from inhabitants of Zwartruggens, Rustenburg, for remission of Repatriation Debts

from inhabitants of De Wets Dorp, for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Vote.

from inhabitants of Eland River, Rustenburg, for remission of Repatriation Debts.

brought up the report of the Select Committee on the report of the Public Service Commission.

It was agreed that the report, together with the evidence, be printed.

said he did not propose to move for a date for the consideration of the report, as he intended to give notice for leave to introduce a Bill.

said that, before the House proceeded to the Orders of the Day, he would like to put a question to the Prime Minister with a view of allowing the House to have some information with regard to what was the purpose of the Government in connection with some very important legislation. He desired to ask the Prime Minister if he would make a statement as to what the intentions of the Government were in connection with the Industrial Disputes Bill and the Workmen’s Compensation Bill especially, which had passed their second readings and were now before a Select Committee?

replied that it was the intention of the Government to proceed with both these Bills during the present session. The Bills were still in the hands of Select Committees, and as soon as these Committees had concluded their labours, the House would be asked to proceed with them.

I have consulted with the members of the Internal Arrangements Committee, and, on behalf of the House, I have accepted this portrait. (Cries of “Hear, hear.”)

moved for leave to introduce a Bill to amend in certain respects the laws in force in the Transvaal and Orange Free State governing co-operative agricultural societies.

said he would like to ask the Minister if he would give them some idea as to the contents of this Bill, which, he understood, had not yet been published.

It is a very unusual course. The Bill will be issued very shortly.

said that the Bill was a very simple one. It was only for the purpose of amending in some respects the laws governing the Transvaal and Orange Free State co-operative societies with regard to quorums, and the majorities required. The Bill would be in the hands of members co-morrow.

said that this might be a very unusual course, but the Government took very unusual courses sometimes. It was not convenient that the Government should go throwing Bills on the Table at this stage of the session, when they had the columns of the “Government Gazette” at their disposal in which they could publish those Bills. As far as he understood, this was a Bill which was promoted for the convenience of the farmers’ Trade Unions. They on the cross-benches protested against Bills being thrown on the Table of the House at this stage of the session without perhaps having any possibility of knowing what their contents were.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was read a first time and set down for second reading on Monday next.

continued the debate on the second reading of the Riotous Assemblies and Criminal Law Amendment Bill. He said that in what he thought he might fairly characterise as the able speech of the Minister of Justice in introducing the Bill yesterday, in almost his first remarks he said he hoped the question would be treated with calm de liberation during that discussion. He hoped that in anything he (Sir T. W. Smartt) had to say that he would not depart from that wise advise, because, after all, in a measure of the great importance dealt with in that Bill, although there might be differences of opinion, it should be discussed in the calmest possible manner. The Minister had said that it was really a conservative measure. No doubt the Minister had in mind another Bill introduced into that House which received such opposition from the country that his hon. friend had to withdraw it. Compared with that Bill, no doubt the present Bill was a conservative measure, because the Bill which the Government in its wiser moments had withdrawn had been conceived in a moment of passion. No doubt, therefore, the present measure was a conservative one, and it was not suggested that the Government could introduce Martial Law without the necessity of coming to that House for indemnification. The hon. gentleman had said that in certain directions the powers conferred on the Government by the Bill were not as great as they were at present. The Minister had said that under the existing laws of the country it would be possible to stop any public meeting because they were illegal. Those meetings were now made legal and could only be stopped under certain conditions. One was nervous in giving extra powers to a Government which might act arbitrarily in a certain condition of affairs. When they thought of the lamentable condition of affairs which overtook this country in July and January last, they must realise the great danger that bad to be encountered at a time like that—the danger when a large number of people in an excited condition went to a public meeting and heard inflammatory oratory—the danger that arose to the disturbance of the public peace and the fearful consequences that might be engendered by such a disturbance, possibly a great loss of life. It was impossible to conceive what might have occurred last July and January. Although the consequences in July were dreadful, in January the disturbances passed over without any loss of life. Therefore he thought that under certain conditions in the general interest of the welfare and peace of this country, although they should take a certain amount of responsibility, they must be prepared to recognise the laws of the country were not of a sufficient character to maintain the peace of the realm. Under those circumstances the House was justified in legislating in that direction. They must prevent a repetition of disturbances such as they had had in the past. While he maintained that they should give every protection to the man who desired to work, he maintained that they should give every protection to the man who desired to combine legally and loyally in the interests of the trade in which he happens to be engaged. They heard a great deal about liberty and its rights, but there was no doubt that in many cases liberty has been turned into licence, and it was not liberty when the free workman was prevented, intimidated, jibed and jeered at when he desired to carry on his everyday work. To that every right-minded person should put a stop. So far as Chapter 2 of the Bill was concerned, he thought that the general good sense of the country was at one with the Minister. There were one or two provisions with regard to intimidation where he thought the point was being strained a little too far. Those were matters that they had very fully to consider, but on the general principle of maintaining law and order, he thought the good sense of the country would agree. But while he held those views, he was extremely pleased to hear the announcement of the opinion of the Prime Minister, on behalf of himself and the Government, that the Government intended to proceed with the industrial legislation during the present session. He wished the other legislation had come first. The House would not be justified in dealing with legislation of a repressive character until it had introduced legislation of a remedial character, to show that there was no desire to repress any section of the people. On that House and on the country rested a great responsibility of doing what they could with remedial legislation. Many of their troubles, brought about in a period of intense excitement, could be got over if they had industrial legislation to allow people to come together and adjust their differences before they brought on the country intolerable conditions by strikes, which caused great suffering to the unfortunate workers themselves and to their wives and children, who had got no say in the matter. He considered it was the duty of that House, no matter how long it might take and no matter how anxious hon. members might be to get to their homes, to deal with those matters before they went away. He hoped the Minister would give the House an opportunity of dealing with those measures.

He would like to deal with some of the provisions of the Bill. His hon. friends dealt with the question of peaceful picketing. Well they had had some experience of that in this country. He had had personal experience of workmen who wanted to return to work being intimidated from doing so. They could not shut their eyes to the fact that a great deal of the trouble was due to the fact that many men had not returned to work for fear of being called traitors. Under these conditions he considered that certain provisions were in the interests of the peaceful worker. If they studied the history of Trades Unionism in England they would find that the system of intimidation had been introduced. When men who did not wish to belong to Trades Unions, and found it impossible to earn an honest living, he said that the law should interfere to protect the man who was not a Trades Unionist. If a man did not wish to join the union his ordinary life should not be made a misery. There, very largely, he was at one with certain of the provisions which prevented peaceful picketing—a thing which had degenerated into brutal intimidation. Dealing with the public meetings on enclosed premises, he said he thought it was a pity that it was necessary to deal with a matter of that sort; but they could not shut their eyes to the fact that deliberate organisation had been at work for the purposes of preventing views expressed at certain meetings going out to the people of the country. The hon. member for Jeppe said, “Hear, hear,” Last night that hon. member said, “Why do you whine? We never whine.” There was nothing of that sort about it, and he thought they had heard a good deal of whining from the cross-benches. This was a question of maintaining the right in this country of every individual having a fair opportunity of giving expression to his views, so long as those views were not in conflict with the law of the land. Even in that city they had had cases of organised bands, with drums beating and banners flying, going from meeting to meeting and making it impossible for anybody to get a hearing. Was that their idea of free speech for which they were always pleading? Knowing what the tendency was at present, he recognised there was some justification for such a provision. Dealing with the special courts, the speaker said that this was a considerable modification on the provision which had appeared in the original Bill. He pointed out that the court proposed in the original Bill might have partly consisted of creatures of a Government, and used for the purpose of carrying out the desires of that Government.

The most serious part of the Bill was that dealing with deportation. He did not think that the Government was well advised in pressing that part of the Bill with its majority. He pointed out that anybody in a time of unrest who got up and made a speech was liable to a fine of £200, or two years, under Chapter I., and as it was in the sense under the Bill, that man was liable to deportation. No matter how they disagreed, they could not put political crimes in the same category as other crimes. It would be most unjust, and he would oppose any attempt to place that part of the Bill on the Statute-book. It would be misunderstood in every possible way. He pointed out that other sections of the population were not to be treated on the same basis as his hon. friends opposite when they broke the law. This provision would be misunderstood, and would have a bad effect on the country if the Government used its majority to pass a clause of that sort. He referred to the differentiation that was made between people of Colonial birth, and pointed out that a man who had come from oversea many years back, and who had made his home in this country, could be deported under the Bill, while his children were left here. Surely the Prime Minister was not going to press a measure of that sort. His view was that legislation of this character, in an extremely modified form, should go hand in hand with remedial legislation, and before the House committed itself to the final stages of this measure, it should have an opportunity of knowing what progress had been made with other measures, such as the Workmen’s Compensation Bill and the Industrial Disputes Bill, and so on. To force a measure of this sort through the House without remedial legislation would be misunderstood and would have a bad effect. Nothing would be worse than to allow hon. members on the cross benches to go back to their constituents and use the argument that Government was doing all it possibly could to prevent people expressing their opinions and yet at the same time did nothing to ameliorate the conditions under which the people laboured. The Minister had very wisely abstained from making any reference to the penalty clauses, yet those clauses were very extreme indeed, imposing for a trivial offence a fine of £200 or two years’ imprisonment. He (Sir Thomas) hoped the provisions of that sort would be materially altered. There were certain principles in the Bill with which he agreed, and it would be impossible for him to vote against the second reading, but his attitude in connection with the further stages of the Bill would largely be guided by the action of the Government in pushing forward remedial legislation, which should go hand in hand with measures of this sort. He was not prepared to take the responsibility of refusing to put in the hands of the Government powers which might be necessary for the maintenance of law and order, for otherwise there would be thrown on the members of the House an enormous responsibility for not having given Government adequate powers to deal with affairs before they became so serious as to involve the risk of enormous loss of life before disorders were suppressed. They all had recent unfortunate circumstances deeply graven on their minds, and while being deeply opposed to certain clauses of the Bill, which he would do everything to have modified, he would vote for the second reading. (Opposition cheers.)

said it was a rather curious speech they had just listened to. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort began by saying that he was going to support the Bill, but in some way he had gone a little in the other direction. He (Mr. Merriman) was going to support the second reading because he considered the Bill was absolutely necessary, and having done all that he could to stop the deportation business he hailed with a great deal of satisfaction anything which would put matters in future on a more legal basis. There was nothing so detrimental as the proclamation of Martial Law and violent arbitrary measures taken by Government—nothing was so detrimental to the character of the people as having that sort of thing. There fore it was most necessary that we should have some law so that we might clearly know in emergencies what could be done legally. Having congratulated the Minister of Justice on his clear and lucid speech, Mr. Merriman said that all sections ought to be in favour of a law like this—(hear, hear) —because the maintenance of law and order and the protection of life and property were the very first functions of any Government. Without that they were reduced to anarchy, and a Government which was driven to protect life and property by arbitrary powers and by using force of a very distasteful nature, and the proclamation of Martial Law, was bound at the earliest possible stage to regulate its proceedings. He regretted very much indeed that we had not in our Constitution, as America had, some provisions with regard to Martial Law. Everyone had suffered in this country under the imposition of Martial Law. They knew what it was and they abhorred it. He thought the Bill was necessary. The Minister had very properly pointed out that the common law covered a very large portion of this Bill— everything, he (Mr. Merriman) might almost say, except some details with regard to intimidation and things of that kind, certainly the first part about riotous assemblies was covered by the common law, but it was very necessary that people should know what the law was. This was in the interest of the working-man as much as anyone else. It was generally supposed that a law like this was only directed against the working-man. Not at all. This was a law for everybody in the country who might feel tempted to break it. It was very necessary that that particular class, which was liable to be worked upon by dangerous agitators, who told it to commit breaches of the peace, it was necessary that these people should know the sort of penalty they were going to be liable to. (Cheers.)

Those people went to meetings and were told all sorts of absurd clap-trap about the “sacred right of public meeting.” They were told that generations of Englishmen had fought and suffered for “the sacred right of public meeting,” but there was no such thing in England. On the contrary, any policeman could break up any meeting if he thought it was obstructing a public thoroughfare. These poor men were told about the tyrannous practices and the Russian practices of the Government, and that led to the valour of ignorance, for thinking they were fine fellows, they knocked a policeman down, and kicked his teeth down his throat, and then they were supposed to be maintaining the finest traditions of the British race This deplorable clap-trap found its echo in the House from people who ought to know better. If they would only read a text-book on English law they would see how wrong they were. It was quite a mistake to suppose that in England public meetings were allowed to go on unchecked and uncontrolled. He wondered what would be said if the Union Government copied, some of those English laws which are supposed to maintain the fine traditions of British freedom. In the brave days of George III.—

Too modern.

Well, my hon. friend has got so much into the realm of clap-trap that he does not understand this. Continuing, Mr. Merriman said that in the days of George III. any person who wilfully or knowingly injured or hurt any Justice of the Peace was adjudged to be a felon without benefit of clergy, and if they did not disperse when called upon they might suffer death. Well, he was glad that the Minister in his researches into English law had not embodied this one in the Bill, because in those days any meeting if held for the purpose of considering or preparing any petition, complaint, remonstrance, or other address to the King, or the Regent, or Parliament, or for the purpose of deliberating upon any grievance in Church or State was considered to be an unlawful assembly. (Laughter.) It was quite necessary for everybody to know that if a person in authority called on a meeting to disperse in the name of the King they were bound to do so. We, perhaps, might not go so far as the Labour legislation of New Zealand, which included a most stringent law making a person liable to death if one stopped at a place after a meeting had been proclaimed. A Labour Ministry was in power when that law was passed. One need not go outside the British Empire to find laws ten times more stringent than the one now before the House.

There never was a Labour Government in New Zealand.

I suppose Mr. Seddon was not put in by the Labour Party; I have not the slightest doubt we shall hear that Mr. Seddon was a high Tory. (Laughter.) In happy New Zealand for a seditious offence a person is liable to imprisonment for life, with hard labour. Yet they had been telling them (proceeded Mr. Merriman) that this was an unheard-of infringement of liberty. Somebody had sent a little note down to him. He did not wish to go outside the British Empire, but in this note he was reminded that M. Briand, who was a red hot Socialist, sent soldiers to shoot down strikers. It was for the special purpose of avoiding the necessity of shooting down people or Martial Law or arbitrary measures of that kind that they wanted to have a law of the kind they were discussing passed.

Then they came to the second chapter, the amendment of the criminal law, which was most necessary. He would not go over again what had been said excellently by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, and that was that the great object was to protect people in their right to earn their living in the way they thought best. That was taken from England. That was a law on the English Statute Book. It was quite true that the law of 1875, the law of conspiracy, was altered, and what was called “peaceful picketing” was allowed. But, by common consent, it was found that “peaceful picketing” had been the cause of the greatest trouble, and the effect of the 1906 Act was to encourage strikes and disputes. (Hear, hear.) They did not want to encourage strikes and disputes; they wanted to put them down. He hoped the Minister would adhere to that to the very fullest extent. Peaceful picketing! His hon. friend had something to say yesterday about “constitutional ways.” Of course, they were great upon “constitutional ways.” Their idea of “constitutional methods” was to kick a man almost to death. It was the constitutional way of telling him that he must not work in a certain mine and must not earn his living. (Hear, hear.) As to those people who were so fond of talking about victimisation and a black list, he had here a list that was published, the “Kleinfontein Scab List, ” issued at the time of the riots.

Bad lots.

They were honest men trying to earn a honest living under the protection of the law, a living that other men had declined. They were not cutting wages or anything of that sort. This list is issued for the purpose of inciting folk to attack and kick and maltreat and nearly kill these people. At the bottom it is said, I suppose with blasphemy, “and God made everything that creepeth upon the earth after its kind” That was considered an exquisite jest in the circles that then ruled Benoni. Proceeding, the right hon. gentleman said that he had got a copy of the “Strike Herald” dated July 2nd, issued under the auspices of these ruffians who were then ruling Benoni. He would quote a paragraph from this to show how necessary it was that something should be done to make publications of this kind and the actions that followed illegal in the future: “This morning (Tuesday) another scab fell into the hands of a few of the boys. They treated him kindly to the tune of smashing three or four ribs and his arm. A piece of his ear and nose are missing, as also are a good many of his teeth. He is now in hospital and will not be able to scab for a good long time to come. He will have an excellent opportunity of imbibing that excellent precept, ‘The way of the transgressor is hard.’” In what way had that man transgressed? He saw his hon. friend (Mr. Croswell) smiling. This was the kind of jest that appealed to him; this was the sort of rule he wanted to substitute for law. It was very difficult to follow his hon. friend’s peculiar vein of humour. He could read out to the House the laws in Holland which were singularly like those in England in regard to intimidation, but he hoped to deal with these when they came into Committee. There was one thing that he thought they ought to embody in this Bill, if it were not in it already, and that was to give the severest possible penalty to anyone who seduced or endeavoured to seduce any members of His Majesty’s forces to commit any mutinous act whatever. (Hear, hear.) In New Zealand that was punished by imprisonment for life. How about those gentlemen who tried to induce the police not to do their duty and to induce the members of the Defence Force not to do their duty? He would like to see those rascals properly trounced. (Cheers.)

What about Ulster? Apply it all round.

said he now came to another matter, and that was the provisions in regard to disturbances at meetings. He must confess that that was a point on which he hoped the Minister would see fit to alter his mind. He thought these things were ludicrous. It was quite true that there were other countries where this thing obtained. In New South Wales they had a penalty of £5 and in England in 1908 they passed a law. He thought all this was a great misfortune. Really, it did not seem as if we were advancing in civilisation when we had gone on for so many years without having a penalty of that kind, and now we were to have a penalty for a man going to disturb public meetings. His hon. friend (Sir T. W. Smartt), he knew, did not like the experiences he had had He (Mr. Merriman) could give the House some experience of his own. He had been singularly unfortunate in the course of his life in having been the victim of several public meetings. He remembered that the first was at Uitenhage, when the brave folk of Port Elizabeth kept him on his legs for a long time without allowing him to speak, and eventually broke up the meeting. Then he remembered also when the inhabitants of Cape Town, what he might call the “broker brigade” — (laughter) — disturbed the meeting about the Chinese importation. He did not know what part his hon. friend opposite took in that. (Laughter.)

I was on the platform that night.

said his hon. friend would recollect the scenes that took place, but still they did not think it necessary to have a law up to that point. The people who broke up a meeting or tried to break up a meeting did harm to nobody but themselves. The best instance, he remembered, was at the Waverley Market in Edinburgh. They had something like a football match for about five and thirty minutes. There were a number of gentlemen who called themselves the Young Scots. They had organised themselves, and whenever a man made a row they knocked him down and hauled him outside by his ears. (Laughter.) There were over 35 gentlemen thrown out that night, and they had had a scene more like a football match than anything he had ever seen, but they established order amongst about 5,000 people, and he went on with his address, and the meeting was held in perfect peace.

That was what they had got to do. If these people made a row they must organise themselves, if they were strong enough and numerous enough. (Hear, hear.) Just as it was said that the devil should not have all the good tunes, so they should see that the disturber? of the peace did not have all the force on their side. They should organise themselves, get a number of brave young fellows, and haul them out. (Laughter.) They should not run away to the old grandfather, the law; that was a petty thing. He remembered a public meeting once held in his constituency. A gentleman went out, Mr. Hanna, he believed, to introduce himself to the constituency. There was a large and representative meeting of the farming community, and they listened with admirable politeness, as a farming community usually did, until Mr. Hanna had finished his discourse. Then some gentleman got up and moved a resolution, somebody seconded it, and the whole lot trooped out of the hall, leaving Mr. Hanna there alone. He hoped the Minister would not press this part of his Bill. If he did so, he (Mr. Merriman) would be compelled to vote against it. As to the supplementary provisions, he thought, if he might say so, they would have to be very careful. He would implore the Minister to be very careful indeed about these matters. It was a very arguable point whether this setting up of a Special Criminal Court was desirable, and whether, by taking away trial by jury, though it might be a convenience for a time, they would not in the end be doing more harm than good. It had been tried, he knew, in the English Statute-book in relation to Ireland. Well, he must say he did think those were unhappy precedents that they took from Ireland. He had in his hands a quotation, which he would venture to read to the House, by a man whom, he was sure, they would all respect, Mr. Bryce.

Mr. Bryce had said in 1882 that trial by judges might be proposed, but the difficulty lay, not in the court so much, but in the finding of evidence. He did not think that in the majority of cases much would be gained by the change. Mr. Bryce went on to say that the people who viewed the proposal with the greatest disfavour were the judges themselves—that if they were put to try political offences without a jury, it laid them open to the suspicion that they were favouring the one side or the other. Proceeding, Mr. Merriman said that that was a matter that should be considered before they went into it. He was quite open to conviction on the matter, but looking to the quarter from which the precedents came, he thought they would be well advised if they thought once, twice, or three times before they put it into force at the present time. He did not think it strengthened the Bill, and it put a lever into the hands of those who would say they were acting in an unduly hasty manner in those things. It was a very difficult matter in this country to destroy the confidence in the judges, but if they lost that confidence, they might find it difficult to regain it, and they might be doing something which would lead to irreparable harm. On the whole, he thought the jury system had worked well, and it did seem to him that the foundation of liberty was that a man should not be in the hands of people who were appointed for life, like the judges. When he heard his hon. friend, Sir T. W. Smartt, speaking about deportations, he could remember his hon. friend’s speech in favour of deportation without trial. The proposal now was deportation with trial. He did not think anything was to be gained by that particular form of punishment. He did not know that the Minister would be well advised to persist in it, because it would create prejudice, and be misunderstood. He (Mr. Merriman) would much sooner be deported than have five years’ hard labour, but that was a matter of taste. (Laughter.) He thought a little too much was made by his hon. friends about deportation. They forgot the action they took a little while ago. He (Mr. Merriman) had been against deportation without trial. If a crime was worth deportation, he did not see why that special honour should be refused to South African born men. He did not see why the South African-born man should be picking up the roads and the other man be giving his views in another country and enjoying it. There was another point he hoped the Minister would reconsider. He would not leave it to a magistrate to have the right of prohibiting public meetings. It was a serious matter to prohibit a public meeting, and it should be done by a Minister, as was the case in England. He thought the penalty for an infringement on the land—two years—was going a little too far. He thought the prohibition should be done by the Minister himself. He frankly admitted that he was more in favour of the English system of waiting until a meeting became disorderly before prohibiting it. He could remember the time when an energetic magistrate would have prohibited a lot of Bond meetings in this country. That would have been very inconvenient, and they did not know what might take place if they placed powers like that in the hands of the magistrate. In the laws of this country the maintenance of public order was specially important, because of the 4½ millions of people with whom they had to deal.

He had been sorry to hear his hon. friend (Mr. Creswell) saying that the natives were badly dealt with, appealing to the natives again and bringing them into the matter. They had never believed that they should have had to bring in a law of that kind to maintain peace and order. It was a reflection on all of them that they had to consider a Bill like that—people who had thought that they were bringing civilisation into this country. For those reasons they ought to be careful in framing the Bill so as to carry the people with them as far as, possible. He did think there was no man, unless he was blinded with prejudice, who could deny that the law to maintain public order and define what was legal and what was illegal in those matters was a necessary law. If it was not done in the heat of passion, but with grave consideration, it would be a boon to this country. He would vote with entire accord for the second reading of the Bill, but he thought minor matters were open for discussion, and he hoped the Minister would not show himself obstinate in accepting suggestions from quarters which desired to make the Bill appeal to the people of the country who wished to see the country run on lines different to those adopted by the Benoni Strike Committee. (Cheers.)

said that whatever point of view the right hon. gentleman who had just spoken adopted at the beginning of his speech, he took a diametrically opposite view at the finish. The right hon. gentleman had quoted the treatment meted out to the strike-breakers in July, and shortly afterwards said that the same treatment should be meted out to people who disturbed public meetings. He had mentioned with gusto a meeting at Edinburgh where men were knocked down and pulled out by the ears. The hon. member was thoroughly consistent in his inconsistency. Anybody who opposed the right hon. gentleman was a ruffian; the right hon. gentleman had referred to the ruffians who were aspiring to run Benoni in July. What did he call the strikebreakers? Honest men, earning an honest living. He forgot to mention what happened under the instructions of the Government in January in the same place. Under the claim of maintaining law and order what did the Government and their armed Burghers do? At the butt end of rifles, under the lash of sjamboks, they drove men six miles from Benoni to Boksburg, many of them dying from miners’ phthisis. Those ruffians who had run Benoni never sjamboked women.

They burnt their furniture.

Who burnt that woman’s furniture? Her own evidence distinctly dissociated the strikers from that action.

You are not ashamed of it?

Why should I be ashamed of it?

Because you approve of it.

That is absolutely untrue. The right hon. gentleman knows quite as well as anybody in this country that that is absolutely untrue. (Cries of “Order.”)

The hon. member must not say that the right hoir, member knows it is untrue.

I suggest—

Misinformed is the proper word to use. (Laughter.)

said he hoped that the right hon. gentleman in the future would be good enough to recognise the truth when he heard it and saw it. He knew perfectly well that no strikers or the Strike Committee, had anything to do with the burning of that woman’s furniture, or had anything to do with the sjamboking of a woman in the streets of Benoni. The Government which he supported did this, and he condoned it. The right hon. gentleman had never taken the Government to task for this dastardly action. Continuing, he said that the right hon. gentleman took them to task for what happened in July, and he pointed out that most of the strike-breakers at Kleinfontein were criminals straight from the prison gates. The hon. gentleman had told them that they must not manufacture their facts. Well, he would like to tell the right hon. gentleman that the Labour Government had never been in power in New Zealand, and there had been no Labour Party there until three years ago. Yet the right hon. gentleman saddled the Labour Party with legislation which he had referred to. The hon. gentleman had quoted George the Third, and that was the sort of history they were used to hearing from him. He (Mr. Madeley) believed in those days they used to hang a man for sheep stealing—a crime that was laughed at nowadays. If the right hon. gentleman had progressed with the times he would never have used such ridiculous arguments. The right hon. gentleman said that in England any policeman had the right to break up the meeting, but a policeman could not do anything of the sort there. He did not think they need take any further notice of the right hon. gentleman so far as this Bill was concerned.

Hear, hear. (Laughter.)

said that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort made great play on the duty of protecting the free labourers.

It was curious that free labourers were only such when there was a strike on. The usual avocation of the ordinary free labourer was loafing, hanging about the streets, and dodging work. They were men who were prepared to sell their souls and* their fellow-men. These men in the opinion of every right-thinking man deserved and generally earned the execration of all right-thinking men. He asked the hon. member to think about the free labourers on the Kleinfontein Mine in July. One, he was told, was suspected of having committed murder, and yet he was a protected man during that period. It was refreshing to hear the hon. member for Fort Beaufort talk about breaking up meetings, and he thought he would tell the House of a meeting during the year, or just before the war, when a gallant band of Progressives howled down the right hon. the member for Victoria West because he did not agree with them. He (Mr. Madeley) remembered an occasion when the hon. member for Jeppe stood for two and a half hours trying to address a meeting to which men were brought from all along the Reef by special train by those who sat on the same side with the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. He remembered in 1907 when he (Mr. Madeley) held a meeting in Benoni, The staff came down in force from Kleinfontein, led by leaders of the Progressive movement, and broke up the meeting. They sang. What did the House think they sang? “God Save the King” and “Rule Britannia”! (Laughter.) Continuing he said they did not want a law of this description to deal with public meetings. They were prepared to take their chance. Continuing to refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, where the latter stated that workers had been called traitors, Mr. Madeley said that if a man thought he was doing right he would go to work and would not mind being called a traitor. It was because a man knew that he was doing wrong in going to work that he resented the remark. The main object of the Government in bringing forward this Bill was to crush Trade Unionism. Repressive measures of this character never succeeded, and he thought this legislation would bring about just the reverse of the result desired by the Government.

Directly they told a man not to do a thing he was seized with a desire to do it. One of the objects of this legislation was to prevent the advance of the Labour movement, and its result would be to increase the vast number of adherents to the party to which he belonged. Which meetings were likely to be prohibited under this Bill? If the Leader of the Opposition or any of his friends held meetings, would they be prohibited? Certainly not But let the poor Labour Party hold a meeting, the police would get the impression that there might possibly be a disturbance, and immediately the magistrate would be notified that it was dangerous to allow the meeting to be held, and it would be prohibited.” Advantage would then be taken to run the hon. members for Commissioner-street or Jeppe into gaol in order to keep them quiet. The direct result of this legislation would be rebellion. Had the Government not had sufficient experience last July with bloodshed, when 30 men were killed and a couple of hundred were wounded at Johannesburg as the result of the attempt to break up the Market Square meeting? Let him compare that with what happened at Benoni a week before, when a meeting which was originally prohibited, was allowed to be held, and consequently there was no confusion, no disorder and no riot.

That was the position which would always maintain. If they attempted to prohibit public meetings they would have trouble, but if freedom of meeting and speech were permitted there would be peace. The Minister of Justice had had to go to magazines for his information and arguments, and had used other arguments than those contained in an article by an unknown writer in the “Nineteenth Century,” an article which laid down that it was desirable in the interest of the protection of property that life should be taken. He would rather see every house in smoking ruins than see one life taken in defence of property. But that was not the worst, they might even take life in order to break up a meeting. This was the introduction of a damnable principle which would redound to the eternal discredit of the Government and of the Opposition which supported it. He strenuously opposed the second reading of the Bill.

said the Bill did not seek to crush Trade Unionism, but the arbitrary, tyrannical methods adopted by many leaders of the Labour Party. He was in favour of some of the principles contained in the Bill, but to others he took the strongest exception. For instance, the measure should be modified so as to give people the right to attend public meetings. He dreaded the recurrence of the terrible riots of July last, and he also dreaded the recurrence of the proclamation of Martial Law. He was quite in accord with the provisions for the protection of the free worker, more especially as during the disturbances on the Rand last July he saw bands of men going about pulling out those who remained at work on the mines. He also was in favour of the provisions with regard to the prevention of intimidation of men to make them join Trade Unions. He had nothing against Trade Unions, which had Secured better working conditions and higher pay, but it was only just that a man who had no desire to join a Trade Union should be protected against the tyranny and arbitrary action to which men were often subjected by members of Trade Unions. He did not agree, however, with the deportation clauses, and maintained that there should be no difference between persons born in this country and those not born here. (Hear, hear.) With this reservation in regard to deportation, he intended to support the Bill.

put the question that the word “now” be retained, and declared that the “Ayes” had it.

called for a division, which was accordingly taken.

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

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

then put the question that the Bill be read a second time, and declared that the “Ayes” had it.

called for a division, which was taken.

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

declared the motion agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time, and set down for Committee stage on Friday next.

in moving the postponement of the debate, said he did not do so for his own convenience, because he was quite prepared to go on, but there were many members in this House who took a deep interest in this matter, and under these circumstances he thought it would be unfair on his part to take advantage of the Order Paper. (Hear, hear.) He begged to move that the order be discharged, and set down for Wednesday.

Surely, in view of the circumstances we have just witnessed, why should the Minister of Finance not anticipate that this was not coming on this afternoon? The debate collapsed because the arguments of those who opposed the Bill were not really met.

The hon. member must not debate what has occurred.

said he was merely pointing out how inadequate was the reason given by the Minister for not proceeding with the Bill.

having moved the second reading, further moved that the debate be adjourned.

put the question that the debate be now adjourned, and declared that the “Ayes” had it.

called for a division, which was accordingly taken.

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

declared the motion agreed to.

The debate was adjourned until Wednesday next.

moved minor amendments.

Agreed to.

moved the third reading.

objected to the third reading of the Bill being taken then.

The third reading was set down for Monday.

said he had to move the deletion of the vote by £10,000. He knew he was doing a very unusual thing. No one more than himself recognised the Governor-General of this country in his Executive acts, if fault were to be found in them, the fault had to be found with his Ministers.

asked the Acting Chairman’s ruling on the point as to whether this amendment was in order, in view of the fact that the salary of His Excellency the Governor-General was fixed by the South Africa Act?

ruled that as the amount was included in the total to be voted under this vote, he must rule that the amendment was in order.

said he knew well the constitutional position. No one more than himself realised the danger of blaming the Governor of the country and not his constitutional officers. No one realised more what the grave position would be if the Governor-General departed from the advice of his Executive Ministers. That was the only way they could make their protest against the Governor-General outside his constitutional position. He wished to refer to the despatches sent Home by the Governor-General last January. For the Governor-General’s official acts the Ministers were responsible, but for his despatches, when he departed from the impartiality of a non-political Governor, it was time for them to protest in that House. There was a despatch sent by the Governor-General on the 22nd January, 1914. It would be found on page 109 of the House of Commons Blue-book, No. 1743. Possibly there was some excuse for it because of the hysterical condition of the Ministry. It, was the sort of partisan defence of the action of the Ministry in regard to those troubles. There was not a suspicion of impartial judgment exercised by one raised high above party politics in giving a picture of the position. It was the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister speaking through the mouth of the Governor-General. When the Governor-General was despatching an account of the position of affairs in this country they expected something more than would appear in a Reuter cable sent to the “Times.” In paragraph 12 stress was laid on the natives being massed in large numbers—the native bogey as connected with the troubles on the Wit-watersrand. What had that got to do with whether the men were at work on the Wit-watersrand or not The despatch said it was no peaceable and well-ordered strike as declared by the Trades Hall—it was made by intimidation, as had been made perfectly clear by the report of the Commission. He (Mr. Creswell) wanted to know when the Commission found that it was not en ordinary strike. The whole of it was a defence of the Government’s action. He wanted to know why the Secretary of State was not informed that special measures were taken in Pretoria by the strikers in appointing special police to see that none of their own ranks transgressed law and order. Those despatches were coloured throughout in the same way. He referred to a despatch which stated that the railway strike was called by Mr. Poutsma. Was there, he asked, no Executive Committee of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants? Proceeding to quote further from the despatches of the Governor-General, Mr. Creswell said that there was an implication that one man had declared that strike. There had been no care to ascertain what were the powers lodged in the hands of the Executive by the members of the Amalgamated Society of Railway and Harbour Servants. Then it was stated that “it was not merely a strike for remedying legitimate grievances.” That (said the speaker) was one of those statements which, had it appeared in Blue books, would be regarded in England as being accurate; and who advised His Excellency that, after July 2, the leaders of the Federation had agreed that they, would at no future time call a general strike unless he had been informed to that effect by some Minister? Why should he impute that the leaders were going back upon the settlement in July? The hon. member went on to refer to the statement that, out of 95 casualties on the Market-square, 88 were policemen, and asked how many policemen were killed on the 4th of July? There were 88 casualties amongst the police, but how many casualties such as those were suffered by the crowd which they never heard of? He protested, on behalf of his colleagues and himself, and on behalf of thousands of men outside the House, who expected not to be traduced by the Governor-General of the Colony. Then they had newspaper cuttings forwarded with those despatches. Had not the Governor-General any better means of getting the whole of the facts than those contained in the newspapers of to-day? He (Mr. Creswell) noticed that there was a letter from Mr. Philip J. Sampson the editor of the “Transvaal Chronicle,” protesting against the way in which the censorship had been exercised. His Excellency was fully aware that the cuttings from the Press omitted everything that was inimical to what the right hon. gentleman and his advisers thought right. He (Mr. Creswell) was given to understand that no letters were censored in the post, but he had a letter in his possession which he sent, and which had been opened by the order of the Censor. And while that was going on, the Governor-General sent them a mass of newspaper cuttings. Of what value were they?

They on the cross-benches protested against the dice always being loaded against them. The Governor-General was lifted above criticism. He was above the had of partisan politics, yet they had despatches of that sort sent with the intention of leading those on the other side to look upon the Labour movement as a movement of rebels hardly to be considered. They had a right to protest. In the course of his general observations the Governor-General stated the majority of the Labour Party were probably much as they were elsewhere, and that most of the hard and exacting work of the country was done by the natives that the Labour Party insisted upon, the exacting of the Transvaal law which prohibited the native doing skilled work, not because he had not the ability, because his skin was black. Was not that a South African sentiment, asked Mr. Creswell? By what right had the Governor-General to impute those sentiments to the Labour Party in this country? By what right had he given the traversity of the Labour Party in a public despatch merely for the purpose of putting people in England out of sympathy with the Labour Party here. The whole way through those despatches there was the same lamentable ignorance of the Labour view. For all practical purposes these might have been despatches written by the Minister of Finance, taking his own partisan view. The Governor-General was lifted above party politics, and when he sent his despatches they expected he would have given a more creditable exposition of the whole position. Then there was a reference to the “Syndicalist” leaders. That blessed word “Syndicalism,” how it had spread from that House even to the highest quarters.

said he associated himself with all that had been said by the hon. member for Jeppe, and he thought the hon. member was justified in the circumstances. He (Mr. Sampson) had read these despatches, and he did not get excited when he read them. In the early days of the Labour movement he used to get excited over criticism, but those days had passed. He thought that these despatches were a second edition of the speech made in the House by the Minister of Finance in the early part of the session; in parts he would almost say that they were alike word for word. He did not see why the Governor-General should go out of his way to abuse one section of the community. He (Mr. Sampson) could understand the position in which Ministers were placed, but he thought it was a most unkind thing to do, having turned those nine men out of the country, to follow them up by blackening their names in another country. The dates, he thought, coincided with certain inspired articles which appeared in the London newspapers. The Governor-General stated in his despatch: “These individuals are well-known to be leaders of the movement which originated the strike. … they have exercised an influence of a most pernicious character over the wage-earners.” What right had the Governor-General to say that? Since the deportees had arrived the editors of these London newspapers had been tumbling over each other to withdraw their statements—they would not stand by statements put into their mouths by somebody else. The Governor-General in his despatches went on to say that it was well known that the strike was started by Mr. Poutsma and confirmed by the Trades Hall—had ever one read such utter nonsense—and was a pure artificial strike to make the Trades Hall paramount at the expense of the country. An hon. member laughed—he was glad that the hon. member could see that it was rubbish. He wanted to take up the despatch where the Governor-General said it was an artificial strike. He would convict the Governor-General of stating what was misleading from the report of a Government official. Mr. Sampson went on to quote from the report of an inspector of the Mines Department, who stated that the underground workers were treated harshly and without that consideration that was due from one man to another by tactless and overbearing shift bosses. The causes enumerated by this inspector in his report were the true causes of the strike. No Governor-General had the right to lend party colouring to his despatches. It was not fair for the Governor-General to single out one part of the community for attack. Continuing, he said that even the Government admitted that everything it did was not right. Did they find in these despatches any condemnation of the excesses under Martial Law, which the Minister himself acknowledged? He had unjustifiably blackened the names of men as good as anyone who had ever lived in this country.

said that he had listened with the greatest surprise to the last two speakers, and he thought the House would agree with him that the best part of the speech of the hon. member for Jeppe was that wherein he (Mr. Creswell) admitted himself to be ashamed of what he had said.

When did I say that?

said that a more unheard-of accusation than that made by the hon. member for Jeppe he had never listened to. The hon. member came here and made an attack on a gentleman who was not here and who was unable to defend himself. Why these allegations and these attacks? He (the Prime Minister) must admit that he was surprised and sorry to have heard the language of the Leader of the Labour Party, and he even more regretted the attempt of that hon. gentleman to encourage a spirit which should not exist in this House. (Ministerial and Opposition cheers.) As a rule the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell) could argue sensibly on matters, and he in the first place should know that the Government and no one else was responsible. The Government should be attacked if anybody had to be attacked, and not an official who was not here to defend himself. The Government was responsible for the administration of this country, and he (the Prime Minister) most emphatically denied that the Governor-General had at any time assumed an attitude which was in any way partial or not in accordance with the dignity of his office. (Ministerial and Opposition cheers.) He wished to say further, and he thought that in doing so he was voicing the feelings of this House and the majority of the people of South Africa, that his Excellency the Governor-General had passed four years in this country which could only be described as four years of great difficulty. And to-day, now that he was leaving and now that they should have nothing but words of praise and tribute for the impartial attitude which he had always taken up, and for the great work which he had done, now the hon. member for Jeppe rose in this House to make the unworthy attack which they had listened to. The attack was a most unworthy one. It was neither a manly nor an honest attack, and he hoped the hon. member would realise that it was not right to come here and make allegations against anyone who could not defend himself. The hon. member (Mr. Creswell) knew better than anybody else how uncalled for his remarks had been, and he (the Prime Minister) only wished to emphasise that nobody but the Government was responsible for anything that had happened. The subject dealt with in the despatches mentioned by the hon. member had been fully discussed in this House, and the attitude of the Government had been approved of by this House by a large majority—(Ministerial cheers)—and at that the matter could have ended. This House had approved of the action of the Governor-General and of the action of the Government. They had this afternoon heard this attack and this reference to a “political Governor-General,” and they had listened to charges that the Governor-General had singled out a certain section for his displeasure. He (the Prime Minister) emphatically denied these allegations. Had the hon. member read the report quoted from to-day by the right hon. the member for Victoria West? Had anything about the matters mentioned by Mr. Merriman been referred to in the despatches of the Governor-General? Had anything been said in these despatches of how the strikers broke the legs of one man and then sent him to hospital? That statement appeared in a certain Labour paper, and certain people boasted of it. The allegation of partiality was nonsensical. The fact that newspapers were attached to the despatches was nothing unusual. That was always done, because the newspaper reports showed as a rule what spirit prevailed. He (the Prime Minister) was convinced that the majority of the people of South Africa entirely approved of what was said in the despatches of the Governor-General.

He hoped the hon. member for Jeppe would take a little advice.

No, not from you.

said he knew the hon. member was above taking advice from anybody; all the hon. member wished was to put one section of the community up against the other, but if the hon. member would accept this advice from him that if he showed a little more sympathy, and he took up the same attitude as he (the Prime Minister) took up towards the poor workmen of this country, then he (Mr. Creswell) would achieve a great deal more, and there was no doubt about it that matters would go far more smoothly in South Africa. (Ministerial cheers.) But the hon. member had so much ambition and was so anxious to press himself forward that he was always doing his best to find favour with one section and to put two sections up against each other. (Ministerial cheers.) If he would use a little more common-sense, and instead of giving the people wrong advice, take up a different attitude, he would do much more good for those people he claimed to have such a warm heart for. Concluding, the Prime Minister said that he felt sure that when the hon. member (Mr. Creswell) thought over what he had said to-day he would blush. “I repeat that the attack made is an absolutely unmerited one. The Governor-General has during the years he has been in this country carried out the responsibilities of his great post in a most dignified manner, and—what is more—he has done great work in South Africa; I am sure that the majority of the people of South Africa are proud of the work he has done here, and even if the hon. member for Jeppe should attack him a hundred times over he will be unable to change the feeling of the majority of the people towards the Governor-General.” (Cheers.)

said he understood that the Prime Minister had been good enough to offer him some personal advice. When he accepted advice from anyone, and he did so occasionally, he was largely actuated in attaching value to it by the quarter from which it emanated and by certain discrimination as to whether the person who tendered the advice had been very successful in managing his own affairs. As far as politics were concerned, he did not look upon the Prime Minister as being a conspicuous success in the management of his own followers. In the second place, the Prime Minister stated that it would be better if he (Mr. Creswell) were a little less animated by personal ambition. He could assure the Prime Minister that he and his colleagues could enjoy the emoluments of office and that the hon. members on the cross-benches did hot envy them. But they would spare no effort and leave no stone unturned to have the Ministers turn ed out of office, because they had shown that they were incapable of governing properly. The Prime Minister had also stated that he (Mr. Creswell) would do more good if he tendered better advice to those with whom he associated. If there was one person in that House who had reason to know that his (Mr. Creswell’s) advice had always been to prevent awkward crises that person was the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister had also stated that he (Mr. Creswell) had set class against class, but if there was one thing that he had striven hard against from the time he had entered the Labour movement it was the theory of the class war. He had suffered in that cause. He had shared the same sort of privileges of hon. members in that House, and for a long time he refused to accept the statement that all administration was so coloured by the selfish influences of the dominant class that it was tantamount to keeping these privileges no matter what happened. He wished the Ministers would try and put themselves in the shoes of the mass of the disinherited people and regard things from their standpoint. They would then see themselves as others saw them, and then things would be much better for South Africa. It was the workers who by their moderation by their acts in abstaining from demanding their rights, had suffered more than anybody else. It was their moderation which had been their downfall, and it was up to the Prime Minister, instead of bandying these accusations against him (Mr. Creswell), to make better use of the position he held in South Africa.

He did not agree with the Prime Minister as to the constitutional position. If they were to understand that the Governor-General, in writing these despatches to the Secretary of State, had to be looked upon merely as the mouthpiece of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet of this country, that these letters were written by the Governor-General-in-Council, then he held the Prime Minister and his colleagues responsible, but he did not apprehend that the Governor-General’s telegrams and despatches to the Secretary of State were dictated by or submitted to the Cabinet of this country. He regretted, and said it waspainful to have to take such action, because he always held that the representatives of the Crown were in a sphere which it was not advisable to criticise. That was, as long as they kept out of the wrangles of party politics. It was a very good thing to have certain people in a country who were outside the wrangles of party politics, but he did not care who it was, if they came inside, he maintained that he was at liberty to criticise. He felt deeply that the Governor-General of this country had got no right to speak of any political party in this country in the uninformed manner in which he did, without taking measures to acquaint himself with the principles of that political party, and to write about it to the Secretary of State for publication in England, with the object of trying to alienate the sympathy of the Labour Party in England from the Labour Party in South Africa. He had not said a word this afternoon that he was ashamed of. If the Governor-General of this country and this Parliament desired that the Governor-General himself should never be called to account, then there was one way in which that could be secured—let the Governor-General refrain from criticising parties in this country and parties in the State.

said he also was of opinion that the hon. member for Jeppe had said nothing this afternoon of which he-should be ashamed. The right hon. the Prime Minister had said that it was undignified, and that the hon. member for Jeppe had attacked the Governor-General, who was unable to defend himself. The Governor-General’s vote was on the Estimates of this House, and the Prime Minister knew that the only way in which they could possibly draw attention to anything that they objected to in the Governor-General was by referring to it on the vote of this department. The hon. members for Jeppe and Commissioner-street had argued on the ground that the Governor-General had allowed himself to be politically coloured. He contended that in their quotations from the Governor-General’s own despatches they had proved their statements up to the hilt. He wanted to go further. He was going now to suggest that, not in January last, but in July last, the Governor-General not only entered politics, but he abdicated his Governor-Generalship, and handed it over holus bolus to the Minister of Finance. The hon. member quoted from the correspondence relating to “recent disorders on the Witwatersrand and the employment of regular troops.” He read a telegram sent by the Minister of Finance to the Governor-General, who was then at Durban, urging the need of employing the regular troops, owing to the serious developments on the Rand. Mr. Madeley said that the effect of this telegram was that the Minister of Finance, or, as he thought he was on that occasion, the Minister of War, deliberately wired to the Governor-General informing him that he had instructed the Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Forces in this country to send up 500 troops.

Requested him.

Oh, requested him! The troops were at his request. You knowhow the Minister of Finance requests, don’t you! (Laughter.) Proceeding, he quoted from a telegraph sent by Sir Reginald Hart to the Governor-General, stating that “General Smuts explains that he is the authority to apply for troops in aid of the Civil power in this country.” He went on to say that it emerged from the telegrams that the Imperial troops over whom the Minister of Finance had absolutely no jurisdiction, were removed to the Rand to act under his orders without the consent of the Governor-General, although the Governor-General was in Durban, and could easily have been reached by telegram. In the course of his despatch, the Governor-General said: “It would have been well if Ministers had given me warning that danger was coming.” Yet, after all that, no condoned the action of the Minister of Finance. He distinctly specified in his reply to the Minister of Defence that the Imperial troops were only to be employed to protect mining property, and yet in the correspondence between the Governor-General and the Secretary of State there was no reference to the fact that his instructions to the Minister of Defence were absolutely disobeyed. They could not find out from this correspondence, although they had a right to find out, whether he had censured the Minister of Defence for doing that. The Dragoons rode through the masses of the people on Market Square, Johannesburg. That was the way in which the Minister of Defence obeyed instructions.

said he wished to associate himself with all that had been said from the cross-benches. They were asked to pass a sum of £10,000 as salary for the Governor-General for one year. That was the first occasion when any member had found it necessary to comment on that item. It had not been customary in the past for the Governor-General to enter party politics or criticise unduly one class, one race, or one party, but on that occasion they found he had gone out of his way to attack one class and one party. He (Mr. Boydell) had expected that the despatches would contain some semblance of the truth of what had taken place in the country. As for the reports on the situation generally, the Governor-General had sent his own personal views. Those reports were so prejudiced and unfair that they might have been written by the editors of the “Star” or the “Cape Times.” He had two charges to make against the Governor-General. One was that the information sent was not in accordance with the facts. He referred to the information sent with regard to the arrest and imprisonment of members of the Executive of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, and the confiscation of then books. The engineers at Durban had cabled Horne to their headquarters and had it informed that the Executive Council had been arrested and their books confiscated, and that they could not get their funds. Mr. Harcourt, the Secretary of State, wired to the Governor-General, asking if that was the case. What information did the Governor-General send? He said that the executive had not been arrested, nor their books taken. He also referred to the arrest of the engineers in Johannesburg, who were locked up for ten days. The District Committee was arrested and locked up, and their books taken, yet the Governor-General said their books were not taken, and that the members of the District Committee were not arrested. The magistrate had produced the minute book and had used it in evidence against the men. On July 4 there was an official despatch as to the meeting on Market-square. It was known that in order to disperse that meeting bloodshed followed and troops were used. Yet the Governor-General said in his despatch that the meeting had been dispersed without any serious trouble. The Governor-General ought; to have been in possession of the full, facts of what had taken place at that demonstration.

The hon. member went on to allude to telegram No. 15 in the official despatches, which referred to “the fierce fighting in front of the Rand Club when the terms of settlement were being arranged.” The hon. member said that they knew that there were many persons shot in cold blood that afternoon The fact was not mentioned in the telegram that, during that afternoon, the very events which had incited the mob to a state of passion were largely due to the action of the Government in having these troops there which shot at the people. It was also said that the troops had been used for protective purposes, but it was well known that they were not used for such purposes. The hon. member went on to allude to telegram No. 32, and said that it was the first time he had heard of 10,000 natives being armed like that. They knew that there had been some excitement amongst them, but the telegram was so worded that it seemed as if 10,000 natives during that critical period had broken loose and that there was every likelihood of an attack being made on the men, women and children in the locality. It was stated that the military had not been used to coerce the miners on strike, but they (the Labour members) had proved many a time that the military did so coerce them. The hon. member read telegram No. 34, from the Secretary of State to the Governor-General, which was to the effect that it was being stated that troops were being used to prevent the holding of public meetings. Here was the Secretary of State putting his finger on the spot, said the hon. member, and he was asking whether that was so or not What had the Governor-General done? In telegram No. 37 he replied that he was having, a judicial inquiry into the matter. He (Mr. Boydell) could go on detailing cases where the information sent was not in accordance with fact, and he protested most strongly and most emphatically against the Governor-General of that or any other country using his high position in sending wrong information to those in authority at Home, and trying to prejudice the minds of the people, against the working-classes, as if the latter were rebels of the worst possible type. His hon. friend the member for Jeppe had moved that the whole of that sum be deleted, but he hoped that the hon. member would leave £100, to pay the expenses of the Governor-General and his party back to the place from which they had come.

said that he did not desire to take up the time of the House, but he would simply say that he associated himself with what his hon. friends had said. All those superior persons might say that they were overstepping the bounds in what they were proposing, but there were members of that House who had been members of the old Cape House and who had taken part in the attack on Lord Milner when he had been High Commissioner of that country. Was it wrong for them (the Labour Party) to act as they were doing now because they were a small party? Even the Crown had been attacked when it interfered with politics in Great Britain and Ireland, and they had the same right here when the representatives of the Crown descended to take part in party politics, to belittle and besmirch men who belonged to a certain section of the community, having certain political views and certain economic interests. When the Governor-General attacked those they had the right to defend themselves and express their disapproval in that House.

said before the discussion came to a close he would like to say that he quite approved of the action of the members on the cross benches. He did so because he had read those despatches, which probably 99 out of 100 of those who were jeering had riot done. He had also read another set of despatches. That was a matter too serious to be dealt with in that House. There were other despatches which had been given, coloured, no doubt, by the Minister who held so many portfolios. If they were going to have people misleading the Governor-General in those matters, they must have an opportunity of bringing the matters before the House. He was glad that the hon. members on the cross-benches had protested, but he trusted they would not force that matter to a vote. He suggested that the motion might be withdrawn.

referred to certain despatches which had been cited by the hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Boydell) and asked if those despatches were not sent on wrong information supplied to the Governor-General by the Prime Minister? He asked the Prime Minister was it not so?

The Prime Minister made no reply.

said that then that information was given the Governor-General by the Prime Minister knowing (the speaker presumed) that it was false.

said the hon. member had no right to say that.

said he would substitute that if the Minister did not know at the time he gave that information that it was false, his general intellectual calibre was such that he was hardly to be trusted with his responsible duties. There could be nothing more dangerous to the Government in this country than for the Governor-General to associate himself with belittling any political party. He had no business to mix himself with the principles of any political party; there might subsequently be a change in his political advisers. But no useful purpose would be served in pursuing the matter to a vote and he begged to withdraw the motion.

There was no objection, and the amendment was withdrawn.

suggested that they should take the sub-heads seriatim, as usual. If they took the whole they would find the discussion would lead to confusion. He moved the votes be taken seriatim

Agreed to.

On sub-head (b), Transport and travelling, £2,980,

moved to reduce the vote by £500. He thought expenditure should be reduced, and the only way they could bring any pressure to bear was to propose the reduction in detail as they went through the Estimates.

said that if the reduction took place, it simply meant the Governor-General would have less convenience in getting about in the Union. That was a matter upon which he (the Minister) had no feeling, but if votes were to be reduced, it was not the proper course to commence there, particularly in view of the remarks which had been made during the afternoon.

said that was one reason why he did not want to do it. But he had a strong opinion that there must be economy.

said he thought the Minister was only equalled in childishness by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central. By the way they were going on they were like an assembly of children without any consistency or regard to the public interest. Did the Minister think that they were supporting this proposal because of certain remarks that had been made a few minutes ago? Was the Minister of that small mind?

said he was sorry the Minister resisted the reduction. A similar reduction took place when the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, was in office in the Cape, and there were no ill-effects.

thought that anybody in receipt of £10,000 a year might be expected to pay some little towards his travelling expenses.

The amendment was negatived and the sub-head agreed to.

On sub-head (c), Entertainment allowance, £2,500,

moved to reduce the item by £500.

wished to know whether the new Governor-General was informed of the emoluments relating to his office.

said that no arrangement was made with the new Governor-General, but the arrangement came into effect at the time of Union, and added, “After what has been said this afternoon, not one penny will be removed from this vote.”

That is just like the Minister of Finance. Continuing, Mr. Creswell said he had no objection to the vote, but if there was one thing that made him desire to see it reduced it was the little cheap capital the Minister had made out of what had occurred.

said that while thousands of men were looking for work we should do without entertaining rich people, who had good dinners waiting for them at their own homes. This money would support the poor by woners.

They have plenty of food.

Then why do they work for 3s. 4d. a day on the railway? I move the reduction of the vote by £2,500.

in supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central said recently the Judges had been deprived of their entertainment allowance, Government evidently having come to the opinion that it was no longer desirable that Judges should entertain. Why then should they give the vote for an entertainment in one case and not in another?

The Judges get £3 3s. a day.

They can’t do any entertaining on that.

in reply to an argument by the hon. member for George, said that with the arrival of a new Governor-General, it was the proper time to make a change.

said he hoped the amendment would be withdrawn.

The amendments were negatived and the item, and the vote as a whole, were agreed to.

moved that progress be reported and leave obtained to sit again.

The motion was agreed to.

Progress was reported and leave obtained to sit again on Monday next.