UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA (INDEMNITY BILL).

§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

I rise for the purpose of moving the Amendment which is down on the Paper in my name. I want to say right away that it is a matter of special regret to me that the Amendment should refer to anything done by the South African Government, a Government to which we owe much patience, much forbearance, and very much sympathy. Nevertheless, the action which it has taken in the proclamation of martial law and the special form winch it has given its Indemnity Bill compels us to take some notice of its action. I should like also, as a preliminary, with reference to the observation which fell from the right hon. Gentleman opposite when he wound up the Debate last evening, and when he stated that the action which we would review to- 354 day with hostility would throw a very illuminating light upon the Home Rule controversy, to say that I admit frankly and freely that local self-government is bound to cause us difficulties in detail, such as those we are going to consider now. But I would far rather face those difficulties in detail than attempt to commit the insane folly of governing the Empire without self-government. The reason why my Amendment has taken the form it does will be apparent to the House if I may be allowed to quote the first part of Section 64 of the South Africa Act. That says:— When a Bill is presented to the Governor-General for the King's Assent, he shall declare, according to his discretion, and subject to the conditions of this Act, and to such instructions as may from time to time be given in that behalf by the King, that he assents in the King's name, or that he withholds his assent, or that he reserves the Bill for the signification of the King's pleasure. 4.0 P.M.

The matter has been specifically provided for in the South Africa Constitution Act. I therefore claim that the terms of my Amendment in no way entrench upon the rights of self-government enjoyed by the South African Union. I have quoted from the Constitutional Act. It was evidently premeditated and foreseen by the authors of the Act that matters of the sort might arise, and they are provided for specifically in the provisions of that Act. Therefore, no Member of this House can get up this afternon, with Section 64 in his mind, and accuse me of attempting, either by my Amendment or by criticism, to limit the rights of self-government given to South Africa by this Imperial House. I admit that there is one little difficulty which we have to face, that is the difficulty of facts, but in view of the way in which this Bill will have to be rushed through the South African Union Parliament, in view of the necessity of us allowing no chance to pass, and no opportunity to go without expressing our opinion on the events that have taken place in South Africa during the last few weeks, I venture to say that there is a sufficient body of facts now at our disposal to justify us in entering upon the Debate this afternoon. It is perfectly true that the cables have all been censored. That means, however, that only what was in favour of the action of the Government has come through. Therefore, we take them with that estimation of their value.

355 It is perfectly true that the news agency which has the responsibility for supplying the news from South Africa to this country has got a bias, and a bias always consistently and persistently against us. It is perfectly true that everything we have got has been carefully sifted and winnowed, so that if anything could be kept back in the nature of censure upon South Africa it has been kept back, and if upon the information we have got I can establish the simple proposition that the condition of affairs in South Africa did not justify the proclamation of martial law, then I submit that further evidence would be of the nature of strengthening my case rather than of weakening it. Let me begin by referring to the long statement made by General Smuts. I do not want to discuss it; I only make this observation: that all of us who have the pleasure and honour of some intimate personal acquaintance with General Smuts know he is a man not only acute, but able. We know perfectly well that if a case could be made out in favour of any action which the Government took General Smuts is the man exactly to make it. It must be remembered that the South African Government has seized private letters, private papers, private books, and private documents, and has laid its hands upon the offices of the Trades Union in Johannesburg. It has put policemen inside these offices, and it has taken their documents as well as their money. Therefore every particle of evidence that could have been at the disposal of any Minister was at General Smuts' disposal, and must have been reflected in the speech he delivered before the South African Parliament. I do not want to characterise that speech; I will allow Mr. Merriman to do it, and the only extract from Mr. Merriman's speech reported in our papers today that I will give is this: he said of General Smuts and the other speeches made that in each there was remarkably slender evidence of conspiracy. That is quite enough, I venture to say, judging by the speech which Mr. Duncan made at an earlier stage of the South African Debate, to show the line which Mr. Merriman is going to take will be supplemented by Mr. Duncan.

Again, those of us who know the value of Mr. Duncan's services from the time he went out to South Africa, first of all under conditions of grave stress and exceptional difficulty, will, I think, bow with respect before any opinion Mr. Duncan 356 may express in the South African Parliament. There are one or two points that have appeared in our papers that perhaps the House will pardon me if I turn aside for a moment to consider. It has been alleged that the conditions in South Africa are such that severe measures, like the proclamation of martial law, can quite reasonably be taken much more frequently than would be justifiable for a Government to take either here or in Canada or Australia. I venture to say that whilst that as a general proposition may be perfectly sound, it will not be sufficient for hon. Members this afternoon opposing my Amendment to lay it down as a general proposition. They must give us the facts, they must tell us what happened during the last three or four weeks, if they base their action in regard to my Amendment upon that general proposition. There is the statement made that the strikers were in possession of dynamite. If that were true it would be serious, but, as a matter of fact, only four strikers were arrested for being in the possession of dynamite. Three who were brought before the magistrate were immediately discharged, and the other was discharged in a very short time after certain inquiries were made. That is the whole substantial case upon which the statement was made that dynamite was in possession of the strikers and the trade unionists or Syndicalists, of whatever name they go by, who have been subjected to the operations of martial law. But there is one curious thing in connection with this point which I hope the House will remember.

In 1911 there was a strike of municipal employé in Johannesburg, and the accusation was made against a person of the name of Whittaker, a tramway worker, that he was laying dynamite on the tramlines. He was arrested, put in prison, in solitary confinement, and was not allowed legal advice or to interview his lawyer, and he was tried. In the course of the proceedings—I am not going into the full story—it was discovered that a witness against this man—it is all on record, and is not tittle-tattle—was in the pay of the police, and as a police agent had gone about and suggested to various persons that they should place dynamite on the public thoroughfares. The case came up before a magistrate, and then there was subsequent proceedings which came before the High Court, and which were the subject of various judges' decision, and in the end the accused person, Mr. Whittaker, 357 was acquitted. But what happened then? The police spy was immediately put upon Government railway service, and the Government knew his record. These men who are now being accused in a general way of using dynamite protested against working alongside of this man. Their protests were overruled and he remained in the Government's service. This incident which does throw a certain amount of light upon these extraordinary stories which are being told against the trade unionists of South Africa will, I hope, lead hon. Members of this House, at any rate, to reserve their opinion when honest trade unionists are accused of plotting diabolical actions against the lives of their fellow subjects.

The other cause brought up is the racial peculiarities of the South African population. Again I admit quite frankly and unreservedly that that as a general proposition is perfectly true; but is there any evidence in the events in South Africa this year to justify the statement that the Government were faced with serious racial disorder and danger. The only case was the raid at Jaggersfontein, but everybody knows that had nothing to do with the strike. The natives living in Jaggersfontein considered that in regard to one of them who had been murdered, the case was not receiving fair and equitable judicial treatment, and they gave trouble as a protest against that; but that had as much to do with the strike as the suffragette procession on the occasion of the opening of this Parliament had to do with the proclamation of martial law in South Africa, and the curious thing in the Jaggersfontein raid or trouble, was the extraordinary way, in recent leading articles, and special article about the situation in South Africa, in which that incident was mixed up with the strike and the labour trouble, suggesting, I venture to say, rather dishonesty than ignorance on the part of those responsible. Then a final observation which I make under this head is the attempt to cast some slur upon the character, particularly of the deported men. The Law Courts are open. If there is anything to say against these men's characters let it be said in the proper place, but that does not justify martial law and deportation. I am not now dealing with individuals, but with citizens, and I venture to remind, at any rate, hon. Members who sit upon this side of the House, that Providence has very often chosen the most unsavoury characters in order to be the medium of progressive reform.

358 The name of John Wilkes is not altogether unknown to Radical politicians, and his reputation is not altogether unknown to the general public of the country. I have nothing to do with personal characteristics, I have simply got to do with certain actions of the Government which I believe are contrary to the traditions of the Constitution of this country. Now, what happened was simply this: there was social inconvenience on account of the strike. I admit it, there was a threat that the food supplies of Johannesburg might be cornered; prices go up, and a certain amount of inconvenience caused. I admit it. It is perfectly true Johannesburg is supplied by a single line; it is not the fault of the trades union, but of the Government. The Government all this time has closed its eyes to the fact that the facilities for the supply of the Johannesburg population are inadequate, and they have done nothing in providing better supplies to remedy the deficiency. That is its lookout, and not the fault of the railway servants or anybody else. We have in South Africa social inconveniences; we had an attempt on the part of the workmen, by combined action, to force it in front of the Government, so that the Government might sympathetically consider certain claims that they have made; and if the Preamble of the Indemnity Bill is carefully studied there is not a single phrase in it, there is not a single claim in it, there is not a single charge in it, that could not be made in respect, say, of the High Wycombe strike and the strikers active in that town at this moment. The 4th and 5th clauses of the Preamble go on to say, "Whereas certain persons whose names are set out in the Schedule to this Act have by various acts, words, and conduct, during 1913 and the present year, so created unrest amongst the wage-earners," and so on, in familiar language, but that simply amounts to a hostile description in general terms of the most ordinary trade-union action in times of trade disputes. That is all it amounts to. Up to now, at any rate—not even excluding the case of Natal, which every constitutional authority now admits was a bad case, although when I raised it in this House the House of Commons was not prepared to say exactly that it was a bad case—the only justification which has been accepted as adequate for the proclamation of martial law is a state of war. The expression "state of war" may be defined with a certain amount of liberal imagination, but no hon. Member can take up the 359 Preamble of this Indemnity Bill and pick out from it any statement, or any claim, or any charge, that can by any stretch of the imagination be construed into such a grave situation as to justify the expression "a state of war." That is the first point which I want to make.

In order to make it clear, and to fortify it by facts, I hope the House will allow me to recite in a very few sentences what actually happened before the proclamation of this martial law. The House will remember that in July there was a strike on the Rand. In order to quell that strike the South African Government applied to the Governor-General, Lord Gladstone, for Imperial troops; those troops were supplied, and in due course the strike was settled. General Smuts, in a speech which he delivered the other day in moving the Second Reading of this Indemnity Bill, used an expression regarding the settlement of the strike which I hope does not escape the observation of hon. Members of this House. General Smuts said he felt that in settling that strike, and in putting his hand to the instrument which closed it, that he was disgraced and grievously offended in consequence. It was evident from the words which he used that the whole thing had rankled in his mind ever since then. It is quite clear he approached the present Government with prejudices rankling and rampant in his mind. He has confessed so much. How do the recent circumstances arise? The railway men had very great grievances, and the Government admitted those grievances so far that it appointed a Commission to inquire into them. No sooner did the Government agree to appoint a Commission than it began to take action which unsettled the confidence of the railway men that the Commission was going to do anything for them or that it was going to act in a judicial capacity. The representatives of the railway men were to be elected first of all. It is perfectly well known that the South African Government—this came over in the newspapers long before the trouble broke out at all—did its very best to get Mr. Duncan elected as the men's representative. The men themselves nominated Mr. Poutsma, who is now on the high seas, deported. He was elected as their representative by an overwhelming majority. It was a bad opening for the Commission that there should be some conflict raising suspicion in the minds of the 360 great mass of the trade unions concerned, but that is not all. I see the fact that this Commission has been in existence has been used as a reason why the men should not strike.

This Commission, when it was still taking evidence, was told by the manager of the railways that the men were going to be discharged One of the grievances and one of the complaints of the men was that retrenchment was being pursued as a definite policy of the railways, and therefore one of the questions which was referred to the Commission was actually being dealt with whilst the Commission was sitting. I ask any hon. Member, irrespective of his political opinions, what he would do under those circumstances? Would he wait if he found that claim after claim he was making, and grievance after grievance he was voicing, instead of being considered by the Commission, was actually being dealt with by the Government whilst the Commission was sitting and taking evidence on those points? That actually took place. Hon. Members opposite will have great sympathy with this, because I remember it was dealt w7ith by the late Mr. Lyttelton one year when considering the question of retrenchment in regard to Civil servants. I admit it was a somewhat different point. The fact of the matter is the men see the volume of railway business going up, they find the trains being lengthened, and the numbers increasing, and then when retrenchment takes place at that time and when reductions in wages also take place, what conclusion can they come to? What conclusion can they come to when they find the people who are retrenched, discharged, and the people whose wages are reduced happen to be the active men in the trade unions? All this happens whilst the inquiry is going on. Moreover, when they make their protest, the manager says he is only retrenching seventy men, but, as a matter of fact, they have evidence that 494 names are on the list waiting for discharge. These are the things which unsettled and upset the railway men in South Africa before they came out on strike, and it was those experiences which, acting upon their minds, had inflamed their feelings and suspicions, and made them declare for a strike. That was the first thing.

Then our syndicalist friends came in. I will tell the House what I think of syndicalists and syndicalism. I consider them the greatest enemies to organised labour. I have said so before, and I am prepared to 361 say it right through. They came in, and a general strike was declared. What I want this House to remember—I am still trying to make it clear that no state of war was ever created in Johannesburg at all. As soon as the syndicalists came in, a great meeting was held on 11th January in the Market Square of Johannesburg, and a resolution was carried declaring a general strike. The newspaper accounts of that meeting are quite unanimous in describing it as large and peaceful, and the speeches as dull. Every man who addressed that meeting begged it to keep quiet, and begged it to do nothing except simply come out on strike. They told it that any display of force or any threat of violence would be immediately met by armed force on the part of the Government, and the description of its dispersal was that the people simply went quietly away, as if they had been attending some Sunday religious service, and were going home to think over what they had heard at the service. One paper says there was no enthusiasm in the meeting, and the dispersal took some time, the people talking quietly together in groups. Then after that the speeches which men like Mr. Bain delivered in great quantities and at considerable length did not contain, so far as I have seen—and the newspapers are over here now—one single sentence that if read in with the sentences that preceded or succeeded it, could be taken to mean anything at all except the ordinary exhortations of a leader of men trying to keep his men united. Three days after the strike took place, Mr. Bain made a statement in which he said:— He would suggest us a working basis that they should form a hoard of administration of railways, composed equally of nominees of workers and the Government. This revolutionary person who is supposed to be advocating civil war is actually asking his followers to authorise him to go to the Government to suggest, the formation of a board of management which would be composed partly of working men and partly of Government officials. That is true, not only in Johannesburg but in Cape Town In Cape Town there was a mass meeting of men employed on the railways, and their secretaries and presidents went to it and urged them to vote against a strike. They did vote against it, and they remained at work; but owing to one of those unfortunate blunders that very often happen under those circumstances, Sir Thomas Smartt obtained liberty to go inside the railway works and address the men next day. The men re- 362 sented interference. Mr. Poutsma was arrested, and then, and only then, did the Cape Town men join the strike. These facts one can glean from the newspapers, and occurred and were published before martial law was proclaimed. These are the facts which would enable one to follow in their minds the development of this unfortunate trouble, and I repeat that the whole circumstances of the case, troublesome as they were undoubtedly, and difficult as they were, never came within a thousand miles of justification of the proclamation of martial law. This is a sentence from a memorandum of a leading trade union which an official sent to me:— The story which has been assiduously put about by the Union press, and no doubt cabled home, of a syndicalist revolution is entire rubbish and without the slightest foundation, being designed partly fur British consumption and partly to enlist middle-class sympathy out here. That is a description of what was taking place in South Africa, and on that martial law was proclaimed. My first contention is, that that does not justify the proclamation of martial law. Immediately martial law was proclaimed, as hon. Members know, a series of arrests took place. The executive of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers was arrested, and its money was taken. Several representatives of the railway men were arrested, members of the Union Parliament were arrested, including Mr. Cresswell and town councillors. No charge was made against them, and no solicitors were allowed to see them. Men standing conversing in the streets like Mr. Cresswell were taken charge of by a policeman. One man who smiled at a policeman was brought before the magistrate. Remember that it was an exceedingly hot summer, the middle of January being the summer there, and people frequently went out to spend the cooler parts of the evening on the slopes in front of their houses. Hon. Members can understand what a curfew law is when put into operation if a man standing on his doorstep smoking a cigar in the evening is regarded as having broken that law, and hon. Members can understand what absurd provocation was used by the South African Government in the administration of the proclamation under martial law.

There is the case of a man standing on his own doorstep, because his house was so frightfully hot on account of the weather, smoking a cigar, arrested by a policeman, brought before a magistrate, and fined £2 with the 363 option of seven days' imprisonment. Whilst all this was going on, the law was perfectly effective. Let us assume that there was conspiracy, and let us assume that there was sedition talked. The law was perfectly effective; the judges were sitting in their courts every day, and nobody ever obstructed them or threatened them. As a matter of fact, an application was heard with reference to the deported persons, and the judge expressed certain opinions which are, very valuable, and which ought to guide the Home Government in its action in this respect. General Smuts said that they could not get convictions under the Law of Sedition in South Africa. Of course, it is unfair to say that his statement is inaccurate because his full statement has not come over apparently, but, if he did say what he is reported to have said, he is absolutely inaccurate, because convictions have been got under the Sedition Law in South Africa. Sentences up to seven years may be imposed, and sentences have been imposed; certainly one to my knowledge of six months. The difficulty that the Government of South Africa had to face was that it had no evidence at all. Even when it got all the evidence that was at its disposal, all the books and all the private letters of the leaders of the Labour party in South Africa, it had no evidence to bring any of them before the courts. That is why they resorted to martial law. We admit that trade unionism is being very very troublesome to the present Government. General Smuts is smarting under the humiliation of the July settlement. Victimisation has been practised by Government officials against trade unionists on the railway, and men prominent in the trade union movement have been practically banished from the country by being boycotted by Government officials. Wanting to finish it altogether, wanting to make a complete job of it, and not being able to pursue the matter in the courts because they knew perfectly well that they had got no evidence upon which the courts would convict, they made up their minds that by one fell and comprehensive swoop of illegality, the Executive would clear the whole thing out and crush out trade unionism on the Rand if they possibly could. There is another sentence from a memorandum published: There is the gravest reason to believe that the crisis was deliberately sought and prepared for by the Government in order once and for all to kill the labour movement by a coup de main. As it has been an 364 essentially constitutional and law-abiding movement, this could only be effected by suspending the law. It is a deliberate effort to suppress political opponents by removing their leaders and terrorising their rank and file, and at the same time to swamp Herzogism by exciting Dutch reprisals against a common enemy.

§ Sir J. D. REES

Who is the author?

§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

It is a memorandum, which I have got here and which I will be very pleased to hand to the hon. Member, issued by several leading trade unionists, including Members of Parliament, who say that certain members who would have signed it have been either deported or sent to gaol, and would prefer that their names should not be given in public, and I think that the House will, under the circumstances, observe that. It is a very admirable statement of the case. They say:— Several gentlemen who agreed in the first instance to the outline of this memorandum have, since its drafting, been cast into prison under the provisions of Ordinance 38 of 1902, and consequently, under the terms of Government notice 43 of 10th January. 1914 —although only awaiting trial — prisoners are not permitted to sign any document not revelant to the subject of their discharge, for these and other obvious reasons, the gentlemen not yet in prison under Ordinance 38 of 1902–all British subjects—are not prepared, for the sake of their wives and families, to sign their names to this memorandum. We trust in these circumstances that the authorities at home will not hesitate to accept our bona fides, remembering the difficult position in which we are at present placed. All we ask is that Great Britain shall be just to her sons before she is generous to the strangers within her gates. Do we ask in vain? I think that explanation will be sufficient to excuse me from mentioning the names, which I can perfectly easily impart to any hon. Member who desires to have them. We had then an attempt on the part of the South African Government to suppress trade unionism. There is not the least doubt about that. Trade unionism and the action of trade unionism in South Africa are no doubt awkward and troublesome, but, nevertheless, collective bargaining, with all that it means, from merely joining an association to coming out on strike, has been the one method by which the working classes of every country in the world have been able to improve their conditions. In the Australian Colonies the labour movement has gone in for politics. It has supplemented its industrial action with political action, and, having established a confidence in the State, it has apparently surrendered its right to strike under any circumstances, because it has protected itself by legal and judicial safeguards; but until those legislative and judicial safeguards are set up in any country, it is, I assert, part of the essential rights of citizenship that working men may combine, 365 may meet in common, act in common, may hold meetings, may elect officers, may give them plenary powers, and in the last resort may strike and lay down their tools until their grievances have been considered and redressed. That is my first point. Nothing in the circumstances of South Africa justified the proclamation of martial law.

The next point is a little bit more serious. We all admit, at any rate I am not one to resist it, that if a Government proclaims martial law it is going to have its indemnity. We can proclaim and protest against it, as I think we ought if we feel as I certainly do and as my colleagues do regarding the circumstances under which martial law was proclaimed in South Africa, but when it is over, and when the crisis has passed, then the Government produces its Indemnity Bill, and I suppose it must go through, though it must, I submit, go through after very careful scrutiny, and the Home Government ought to be exceedingly careful not to allow Indemnity Bills, year after year, to be widened in their scope and to change steadily every time that we have a new Indemnity Bill the constitutional principles upon which Indemnity Bills were supposed to be drawn. They allowed a Natal Indemnity Bill to go through with provisions that had never been, inserted in any Indemnity Bill before. Now, there is a new thing in this, and I would appeal to the Government not to allow this Indemnity Bill to go through in its present form. I refer to the deportation clause, Clause 4, with its complementary schedule. I see that General Smuts, in that speech which he delivered, referred to certain action I took with reference to the deportation of a gentleman known as Mr. Cole from British East Africa. He informed Parliament that I. signed some memorial to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Harcourt) asking for his deportation. I never heard of such a memorial I never saw such a memorial, and I certainly never signed such a memorial. I only mention this now in case somebody has got it up his sleeve, and to save time.

§ Mr. PAGE CROFT

Did the lion. Gentleman approve of his deportation?

§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

If the point had been raised in that way it would have raised another matter altogether. I make this statement with a great amount of assurance: There is not a single lawyer 366 in this House who will say that the deportation of Mr. Cole from British East Africa has any likeness whatever, or any similarity whatever, from a constitutional point of view, to the deportation of the nine men from South Africa. I simply deal with facts. It is stated that I signed a petition in favour of his deportation. I say that I never saw such a petition, and I never knew that there was such a thing. As a matter of fact, I have made some inquiries, and I do not believe that there ever was such a memorial. It has been laid down by the courts of South Africa as recently as 1907 that deportation cannot be a punishment for any crime. I understand that is the case. If the Government of South Africa, in its Bill of Indemnity, had asked indemnity for deporting those men, I think it would have been in order. If they are going to be indemnified at all, they must ask to be indemnified for every illegal act they have done. Therefore, I would not have raised the point at all if they had simply asked to be indemnified for having ordered and having effected the deportation, but that is not what the Bill says. The Bill goes further. It is not an Indemnity Bill at all. In Clause 4 we have got a separate proposal; we have got a separate legislative proposition, and that proposition is in the nature of a Bill of Attainder. Surely we do not require at the beginning of the twentieth century, to ask the British House of Parliament to express an opinion upon a Bill of Attainder. The Legislature has gone back upon everything which was supposed to have been settled in that respect, and it says we are not only in times of suspension of the law to punish people, but we are going to put a Clause into our Indemnity Bill which makes that punishment a legislative act. We are going back to the old times when Legislature, and not the Judiciary, punished criminals.

I appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Cannot we for once, at any rate, in spite of the many divisions that separate us, unite in trying in some way or other—I suppose they will say that voting for my Amendment would be the wrong way; very well, I do not mind, but cannot we unite in some way or other, either by an expression of opinion in this House, publicly made, or by private representations in some way or other to convince the South African Government that it must take Clause 4, in so far as it is a Bill of Attainder, out of this Indemnity Act? Clause 4 declares that these men 367 shall be undesirable aliens, or "prohibited emigrants," is, I think, the phrase used. If the South African Parliament or the Government wish to redefine what an undesirable alien, or prohibited emigrant should be, let it do it by general legislation. Let it introduce a Bill and get it passed, and then, if any of the gentlemen who are deported care to go back to South Africa, let them raise their case in the Courts, and let a judge, sitting as a judicial authority, listening to and weighing the evidence, settle whether they are going to re-establish their domicile there. I believe that from every quarter of this House I shall receive assent to my proposition in that respect. I believe my right hon. Friend has only to express an opinion to the South African Government, through the Governor-General, to that effect, and the South African Government, on calm consideration, will see that it is destroying the constitutional liberties of the British people, and that it is doing a great disservice to the Empire of which it is part, and will remove the objectionable parts of that Clause.

I have raised this subject, and it is a very difficult subject to raise here. One has to skate over somewhat thin ice. One is perfectly well aware of the jealousies of self-governing Dominions; one desires to be absolutely generous when giving self-governing powers, and one does not desire to interfere in the exercise of those powers once they are given. But there is a great problem now facing this Empire. It faced it in a very acute form, unfortunately again in South Africa, only a few months ago. I do not believe any Member of this House can appreciate what the feeling was as a result of the treatment of the Indians in South Africa unless they had been privileged to be on the spot, as I was, when that was the subject of cables and articles in the newspapers every day. We have to face this problem regarding our Imperial citizenship. Is there any meaning at all in the expression Civis Britannicus sum? Has it any common meaning from one end of the Empire to the other? Is it going to give us any pride, any inspiration? Is it, or not, a fact that the privileges habeas corpus, Petition of Rights, and so on, have given us are going to be carried with us wherever we go, provided we keep under the shadow of the Union Jack and within the bounds of the British Empire? Is that going to be the case or not? If it is not, I venture to say your Empire cannot possibly remain 368 in the place of honour which it occupies to-day. If the civil liberty which is ours, the civil liberty which has come to us, not merely by generous accident, not merely by accidental events, but because it is essential to the very spirit and genius of our people, is not going to be an assumption in the constitutional procedure of the Governments of our self-governing; communities, then the expression "Empire" must be used in future in an exceedingly limited and exceedingly narrow sense. But it is because, at the back of my mind, I have an idea that Empire really stands for something that is constitutionally magnificent, I feel I am in duty bound to raise this question, even although at the same time I desire to be absolutely generous in my thoughts and in my criticisms of self-governing communities exercising their rights as self-governing communities. The greater force of unity, the greater force of the British Empire, with its traditions of the past, and with some sort of earnest that we are going to have a future that is not going to be a smirch on our past, compels me to bring this question before the House and to move this Amendment.

§ Mr. POI NTER

I beg formally to second the Amendment.

§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt)

I think it will probably be for the convenience of the House if I state at once, as shortly as is possible, the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the recent occurrences in South Africa; and, in doing so, I should like to express my appreciation of the eloquence and moderation with which this Amendment has been brought before the House by my hon. Friend. The House will, I am sure, forgive me if I attempt to survey a rather wider field, because those whom my hon. Friend generally represents, and whose views he voices in this House, have not been quite so moderate outside, either in the charges they have made against the Governor and the Government of South Africa, or in the demands which they have advanced as to the methods by which the British Government should deal with this question. I acknowledge the recognition which the hon. Member gave to the special circumstances surrounding the existence of responsible self-government in South Africa, and I hope the House will throughout this Debate bear those circumstances in mind. This House has great responsibilities. It also has great powers—powers 369 which are decreased and not enhanced by a capricious or careless exercise of them. It is quite possible, in the observations I have to make in relation to South Africa and others of our distant possessions, I may use phrases and express opinions which may seem to hon. Members opposite applicable, or at least available missiles, in our controversies nearer home. I do not grudge and could not prevent their use in the future for that purpose. I will only beg them not to-day to confuse a debate which may turn on grave Imperial topics with those matters which concern our controversies in this country. The speeches to be made here to-night will be cabled throughout the Empire, and any words said here in derogation of autonomous rights will reverberate throughout our Dominions.

I would not for a moment suggest that autonomous rights can be divorced from Imperial duties. Autonomy carries with it no immunity from Press or public criticism, but it deserves and is entitled to the largest amount of relief from official interference and Parliamentary censure which is compatible with the inherent rights of freedom. British citizenship to which my hon. Friend referred is really a misnomer. It does not, in fact, exist, it is an attempt to make too literal a translation of the Civis Romanus sum. What does exist is British subjecthood, which entitles its possessor to the protection of his Sovereign through the Executive. But it gives to the individual no right of entry to and no licence in any part of the Empire if he violates laws which it is within the competence of the Dominion to pass and to administer. The Imperial Parliament here cannot grant responsible self-government, as it has done throughout nearly a century in varying degrees, in different climes, and to different races, with practically unqualified success, and then hope or attempt, when its feelings or prejudices are aroused to interfere or intervene as if it were dealing with a Crown Colony or a Protectorate. The late Mr. Lyttelton said, in 1910, that— so far as policy is concerned, the Governor of a self-Governing Dominion is bound to take the advice of his Ministers. I deal especially with this point because, outside this House, there have been violent demands for the recall of Lord Gladstone. Mr. Lyttelton went on to say: The Imperial Government makes no claim whatever lo interfere in the local or internal affairs or measures of self-governing Dominions, even if those measures be entirely repugnant to our views. 370 I think it was the late Prime Minister who said, on one occasion in this House, that it was more important to a country to be self-governed than well-governed. You may dissent from that view, but, even if you do, we can still boast, as I shall do, that our Dominions are both. We have? never insisted on similarity or simultaneity in their law-making. We have allowed them, without let or hindrance, to try what many people in this country regard as experiments, and some people regard as dangerous experiments. We have not interfered. In Australia and New Zealand there is compulsory military training, which at present is neither in force nor in favour in the United Kingdom. In Canada, South Africa, and elsewhere there is compulsory arbitration in labour-disputes, which makes, under certain circumstances and conditions, a strike a criminal offence. These are not our laws or practice, but we do not prevent the Dominions from trying them, and every British subject entering one of these Dominions is legally liable to those laws.

In South Africa the laws and surrounding circumstances are widely different to our own. In the Transvaal many clauses of Lord Milner's Indemnity and Peace Preservation Act, 1902, are still in force, with a very different definition of sedition to our own. Under that Ordinance a man may be arrested, without warrant, by a police officer, and charged with sedition, and sentenced to a maximum of five years, and, under certain circumstances, of seven years' imprisonment for these offences:—"Inciting His Majesty's subjects to attempt to procure, otherwise than by lawful means, an alteration of any matter in the Transvaal by law established; or inciting any person to commit any crime in disturbance of the public peace, or to arouse discontent and dissatisfaction amongst His Majesty's subjects, or to promote violence, ill-will or hostility between different classes of His Majesty's subjects." I wonder how many Members of this House would be safe from conviction for sedition under this Ordinance?

§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

Quote the next sentence.

§ Mr. HARCOURT

That qualification makes no difference to my point. I believe it was under that ordinance that Mr. Poutsma and other leaders were originally arrested. I spoke just now of the conditions and surrounding circumstances in 371 South Africa. It is only necessary to mention, in relation to that, the fact that there are less than 1,250,000 whites and over 5,000,000 natives in the Union of South Africa, inextricably mixed up in location and occupation. The gold mines have collected around them, as they do everywhere, a cosmopolitan and polyglot community which has not more and sometimes less regard for legal obligations than other classes of labour.

5. 0 P. M.

In Johannesburg alone there are 250,000 natives employed upon the mines, and when work ceases in the mines these natives are idle, hungry, restless. I do not agree with my hon. Friend that the illustration of Jaggersfontein and the outbreak of the Basutos is not in point. It arose, I believe, from a suspicion that the death of a black man might be attributed to one of the white overseers. At all events, hon. Members can realise for themselves that that is the sort of volcano on which everyone is sitting in South Africa. It is no part of my duty—indeed, I think it would be a grave indiscretion in the office I hold if I were to offer publicly any opinion upon the incidents of Dominion administration. I shall express neither criticism nor approbation. It is my duty to keep an eye and an ear upon all the Dominions, and to try, as best I can, to hold the balance even between the interests of this country and of our great Dependencies. But I know there are some people who think that the Union Government have erred in action and in judgment. I express no opinion, but I would say to those who think so: "When you gave self—government, did you think that you had discovered any immaculate and impeccable race? Did you think no Dominion would ever commit an act with which you disagreed?" If you did, it was a dream of infallibility you would not dare to claim for yourself. It is human to err and it is humane to make allowances for what you regard as errors. You could easily smash the Empire by a day's Debate in this House if you evinced a desire to meddle and to muddle with the vital affairs of your Dominions whenever their action does not coincide with your ideals of legislation or administration. I hope and believe that this House will commit no such folly to—day.

I am prepared to express my opinion on Lord Gladstone's action. While I express neither condemnation nor approval of the 372 action of the Union Government in recent events, I am bound to make their case for them, because I am their only representative in the Imperial Parliament. They have, rightly and fortunately, had an opportunity of making their own justification and their own explanation in their own Parliament) though we have not yet had time to receive it fully. I ask the House to look for a moment at what has been their situation and their experience during the last eight months. Six months ago they had the Rand strike, which led to very grave disturbances in which dynamite was used. Men were asked to come armed to public meetings. A general strike of all the public services was threatened. Two hundred and fifty thousand natives in the compounds at Johannesburg were alleged to have been approached with attempts to raise them also against the authorities. In the transition period of local defence the Imperial troops had to be used. Many people were, unhappily, killed, and the innocent, as usual, suffered most. Then, in November, came the Indian so-called "passive resistance." I do not want, and I hope the House will not endeavour, to discuss that matter to-day, because there is a Commission now sitting in South Africa, with the countenance of the Indian Government and with the assistance of a distinguished Indian Civil servant, with, I believe, very good hopes of arriving at a settlement. There, again, on that occasion, there was considerable loss of life and much disturbance both of peace and of labour.

Then, in December, came the railway strike. I will not deal with its merits. It arose, I believe, out of a desire of the Union Government for retrenchment and economy, but its original merits were soon lost sight of. A sympathetic and general strike was declared; dynamite and sabotage were threatened and effected. My hon. Friend challenged me as to the dynamite outrages, which he declared to be either untrue or exaggerated. Within the last few days a Return has been laid on the Table of the Parliament in South Africa giving the number of the dynamite outrages between 7th January and 30th January as twenty—four. The participators in all this work were known to be, and were, indeed, instructed, to be armed. All industry, all the public services of health and light, were threatened by a stoppage from want of coal. The whole population were threatened with 373 starvation by the stoppage of the food supplies. The Union Government regarded this as a condition of anarchy and of revolution, which necessitated extra-legal action for the moment. No suggestion of and no request for the use of Imperial troops was ever made. So far as I know there was no contemplation of that. No communication as to Imperial troops was made either to Lord Gladstone or to The Union Government mobilised their own forces, and, whatever you may think of the object with which that was done, you must admit that it was done with extraordinary rapidity and success. They dealt with the situation by and for themselves. Happily there was no collision between the local forces and the population. No lives were lost, and there was no firing upon crowds or upon the people. The Union Government, knowing the facts as we here cannot know them, deemed the proclamation of martial law to be essential to the safety of the country. On their Ministerial responsibility they advised Lord Gladstone to sign that Proclamation. He did so, in my opinion rightly and necessarily, and without any reference to me. There was no time and no necessity for that. I could not judge here of the gravity of the emergency.

Lord Gladstone was fully apprised of the facts, and he was aware, of course, of the immensity of the danger of a native conflagration throughout the Union and the Protectorate. He properly assented to the only method which his responsible advisers recommended to deal with an existing and urgent situation. But he did so on the assurance that his Ministers would immediately endeavour to obtain from their Parliament the ratification of and an indemnity for the action they proposed to take. That is the Indemnity Bill which is now before the Union Parliament and which is fully within their competence. At a later stage the decision—a serious one I admit—was taken by the Union Government to expel from South Africa certain men who had been primarily concerned in the preceding events. After the proclamation of martial law—which is a of course, a contradiction in terms, because it is a negation of all law, and action under it is illegal until it has been indemnified by the law—making power—Lord Gladstone ceased to have any direct or personal responsibility for the action of the military or the Executive. His consent to and concurrence in the expulsions was neither sought for nor obtained. He was informed of the fact 374 at the time it was taking place. He took note of the information of his Ministers that the expulsion was required, in their opinion, in the interests of public order in the Union, and that the Ministers' action would be immediately submitted to Parliament for confirmation. Lord Gladstone had previously been informed by his Ministers that they might feel it necessary to expel possibly a dozen men, that the Ministers were fully aware that this would excite strong feeling in England and elsewhere, not excluding South Africa, and that they would not undertake it without clear and urgent necessity. Lord Gladstone took note of that information. Having done this much, he had, in my opinion, done all he was entitled to do in his position as constitutional Governor with responsible representative Ministers.

Where an act is irreparable and final, like the execution of a death sentence, other considerations may arise, but undoubtedly expulsion is a less severe penalty than the five or seven years' hard labour which might have been inflicted on these men had they been convicted under Section 17 of the Peace Preservation Act, which I have just read. Indeed, expulsion could have been made under the process of the ordinary law which has been in force iii the Transvaal from 1907 to 1913, a law which was only altered and amended by the passage of the new immigration law of last year. It is probable, indeed, I suppose it is certain, that legal questions will arise in this country in regard to these expulsions, and, pending the decision of the Courts, I would not wish to offer any opinion on the situation which may arise here in this matter. As to the legal prohibition of their return to South Africa, no confusion should be allowed to arise from the fact that it is included in the Indemnity Bill. Many matters germane to the future peace and good order of a country have been often included in Indemnity Bills, as anyone will at once see if he looks at the Transvaal Ordinance of 1902, which I have already quoted. It is admittedly within the competence of the Union of South Africa to legislate as to the class, the type, and the nature of immigrants whom it is prepared to admit. This power of restrictive immigration has long been in active operation in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

I will now deal for a moment specifically with the action and position of Lord Gladstone in relation to these events. It is said by some—in fact, by a good many out 375 Side—that he ought to have refused his assent to or prevented the proclamation of martial law, and that, failing to do so, he ought to have been recalled by His Majesty's Government. I entirely deny the validity or the justice of such a suggestion. The position of Governor-General of South Africa is, in the main, largely analogous to that of a constistutional Sovereign in this country, and those who suggest Lord Gladstone's recall would be the last to suggest here that a constitutional sovereign should neglect or act contrary to the advice of his Ministers possessing the confidence of an existing Parliament. But assuming their premiss for a moment, let me ask them what they think that Lord Gladstone or any Governor of any Dominion could do in such circumstances by attempting to act contrary to the advice of his Ministers? A situation had arisen, with a railway and general strike in operation, in which a body of responsible Ministers had deliberately come to the conclusion that martial law must be proclaimed. No body of men would lightly come to such a decision as that. They so advised the Governor-General. What do hon. Members think would have happened if he had refused his assent to their advice? It is no use making pretences to ourselves or blinking the facts. Only one result could have followed on such action: General Botha's Government would have resigned, and no other Government could have been found to take its place. Lord Gladstone would have remained a solitary and powerless figure with a state of public tumult round him which he could neither conciliate nor quell, and with no resources to his hand except those Imperial troops, which we must all be glad have not had to be used on this occasion. As to the expulsions, Lord Gladstone had no responsibility. That was the act of the Executive and the military authority after the proclamation of martial law. I said it was neither my duty nor my intention to offer comment, by way of criticism or approval of the acts of the South African Government, and that that course would be an unwise and a dangerous precedent. I beg hon. Members to believe and to realise that a habit of nagging criticism of the conduct by the Dominions of their own internal affairs is the worst cement which we can apply to the distant democracies of your Empire. But in the case of Lord Gladstone, as Governor-General, I feel bound to speak, 376 and I desire to say, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that we feel that, in the circumstances as we know them, his action was entirely correct, and that he retains the full confidence of the British Government, which he has possessed throughout the tenure of his post in South Africa.

I turn for a moment to the subject of the Indemnity Bill which is before the South African Parliament. We know its contents by telegraph, and I have circulated them in a White Paper for the convenience of the House. We find that it conforms in every way to the proper wording and structure of such measures, of which there have been more than one in South Africa, with, of course, the addition of the Expulsion and Exclusion Clause. I am now aware that Clause 1 will be altered in Committee in South Africa in order to bring martial law to an end immediately everywhere, on the passage of the Bill. It has been suggested—in fact, it is suggested by this Amendment —that Lord Gladstone should be instructed to reserve this Bill until some inquiry has been granted and held. A motion to that effect is at this moment before the Union Parliament in. South Africa. If they agree to that suggestion, hon. Members will get the inquiry. If they reject it put there you cannot hope to obtain it by reserving the Bill. It has been suggested and demanded that I should advise the disallowance and veto of this Bill. That would be an unprecedented and wholly unjustifiable course. It would be unprecedented, because the case of New Zealand—the Act of 1866–is not really in point. Assent was withheld from that Act because it did not contain he usual provision that the Acts indemnified should have been done in good faith, hut when a new Bill containing these words was passed through the New Zealand Parliament in the following year the Act was immediately assented to. When I said the withholding of assent from the present Bill would be unjustifiable, I did so on the ground that such legislation is essentially one of the attributes and prerogatives of the responsible and popularly elected Parliament of South Africa. The hon. Member (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) a few days ago used some very admirable words—I wish he had repeated them to-day—describing the situation. He said:— The Union Parliament is the proper battleground. We cannot fight these battles from the House of Commons. It is the trade unionists of South Africa through elected Labour member who have got to fight their own battles in that self-governing community. 377 That I think is the true and proper view of this matter. The Union Government is responsible to the Union Parliament. If that Parliament gives them their support and passes the Bill which indemnifies their action, then it would be in the highest degree unwise and impolitic to attempt to reverse that decision here. If the democracy of South Africa is dissatisfied with its Government it should put pressure upon its representatives to reject that Bill and to turn out the Government. If they fail to do so they will have an opportunity of a General Election, which, like our own, cannot be delayed beyond the end of next year; but with that early and sufficient opportunity you will not, if you are wise, attempt to interfere with the discretion of the Union Parliament. It is hardly necessary for me to remind the House how sensitive are responsible Governments even of supposed reversals of matters which are under their direct control. Hon. Members will not have forgotten that a few years ago a predecessor of mine asked for the suspension of some capital sentence that had been passed in Natal, merely in order that he might have time to obtain the particulars. The Government of Natal, erroneously thinking that their discretion was being interfered with, immediately resigned, and they only withdrew their resignation after an assurance by the Secretary of State for the Colonies that— His Majesty's Government at no time had the intention to interfere with the action of the responsible Government of Natal. And to show the House how closely these events are watched throughout the Empire, I would remind them that within two days of the resignation of the Natal Ministry formal protests against the supposed action of His Majesty's Government were received here from the Governments of Australia and of New Zealand. I have said this much in order to show the House why, if and when this Indemnity Bill has passed both Houses of the Union Parliament, I shall not advise its reservation or disallowance, subject to any new fact or situation which may arise in the meantime, and I would remind hon. Members who wish me to take the opposite course that the possible and probable result of such action would be that martial law would be maintained in South Africa until the Indemnity Bill had been assented to.

Expulsion, except of undesirable aliens after conviction, is foreign to our ideas and methods in this country, but the word and method are more familiar to 378 residents in South Africa, because they have been taught them by ourselves. In July, 1900, during the war, on the discovery of a plot at Johannesburg to murder British officers, no fewer than 1,700 men of various nationalities were arrested and, without any trial or process of law, were sent by train to the coast and deported in British ships. Again, in 1901, after the war had long been officially declared to be over, there were some burghers still resisting our authority, and Lord Kitchener, on instructions from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) and the British Government, issued a Proclamation that unless these burghers surrendered in five weeks they would be permanently banished from South Africa. I only quote those two instances to show that on previous occasions expulsions have been threatened and effected against people in South Africa, and that for the last six years it has been part of the ordinary law of the Transvaal. If this Debate is to continue, I hope it will be conducted with careful regard to the feelings and the just sensitiveness of the people and the Governments of our self-governing Dominions. I would say to the hon. Member who moved this Amendment that to labour, above all classes in the community, the maintenance of responsible self-government and the constitutional action of the supreme authority is of an importance which transcends any apparent or alleged departure from administrative correctitude; and I would say to all those who are interested in the Imperial connection, though it is a well-worn platitude, that the Empire is held together by a silken cord. Beware lest you twist that cord into a whip-lash, for the crack of that lash would be the knell of your Empire. We here have created of our own free will these great free Parliaments and institutions which are wide flung throughout the world. They are our constant pride, and only our occasional embarrassment. Treat them with a broad mind and a wide confidence and we and they shall win through for all that is the essential basis of freedom and of civilisation. But it is your toleration and your restraint which can alone proclaim your confidence and your generosity, and which alone can maintain the good fellowship of a united Empire.

§ Sir GILBERT PARKER

I think every Member of the House has listened to the speech of the Colonial Secretary with 379 great respect. I also think that the Mover of the Amendment was strictly moderate in his statement, and was careful to avoid any incitement to controversial or acrimonious debate, but while I am willing to acknowledge that, and gladly, I do not think I ought to let the speech of the Colonial Secretary pass without some comment as moderate as his own speech was eloquent. I am entirely in agreement with him that we should be extremely careful indeed in making comment or criticism upon the executive action or the legislative action of the Governments of our Overseas Dominions, but it is just possible to carry eloquence a little too far and to give the impression that we ought to preserve a hushed admiration in the presence of the acts of our Overseas Dominions, through their Legislatures, without remembering that this Parliament cannot rid itself of the final responsibility for any act of any Legislature or any Governor within the King's Dominions. I will not presume to call myself in evidence, but I remember a debate upon martial law in Natal when the extreme mildness and the extreme care which the Colonial Secretary has shown this afternoon was not exhibited in the same degree by the spokesman of the Government. He took, as I believe, a more constitutional view, for while the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon was very careful to say that the final authority rests with us, he said, in effect, "Hush! you must say little, lest you disturb these Overseas Dominions in the exercise of their authority, and you must be careful how you question the authority of the other links of the Overseas Dominions, because they are so slender that they are but as silk." Our Overseas Dominions are not quite so thin-skinned as the right hon. Gentleman would suggest. There have been such things as copyright law being thrown back on the Colonies. There have been such things as the Acts of British Columbia made the question, of strong protests upon the part of this Government to the Canadian Government. I take the statement made by the Attorney-General at the time of the declaration of martial law in Natal as the proper view on this matter, rather than the extremely eloquent speech of the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon. In reply to myself and others, the Attorney-General (Sir W. Robson), speaking in this House on 3rd June, 1908, said:— He really could not help believing that the legal advisers of the Natal Government were, he would not 380 say not doing their best, but were not really weighing all the legal considerations they ought to keep in mind in dealing with the situation, because undoubtedly we were under obligations both of law and of honour which we could not, and ought not. and would not seek to escape. There was no desire to enter into a conflict, unless of an academic character, with Natal with regard to the general operations of martial law, because martial law was not necessary to our contention so far as Dinizulu was concerned. At the same time he might express the hope, and perhaps the belief, that Natal would see the danger and inconvenience of allowing martial law to prevail under the particular circumstances for so long a time. Undoubtedly it was a matter within the cognisance and the rights of the Imperial Government. The Imperial Government were always slow to move because of the great constitutional difficulties involved. There might come a situation—he hoped it would never come—when, however slow the Imperial Government might be to act, it might find itself forced to act. I do think that that is a more correct constitutional view to take. Undoubtedly, as the Colonial Secretary pointed out, the situation in South Africa was an extremely grave one, and in making this protest I am making it in view of the fact that the utterence of the Colonial Secretary this afternoon is a most momentous one. I am making the protest that he has strained the point, that he has coloured too much in order to condone the present situation. I do not think it was necessary I do not believe that if the hon. Member for Leicester had sought to excite the feelings of this House in opposition to the Union Government of South Africa, he would have succeeded in exciting even the Members of his own party to a strong condemnation of the act of the Union Government. It is done, and cannot be altered. The Act of Indemnity, as the hon. Member said, must be passed, but the Empire still goes on, and other questions will arise, and it may be necessary for the Government of this country at some future time not to take issue, but to enter a strong protest to some Dominion Government for some Act which might appear to interfere with, we shall say, the rights of British citizenship, or some Act which would materially cross the bounds of an Act this House had passed in the interest of the Empire as a whole. When that time comes, I should not like to see the speech of the right hon. Gentleman quoted. I should prefer to go to other authorities and advisers than himself, though I do frankly admit that the right hon. Gentleman was moved by a tremendous sense of responsibility, and I am frank to admit that in recognising that responsibility, he used every power of his intellect and of his known capacities to influence this House. If it were not that the question was an extremely grave one, I should want to 381 present a protest against the too-strained interpretation of our constitutional position. The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that there is no such thing as absolute British rights throughout the Empire.

§ Mr. HARCOURT

I said citizenship.

§ Sir G. GLBERT

I beg pardon, I meant to say rights of British citizenship throughout the Empire. I would ask the House to allow me, since we are on a constitutional matter of importance, to quote my authority on that matter. I have seen in the Press, and it has been persistently said by the friends of the hon. Member for Leicester, and the hon. Member himself said it this afternoon, that we ought to know what was the position of British citizens throughout the Empire; that we ought to be able to say such and such are the rights of a citizen of Great Britain in Australia, or in Canada, or throughout the British Empire. The Colonial Secretary has wisely said that it is not possible to do so.

§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

I was perfectly well aware of the great controversy going on with reference to citizenship, and subject citizenship, and I have lent my position in favour of that. I said that there were certain fundamental rights. I refer to habeas corpus. I want to know whether when we go to South Africa we carry habeas corpus. At the present moment I know that we do not. My argument is that if the Empire is to mean anything, we must be a little more distinct in regard to citizenship than we are at the present moment.

§ Sir G. PARKER

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for putting his case more clearly to me. I wish to say that that position which he would like to see established cannot be established by this Legislature. It must be established by the steady and sympathetic co-ordination of laws passed throughout the Empire in the different Legislatures, representing a general principle in their application. I shall take the liberty of quoting from Mr. F. T. Piggott's work on "Nationality." Referring to the rights of British subjects not being uniform in the Empire, he writes:— But though the law which governs nationality in the Colonies is the same throughout the Empire, it does not follow that the rights of all subjects are everywhere identical Even in the case of common law rights, generally presumed to he inherent to the quality of the British subject we have seen that in conquered or ceded 382 Colonies they do not exist, and that. British subjects therein—and not necessarily born therein—are under another code of rights altogether. And those which depend on Statute do not apply to the Colonies without express reference. Even in the case of Magna Charta and the Habeas Corpus Act, the question whether the legislation extends to the Colonies must be decided on the same principles as any other Statute. Passing from that point, I want to say a word about the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester. I frankly admit that he was bound, representing the interests that he does represent, to speak in this House to-day. I found the earlier part of his speech strangely unconvincing. He presented to the House evidence which he had got from private sources, and which this House could not secure by any means in its power. He declared that martial law was unwarranted in the circumstances. It is not necessary for me to reply to that. The Colonial Secretary has replied to it by repeating statements made by the responsible Minister of the Crown in the South African Government, and he has added to that the view of this Government that ire the circumstances the action of the Union Government of South Africa was justified. I do not think the hon. Member for Leicester is quite fair—and I can only attribute that to lack of full knowledge of South Africa—when he refuses to take into consideration the immense danger that exists where there is a native population. In South Africa there are various tribes, uncivilised, and as yet not drawn: very far within British control and governance. I would point out to the hon. Member for Leicester that he and his friends were very hard upon Members of this House, like myself, who at the time of the granting of the Transvaal Constitution said that it was being granted too soon. Members on this side of the House believing in the granting of constitutional responsible government, bade this House wait. What for? We said that our new fellow citizens in South Africa, the Dutch had not by their experience come into harmony with the ideals, constitutional or otherwise, of the British race. We strongly advised a period of probation in which there should be and would be a coalition Government representing both Dutch and British, understanding all those ideals which underlie the activities of our constitutional Government within the British Dominions.

The hon. Member for Leicester is very hard indeed upon General Botha and his Government, whom he declared we have no confidence in and do not sufficiently esteem. The hon. Member thought and 383 believed that when that Government came into power, for which due preparation was made by the gerrymandering of the constituencies, the case of his friends connected with Labour would be no worse than it was generally under the old condition. What does he find? He finds a Government which acts with an iron hand —I am not saying justly or unjustly, wisely or unwisely—and which passes laws which Can, effectively prohibit trade unionists from exercising what he considers lawful functions in this country. I have a good deal of sympathy with the hon. Member when he states, that there ought to be freedom in these matters until laws are passed which provide for the regulation of trade matters, such as have been passed in Australia and Canada, for dealing with trade disputes, and giving facilities for employers and employed to come together. Until that time comes labour ought to have the right, I think, in this country to strike. But the hon. Member is not justified in coming here to-day and making so tremendous a protest against the operation of martial law which we all, with the exception of the hon. Member and his friends, believe to have been justified in the circumstances, and he was not fair either to himself or to his own opinion. I believe that he was impaled upon the horns of a dilemma from which be could not escape.

The hon. Member said that the Jaggersfontein riots were not a matter of grave concern. They were just a sign of what would have happened if railway communication had been interrupted, and if the authorities had not been able to arrange throughout the country that there should be no disorder, which it was not in their power to quell. Think of the terror of the situation! A handful of whites scattered throughout the district at the mercy of an excited horde of savages—for that is what they are—is a thing to appal the minds of all men. The hon. Member treated it, as I think, all too lightly. As for the merits of the retrenchment, I thought that the point which the hon. Member made was very petty. He said that there were 490. I should liked to have asked the hon. Member how many trade unionists were attending to work in South Africa. I should have said that even 490 was but a small number compared with the whole number employed; but when he asserts, in this Case, that a Government that depends 384 upon votes, and the votes of the very class whose interests were involved, is going deliberately to pursue a course of intimidation against the voters in the country in order to pursue a policy of exclusion of trade unionists, he makes too large a call upon our credulity. At any rate, I should like to hear better evidence than the hon. Member has adduced to this House this afternoon. The hon. Member said that the Courts were sitting, and that the Government could have tried these men who were deported before the Courts, and that instead of that, by one comprehensive swoop of illegality, they attempted to wipe out trade unionism in the land. If the case which the Union Government put and which the Colonial Secretary put this afternoon is a correct one, there was a danger, through interruption of communication and lack of supplies, of an awful calamity falling upon the people of South Africa, and in these circumstances the idea of taking these men into Court and awaiting a legal decision is really absurd. If their position was a correct one, and if they were justified at all in their act of establishing martial law with the assent of the Governor, then it seems to me that the suggestion that legal action ought to be taken at such a time is ridiculous.

But suppose I am wrong. It is quite certain that the friends of the hon. Member in South Africa are, to a certain extent, responsible for the situation that has arisen. It may possibly be that the Government of South Africa struck too hard. I do not assert that they did. But the incidents of July brought not only consternation into the minds of the South African Government, but a deep-seated anxiety into the minds of the whole of the South African people, except the combination of trade unionists on the land. No Government can exist long without the confidence of the community. I may point to the notable fact that those papers which have been most opposed to General Botha's Government, and those members of the Union Parliament who were most opposed to the Union Government, were among his strongest supporters in that crisis. Mr. Merriman, as the hon. Member says, did not think deportation was necessary, but the hon. Member failed to state that Mr. Merriman approved of the proclamation of martial law. I believe that that is the case. But as in past years I took a considerable part in the discussion of South African affairs, particularly with 385 regard to martial law in Natal, I felt bound to say these two things: First, that the Government of this country is still responsible for the acts of the Governor-General appointed to represent the Crown in South Africa, and the Attorney-General accepted that responsibility for the acts of the Governor-General. The hon. Member for Leicester did not raise that question this afternoon as to the wisdom or unwisdom of the Government. I am very glad that he did not do so, but I do want to repeat, as one who is anxious always that the Government of the Overseas Dominions shall not be interfered with, that I believe if our Constitution is to work freely and well throughout the Empire, the authority of this Parliament should not be exercised unduly, but should be exercised in influencing, where necessary, so that it shall not be diminished; and, in the second place, I want to say that the action taken by the hon. Member for Leicester this afternoon, warranted as it was from his standpoint, has behind it no warrant in one sense, because I believe, honestly, that the crisis was brought about by circumstances which, if he and his friends had sought to influence them, might not have happened, so that there might not have been, either the riot of last July or the martial law of January, 1914.

§ Mr. KEIR HARDIE

The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary was evidently a carefully prepared essay which had no relevance to the speech of my hon Friend the Member for Leicester. He entirely ignored the trouble which was said to exist, which, as my hon. Friend pointed out, was an ordinary strike. He overlooked the fact that at the time martial law was proclaimed there was no racial struggle more than usual, and that, during the whole of the alleged industrial trouble, not a shot was fired and no crime was brought home to anyone in connection with the dispute; and he submitted no proof of any crime or anything having occurred in the nature of sedition. The fact that the Courts were sitting, and in full operation, has hitherto been held to be a preventive of martial law being declared, and the suspension of the ordinary law has been justifiable only when the law has ceased to run, and when the Courts cannot administer the law. None of these things were alleged to have taken place during the recent disputes. He dwelt with much elaboration on the risk run to the permanence and goodwill of the Empire 386 if this House attempts in any way to interfere with the action of the Governor-General in sanctioning the proclamation of martial law and the deportation of these men, or if there is any refusal to sanction the Indemnity Bill which the South African Parliament is now considering. He did not tell us what the clause is there for. Is this House never to Have the right to interfere? And if not, what is the meaning of the clause in the Constitutional Act which expressly gives the Attorney-General power to assent to a measure to withhold his assent for the time being, to hold the measure up until it has been considered here, or even to suggest amendments? When are these powers to be operative if in a crisis like the present, when everything which has hitherto been supposed to be constitutional has been reduced to smithereens? If that is not an occasion for interfering, then when can such an occasion arise?

6.0 P.M.

Several references have been made to the strike of last year. I was surprised to hear the Colonial Secretary repeat all the old stories told then, which are now known to have had no foundation in fact. He told us about handbills being issued calling upon the workers to come armed to defend themselves. He did not tell us that whatever truth there is in that statement is due to the fact that the right of public meeting had first been taken from the workers; that the meeting proposed to be held in the square at Johannesburg had been prohibited; that force had been threatened if a meeting was held, and that then a handbill was issued calling upon the workers to come armed, if necessary, to maintain the rights of public meeting. That all took place after the action by the authorities. Then the right hon. Gentle- man made long statements about the supposed action of the white workers in the Randt district. I spent a very few days in South Africa, and therefore cannot speak with any authority on the point, but I think experience will bear me out when I say that the very last thing the white worker would dream of doing would be to stir-up a native rising in any circumstances whatever. The relations between him and the coloured people are not so favourable as to make that possible; but apparently the Colonial Secretary—this is rather serious—has adopted General Smuts' view of trade unionists in South 387 Africa. In his speech to the Union Parliament, and in his reference to the men who were deported, General Smuts used the expression that there were "plenty of other consummate scoundrels left behind." I ask the Colonial Secretary whether that is his point of view concerning the men who have been deported. Are they consummate scoundrels? They have been treated as though they were. I knew some of these men before they went to South Africa. I have had a more or less constant correspondence with some of them, and a description more insulting could not be employed than that which was applied to them, namely, that they are "consummate scoundrels.' I ask the House to remember the facts of the case. There had been no rioting.

The so-called rioting in July was butchery by the Government, of course; there never was a riot. There was plenty of shooting down on behalf of the Government, but nothing then occurred in the nature of a riot. On this occasion what took place was a strike, and what happened is not in dispute. General Smuts, in the speech to which I have referred, made it quite clear that the whole trouble was the strike of the workers. He put forward no other definite justification for what was done, and he pointed out that if there was a general strike certain consequences must inevitably follow. That means that the South African Government, with the consent of the Governor-General, and apparently with the approval of the Cabinet, have now declared the right to strike, which the workers won with such effort and sacrifice, can only be exercised by the good will and pleasure of a capitalist Government. It is a serious matter for us, I can assure you, and also for the working classes generally. We have seen that the same thing took place— on a minor scale, I will admit, compared with what has happened in South Africa— in connection with the strike of miners in British Columbia. We saw something similar during the railway strike in 1911, when some 80,000 British troops were turned out to assist the railway companies in defeating the workers. It is true that on that occasion no martial law was proclaimed, but, despite protest, troops were sent at the request of the railway companies. Our point is, that what happened in connection with the deportation from South Africa of working-class leaders, against whom no crime was 388 alleged, except that they had been successful working-class leaders, presents circumstances of such gravity that, if it is allowed to pass unchallenged, that kind of thing will spread and grow until the rights won by the workers have been taken from them again in an insidious manner and by side issues.

Then there is the question about the right of South Africa to deport undesirable aliens. The Colonial Secretary has asserted that the Transvaal possessed, or possesses, that right. But, assuming that the right is possessed, deportation can only follow from a decision of the Law Courts. The gravamen of the present charge is that the Government in South Africa constituted itself superior to the Law Courts, and put themselves in the position of over-riding the law. Now they come to us, through the Governor-General, and ask us to sanction a revolutionary and illegal act on their part. I hope the House will allow me to substantiate my statements by citing the opinion of Mr. Justice Wessels and of General Smuts himself. When the case was brought before Mr. Justice Wessels by the Government for the deportation of these men the evidence was not sufficient, and the case was adjourned until the following day, by which time the deportation had taken place Mr. Justice Wessels, in reply to a statement made to him on behalf of the men, said:— He regretted that he had not hart the information which he now possessed before him on the previous day, as if he had, lie would certainly have granted the order restraining the Government from deporting the men concerned. There we have the Justice of the High Court in Pretoria stating that what the Government had done was illegal, and that had the case come before him he would have prohibited them from carrying out the deportation. He also made some other remarks, to the effect that if the Government wanted to do an illegal act no Court had the power to stop them from doing it. General Smuts in his speech raised that very question of the power to deport these men. He said:— The South African Criminal Law did not provide for cases such as this of the deportees. If they had been indicted in the ordinary Courts, he believed the Government would never have secured a conviction, either on the charge of high treason or on a minor charge. That is General Smuts' own statement: that there was no law of treason, high or low, which these men had broken, and therefore to have brought them before the Courts would have been to ensure their immediate acquittal. General Smuts 389 goes on to deal with the other suggestion that had been made, that before expelling these men, the sanction of Parliament ought to have been asked. He said:— ''It. might be asked why bad the Government not waited for Parliament to give its sanction. The reply was that these men could not be kept in gaol until.sanction was obtained. They would have had to be released on comparatively small bail, and Parliament would have been asked in cold blood to pass legislation for their deportation. Did members for one moment think that, Parliament would have passed this legislation.'' The Courts would not have convicted, and the Parliament would not have, sanctioned the deportation of these men. The Governor-General assents to it, and now we are asked to give it our endorsement. Surely, such a claim as that, which pledges the constitutional powers of the Governor-General to so great an extent, was never put before the House of Commons. That is the point which the Colonial Secretary has evaded in his speech, his apology, rather, for what has happened in South Africa. It is because the working classes of South Africa are fighting for their freedom that this thing has been sanctioned and is now being endorsed by the Government. I put it to the House, and I believe lion. Gentlemen opposite will admit that what I am going to say is true, that if this had taken place before 1899, and had been done by the Transvaal Government, the then Boer Republic, that of itself would have been held as a justification of the war. Surely, what would have been an illegal and unconstitutional crime justifying war when done by the Boer Republic cannot become a virtue to be sanctioned by this House when done by the Cabinet, without the sanction of its Parliament, without the authority of it people, and in a way and manner which it cannot attempt to justify to its Parliament nor in the Law Courts. That then is the reason why my hon. Friend has moved his Amendment. We want to find out the opinion of the House of Commons in regard to a matter of such importance and such gravity.

Have we any responsibility for Lord Gladstone; if not, we want to know what he is doing there. What purpose does he serve? Whatever else he is, we know that he is not merely ornamental, and if this House has any control over him, and if it has any responsibility for what he is doing, then let us know what is he doing there. We claim that Lord Gladstone is there to represent the British Constitution, the freeest Constitution in the world. We are bringing no charge against that, and, because 390 of that, we ask the House of Commons to say that when the Parliament of South Africa goes out of its way to outrage and violate every principle of the Constitution, the representative of His Majesty the King shall not sanction such action and find endorsement in this House for it. The only other point which I desire to make is that we on these benches, at least, enter our emphatic protest against the theory that this House has no responsibility for what has happened. If Lord Gladstone did not agree with what was being done, the honourable course open to him was to have resigned. That course was open to a former Governor of South Africa, the late Sir William Butler. When he was asked to do what he regarded as dishonourable things towards the Boer Republic, he resigned his position rather than be a party to them. In defence of the British Constitution, Lord Gladstone surely could have taken a, similar course. As he has not seen fit to do so, and as the House is now being asked to condone one of the greatest violations of British liberty which modern times have known, I hope my hon. Friend will press this Amendment to a Division, and that a majority of the House will express its detestation of what has been done under the auspices of our Governor-General.

§ Lord ROBERT CECIL

The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has made an interesting speech—as, indeed, I think he always does. I observed that at the beginning of it he made the complaint about the Colonial Secretary that he had read to the House an essay rather than made a speech in answer to the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald). It is only fair to the Colonial Secretary to point out to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) that he really did no more than all Ministers do at the present day. Very seldom we have, the honour of hearing a speech from the Treasury Bench, though we often have the honour of listening to an essay. In the course of that utterance the Colonial Secretary said that it would be wrong for us to disapprove of the action of Lord Gladstone, who only did what he was constitutionally bound to do. I think that is a plea which even hon. Members opposite and on the platform ought to admit. I do not think it is really reasonable to say that a Colonial Governor in the position of Lord Gladstone is able to refuse his assent to measures proposed to him by his Ministers. In the same way there was a 391 good deal in what the Colonial Secretary said disapproving of criticism of the criticism of the Government of South Africa with which I personally find myself in hearty agreement. I quite agree that it is impossible for us here, once you have given self-government, whether to South Africa, or to Ireland, to interfere in that self-government, and to reverse in this House decisions to which the Parliament of that Government has arrived.

I can quite understand the view that it is improper that this Amendment should have been moved, but at the same time I think we all understand why it has been moved. The hon. Members on the Labour benches have been making very violent speeches in the country on this subject. They have to justify their existence. They have to convince their supporters in the country that they really are something more than a wing of the Radical party. I do not think that they will convince any body in this House of that, but they have to do their best, and so they are in the habit of selecting, generally on the Address, one particular Amendment which they usually draft in such a way as to make it unlikely that anyone else but themselves will support it. They move it to the Speech from the Throne, and make a great parade of their independence, and say very solemnly that they are entering an emphatic protest, and are going to a Division, and all the rest of it, knowing perfectly well that their operations are absolutely as futile as the movements of troops on parade. It does not take any body in, nobody at all. We all know that hon. Members opposite there would rather do anything than risk doing anything seriously disagreeable to their friends and leaders on the Treasury Bench. Therefore, I cannot say that I have any great sympathy with the Mover of this Amendment if it is to be treated as a serious attack upon the Government policy, and I am bound to say that I thought the Colonial Secretary displayed a very proper contempt for the proceedings of the Labour party in that regard. He did not make any attempt, it is perfectly true, to answer criticisms made by the hon. Member for Leicester, and the Prime Minister did not even think it necessary to wait out the speech of the hon. Member, but left the Bench as he usually does when there is—

§ Mr. HARCOURT

He was receiving a deputation from the Labour party.

§ Lord ROBERT CECIL

What a humbug the whole thing is, moving a solemn Amendment about which they have been speaking in the most violent way on every platform, saying that their liberties are attacked and the Constitution in danger, while at the same time they send a deputation to the Prime Minister which secures that the greater part of the Labour party and the Prime Minister would be absent when the matter was tinder consideration. I am very glad of the interruption, because it emphasises more thoroughly than I should be able to do the thorough hypocrisy of the whole proceeding. Apart from that, let me deal with the question, the substantial question, that is raised. I quite agree with the Colonial Secretary that it is very improper to express any opinion, either favourable or unfavourable, to the action of the Government of South. Africa, but there are some aspects of it about which questions of general importance arise, and about which something may be said, without expressing approval or disapproval, which we certainly are not in a position to express at the present time, if ever we shall be. In the first place, from the published accounts it is difficult to understand how this dispute over the railways really arose. I am not sure whether any Member of the Labour party quite followed it. It certainly does seem rather an astonishing thing that there should have been an attempt at a general strike, because a few men were dismissed from their employment on the railways, if that was done merely with the view to reduce expenses. On the other hand, it may have been a very much more serious matter behind that; but what I want to point out to the Labour party is, that this is done on the Government railways. It was not the action of a private capitalist, it was the action of the democratic elected Government of South Africa.

If they succeeded, as some of them pretend to wish, in putting the whole of the industries of this country into the hands of the State they would have exactly the same conditions of affairs existing in every industry that exists in South Africa with respect to the railways. I believe that it is quite true that under such circumstances any attempt at protest by the workers would be very harshly dealt with indeed by the employing body. The Government if they are the employers are not in the position of private individuals at all, because they are also those who have in their 393 hand the whole forces of the State, so that if there is a serious dispute between workers and the employer it is certainly possible and almost inevitable that the employing Government should use the whole forces of the State to put down any resistance to their will, though that may arise in a perfectly ordinary dispute as to working conditions. I think that a very valuable matter for the whole working classes of this country to consider. Are they really, those of them who are Socialists, or inclined to Socialism, of opinion that they would get any addition to their liberties whatever if they transferred the industries of this country from private individuals to municipal or State employers? The hon. Member who has just spoken said that the Government of South Africa went so far in this case—and I am mot saying whether he is right or not—as to destroy the right of strike. That must inevitably happen where you have the Government as the employer. They never will submit to the right of their employés to strike against the Government of the whole country.

That seems to me to be one aspect of the case which raises general consideration, and which is well worthy of attention, and there is another. The Colonial Secretary said that it would be very improper to say anything about Home Rule in this Debate on the ground that this was a great Imperial question. Home Rule is quite as great an Imperial question as even this, and I make no apology whatever for pointing out to the House what seems to me to be entirely missed by the hon. Member for Leicester in his speech, namely, the importance of this question on the Home Rule controversy. He said we are prepared to grant self-government, though we know it must cause a certain amount of difficulty and inconvenience. That is not the point at all. It is not a question of this being a difficulty or an inconvenience, but the proof that this incident affords that no limitation on the power of a self-governing Government can be of the slightest avail. That is the real import. What can a paper safeguard do? All it can do is to make tyranny illegal. That it can do. You can say, "Such and such a thing shall not be done which a minority fear." You cannot do more than make it illegal. You have no other power. Now, in this matter, no one doubts, and the South African Government does not doubt, that what they did was profoundly illegal, and that there was 394 not the slightest justification in law for their action. What the hon. Member has just said on this point is perfectly true. There was no justification; it was an extralegal act. It was an arbitrary exercise of power by the Government which they thought necessary—and they may have been right or wrong—in the higher interests of the State. Under those circumstances nothing could have been more illegal, but we, as the Government say, as most of us say, and as hon. Members opposite, I have no doubt, will say in the Lobby, are absolutely powerless to deal with it, for the very sufficient reason which was given by the Colonial Secretary. He said if you do that, and I think I took his words, and if you interfered with General Botha, he would have resigned, and no other Government could have been found to take his place, and, therefore, we should be absolutely left without any power of governing South Africa at all. That must be always so in every attempt to limit the authority of a responsible Government, because a responsible Government, if you try and interfere with them, however clearly you have a right to do so, will take the action he mentioned. Nothing could be clearer than our right to interfere.

The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil was perfectly right when he read Section 64 and pointed out that that actually provided that Bills might be reserved, and that they should not be passed into law without our assent in this House, and that the Government had a perfect right, representing the majority of this House, to refuse the Royal Assent to any measure it liked. I thought there was a great deal in what he said, assuming his facts are right, and that this very strong Act, which undoubtedly infringes the ordinary rights of ordinary British citizens in this country, seems a very strong case in which that power might be invoked. If it ever could be invoked profitably in reference to a self-governing country, what stronger case could you have than this, if the hon. Member is right in his facts? I am sorry the hon. Member for Leicester is called away, because I should have liked to have had his corrections of a very imperfect note I took of the passage he read from a memorandum from a gentleman in South Africa, which said that this is a pure political movement, and an attempt by the Government there to crush its political opponents and overwhelm certain persons. I know that that is not a correct transcript of what he said, but it is the substance. 395 How well that might be applied in the case of Home Rule. Assume such action for a moment by a Home Rule Government, not necessaily this; assume an attempt by the Government to crush its political opponents in Ulster and to overwhelm the O'Brienites. The parallel is absolutely complete. You cannot have anything closer. Yet in that case, as in this, this House would be absolutely powerless to enforce any paper safeguards that you might put in the Bill. Nothing could be more germane or more closely relevant to the Home Rule controversy than the whole of this incident. The Labour party, if they were capable of surprising me at all, would have surprised me by the attitude which they have taken in this matter. They see how bitter this matter is when it affects their friends in South Africa, but they have no sympathy for Ulster, not an atom. They are not prepared to give them the slightest protection. They have never said a word to protect that minority. They care only about themselves, and they do not care even about themselves sufficiently to vote against the Government in any effective Division. I venture to think that this is quite as important a consideration as any that has been raised in this Debate.

When I come to the substance of the complaint raised from the Labour Benches, I wish to observe as closely as I can the caution given to us by the responsible Minister for the Crown. Even so, I feel bound to express profound misgivings with reference to the measure, and perhaps even greater misgivings in reference to that portion of the Indemnity Bill which proposes to inflict a retrospective penalty upon those who have been deported. It may have been justified; I do not wish to attack the South African Government; but I must say that the thing in itself is certainly very repugnant to the British view of liberty. I cannot regard this Act from the point of view of precedent, apart from the special circumstances which may or may not exist in South Africa, as anything but an attack on liberty. I think also—and here, perhaps, I shall not carry so much assent from the benches opposite—that the dangers to liberty are very considerable even in this country. Hon. Members on the Labour Benches and elsewhere constantly vote for measures in this House which seem to me likely to undermine the British sense of independence and liberty. 396 The most obvious and best known instance is the Insurance Act. I myself believe that to be a grave attack on liberty in this country. I said so the moment I was elected to this House. It may not have been so clear when the Bill was going through, but it is perfectly evident now. I am referring not only to compulsion, but to the whole system of the insurance card, which I believe to be a very serious attack on liberty, and on that very right to strike about which the hon. Member opposite was so solicitous. There is much, too, in the administration of the Education