I move, as an unopposed motion, and pursuant to notice—

seconded.

I move, as an unopposed motion, and pursuant to notice—

seconded.

I move—

1. (a) that in his negotiations with the Doornkop Sugar Estates, Ltd., the Minister of Labour has been influenced by other considerations than those affecting the public interests; and
2. (b) that some Minister of State received for his private benefit certain bonus shares in the Doornkop Sugar Estates, Ltd., whereby he was influenced to exercise improperly favour for that company in the matter of transactions between the Government and that company;

seconded.

I would like to say a few words about this question. I think we all agree that an enquiry should be held in this matter. I go further, and I maintain that an enquiry should have been held long ago. Allegations have been made in this House and outside the House which should have forced the Government long ago to have gone into this matter carefully by way of impartial enquiry, but the Government have sat still for the last couple of years, and now in the last days of a dying Parliament and near the end of the session, they come forward with this motion for an enquiry when there is really no time to explore into this matter. No, I think the Government is very much to blame for having waited so long before taking action. The Doornkop matter has been very much canvassed, not only in this House, but outside, and the Government was well aware of the attitude of people in regard to this scheme, and if they had acted properly they would have followed the example of their predecessors in regard to the Durban elevator case, and they would long ago have moved for an enquiry, but they have sat still and done nothing, and now, at the end of the session, they come forward with an enquiry which, to my mind, is entirely misdirected. The Prime Minister moves that there should be an enquiry into imputations made by some hon. members upon the personal honour and integrity of certain Ministers. If anything was made abundantly clear during the debate last week, it was this— that no imputations of any kind whatever were made upon the integrity or the personal honour of any Minister. I can only recall the circumstances. You will remember, sir, that you yourself, when the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) was speaking, called him to order, and the hon. member at once clearly and directly disclaimed any intention whatever of reflecting on the personal honour of the Minister of Labour. At another stage I remember quite clearly the Minister of Labour himself got up and asked whether statements that were being made by the hon. member for Illovo referred to him, and once more the hon. member made it perfectly clear that no reflection was made on the honour or the integrity of the Minister at all. I am quite sure that if any such allegations had been (made during that debate-against the honour or integrity of Ministers, or anyone in the House, you would have called such a speaker to order at once. It is the rule of our House. If there is one thing (which clearly emerged from that debate it was this— that no attack whatever was made on the honour or the integrity of any Minister of the Government.

Oh, yes, by inference.

I do not understand what the Minister means by that. It is not a matter of inference. Speakers on this side were continually challenged as to whether they were imputing motives or making charges against the Minister, and repeatedly the statement was made most categorically that no such imputation was made. It is the custom in this House to accept a statement like that. When an hon. member, perhaps in the heat of debate, makes a statement and is challenged, and he at once makes it perfectly clear that it is not intended to make any imputation or charge against another member, that is at once accepted. But I infer from this motion that the Prime Minister has not accepted these clear and explicit statements by hon. members that they made no such imputations and never intended doing so. No, I think the whole motion of the Prime Minister is misdirected. We want an enquiry and we fought for an enquiry into the circumstances of Doornkop, but it is futile to direct the enquiry to a point which was not raised, which we have never raised, and which we do not intend to raise. If hon. members opposite want to clear the Minister of Labour or any other Minister, let me say at once—no enquiry is necessary for that purpose. No enquiry is needed to whitewash any Minister.

Whitewash?

Let me put it another way. Perhaps that was an unfortunate way of putting it. No imputation was made by us against the integrity and honour of Ministers, and if a select committee or an enquiry is asked for that purpose, let me say at once that, as far as we are concerned, it is not necessary. We do not require such an investigation. I do not know what the Prime Minister is aiming at. I am only repeating what happened in this House. Statements were made in this House which were capable of more than one interpretation. Hon. members who made them were challenged at once, and said that no imputations were made. No, what we have been at here, not once, but many times, is that we want an enquiry into the circumstances and into the whole case at Doornkop. We want to know, and we have never had an explanation, why a company which started as a purely private concern was taken up by the Government and got large advances from the Government; and on the support which our Government gave the company then got an additional large support from the Trade Facilities Committee. We want to know more about the administration of that company, and how it came about that at a certain stage the Government dropped its plan of using the company for land settlement purposes.

It has been made plain; in “Hansard.”

No, the whole matter has not been made plain. Statements have been made inside and outside the House which should be gone into. For the sound reputation of our administration, enquiry is necessary. If there is one case the Government should enquire into and the country should know about, it is Doornkop. The Government went into partnership with this concern, went some distance with them, it got support from the Trade Facilities and, in spite of our criticism, and, in spite of the difficulties we pointed out, the Government went on. Finally the Government realized they could not see the company through, and threw it over. The result is that we have a large liability resting on the country. The statement has been made, and it has not been challenged, that the Government has a liability of £140,000 in connection with a company in which we have no further interest at all—it is a private concern and run by private people —and we have on interest in it, except that the country is responsible for this very large amount. If ever there was a case for enquiry, this is such a case; it is not a matter of the honour of Ministers, but of their reputation for sound administration. We do not charge them with dishonesty, but with folly. That is the charge—not having done their duty properly in this matter. I want to say that I think the procedure adopted by the Government in this matter is wrong. This is not a matter in which you should proceed by way of a select committee. We are at the end of the session, and have a few days or weeks left to us to enquire into the matter. Witnesses in a case like this are far away from the seat of Parliament. Mr. Maxwell, who made a number of serious charges in the court case, is out of the country and cannot be got hold of within a fortnight. Other witnesses are far away in Natal and the Transvaal; and it is not possible to deal with this matter fairly in select committee. Why does not the Government follow the precedent of the Durban elevator case, where a commission was appointed of an impartial character? That commission, was not set the impossible task of coming to a conclusion within a fortnight. They sat and examined the facts, and made a report which was of value to the country. I ask the Government to proceed in the same manner, and not adopt a procedure which, in its very nature and in the circumstances of the case, must be futile. The select committee can come forward only with a report which is not founded on the real facts of the case. I do not think the committee should be limited to a fortnight. I move, as an amendment—

seconded.

I have sat for about 14 years in this House, and this is certainly the sorriest episode of which I have heard. If the right hon. member was in the House, his attitude this afternoon is all the more inexplicable. As far as I am concerned, I am not prepared to allow my right hon. friend to get so easily out of the matter as he is proposing to do. The right hon. member now comes forward with an amendment to have a select committee in regard to the administration of this Doornkop scheme. What must the select committee enquire into? Has there ever been any other subject in this House discussed at such length as this subject has been during the last three years? Is there any fact which can be brought out by the select committee which is not in possession of this House, as far as the administration of this scheme is concerned? What is the most that can be brought out by any committee; that my hon. friend has been foolish, that he has been incompetent, and that the Government is likely to lose a sum of money? Does this scheme differ from many of the schemes inaugurated by the right hon. member opposite during his term of office, schemes in which, while they speak of this Government losing £140,000, their schemes cost the taxpayers millions of money. You did not want a select committee for those schemes. We have not had a demand for a select committee on the question of Government assistance rendered in connection with the sugar scheme at Umfolozi, started by the late Government. I submit that the country has a long history of land settlement failures, and the light hon. member and his friends are quite welcome to any political advantage they can get out of the fact that my friend has been unsuccessful in regard to the Doornkop Estates. We do not want a select committee for that. What we said after a remark put forward by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) was that a select committee should enquire into specific charges. This is the kind of action in which hon. members opposite have overreached themselves, and where they have gone to such an extent that we have been able to get at them. It is all very well for them to run away now. This is one of the most disgraceful things I have ever seen—after mud has been thrown, mud that stuck, to say: “We are not prepared to take the consequences.” The hon. the Prime Minister indicated that he would ask for a select committee as soon as the “Hansard” report was available, and after the law advisers of the Government had had an opportunity of formulating a charge. Well, we have had the “Hansard” report, and the officers of the Crown have gone into the matter, and the result is a motion now standing in the name of the Prime Minister. Hon. members opposite cannot run away now. Did not the member for Cape Town (Central) Mr. Jagger) say it was the duty of the Government to probe the whole matter, and did not the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), one of the fairest members in this House —who was so impressed that he was drawn into this debate—say it was the duty of the Government to inquire into the matter of these bonus shares and other things. Well that is included in the indictment. Let us have the truth about these supposed bonus shares. As far as the motion itself is concerned, it says—

I think that has been framed wide enough. What was the burden of their charge—that my friend, the Minister, in this mysterious assistance he had given to Mr. Rosenberg, insinuations were made against the Minister, and I think the hon. member intended to convey that my friend the Minister had been moved in this matter by other considerations. I want to read out of the “Hansard” report some of the statements made. This is what the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) said—

Willing to wound, but afraid to strike.

Yes, willing to wound, but afraid to strike. And then the member for Klip River proceeds—

Is that all you have against Klip River?

Why does not my hon. friend not want a select committee now? This is quite sufficient. Then we come to the member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). What did he say? He read the following—

Rosenberg replied—

That is quite enough to poison the minds of the public. I asked the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) when he got up and said the matter should be inquired into, whether he believed in that statement, and that, if so, let us have an enquiry. Then the member for Illovo goes on to say—

Surely that is sufficient. What does that mean? What did the hon. member mean to insinuate by that?

Gross incompetence.

I say it is a sorry business. What can you do when hon. members take up a position like this? But some of the mud will stick. They say: “We did not try to throw any mud.” Let them stand by what they said, and I hope the select committee will pass judgment upon them. After what has been said, I do not think it is fair on the part of hon. members opposite, after these things have been published all over the country, to take up the position that they want another sort of enquiry. The House and the country can judge. As far as these insinuations and imputations are concerned, in the opinion of the law advisers it is the duty of this House to agree to the motion of the Prime Minister. It would be cowardly to run away from the consequences.

I hope this matter will be discussed calmly. We are not running away from the demand that we made. From the beginning of these discussions respecting Doornkop, we have stressed the necessity for an enquiry, but only into the administration of this particular thing, because, as the Minister of Finance rightly said, there have been many failures of land settlement schemes. We also want an enquiry as to how it was that the Government came to entrust a scheme of this nature to a man, and to a company, who, to put it in the least offensive way, did not enjoy the best reputation for financial stability. We want an enquiry so that the whole of the statements made in this House can be thoroughly enquired into. It was said at the time that hon. members on this side of the House made no insinuations against the honour of Ministers; but they quoted in this House statements which had been publicly made in courts of law, and which I quite admit do convey insinuations against the honour of somebody; I don’t know whom. The Minister of Finance asked me, referring to me personally, if I believed these things. I do not mind telling him quite frankly that I personally do not believe these things. But what does “it matter whether I believe them or not, or whether any hon. member believes them? That is not the point. These statements have been made public. The mere fact that such statements have been made publicly, and have never been enquired into, have never been contradicted, is an additional reason why there should be an enquiry. These statements have been made publicly, and the public have been left to draw their own conclusions from them. The objection that we have to this form of enquiry is that there is no time during this session to make an enquiry of this nature. If you are to enquire into the statements made against the hon. the Minister, you will have to do something to test the statements publicly made in courts of law, to ascertain whether they are true or not.

It is giving you the opportunity.

We are not the persons who made the statements.

You have repeated them.

When statements of this kind are made in open court, it is our duty to bring them up here. We have no hesitation in accepting that responsibility. I submit that this form of enquiry, limited to a report within 14 days, is a farce from beginning to end. It cannot possibly do any good. There is no time to go into these matters. It is doubtful whether a select committee within the time allowed could reach some of the people whose evidence would be material. The Government have a very serious responsibility for raising the matter in this form, and not constituting an enquiry competent to deal with the matter, allowed sufficient time to go into these matters outside of any political influence whatsoever. We are not running away from an enquiry. Our objection to this motion is that the enquiry is too narrow in its scope, the time allowed is totally insufficient, and that it cannot possibly do anything material towards investigating this very grave matter. We object to it being said that we are making statements against the honour of the hon. gentleman. We are making statements which it is our duty to make, and we are quite in order in doing so.

I will deal with the matter as temperately as I can. I think we resent, on this side of the House, and we have a right to resent the mixing up of two totally different and separate things. Members of the Opposition are welcome to indict our conduct of affairs, to criticise and to bring as strong a case as they like against our capacity in any department of Government; but I have sat in this House for a good many years and I have always looked upon it as a recognized thing that party disappeared altogether where any member felt he was entitled to satisfaction because aspersions had been cast upon his honour. Quite distinct from the good management or otherwise of this Doornkop business, if there is one thing which is beyond a doubt it is that if you take the statements made by the hon. members opposite, take the concatenation of circumstances, take the way in which they have pressed the point, the way in which they have connected in their language the statements made by Mr. Maxwell, stressing that they were made on oath, stressing that these 19.000 shares were mysteriously connected with Ministers, it is beyond doubt that statements have been made reflecting upon the honour of the Minister. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), who is an honourable man, would be the last man to sit still and allow imputations of this kind to be made on his personal honour without demanding an enquiry. The hon. member is attacking this matter with less than his usual candour. He is not acting up to his own standards; he is not acting up to those standards which we on this side of the House have been accustomed to associate with the hon. member. In this matter we must not lose sight of two or three very clear and relevant facts. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) made certain statements one night when Mr. Speaker was in the Chair regarding my hon. friend behind me (Mr. Boydell), and there is not the faintest doubt that anyone reading a report of that speech would infer that there was a very close connection between the 19,000 shares and my hon. friend behind me; otherwise the remarks were quite irrelevant. The next afternoon when my hon. friend raised the point, did the hon. member for Illovo do that which we have always done at one time or another—without the least argument, categorically and clearly deny any imputation? No, sir, he spoke in such a way that Mr. Speaker had to interpret what was in his mind. That is not what we are accustomed to in this House. On more than one occasion I have said things which I afterwards felt were wrong, and I have had no hesitation in my better moments in withdrawing them and in apologizing for them. Look at the effect of these remarks on the mind of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) on the following day. The hon. member declared—

There is the effect these statements had on the hon. member’s mind. The word “honour” was never used in connection with him in regard to the Durban grain elevator; none of his political opponents dreamed there was anything against his personal honour in connection with that. The hon. member for Illovo used similar language.

If these statements are true, they cannot but have one meaning.

I appeal to the hon. member who has just spoken—he would be the last man in this House to deny any fellow-member—the most insignificant member—against whom insinuations of that sort had been made, the right of having them investigated, and those who made them give an account of themselves before a select committee of his fellow-members. If there is one thing we try to keep out of debate, it is reflections on the personal honour of members or Ministers, however incompetent they may be.

The rules provide for that.

The hon. member the next day denied that he meant that, “It is all very well to dissemble your love, but why did you kick me downstairs?” It is no good afterwards saying, “I didn’t mean it.” Then he went on to repeat it. I ask any fair-minded man what point is there in saying what a witness swears to, if it practically appears to impugn the honour and integrity of a Minister unless he means it to have that application. Did he mean it to have that application?

Would you settle this without Mr. Maxwell being in the country?

I do not think the hon. member for Illovo, and other hon. members would have talked of making South Africa ring with these dreadful scandals if they had nothing more at all than just these quotations out of a certain unknown Mr. Maxwell’s evidence.

He is not unknown.

Presumably the hon. members must have had some other information which they felt justified them. Let them produce that information.

The whole issue in this matter has been obscured by bringing into the forefront the charge that there has been imputations upon the personal honour and integrity of Ministers. Mr. Speaker applies the salutary rule which does not permit of any imputation being cast upon a Minister or fellow-member in course of debate, and “Hansard” shows that he was entirely mindful of this rule while I was speaking, but now, at a later stage, the House is faced with a notice of motion such as the present one, which is virtually a challenge to the accented procedure of the House, because it declares that imputations were made and by inference were permitted by Mr. Speaker. I maintain that throughout the whole of the discussion on this matter I have not done any more than a public duty, and a duty which my position in this House requires me to do. When the evidence which I quoted as having come from Rosenberg was given in the first place—the evidence of Mr. Rosenberg to the fact that in May and June, 1924, he approached certain people and asked them to participate with him in taking up certain blocks of land, mentioning names and among others the names of a Minister of the Crown—what was the duty of the Government at that stage? Was it not the Government’s duty to investigate that and the further use which Mr. Rosenberg was alleged to have made of the names of Ministers and the Government throughout the length and breadth of the land? What was the duty of the Government under those circumstances? They did not carry out their obvious duty, which was to have investigated these reports and to have held an enquiry there and then as to the statements that became current as a result of the Maxwell case. In spite of that they continued to support this man and gave him the services of 100 tenant farmers and a subsidy of £33,000. He had actually said on oath—

I am not going to mention his name. Asked whether he had approached people whose names had been mentioned in court, Mr. Rosenberg replied that he had. The names that had been mentioned were those of a Minister of the Crown, an officer of the C.I.D. and a surveyor-general.

On a point of order, will the hon. member lay those papers on the Table?

I am willing to lay the papers on the Table. They are a transcript of the shorthand notes taken by an official shorthand writer, Mr. J. S. Lewis, in the case of Maxwell versus Rosenberg. Is there any suggestion that I am misquoting?

Does not the hon. member know that under the rules of this House, when a Minister quotes from an official paper, it can be demanded that it be laid on the Table, but in the case of another member it is entirely in his option?

I have not observed a similar disposition on the part of the Minister to place me in possession of documents. I shall quote a further statement of Mr. Rosenberg in a similar verbatim report of evidence, which I am also willing to lay on the Table. Under cross-examination the question of certain documents is referred to, and Mr. Rosenberg is asked—

That was the sworn statement of Mr. Rosenberg. If the Government had been anxious to enquire into all these statements in their relation to the Doornkop estate, then was the time to have done it, and not to have brought forward their present motion, which will exclude these matters from the field of enquiry. It will be remembered, the Minister of Justice in this House declared in August, 1924, that he would not again directly or indirectly guarantee a proposition such as the one he had guaranteed, that of the Doornkop sugar estates, a land-selling proposition pure and simple, in which plots were held out under a most flamboyant advertisement in the “Sunday Times.” The records in the Rosenberg case show that in a little more than 12 months later Maxwell’s representative interviewed Mr. Roos, and Mr. Roos absolutely vouched for Mr. Rosenberg’s honesty. These things were published in the “Natal Sugar Journal” after statements of a very different character in regard to the de Villiers judgment regarding Rosenberg had been published in South Africa. Did the Government show themselves anxious to enquire into the facts then and find out why Mr. Rosenberg was making free, and apparently unauthorized use of the name of the Government? When I spoke the other evening of the statements that I have quoted, I said, “It is possible that these statements are a pure invention, but the circumstances demand an enquiry.” Throughout the whole of my attitude in the matter—I think the Minister of Labour, from his interjection, is a little distressed.

You demand an enquiry and then you don’t want it.

That just shows the exceedingly unfair attitude of the Minister. He knows very well that the enquiry asked for from this side has been such an enquiry as he himself moved for in connection with the grain elevator. He knows very well that on that occasion the whole of his statements were taken into consideration and that, in the framing of the grain elevator terms of reference, there was not a single particular in which the wishes of the Opposition were not fully consulted and met.

I never impugned anyone’s honour.

I am glad the Minister has mentioned that, because in the first place Hansard shows that whilst I was speaking the Minister himself realized his honour was not impugned, because when he raised a question in this House you, Mr. Speaker, ruled, as shown by Hansard—

and the Minister’s interjection was—

showing that at that stage the Minister himself realized that he was not being referred to. On the following day the Minister sought leave of the House to refer to the matter in this House as a question of privilege, and that was granted. He stood up, and what did I do? I quoted word for word from the unrevised transcript of the Hansard notes what I had said on the previous evening. The Minister did not do me the courtesy of letting me know he was going to raise that question, and it was only by the merest accident that I had the uncorrected proof there. Before I looked at it I said “I will stand or fall by what I said last evening.” It is on record in the Votes and Proceedings that you, Mr. Speaker, ascertained from me that I did not reflect noon the personal honour of the Minister, and the matter ended there. He now comes forward with a much wider allegation, including the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) and the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson). When he rose as a matter of privilege, he had listened to the speeches of both these members, and not in the remotest manner does the Hansard report suggest that by a single word or insinuation did they say anything to which the Minister could demur. As might have been expected, you yourself, Mr. Speaker, made no comment upon the speech of either of those members. Yet they are named with me as having made imputations upon the Minister which the procedure of this House makes it impossible for us to have made. If we had made any such imputations what would have taken place? Mr. Speaker would have called on us to withdraw the imputations, and if we had still maintained that such imputations were justified, we should have had to bring them forward by way of substantive motion. Now the whole of the Prime Minister’s motion is, to my mind, simply an amplification of the attempt of the Minister of Labour to try to establish a smoke-screen with regard to the real facts in relation to the Doornkop Estates. Will the Prime Minister do as his predecessor did when he was in office? When the present Prime Minister was leader of the Opposition, he moved for a select committee to inquire into certain matters and one of the hon. members on the Opposition side moved for a select committee in certain express terms. My honoured leader accepted every word of the motion that the then Leader of the Opposition brought forward and embodied it in the terms of reference. Will the Prime Minister reciprocate to-day and accept the amendment the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has moved this afternoon? That reflects in plain language what we have maintained is necessary. It is of no use the Minister of Finance endeavouring to work up indignation against statements which were made in good faith and in conformity with one’s public duty in this House—statements the origin of which have been duly disclosed. I have never made a statement in this House by which I am not prepared to stand by. The Prime Minister’s motion in the first place sets out that the select committee is to inquire into statements which we never made. It sets forth that imputations have been made on the conduct of Ministers. The records of this House show, when this question was raised during the course of debate, at the earliest possible moment on the following day I denied that any imputation had been made and under the ordinary procedure of this House my assurance was accepted. The Minister now comes forward and asks us to limit that inquiry to that matter of imputations on the honour and integrity of Ministers. How is it possible then for the origin of this ill-fated Dornkop venture to be inquired into? What the motion asks is impossible, and it is tantamount to calling upon people who are beyond the reach of this tribunal to make good their statements within a fortnight, when it is well known that the people who make that demand are at present more than fourteen days’ travel from this place. Could anything be more preposterous and put a greater strain on the patience of the country and the attitude of the public outside this House towards a serious question of this kind? Let me remind the Prime Minister that this is not a matter bounded by the horizon of his Cabinet room. It is a matter that goes far beyond the boundaries of the Union—the attitude of the Government towards this and other matters of this sort—which has not reflected in the first place upon the wisdom of Ministers. You have for the first time in the history of the Parliament of South Africa a Minister’s name being used in a land settlement advertisement in such a manner as entirely to deceive the public, because as is subsequently shown by the evidence, the Minister’s letter which stressed the value of the guarantees which were offered by the company was shown to be written under a misapprehension. Mr. Aitken’s evidence shows that the guarantee sponsored by the Minister of Justice never existed. The irreproachable personnel of those connected with the company was also vouched for by a Government official.

You are not making charges; you are letting the other fellow do it.

I am not making any charge at all; I am at present merely quoting what was said by an ill-advised official who lent his name to an advertisement of a land settlement scheme. No fewer than two officials emphasised the irreproachable character of the personnel connected with this proposition, and did that at a time when at least one of them must have known if he consulted the dockets in his own office that the particular person to whom he addressed the letter had in unmeasured terms been condemned by the present Acting Chief Justice of South Africa; and it was certainly not fair to the public to praise the irreproachable personnel of that concern when the managing director had been condemned in such unmeasured language by that judge. This inquiry will show the outside public that the Government, unlike the Prime Minister’s predecessor, has not been willing to allow a flood of light to come on to a question where it has been suggested throughout the country that matters have not been what they ought to have been. The presence of Mr. Speaker in this House is a guarantee of the fact that no imputation has been or can be levelled at the humblest member of this House without the proper procedure being insisted upon. No sort of imputation or reflection is allowed in the House unless a substantive motion has been drawn and properly tabled. As far as I am concerned, it is perfectly clear that the demand for a select committee emanated from this side of the House, and that we were the people who moved for it. To indicate the wide scope of that committee, I wish to read the motion which stood in my name, on the 4th March this year, as shown in the Votes and Proceedings. [Read.] That motion was simply an indication of the scope of the enquiry we desired. The scope was also referred to in the amendment referred to by my leader, and I hope the Prime Minister will agree to it. This matter should be enquired into by an impartial body, and then the public will be satisfied. I have no object but to draw attention to the fact that an enquiry into this matter is needed.

The speech of the hon. member who has just sat down has been a direct refutation of the statement by the leader of the Opposition that this proposed enquiry is misdirected. The speech of the hon. member who has just spoken shows that it is very properly directed. The burden of his subject was that it was not a matter of personal honour and integrity. It was for the rest a very sorry exposition. If one takes the text of it one finds that it is interladed with numerous innuendoes and insinuations which can only touch the honour and integrity of the ministers concerned. The plausible excuse has been advanced that there is no case for enquiry as regards personal honour and integrity, because the Speaker would have ruled out of order any unparliamentary language or innuendoes. That is surely a very miserable effort. It is not parliamentary to say that an hon. member has told falsehods, but it is parliamentary to say that the hon. member has been indulging in terminological inexactitudes. Everyone knows what that means. The Speaker’s ruling cannot concluded the matter. You have to take the gist and the spirit of these interlardments. I challenge any impartial and fair-minded man to say that they did not have one thing for their object. The hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) spoke of camouflaging the position. Does not that affect the Minister’s personal honour? Of course it does. I am not taking an isolated instance. A Minister who comes into this House in connection with a matter repeatedly referred to and is charged with camouflaging the position, is practically accused of dishonourable conduct. We have heard the excuse that these were only quoted imputations. An hon. member who quoted anything, whether it be out of evidence given in a court of law, which touches the honour and integrity of another member, whether he be a Minister or not, takes the responsibility of that quotation. They have assumed this responsibility, and now we get them running away from the position. I take another instance. The member for Klip River said—

What other fair construction can be put on that but that he intended to convey that the public will know that everything was not square and above board. Then the hon. member for Klip River spoke of the Minister taking to his bosom persons whose personal integrity was in doubt. What is the fair construction of that? Now I come to the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) who spoke of “the inexplicable hold Mr. Rosenberg has on the Minister. It is a rotten and unsavoury business.” Surely in any court of law what would the ordinary man think of such language, and what construction would he place upon it. Then we have the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) speaking of Mr. Rosenberg’s participation in bonus shares, and saying that he whole statement of Mr. Rosenberg was an invention “and it is my duty to lay before the House the facts disclosed and to press for a select committee of enquiry.” What is the select committee in connection with Mismanagement, or with matters touching the honour or integrity of the Minister? Then we have the hon. member for Illovo speaking of “this strange infatuation of the Minister for Mr. Rosenberg.” What is the meaning of that? What has that to do with incompetency or mismanagement? Then we have a long effusion by the same hon. member about bonus shares. They only bear one construction, but what have they to do with the success or non-success or bad management of this concern? I now come to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) who stated that what they said was that these statements have been made public and under oath, and that certain shares were used to get facilities from the Government. What has that to do with bad management? All these statements can only be interpreted as applying to the personal honour and integrity of the persons concerned, and especially of certain two Ministers. So that impartial people, taking all these statements together and their general trend, will put only one construction upon them, and that is the construction I have put before the House.

The House knows very well that the hon. the Minister who has just spoken is a very able advocate, but it must be apparent to everybody that he has been totally unable to find any charge against the personal honour of the Minister in any of the statements made by members on this side of the House. He is straining the meaning of the statements made in order to support this case put forward for an inquiry of this kind. There is no doubt that the charges made by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) were made in quotations from statements made in open court, and it is surely not unfair for a member to stand up in this House and quote evidence when he thinks it is in the public interest to call for an inquiry. The hon. member is being charged with bringing forward this evidence, and because he will net say it involves a personal charge against the Minister, a charge against his honour, the Prime Minister charges the hon. member with running away. All that the hon. member said was that certain statements had been made on oath regarding the origin and administration of this affair, and regarding the connection of the Government with this company, and it was the hon. member’s duty, if he thought the public interest was being sacrificed, to ask for an inquiry. That is what he has been doing all this time. For the last few years he has been asking for an inquiry into this matter, and, of course, it must be a comprehensive inquiry, and it must go to the root of the matter. There is no doubt that the hon. the Prime Minister is afraid to face an inquiry into the whole origin of this highly unsatisfactory matter. We know that this company was started under the aegis of a Minister of the Crown, under the recommendation of a judge and of the head of the Criminal Investigation Department and the Surveyor-General of the Transvaal. I think the public have a right to know how these gentlemen were engaged in an undertaking of this sort. It is quite contrary to all the traditions of the public service for this sort of thing to happen. When we hear that 19,000 shares have been used for the purpose of obtaining facilities from the Government it does not necessarily involve the personal integrity of the Minister of Labour, but it calls for enquiry. Nobody has charged him or any other Minister with receiving shares, or with stealing sugar, or doing anything else dishonest, but we do say that the circumstances of this case which have been broadcast throughout the country should be inquired into. Is there some skeleton in the cupboard? Is there something hon. gentlemen are ashamed of? Why don’t they have an inquiry into all the circumstances? It is all very well for the hon. the Minister of Finance to say that there is no need to inquire into the circumstances of the case, other than the personal honour of the Minister. We have had one-sided statements flung across the floor of the House, partly by this side, and partly by the Minister of Labour, and we want to know the facts as the matter has now gone so far that any attempt to narrow the scope of this inquiry will not give satisfaction either to this House or to the country. We must have a full and impartial inquiry into the whole of the circumstances of this matter.

Hon. members on the other side of the House have in the course of their speeches made insinuations against the honour of the Minister. They cannot get away from that. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) says, “I make no insinuations; I make no charges.” Why did the hon. member say that? Because he knows he cannot prove any charges. But the hon. gentleman, while asking for an inquiry into the financial arrangements made by the Government in connection with Doornkop, and while he says he makes no charge against the Minister, he keeps on quoting in this House statements made by persons outside who certainly made imputations against Ministers. If hon. members on the other side of the House had stuck to their demand for an inquiry into the management or mismanagement of Doornkop, whether it had or had not been a success, then there would have been no necessity for the motion of the Prime Minister: but hon. members, in order to back up their case for an inquiry, put up a case for an inquiry into the mala fides or otherwise of Ministers, and when they are taken up on that question they run away from it. On a previous occasion when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) raised a question in connection with the honour of certain members of this House, I said that hon. members on the other side of the House, or on any side of the House, could not continue to throw out insinuations against the honour and integrity of members of the House without lowering the reputation of members of the House generally.

I asked for an inquiry.

The hon. member assisted in spreading throughout the length and breadth of the land certain imputations on the characters of Ministers; I do not say he did it deliberately. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) is not responsible for the fact that newspapers are stating that as the honour of a Minister has been impugned there is need for an enquiry. The imputation is that there has been something shady in connection with Doornkop on the part of certain Ministers of the Crown. It is a peculiar thing that the Minister of Labour happens to represent a Natal constituency, and that the hon. members who are pursuing the matter most bitterly, also happen to represent Natal constituencies. When I was in Natal I heard hon. members opposite doing everything possible to use this question not for the purpose of ascertaining facts, but for political purposes, in order to “down” one of their political opponents. The impression that has been given in Natal is that there is something corrupt or dishonest in connection with this matter, and the Minister of Labour is not entirely cleared.

Let us have a full enquiry.

Certainly into the question whether the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Justice have done anything they should not have done in connection with Doornkop. Hon. members opposite, however, do not want an enquiry into that. I listened carefully to the hon. member for Illovo, who is known almost as a reproduction of one of the characters in “Pilgrim’s Progress,” but I ever heard one word from him in favour of an enquiry into Doornkop; the whole of his speech consisted of quoting charges made by someone else. There was certainly an imputation against the honour of some Ministers. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) stated that when allegations were made against the Department of Lands they were enquired into by a select committee. That is not correct. The question before the select committee in connection with the land failures of the late Government when the hon. member was Minister of Lands, was that of reducing the overhead charges for land and water in order to enable the settlers to make good, but there was no enquiry into the administration of the Minister. There is no doubt that, directly or indirectly insinuations have been made against Ministers in connection with this matter. Hon. members opposite now have an opportunity of coming forward with actual facts, instead of repeating tittle-tattle, but instead of doing that they are running away and saying they want an enquiry into the whole scheme. If they had said that before there is no doubt that the matter would have been settled. They cannot blame the Government for taking up their challenge and saying “Let us have an enquiry.” The hon. member for Illovo now has an opportunity of having the allegations to which he has referred, dealt with, but apparently he does not want them dealt with at all. If many of these statements and charges were not taken up by hon. members and publicity given to them by speeches here, the public would take no notice of the allegation made by individuals, such as those mentioned by the hon. member for Illovo. It is when hon. members repeat these charges that the public begin to think there is something wrong. Hon. members opposite have repeatedly stated that in the interests of the Minister there should be an enquiry. Well, I have known the Minister of Labour for many years, and if every public man in. South Africa were as straight as he then we would have no fear of Government corruption. Why should the Minister burke an enquiry? Everybody makes mistakes sometimes —there is not a single hon. member who, in his private or public capacity, has never made a mistake. The insinuation has been made that the Minister is afraid to have an enquiry because there is something crooked in connection with Doornkop. That is the insinuation and members cannot get away from that fact. It is high time that hon. members in this House ceased their attacks and insinuations against the personal honour and integrity of other members in order to gain political advantage. They are dragging the whole standard of public life down to a very low level indeed. It has been done in the past. Members have not hesitated to spread propaganda and make insinuations in connection with the honour and integrity of men in public life who in their hearts they know are not guilty of such offences. They have done it for political party purposes, and I say it is time this sort of thing stopped. Let us differ on questions of principle, and let us point out where we believe mistakes have been made; but let hon. members refrain from doing what they have been doing for some months and even years, impugning the honesty and integrity of men who happen to be opposed to them. They did it in connection with the Mining Regulations Commission. They came forward with the charges and then found on investigation that there was not an atom of ground for those charges. They say: “We do not make these charges.” They quote someone else as having expressed opinions, but that does not alter the fact that in the eyes of the public they have brought certain charges. In connection with the Mining Regulations Commission and other matters raised by members over there, they have questioned the honour and integrity of the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) in connection with railway sleepers, and they have questioned the honour and integrity of the Minister of Agriculture in the past. There is hardly a member or a Minister on this side who has taken any part in public affairs in this country whose honour and integrity have not been challenged directly or by insinuation. I am very pleased indeed that the Prime Minister has moved for a committee of enquiry into these charges which the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) says he has not levelled, but which the hon. member has levelled. And if the hon. member were making these statements outside the House and were brought before a magistrate on a charge of libel, he would find he would be found guilty very quickly, because it is not only held libellous to make statements about an individual yourself but also to repeat statements made by someone else. I say the hon. member under the privilege of this House is circulating broadcast throughout South Africa things which are sinking into the minds of people as being something derogatory to the honour and integrity of the Minister. They know they are doing it, and they are doing it purely for political purposes.

I do not know whether the Minister of Labour is attempting to evade the issue in this matter or whether it is other members on that side, but it must be quite evident from the debate that the Government are not willing to have a thorough and comprehensive enquiry into the whole of the circumstances surrounding this matter of Doornkop. That is quite apparent and the terms of reference mentioned in this motion reduce the whole matter to nothing short of a farce. You are going to have a mock enquiry, a sham trial and then the result will be that you will come out and say the Minister of Labour is an injured innocent as well as all the others who have been mixed up in the matter. The Minister of Labour cannot say that throughout my connection with the Doornkop company I have ever imputed to him dishonest motives in connection with his handling of this matter. The Minister only two or three days ago, after I had made a speech of some 40 minutes, said he had heard the same speech delivered by me two or three times in the House and he did not take the slightest exception to what I had said. Moreover, the Minister knows that I specially and purposely refrained from imputing improper motives to him in connection with Doornkop because I have stressed, times cut of number, my opinion that the muddle and mess are due entirely to the fact that the Minister never had a business training, that he is inexperienced, and was pitted against an exceedingly clever and unprincipled man who has outwitted him and obtained certain financial facilities from him in that way. That has been the burden of my case ever since I had anything to do with the Doornkop company. What are we told? We had the whole of the charge against me read out by the Minister of Finance. If that is all that is imputed against me, the sooner the Minister of Finance gets up and admits he has no ground for saying I imputed improper motives to the Minister of Labour, the better for him. This is what I said which has been taken exception to—

I say the Minister has never attempted to answer that question. I say again I do not suppose the Minister will ever explain how he came to take to his bosom a man who was unknown to him, and a man whose reputation at any rate was an unsavoury one. When I asked him who introduced this man, the Minister did not answer. Is the inference to be drawn from my remarks that I accused the Minister of a lack of integrity and of dishonourable conduct. No. Subsequent to that, I said this—

I have repeated it every session since 1926. I have said it outside, and I have said both inside and outside the House that I have never suspected the Minister of anything dishonourable in connection with Doornkop. Friends of mine on this side of the House will bear me out. Whatever I may think of others I have never suspected the Minister. To show how hopelessly weak the case against me is, in connection with the charge of imputing improper conduct to the Minister, I may say that the Minister of Mines and Industries mentioned the word “camouflage” which I used; because I used that word it was an indication that he had been guilty of dishonourable conduct. This is the statement I made “the Minister in the new agreement … by way of camouflage made provision on white labour lines.” In order to make my position perfectly plain in regard to this matter, I want to remind the Minister what I said on the following day, I think it was, in winding up the debate. I based my speech on the incompetence of the Minister in handling matters of that kind, and I attributed the whole of the muddle to the Minister not having had a business training and that he should not have taken on the responsibility of dealing with matters of high finance like that. For purposes best known to the Prime Minister I am accused of having questioned the integrity of the Minister and imputed dishonourable conduct to him. I take the strongest objection to that. I do say that this is a matter which calls for a thorough and comprehensive investigation, and if that is not going to be granted, this attempt at enquiry is nothing more than a sham and a farce. If the Minister can put his finger on anything in my speeches which can be interpeted as my questioning his integrity, he will get my apology straight away. I cannot do more than that. I do hope, in order that the matter may be finally settled, that he have a full, comprehensive enquiry covering all the circumstances relating to the Government connection with the Doornkop estates. To expect the select committee to report within 14 days is burking the whole question. I think it is a great pity that this course has been adopted.

I must point out that the amendment proposed by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is the same in substance as that moved by the hon. member for Illovo, on the 4th March, to the motion that the House go into Committee on the Estimates of Additional Expenditure. That amendment was negatived and I therefore regret that I am unable to put the amendment now moved.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, can we move an amendment?

That depends on the amendment.

I think anyone sitting in this House this afternoon must have been filled with the most unpleasant feelings, that I should say ever could fill an hon. member of this Parliament. It was a pitiable scene we had to look at this afternoon. What are we dealing with here? There have been uttered in this House, not by chance, not as loose statements, systematic allegations, expressions and charges, for nearly three days, charges of such a nature that hon. members who made them, and other members constantly said: “In respect of such accusations a select committee should be appointed to make enquiries.” It became so bad that I said: “Very well, you will have an enquiry, just give me time to get hold of Hansard.” Before Hansard came out I went to the legal adviser of the Government and said to him: “Get a copy of Hansard as soon as it comes out and go through it to see if you can find in it accusations of dishonour or corruption or anything of that sort against any Minister, and if so, draft a motion which I can submit to the House for an enquiry.” That, and nothing else was my direction. The legal adviser got Hansard and came to see me with the motion, and said: “These are the charges which are contained in these speeches,” and I laid the motion on the Table without amending it, Now we have had to view this afternoon the pitiable, pathetic scene which was opened by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) the leader of the Opposition. Now we have to learn from him that in all that was said by hon. members opposite there were no charges against the honour and honesty of any Minister. What are we to think of the appreciation by such members of the feelings of honesty? Do they understand it? The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) is occupied day after day, whenever he gets an opportunity, in doing nothing else but insulting and making charges of corruption of the most serious kind, first against one and then against another. But then it is said here: “We surely have the right to do so because our object is to prevent corruption.” That is absolutely right, but then I ask them when they utter charges that are false or libellous, not run away if an enquiry is asked for. The hon. member for Illovo has the right to quote what another person has said outside the House. He has the right, but only if he actually so strongly believes in the truth of the charges that he thinks an enquiry is necessary. He may not come here and repeat the charges unless he thinks that they are true. If an hon. member gets up here to exonerate an hon. member who has been charged it is another matter, but no member of the House has the right to repeat and again to repeat the first charge which is made outside, merely to throw mud. They repeat it here, but they must surely be ready to investigate the matter. What a scene we have had here since we proposed to have an enquiry. The hon. member for Illovo maligned members of the Government, he made charges and libellous quotations. If it were done outside the House it would be so libellous that he would immediately be brought before the Court, and an example be made of him. He has the fullest right to repeat it here, but if he does so without wanting the investigation of the charges, then it shows that he is only repeating it to besmirch and to sully. I call this conduct of such a kind—I will not use the word “cowardly”— but it is much more than cowardly. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) must know what insults, what libellous words, what calumnies have been uttered her for two or three days. He now comes and wants us simply to ignore the matter and make no enquiry. I ask whether he thinks that he is actually rendering a service to the country by that. We surely are not a group of libellors who are here merly to abuse, slander, malign, and rail at each other, who have not the courage to see the necessary enquiry through. Now we near the excuse that the committee to be appointed cannot go into the origin of the matter, is not comprehensive enough. That is not true. The motion clearly states that the committee shall have power to make enquiries regarding the accusations against the Minister of Labour about his negotiations with the Doornkop Estates Ltd., and whether he allowed himself to be influenced by other considerations than those which are in the public interest. The select committee can make enquiry from the first day of the negotiations. No limit whatsoever has been imposed, and when the committee is appointed it will be their duty to go into the matter from the origin, from the time negotiations began, to see whether there is anything in respect of the Minister can be blamed. It is therefore entirely comprehensive and the argument of hon. members that it is not so is only used to have an escape and for no other purpose. It seems to me so— I might almost say low—but I know that that would be out of order—although one can hardly find another word. That is the behaviour of men who come here in the House pretending to look after the interests of the people, who say that they are acting in the name of the people, and occupy themselves with libels, and, when they are called to account, run away. The hon. member for Illovo has for months now directly or indirectly made charges against the Minister of Justice. I am giving him this opportunity. According to the motion he has the fullest right to institute enquiry in this connection, because it says that the select committee shall also enquire into the charge that a certain Minister of State received for his own benefit certain bonus shares in the Doornkop Sugar Estates, Ltd., which influenced him to favour in an improper manner that company in the transaction between it and the Government. There again the committee can make enquiry from the start. There is nothing to restrict the committee in its enquiry. Why does the hon. member for Illovo want to run away from it now? Let me tell you. If the hon. member had dared to say outside what he has said in this House he would have at once without doubt been taken to court. That does not deprive him of the right of mentioning the matter here and repeating it here. If in so acting he honestly intended to advance the country’s interests, I could appreciate it in him, but then he must as an honest man also show that he is honest in the matter and not run away as soon as a committee is appointed to enable him to prove his honesty. I want to go further. Is this a proof of any honour in those members? I must say if there is one thing that has pained me deeply it is this. Here we all are as men sent to Parliament to conduct ourselves and act in the interests of the people. We have hitherto always regarded and treated each other as honourable men—so honourable that always, even upon strong opposition, when the honour of a member whether of your own or the other party is attacked we always give him the fullest opportunity of proving that he is unjustly maligned. What has hurt me so much this afternoon is that the hon. member for Standerton should support an attempt to try to prevent giving Ministers, against whom charges have been made inside and out of the House, an opportunity of proving that they are innocent. Anything worse in the case of a man who calls himself honourable one cannot imagine. It is conduct of such kind that I can hardly find terms strong enough to express my disapproval of it. The hon. member for Illovo has had the bad taste to want to make us believe that in the words he used there was nothing reflecting on the honour of a Minister. A man who acts as he does deserves no consideration, nor will he get it from me. He said in the House—

He therefore believes it—

Who are “they”? It was so strong that the Speaker interrupted the hon. member for Illovo and said—

To that the hon. member for lllovo replied—

Then he did not have the courage to-day to say that he was again quoting from someone else, and that that inference could be drawn, and he therefore wanted an enquiry. No, all he said was—

Don’t read bits only. Read further.

That does not exempt him from the duty of seeing that the man maligned shall have an opportunity of being heard. According to the hon. member for Standerton all this is being done merely because his administration was not good—there was “folly.” Let me now quote further from the speech of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). He said—

Yes, he could say that on Monday, but I object to his saying it this afternoon after he has shot off his poisoned dart and then running away from it and not wanting to have a select committee on the matter. That is not the action of a courageous man, and it is conduct which is unworthy of an honourable member of the House.

Order.

Is that too much? Then I at once retract.

Now you are running away.

I am withdrawing it because the rules of the House do not allow it. The hon. member for Illovo further said—

He well knows what the effect outside as well as in the House, is of all the slanderous charges. What is a “mystery” to him—

What has that to do with administration? When a man still has the impertinance to come and tell us that it was not intended to impugn the honour of a Minister and that it is not a charge. The honourable member for Illovo further said—

Hear, hear.

Hon. members may applaud it but it shows that it is a charge. They do not however have the courage to stand by it, but run away from it. The hon. member said further—

Here it is “source and origin” and not administration. Will the hon. member say that that contains no charge? He was impertinent enough to say so. The hon. member proceeds—

It is not only the Minister of Justice. The poisoned shafts are aimed just as much at the Minister of Labour. In reply to this remark of the hon. member for Illovo the Minister of Labour said—

To that the hon. member for Illovo replied—

The hon. member for Illovo further said that Mr. Rosenberg, in answer to the question—

replied—

Now I ask the hon. member to rise and deny that he intended by this to say that the Minister of Justice, or some other Minister, was the person to whom the bonus shares were to go. The hon. member quoted it as a reason why it was necessary to appoint a select committee— because it was there stated that a Minister had made himself guilty of it. Now a select committee will be appointed, but the hon. member is not sufficiently courageous—

The Prime Minister must moderate his language.

I am repelled by conduct which gives such clear proof that there is a lack of moral courage. He goes on throwing mud and using poisoned darts, but when it comes to the request for an enquiry then he does not want it. In his speech the hon. member said—

Can there be a clearer proof that the whole quotation was made with no other object than to make us feel and believe that a Minister had been guilty of corruption? Notwithstanding that the hon. member for Illovo and the hon. member for Standerton dare to come here and say that nothing of that sort took place, and that there was no charge against the honour of the Minister. If that was the view of the hon. member for Standerton and his colleagues about ministerial honour when they were in office, then I can understand his taking up such an attitude to-day. Then the hon. member for Illovo said—

He will have the fullest opportunity to have the matter investigated to its origin, and I hope that he will then show more courage and be prepared to give evidence and to have evidence given by those from whom he gets his information. He said further—

You see we were afraid, and the Minister was afraid! He wanted to make us more afraid, but now he finds that we have not become so he is the first to run away. That is the courage you usually find in slanderers.

The Price Minister cannot use such an expression.

If it is not permissible I withdraw it, but let me say that that class of person usually has no courage. It is proverbial. The hon. member for Illovo further said—

It is therefore not administration but the “participation of a Minister in this business”—this dirty business of which we have just spoken. He said—

I can agree with him, and do agree with him, on that, but he must have the courage to defend his attitude, he must not run away. Is a man, if mean accusations are made against him—so much the more if he is a fellow member of Parliament —not to have the right, not to be given the opportunity of exonerating himself? We cannot accept all the excuses which are made in order to run away. We cannot, and will not do so. In the first place we consider that the Minister against whom the charges were made has the right of asking this House for the opportunity of exonerating himself from blame. But what was actually the reason for all the charges here? It is peculiar that, as the election came near the charges became more bitter, and more full of meaning. They increased in number and intensity. It is clear to all of us, and the Government has the right to have the enquiry made, and a report will have to be made as soon as possible. I do not want to blame all the hon. members opposite, that all the work of this kind that was done here was merely to obtain advantage at the election, nor am I going to excuse all of them. In conclusion I want to say this: the motion before the House will undoubtedly be passed, then those who made the charges here will have to see how they can substantiate their statements if they do not want to endanger their own reputations. The public outside will also have their attention called to what has taken place here. In the meantime I want to assure them that if there is not sufficient time for proper enquiry by the Select Committee, I will then take the necessary steps to see that a judicial commission is appointed to make the enquiry. There is, however, as far as I can see no reason why the Select Committee cannot dispose of the matter in fourteen days. It would not take a court fourteen days to deal with such a case.

Without witnesses!

The witnesses are now overseas. When I heard it this afternoon, I though to myself that it proved—I do not say so, but I thought so to myself—that they saw a justification in that for their making the accusations here at a period when they know that we have only got half a month left. They have now brought up these things which they are not prepared to substantiate when a proper enquiry is proposed. They reckoned that the talk would in the meanwhile fly throughout the length and breadth of the country. What else can be the object of introducing it now? They thought, I imagine, that the man was away, could not be summoned, that no proper enquiry was possible and that they could therefore just continue till after the election. I felt personally that that put the finishing touch to the miserable figure the Opposition cut in this House.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—69.

Alexander, M.

Allen, J.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Ballantine, R.

Barlow, A. G.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Buirski, E.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Sampson, H. W.

Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water C.T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Visser, T. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Waterston, R. B.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Pienaar, B. J.; Vermooten, O. S.

Noes—46.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Bawden, W.

Blackwell, L.

Buirski, E.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Gibaud, F.

Gilson, L. D.

Grobler, H. S.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Marwick, J. S.

Miller, A. M.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Robinson, C. P.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smuts. J. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Watt, T.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; de Jager, A. L.