At the time I was a delegate to the Trades and Labour Council Keir Hardie called at South Africa on his way from India. He had there been fraternising with the Indians and proclaimed equality with them in their social and political life. This, of course, disturbed the imperialist forces in control there and such news was soon spread over the world. He landed at Durban and, I believe, made straight for the mining area in Johannesburg, assuming to find himself quite at home amongst them, and with also a possibility of meeting some of his old Lanarkshire mining friends. He did not, however reckon with what they thought the position of social and economic equality would mean to them if applied to the Native and Coloured people of South Africa. They had already had some trouble over the mining magnates trying to introduce them at a cheaper rate than European labour; therefore whatever his sympathies were in the interest of labour they didn't want any of his talk about labour and social equality with the Native and Coloured people here.

There was, however, an organisation known as the Independent Labour Party, having taken the name of the body so named in England which Keir Hardie founded and did so much to build up, and which is still existent with about four members in the House of Commons of which the late James Maxton was the most outstanding, with a more revolutionary outlook than the orthodox Labour Party.

However, the meeting organised by the I.L.P., Johannesburg, greeted Keir Hardie's appearance with the rowdyism typical of the miners in that city when they choose to be hostile. The only remark I saw reported of his speech on that occasion was "Obviously you do not wish to hear me." And he soon found it to be very obvious as the meeting was soon broken up. I know that some of the more responsible labour men there entertained him and admitted a few by ticket to meet him afterwards, but he dare not face the mob unprotected.

Having this information before the Trades and Labour Council of Cape Town, Jack King, the secretary, introduced a motion which was duly seconded and agreed, "That no reception be given to Keir Hardie by the Trades and Labour Council, representing the trade unions on his arrival in Cape Town." The protests of us who dissented only magnified the report of the proceeding the next day.

This of course gave the S.D.F. the golden opportunity of enter­taining Keir Hardie ourselves, and we made good use of him during his stay for propaganda purposes. Comrade Ridout, who met him on his arrival, brought him out to Groote Schuur, where I was then employed, and I gave him the whole detail of the Trades Council deliberations. The S.D.F. hired the Good Hope Hall, at the top of Plein Street, for his first meeting, at which some prominent M.P.'s and the Mayor of Cape Town, Sir William Thorne, attended, not, however, to ornament the platform but as members of the public. Keir Hardie commenced by saying it had come to his notice that the trade unions of Cape Town had no intention of receiving him, but he was not looking for receptions, especially of the sort he had hitherto received in South Africa (laughter). He would like, however, to show that because of the reported hostility to him in Johannesburg how the Cape Town Trades and Labour Council had changed its mind.

He then produced a letter which he had received during his stay in India, hoping he would call at Cape Town on his return and meet the Labour representatives of the Trades and Labour Council, signed John Charles King, secretary. John, though personally unknown to Keir Hardie, sitting in a front seat immediately before him, dropped his head and blushed like a schoolboy.

Under other circumstances Keir Hardie might have used more moderate language, and possibly have reviewed the Labour movement in England and invited opinions on the movement in South Africa. On the contrary he very tactfully and appropriately elaborated the principles of International Socialism. "Socialism," he said, "has no national or geographical boundaries. We are a world brotherhood. Comrades in the great fight for the unity of the world's workers." He used gestures in a dramatic way to point the moral-questions being asked. Some of the Labour Party members in the hall asked if he had noticed in the daily Press vindictive letters about the local Labour movement, written by people sitting round him on the platform.

Kier Hardie (in white), who called at Cape Town on his way to India 1909

The writer was one of them, "That," said Keir Hardie, "is the result of the irritation." That meeting, at which Comrade Needham resided, like the other meetings we had during his stay, was a great success-no hostility was shown anywhere. At that time we sang the Red Flag" to the tune of the White Cockade". Keir Hardie gave us a few lessons on the more harmonious new English tune, which has been in use ever since.

We subsequently got a final picture of him outside our new large hall in Buitenkant Street, which had "The Socialists Hall" in large letters inscribed on it. Behind him a group of us unfurled our "Red Flag of Silk" with the words "Social Democratic Federation" and "Socialism the Hope of the Age" blazoned in silver letters on it. All the writing was the work of Comrade Needham, who was the head of a signwriting firm as I have already stated.

I met Kier Hardie a couple of years later on the terrace of the House of Commons. Kier was happy to relate his experiences in South Africa. On that occasion I saw Ramsay Macdonald before he became England's Prime Minister; later he associated himself with Tory Government and was considered a renegade of the Socialist cause.

The Stone Meetings

District Six, or Ward Six, the Whitechapel of Cape Town, gained its name by political agitation in that area and continuous rowdy meetings.

There was a large stone just above the residential properties on the mountain side, at which meetings were held every Sunday morning, chiefly for ventilating the many grievances of the Coloured community. There were known as the Stone Meetings" and the chairman opened the proceedings by shouting "Kom na die Klip. The orthodox politicians had their agents there, who posed as the leaders of the Coloured people, which meant hat the Labour Party the trade unions in particular were very much the subjects of their criticism. Socialism, too, according to the Coloured people was a white man's creed of foreign extraction. Comrade Dibble and I, both of the Carpenters' Union, and also members of Social Democratic Federation, visited there one Sunday and agreed to debate with their chosen men the following week to defend both Trade Unionism and Socialism.

John Tobin, the leading Coloured speaker at those meetings, and Isaac Purcell, a local merchant in that district, who subsequently became their point of view. Mr. Tobin was a farmer at Klipheuvel, and it was discovered that he was unable to appear so they substituted a Mr. Dreyer; Mr. Purcell claimed

He could reply to us both-Dibble on Trade Unionism and myself on Socialism. After the meeting started there was soon what the Argus reporter described as "lively proceedings." Dibble showed that the fault of the trade unions if the Coloured people could not demand the same pay as the European, and that the "Coloured Clause" often then existing in building contracts was the work of the architect in his desire for efficient labour.

It was up to them to make themselves efficient both in organisation and technique. I was reported to have given "exhaustive explanation of the Socialist doctrines," the details of which are too long to print here. Mr. Purcell was a very charitable man; he was born in this district, had always lived there am would die there. Which induced me to remark that environment makes the man and that his limited surroundings had given him limited view of everything, even a better form of social life. There was no vote taken but we gained their confidence, not because they with us, but because of the animation. I attended those meetings for a long time afterwards and I found there, as amongst most of the Coloured races of the world, that the antipathy to the white man and administration is very deep.

In 1916 the S.D.F. nominated me as a candidate for Town Council against Dr. A. Abdurahman, the only sitting member of the Coloured community, whose three years' allotted period expired at that time in Ward Seven, the same area as the Stone Meetings", where I was well known. This was deeply resented by even a lot of those with Socialist leanings on the ground that the Doctor was their only representative on that body, and they thought that our opposition should be against the white men representatives in the area.

Comrade Stuart, later the general secretary of the Federation of Trade Unions, suggested that the Gardens would be more suitable as an intelligent constituency, as Ward Seven had too many illiterate people to understand Socialism and I agreed with him, but the S.D.F. as a body were adamant. Dr Abdurahman, they contended with some truth, was really no representative of his people, but a voice of the Governmental authorities, and that we could do more for the Coloured people than he could.

H. B. Ash, a one-time active member of the S.D.F., met me in the street and attacked me bitterly for opposing colour. Mr. Ash may have thought that very good advice for me, but not for himself, as he subsequently became a Town Councillor by defeating another Coloured in the same area. When I reminded him of his bad memory he aid, "Circumstances have changed," but the colour of his opponent's skin hadn't and that was the only objection he offered against my opposing Dr. Abdurahman.

It was discovered also that Dr. Abdurahman's colour was only skin deep, as it was known that the Doctor favoured, if he did not give direct support to, the white man, Ash, which may have been the reason why Ash resented our opposition to Dr. Abdurahman.

However, my views of a future Socialist paradise seemed too much of a heavenly jump from their present state of depravity, hence they concluded it was merely a white man's bogey, like so many unfaithful promises from politicians in the past. Our visionary Utopia, which we claimed to be only the propaganda agents of, inspired some of Dr. Abdurahman's more educated supporters to suggest another way of evading the contest. As I was much then in the public eye over anti­war persecutions they rather feared I might get in, so one of them took me up to the office of another close acquaintance and suggested that if propaganda was our only purpose perhaps a cheque for a considerable amount would do as the alternative to my candidature. Noting there was no response to the suggestion, the other one excused himself by saying, "Oh, that's going too far!"

I afterwards told Dr. Abdurahman that there was an alternative- if he would join the S.D.F. and stand as a Socialist candidate himself I would withdraw from the contest. The historical record of that contest, however, shows that the suggestion was not accepted. We went to the poll and the mayor of Cape Town read out the following result:

Dr. Abdulla Abdurahman 543

Wilfrid Henry Harrison 212

Addressing the waiting crowds from the plinth of the City Hall steps Dr. Abdurahman said he appreciated the "gentlemanly way the contest had been run," while I made use of all the minutes allowed for propaganda purposes. At that time the plural vote was allowed for property owners. I quote the Cape Times' brief report: "Mr. Harrison declared that the property vote had gone to Dr. Abdurahman, not because property owners had any love for Dr. Abdurahman, but because they regarded the sacredness of property more than they regarded the sacredness of human life ('Oh.' Oh?' and laughter.) He would like the Press to understand that 212 votes had been given to an out-and-out Social Revolutionary. (Applause and laughter.)"

I contested the same ward against the same opponent other occasions, but his popularity and strength increased amongst his people-proof of this was shown at his funeral. He died a few years ago, and such was the following of all the Malay male fraternity that they blocked all the traffic in the streets of Cape Town. He had a pleasant manner and we were always on quite friendly terms, and I avoided personalities in our several contests.

LABOUR PARTY OPPOSITION TO OUR CANDIDATES FOR PROVINCIAL COUNCIL

Dr. Abdurahman was also a member of the Provincial Council. This body is elected on the Parliamentary voters' roll, on which Coloured representation was allowed although barred in the Union Parliament-and one cannot be a member of both bodies. Again I was put up by the party as his opponent. On nomination day there were found to be four candidates nominated for the one seat. Dr. Abdurahman, P. Hendry, both described as "Independent," C. Petersen, Labour, W. H. Harrison, Socialist.

Only a short time before nomination day there had been a redistri­bution of seats. Petersen had been the chosen candidate for the Woodstock Division, which became defunct, so the Labour Party then transferred Petersen to the Castle Division with the Doctor, Hendry and myself.

A deputation had previously interviewed Mr. John Lomax from the S.D.F., who was then considered the most influential Labour man in the Cape and a Provincial Council member himself. The deputation pleaded with Mr. Lomax to use his influence to keep a Labour man out of the Castle constituency and so prevent a split in the Left wing vote. Mr. Lomax, a very diplomatic attorney, did not tell us in so many words that he would do so, but he gave us the impression that he would by encouraging nods at our suggestions. However, we found that either our impression or his diplomatic manner was false.

Petersen was nominated with the rest of us and Lomax was found on his platform to give him support, he said, "even to his last penny." This was a clear indication of how the Labour Party, with a Socialist objective as the main plank of their platform, will deliberately oppose an orthodox Socialist candidate. The man they put up was not to my knowledge ever in the Labour Party before, nor have I ever heard of his association with it since. There may be an explanation as to why Mr. Lomax insisted on putting up a Labour man against me. Some time previously Mr. Lomax had accepted an invitation to debate with me before the crowd of our Adderley Street meeting. The subject was "Reform versus Revolution."

On being put to the vote, "for the Revolution'' was carried with one dissentient. It was, of course, our own meeting and my old whom I had hammered the question for years, therefore to Mr. Lomax. I remember Charley Pearce, another Labour M.P., came down there to debate with me on another occasion with similar results in our favour.

When "chipped" about it by the editor of a weekly paper called The Cape Charley's reply was: "Oh! Harrison's got the gift of the gab"-which I had always thought was an M.P.'s prerogative,

It has always seemed to me very peculiar and regrettable that the different sects of the Labour and Socialist movements show so much antipathy to each other. We may at times say unkind things about one another-the best of regulated families do that-but to ventilate our differences before the public, most of whom are not well grounded in what our policies may mean, is something we ought always try to avoid, rather than deliberately put such candidates in opposition, as is often done.

I have always tried to be very diplomatic concerning our relations with the Labour Party without sacrificing any Socialist principles, which fact induced even Colonel Creswell, their one time very con­servative leader, to describe me as "my friendly enemy." With that character in my favour and my years of experience in the Socialist and trade union movements-in both of which I held the highest offices- did not justify the Labour Party opposing me on that occasion. The only pleasure they got out of it was in finding, as I quite expected, us both at the bottom of the poll and the Doctor the successful candidate.

While I am on the question of Labour opposition I will relate another incident with similar absurd results. There was some difference in the Labour Party many years ago about, I believe, the question of party control. Colonel Creswell, then their recognised party leader, and a few other Labour members of Parliament-amongst whom I knew were Thomas Boydell and H. W. Sampson-considered that the Parliamentary caucus was the machinery to initiate matters, while the rational Council, the executive authority-on which sat W. B. Madeley, M.P .- considered themselves the proper authority. It was a matter that could have been thrashed out in conference, yet they immediately tarred counter conferences and caused a definite split in the party.

They eventually thought that the electorate was to decide, who of course knew nothing about it, or anything discussed in the inner circle of the party. Tommy Boydell was the member for Greyville, Durban, so when the election came round the National Council decided to send one of their strong men in the person of Jimmy Trembath to oppose him, both men of integrity and long standing in the Labour movement. Jimmy, with his usual eloquence and knowledge of the whole dispute, quite convinced some of the Greyville constituency that the National Council's point of view was right.

The Hon. Thomas Boydell

Tommy, with equal eloquence and as much knowledge about the affair as his opponent, convinced considerably more people of the Greyville constituency that the Parliamentary caucus was right; so the polling day resulted in Jimmy's converts giving him just enough votes-355-to prevent Tommy beating his Capitalist opponent, who smilingly thanked the Greyville constituency for having at last seen the absurdity of the Labour Party claiming the seat. The voting was:

Richards, N.P. 1,408

Boydell, L.P. 1,053

Trembath, L.P. 355

(Note the two Labour votes just total Richards' 1,408. But for the confused Labour position Boydell would have won.)

I am not ventilating all this to show the many differences in the Socialist and Labour movements, but rather to show that in most cases there is no fundamental reason for them and how harmful these divisions are; in fact the Labour Party as a body has never regained its former position since. That and the former split of 1914 on the war issue were both caused by the Labour Party claiming as their leader a man who did not pretend to subscribe to the Socialist objective of the party. Although I have the greatest respect for his personal character and admit that he did everything according to his lights in the interest of the party, he would have fitted in much better in the ranks of the English Tory Party to which he rightly belonged. Nothing, however, was his fault, it was again the fault of the executive authority of the party for electing him as leader merely because he was a man of influence and intelligence, and happened to differ with the orthodox politicians as an advocate of the white labour policy on the mines. It is, of course, Colonel Creswell I mean,

If a party elect a leader there is, of course, a certain amount of loyalty to that leader. One of the Labour members at that time told me that was his only reason for supporting the contrary views of the National Council. Mr. Boydell, when asked, informed me that it was not because he was deprived of his seat that he refused to have further association with them; it was the underhand and intriguing methods adopted by many of them to secure their own ends, by fair means or foul, which undermined his confidence in their integrity. He could not co-operate and work with people in whose good faith and honesty he had lost confidence. Boydell's reputation as a Labour man was without reproach; he was the first rank and file chosen Minister, and did the job with conspicuous ability. He published a minority report on the cost of living when he sat on a Government Commission during the last World War, and in my opinion the report is a credit to Socialist propaganda in South Africa. Boydell also often lectured at the Sunday evening meetings of the S.D.F. and he gave us as good as we sent. In those days the division was wider between the old revolutionary school and the Labour Party than it is between them and the Communist Party to-day.

During our many persecutions, of which I shall refer later, Labour member Boydell tried to extricate us, as far as lay in his power in interviewing the authorities concerned. I have known him wait for me outside the Roeland Street prison doors, which meant he must have gone into the detail or he wouldn't have known the time of my release as I didn't know myself until a few minutes before.

I remember it was just after one of these occasions that he was made Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, which induced me to say at our Adderley Street meeting: "You will note I am again released, this time I believe largely through the influence of my old friend the Hon. Thomas Boydell, now Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. While I was in Roeland Street I was working for the same department, only there was a little difference in our form of occupation-he was Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and I was mending the mail bags." This was a job we prisoners were given to do during my internment, which was only two days.

Some of my comrades and myself appeared several times before Cape Town magistrate, a Mr. Broers, who showed deliberate antipathy to us. Many remarks quite unbecoming a magistrate were made I him during our evidence. Our Comrade Pick in the witness box said he wished to affirm and not take the biblical oath, which is quite-keeping with court procedure. Mr. Broers retorted, "Oh! Another crank!" This and many other unseemly remarks induced Boydell, then an ordinary M.P., to bring the matter up in Parliament and relate all the circumstances of his conduct. There was, of course, plenty of the legal fraternity to defend Broers during the discussion. Boydell in his reply to them said: "I expect that even the infamous Judge Jeffries had his lickspittles." There was uproar at this supposed nasty but telling thrust at those who knew nothing of the position or of the man himself, only that they agreed with his hostile manner towards us. This is all just to show that fundamentally on Labour and Socialist principles the Hon. Thomas Boydell is sound and well grounded, although at the time I agreed with the National Council point of view .

King Edward's death

On the death of King Edward VII in 1911, at our Adderley Street meeting the following Sunday evening I made what I found to be some unpleasant comparisons. I took the Cape Times there and showed the crowd the full front page devoted to his death. There were many miners entombed in England about the same time, and it appears I was foolish enough to think that they and the serious position of their dependents-their wives and families-ought to have been given front page space rather than a little corner on the back page where it was. The King, I asserted, had reached the allotted span of seventy years and nobody was destitute as a consequence. However, the crowd soon gave evidence of their loyalty to the King above all such catastrophes amongst the people, and they made many threats and efforts to dislodge me from the platform. The numerous members of the police force, with my fellow comrades, then made a cordon round me and escorted me to our hall in Buitenkant Street, at which, after we were inside, the crowd threw bricks and stones through the hall windows. Arthur Noon and I went outside again to chastise them and they all slunk away. The following Sunday we appeared as usual, follow!' meeting of Stevens, a Christian speaker, who on seeing me arrive "Oh! Here is Mr. Harrison-let him now apologise for what about the King last Sunday." My wife, who was with us, immediately intervened thus: "You are a Christian. Why don't you preach the brotherhood of man and the fatherhood of God, in Whom you believe, not incite a crowd to animosity?" "Oh! Oh!" he cried. "A lady! Give her the platform-let her speak." My wife had done much useful work for the cause, and occasionally contributed a few articles to our Press, but she did not like the platform. I therefore accepted Mr. Stevens' invitation on his platform and opened by saying that apologies were not in my line. I had said what I meant to say, therefore I had nothing to retract. This meant that the police and our supporters had to escort my wife and myself this time to the Wale Street police station, which then stood where the big Provincial Council building now stands. There they entertained us until the crowd dispersed, as such crowds quickly do. Such incidents are enlarged on generally by young people, who regard such scenes as "sport," and have no intention to show their loyalty to the King or their political opinions about anything. While on our journey to the police station many were shouting "Speech!" which shows that, instead of resenting what I had to say, they wanted some more to provide them with opportunities for retaliation and further sport. Only on one other occasion had my wife been taken to that dismal old building described as the police station in Wale Street, and that was on one of those glittering military displays which always accompanied the opening of Parliament, when the King's representative here was described as one of the "Royal Family." Such occasions are always the means of enticing a large crowd, so we thought it a suitable occasion to distribute a leaflet, in which I believe was some sarcasm about South Africans being sycophantic grovellers to such proceedings. I believe I wrote the leaflet, and I remember quoting Disraeli, once England's Prime Minister, who said: "If you want to flatter royalty lay it on with a trowel," and our leaflet added: "In South Africa they appear to pile it on with a shovel."

Whether the detective saw the contents or considered a lady distributing leaflets was a counter attraction to such stately arranged proceedings, she was escorted to the Wale Street police station and detained there till the proceedings were over. And that was really all we heard about that, other than the gossip of the sightseers, who wondered what it all meant. I suppose according to current conceptions of our monarchial forms of administration I have a muddled psychology. It has always, however, appeared very strange to me- even in my childhood-to sec a man elected or appointed as the Monarch of the Realm whose only qualification is that he is the son of his father.

My visit to England

In 1911 I visited my home town in England and looked up the general secretary of the Social Democratic Federation in London, H. W. Lee, to convey the fraternal greetings of the Cape Town move­ment. I also visited the printing press and editorial offices of their paper, Justice, then the organ of the English S.D.F. with Harry Quelch as editor, who gave me a lot of detail about their work. Quelch attended the International Socialist Congress at Stuttgart in 1907. There was, or had been, a so-called Peace Conference sitting at The Hague, which Quelch described as "a supper of thieves organising the destruction of the world workers," This resulted in his being seen over the German border.

The destruction of the workers in that area since that date seems to justify his assertion, and that peace conferences have been futile to prevent it.