from W. Clarence, formerly a sheep inspector, for a pension.

from J. P. Casteling gaoler at Cala, for condonation of a break in his service.

from Johanna M. van der Merwe, teacher, for condonation of a break in her service.

from S. F. Alberts and others for remission of repatriation debts.

from A. E. Fock, Agricultural Department, to be allowed to contribute arrears to Pension Fund.

from R. Studdert, formerly rifleman and heliographer, at present suffering from insanity, for increase of pension.

from the General Mining and Finance. Corporation, Limited, and the Mining Companies known as the General Mining Group in opposition to the Rand Water Board Supplementary Supply (Private) Bill.

from inhabitants of Wolmaransstad, for remission of repatriation debts (two petitions).

Estimates of Additional Expenditure from Revenue and Loan Funds year ending 31st March, 1914.

Papers relating to Resumption of Lot 91, Amatikulu, Eshowe, Zululand.

These were referred to the Select Committee on Waste Lands.

Treasury reports on petitions presented by Miss Charlotte Cecil Lucy Mayhew, and by Miss Mary Elizabeth Butler.

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

announced that the Select Committee on Standing Rules and Orders has appointed Mr. A. I. Vintcent (Riversdale) a member of the Select Committee on the Rand Water Board Supplementary Water Supply (Private) Bill in place of Mr. G. H. Maasdorp (Graaff-Reinet), Mr. C. Henwood (Victoria County) to be Chairman of the Committee.

moved that the order for the second reading of the Peace Preservation and Criminal Law Amendment Bill set down for Monday, March 9, be discharged and that the Bill be set down for Wednesday, March 11.

Agreed to.

moved that the Bill be set down for second reading on March 18.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

moved: That the petition of Frederic Hugh Page Creswell, presented to this House on the 4th instant, praying for leave to appear with counsel before the Select Committee on Official Telegram Disclosure, be granted.

The motion was agreed to.

moved, in sub-section (1), to omit paragraphs (1) and (3). He said that his object was to limit the indemnity to the Martial Law period. They were not satisfied that it should be extended to the 8th January, and also that it should be extended to areas where Martial Law had not been proclaimed. He did not think that this House, although a disposition had been shown to pat the Government on the back in regard to their recent action as representing the large employers of South Africa, should altogether forget the interests of the private people of this country or that they should protect their rights. He did not see why they should, at the instance of the hon. member for Umvoti, extend this indemnity so as to cover any illegalities during the Natal coal strike or the Indian strike. He certainly did not see why they should cover any lawlessness done in areas outside proclaimed areas. They were giving carte blanche to the Government, but they did not know what injustices had been committed.

seconded.

The amendment was negatived.

moved to omit sub-section (3). He said he did not intend to delay the House, and he would content himself by formally moving the amendment.

who seconded the amendment, said he would ask hon. members to think twice before they passed this sub-section. Regulations of this description had never been enforced or promulgated in connection with Martial Law in any part of the British Empire or in any part of the world, as far as he knew. If the Minister of Defence could give them some precedent for drawing up regulations of this description in connection with Martial Law they would be very glad to have it. They found regulations in this case prohibiting peaceful picketing and wearing red rosettes, and making strikers when found outside their doors liable to arrest.

put the question that the sub-section proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause, and declared that the “Ayes” had it.

called for a division.

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

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

moved, in line 4, to omit “every person specified in the schedule to this Act,” and to substitute “certain persons between the twentieth and thirtieth days of January, 1914.” He said the point in connection with this amendment was that while the schedule applied to the second part of the clause, it should not apply to the first part of the clause. He hoped the Government would accept the amendment, because it Would meet a difficulty which had been raised in Committee and which had been felt a good deal. While a good many of them were in favour of the first part of the clause, they were not in favour of the second part, but the schedule made it impossible for them to vote either for or against it, because if they voted for the schedule they were voting for something they did not wish to vote for, and if they voted against it they were voting against something they did not wish to vote against. He was not prepared to vote for the perpetual banishment of any of the men in the schedule. There might be a considerable number of members of the House who took a different view—that they would like some of these men in the schedule not to be banished for ever. The whole point of his amendment was to give hon. members, who thought that, a chance of expressing their opinions in the vote on the schedule. That seemed to him only a fair thing, and he hoped the Government would meet him in the matter. It was a difficult legal question, and he had thought at first that the first portion of the section was unnecessary. It was not until the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, said that he was by no means certain that indemnity for deportation was covered by the second section that he found the difficulty that they were in now. He thought that the House should give every fair and possible chance to the men mentioned in the schedule so that if there were cases where the House did not want to banish men that could be done, though it would leave no opening for them to have an action for damages against the Government in the courts.

seconded the amendment.

said he understood the difficulty to which the hon. member for Uitenhage had referred—that the schedule of the. Bill referred to two different portions of the clause. At the same time, though there was that difficulty, he found that another difficulty had been raised by the amendment. There was no doubt that whatever view they might take of the action of the Government on the ground of policy, a most serious step was taken when it deported a number of citizens of the Union and asked that House to ratify such deportations and to make those deportations binding for the future. Because it was such a very serious step to take, they did not want to bring a general statement about the matter, but wanted to bring before Parliament in the schedule the names of these various persons. Now the hon. member might see how very important such a thing might become in the future. Supposing they had a Government in the future which was far more autocratic. (Laughter.) Supposing the Government, in a similar grave emergency, proceeded to deport from the country, not nine persons, but hundreds of thousands of persons. (Laughter.) Then they would have a precedent for not placing the names of those persons before the House. They would have the precedent they could bring an indefinite mandate to banish a list of persons. The Government, having taken this grave and extreme step of banishing, and in asking the country to ratify that, thought the proper course would be to bring the list before the House in the form of the schedule at the end of the Bill. Having given the indictment, it was only right that they should give the indicted. If that list was not put on the Bill it would be an indefinite list, and he did not think such a thing should be allowed.

said he thought the House could congratulate the hon. member for Uitenhage, not only for having brought forward this amendment, but for having extorted from the Minister of Defence such an extraordinary speech as they had just heard. What did the Minister’s objection amount to? They would take its value as it stood, and he asked every member of that House if he could credit the Minister with candour in putting forward that objection? His one objection was that a Government more despotic than the present might be in power. He ventured to think that there was no fear of such a contingency arising. (Laughter.) He ventured to think, and he thought hon. members would agree with him, that no more despotic Government was likely to be in power for such a long period as this Government had been. His next point was that if that Government deported some hundreds of men, with this precedent before them, they would not be obliged to schedule in the Bill the names of the men—except the names of those they proposed should be banished. If they could even contemplate such a Government as the one suggested by the Minister of Defence deporting hundreds of men, that Government would only be in the same position as this Government, and would establish precedents for itself. The argument with regard to precedents, he thought, might be dismissed entirely. Then the Minister desired that they should define on the Act the particular men against whom they were bringing this indictment. For many weary hours they had been standing there trying to get the Minister to formulate that indictment with singular ill success. He asked hon. members to ask themselves: Can we accept this objection of the Minister as his candid objection to the amendment? The Minister’s objection, in point of fact, whatever might be the ostensible motive, the real motive, they were all convinced, was that when they came to a vote on the schedule, hon. members who were prepared to give indemnity for those acts of the Government in the past would be debarred from voting for the exclusion of the names of any of these been from the schedule. This amendment would enable hon. members to vote freely, and he hoped it would be accepted by the House.

said that of course he saw the intention of the hon. member for Uitenhage, but he would point out that that intention was not carried out by the amendment. He thought that the hon. member was asking the House to do a very grave thing indeed. He would suggest that instead of saying certain persons enumerated in the schedule the names should be enumerated. Then they would have something definite.

said he would like to make a slight amendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Uitenhage. He would suggest that the words “hereafter named” be inserted after the word “persons.” Or the names might be mentioned in the clause. Many were prepared to sanction the deportation, but they were not prepared to banish all of these men for life. He agreed, however, that the names of persons should be inserted in the Bill. Continuing, he said he wished to move to add to the amendment of the hon. member for Uitenhage the following names: H. J. Poutsma, J. T.Bain, A. Crawford, R. B. Waterston, G. W. Mason, D. McKerrell, W. Livingstone, A. Watson, and W. Morgan.

seconded the amendment to the amendment.

asked the House to allow him to elucidate the object of the member for Uitenhage’s amendment. The member for Uitenhage had two amendments. The first referred to the opening parts of clause 4, and the second to the latter half of the same clause. The first part proposed to confirm the action of the Government in deporting these men, but the second half went further and left open the question of the perpetual banishment of these men. During the committee stages of the Bill it was felt by a large number of members that while they were anxious to indemnify the Government in order to prevent Ministers being liable for damages, they still wished to have the right to say what the degree of guilt was in the case of each man so deported. They did not wish the deportation of these men to remain for all time, but that they could come back again if they wished to do so. As soon as both amendments were accepted the House could afterwards come to the conclusion as to what names shall be attached to the clause. The position would be precisely the same, as the Government would not be prejudiced by such an amendment—the House having ratified the action of the Government. When they came to the second part of the clause then the House would have the opportunity of dealing with each name separately as to whether their banishment should be perpetual or otherwise, and the names could be inserted in the Schedule. He would therefore move as an amendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Uitenhage that in lieu of the words “certain persons between the 20th and 30th of January. 1914.” to insert the names mentioned in the schedule.

seconded the amendment to the amendment.

said it appeared to him that some of the amendments had been proposed under a misapprehension of the meaning of the clause. The clause did not say that those men shall be perpetually banished, but that the Government shall retain the power when it thinks fit to grant permission to return to these men. Thus members in voting for the clause were simply voting for the deportation of the men, and not for their permanent exclusion from the country.

said that the Government had stated that its policy was to banish these men permanently, and he thought the member for Barberton (Mr. Hull) had not gone deep enough into the question with his amendment. The Indemnity Bill frankly gives indemnity for something which has been done, and the member for Uitenhage wants to confine the indemnity only in regard to those deportations intervening between the 20th and 30th January. If the Bill was passed without the words which the hon. member opposite desires to insert it would then leave the Government free to form another schedule. The Government could come down to this House and move a short Bill, adding other names to the schedule, but if the words “between the 20th and 30th January” were inserted they laid down the principle that only these nine men were affected. When the Minister tells them that he is after George Kendell, and although he did not catch him between the 20th and 30th of January, then there was nothing to prevent the Minister coming down to the House and having the name of that man or of any other man added to the list. He would therefore like to see the words mentioned inserted in the clause, as he did not wish to give the Minister any loophole whatever.

withdrew his amendment.

also withdrew the second part of his amendment, to delete certain words.

then put the question: That the words proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause, and the Noes were declared to have it.

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

Ayes—71.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

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

Do 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

Harris, David

Henwood, Charlie

Hunter, David

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

King, John Gavin

Krige, Christman Joel

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

Macaulay, Donald

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

My burgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Nathan, Emile

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Rockey, Willie

Runciman, William

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

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

Watt, Thomas

Whitaker, George

Wiltshire, Henry

Woolls-Sampson, Aubrey

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

Noes—23.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Boydell. Thomas

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Currey, Henry Latham

Fichardt, Charles Gustav

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Haggar, Charles Henry

Hull, Henry Charles

Jagger, John William

Juta, Henry Hubert

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Merriman, John Xavier

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Sampson, Henry William

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brand

Wilcoeks, Carl Theodorus Muller

H. E. S. Fremantle and Walter B. Madeley, tellers.

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

The amendment moved by Mr. Hull was dropped.

moved, as an amendment, to omit all the words after “Union” to the end of the clause. He said he did so because it was the only opportunity he had before that Bill passed out of the House to express his strong objection to the principle contained in that clause. He had put his views on that on a previous occasion, and did not intend to traverse what he had already said. But he did not think it would be out of place if he drew the attention of the House to the fact that there might be members of the House who had voted for the Bill, thinking that the Government would place before them— as the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt) had pointed out it was the duty of the Government to give them—the full evidence which had justified it in putting these names on the schedule. He had waited and listened and read—he could not say he had listened to the whole of the debate for the twenty-eight hours, but he had read the reports of the debate, and he could not find where the Minister had given any justification for putting these names in, and for formulating his indictment. You could not deport a man for saying that he wished the Prime Minister to be put into the sea, instead of his grave. It might be lese majeste, but it was not against the laws of the country, as far as he knew, although there was no saying when it might be. He was surprised, he must say, at the remarks made by the Minister of Defence the other day, when he had said that he (Mr. Merriman) had gone further than he (the Minister of Defence) had, and said these men were the enemies of society. He had not said they were the enemies of society, but that from their own statements they claimed to be Something more than the opinion of an individual so humbly placed as himself was needed before men could be deported. The more he studied the matter, the more it seemed to be a hunt of Poutsma and his friends, not for what had been done in January, but for what had been done in July. He admitted that they ought to have been punished, handsomely punished, long ago; but to do so now was nothing but a hunt of these wretched people. The Minister would recollect that famous ballad describing a certain hunt:

And that might well be repeated. Well, let him point out to his hon. friend, and call to mind what that meant. They might yet live, many of them in that House, to rue the hunting of Mr. Poutsma and his friends. His great objection to that was that they were really proclaiming by that banishment, in the minds of a number of misguided individuals, a class war—(Labour cheers)—a most unfortunate and a most disastrous thing. Nothing could be worse for that country than a feeling of that sort. He acknowledged that the vast majority of the workmen were sober, decent, and industrious citizens, as opposed to strikes and labour troubles as the rest of us. The Prime Minister knew there were many people 14 years ago who had been as much opposed to war, and all that led up to war as anybody could be, but when the war came along, they had been carried away by their duty to their class and countrymen, and did their best for their country. In the same way, these workmen would be carried away, and would be bound to stick to their class by a mistaken sense of honour. He did wish to utter that warning, as impressively as his poor words could make it, against carrying out principles of that kind, embodied in this measure, which were sure to react on themselves. Quoting from Scripture, “As a man sows, so shall he reap,” the right hon. member said that if they sowed violence they would reap a dismal crop.

said that, although owing to indisposition since the session began he had not heard the whole of the discussion in that House, he had followed it as closely as any man could by reading the admirable newspaper reports which had been placed before them, he had heard the speech of the Minister in opening the debate; and it was clear that the Minister had started his argument under the idea that there was some gigantic conspiracy to upset the whole government of this Union, and he had followed up that idea which had obsessed his mind ever since. They were promised in the speech that irrefragible evidence would be brought before them to show that these nine men were doubly dyed in original or acquired sin. But the evidence utterly failed to prove that. (Cheers.) There was no more evidence so far as a threatened conspiracy against the safety of this country was concerned than there had been of another alleged conspiracy between the Government and the mining magnates to crush the working-men. There was just as little evidence of the one as there was of the other. He was astounded that the Minister never attempted to give any other evidence for the alleged conspiracy than consisted simply of copious extracts of journalese; there was no other evidence but journalese reports, and the House could not depend on these in matters of this kind.

This attempt to keep a great labour movement out of this country by banishing nine men perpetually in the belief that the latter were the leaders of a great conspiracy and that in their absence the movement would crumble to the dust, was utterly futile. (Cheers.) If this country was to be industrialised, as he hoped it would be, Labour movements and Trade Unions must take place—the two things were inseparable. Trade Unions were bound to spring up, arid they were bound to have leaders—leaders probably as bad, if not very much worse, than what his hon. friend had tried to make out the deported men to be. The Minister was pursuing a will ’o the wisp when he asked the House to consent to the perpetual banishment of these nine men, with the idea that such banishment would put an end to Labour agitation. As he (Sir Bisset) said the other day, the Ministry acted in good faith in deporting these men, and he was prepared to give the Ministers the benefit of the doubt and to condone what he (Sir Bisset) nevertheless considered a very great blunder, but he objected to be held responsible for it, and therefore he must support the right hon. gentleman who had moved the amendment. He did not see the force of the argument of his honourable leader in his very extraordinary speech, when he said that we should be making fools of ourselves if we did not ensure that these men should never come back again after having deported them.

He (Sir Bisset) would like to remind his leader and the Minister of what took place in Canada in the days of Lord Durham. When Lord Durham went to Canada the constitution of Lower Canada was suspended in consequence of a rebellion. Lord Durham, who was a very haughty man, formed an Executive Council from his staff. They framed an Ordinance, and in pursuance of that Ordinance he banished six or eight Canadians to Bermuda, whither they were taken in a warship. When that Ordinance went to London, however, a terrific furore was raised throughout the United Kingdom, and so great was the outcry that the British Ministry had to advise the disallowance of the Ordinance. The men who had been banished were free, just as these nine men —if the House did not pass this part of the clause—would be free to come back to the Union and to stand their trial. In the course of time the Canadian Parliament was reconstituted, and the first thing it did was to pass an amnesty amnestying these men who had been sent to Bermuda and indeed all who had taken part in the rebellion. Whether that would happen here he did not know, but he was not; going to be a party to the crime they were asked to commit in the latter part of this clause. (Cheers.) He seconded the amendment.

I gave my reason in the debate on the second reading why I did not agree to the deportations, and I have not heard anything since which makes me alter that view.

said what the right hon. gentleman and the hon. member for Queen’s Town had said must commend itself to all. Members on the cross-benches felt that the Ministry’s failure to bring out evidence against the deported men had borne some fruit. The impression made on the right hon. member for Victoria West and on the hon. member for Queen’s Town was the same impression that had been made on the vast majority of the citizens of South Africa. (Labour cheers.)

put the question: That all the words after “Union,” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause, and declared that the “ayes” had it.

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

Ayes—74.

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

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

Harris, David

Henwood, Charlie

Hewat, John

Hunter, 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. Marthins Wilhelmus

Nathan, Emile

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Rockey, Willie

Runciman, William

Sohoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

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 Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Enden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Whitaker, George

Wiltshire, Henry

Woolls-Sampson, Aubrey

H. Montz and H. C. Becker, tellers.

Noes—29.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Boydell, Thomas

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Currey, Henry Latham

Duncan, Patrick

Fawcus, Alfred

Fichardt, Charles Gustav

Fremantle, Henry Eardley Stephen

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Haggar, Charles Henry

Henderson, James

Hull, Henry Charles

Jagger, John William

Juta, Henry Hubert

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Merriman, John Xavier

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Sampson, Henry William

Searle, James

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brand

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

Wyndham, Hugh Archibald

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

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

moved to delete clause 4 in its entirety. He said he did not think it was necessary to take up the time of the House. The reasons for the amendment had been fully explained at an earlier stage of the Bill. In moving this, they had not any very confident expectation that it would be carried. Seeing that so many hon. members hesitated even to allow these men to return, it was clear to them that it was not very likely that they were going to delete the whole clause or that they would give these men the right also which they should have to claim justice against those who had sent them oversea.

seconded the amendment.

said that he had only spoken once in connection with this Bill, and that was on the second reading He then tried to make his position clear, but he was afraid he had not done so. His objection to clause 4 was not so much that these men had been deported by the Government, but his objection to the Government’s action was that they had deported these men without any notice, without any trial, without any charge against them, and without any opportunity of stating their case at all. (Hear, hear.) He, therefore, could not give his vote to the Government for the passing of clause 4. He did not say that the Government had committed a great crime in deporting these men. (Hear, hear.) His opinion was that they had committed a great blunder—(hear, hear)—and that that blunder would react not only upon the Government, but also upon this country.

The amendment was negatived.

moved to insert “Political” before “undesirables. He said that, like the leader of the actual Opposition, he had no wish to take up much of their time to-day. He would give some reasons for this amendment very briefly. The Minister of Defence, in his alleged indictment, made it very plain that from his standpoint these men were “political undesirables.” There was something definite about that phrase, but there was nothing definite about the term undesirable.” From the standpoint of the State, it was absolutely meaningless. It was a term which could only be appropriately applied to a condition of mind. In that case, it meant that these men whose names appeared in the schedule were men whom the Minister and those who followed him did not want. The mere fact that the Government or the hon. members on that side did not want certain persons in this country was no argument against these persons, and certainly no reason why the House should pass this clause. He remembered that a few years ago and for many years a certain man was “undesirable,” he was not wanted, in Greece, but although “undesirable,” that man pushed forward in his policy and in his loyalty, and today he was the Prime Minister of Greece. His point was that the term “undesirable” here, if given its full etymological meaning from the standpoint of the Minister of Defence, was not an appropriate term to stand by itself in this Bill. Then, again, he did not want to see further trouble in this country which might react upon them. He wanted a little self-preservation in view of possible and even probable actions-at-law, notwithstanding the passing of this Bill, and he would like the terms of this Act to be as definite as they possibly could be. The word used here was not a specific word. He knew he might be accused of being a bit obstructive, but not only was the honour of those men at stake, but the honour of this Parliament and the peace of this country were also at stake. He did not mind saying upon this question that, as a member of Parliament, he felt that he was disgraced by what they had done. As a Briton, he felt that he was insulted. If he were to say what he felt as a man, it would be that he felt that, if this Act were passed, and any person took the responsibility of putting it into action, he would like to see that man’s hand perish, as a feather would perish, if it were thrown into the fire. He had been informed by a member sitting opposite that the Government did not intend a certain portion of the Bill to convey the idea of perpetual banishment. He wished he could think it true. He wanted to know precisely in what sense these men could be described as “undesirables ”?

pointed out that the hon. member proposed to insert the word “political.”

said he was trying to show that the phrase, as it stood, was meaningless, because the appropriate term was not inserted before “undesirables.”

The hon. member must keep to the point.

said he was endeavouring to do so. In his early days, he had always been told to put the negative case first, so as to make out a good case in the end. From the historical point of view, these men were not undesirable. With the exception of two, they were not physically undesirable—there were two dying men. They were soon going to deal with the Bill concerning cruelty to animals. He wished to Heaven they had to deal with a Bill which touched cruelty to bipeds. They were told that these men were politically undesirable. But those men were interested in seeing good legislation passed. He defied the Minister to show that these men were opposed to a sound and honest policy for the country. He hoped to Heaven that industrial unrest would cease with the deportation of these men—he meant any agitators, with the spirit of revenge behind their words. The Minister had only got to go down Adderley-street, and he would find plenty of men from the Rand who were most bitter, and who used language which he could not use against the Government. He asked the Government not to make the House ridiculous. The Empire had already been told that they repudiated Magna Charta, and did not care a hang for the liberty of men.

seconded the amendment.

supported the amendment. For many weary hours they had tried to get at the exact reasons for the deportation, and up to now they had failed. The only reasons were to be found in the second reading speech of the Minister. They had taken and analysed those charges, and if it was not on account of the prejudice of the Ministry and many members of that House, they would not have found any charge justifying the deportation and banishment. It was because they believed that the Government had been really actuated by political motives that they moved the amendment. With the exception of perhaps one, the exiled men had belonged to the South African Labour Party, and as there was no other evidence, to the contrary, they came to the conclusion that it was on that account that these men had been deported as political undesirables. In fact, the Minister of Defence had declared these men were political undesirables. But these men would come back to South Africa. That morning he received a postcard from Mr. Waterston, on the S.S. Umgeni, to the following effect: “Convey my thanks to Botha, Smuts and Co. for the pleasant trip. Will be able to thank them personally one day.”

said that if he thought for a moment that political influences were at the bottom of the deportations he would vote against the indemnity altogether.

The Minister said so.

The members on the cross benches forget what had happened. Continuing, he said that the country considered these men were undesirable. (Ministerial cheers and Labour counter-cheers.) He sometimes wished the Government had not been so wisely prompt in the matter of calling the Defence Force out. He sometimes wished that they had allowed the movement to go on for a week or so, so that the whole country might have been held up, and then the members on the cross-benches would not have been able to put forward the views they did. The country did not forget what had happened, and the country would realise the debt of gratitude it owed to the Government when the memory of speeches of hon. members on the cross-benches had passed away. Those men who had gone, and others who were connected with them, were undesirables, because they had their hands at the throat of the nation. (Ministerial cheers.) The country held the opinion that the Government had done right, and the Government had the country at its back. He should have liked those men to have had a trial before being deported. (Labour laughter and a cry of “Shame.”) The Government acted rather unwisely in not keeping these men in the country until the Indemnity Bill had been passed. But as the Government had, he believed, acted in good faith for the welfare of the country, he supported the action of the Government. Nothing he heard from the cross-benches had induced him to alter his opinion.

said the member for Tembuland (Mr. Schreiner) wanted to know what right the cross-benches had to bring the word “political” into the preamble. He would tell him. The Minister himself had said that these men were “political undesirables.” Therefore the word should form part of the preamble of the Bill. The member for Tembuland also argued that these men ought to have been banished without naming their offence, and had also asked who was at the bottom of all the trouble? The member for Tembuland now came along after voting for the Bill, and asked who was responsible for the trouble. He (Mr. Sampson) was of opinion that the men mentioned in the schedule were not the cause. It was the unrest in this country caused by the Government themselves that was the real cause. He did think that the last speaker, who was a member of the Christian Church, would have had some sense of justice and fairplay, and would not have thrown out innuendoes as he had done without substantiating his case. In the opinion of the members on the cross-benches, the deportation of these men was purely a political matter, and therefore the Bill ought to be designated by its proper name.

The amendment to insert the word “political in the title was negatived, and the title as printed was adopted.

ruled that the amendments to the schedule appearing on the notice paper were out of order in view of the fact that at this stage the clauses in the Bill are taken in their chronological order, and clause 4, fixing the schedule had already been passed.

moved that on page 2, line 3, of the preamble, to omit the words “internal disorder,” and to substitute the word “strikes.” He said he did this in order to make the preamble a statement of fact. The whole of the special measure which had come before the House had been devoted, not to the maintenance of independence of speech, or to preserve public order, but had been part of a campaign directed against Labour organisations and Trade Unionism, and to take away by force of arms the right to abstain from work.

ruled that this amendment cannot be put as the words “internal disorder” proposed to be omitted, had already been enacted in clause 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.” He said they wanted this preamble to be as far as possible a statement of facts. They had maintained all along that there was never any need to declare by proclamation Martial Law, etc., etc. Members on the cross-benches maintained that nothing had transpired during January but what could have easily been dealt with by the ordinary laws of the country. These movements, he continued, were an ordinary feature in the industrial life of every country, particularly in Great Britain, which, he believed, saw the first industrial revolution. In the long history of industrial unrest there had never been anything approaching the mobilisation of troops to something like the extent of 70,000 in order to keep down 3,000 or 4,000 men, he believed that was the number the Minister stated, on the railways. In Great Britain, Martial Law had never been proclaimed during any of the widespread strikes which had taken place there. The member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell) had shown that it could not be for suppressing disorder that Martial Law had been proclaimed, because there had been no disorder from beginning to end of the movement. They on the cross-benches knew better than anyone else the industrial conditions of the country. What did the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Schreiner) know of the feelings of the great mass of the people of the country? How did he test that feeling? Did he get his opinion from reading the files of the “Gape Times” and the “Cape Argus”? The hon. member knew a great deal more of the natives in Tembuland, but to say that he knew what the feelings of the great mass of the people were was something which bordered on impertinence. They (members of the Labour Party) were closely connected and closely in touch with the organised and unorganised workmen of South Africa. Would they take the trouble to tell the hon. member for Tembuland what were their feelings and what they thought?

They are not the country.

They are not all the country, I concede, but they are a large proportion of the country. Their views have to be considered. The hon. member went on to say that the inhabitants of Boksburg were not at all likely to go to their hon. member (Dr. MacNeillie) to consider in him their in most feelings with regard to industrial matters, although they might consult him for a finger-ache or any other physical ills. (Laughter.) They (members of the Labour Party) contended seriously that the proclamation of Martial Law had been unjustifiable by the circumstances of the case. He gave the Minister of Defence credit that they (the Government) had succeeded in the object they wanted to attain. They had succeeded admirably, for a time, in breaking up the organisation of the workmen, and in breaking the strike; but it would not prevent similar attempts from being made in the future. They might have succeeded probably equally well without such drastic measures, and would have been in a much stronger position generally with regard to the public than they were today.

seconded the amendment.

The amendment was negatived.

moved as an* amendment, on page 2, line 10, to omit the word “is,” and substitute the words “has never hitherto been.” The hon. member said that here they were confronted with a mistaken statement (in the clause). If there was one thing or fact more fully established than another, it was that the Prime Minister and his colleagues had initiated something which was totally new in the history of His Majesty’s Dominions, in placing districts under Martial Law, as had been done, and administering it in a way which had hitherto been without precedent in His Majesty’s Dominions. The hon. member went on to quote from the article on Martial Law in the “Encyclopédia Britannica,” and asked where had been the war, and where had been the rebellion? The article stated that it had to be “limited by military necessity,” but there had been no military necessity in that case. The Minister had been levying war upon His Majesty’s peaceful subjects in that country. Dealing with the reference in the article about the closing of ordinary courts the hon. member asked: had there ever been a day or five minutes when the courts of the Transvaal, Natal, or the O.F.S. had been closed? Well, for certain purposes, they had been closed, owing to the action of the Minister preventing His Majesty’s subjects having access to the courts, and in that sense they had been closed. Proceeding, Mr. Creswell said that,in that case, the hon. Minister merely directed the magistrates, who were not the instruments of military power, to disregard the ordinary law. It was merely an extension of clothing ordinary police officers with extraordinary powers, such as was only known in Russia, Tor the purpose of accomplishing the will of the Minister to prevent peaceful subjects exercising their undoubted rights. It was surprising that the hon. Minister had not long since interrupted, for the purpose of saying he wanted to save the time of the House by accepting the amendment. It seemed that he was ashamed of his action. He (Mr. Creswell) had seen in the English Press paragraphs, speeches and articles loud in denunciation of the Prime Minister and his friends for their action in the abuse of Martial Law, and he had seen cable extracts, paragraphs, and letters loud in praise of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence for having dealt with labour troubles by that novel method of placing the whole country under Martial Law.

was understood to say that he had not seen any such articles.

said it really grieved him to hear that. The Minister was impervious to popular opinion. He was one who held on his way when he thought he was right, and surely he was sufficiently human to feel satisfaction when he found his conduct was approved in some quarters. He had only to read the “Daily Mail” and some other similar papers, and the Minister could have the satisfaction of reading the eulogisms of himself and his actions. He would find cables in his own Press if one could go so far as to describe the capitalist Press of this country in that way. He challenged the hon. Minister to tell him whether any British Dominion had ever used Martial Law for the purpose it had been used in South Africa. If it became a custom throughout the British Dominions they would have reached a turning point in the history of liberty in the British Dominions. If the Government was not afraid of its actions being put into words he could not see why they should refuse to accent the amendment. Martial law in the British Dominions was not proclaimed for what South Africa had been suffering from during the last three months. It had been suffering from a despotic Minister acting through his agents and not through the military powers.

seconded the amendment.

said the preamble of the Bill should place on record exactly what had transpired, and it was for that reason that he was going to support the amendment. Many hon. members in the House were silent, and he assumed that their silence meant assent. If they thought about the matter at all they must certainly be in agreement. The preamble had demonstrated the fact that they should have the wording altered. As it was at present worded, it did not reflect the facts of the situation. The point was in the words “as generally understood and administered in His Majesty’s dominion.” All through that trouble Martial Law had in no circumstances been administered as it was generally understood in His Majesty’s Dominions. The hon. member proceeded to quote from the Martial Law regulations, and drew particular attention to regulation 12 “picketing prohibited.” Could anyone remember Martial Law having previously been administered to prevent picketing? When that was established in years to come other places would be able to point to the precedent in South Africa, but in no other of His Majesty’s Dominions had such a thing been administered under Martial Law. Members should look closely into the wording.

I don’t quite see what all this is aimed at. The hon. member is following the hon. member for Jeppe in making a second reading speech. (Hear, hear.)

said his point was that Martial Law had not been administered here as in other parts of His Majesty’s Dominions. Here an attempt had been made to prevent peaceable picketing. However, if Mr. Speaker thought this was not germane, he was willing to drop it. Men under the Martial Law regulations had been prevented from communicating with one another. The regulations stated that all citizens must be in their houses by 8 p.m., but the men on the Van Ryn Mine were not even allowed to come out of their rooms during the day and were not permitted to communicate with other men on the same property. Authorities had laid it down that Martial Law should have effect only where the ordinary courts were not able to sit. The hon. member then mentioned the case of Jacob Greene, a cabman who was ordered by the police to drive his cab through “an aggregation of women” who were holding a meeting on the Market square of Benoni; subsequently Greene was fined £1 or in default of payment three days’ hard labour. This proved that these words in the preamble were incorrect. However, he would content himself with strongly supporting the amendment and with the hope that the House would take this last opportunity of rehabilitating itself and voting for the amendment.

said that the issue of the Martial Law regulations was due to the fact that we had an ever-growing white industrial population and unfortunately we had a Government drawn largely from the country rather than from the town districts. The members of the Government had very little experience of industrial organisation or labour troubles. In fact, the Government had not bothered itself about the industrial community, which had been ignored, flouted, insulted, and jeered at. The time came when, owing to the indifference of the Government, trouble arose, and again Government showed its incompetence to handle the situation and allowed itself to resort to the only weapon it knew—Martial Law or the use of the bayonet. Now it asked Parliament to include in the preamble of the Bill the statement that Martial Law had been administered as it was understood in His Majesty’s Dominions. But nowhere in His Majesty’s Dominions had Martial Law been administered for the purpose for which it was administered here, and that because the Government was absolutely incompetent to deal with industrial affairs. The Government was intelligent and was able to deal with agricultural affairs, but when it came to the town population that was altogether outside the scope of the Government’s intelligence. It was, however, impossible to ignore a large section of the population for all time, especially if that section had just grievances.

The London “Times,” which was a Conservative paper, said.: “The proclamation of Martial Law, the prohibition of public meetings and public speech, the employment of troops to disperse hostile crowds, and to effect arrest are all of them measures which infringe the rights of citizenship in a civilised country. They can only be justified if it is clear that the use of the sword is a reply to the challenge of men who have taken up the sword themselves.” Where, in South Africa, the hon. member asked, did any man take up a sword or a pistol or a gun against the Government forces or against any Government officials? They had not got it on record. They had it on record that the Government took the sword and the gun against the strikers, but not one fatality had happened on the side of the Government, except when a poor Defence Force man was shot by another member of the Defence Force in mistake.

said that these arguments, no doubt, were very good arguments as applied to indemnity, but that had already been granted in the Rill, subject to the third reading.

said he wished to read a passage from another Conservative paper, the “Daily Chronicle,” which said that the South African Martial Law did not square with British traditions.

That is a Liberal paper.

That makes it all the stronger. He went on to say that this paper stated that to proclaim Martial Law on the occasion of a strike, to prohibit picketing and written inducements to strike, and to arrest and imprison strike leaders without trial or with only a drum-head trial in order to put down an industrial movement—these things did not square altogether with British traditions. The paper added that it was deplorable that these things should occur under the British flag. (Hear, hear.)

The amendment was negatived.

moved on page 2, line 18, to omit “given” and to substitute “duly published.” He said that he wished to draw attention to certain excesses which occurred outside the regulations, and he hoped the Minister would take care that such things as had happened in the past would not occur in the future. He had had letters, and, in fact, personal representations from voters in his own constituency of the Jewish persuasion, who had told him that outrages were committed in several instances on people of that community. He understood that the orthodox Jewish people had a habit of burning candles in their rooms on Friday evenings. The full brunt of this Martial Law fell on his own constituency. They had no “comforts” to bribe the troops with. The troops went down the street, and where they saw these lights they knocked at the door and told the people to put them out. He was told that one old woman, because she refused, was grossly insulted, and, as a further act of violence, they broke her window.

Will you bring me that case? I should like to follow it up.

said he would supply the name. There were other cases where men were ordered to take buttons out of their coats. He was prepared to bring a hundred men who were told to take buttons out of their coats. That was outside the regulations. It was a serious matter. He did not believe that any control officer or any commissioned officer would have sanctioned any such things as these. He thought it should not be stated that this was done with the instructions and orders “given,” but that they should insert the words “duly published.”

The hon. member should have taken that course on sub-section (e)of clause 2. The preamble does not enact anything at all.

seconded the amendment.

I do not quite follow this amendment, but I would like to point out that the word “given” is used in the enacting clause.

The hon. member for Springs, I think, seconded the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppe. It is not competent to second another amendment, having spoken upon a previous amendment.

Am I to understand that I cannot second the amendment, having seconded one previously?

Certainly; it is contrary to the rules of the House.

asked whether he would he in order in moving his amendment on line 35 to insert after “Act” “are alleged to”?

said the hon. member was in order.

in moving his amendment to line 35, said that in the absence of evidence they were not prepared to allow these words to go in without the addition of “are alleged to.” He thought it was one of the principles of law that a person could not be found guilty before he was heard in his own defence. It would not prevent the Minister from getting his indemnity, but they should at least put in these words, and not constitute themselves into a court without any information before them, and without any proper indictment framed for these men to answer, and send it forth to the world that these men bad been adjudged guilty.

seconded the amendment.

Has the Minister any objection to these words?

Yes; a very strong objection.

said he thought it only required that as the culminating point after the last 36 hours. They used every power at their command to get the Minister to produce any sort of evidence, and they had failed. Not one title of evidence had been produced. The Minister having refused, was not prepared to insert the words “are alleged to.” Here they said that these men had committed certain acts. It was trifling with the House. He was only sorry that they didn’t insist on discussing these clauses in Committee, whereas now they were at the mercy of the Rules of the House. They could have Sat for a few more hours. The Ministers wanted them to affirm that these men were guilty of acts without putting forward any evidence.

The amendment was negatived.

was proceeding to move two amendments that stood in his name, when

said that the hon. member had forfeited his right to move the amendments inasmuch as he had seconded a previous amendment on the preamble.

said he objected to the deletion of the words, “and whereas none of the said persons were born in South Africa.” He said that the Minister laid down two forms of punishment—one for the Afrikander and one for the man who came from oversea. He would like to see these words written in letters of fire on the walls of Hades. (Laughter.)

Are you going to see them? (Laughter.)

I am afraid I won't be able to see them myself. (Laughter.)Perhaps, therefore, it would be better to put them on the gates, so that when they arrive they might be reminded of their actions.

supported, and was proceeding to point out that the dockers in England were considering the advisability of refusing to handle South African goods, when—

called the hon. member to order. The question was whether these words should be omitted.

The question was put, and the House decided that the words should be deleted.

The remaining amendments made in the Committee were agreed to.

With regard to the amendments to the title appearing on the notice paper I would like to point out that the first amendment, in line 7, is out of order for the reasons given earlier this afternoon on a similar amendment proposed in the preamble. The second amendment is also out of order for the reason that if the words proposed to be omitted are left out the title would not sufficiently cover the provisions of the Bill.

put the question that the Bill as amended be adopted.

asked whether it meant that this Bill had full force and effect?

No, there is the third reading.

I wanted to make quite sure. (Laughter.)

The Bill as amended was adopted, and set down for third reading on Monday next.