I move

I beg to object.

I move—

I hope the hon. member will not object to that.

Very strongly.

It will simply preserve the thing, and you will not have to go through the whole preliminary procedure again.

I object to that also.

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

seconded.

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

seconded.

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

Mr. HENDERSON seconded.

I move—

I object.

I move—

I would like to say a few words in explanation of the recommendations contained in the report. When this committee was appointed by the House, it was ordered to report within fourteen days, and those fourteen days expire today. The committee sat every day on which it could sit, and I think members of the committee certainly will agree with me that it lost no time in pursuing the inquiry entrusted to them. The committee considered that its first duty was to call before it those hon. members whose names had been mentioned in the order of reference, in order to examine them in regard to the speeches they had made in this House in which it was considered that statements had been made containing imputations against the honour and integrity of Ministers. I think my colleagues on the committee will agree with me that the hon. members concerned gave us every possible assistance and held, nothing back, and wished to give the fullest possible explanations of every matter; and the examination of these hon. members was concluded only yesterday morning. The committee was in a position of having to consider what its future course should be. Even if we had asked the House for an extension of time, it was quite clear that extension would have been of very little use, because, as hon. members know, the session is practically at an end. The committee was in a position that the matter entrusted to it could not possibly be concluded; the evidence which was necessary to take could not possibly be taken before the end of the session, which I take it will be tomorrow. One of the Ministers concerned is not in the country. The evidence of other persons which should be taken could not be taken. It was advisable to report to the House that the committee had taken the evidence of the hon. members mentioned, and that there was no time left to hear the other persons, who, in the committee’s opinion, ought to be heard before any report could be made; and the committee reported accordingly. The first point on which it reported is that the hon. members appeared before it stated that they had no intention, either in the speeches more particularly referred to, or in other speeches, to make any imputation against the honour and integrity of Ministers, and their speeches, they contended, could not be interpreted in that way. The committee came to the conclusion that some of the statements made in the House were of such a character that the persons affected by these statements ought to be heard, and ought to have an opportunity of giving any explanation they might wish to give before the committee could possibly come to any report. As the time at its disposal was not sufficient, it was considered best to report the matter to the House. A further problem presented itself to the committee, and that was whether it would be fair to the persons referred to in the evidence given before the committee, whose names have been mentioned, that this evidence should be published and circulated throughout the country, before they had any possible opportunity of being examined in regard to those statements, or making any explanation which might remove any injurious inference that might be drawn by the public from those statements. It seemed to the committee, more especially due to the fact that an election is pending in the near future, that it would not be fair that the evidence should be published before these persons had any opportunity of seeing these statements and making any explanations they might have. Therefore it seemed best to the committee that the evidence which had been taken before them should not be published until further enquiry could be held at which the persons affected had an opportunity of making a statement in explanation of the statements made in the House. These statements, to a certain extent, concerned hon. Ministers, but they also concerned other people. It is obvious that statements, I won’t say involving the honour and integrity of any Minister, might be construed as involving questionable transactions by Ministers—cannot affect those Ministers alone, but also other people. In this connection we had had insistent telegrams from Mr. Rosenberg requesting that he should be heard before the committee, and I have received from him this morning a long telegram which, I think, it is only fair to read to the House. This telegram reads as follow’s—

As I have said, this enquiry concerns other persons, and the committee felt that it was quite out of the question in the time at its disposal to cope with the evidence they would be asked to hear. And for that reason, after having heard the evidence of the hon. members named, it was decided to submit this report to the House. The committee think that the statements made are such as to require investigation, and, pending that enquiry, and until these persons have had an opportunity of saying what they have to say, it will not be fair or reasonable to make the evidence public.

seconded.

I think the House is indebted to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) for the very judicial manner in which he has stated what took place before the select committee, and for the way in which he has brought before the House the finding of the committee and what led them to come to that conclusion. When these allegations were originally made before the House, it was felt that an enquiry should at once be instituted. It was pointed out, and everyone felt, that the select committee would not have that ample time at its disposal which was necessary to enquire into these allegations that would reasonably be required, but we thought there was only one course open, and that was that a committee should be appointed, and whatever finding should be arrived at, it should be communicated to the House. At that time the Government was of the opinion that if it appeared, as it appears now, that the time was insufficient, it would be possible at once to convert the select committee into a Commission, so that they could, continue their enquiries and report to the House and to the country in due course. Unfortunately it now appears that it will not be possible to adopt that course. These allegations were made inside the House; and I understand it will hot be possible to divert the responsibility to any body outside the House, and for this reason it is unfortunately not possible to ask the members of the select committee to continue their enquiries as a Government commission. That, unfortunately, leaves the whole matter very much in the air. I desire to move an amendment to the report of the committee, asking them, within the time still available, to continue their investigations. I think it is only fair, at least to the Minister of Labour and to this House and the country, that at least his evidence should be taken. Having done that, whether a report will be placed before the House or not, I think it would be advisable for the House to agree that the evidence taken should be published. Direct statements have been made in this matter, and they are public property, and J do not think either Ministers or the other persons referred to can suffer any more in that regard than they have already. It is unfortunate that the enquiry could not be brought to a conclusion, but I think that in the circumstances the best course to adopt is to ask the members of the select committee to continue their investigations to-morrow, and then report to the House. When that report comes forward, whatever the finding may be, that evidence should also be printed. It will be for Parliament when it meets again to decide as to prosecuting the enquiry further. I therefore move, as an amendment—

seconded.

I do not want to oppose this amendment; it might be ungracious to do so, and yet the Minister of Finance must be aware that there are very great difficulties against the course he proposes. I infer from his statement that his main object is that the Minister of Labour shall have an opportunity of placing his evidence before the select committee, but if this committee is to report to-morrow, then the only opportunity there will be for it to take that evidence will be to-morrow morning. The committee will have to take evidence to-morrow morning and report to-morrow afternoon. I do not know whether the evidence of the Minister of Labour will be finished to-morrow morning. It may be that his evidence, which is one of the main portions of the whole case, will take much more than to-morrow. The Minister will understand that there will be a statement in chief, and there will be an examination on that. It seems to me that we should now leave the whole matter as it stands. I assume that all that will happen if the committee sits as proposed is that the statement of the Minister of Labour will be heard in part, and to-morrow afternoon it will be reported to us that the evidence of the Minister has not been completed. Then the Minister proposes that on that taking place the evidence already given, together with the part statement of the Minister of Labour, shall go forth to the world. It seems to me that that is a most inconvenient course. I do not know what purpose is served thereby. Two Ministers’ names have been repeatedly mentioned in this House, the Minister of Labour and that of a Minister who is sick, and who is out of the country. Must the Minister who is out of the country be left entirely in the lurch? Must his name remain with imputations against it? Surely it is not fair. Surely no advantage should be given to the Minister of Labour above the Minister who is sick and who is away from the country, and who cannot give evidence. It is a very undesirable course that is proposed.

At any rate we can get more light on the subject than we have now.

I doubt whether we shall get more light on the subject.

We can at least hear one, if we cannot hear two.

The Minister assumes that the select committee will complete the evidence of the Minister of Labour to-morrow.

If that does not satisfy the committee, they can say so.

Then the Minister proposes that these statements, supplemented by the statement of the Minister of Labour, shall then go to the country. I am very sorry that we are driven to this procedure now. I do not like to oppose any course proposed to give hon. members of this House an opportunity of replying to imputations, but I do wish to point out that it is very unfair to differentiate between the individuals against whom there may be allegations. One Minister is going to get a chance, and the other not. There are a number of people outside this House against whom there is also going to be this differentiation. We have heard an application from one gentleman who is the person who has figured most in this case. He has asked to be heard. He will not be heard. We shall use the procedure of this House to give a preference to one Minister only. I do not think that will be doing the right thing, and my own feeling in the matter is to rest content with the work that has been done. If it is incomplete it is an interim report. Leave it there. The evidence is not going to be published. No one is prejudiced. We have the clear disclaimer of the gentlemen behind me that they never imputed or they never intended to make any imputation against the.

Still, the committee finds there are matters to be investigated. Surely that is inconsistent.

I do not wish to argue on the substance of the report before the House, but still, I can quite understand the report of the select committee that, in the evidence which has been given before them, there are allegations which will require further investigation. Nothing is published now, and nobody is prejudiced; but I do think that the course now proposed savours of favouritism for one selected individual, whereas others are prejudiced. I do not think that this preference should be given to one individual over another. I do not think the evidence of the Minister of Labour can be pushed to finality at a morning sitting to-morrow. We shall be just where we are. We shall not have made any progress. We shall simply have wasted another morning over this case. I do not want to oppose the amendment, but I doubt very much the wisdom of the course the Minister proposes.

I am very much surprised at the attitude of the right hon. gentleman (Gen. Smuts), and I fail to understand it. May I point out his total failure to appreciate the position of the one particular Minister? That one particular Minister has been the focus and the object of all the attack. It has been directed on him, and the most elementary fairness should lead us to say that be is the one person who should have the fullest opportunity of giving his own denial to those statements. As for the time taken up, I would ask the right hon. gentleman if a number of baseless allegations by various third parties were made against him without any ground whatever, how long would it take him to give evidence to absolutely give, them his unqualified and entire denial? My hon. friend is not going to make any statement. He has got no connection with these things at all and, unless I have misjudged the hon. gentleman, whom I have known for the last 25 years, he will not have any difficulty in giving his evidence in a very short statement. As my hon. friend interjected, it is true that hon. members have denied making any imputation, but the committee has found that certain statements made require investigation.

The committee does not say that.

The committee says that certain statements made in the House call for further investigation. If that does not mean-that they call for further investigation in relation to the man who is referred to, then I cannot understand the report. It means that those statements did actually contain imputations, whether they meant them or not.

It may not mean that.

It may not. I must say I have listened to these debates all through, and the least we can ask is that the committee should sit to-morrow and hear my hon. friend. I wish the Minister of Justice were here; he would make short work of it. I am sure my hon. friend will make short work of it. If this report goes out to the world with no evidence published, and without a statement by the Minister most concerned, it would be most unfair.

I do not know whether I would have risen but for the doubt which has been cast upon the clear meaning of the report. The use of the word “however” in the phrase—

can have only one meaning. The report clearly shows that in the opinion of the select committee imputations were made and these require further investigation. The committee would have possibly been in a different position had it known of the constitutional difficulty to which reference has been made this afternoon. I was of opinion that the investigations would be carried on after the House had risen, and my idea was that the whole matter would be cleared up long before the general election. We now know, however, that the matter cannot be cleared up in a parliamentary sense before the elections, and that makes the matter entirely different. The report indicates that certain statements contain imputations against the honour and integrity of Ministers. The outside public will not see the evidence, and the Minister of Labour, who has been the principal subject of attack as far as the speeches are concerned will, undoubtedly, be injured very seriously in his election campaign. It would be most unfair to him to leave the matter as it now stands. We know what particular inferences might be drawn without his having a chance of putting his own case. The amendment is not altogether satisfactory since we shall not have time to hear all the evidence, but this difficulty cannot be overcome; even so, however, that course would be far better than Leaving the matter in its present position, for when we hear the Minister of Labour we shall, at any rate, be in a position to bring up a report on the evidence taken. I was going to suggest that the committee could sit this afternoon as well as to-morrow morning. He expected to be here this afternoon, and whether members of the committee spend their time here or in the select committee room, can make no difference to their convenience.

It would be better to adopt the suggestion of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) than to adopt the proposal of the Minister, for the latter simply means that for an hour or two to-morrow the committee will have an opportunity of hearing evidence only from the Minister of Labour. It seems doubtful, in view of the attacks that have been made upon the Minister of Labour for a number of years past, whether it will be possible to finish his evidence in an hour. I am sorry that the amendment has been moved, for it appears to me that a definite distinction is being drawn between the two Ministers concerned. It is true that a great deal more attention has been paid to the Minister of Labour than to the Minister of Justice, but the reason is obvious, for the Minister of Justice had nothing to do with the matter, while the charge against the Minister of Labour was not one affecting his personal honour and integrity, but was a charge of ineptitude. If a differentiation is to be made between the Ministers of Labour and Justice the inference is likely to be drawn that in the opinion of the Government the name of the Minister of Labour requires much more healing up than does that of the Minister of Justice, or else it shows the disregard of the Nationalist party for the good name of the Minister of Justice. I do not know whether the Minister of Defence is much of a judge of fairness, probably his sense of fairness is as good as his judgment of clean administration. I submit that to some extent not only the Minister of Justice, but others whose names have been mentioned, will be unfairly dealt with if an opportunity is given to one of the parties affected to appear before the select committee without a similar opportunity being given to the other persons affected. The select committee was appointed some days ago. The Minister of Labour, or the Government, were in the position of prosecutors; before the committee was appointed they said: “We have been attacked and we want to defend ourselves.” Did the Minister of Labour take the first opportunity of going to the committee and saying “I want to prosecute the people who have made these allegations, and I therefore wish to place my evidence before the committee.” If he did not do that it seems to me he has not much of a grievance in coming now and asking for special consideration as opposed to the Minister of Justice, who is now away from South Africa.

Speaking as a member of the select committee, I present the statement of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) that we are indifferent to the good name and fame of the Minister of Justice. I do not stand back for any member sitting on those benches in my affection and regard for the Minister of Justice. The hon. member makes these statements rather wildly. I would press the right hon. the leader of the Opposition rather to assist us in sending this back to the committee. I do feel with the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) that we could find some opportunity this afternoon of going further into this question and we could sit to-morrow morning. There is no member on the committee who will not do his best to do as much work in the next day as possible. There are three questions before the committee, one of which has already been answered. The first is whether in the speeches placed before us for investigation the hon. members concerned intended anything slanderous. That has been answered. The second question is whether the words could be reasonably construed as containing any slanderous imputations. That question—I want to speak with circumspection —I think most members are already prepared to answer. The last question is whether there was justification for any slanderous imputations. I think the committee could answer that question as far as the Minister of Labour is concerned as soon as we have heard his evidence. We have to do justice as far as we can. As far as the Minister of Labour is concerned, I think we can do that before the House rises, and in regard to the Minister of Justice, the committee can deliberate on that question, and I suggest to the House that perhaps it would only be just to the Minister of Justice if we did not publish that portion of the evidence dealing with him.

That is the point.

I think that can be discussed when the further report comes up.

I will not pursue the matter further, except to suggest that the committee could consider that question. Under these circumstances, I hope the House will send this matter back to the committee.

I do not know why the hon. member wishes to suggest that I have anything against the honour of the Minister of Labour. I believe the Minister has played the game in this thing. I have nothing whatever against his character, but when the Minister of Finance makes a statement that they are going to publish this evidence I ask where does the Minister of Justice come in. That is the question.

It seems to me it will be more appropriate when the further report comes up.

It was discussed by the Minister, and on a point of order, I submit it is a most grave thing.

The hon. member must realize we are now discussing the question as to whether this should go back to the committee. The Minister indicated what they were likely to do and that can be more properly discussed when the new report comes up.

I want to go so far as to say they should not be allowed to publish it.

On a point of order, is not the original motion before the House?

Yes.

I want to put this to the Government. Is this fair to Mr. Roos, who is overseas, that you should publish evidence in which veiled charges are made against him which are going to be used by his enemies, the South African party, all over the district? Electioneering is electioneering. This is going to be used by whoever fights Mr. Roos in the Bethal district. Would it not be fairer for the Prime Minister to appoint a commission at once and let that commission go into the whole question? This is not going to be fair to the Deputy-Prime Minister, because there is a very highly-placed official who used to work for Mr. Roos mentioned in the evidence. What about him? Is his name going to be dragged through South Africa without giving him the opportunity of replying? I want to know from the committee why they did not call Mr. Rosenberg, and put him in the dock. He would have been able to clear up the whole thing. You should have sat the whole night, if necessary. There are charges here against one of the most beloved politicians and men in South Africa and that man is overseas. That is going to go right through South Africa, and the Government is going to sit dumb. I protest against it now, once and for all. I ask the Prime Minister, is it fair to Mr. Roos that this should be published? It is unfair. Then I hope the Nationalist party will stand by us and protest against that evidence being published. No evidence should be published against any man until that man has the opportunity of saying whether it is true or untrue. I think the Minister of Labour should get up and say “I am quite clean and quite clear, and I am prepared to wait until my colleague comes back and then we will together show our traducers we have done nothing to be ashamed of.” Now is the time to stand by Mr. Roos who has often stood by him.

As I have figured in connection with this case somewhat prominently, I think I am entitled to state very briefly how the matter appears to me. I quite agree with the last speaker that if the evidence relating to the Minister of Justice can be isolated, there should be no publication until he has had an opportunity of being heard. I say that with the utmost frankness, but now let me add, in order to do justice to myself as well as to other persons, that I want to call attention to the sequence of events of this matter. In the first place, I was, in the course of my public duty, moving in this House for a select committee to enquire into the whole of the circumstances connected with the Government’s first association and financial support of the Doornkop Estates Company, and I appealed to the Prime Minister as the leader of this House and a man cast in a different mould from his colleague the Minister of Labour, to agree to that. But instead, what did he do? He came against me with a select committee of inquiry which I venture to say is without precedent and will never be repeated in any dominion Parliament again, so unfair was the procedure adopted by the Prime Minister. Not only was it unfair from the point of view of its scope—I am not speaking of the personnel at all—but also because of the ill-will in which that committee was asked for by Ministers when they moved for its appointment.

That is not under discussion now.

I should like to draw your attention, sir, to the rule of order under which one is allowed to refer to a previous debate relating to the question under discussion.

What is it the hon. member wishes to discuss?

I wish to discuss the remarks that fell from the two Ministers when they were moving for this select committee, and the calculated thrust or intent of their attack on me, and the spirit of unfairness in which the whole idea of this committee was conceived. When the Minister of Finance was speaking on the motion for the select committee he made use of these words—

To get at them! Was that the purpose of this committee, rather than to ventilate the matters mentioned in the terms of reference. Was not the purpose to get at us? I venture to say that the country will answer that with the most emphatic “yes.” The Minister went on to say with an insistent tone towards the proposed committee that could not be misunderstood—

What did the Minister mean by “pass judgment on them”? Did he desire a judgment of not guilty to be passed upon us. Perhaps, but I don’t think so.

I do not think the hon. member can go into that question. The question is the report of the committee. I do not think the hon. member is entitled to deal with the debate on which the committee was appointed.

I wish to explain how I was obliged to, come before that committee smothered with the prejudice which Ministers had intentionally cast upon me.

The hon. member will realise that——

May I invite your attention, sir, to a very definite rule, which governs any reference to previous debates? I refer to Rule 74. [Read. This happens to be the very question—

Only by the indulgence of this honourable House.

This is the same question, the identical question under discussion. I was referring to the attitude of the Minister of Finance in expressing the hope in so significant a way that the select committee would pass judgment upon us if we stood by what we had said. Then he said—

I would like, on a point of order, to refer to Standing Order 62 (1). [Read.]

Is the hon. member reading from Hansard?

I was quoting from Hansard.

It is customary in the House to allow quotations from Hansard.

I was about to refer to the further remarks of the Minister of Finance—

Here, in spite of the injunction of May in Parliamentary Practice that legal opinion must be quoted only sparingly in the House, the opinion of the legal adviser was drawn in to impress on the House that it was its duty to pass the Prime Minister’s motion. Was there not a distinct danger here of subordinating Parliament to the opinion of an official outside this House? I now wish to come to the Prime Minister, who did not observe even the semblance of the form of restraint which his colleague took on his lips when he said he hoped that the select committee would pass judgment on my colleagues and myself. The Prime Minister went further and proceeded to pass judgment, and in no unmeasured terms. This occurred, sir, after I had made a speech, which I maintain was couched in terms of the greatest courtesy to him and which was nothing but an appeal to the reason of this House, and the fact that I was doing a public duty, which, although difficult and delicate, was all the more imperative, and after I had pointed out that the Prime Minister’s motion excluded from the field of enquiry the origin of the Doornkop question, and after the Speaker’s ruling had confirmed my contention, and ruled out the motion of the right hon. leader of the Opposition for an enquiry into the origin of—

I asked the hon. member not to go into that matter. The position is this: the committee was appointed by the House, and what the hon. member now says is a criticism of what this House decided.

I want to avoid that altogether. I want to deal with the atmosphere which was created by the Prime Minister. He alluded again to the legal adviser and said these were the charges—

On a point of order, the hon. member is proceeding to discuss all the instances of the original motion. He is traversing the ground of the speeches, and in spite of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, he is going on and dealing with the speech of the Prime Minister in connection with that motion. I ask your ruling whether the hon. member is in order in quoting my speech or the Prime Minister’s.

The hon. member must not travel beyond the motion. The hon. member suggested just now that Parliament is subordinated to outside opinion, and he should not do so.

As you remember, sir, I did feel that my personal honour had been assailed in this matter, and I applied for your leave to make a personal explanation to the House, but for perfectly good and sound reasons you were unable to accede to my request. I am going to confine myself to the question of the prejudice which was created against me before the appointment of the select committee. The Prime Minister in this connection said this—I will not dwell on this in a lengthy manner—

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion before the House —that the report be adopted—and the amendment of the Minister of Finance.

In connection with the proceedings before the select committee it will be found that there were certain protests made by me, and I take it I shall not be out of order in referring to these protests? I am discussing the protests made by me in connection with these proceedings. I found it my duty to remonstrate against the attack made upon me by the Prime Minister, who had said of me—

and then he proceeded to say that I was running away.

The hon. member is referring to the debate which took place on the motion for a select committee.

I am quoting from the debate to show what I laid before the committee in the course of its proceedings.

On a point of order, I understand we are discussing a report of a select committee to which, an amendment has been moved that that committee be revived. We are in the position practically for debating purposes of discussing whether we shall appoint such a committee, and surely the hon. member is entitled to bring forward any argument for or against the revival of this committee. Surely that is technically what is before the House. It seems to me that the hon. member is entitled to discuss this with the same freedom as he would have when the original motion for the appointment of the committee was before the House.

The hon. member is perfectly correct, but the hon. member who is speaking is seeking to reply to statements made in the debate when the motion for a select committee was before the House.

I am seeking to show how necessary it was for me to protest against the prejudice raised against me a few hours before I was to tender my evidence to the select committee. I do ask you, sir, in all fairness, as one who has been assailed in a manner which is without parallel, to allow me to quote the words used against me a few hours before I went before the select committee.

I do not see the object of the hon. member in reading quotations from Hansard which are already on record.

I merely want to show what a difficult task I had, and how that difficulty was accentuated by the ungovernable attack of the hon. the Prime Minister and the unwillingness of the Minister of Labour to appear and expedite the enquiry.

I have not been asked to give evidence.

Did you offer?

I am ready to do so.

The hon. member must confine his remarks to the motion before the House.

If I am not allowed to quote what was said about me before I went before the committee, I maintain it is useless for me to go on. I wish to debate this matter to the fullest possible extent.

The words used in the previous debate have nothing to do with the motion now before the House.

It has a very close bearing upon the proceedings of the select committee. What I wish to show, to complete these proceedings, is the enormous volume of prejudice created against me before I went before the committee.

That was ruled, out of order in the select committee. I do not think the hon. member can deal with whit took place before the committee was appointed.

Then I hope the country will take the trouble to find out and read what was said about me. Anything more unjustified or more unfair has never been uttered against an hon. member of this House. Let me say here—I will pay the Prime Minister this tribute: whenever his arguments are unutterably weak, and unfortunately that is very often, he more than makes up for them by the volume and variety of personal abuse which lies at his command, and on that occasion, he saw fit, knowing that the committee was to assemble in a few hours, to use with full rein to his spite the words I am not permitted to quote.

The hon. member is again referring to matters that took place in the previous debate.

I am now referring solely to his prejudice, and not to his words.

That has nothing to do with the report before the House.

I find it very hard to suffer abuse and not be allowed to—

Any hon. member who feels that he has been abused in this House has the right to ask that the words be withdrawn immediately.

For more than two years I have made it a rule never to reply to or remonstrate against abuse. I leave that to the spokesman of the House. It is a matter entirely in his hands. My purpose to-day is to show how the abuse was intended to prejudice me. After your ruling, I shall proceed to deal with what took place before the select committee. That committee opened its doors on the morning of Thursday, the 14th March, 1929. I was the first visitor. At 9.30 a.m. I was knocking at the door for admission. I did not see there the hon. Minister of Labour, whose honour was said to have been assailed, and who had inspired the Prime Minister to move for an inquiry. I should have expected that the merest suggestion of assault upon his personal honour would have made him the first to seek redress. I asked to be allowed to appear and the committee, after a short deliberation, emerged from the room to which I had not been admitted. Although I had the right, as a member, to enter the room, I did not presume upon that right. I remained outside, having asked the committee clerk to notify the committee that I was waiting upon them. I did not see the Minister of Labour anywhere about the premises.

Did you look for him?

I did. I looked up and down the corridors. The unwilling Minister of Labour did not appear.

He was meeting a deputation.

Doubtless he can think of some reasonable excuse. But what happened? The committee with so high a value upon their time, being required to report within 14 days, were obliged to adjourn after a few minutes’ deliberation, as I afterwards understood, because no statement of imputations had been put before them. That was an adjournment from Thursday morning at about 9.30 to Monday morning at about 9.30. Two days lost. On Monday morning I went there fully expecting to meet the Minister of Labour. I was sadly disappointed. His wounded honour had not brought him there. In the meantime, the whole idea being, I suppose, that I was running away, the extraordinary course was followed of serving a peremptory subpoena upon me. I was the only willing witness on the sky-line.

Who was the chairman?

The chairman had nothing to do with the issue of the subpoena. I went before the committee with a barrow-load of books. I made them a fair offer. I said: “You can impound every document and book I have, in view of this extraordinary procedure.” The committee said they had had no reason at any time to suppose that I would not appear voluntarily before them, and had merely intended that I should be invited to attend. Unlike the Minister of Labour, who had shown no such passion to appear before the committee, I had attended at the earliest possible moment. On that Monday morning what happened? I said: “I should like to mention, though I am willing to answer any questions that may be put to me, that I have not yet seen the imputations I am alleged to have made.” I then went further, and said: “I should like it noted on the record that it seems to me desirable that the imputations falling under ‘A’ of your terms of reference should at least be defined by the Minister of Labour, and those under ‘B’ should at least be stated.” Some discussion took place, and by agreement the question was referred to the Speaker. A whole day lost again. Three days lost owing to the unwillingness of the Minister of Labour.

May I make a personal explanation?

My time is limited, sir, and I have suffered many interruptions.

If the hon. member does not give way the hon. the Minister cannot do so.

Still running.

If the hon. member for Heilbron were called upon for his explanation he would imitate what the Prime Minister said, that I was running away from the enquiry. So far from my running away, it is the Prime Minister who is running, and now running for refuge under the bed. The facts are on record in the proceedings, and the facts, as far as I am concerned, show that I have stood my ground, I have said precisely what I have meant, and I have explained that in the exercise of my public duty I have made statements in this House which were within the wide definition of free speech which parliamentary practice prescribes for us all. But I was dealing with the Minister of Labour, and I do not intend to be taken away from that hon. gentleman. The situation dealt with by the present motion is to my mind comparable to a very homely illustration. The Minister of Labour is like an unwilling child who has been playing truant. Sent by his parents to school he had lingered by the wayside, and his engaging manner has diverted him from his duty. But now his colleagues—his parents—have grasped each of his trembling hands and taken him unwillingly to school, with his Rosenberg knapsack of books upon his back, compelled after three days of dilatoriness to appear before a select committee which he himself demanded as a means of vindicating his personal honour and integrity. I have never uttered a word in this House, as I have said, and as I repeat, against the personal honour and integrity of the Minister of Labour. I have criticized him for his neglect, ineptitude, incompetence and ignorance of the elements of business, and these charges he has been unable to answer. If there is an unfavourable impression in the minds of the people of this country with regard to the Minister to-day, it is because of his evasiveness in this House, his neglect to lay before the country a record of the facts. He refused to lay upon the Table a confidential report which largely influenced him in bringing his ill-fated settlement to an end. That report has never, seen the light of day, and I hope if the Minister goes before the committee he will go with that report in his hands, and that he will give members a chance of reading it before he gives evidence. There are three points which arise out of this enquiry. The rights of members are in danger of being encroached, upon by a procedure which compels members to be examined with regard to language they have used over a period of years. If the precedent which is being established to-day is to be maintained, you may have the position of a man making a speech to-day, fully equipped with his facts——

The hon. member is now criticizing the action of the House in appointing the committee.

It is not my intention to do that. I was merely indicating what the scope of the committee was. The scope of the committee enables them to look back over a number of years. It came as a surprise to me to find that the terms of reference admitted of the separateness of one session from another being ignored, and of members being examined with regard to speeches that were made some years ago, and that under terms of reference which only expressly referred to speeches made during the present session. I did not object to that procedure. I answered every question with absolute frankness, and in vindication of the rights and privileges of my position as a member of Parliament. As regards the insinuations that have been made this afternoon concerning libellous statements, that sort of talk will not intimidate me at all. An extraordinary title was given to the select committee in the journals of this House. It was not called, as one would imagine, a select committee on the Doornkop Estates, but in the journals of the House it is referred to as the Select Committee on Imputations against Ministers. Its proper name should have been the Lynch Law on Illovo Select Committee. I make the Prime Minister this offer—he can appoint one of these Lynch Law on Illovo Select Committees per day and what will he achieve? He will merely give me an appetite for breakfast. I shall still be willing to carry out my public duty, and shall not be deflected by any kind of enquiry, however comprehensive or industrious it may be. Members of both sides of the House carried out their duties on the select committee with industry; members of my own party were just as industrious in examining my speeches as were hon. members opposite. No religious heretic has ever been catechized with the industry with which I was tested for four days by the select committee. No unorthodox parson who has ever been called upon to answer for his sermons has ever emerged from his trial as unscathed as I did. I say that I have nothing to fear from the truth. I can claim without any fear of contradiction that I am prepared to leave myself in the hands of the committee. If the committee, do not wish to publish the evidence I shall be content; if they do decide to publish, the responsibility will be theirs. I do not appeal for publication, nor do I appeal for the evidence to be withheld. I have come before the committee for one reason only —to show that, as far as I am concerned, I am animated by a sense of public duty which I am not prepared to surrender to any man. As far as my statements were concerned, they were based on reasonable information, and they were statements calling for enquiry; that was the whole of my justification. I was put on my defence, but there is not one man in Africa who does not believe that there was no need for my defence, and that I was engaged in performing a public duty, a fact which the public fully realize and appreciate.

I want to say at once that I do not intend to take up the same line as the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). I think that we shall be showing him a kindness if we just leave him there, and for the rest leave things in the hands of the select committee entrusted with this matter. When I entered the House this afternoon the points were being debated whether further investigation should be made by the committee, and secondly in how far publication should eventually take place of the evidence taken by the committee. As to the first point, I cannot see how there can be a single man with any reasonable feelings who will not at once see that it would be a grievous injustice in the case of the Minister of Labour not to give him an opportunity of giving evidence, as he is here, as there is time, and as he, as the previous speaker this afternoon has said, is the man against whom the attack was made in the first instance, and as his evidence is only wanted to dispose of the points concerning himself. Just imagine the man is there, there is the opportunity, but the Minister of Labour will be placed in the position of being suspected for the next four, five or six months of the charges made against him in the House, especially by the hon. member who has just spoken. This brings me to the second point, whether the evidence must be published. I have not the least hesitation in saying at once that I will insist on the evidence being published. Just imagine! The excuse is made this afternoon: “Yes, but the Minister of Justice is concerned in the matter, and he is not here, and, therefore, publication should not take place.” And then it is the so-called friends of the Minister of Justice who say so. Well, I know the Minister of Justice, a.nd I know what he will say on both questions. In the first place, he will say that he will never agree to the Minister of Labour on his account being suspected for four or five months, and I can imagine that his answer to a cable on the second point would be: “If there is any blot or slander against me, let it be published at once. I am not afraid of slanders.” I cannot understand anyone who has as much confidence as I have in the honour and uprightness of the Minister of Justice doubting for a moment, what his answer would be, and what our duty is. No, I must honestly say that I know what the consequence will be if the evidence is not published. Just imagine how the hon. member for Illovo will be able to go about saying: “Ah, just look! Things were said before that committee that were so serious that further enquiry has to be made.” He need only say that, and it will, of course, immediately arouse more suspicion. I have not the least doubt that there will be others besides the hon. member for Illovo who will make use of that. What will the result be with the public? Everything after all comes down to what the public think, and it will immediately be said: “Oh, evidence was led against the Minister of Justice before the select committee.” There is surely no further doubt against whom the charges were meant, and the public will say: “The evidence before the select committee was of such a nature that the committee has to keep it secret. If the public knew it their hair would stand on end.” The public will then look upon the Minister of Justice as a person … No, I would rather not say it. Let me say that I do not know what the evidence is, but I say that I have enough confidence in the honour and innocence of the Minister of Justice to be prepared to publish the evidence immediately. We, the friends of the Minister, cannot do otherwise than insist that that evidence—whether the matter is referred back or not—shall be published. If that is not done, then I say it will be the greatest injustice which has ever been done to a member of Parliament. I insist that the evidence shall be published. The first reason why the select committee reported as they did was because it did not have time to hear the Minister of Labour. To judge by the attitude of the hon. member for Illovo, and by what he told us this afternoon, I must say that I can well understand how all the time of the committee was spent in hearing him. I do not think he was less of a handful there than he was here. I am convinced that every member of the select committee will agree with me that it will be a gross unfairness towards the Minister of Labour to leave him a day longer under the suspicion under which he is to-day necessarily labouring, while all that is necessary is to have his evidence on the complaints made against him. It is our duty to see that it is done as soon as possible, and I only rose to make this clear. I want to repeat again that as a colleague of my friend, the Minister, in Europe, I urge and insist—as he would have insisted—on having the evidence published now, and not waiting until he returns later on.

I do not know what the intention of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) was this afternoon in making such a speech in the House. It looked for one moment as if he was rising to protest against the procedure, and at another as if he was trying to make another attempt to get hold of the Minister of Labour, but I must certainly answer one thing he said. He tried to make out that the Minister of Labour refused to appear before the select committee. He created the impression by his speech as if from the first moment he had attended the meetings of the select committee to give evidence, and that the Minister of Labour was not there. The hon. member surely ought to know what the procedure of select committees is, viz., that the Minister of Labour would have been called in the ordinary way if his presence had been required, and then he would certainly have come. That is just the difficulty of the select committee, to make the hon. member understand that his attitude is wrong. He took up the attitude throughout as if he were the defendant in this case and the Minister of Labour the complainant. That is not the case. The position is that an enquiry is here taking place in connection with which there is neither complainant nor defendant, and the select committee is making its enquiry as impartially as possible. I may here add that the Minister of Labour himself said to me that if he was required at any time he would be prepared to attend, and it has not yet been considered necessary to ask hint to be present. The position was, as the Prime Minister has correctly guessed, that the evidence of the hon. member for Illovo took up so much time that there was none left to hear the Minister of Labour and the other witnesses. It has also been asked why Mr. Rosenberg was not called to give evidence. The same reason applies here—there was no time. He was in Cape Town at that time; but the select committee thought that they could not vet call him then. The instructions to the select committee were that enquiry should be made in connection with charges affecting the personal honour and uprightness of certain Ministers. There was only one procedure to be followed, and that was first to hear the members who made the charges in question, and to learn what their explanation of the matter was, before it was possible to hear other witnesses. The evidence in connection with the members occupied all the time, and up to yesterday afternoon, no Minister or any other witness had been heard, and the report was merely intended to be an interim one. There are no findings of the committee on the evidence, and the evidence was not complete. I want to emphasize that consultations on the evidence never took place, but that it was simply assumed that we would be asked to make further enquiry, and all the select committee said was that they were not yet prepared to make findings on the evidence given, and that they were only making a report because the time was expired. If the matter had been before us on the lines that we understand it is to-day, namely, that, according to law, we cannot continue the enquiry after the prorogation of Parliament, then I am convinced a different report would have been made. Now that it is not possible, it throws quite a different light on the matter, but under the impression that it was actually possible, we drafted the report in the form it is in. I, therefore, think that it would be very unfair to leave the matter now where it is. At the end of our report we say—

The idea, therefore, was not to publish the evidence unless further enquiry was to be made. The evidence is not complete, and as soon as additional evidence is heard, it can be decided whether it should be published or not. In the circumstances I think that it is best to take as much evidence as can possibly be heard.

I do not intend to traverse the debate that has taken place on this motion, but I wish to say that I am still of the opinion that the better course would have been to leave the matter where the committee left it. I can see the House is of a different opinion, and I leave myself to the decision of the House. I hold that it was not unreasonable and unfair for the committee to have reported that the evidence should not be published. There is no justification for the idea that something dreadful has been heard by the committee which must be hushed up; on the contrary, in the opinion of the committee, further enquiry is necessary. It does not help matters much to give up another day to it. The Minister of Labour can gome before us, and when the evidence is published he will have the satisfaction of knowing that he has gone before the committee. I did net think it was quite fair to accuse the Minister of having kept away from the committee. I want to explain what happened, in fairness to the committee also. When the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) came before us, he raised the point that the Ministers should first give their evidence. I took the view that we were not there to make an investigation with regard to the charges made by Ministers. I ruled that the procedure was that we should examine first of all hon. members who made those speeches, and see whether there was anything in them which required investigation or not, and that the Ministers should give evidence if the committee considered it necessary. A member of the committee took the other view, and moved that Mr. Speaker’s ruling be taken, which was done, and he upheld the ruling I gave. That occupied a little time, and wasted, as the hon. member for Illovo said, half a day, perhaps. That was the reason why the committee did not call the Minister of Labour at the outset. We leave ourselves in the hands of the House. I am afraid that in the time still left at our disposal it will not be possible to add much to what we have already done.