposed Mr. Andrews at the General Election, but had only got eight votes. It might have been thought that members of the Unionist Party, who had been accustomed to accept his services, would have had some word to say against his deportation, but having used him for their purpose they had cast him aside. They were now using the Government, and would crush them when they started to oppose their interests, they on the cross-benches demanded justice even for their opponents. Crawford had been found by judge and jury innocent of the charges brought against him, and it was their duty to stand by him. Being a social reformer, he held strong views and might at times have made rash speeches, but that he (Mr. Boydell) held was not a sufficient crime for which to kidnap a man and banish him from the country, as had been remarked by the hon. member for Jeppe Crawford was the sort of man that would find mean of visiting South Africa again before long

Never.

said the hon. member was so addicted to wire fences that he imagined nobody could get through them. He would like to remind him we were now dealing with men and not with cattle. He (Mr. Boydell) was convinced that justice would be done to these men, if not in this country then elsewhere The question was being discussed in England by the dockers and workers, who felt that an injury was also being done to them. They were even now discussing the question of refusing to handle South African produce as a form of retaliation against the Government

did not suppose there was anybody on those benches who had been more opposed by Mr. Crawford than he had He had learned, however, to respect the man after seeing him led through the streets of Johannesburg, singing the “Red Flag. He was a man who when he saw signs of reconciliation on the part of the Government was anxious to get the people back to work again as soon as possible If Crawford was a rebel, who had made him so? He had been what he considered unjustly dismissed from his work and since then he had been a rebel. In that sense the action of the railway authorities had made hundreds of rebels.

said the point raised by the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Hull) that the charge against Crawford was one for which he had been tried and acquitted, was an important one. Could they punish a man for a crime after he had been acquitted? He begged leave to throw some doubt on the conspiracy which the Minister had Spoken about for the similar reason that the Minister had given no reason for deporting the men If there had been the smallest trace of evidence they could be quite sure the Minister of Defence would have revealed it with the greatest gusto He took leave to ask the Minister why Crawford had been deported? If it was for the flimsy reasons assigned by the Minister in his speech then he (Mr. Fichardt) was sorry for the course of justice in this country.

The amendment of the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Haggar) to delete the name of Archibald Crawford from the schedule was declared to be negatived.

put the question that the third item proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Schedule.

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

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

asked that progress might be reported. He felt the Committee were unable to decide upon the merits of the various cases without further information. An hon. member had actually proposed that the remaining names be taken en bloc.

said it was mere tyranny to say they must get it through that night. They made them discuss these matters in the small hours so that as little as possible might, be heard of the iniquities of the Government.

The motion to report progress was negatived.

called for a division at 5.25 a.m., which was taken with the following result:

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

H. M. Meyler and Charles G. Fichardt, tellers.

Noes—55.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Bekker, Stephanus

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Crewe, Charles Preston

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Henwood, Charlie

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jaeobus

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

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

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 Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Wiltshire, Henry.

Woolls-Sampson, Aubrey

H. Mentz and J. Hewat, tellers.

The motion was accordingly negatived.

rising at 5.30 a.m., said that under no circumstances would he admit that there was anything to warrant the banishment of Mr. Waterston. He was a straight, clean-living, British gentleman—(Labour cheers)—and he could have no finer testimonial. He referred to Mr. Waterston’s municipal services, and said his record must be good else he would not have obtained the confidence of the electors. That was the man they were dealing with now; that was the man the Government told them to banish. He hailed originally from Australia. Would to heaven they had more Australians in this country. If they had had them, the Prime Minister would not wear the smile he did. But the Minister did not like Mr. Waterston, as he saw in Mr. Waterston the deathknell of his political hopes.

There is no quorum, sir.

There is a quorum.

Government side wakes up again!

I don’t mind. Continuing, he said that originally Waterston was a fireman on the E.R.P.M. He asked the Minister to remember what the chairman of the E.R.P.M. told Waterston when he was first elected to the Boksburg Town-Council—either to leave the Town Council or his job. But Bob Waterston was made of the stuff that had built up the British; Empire, and he was not coerced into resigning his seat on the Council. Mr. Waterston was also one of those individuals who had been tried and acquitted. He thought that there had been two charges against Waterston. He had also been accused of the terrible crime of “nulling out” the men. The name of Mr. Waterston was scarcely mentioned in the report of the Disturbances Commission. It was Mr. Waterston who had stopped the violence when blacklegs had been attacked. He said, “Boys, let them alone…. I will have a talk with them.” It was on record in the evidence before the Commission that Mr. Waterston was doing his utmost on two occasions to prevent a breach of the peace. During the whole of the trouble Mr. Waterston had acted in a peaceable and dignified way. He had been doing what the Government should have been doing—policing the district. In heaven’s name, why should Mr. Waterston have been deported? He was a most important man in the Labour Party. What would members of the Ministerialist benches say if the Labour Party were in power and they deported the secretary of the Government Party?

That would be quite right.

said that was the spirit of retaliation—-the spirit of the ages when men were tortured for their religious feelings. It was difficult to keen one’s temper when they saw what the Government had done, and that it would not give any information about Mr. Waterston. No reason had been given for his deportation, and he moved accordingly to omit the fourth item “Robert Burns Waterston.”

said that Mr. Waterston had come over with the Australian troops, and mid been sent as one of the picked men to England about the time of the Coronation. He was one of the best men who had come to South Africa from Australia. Knowing Mr. Waterston as he did, he would say that Mr. Waterston would be one of the very last men to advocate violence. The mere fact that Mr. Waterston had come from Australia with a good industrial training would make him a good citizen of South Africa, and they were greatly indebted to Australia. Proceeding, the hon. member read several extracts from the evidence given before the Commission dealing with statements made by Mr. Waterston. In Mr. Waterston’s speeches there had been nothing advocating violence, the destruction of property or the taking of human life.

Continuing, he said, a man holding the position of secretary to the South African Labour Party possessed complete confidence of the party behind him, and that was no small honour, and if Waterston had done anything to merit banishment then the whole of the party were equally guilty. Then, again, was not the friendship of the country from whence he came worth something? He (Mr. Haggar) knew that the act of the Government had not only strained the friendship which existed with Australia, but had made it almost non-existent.

said, so far as he could judge, the most important charge was that Mr. Waterston had told the natives to ask for more money end less work, and he (Mr. Andrews) was inclined to agree with him. They had it on the authority of the Commission that workmen were justified in getting the best returns for their labour. He knew Waterston to be a temperate man and one, he thought, who never tasted drink, as a matter of fact, that was characteristic of all the men. He was not an official or an ordinary member of the Federation of Trades. He (Mr. Andrews) would like to know why the Government had not sent him to the country of his birth, without giving him the option. He thought if there was a name they had reached so far that ought to be removed from the schedule it was that of Waterston.

said they had no evidence of Waterston’s guilt, all that had been said was an allusion to some mysterious connection with some mysterious conspiracy which existed only in the imagination of the Minister of Defence.

Nothing he did in January justified in the least degree the Government sending him away or refusing to allow him back again. Mr. Waterston called a spade a spade, and spoke from his heart and openly, That probably was a crime in the eyes of the Government. It was no crime to tell the workers that if they could get a higher price for their labour they were entitled to do so. What other crime? He was a fireman, and therefore a worker, and a Trade Unionist. Another crime was that he was considered able enough to be returned as a Labour member of the Boksburg Town Council. He protested that it was iniquitous for the Government to send men out of the country without a trial. The hon. member was dealing with an interruption when,

said that the hon. member must coniine himself to the point.

said that another of Mr. Waterston’s crimes in the eyes of the Government was that he was not born in South Africa. If he had been born in South Africa they would have allowed him to do anything without deportation from the country as a form of punishment. What a crime! The further crime was that he held the honourable position of secretary of the S.A. Labour Party, and that was where the political undesirable came in. Mr. Waterston was an upright man of sterling qualities, and he (Mr. Boydell) had liked him better every time he saw him, All these deportations were outrages, but this was the worst outrage of the lot, and he thought so, perhaps, because he knew him better than the others. Just as this list was a piece of brutal tyranny on the part of the Government, so Mr. Waterston was the greatest martyr of all and should have topped the list. He thought that the Government looked upon Mr. Waterston as a political undesirable because he had carried out his duties as secretary of the S.A. Labour Party far too well Some day the position might be reversed and members who slept now might find their numbers considerably reduced. But he ventured to say that no six other members would put up such a fight for their comrades as the members of the cross-benches had done in this instance. Because he was a fearless man and the secretary of the party, he was looked upon as a political undesirable and banished. If they sent out eminently desirable men like Mr. Waterston, he despaired of South Africa ever becoming a nation of free and liberty-loving citizens.

and there seemed to have been a good deal of haphazard work about selecting the deportees. Instead of the men being carefully selected, as they were told, it seemed as though 200 or 300 names were put in a hat and the ten drawn there from. After saying that the employers were told over and over again that they would make rebels among the men if they did not improve the conditions, he went on to refer to Waterston’s speeches, and said that the latter had often told his friends that he had been misreported in the press and had denied some of the statements attributed to him. Even the press had not done him justice. There had been double cruelty in this case. They had sent the man to England when he belonged to Australia. They had sent his wife and children to England when they were born in South Africa. What a mess the Government had made of that family! They wanted to punish the man—why punish his wife and children? Members would strike out the name if they had a conscience left.

said that this was the cruellest case of all. It was gross cruelty to drive a man away from his wife and family and to land him many thousands of miles from his country of origin. Continuing, he said that they had only got halfway through the menu. They had reached the joint (4.15 a.m.), and he did not think they would reach dessert by breakfast time. (Labour cheers.) The dear old Homeland did not concern herself much about such matters, but in deporting Mr. Waterston they were touching a great sister dominion in the Southern Hemisphere, which would within twenty five years have to join hands with South Africa in dealing with the yellow peril; and were they holding out the hand of brotherhood to Australia? The natives were going to combine in South Africa— and that he was absolutely convinced of; and just as missionaries were educating the natives to prevent them getting into bad hands, so organisers would organise the natives to prevent them getting into worse hands. It would be better that the natives were organised by men like Mr. Waterston than by native agitators.

asked the hon. member to deal with the amendment.

said that he was doing so, and (Rowing Why a man like Mr. Waterston should not be deported. When he (Mr. Meyler) had been in charge of special constables in July they had no desire to be disbanded, as there were rumours of a native rising on the Rand. They did not want to be disbanded, only to be called together again a few days later. He had consulted the staff officer, and he stated that it was stated from headquarters that the rumours of the native rising had been grossly exaggerated. That had been said at that time, and now they had heard of the danger of a native rising—which he thought exaggerated. (Labour cheers.) In conclusion, the hon. member said that he hoped that at the next Imperial Conference they would have a better representative than they had at the last one. If the Minister of Defence went to Australia, he thought he would be deported as a political undesirable.

said that the Minister would rather be considered as a political curiosity in Australia. The hon. member at 5.30 a.m. went on to allude to some of Mr. Waterston’s reported statements, and said that he did not agree with some of them. It must be remembered, however, that they were the words of an angry man, and in the heat of passion words were sometimes uttered for which a man was sorry afterwards. Even the Minister of Justice had advocated violence the other night by saying “Chuck him out.”

The Minister withdrew those remarks.

He did not apologise. The hon. member re-asserted what other members of the cross-benches had said about Mr. Waterston. Referring to the Prime Minister, the hon. member said that his actions during the past few years had more than wiped out the good actions he had done for the previous seven years.

At 5.35 a.m. the amendment of Mr. Madeley was put and declared negatived.

called for a division, which was taken.

put the question: That the fourth item proposed to be omitted, stand part of the schedule,

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

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

at 5.40 a.m., moved, as an amendment, the deletion of the fifth item, “George William Mason, England.” The hon. member once again cited the Whittaker case and the Chief Justice’s remarks on it. He also dealt with some of Mason’s statements.

One statement was to the following effect: “He had heard that the strike would not stop until Mr. Burton was no longer Minister of Railways or Mr. Hoy the Manager of Railways.” That was where the offence lay! He ought to have spoken those names with awe. (Laughter from the cross-benches.) Then it is stated that he said: “If it came to bloodshed, let there be bloodshed for some thing.” He (Mr. Creswell) did not approve of those words, but they had to be taken in conjunction with the context. He was no doubt alluding to the possibility that the Government might again shed the blood of the citizens as they had done in July. A Government which used such methods as those employed in last July would have to be prepared for such language as that. Then he had said, “Let them not worry about the laws, they had not made them.” That, he was afraid, was unfortunately too true. It was upon the theory of the masses having a voice in the making of the laws that modern democracy rested, and George Mason was right in saying the laws were not made by the workers. When a sincere man spoke in that strain they might be sure there was some truth in his statements.

At 5.30 a.m. Mr. Creswell appealed to the Prime Minister to consent to progress being reported, as the discussion appeared to he too much of a tax on the fortitude of hon. members on the Government benches.

said that he had never known George Mason to take part in a public meeting until June of last year. In January Mason, who was a skilful workman, was engaged on a difficult piece of work at the City Deep, when owing to the muddling of the Government the strike started at Benoni, where Mason went at the request of his society. It was only then that Mason entered upon the scene He defied anyone to prove that Mason received any pay for his services, except when incurring expenses on his visit to Cape Town. The House was again doing an injustice if the House would not listen to men who knew these people.

said he wished to add his testimony to the effect that Mr. George Mason was a man of high character—

Oh!

I hope the hon. member who interjected has as high a character as George Mason.

Order!

He is a man of high moral character. Continuing, he said he was born and bred without ambition—his only ambition was to excel in good works. Moreover, he was as gentle as a man could be. Was it not a fact, he asked at 6.20 a.m., that the Government having committed itself to a certain policy could not turn round. If they gave way in one case they would have to give way in all. He read Mr. Mason’s speeches, and contrasted these with extracts from a high class English paper, and said that the former had stated in less polished language the views of the latter. George Mason had the conviction that the course which he and others were taking was the only possible way of bringing about any reform, however small, in the industrial world. The end justified the means. What was the end? Those who knew anything about Rand life and the hardship of the workers—surely the end did justify, not an army, but such means as these people were prepared to adopt, What means? Mason came down here, not to create a revolution by violence, but to combine the workers not only so that they might be able to demand their rights, but might defend their rights. On both sides it was a fight for life and it was a case in which almost all was fair in such love and such war. On the one side it was the fight for economic life: on the other hand it was a fight for political life. The economic changes that Mason had advocated were advocated in the report of the Commission laid on the Table. And the other side were staggering on the brink of a precipice over which they would soon fall.

said he wanted to register his protest against the deportation and banishment of Mr. George Mason, against whom no evidence had been brought to substantiate charges made. One of his objects was to get his society recognised, and those Unions were going to be recognised in South Africa before very long. It was the Prime Minister—the shooting down of people in Johannesburg in July—who was responsible for Mason taking the advanced and extreme views he did.

In conclusion, Mr. Boydell said that he must register his protest against the deportation of George William Mason— a good sterling man who had come from the same town as he did. They would leave it to the South African people of a future date to say whether they who opposed these deportations had not been correct.

said he did not desire to give a silent vote on that amendment. He did not agree with expressions which Mr. Mason had used, some of which were reprehensible. Mr. Mason had said, “To hell with the King,” but the hon. members had said in effect, “To hell with the Constitution ” in the way they had acted.

said that Mr. Mason was an independent man who took his views from nobody. He was a loyal friend and a staunch comrade. Yet he was considered an “undesirable.”’ If they (hon. members on the cross-benches) had a say in the matter they would declare others “undesirables” and make them do some work instead of sending them out of the country. Now they had others to work for them. It was Mr. Mason who wanted to keep the strike to Benoni, and had advocated that the men should be asked to go back to work, but, in their wisdom, the Federation decided otherwise. When the Federation decided upon a ballot, Mr. Mason, like a loyal comrade, had fallen in with the wishes of the majority. It had been unworthy of the Minister of Defence to say that the “six men and a corporal” carried dynamite in their pockets. Who had mentioned a word about dynamite? The hon. member went on to deal with the Defence Force, and said that the most sinister feature was that the Government could not trust their own citizens; why were the burghers allowed their arms and why had the townsmen had to give up their arms?

said that the Minister of Mines had brought Mr. George Mason to Benoni in order to get him to ask the Strike Committee to instruct the men to go back to work.

shook his head.

said that others besides himself had been present. Had the Minister of Mines been consulted by the Minister of Defence as to the deportation of Mr. Mason? The best proof of the attitude adopted by Mr. Mason was that the Minister of Mines had brought Mr. Mason to Benoni.

went on to refer to the alleged attempt to blow up the Cape mail, which he said was invented in order to show the necessity for deporting these men.

at this point ruled that the member for Springs was making a second reading speech, upon which the hon. member resumed his seat.

The amendment of the member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell), to delete the name of “George William Mason. England,” from the schedule was then put, and the “Noes” were declared to have it.

put the question: That the fifth item, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the schedule.

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

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

moved the deletion of the name of “David McKerrell. Scotland,” from the schedule. He said one of the principal charges made against McKerrell was that he acted in a defiant manner at a conference which took place between mine-owners and workmen in Natal, by throwing on the table a piece of paper which he stated was an ultimatum to the employers, and if not accepted he would wire to Mr. Poutsma. The incident took place on the 1st January, or long before a general strike was thought of. It formed no part of a conspiracy as the date proved. The fact was that McKerrell was suffering from miners’ phthisis, and being willing to perform any light duties the Miners’ Association sent him as their representative. His visit to Natal was not in any way connected with the Federation of Trades. Another charge was that of working up a strike at the coal mines. It had been said that he had exceeded the instructions given him, but if that was so it was sufficient for him to be dealt with by the Miners’ Association. With regard to his telegraphing Poutsma, he (Mr. Sampson) thought that must be a mistake, and that Mr. Matthews was meant. Anyhow, it served the purpose of the Minister in his endeavour to find a connecting link between the coal strike and the movement in Johannesburg. Personally, he (Mr. Sampson) believed the incident had been manufactured for a purpose.

in supporting the amendment, said he had never heard of McKerrell prior to seeing his name in the papers and he appeared to have made no speeches, while the only evidence the Minister had been good enough to place before the House was that he had been sent to Natal with the view to settling the coal strike, in which attempt he had taken up a strong attitude, and was said to have hoped that the matter would not be settled. Even if all that was admitted, it was not, enough to associate him with the Syndicalist movement. He thought it time that the Prime Minister, who had cut a pathetic and sorry figure in the debate, should get up and make a statement. If he had further evidence let him place it before the House. He thought that the Government had shot it’s bolt and had no further evidence.

said that it was plain the Government had declared Martial Law, not to prevent violence, but for the purpose of crushing Trade Unionism, the strike and covering its blunders. He pointed out that no tangible evidence had been adduced in support of this case. McKerrell was a phthisis sufferer, and not being able to follow his occupation he looked for something else and took up a position as one of the organisers of the Transvaal Miners’ Association— a perfectly legitimate occupation. Then he went to Natal to organise the coal miners, who until that time had not been organised. The T.M.A. desiring to extend its sphere of operations, formed branches in Natal, and McKerrell was deputed to carry out the work.

pointed out that no quorum was present, and this being obtained.

went on to say that a few days after a branch had been formed in the Northern Districts four men were victimised.

That is not so.

contended that he was correct, and that he could produce the statements of the men. The speaker then went on to deal with the happenings on the Natal coal mines and the strike, the result of which was that the masters made concessions to the men. When the four men were victimised, a sympathetic strike took place, it being alleged that the men had been dismissed on the ground that they had taken part in the formation of a Trade Union. Demands were formulated. There was no conspiracy, but a legitimate strike. He visited Hatting Spruit and took McKerrell with him to Durban. What evidence was there to justify the deportation and banishment of McKerrell? He would give the explanation of the McKerrell statement. The latter told Mr. Williams that if the railway continued to carry the coal mined by scabs he would telegraph to Mr. Poutsma and get him to stop the drivers and firemen from pulling the coal. That was a legitimate thing—a simple idea. The statement was made, but there was no conspiracy about the business at all. He knew more about it than the Minister.

All on the one side?

The right side.

said McKerrell met a deputation at Durban. He might have been defiant, and this might have been due to the defiant attitude of the men he had just left.

asked if a quorum was present.

Yes, yes; go on.

The day is young. Continuing, he said there was nothing to show that Mr. McKerrell acted violently or incited to violence. McKerrell was arrested and wafted away under the cloak of Martial Law. No evidence was obtainable, because there was no evidence to be had why the Government should arrest these men, much less deport them. That was probably the secret why Martial Law had been proclaimed in Natal. They had had strikes previously in Natal, but no Martial Law had been proclaimed. On the occasion of the previous railway strike in Natal, there had been 3,000 men on strike, and on the last occasion no more than 1,000. On the previous occasion Colonel Greene, who had then been the Railway Minister in Natal, wanted the troops to come in, but the Mayor of Durban at the time, the hon. member for Victoria County (Mr. Henwood), said that it was not necessary to have troops, as he knew the men, and if the troops were necessary, he would call them in. The reason why Martial Law had been proclaimed in Natal in January was because it gave the Government the opportunity of kidnapping Mr. McKerrell and Mr. Tole, imprisoning them at Pretoria, and then banishing Mr. McKerrell. The Government had not been justified in any shape or form in deporting Mr. McKerrell, and he still awaited any evidence from the Minister to show that Mr. McKerrell was so undesirable that his banishment from South Africa was necessary. There was a lack of any evidence whatsoever.

said that, like the hon. member who had just spoken, he wanted to have some information about Mr. McKerrell, and he thought that every hon. member who represented Natal should demand some particulars about why Mr. McKerrell had been deported. The evidence against Mr. McKerrell was purely circumstantial, and suck evidence should be very carefully considered before they condemned a man. It was so very easy for human beings to go astray in these matters, and he quoted various cases to show how futile were deductions made from circumstantial evidence. Hon. Ministers had jumped at conclusions with regard to the guilt of Mr. McKerrell. The hon. member suggested that the second part of the schedule dealing with the deportees’ country of origin be cut out, as there was doubt of its correctness.

again appealed to the Minister of Defence to give some reason for the banishment of Mr. McKerrell. The Ministry had made a colossal blunder, and were proceeding in the course they did to cover that blunder. The hon. member pointed out that there was no Industrial Disputes Act in Natal, such as there was in the Transvaal. Yet Mr. McKerrell and Mr. Tole had been arrested. Why had Mr. Tole not been deported, if Mr. McKerrell had been? The hon. member went on to refer to what Mr. McKerrell had done to place useful evidence before the Economic Commission, and asked whether a man such as that was one who should be banished? The Minister, in his opening speech, had led the House to believe that he would produce satisfactory evidence in proof of his allegations, but that incriminating evidence, which was to justify the actions of the Government, showed no signs of being forthcoming.

said he noticed that the piece of paper was not thrown down in front of the Minister, but merely before the representatives of the coal proprietors of Natal, and that Committee was expected to regard the act as a heinous offence. McKerrell was further accused of stating that this was a class war. Well, that had become very obvious of late. Even if McKerrell had used strong expressions, allowance had to be made for a man who was of quick temper and strong emotions. He (Mr. Andrews) registered his protest once more against the deportation of these men for acts which he himself was frequently guilty of, and would be again.

said it had been remarked by the Minister of Defence that the deportations were the result of careful deliberation, but he (Mr. Hangar could not believe that. If it was said that they were the result of savage caprice he could have understood it. The mailed fist might do for Germany, but that policy would not do for South Africa. It was not because McKerrell was McKerrell or because he was one of themselves that they were defending him, but because he was a man to whom an injustice was being done.

said that as they got further down the list hon. members could not help asking themselves what the object of the Government was. They had endeavoured to gather from Ministers some information about these men and what the evidence was on which they had been deported, but without any result. Hon. members were also more convinced than ever that the object of the Government was to crush Trade Unionism, because there were five men on that schedule who were leading officials of Trade Unions, and they had all been disposed of.

They had discovered the real character of the Government’s plot in Natal owing to the presence of the hon. member for Greyville. He pointed out that McKerrell was asked to go to Natal as an advocate, and in the course of the negotiations he was not sufficiently docile to the coal owners, and the crime of Mr. McKerrell was that he flung a piece of paper on the table and said: “Here are the men’s terms; take or refuse them.” McKerrell had been a worker on his (Mr. Madeley’s) behalf at the last election, and, perhaps, that had something to do with it. He had known McKerrell for a long time, and only knew good of him. Though McKerrell was dying, he continued in harness in defence of the rights of his fellow-men. No sacrifice was too great for him. In May, McKerrell was working at the New Modderfontein Gold Mine, and took the ballot. His fellows elected him to the Benoni Strike Committee, and then he was damned—he never got his job back. In spite of the solemn undertaking of July 5 this man was victimised. What could the man do? He could not get a job on the mines; the name of McKerrell was like setting a light to a torch. The result was that he was appointed one of the organisers of the T.M.A. That was how agitators were made. That was hew this particular agitator was made. McKerrell offended the coal owners by throwing the niece of paper on the table, and they worked to get McKerrell out because he beat them. That induced one of the four of the masters to allow the Government the use of the Umgeni. What a conspiracy! Now they had discovered it! Now they had got hold of the plot. Mr. Madeley proceeded to define a Syndicalist and Syndicalism. How did the Government make out Mr. McKerrell to be a Syndicalist? The speaker went on to picture the scene in the House when the Labour Party would be occupying if not the Opposition benches then the Ministerial benches, and Mr. McKerrell would be among them. What about the poor wife of Mr. McKerrell who was left at Benoni? The poor woman did not know where she was. She did not know what she was going to do.

Mrs. Scott?

That is one of the innuendoes which the Minister uses with such effect on the people who do not think. He ought to be ashamed to mention the name. Government had given no consideration to Mrs. McKerrell any more than they had given to Mrs. Poutsma and Mrs. Bain. McKerrell was an upright man whom the House should be delighted to honour.

said that he would not have risen again had the Minister of Defence not been in his place. (Laughter.)

The Minister had better go.

said the Minister could not find McKerrell’s name in the report of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry, so that he had not been found guilty of any offence in connection with the events of last July. During the January crisis McKerrell was never in the Transvaal at all, but in Natal, and he (Mr. Boy-dell) challenged the Government to prove that there was any disorder in Natal in January. McKerrell was in Natal carrying out his duties of organiser of the miners in a perfectly peaceful and legitimate way. He (Mr. Boydell) charged the Government with declaring Martial Law in Natal without justification.

I cannot allow the hon. member to repeat his old speech again.

The Minister was not here when I said this before.

I was here.

If the Minister of Defence was here his crime was all the greater. Not one title of evidence has he produced for outraging Mr. McKerrell’s liberty. During January he was carrying out his legitimate work.

Order, order. The hon. member said that a few minutes ago.

I feel strongly that in any British Parliament in any part of the world a Minister can sit still—

The hon. member keeps repeating the same thing over and over again.

Well, sir, I will resume my seat. This is my last appeal, and it is evidently hopeless, but I feel confident the electors will demand an explanation at the first opportunity they get.

put the question: That the sixth item, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the schedule.

Mr. Sampson’s amendment, to omit Mc-Kerrel’s name, was negatived.

called for a division, which was taken at 10 a.m., with the following result.

Ayes—58.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Bekker, Stephanus

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Chapman, Francis Drummond Percy

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Henwood, Charlie

Hunter, David

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Langerman, Jan Willem Stuckeris

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Nathan, Emile

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Orr. Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Rockey, Willie

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Smartt, Thomas William

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Whitaker, George

Wiltshire, Henry

Woolls-Sampson, Aubrey

H. Mentz and J. Hewat, tellers.

Noes—12

Alexander Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Boydell, Thomas

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Duncan, Patrick

Fichardt, Charles Gustav

Haggar, Charles Henry

Hull, Henry Charles

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Sampson, Henry William

H. A. Wyndham and H. M. Meyler, tellers.

The question was accordingly affirmed, and the amendment proposed by Mr. H. W. Sampson negatived.

moved the omission from the schedule of the words “William Livingstone, Scotland.” The mover said that of all extraordinary reasons so far given by the Government for deporting any man the most extraordinary was that advanced by the Minister for deporting Mr. Livingstone. He (Mr. Andrews) was not at all sure that he knew Livingstone; he might have seen him and might have been introduced to him, but he had no very clear recollection of seeing him. The Minister had quoted one of Livingstone’s speeches; certainly that speech was not couched in Parliamentary language.

He had a few extracts from the speech given by the Minister of Finance. He said one of the principal things against Livingstone was that he was foul-mouthed and had a great influence with hooligans, but the Minister had produced no proof, and had not mentioned one occasion on which Livingstone had used such influence. He (Mr. Andrews) did not personally know Livingstone, but he believed that he had lived in Pretoria. What had he said in his speech that had justified his being exiled?—he had said that General Botha was not a man but a murderer. That was strong language, but after all, it was only an expression of opinion. He had also 6aid that he would rather take the hand of the lowest native in the world than General Botha’s. Such a man ought not to be punished for merely expressing his opinion. Livingstone had also said that the Prime Minister was not fit to be buried, but should be dropped into the sea with the Cabinet. Those were things that were frequently said at public meetings. Livingstone had also spoken about shooting bluebottles. They might agree that this was disgusting claptrap, as the Minister had called it. The other cases that had been considered by the Committee were those of men of some standing in the Labour world, but Livingstone was an absolute nonentity so far as Labour was concerned. He was almost unknown to the Labour members, yet he had been considered worthy to be made a martyr of. If the Committee did not take out the name it would be making itself ridiculous and making the Union a byword throughout the nation.

said that in view of the many speeches that had been made since the Minister of Finance had introduced the second reading, it would be as well to have before them some of the facts alleged against Livingstone. The Minister had said that Livingstone was not a leading member of the Syndicalist movement, but that he had had influence with the hooligans and that he was a foulmouthed man. He remembered before the war, in the days of the South African Republic, how a man at Pretoria had sung “Ta-ra-ra-boom-de-ay ” as President Kruger was passing, but the President had a better idea of the decencies of life than the Prime Minister, and he did not deport that man. If Livingstone had made the speech surely the arm of the law was long enough to punish him.

said that the accusations of the Minister against Livingstone had been very sketchy. He supported the Government up to that point, and he would continue to do so. There was nothing that had fallen from the cross-benches to show that that man was not in favour of a general strike. The member for Jeppe had admitted that they were in favour of a general strike. A general strike had been declared, and for that reason he (Mr. Struben) had been prepared to stand by the Government. There was no getting away from the fact that the object of a general strike was not to redress grievances, but to get the reins of government into their own hands. A very sharp measure had been required to make people realise what had happened. It was not essential for the Government under the terms of the Bill to keep the deportees out of South Africa permanently. It was open to the Government not to put in force the provisions of the Immigration Act, and afterwards, when industrial legislation had been passed and a Public Safety Act had been passed, he thought they would be strong enough to deal with those men in this country.

congratulated the Minister of Defence on his pupil, the last speaker. He did not think the Minister himself had ever expressed his policy so well as the member for Newlands. They had reached this point, that because there was no evidence before the House that a man was not in favour of a general strike his name should not be excluded from the Bill. One hoped that before the end of the debate they might have the hon. member for Newlands declaring on the third reading that he could not vote for it. The hon. member had said there was no evidence that Livingstone had not been in favour of a general strike—but there was no evidence before them that the hon. member for Gape Town, Central, was not in favour of a general strike. The Minister had described Livingstone’s speech as disgusting claptrap. Well, if it was disgusting claptrap, would the Government have been justified in deporting the men. When the Prime Minister was making long speeches, he (Mr. Creswell) did not use the words that they were disgusting claptrap, but it was not very far from what political opponents said of each other. When they recalled the Prime Minister’s speech several years ago when he said that his Government would always be extending the hand of welcome to British working-men, those words might be described in the light of subsequent events as disgusting clap-trap.

How wise the Minister of Defence was when he implied that the last thing the wanted was for these things to be considered when the fires had burned down. The fires were not even smouldering now, after the avalanche of ridicule which would surely descend on the devoted heads of Ministers. The thing was too laughable and too serious at the same time. If one was a philosophic Syndicalist, look out! the Minister of Defence had his eye on one; if one were not a philosophic Syndicalist, also look out, for the Minister of Railways would have his eye on one. (Laughter.) Let them with one common accord refuse to go on any more with this tragic farce.

said he had voted against clause 4 in its entirety, and he was not going to condemn any of these men unheard. He would not have risen but for the amazing speech of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. C. F. W. Struben). He had not listened to anything more amazing, particularly from one who had had a legal training, than that speech of the hon. member for Newlands. According to that speech it was a new crime now to be in favour of a general strike. He had also learned from the hon. member for Newlands that if there was nothing of a criminal nature against a, man the doubt should go against him and he should be deported. Indeed, the hon. member went still further and seemed to argue that if one had no proof against a man he should be condemned, failing some body coming forward and showing that he was not guilty. The hon. member in hui search for crime should pounce on the members of the Economic Commission— (laughter)—for they were not only in favour of the recognition of that revolutionary body the Federation of Trades, but pointed out that one could not prohibit a sympathetic strike. The hon. member should see that Government did its duty towards the members of this Commission. (Laughter.) This only showed the absurdity to which people were reduced when they said things like those just uttered by the hon. member for New-lands. He thought the Government would have been in a happier position if the hon. member had not spoken at all, for his arguments would make the House ridiculous in the eyes of the civilised world. (Labour cheers.)

said this case was even a little bit worse than the last one.

said Livingstone was a man to be pitied—one of the many who should never have been born. (Laughter.) There might be some in a similar case in this House. He was formerly a cleaner on the railway at Durban, and had suffered a grievous wrong. Under strong and wise guidance he might have been made a useful man, but under a sense of grievance he went a bit wrong and lost all self-control. He (Mr. Haggar) had known him to be week after week without work and day after day without food. He was foul-mouthed, and he made a violent speech, but was that a crime? Continuing, Mr. Haggar said it was not so very long ago that the subsidised organ—the “Cape Times”— charged the Prime Minister with telling his people that they must have a slippery policy. The Prime Minister had said nothing of the kind—he said that their policy should be one which was capable of adapting itself to circumstances.

rising at 11 a.m., said Livingstone, who was a fireman on the Natal Government Railways, was victimised in the strike of 1909. Mr. Boydell wept on to refer to a meeting of railway workers held at Durban, at which Colonel Greene spoke in support of Union. Col. Greene and those who wanted Union had, he said, called the meeting with the object of influencing the men against the feeling which they had owing to the large amount of victimisation which had taken place owing to the result of the strike. Mr. Livingstone at that meeting kept up a constant fire of interruptions. From that time he was a changed man. He had become embittered. Afterwards he went to Johannesburg, and he spoke at several meetings. The hon. member went on to say that Livingstone might have used language at those meetings which he (Mr. Boydell) would not have used, but surely they were not going to deport every man who made strong speeches.

If the Government were going to take notice of every individual who was carried away into making use of irresponsible language, it seemed to him that there was only one thing to be said of that Government—that it was in a chronic state of panic and hysteria. They had yet to learn from the Minister what were the specific charges of violence or incitement to violence against Mr. Livingstone. This was only another instance of the outrages which were being committed upon the liberty of the individual.

said that of all the glaring instances which had been given of conviction by suggestion, this was the most glaring. He had not even heard of Mr. Livingstone until he found his name in the schedule now before the Committee, but he had heard sufficient to convince him that this man’s place was in South Africa. The way this man had been treated by the Government was on a par with the whole of their treatment of those they had come into contact with. The Minister of Railways had treated men on the railways even worse than this poor, weak-minded individual, Livingstone, had been treated by the Minister of Defence. How was this poor, weak-minded individual connected with hooliganism? He had made certain speeches in which he had used expletives that he (Mr. Madeley) understood, had offended the good taste of the Ministry. He did not see that constituted him a hooligan. The hon. member, was proceeding to refer in detail to the list of dynamite outrages which had been tabled, and to ask whether Livingstone was connected with these, when

interposed with the remark that the hon. member was trifling with the House. (Hear, hear.)

I am not, sir; I am perfectly serious. I want to know whether the Ministers think that Livingstone was associated with any of these outrages?

There is no necessity for going over the whole list. The hon. member can ask the Minister whether he knows anything about Livingstone being connected with any in the list.

The Minister won’t answer. There is a conspiracy of silence.

I cannot allow the hon. member to go further into the list.

said that it was an outrage on the liberties of a British subject that William Livingstone, who had committed no crime for which he could have been convicted in a court of law, should be dealt with in this way. He would ask the hon. member for Newlands to help them to impress upon the Government that Livingstone should be allowed to return.

put the question that the name proposed to be omitted stand part of the schedule, and declared that the “Ayes” had it.

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

Ayes—67.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Bekker, Stephanus

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Burton, Henry

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronic, Frederik Reinhardt

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Graaff, David Pieter de Villiers

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Henwood, Charlie

Hunter, David

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Krige, Christman Joel

Kuhn, Pieter Gvsbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Macaulay, Donald

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuizen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Quinn, John William

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Rockey, Willie

Runciman, William

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Searle, James

Silburn, Percy Arthur

Smartt, Thomas William

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

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

Whitaker, George

Wiltshire, Henry

Woolls-Sampson, Aubrey

H. Mentz and J. Hewat, tellers.

Noes—11.

Andrews, William Henry

Boydell, Thomas

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Duncan, Patrick

Haggar, Charles Henry

Hull, Henry Charles

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Sampson, Henry William

Morris Alexander and C. G. Fichardt, tellers.

The question was accordingly affirmed, and the amendment proposed by Mr. Andrews negatived.

moved the deletion from the schedule of the name of Andrew Watson, Scotland. He submitted that the great crime Mr. Watson had committed in the eyes of the Government was that he had allowed himself to be elected president of the Federation of Trades. During the July disturbances, if they looked through the report of the Judicial Commission, they would find no suggestion that Mr. Watson was responsible for any of the disturbances or for any acts of violence or disorder. Mr. Watson was a most highly respectable citizen of South Africa, and the Ministers knew that the reason he was deported was because of the official position he occupied. He had not been called upon to decide the various issues himself, but merely conduct the meetings. For eight years he had been working at his trade as a carpenter for the Johannesburg Municipality. That ought to be a recommendation. Now that they had deported one president of the Federation, another had taken his position. Mr. Watson was not what they might call a paid agitator. He had never received a penny from any trades organisation. It had been a labour of love. Mr. Watson was stated to have said that it was a class war. He saw nothing wrong with the expression. Even the Salvation Army had its War Cry, and he did not suppose the Government would deport them. It semed that the Government had got into a panic over the so-called war cry and had started deporting men without charge or trial. Mr. Watson had said that the Federation was out against violence and had advised his hearers not to incite the Defence Force. He had brought his wife out from the Old Country only a little while ago. If the Minister of Defence thought he was going to get rid of all his political opponents by deporting them then he had a much bigger job than he realised. They (the Labour members) believed that some of those deported men would sooner or later again be resident in South Africa.

Mr. Boydell, proceeding, said that he was glad there were some members in that House who were true to British ideals of freedom and liberty, and he wished to express his appreciation of the speech made the other day by the right hon. the member for Victoria West. Many members in that House were not even worthy to mention the name of Andrew Watson. They were prepared to trample all priniciples of British liberty and freedom in the mire, as long as they were top-dogs and could crush the Labour movement and outrage its leaders. Dealing with the course of events after the July troubles, Mr. Boydell said that the Government made preparations for the future. On the one side they had the workers who were unarmed, and never intended to be armed, whereas on the other side they had the Government with their 70,000 soldiers in the background and the shadow of the burgher over Johannesburg.

After a time the Government thought they must do something to provoke a strike and they announced to the world that 1,000 railwaymen had got to be retrenched. Could anything be more calculated during that period to cause a general strike or a strike of railway workers in the country? Watson played his part as a man, as a citizen, and as a worker whom other workers could put their trust in. He never did anything that he need be ashamed of, or said anything that he need be ashamed of. Because he did nothing, because he was a “political undesirable from a criminal point of view,” as the Minister said, because he was President of the Transvaal Federation of Trades and a representative of the working-class community, Mr. Watson was arrested, imprisoned, and deported. He was afraid that hon. members were impervious to all appeals which were made from the cross-benches and from odd members here and there in the House to see that justice was done. It was a bad omen for the future of South Africa that they had got a Parliament which was prepared to ride roughshod over the traditions upon which the British Empire had been established and upon which it depended for its security.

said that he must also enter his protest against the inclusion of this name in the schedule. He had seen no reason to change his opinion that Andrew Watson was one of whose friendship any honest man might be proud. Watson was about as far removed from one’s conception of the crafty, underground conspirator as he could well imagine. His hon. friend (Mr. Boydell) had said, and rightly said, that his sole offence—and he (Mr. Creswell) challenged the Minister to deny this—which justified the Minister’s despotic action was that he was President of the Federation of Trade Unions. The attitude of the Government in this matter was nothing but the vindictive pursuit of Watson in his representative capacity, because he was President of the Federation. The Minister of Defence had declared that it was a humiliation to the Prime Minister and himself to have to enter into the treaty at the Carlton Hotel. He could not have thought that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence would have been capable of such small-mindedness as to want to make Watson suffer for a “humiliation” that he was not responsible for. If the Ministers felt “humiliation,” it was owing to their own bad administration. Mr. Creswell, continuing, said that Watson was a hard-working man. He did his solid day’s work every day, and he gave up his time for love of the work of organisation without any reward, except the reward of honour. Mr. Creswell related how late one night, a few weeks after the disturbances in July, word was brought to a meeting that Watson was not to begin work next morning at the municipal workshops until he had seen the engineer, and how by the steps which were promptly taken to put the position before the Mayor of Johannesburg an incident which would have had serious consequences was avoided. If, he declared, Watson had been victimised in the course of that day, about July 23, they would have had the strike of July 4 repeated.

It was not Andrew Watson who was the political undesirable,” but it was the President of the Federation of Trade Unions who was the “political undesirable. The Economic Commission, in the course of their report said: “There are two points in connection with the recognition of Trade Unions which your Commissioners were called upon to notice in their report. The one relates to the Federation of Trade Unions and the other to the political activities of Trade Unions. In deal with the question of federation first, your Commissioners find there is a certain amount of doubt, even among many of the most liberal-minded employers, as to what their attitude to the Federation of Trades should be. After inquiring, however, into the position of the Federation, your Commissioners feel that the difficulties anticipated by employers are exaggerated. The two cases have to be distinguished. The one, the case in which a Trade Union is strong enough to have its own professional secretary, the other the case in which it is not. In the former case it is the secretary of the Union to which his own men belong with whom the employer has to deal in the first instance. If negotiations break down, the Union in Question, when incorporated in the Federation may have recourse to the wider organisation, and in that event an employer may be asked to meet Federation officials. It would seem to be unwise of the employer to refuse, since so long as discussion continues there is a chance of its terminating happily. The alternative is a strike, which is surely a worse alternative.

In short, the Federation is a second line of defence against industrial war. … It is true that the existence of a Federation may encourage sympathetic strikes, but sympathetic strikes cannot be prohibited, and it is for the men to decide whether the sympathetic strike is wise.” That was to say, it was ill to interfere with natural laws. There was a spirit of antagonism in the mind of the Minister of Railways and Mr. Hoy to the Railwaymen’s Society, which really should be recognised as a useful thing.

One of Mr. Watson’s alleged crimes, went on Mr. Creswell, was that he spoke of a “class war.” Really, it was the Ministry which practically insisted on looking at the matter as a class one. Watson’s reference to a “class war” was a figure of speech. Even the Prime Minister on the platform had used figures of speech taken from the battlefield. “I don’t want to keep the Committee too long,” went on Mr. Creswell, “but I must do so. I have an affection for Andrew Watson, founded on my experience of him. He is a hard worker, does the drudgery cheerfully, and does not seek the limelight. He had been a municipal employee for seven years, and municipalities did not keep bad eggs.” Not a title of evidence, continued Mr. Creswell, had been adduced to show that Watson should have been sent away from the country. The Minister kept silence, because he knew that if he broke that silence he would be plunging deeper and deeper and deeper into the mire. He hoped by maintaining silence that some people would imagine that he had something up his sleeve, but people would remember that Watson was being victimised not because he was undesirable—he was one of the most desirable—but merely because he was President of the Federation of Trade Unions. He was a good citizen— one of the best. He (Mr. Creswell) could not understand how hon. members could support the Government in keeping the name of Watson on the list.

rising at five minutes to one, said he did not know Mr. Andrew Watson, and the decision he (Mr. Hull) had arrived at was founded on the statement submitted to the House by the Minister of Defence. As far as he could understand the Minister made four separate charges against Watson, all being based on the events of January. The first was that Watson was President of the Federation of Trades.

Awful!

I cannot conceive why that fact should necessarily make him a criminal; why did the Minister mention that unless he intended to found some charge on it? Continuing, Mr. Hull said that since the Minister had made his introductory speech hon. members had received the report of the Economic Commission. He recommended them to read paragraphs 90 and 91. The Commission had no hesitation in recommending that Trade Unions should be recognised, so that the mere fact of Watson being elected President of the Federation of Trades seemed to him (Mr. Hull) to be a perfectly proper procedure. The other three charges made against him were in respect of three speeches he made, on three separate occasions at Johannesburg during the January troubles. On January 7 a meeting was held at Braamfontein, at which Watson said, “Strike swift, strike hard, and for God’s sake see that there are no scabs. … The settling up next time will be a little different to what it was in July.” Was there any crime in that or any evidence of a conspiracy? Was that sufficient to justify deportation? He (Mr. Hull) was not satisfied that Watson committed any crime which could really be described as conspiracy. Then Watson announced from the window of the Trades Hall that the delegates had decided upon a general strike, but that some of the Unions desired a poll. Was there anything wrong in that? His duty as President of the Federation of Trades compelled him to make this announcement, but if the man were a conspirator he would not announce his conspiracy from the housetops. On the third occasion Watson announced the result of the poll—a perfectly proper thing to do, and he added to the announcement that they were “out to fight this autocratic Government.” These were the four charges submitted by the Government, He wanted hon. members who were not blinded by prejudice to examine this evidence, and to ask this question of their consciences: Was there anything in the case submitted by the Government which entitled anyone to say that this man was a conspirator or a criminal, or was a man whose deportation was justified? Very few hon. members calmly and dispassionately considering the matter could come to any other conclusion than that this man ought not to be deported. (Hear, hear.)

explained that the Federation of Trades was not a secret body at all. Its doings had all been reported in the Press, but unfortunately some people formed a wrong opinion of it. Never was a greater injustice committed in the name of law and order than the deportation of Mr. Watson, who had done his best to keep the Trade Union movement on sane lines, being against strikes, except as the last resort. His name had been mentioned in connection with a reported suggestion that light and water should be cut off in Johannesburg, but the Federation never suggested anything of the sort. Mr. Watson went to the electric light station with instructions that the service should be maintained, and he got those instructions carried out, despite the threats of hooligans. And this was how Mr. Watson was repaid!

If the men had struck “swift and hard.” as Watson advised them, they would have been in a very much better position than they were to-day. He thought the arrest and deportation was more by accident than design. He could not see what evidence there was against Andrew Watson, except that he was taken at the Trades Hall. It was true that he was in the Trades Hall when those brave burghers came along in their thousands, surrounded the hall, pointed a gun at it, and took it with no resistance. Why was he there? Because he was not a coward, because he stuck to his post. He hoped that he would again meet Andrew Watson, and in this country, too, as a result of the removal of his name from this list.

said he thought that of all the names that appeared in the schedule, there was no name that he would have less hesitation in moving the deletion of than that of Andrew Watson.

at 1.40 p.m., called the Chairman’s attention to the fact that there was no quorum in the House.

A quorum having been obtained,

said he could not conceive that there could have been any other object in deporting Watson than to intimidate men, and make it difficult to obtain the services of men as officers of the Federation of Trade Unions.

Watson was a member of the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners, which was an old-established organisation, and precisely on similar lines to the Amalgamated Society of Engineers. He was a typical Trade Unionist, of what might be called the old school. He was a brake on the wheel of those who might be called advocates of the rapid method. He should say that a young man like Andrew Watson, who was about 30 years of age, placed at the head of a comparatively new body, found himself in an extremely difficult position. There came a time when the workers felt that they would not be flouted any longer, and Andrew Watson and his colleagues, who had not produced that state of affairs, had to do what they could to control and guide it. He was still at a loss to understand upon what principle these selections for arrest and deportation had been made. They had tried to obtain that information, but without success. They had heard a good deal of talk about the desirability of encouraging a stream of immigrants to this country. Canada, Australia, and other countries advertised their attractions to settlers. How was South Africa advertising? By slaughtering innocent citizens in the streets of Johannesburg, by deporting some of the best blood and some of the most independent characters, and, indirectly, causing hundreds of others to leave the shores of South Africa, and by encouraging a policy of victimisation not only on the railways, but also on the mines and in other industries in this country.

The hon. member has in almost every case used that argument. It is time he stopped it now.

I will not go any further on that line. He added that he had no doubt that this was the object and intention of the Government.

said that the reason, in his opinion, and the opinion of his colleagues, why Andrew Watson was deported was that he was President of the Federation of Trades. He had never committed a crime of any description whatever. Mr. Madeley was proceeding to say that Mr. Watson did not come to the Cape in order to organise the workers, but to meet the lady to whom he was about to be married, when—

said that the hon. member was repeating what had already been said by other members. (Hear, hear.)

I was not in the House. May I not demonstrate the view I hold of this gentleman, irrespective of the fact that some other member has mentioned it?

The hon. member ought to have been in the House. I cannot allow lengthy speeches to be made on the same lines.

It is not a question of copying, as it were, because I was not in the House.

The hon. member may proceed.

in further remarks, said he would like to know on what ground this man had been deported. On no ground at all. By reason of the fact that he was the President of the Federation of Trades and was still the President they, had built up a situation which was going to react upon this country in a very derogatory fashion. The Trade Union movement did not exist in South Africa only. It existed all over the world and in a federated condition. He was convinced that the whole object of the Government was political— to down that particular section of the population that they on those benches were associated with.

said he felt that the Government had committed a big blunder which, as the days went on, was going to inflict greater and greater evil upon us, because, although our circumstances might be different from those of other countries, principles were the same and they had the same consequences whereever they were put into operation.

The hon. member must stick to the case of Andrew Watson. I cannot allow him to discuss Trade Unionism generally.

said that in his opinion Andrew Watson had been deported because of his connection with the Federation of Trade Unions.

That has been said by three speakers already.

proceeded to say that he would try and deal with the charge, as far as they had got it, which had been laid against Andrew Watson It was said that he had stated to a meeting of workmen that they must strike swift and hard and see that there were no scabs. Andrew Watson wanted to prevent the industrial war fare which had been going on, and such as he was afraid, would go on constantly unless they took the other step and adopted the “second line of defence.” The movement, he was connected with was a movement for industrial peace. Mr. Watson was a good citizen and loyal in every respect in his obligations to the nation, but through being deported he was unable to carry out his social obligations—to support his wife. He was in no sense an agitator. On the other hand he was a man of excellent character and was a good citizen. Nor was he an anti-Royalist. The King and the flag represented something which he (Mr. Hag gar) always treated with respect. The evidence against Mr. Watson was not sufficient upon which to hang a cat. In conclusion, Mr. Haggar protested against the autocratic, despotic and cruel action in sending Watson away from South Africa.

put the question: That the eighth item, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the schedule.

The amendment to delete the name of Andrew Watson from the schedule was negatived.

called for a division, which was taken at 2.30 p.m., with the following result:

Ayes—65.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Bekker, Stephanus

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Burton, Henry

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Harris, David

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

King, John Gavin

Krige, Christman Joel

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

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

Quinn, John William

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Rockey, Willie

Runciman, William

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 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

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Whitaker, George

Wiltshire, Henry.

H. Mentz and J. Hewat, tellers.

Noes—10.

Andrews, William Henry

Boydell. Thomas

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Duncan, Patrick

Fichardt, Charles Gustav

Hull, Henry Charles

Sampson, Henry William

Wyndham, Hugh Archibald.

C. H. Haggar and Walter B. Madeley, tellers.

The question was accordingly affirmed, and the amendment proposed by Mr. Boydell negatived.

moved the deletion from the schedule of the words, “William H. Morgan, England.” The mover said Morgan was not a member of the Johannesburg Strike Committee, and quoted at length from the evidence given before the Judicial Commission of Inquiry. Mr. Morgan tried to keep the peace last July, and endeavoured to induce the people to go home. Speaking from the Trades Hall, Mr. Morgan had stated, “This is a war to the knife.” He (Mr. Haggar) understood that this phrase meant that the dispute should be carried to a final issue. It had no reference to any bloodthirsty business, violence or bloodshed of any kind. Morgan was practically a nonentity, was not a leader in any sense, had no followers, and was not a man capable of scheming. Instead, he did what he could to keep the peace. Mr. Haggar, having protested against Morgan’s deportation said it was possible when the case came to a critical point that a mistake might be discovered, and it might be found that the person mentioned in the schedule was not the person he was said to be. Morgan had a characteristic which would mark him and his race out from all others. He might save himself and might drop the Minister into a hole.

said a vastly preponderating mass of evidence showed that Morgan, so far from being a Syndicalist engaged in thwarting the authorities, was a man of the most peaceful disposition who helped the authorities in maintaining law and order. All they had to go on as evidence to justify his deportation was the Minister’s scissors and paste newspaper cuttings of reports of Morgan’s speeches. Expressions which were the merest commonplaces of discussion and were used every day in connection with the most peaceful occupations were argued as construing something else when they were used by the deportees, so that when Morgan said “This is a war to the knife” he was banished.

The Minister had put sinister interpretations on innocent expressions. It was true that Morgan had been guilty of a great crime of advising men who were on strike to remain on strike. Continuing, Mr. Creswell said that a Mr. James Hyndman had been treated in a curious fashion by the police during the strike, having been confined to his own house under arrest. Then the police gave him the following certificate: “Permission has been given to James Hyndman to leave his house for the purpose of procuring work, and to report immediately to the Control Officer when and where work is obtained.” He (Mr. Creswell) would draw the attention to this matter of the hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter), who last Tuesday afternoon was very anxious that coloured people and native's should be compelled to carry passes.

who was acting as Chairman in the temporary absence of Mr. Neser, said that the hon. member could not refer to a previous debate.

Excuse me, sir, one has the privilege of referring to previous debates on cognate subjects; it is done every day. In this order the Government goes one better than any proposal ever made for a native pass law, and it puts all workers—whether white or black—on the same level. However, that is by the way. Proceeding, Mr. Creswell asked if there was any evidence to justify Morgan being sentenced to perpetual banishment. The Ministry had failed in its duty, and they had disregarded Morgan’s rights and had produced such paltry evidence as that which had been reported to the House. He was perfectly certain that although the House might condemn these men to perpetual banishment the day would soon come when a new Parliament and one more fully representing the spirit of the country would reverse this decision. (Hear, hear.)

said he had personal experience of the excellent work Morgan did in trying to maintain law and order in Johannesburg on July 9. He was three times mentioned in the despatches of the authorities. Mr. Meyler went on to quote Mr. Morgan’s speech, and asked the Minister if it was because he favoured law and order that he was seized and deported. He (Mr. Meyler) was near the wagon at the meeting, and thought that Morgan was risking a lot in speaking as he did. He contended that Morgan’s speeches were mild, and he said nothing that warranted perpetual banishment. He appealed to the Minister to have a little magnanimity towards the man who had helped the Government and who deserved well of South Africa. The words he used in January were mild. He did say, “Stick up for your cause, whatever happens,” but that was a phrase that was commonly used. He defied the Minister to put up any police records with regard to Mr. Morgan, and he did not care if he (Mr. Meyler) got deported for his defiance, so long as he was in time for the Derby. They might pass perpetual banishment, but it would not be worth a week’s life if a more enlightened Government came into power.

said that in joining in the protest against the deportation and banishment of Morgan, he looked for the reason in the action of the Government. The people of the country would want very substantial evidence before they would say the Government was justified in banishing Mr. Morgan. The latter’s crime, in the eyes of the Government was that he was an organiser of the Transvaal Miners Association. There were others, who had not been touched, who were guilty of the same crime. Mr. Morgan was one of those unfortunate people who suffered from miners’ phthisis, and pointed out that of the 16 miners who constituted the strike committee six years ago, only Mr. Matthews and Mr; Morgan were alive today. Morgan had not long to live, but that soulless, heartless Committee were now banishing Mr. Morgan from a land of sunshine, where he might have enjoyed a few years more life, to a land of sleet and snow.

This man was being tried for his life at this moment by the Committee. Some members were in the House, some were not, some took no notice, and the appeal apparently did not touch their consciences or their hearts. Even now he did not despair. Could the Minister of Mines, who had just come into the House, deny that, to his knowledge, Mr. Morgan was suffering from miners’ phthisis. If there were a hand of Providence, surely retribution would come to many members in that House for the callous attitude they were taking up in regard to the case of Mr. Morgan. Mr. Boydell went on to point out that Mr. Morgan risked the displeasure of the miners at the meeting in the Market-square, Johannesburg, on July 4, by appealing to them to disperse quietly. If he had been in the direct employ of the Government he could not have done more to serve them faithfully than he did on that memorable afternoon. The fact that he was placed at the bottom of the list showed that in the opinion of the Government of all the dangerous men who were placed on that list he was considered the least dangerous. The case of Mr. H. Morgan appealed to him more than any other, because he knew the shocking condition of health that he was in. Mr. Morgan was not born in South Africa, like the others. That, he supposed, was an additional crime. Nothing more outrageous, nothing more callous or more inhuman had been done by the Minister of Defence and his Government during the time they had held office than in slowly putting W. H. Morgan to death by this sentence of perpetual banishment.

said that this was one of the most pathetic cases that, he thought, had been submitted to the House. He would ask hon. members, was there no pity left to them? They might have intended to banish these men, but surely they could not have intended to put them to death as well. He urged that an exception might be made in this particular case. He believed that the members on the cross-benches had spoken with the greatest sincerity. It had been said that they had obstructed. Perhaps they had obstructed when passions were high, but he thought nobody could deny that there had been tremendous sincerity behind their appeals on behalf of these men.

It was true that the man had taken miners’ phthisis in this country, but they had ruthlessly sent him away to a country where he could not be expected to live long. He (Mr. Fichardt) hoped that members would have some feeling in their hearts for this man, and especially consider his case. Apart from this appealing to the hearts of members, he would like to deal with a couple of points in the indictment against Morgan. He (Mr. Fichardt) stood there in the capacity of a judge, and he had to say whether the Government had done right or wrong All the evidence he had before him was given by the Prime Minister a month ago. What was the crime that merited this punishment? One of the offences was that he had stated that the whole of the miners were against the Government. Surely that was not a sufficient case to warrant the punishment. Why, the whole of the Free State was in the same frame of mind, and was the whole of the Free State to be deported? Then again, there was the phrase “war to the knife.” If it was only a colloquial expression, then it exactly fitted the Free State, where it was indeed war to the knife. The Minister of Justice, who knows so much about the Free State—

I know more about the Free State than you do.

said he did not know if the Minister suggested that the whole of the Free State should be deported because they took the same views as the deportees. Then again, was it a crime if workmen were told that a Government would be put into power that represented the workers? It seemed to him that the position was that they were getting into the habit of making one law apply to property owners and another to the workers. Mr. Morgan had also added the heinous offence of asking his fellow-workers to stand shoulder to shoulder. (Laughter from the cross-benches.) He (Mr. Fichardt) was not aware that this was the copyright phrase of the Prime Minister’s, still it would appear to have been an offence for Morgan to use it. During the course of that debate he had listened to all the speeches made, and he had never once heard a sufficient reason given why one of these men should have been deported. He considered a rank injustice had been done to them.

The hon. member cannot reflect upon a vote taken by the Committee.

said the Bill had not yet been passed, and he wished, however, his remarks to apply to such portions of it as had already been adopted.

said the speakers who had preceded him had allowed one of Mr. Morgan’s crimes to pass unnoticed. He had had the audacity to cast reflections upon the sometime democratic member for Troyeville (Mr. Quinn). It would be remembered that the bakers came out on strike. They had agreed to supply bread to the strikers, and of course that was a heinous offence. The member for Troyeville told how he donned the white apron, and with a number of well-washed Kafirs proceeded to make bread. He (Mr. Andrews) had received a letter from one of the employees of the member for Troyeville, who had seen a report of his speech in the papers. In that letter he stated that the hon. member did put on a white apron, but that he made precious little bread. (Laughter.)

Will you produce that letter?

Find out the thief or spy. Proceeding, he said they had reached the last name on a list which the Minister had called an honours list, and rightly so, but it was no honour to the Minister or to the Government. With regard to Morgan, he had known him for a matter of three or four years, and he had no hesitation in saying that he was an extremely mild man, and if he had a fault, it was that he was too meek and ready to accept a settlement. It seemed to him that the further they went down the list, the milder these men became, and perhaps Mr. Morgan might be considered the mildest man amongst them. On the Minister’s own showing, there was nothing against him. At such times, as in July and January last, men could not be expected to coo like turtle doves. The Ministers seemed to expect men in the heat of battle to discuss matters as quietly as church dignitaries. That, of course, was unreasonable.

The hon. member for Beaconsfield (Sir D. Harris) had referred to poetic justice. But what kind of poetic justice was there in sending Morgan out of the country? Morgan had sacrificed his life, first for his wife and family, and then to earn dividends for the Rand gold mines. To deport him was an act of gratuitous and unnecessary cruelty. In time to come the Minister would bitterly regret the attitude he had taken up over this matter. The worst feature of the debate was that they had not had one word of extenuation from the Minister or his colleagues, and no addition to the trumpery charges the Minister of Defence made in moving the second reading of the Bill. These nine men might be undesirable in the eyes of the South African Government, but they were desirable in the eyes of the majority of other people (Labour cheers.)

said that for something like 25½ hours hon. members on the cross-benches, with two or three faithful followers in other parts of the House, had been endeavouring to bring home to the House the necessity of upholding its own honour, and they had signally failed. He said it with regret—not because they had not been eloquent, not because they felt they had not done their duty, but because the House had stamped itself in the eyes of the world as an assembly which was prepared to perpetuate an act of the most gross injustice on men whose conduct did not merit one-tenth of the punishment that was being meted out to them. At the eleventh, nay, at the twelfth, hour, he appealed to the Committee to retract and to rehabilitate itself in the eyes of the country. The Government would cease to be in twelve months’ time.

Thank goodness!

I heartily concur in that remark. Continuing, he said Government had been criminalising these men. Morgan was absolutely the last man who should have been deported. He was mild-mannered and with a character of the highest. He deliberately set his face against his own men on the Johannesburg Market-square in an endeavour to bring about peace. Nothing he had done could warrant the action of the Government in deporting him. This was a final blow at our sense of liberty and justice. Even from China we would have the finger of scorn pointed at us. (A laugh.) An hon. member laughed, but China could give him points on this matter. Let hon. members remember their own dignity, if they would not remember anything else; let them remember what they owed to this country and to history, for they were making history that would damn them in the eyes of posterity. (Labour cheers.)

put the question: That the ninth item, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the schedule.

The amendment to omit the name of William H. Morgan from the schedule was put, and declared lost.

called for a division, which was taken at 4.15 p.m. with the following result:

Ayes—66.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Bekker, Stephanus

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Blaine, George

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Burton, Henry

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Crewe, Charles Preston

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Graaff, David Pieter de Villiers

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

King, John Gavin

Krige, Christman Joel

Langerman, Jan Willem Stuckeris

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

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

Quinn, John William

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Rockey, Willie

Runciman, William

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Whitaker, George

Wiltshire, Henry.

H. Mentz and J. Hewat, tellers.

Noes—13.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Boydell, Thomas

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Duncan, Patrick

Fichardt, Charles Gustav

Haggar, Charles Henry

Hull, Henry Charles

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Sampson, Henry William

Silburn, Percy Arthur.

H. A. Wyndham and H. M. Meyler, tellers.

The question was accordingly affirmed, and the amendment proposed by Mr. Haggar negatived.

As the Chairman was about to put the schedule.

said they had now spent almost exactly 24 hours in examining the respective merits of these nine men. He knew there was an impression— a totally wrong impression in the minds of some of the hon. members—that there had been something in the nature of an obstruction. (A laugh.) The full and complete answer to that was this: that barely 2½ hours had been devoted to deciding the fate of each of the nine men. Was that too much? Did any man dare to say that devoting 2½ hours to discussing whether a man should be condemned on the evidence before the Committee was a waste of Parliamentary time? The Government in deporting these men defied the courts and poured contempt on the laws. The highest courts of law, which should be open to every citizen, the Government had treated with the disrespect and contempt it had poured on the Imperial courts. For the last twenty-four hours they had exhausted every power of persuasion, demand and entreaty in trying to get the Government to substantiate the charges, which they had taken upon themselves, in defiance of law, to deport these men, and in that respect asked the Committee to pass sentence of banishment. It was only in keeping with the words of the Minister when he spoke of the Government as a public authority, superior, and not inferior, to that sovereign Parliament. During that debate they examined the Minister’s theory of conspiracy from the outside and it was torn to shreds and tatters. In the last 24 hours they had been examining the evidence from the inside, taking the alleged conspirators one by one and seeing if there was any ground for the charge of conspiracy. Whatever might be the verdict of the Committee, he ventured to say that right would triumph, and throughout South Africa and the world the condemnation of these 24 hours would not be upon these nine men, but upon the Government and their flagrant misuse of their authority. Their consciences were clear; he hoped that the consciences of other hon. members were equally clear. (Labour cheers.)

put the schedule and declared it carried.

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

Ayes—66.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Bekker, Stephanus

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Burton, Henry

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Clayton, Walter Frederick.

Crewe, Charles Preston

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Gendenhuys, Lourens

Graaff, David Pieter de Villiers

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

King, John Gavin

Krige, Christman Joel

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Langerman, Jan Willem Stuckeris

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

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

Quinn, John William

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Rockey, Willie

Runciman, William

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Silburn, Percy Arthur

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

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wiltshire, Henry

H. Mentz and J. Hewat, tellers.

Noes—12.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Boydell, Thomas

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Duncan, Patrick

Fichardt, Charles Gustav

Haggar, Charles Henry

Hull, Henry Charles

Sampson, Henry William

Wyndham, Hugh Archibald

H. M. Meyler and Walter B. Madeley, tellers.

The schedule was accordingly agreed to.

said that the Committee would now consider the Preamble.

Surely the Minister will agree to report progress.

Ministerial cries of “No.”

I am not addressing the hon. member for Somerset East. (Laughter.)

Are you all Ministers?

Order!

said he would give reasons why progress should be reported. Even if they sat on, the progress of that Bill would not be advanced by a single day. It would be necessary for the Minister to have the Bill printed and the amendments put on the paper on the report stage. He could not go on with that on the following day.

Yes.

He thinks he can. That is quite impossible. Continuing, he said he would appeal to the Prime Minister that they had been discussing a matter fraught with personal consequences to nine citizens of this country. He moved to report progress.

The hon. member can’t report progress. He has done it once. He can’t do it again.

Surely my having done that once does not preclude me from doing it again.

During the same debate—yes.

With all respect, Sir, I would ask you to reconsider that point.

I am going by Rule 32. Continuing, the Chairman read the standing order, and ruled that as the hon. member had already made a similar motion during this sitting, he was unable, in terms of Standing Order No. 32, to accept the motion now.

The rule says “this debate.” That is the point.

Order: I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss the question.

Surely that is not the intention of the rule, sir.

Hear, hear.

said that they had been discussing the schedule for 24 hours, and now they had reached a fresh subject. He submitted respectfully that the Chairman’s interpretation was not the intention of the rule.

If the hon. member wants to take the ruling of Mr. Speaker he can do so.

I suggest, sir, that Mr. Speaker’s ruling be taken. I move that the Chairman report progress in order to obtain Mr. Speaker’s ruling on the point whether the word “debate” in Rule No 32 can be taken as covering all discussions on different subjects or clauses during the committee stage of a Bill. I hope, sir, you will understand that in doing so I am not casting any slight on yourself.

I only wish to point out that I have given a ruling on the rule as I understand it. If the hon. member wishes progress to be reported some other member of his party might do so.

I wish to get Mr. Speaker’s ruling, sir, not only for your own guidance, but for the guidance of other hon. members.

suggested that Mr. Speaker should be asked whether the words “during the same debate ” in section 32 meant the whole of the committee stage of the Bill.

said that the question he would like to put to Mr. Speaker was: Are the words “during this debate,” in Rule 32, to be taken as covering all discussions on different subjects or clauses in the committee stage of the same Bill during one sitting?

The motion to take the Speaker’s ruling was agreed to.

took the chair.

stated the point which had risen in committee, and that the Committee desired to obtain Mr. Speaker’s ruling thereon, and that he had accordingly been ordered to report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

pointed out to Mr. Speaker that his contention was that the word “debate” covered only one clause. They had finished with the schedule and were now dealing with the preamble, and it was on that he wished to move to report progress. The schedule had been disposed of, and he submitted the preamble was a different debate.

stated that this was a dilatory motion, the acceptance of which was entirely in the discretion of the Chairman in terms of Standing Order No. 33, and ruled that as the hon. member for Jeppe had already made the same motion earlier during the consideration of the Bill —the whole committee stage of which is equivalent to one debate—the Chairman was correct in holding that the hon. member for Jeppe was debarred under Standing Order No. 32 from moving the same motion.

left the chair.

Sir! Sir!

then resumed his position as Chairman.

moved to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

rose to speak to the motion, and said they on the cross-benches had some very important amendments to the preamble on the paper. It was freely admitted that the Prime Minister had introduced an innovation in dealing with Martial Law, which, whether for good or ill, was a departure from all hitherto established uses. Martial Law had never been put to the uses it had been put to in this country. It would be taken as a precedent, and would be quoted as the turning point in the administration of Martial Law throughout the British Empire. They had been sitting continuously for 27 hours, and the House would value contributions of several hon. members who looked upon their duties with a great sense of responsibility.

said he regretted he could not oblige the hon. member. The Bill was a very important one, and no doubt the preamble was also important, but he had looked at the amendments tabled by the hon. member and his friends, and he did not think that the Committee would have very much trouble to understand the amendments and to dispose of them; he did not think it was necessary to have a separate sitting.

put the question, and declared the “Noes ” had it.

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

Ayes—15.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Boydell, Thomas

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Duncan, Patrick

Fichardt, Charles Gustav

Fremantle, Henry Eardley Stephen

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Hull, Henry Charles

Jagger, John William

MacNeillie. James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Sampson, Henry William

H. M. Meyler and C. H. Haggar, tellers.

Noes—78.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Baxter, William Duncan

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Bekker, Stephanus

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman. Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Burton, Henry

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Crewe, Charles Preston

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Currey, Henry Latham

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fawcus, Alfred

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Graaff, David Pieter de Villiers

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Henderson, James,

Henwood, Charlie

Hunter, David

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Juta, Henry Hubert

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

King, John Gavin

Krige, Christman Joel

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Langerman, Jan Willem Stuckeris

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

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

Quinn, John William

Rademeyer. Jacobus Michael

Rockey, Willie

Runciman, William

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Searle, James

Smartt, Thomas William

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

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 therefore negatived.

said he wished to move an amendment on page 2 to omit the words “internal disorder,” and insert “strikes.”

pointed out that the hon. member could not move the amendment at that stage, as the preamble stood over until after the clauses had been considered in the report stage. By the rules, the preamble was made subordinate to the clauses in the Bill. He had to ask the Minister of Defence whether, if the amendment of the hon. member to insert “strikes,” instead of “internal disorder,” were accepted, it would not be necessary to alter the Bill again.

Certainly, sir.

That being the case, I cannot allow the amendment at this stage of the Bill. The amendment may be moved at a subsequent stage.

Would you permit me, I want instruction? It seems that your ruling is dependent on the Minister’s ruling.

No.

said that the Chairman put the point to the Minister. Surely the members of the House were as good judges as the Minister on that point?

said it was not unusual for the Chairman to ask for information as to the meaning and hearing of a proposed amendment before giving a ruling, but that when he rules he does so on his sole responsibility.

said that, upon receiving the reply of the Minister of Defence as to whether it would be necessary to alter the clause if the amendment were accepted, the Chairman had ruled that he would not be able to take the amendment. Surely this House was competent to say whether it would or would not be necessary to alter the clause. The point he wished to make was that the Minister might be wrong in the view he took. He found throughout the Minister’s speech that he was endeavouring to fix strikes as being the most gross form, if he could use that expression, of internal disorder. If that were the vein of thought running through all his remarks in connection with this Bill, then they were quite right in asking to have the word “strikes” inserted instead of “internal disorder.” They were not going to press this, although it might be a matter of some importance.

said that the hon. member did not seem to have grasped the point at issue here. The paragraph made provision for the declaration of Martial Law. Then it proceeded to indemnify “the Government, its officers, and persons acting under them or upon their orders in respect of acts, matters, and things in good faith advised, commanded, ordered, directed, or done, for the prevention and suppression of internal disorder, the maintenance of good order and public safety.” When they came to the clause dealing with the indemnity clause 2 the same wording had to be used. In clause 2 the words “internal disorder” appeared. They could not have in the title of the Bill a reference to “strikes” when the enacting clause dealing with indemnity referred to “internal disorder.”

I regret that I must rule that I cannot accept this amendment. If the hon. member chooses at a subsequent stage to move the amendment he may do so.

I suppose my course would be to move in “strikes” in clause 2 at a subsequent stage?

I cannot give any advice upon that.

Paragraph 1 was agreed to.

On paragraph 2,

moved, on page 2, line 5, to omit all the words from “it further” to “to” in line 7, and to substitute “His Excellency the Governor-General-in-Council did. ”The words proposed to be omitted were “became necessary for His Excellency the Governor-General with the advice of the Executive Council to.” The hon. member said he did not propose to go into this matter after the way in which they had already explained their position with regard to the declaration of Martial Law.

said he would like to say that this was really not a very important point except from the point of view of the Government. The amendment of the hon. member laid down that the Government did declare Martial Law. The paragraph, as they had it, said that it became necessary for the Government to proclaim Martial Law. Of course, it was important from the point of view of the Government to allege this necessity. Martial Law was such an extreme step to take that, unless it were justified by necessity, it should not be taken. The Government, therefore, could not agree to the amendment.

said that that was just the point. They, with sweet reasonableness, proposed to put in words to which they could all agree. That the Government proclaimed Martial Law there could be no doubt, but the Minister wanted them to lay down that it was necessary. He would like to propose that the paragraphs of the preamble be taken seriatim.

The hon. member may move that.

It was agreed that paragraphs should be taken seriatim.

On the second paragraph,

amendment was put and negatived.

The paragraph was agreed to.

moved, in line 10, to omit “is” and substitute “has never hitherto been.” He said that this amendment referred to a statement of fact. He proposed to omit after “Martial Law” the word “is” and insert the words “has never hitherto been” before “understood and administered in His Majesty’s Dominions.” This was a record of historical fact, instead of an allegation of a very doubtful proposition. They would then state in this paragraph that certain magisterial districts were placed under Martial Law “as Martial Law has never hitherto been understood and administered in His Majesty’s Dominions.” The hon. member quoted from the article on Martial Law in the “Encyclopædia Britannica,” and said it would be seen from this that Martial Law had never been proclaimed except to deal either with circumstances produced by foreign invasion or by an armed insurrection in the territory over which the Crown held office. It could never be said that at any time in the Transvaal, O.F.S., and Natal there was insurrection which prevented the courts from being duly opened. It was the Minister who by his own despotic act established new tribunals unknown to law, or even to Martial Law. Without going to Mexico, Egypt, or British East Africa, would the Minister point out to him any of His Majesty’s Dominions where Martial Law had been used as this Martial Law had been used, with one primary object, and that was to harry and hustle men who were idle in order to make them work and to make men who were abstaining from work go to work?

said there seemed to be some misunderstanding in the mind of the hon. member. The first time he (General Smuts) saw the amendment he thought it was an attempt at humour, but it was a very unsuccessful attempt. The clause said certain districts were placed under Martial Law as Martial Law was understood and administered in the British Dominions. This referred, of course, entirely to the nature and administration of Martial Law. It did not refer to the cases where Martial Law could be put into force. He took the ordinary British Manuals on the administration of Martial Law, which were issued by the War Office from time to time, and no spying or thieving was necessary to obtain them, for they were public property. They took these regulations, and adapted them to our special circumstances. The question arose, “When was one entitled to declare Martial Law?” Was it in cases of insurrection and internal disorder? That was a point which was not raised by the amendment. No other rule could be laid down as to the proclamation of Martial Law than the rule of necessity. The only general rule was that there must be some necessity. The proclamation of Martial Law was justified only by necessity. The safety of the State was the supreme law. (Hear, hear.) It became necessary—they did not say how—for the Governor-General to apply Martial Law. Continuing, General Smuts said he had completely answered the hon. member on both points—the point the hon. member was aiming at and the point he was not aiming at. The House ought not to waste time discussing an abstruse matter as to when Martial Law should be applied. That being so, do not let them enter into a subject which lawyers would dispute to the end of time. On the second reading, it became clear that the vast majority of members thought that the proclamation of Martial Law was justified, even although some of them were against the deportations. That being so, let them bow their heads to this great fact, and do not dispute with the air. (Laughter.)

said that the darkest cloud had a silver lining, and there was a certain pleasure in crossing swords with the Minister of Defence, and noting the delightfully clever way he had of trying to get his own way. He (Mr. Creswell) would never consent to any form of words which seemed to assume that the recent administration of Martial Law was a normal one. He maintained that it was entirely a new departure from anything the British Empire had ever seen, and he earnestly hoped it would be the very last time Martial Law would be used for that purpose. (Hear, hear.)

said he had been very much interested with the clever juggling of words by the Minister of Defence, but he challenged the Minister to produce any Martial Law regulations similar to those framed and administered here last January. Picking up several large volumes, Mr. Boydell observed that he had several authorities here which he was keeping in reserve for another all-night sitting, but in view of the fact that many hon. members were tired—they on the cross-benches were not tired— daughter)—he would just move that progress be reported, and leave obtained to sit again.

I cannot put that.

I will withdraw it.

thought the following could be omitted from the preamble: “And whereas none of the said scheduled persons were born in any part of South Africa which has been included in the Union.”

The remaining paragraphs having been agreed to,

The motion that the preamble stand part of the Bill was then put, and the Ayes declared to have it.

called for a division, but afterwards withdrew.

The title of the Bill was also agreed to.

The Bill was thereupon reported with amendments, consideration of which was set down for to-morrow.

moved: That Mr. Maasdorp be discharged from further service on the Select Committee on the Rand Water Board Suplementary Water Supply (Private) Bill.

Agreed to.