Before you put that message, sir, I asked you a moment ago for your protection. I ask you now: Are you going to exercise the undoubted power you possess?

I do not quite understand what the hon. member refers to. For what does he require my protection?

I hope the House will bear with me for a few moments. I have been subjected to these insults from the other side of the House for a long time now—this insulting, unseemly shouting from opposite. The hon. member and his friends insult me constantly with the word “withdraw.” It is unseemly and objectionable, and therefore, I appeal to you, sir, to exercise the power vested in you, to protect me.

The hon. member will realize it is rather difficult to decide that calling “withdraw” is insulting, but I must ask hon. members in future to cease from doing that. They are constantly doing it with the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan), and I must ask them to cease.

Before proceeding with the Order Paper I beg to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing an urgent matter of public importance. There is a bye-election proceeding at this moment; the election will take place to-morrow at Pietermaritzburg, Natal, and in the course of the campaign by the political parties there has been unwarrantable interference by the police with one party, and we have information here which warrants us assuming the police in Pietermaritzburg are taking a biassed action in a way that is not necessary in this election. There are facts in this matter of which the country should be made aware and upon which this House should express an opinion and for that purpose I move—

The hon. member must be very brief. Just state the matter and then bring it up in writing.

I move—

seconded.

The requisite number of members having risen in support of the motion Mr. Speaker called upon Mr. Allen to proceed.

I am moving this motion with a due sense of responsibility. The very foundation of all our political structure is the free exercising of our democratic rights, and when we find public servants, employed in whatever sphere they may be, are undoubtedly prejudicing the citizen’s rights, then it is certainly a matter with which the Government should deal and with which this House should deal, irrespective of party. We of the Labour party, are frequently accused by our opponents of having a preference for unconstitutional methods, but when we apply ourselves to the proper and constitutional exercise of those rights which we are supposed to enjoy we find that attempts are made by interested parties, who may be pals of those interested in opposition, to interfere. The facts are these. During the course of the election campaign at Pietermaritzburg three meetings were arranged by the Labour party to take place last Friday evening, the 4th November, at three different parts in the main thoroughfare at Pietermaritzburg—one at the corner of Chapel Street, another in Bank Street, and another at the Town Hall corner. The speakers who were to address these meetings are gentlemen upon whom no suspicion could fall that they would cause trouble or create a breach of the peace. The proper course was taken by the Labour candidate and his election agent of interviewing the district commandant of police and of notifying him that these meetings were to take place. The following morning the Labour candidate was informed that Capt. Fulford, the district commandant, bad prohibited the meetings and would only allow one, an “orderly one,” to be held in the market square, thus unwarrantably qualifying the one meeting permitted. We have often heard the Minister of Justice baited in this House, it being alleged that he had been unduly, we will say, preferential, to certain political pals, we have heard him baited because some people with Dutch names had received appointments in Natal, and we have heard the Minister of Agriculture baited in the same way by the same people because “van der Merwe’s” had been appointed to posts in Natal, but here we have an instance where the Minister of Justice, I take it having due consideration for the predilections of the people of Pietermaritzburg and Natal generally, transferred this gentleman from Wynberg in the Cape, where he had made himself well known, to Pietermaritzburg, no doubt under the impression that he would there find himself in congenial surroundings and that the people of Pietermaritzburg would also find this gentleman persona grata to themselves. We have no evidence that that is not so, but we have not yet taken any step which segregates Pietermaritzburg from the rest of the Union or segregates it from the rest of Natal, and where the rights of free speech are enjoyed elsewhere throughout the Union we must assume that those rights still obtain in Maritzburg. We must infer that until some special dispensation has been made by some authority in the Department of Justice, the rights of free speech still obtain in Pietermaritzburg as elsewhere in the Union of South Africa. If any danger of obstruction to the public thoroughfare were to be put forward by Capt. Fulford, the district commandant of police, as the reason for prohibiting these meetings I would say that a very important and dangerous precedent would thereby be laid down, and I do not think it is in the province of any local commandant of police to lay down such a precedent. I would point out to the hon. members for the Cape Town divisions that if that were to be followed up here they would find their gala somewhat interferred with. You find this very week, owing to the window-dressing competitions, that crowds round the shops are causing obstruction in your main street. You have had a speech made by your Mayor in your public street which also caused interference with traffic. You will have an obstruction of your public thoroughfare at 11 a.m. on Friday next, the 11th of November. The rights which will be exercised at 11 a.m. on Friday next are no more sacred than the rights which have been denied to these workers in Pietermaritzburg. I go further and say that that commemoration which will take place at 11 o’clock next Friday morning stands as a commemorative service of a fight which was put up for those very principles which have been outraged and ignored in Pietermaritzburg by the action of the district commandant of police. If that occasion which is to be celebrated next Friday stands for anything it is surely elementary human freedom, and that after all is all that is claimed by these people of Pietermaritzburg. We say that the district commandant of police there has ignored entirely all those principles which are supposed to underlie our constitution. When events such as are taking place at this moment, when the wings of the dove of peace seem to overspread all the country, when the members of different parties are talking peace, when sectional and racial differences are being buried, and there seems to be a general disposition on all sides to drop the old differences and the old discords, and start out on a new era of peaceful co-operation, I say it is a most unhappy circumstance that that very moment should have been chosen by this district commandant of the police to throw the apple of discord into such an atmosphere. We of the Labour party, while we may differ economically from members on both sides of the House, while we may have conceptions of social freedom and social welfare which do not meet with the approval of members on both sides, still we do subscribe to the same principles to which they themselves subscribe, those of the right of free speech and to the principles of democracy. In a motion such as this I do not want to traverse unnecessarily the record of this public servant, I think myself members are aware of the very untoward incidents for which this gentleman has been largely, responsible, but I would just like to say this, that if there is an intention on the part of the Government and particularly those departments of the Government which control the principal forces of the country, that is the defence force or the police force, or any other force which can bring force majeure to bear upon any section or all sections of the community, to usher in a period of peace and goodwill among all sections of the community, it is imperative that the Government should not treat this matter lightly, should not look upon it as a mere election incident but should assess it at its true and sinister value.

Why don’t you read the bye-laws?

I do say this, that if such an official has it in his power at any time arbitrarily to go contrarily or to act contrary to the intention of the Government, then it is the manifest duty of that Government to deal drastically with such a servant when he so acts. An incident such as this, while it may appear to many members trivial, is in reality a very important matter, because it strikes at the root of their rights, at our citizen rights in this country. I trust that hon. members will be able to prevail upon the Government to deal adequately with this incident as a whole and with the gentleman who is responsible for it. We do not want to risk any of the unhappy incidents which have happened in the past and which led to tragedy on a widespread scale. We are trying to avoid those risks, but if public servants with the kink of mind which is evident in the record of this gentleman, if such persons—

Shame.

It is a shame.

Do you want him to suspend the law?

This efficient officer gave evidence before an official enquiry that he shot at and took the lives of men when there was no necessity to do so. His own evidence is that he took those lives because of the moral effect which would be created thereby. Remember, you friends of the Opposition, that a similar time might arise when you would be the people upon whom the moral effect would have to be created.

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion.

Yes, but hon. members asked me if am bona-fide in the allusions which I made to the conduct of this official. I have come to the conclusion of my remarks. I will just say this, that there is a distinct threat in that area of the Union to public order, and I would like to support that by an illustration. The incident is fresh in our minds when the Minister of the Interior was to go to Natal to open the new wing of the technical college there, and we had an ex-public servant, another official who held one of the most responsible positions in one of the armed forces of this country, and that ex-public servant brought to bear such a lot of intimidating pressure against the Minister of the Interior that in the interests of peace the Minister of the Interior desisted from carrying out the function which he was entitled to perform. I will read a letter in support of my statement, which was written to the editor of the “Natal Mercury.” It reads—

I think the hon. member should not refer to that.

Electioneering.

I am sticking to this point that where you have responsible members of the public service and especially public servants who hold responsible positions in the armed forces of the country, it is more imperative than ever that they should exercise their powers with discretion and with an absolute regard for justice to all sections and without prejudice.

I am at a loss to understand why there should be any heat generated on a motion of this kind. Surely if an hon. member believes that any citizen of the Union is being interfered with in his rights of free speech, this is the place of all places where the subject ought to be raised. In so far as this particular incident is concerned, there is a significance about it that must not be overlooked, and that is this. Perhaps nowhere in the whole of South Africa will you find a more peaceful and law-abiding community than that of Pietermaritzburg. We of the Labour party there, as many hon. members know, have for longer than I care to remember, stood on a soap-box at the street corners mentioned by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen), and delivered our message to the people on Friday nights. [Interruption by Mr. Deane.] I have seen an obstruction caused in the streets of Pietermaritzburg by the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane). He was not ad dressing anyone. It was only the fact of his presence there. Up to about a year ago Pietermaritzburg was policed by the municipality, and considerable opposition was forthcoming to the proposal that the force should be taken over by the Government. Those of the working class of Pietermaritzburg supported the alteration in police control, but surely, if incidents of this kind are to be permitted, then the people will have reason to regret there is a change from the old system. In Pietermaritzburg the superintendent of police, before the taking over of control by the Government, would never have acted in the way Capt. Fulford is alleged to have acted in connection with the suppression of labour meetings. However, if any good is to result from this motion, quite properly brought to the attention of the Minister by the hon. member for Springs, I hope it will be that this gentleman will be politely told that he must not introduce into Pietermaritzburg the methods he adopted at Boksburg in 1922. Capt. Fulford must not interfere with the rights of the citizens of Pietermaritzburg, or anywhere else, in so far as free speech is concerned.

I am very sorry that the Minister of Justice is not here himself, but the Government know nothing of what has been laid to the charge of this particular officer. This is the first I have heard of it this afternoon. Naturally, an investigation will be instituted and I have not the least doubt that if this officer is in any way to be blamed, the message which has just been given expression to by the last speaker will be conveyed to him. I hope hon. members will rest assured that the Government will see that what is right shall be done.

I am sorry that the Prime Minister has not made use of this opportunity to defend an official of the Government. The motion seems to have been instituted for the purpose of blackening the character of an official of the Government, and I am very sorry that this should have been done. Capt. Fulford is one of the most faithful and able and zealous servants we have, and as far as we know he may have acted in this case under the instructions of the Commissioner of Police. He may have acted under the instructions of the Minister of Justice, and yet we have members speaking in this House and blaming him personally and singling him out for vituperation, whereas he may be acting under the instructions of his superiors. I regret very much that this House should be used for a purpose like this, in order to interfere with men who are discharging their duty under difficult circumstances and who may be doing so on the instructions of their superiors. It would have been fair if the Government had been attacked. The Government is responsible for its officers, and if there was any miscarriage or any undue interference with the right of free speech, the Government should have been blamed, and not a subordinate in Pietermaritzburg who may be carrying out some by-law, or who may be acting under the instruction of the Commissioner or the Minister of Justice. I am sorry that the House should be used for a purpose like this, and that not a word of defence should be put up for this officer who, more than once, in most trying circumstances, has done his duty to the best of his lights and ability.

I think it is very fitting that the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) should get up in the House and defend one of his accomplices of 1922.

Order. Withdraw.

I do not think the hon. member is entitled to use that word with reference to the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts).

I will withdraw the word accomplice, and say one of his very loyal officers. The right hon. member told us that, this resolution has been introduced with the object of blackening the character of an official. That character cannot Be blackened any more than by what happened—

Order. Withdraw.

I think this House in coming to a conclusion on this matter is entitled to know that it is reasonable to say the action he has taken in Pietermaritzburg is in consonance with his own outlook in 1922.

I must ask the hon. member to confine himself to the motion. I do not think it is necessary or relevant to refer to matters that took place in 1922.

I am only referring to certain aspects in order to indicate to the House that the House may understand the statement made by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen).

Why?

Because if this House knows of certain acts of the official referred to in this matter, it cannot do anything else but accept the statement.

I want to point out to the hon. member that the question is the prohibition of certain meetings at Pietermaritzburg, and the hon. member must confine himself to that.

The resolution for the adjournment is based on the fact that Maj. Fulford has taken action in Pietermaritzburg to prevent free speech, not because he is necessarily opposed to free speech-for all I know he is in favour of it when it affects his friends—but because he is definitely opposed to free speech when it is calculated to benefit the working classes in this country. He has shown that when the working classes have to be prejudiced it is not only in favour of preventing free speech but in favour of taking life, having done that in 1922. The House is entitled to accept, without hesitation, that this Maj. Fulford has prevented this meeting simply because of the fact that he is hostile to the Labour party and to the working classes in South Africa. I hope the House will accept the motion and that the Government will deal with this gentleman in such a manner as to show that it is in favour of seeing that the workers in this country are treated justly and equitably.

I hope the Opposition will realize that as far as this question is concerned it is something greater than merely a question of labour versus the rest.

It is a question of spite.

I hope that members of the Opposition will also realize that when labour meetings are broken up or prohibited, or anything of that description, it is quite the right thing to do! When labour meetings have been broken up by members of the South African party, headlines have appeared in the papers glorying in the rowdiness of the labourites, but not one word of protest from the right hon. leader of the Opposition, not one word of condemnation of South African party hooligans, not one word of condemnation of an interference with the right of free speech, but as soon as a South African party meeting becomes a little lively then the welkin rings with the hooligans of the Labour party and the Nationalist party. It is not merely a question of whether members on the other side should allow their political prejudices to sway them. That is what they are doing. It is the Labour party, this insignificant Labour party, whose rights are being assailed. During the time that South African party hooligans were smashing up meetings, not one word of condemnation was heard, but when they got a dose of the same medicine they started screaming about law and order. These things come home to roost. The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) does not neglect an opportunity of trying to make a little political capital on this question. He said he was very sorry that the Prime Minister did not protect a public servant, The Prime Minister stated that he would go into the question and it would be investigated. If the facts were as stated, certain action would be taken. The Prime Minister has adopted the right attitude, and said he would make no statement on the one side or the other. But the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said this Capt. Fulford is one of the most able men in the service. Hon. members who said “hear, hear” would not know Capt. Fulford from a bar of soap or a bag of apples. They say, “hear, hear” because they approve of his action in the past and of to-day, because Capt. Fulford is carrying out their work, and they do not know whether he is one of the most able men in the service or not. Might I, through you, Mr. Speaker, ask the right hon. member for Standerton, is it not a fact that the strikers in 1922—

I do not think it is necessary to refer to what took place in 1922. The hon. member must confine himself solely to the prohibition of these meetings at Pietermaritzburg.

It is in order to try to explain and to show that the present action of Capt. Fulford is the same as in 1922, as far as the working classes are concerned. Is it not a fact that in 1922, weeks before the trouble arose, the strikers, in the interests of law and order, asked the Government to remove this man from Boksburg? That was long before there was any trouble. There are officers of police to whom I would take off my hat, who know how to handle a crowd—men who have been against me on the Witwatersrand, but who have been fair and have done their duty—their unpleasant duty. There are gentlemen who are members of the detective force with whom as individuals I am on terms of friendship. I have no grudge against the man who does his duty, but I have against a man who goes out of his way, because of his political prejudices or his prejudices against the working classes, to exceed his duty. The regulation which exists is there for the purpose of preventing meetings where they may obstruct traffic or cause a riot, or something to happen which should not happen. These regulations receive our support, but we do protest against their being used for the purpose of repressing people with whose opinions we do not agree. We do protest against police officers allowing their party feeling to run away with them to such an extent as to go against one section of the community. We would protest as much if the police had Labour leanings and adopted the same attitude to our opponents. It is not fair, right or just, and yet it is done. Every man, whether he sits on this side or the other, must remember that British liberty is not a question for lip service, to be rapped out on recruiting platforms, to be used by waving the Union Jack, and people speaking about British liberty for which they have not put out a finger to preserve. No, it is something more vital and greater than that, and should affect every hon. member whether he is on the Opposition or the Government benches. Those who ought to be ashamed are not those who introduced the motion, but those who support a man or those who do everything they can to repress the British liberty they talk so much about. We know, we have bad some of it.

Rant!

If what I am saying is rant, I would sooner be a ranter than a canter, like the hon. member and a few more. You hear a lot of cant during the elections about the liberty of British subjects, and that is why hon. members opposite do not like it—they are past masters at the game.

made an interjection.

I never galloped away on one of the hon. member’s mules. I believe the right hon. member for Standerton can bear me out. As far as I am concerned, I do not live in the bitterness of the past, and I have proved that in this country. I think it is foolish for any man to live in the bitterness of the past. Considering some of the things I can say and the way the right hon. member looked after my health in the past, I yet believe it is a mistake to live in the bitterness of the past; but the responsibility for a great deal of the bitterness which exists between the working and the employing classes in this country is due not so much to the employing class, but mostly to the attitude of the South African party in every industrial dispute; and that same spirit that has actuated that party in the past when it comes to a question between employer and employee has been evidenced to-day in this question between the Labour party and some one in an official position. This gentleman should be very severely dealt with if it is found that he did what he did because of his feeling against the Labour party. This officer has been an enemy of the working class in the past, and is to-day, and he is supported by the South African party.

On Saturday evening the Minister of Justice made a speech in Johannesburg in which he advocated a new grouping of parties—a South African National Party—which was to include both the South African party and the National party, and also the Labour party. If the Minister were in the House this afternoon he would doubtless be gratified at the spirit of tendering between the Labour party and the South African party, and by the bitter memories of the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) and the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). His sense of justice, being the Minister of Justice, would no doubt be gratified to see how quick these persons are to convict a member of the public service, and to execute him without trial. [Interruptions.] If Mr. Speaker would allow me, I would like, more than anything else, to tell the House and the hon. member for Brakpan what his party did in those events of 1922; but you would not permit it, so it is unfair of the Minister to challenge me. I cannot understand why, after the assurance given by the Prime Minister, either the hon. member for Troyevlle or the hon. member for Brakpan—

Or the right hon. the member for Standerton.

I intend to reply to their speeches, quite regardless of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. I repeat that I find it difficult to understand why, after the assurance given by the Prime Minister that this matter would be inquired into, the hon. member for Brakpan and the hon. member for Troyeville particularly found it necessary to stand up and spit venom at the expense of a police officer of high standing in this country, and why they should assume, because the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen) made certain allegations, not of his own knowledge, but second-hand on reports from Pietermaritzburg, that that officer is actuated by anti-Labour bias, and he has taken the action he has in a partial spirit—in a spirit which is unfitted to him in the post he occupies. The fact that he has apparently carried out the law is a mere circumstance and is not counted in his favour. Is it a matter of no moment that no other party but the Labour party has desired to hold these meetings? The fact is that the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge), though he is quite otherwise when he is pleading for compensation for the dependents of three of the victims of that revolt, will never allow South Africa to forget what he apparently believes were certain misdeeds in 1922. He and his friends applied for a judicial commission to inquire into those events and that commission inquired into all these allegations against this police officer.

The hon. member must confine himself to the point at issue.

You have allowed these hon. gentlemen to attack Capt. Fulford—I hope you will allow me to defend him.

I stopped them as far as I could.

I wish to say this in fairness to an absent officer. That commission entirely absolved Capt. Fulford, as he then was, from these accusations, but that does not prevent an hon. member getting up and villifying a police officer as if all these allegations had been proved instead of having been disproved. These two honourable gentlemen, not content with the Prime Minister’s assurance, used the privileges of the House to attack a high officer in the police service and to do all they possibly can to create prejudice against him on the eve of an election which is to be held to-morrow. These gentlemen have the effrontery to accuse the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) of making political capital out of the motion. Could impudence go further? Nothing more shameless—

The hon. member is going rather far. I do not think it is quite in order to refer to other hon. members as impudent or shameless.

I will endeavour to moderate my language. The depths to which they have sunk in making these unproved allegations lead to the conclusion that in doing so they were actuated by a desire to make political capital and to manufacture political bullets to be fired to-morrow in Pietermaritzburg. I regret the speech of the hon. member for Troyeville, and feel that it shows what we may expect in this country if gentlemen with his sense of justice ever get into power. God help this country if he, or anyone who thinks like him, should ever occupy a responsible position, for if they did any official on whom the hon. member has placed a black mark would never have a chance.

I cannot hear the hon. member when he turns his back to me.

If I have a number of interjections from the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen) it is difficult not to reply to them.

The other day an hon. member who was speaking away from me used words which were absolutely out of order, and which I could not hear. It is far better for hon. members, whatever the interruptions are, to address the Chair.

Perhaps, sir, you would ask the hon. member for Springs not to hurl interjections at me from behind for it is difficult not to reply to them. I hope most sincerely that the evident support given by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs to his colleagues on the cross benches when they spoke this afternoon, will not be used to poison the mind of the Ministry as a whole against Capt. Fulford, but that he will be given a fair trial and not be judged in his absence. I should be sorry if I were a subordinate in the department of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs if he treated me as apparently he thinks it right for Capt. Fulford to be treated.

I think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) is quite right and we should not judge Capt. Fulford as for all we know he may be acting according to instructions. A policeman’s life is not a happy one, particularly in Natal. Capt. Fulford may have information about the meetings which have been held in Natal. I have here a copy of a sworn affidavit made by Frank Bennett, a member of a crew of the Armadale Castle then at Durban, in which he says—

I do not think that is relevant to the motion.

I would never argue the point with the Chair, but a letter like this may have been received by Capt. Fulford. What was he to do?

The hon. member is referring to a meeting in Durban.

I bow to your ruling, sir, as I always do. It does not follow that this meeting was in Durban, and we have to be fair to Capt. Fulford and to the country. I don’t want to judge him in this House. I want to know what would happen if a document like this was put in his hand. There is a movement in Natal which is breaking up labour meetings. I do not say it is the South African party for a moment, but Capt. Fulford may know about these meetings and he may have said, “You cannot hold these meetings because there will be a disturbance of the peace.” That is why I want to read to the House what is going on in Natal. Here is a man in a ship who has nothing to do with South Africa and people say, “You come to a particular meeting held by the Labour party and you bring knuckle dusters and sticks and you hit any man wearing red, and we will give you free beer all round.” They tell these unfortunate men to meet outside the police station; that they will be protected by the police, and that they will be paid. These men were deliberately fetched by members of the South African party to break the meeting of Labour men.

On a point of order. If the hon. member is going to give a long history of what happened at Durban hon. members on this side of the House will certainly have a right to reply. May I put a point of order without this constant bleating from the hon. member for Springs? The hon. member (Mr. Barlow) is referring to a pamphlet which is being circulated in reference to Dr. Malan’s meeting at Durban some months ago. He is reading certain exaggerated ex parte statements. If Mr. Speaker allows the hon. member to make these statements then he is bound to allow hon. members on this side to confute those statements, and the discussion will range from alpha to omega.

I was endeavouring to follow what the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) was driving at. I do not think that references to what took place in connection with a recent meeting at Durban are relevant. I cannot allow him to read affidavits in connection with that meeting.

I am not likely to break the rules of the House, and what I have said is not circumventing Mr. Speaker’s ruling. I said there was a movement to break up meetings, and Capt. Fulford knew these things, and that may be one of the reasons he did not wish them to be held because he did not want any more trouble. There is a gang of South African party people doing it, and they go further. Capt. Fulford knows it because he is in the position to know it, in the position to know the fact that if the Labour party holds a meeting in Durban they distribute cayenne pepper and use bicycle-chains on sticks. It is a nice thing to laugh at. I ask the hon. member how he would feel if he was there with his wife and cayenne pepper was blown into their eyes from the ventilators. That is what the South African party did.

I wish to remind the hon. member that these were open-air meetings which were to be held.

I know that, sir, and what will they do at open-air meetings if they do that kind of thing indoors. No wonder the police are afraid of these meetings being held and that is why I say “wait and see” what instructions this man had. [An interjection.] The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South (Mr. O’Brien) will never make speeches although they do appear next day in the press. He will probably not say anything about this question, but to-morrow morning in the paper we shall probably see a big speech. The hon. member has never stood for justice in his life and never will. The hon. member supports the big mining people and always will support them. If they say “yes” he will say “yes,” and if they say “no” he will say “no.”

The hon. member is going further away from the subject.

It is very difficult for a Labour man to make a speech in this House. Hon. members will interrupt, and, being a Labour man, they will get it back. If they could leave us alone we will give them a plain unvarnished tale. Who is responsible for these meetings being stopped? The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) is right. You cannot teach an old dog new tricks, and in Pietermaritzburg these tricks were taught by the hon. member for Standerton. This man has always been anti-labour. He showed bias here in Wynberg, and he is starting the same thing in Pietermaritzburg, and if this man is not found guilty he should have been discharged from the service long ago.

Why?

On account of the action he took in the Transvaal. There is not a single member of the Labour party who believes in that man; he is temperamentally unfitted to have the job.

interjected a remark.

The hon. member must defend him because he was a member of the Cabinet that shot them down. You talk about a judicial enquiry. Hon. members on these benches who would have given evidence there, were pushed in gaol. It was a star chamber investigation.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member again, but we cannot discuss happenings on the Rand in 1922.

We have here a telegram from a trusted member of the Labour party who has been to see Capt. Fulford, and he refuses to allow us to hold the three meetings, but he says—

What right has he to put conditions on our right to hold a meeting? We are South African nationals and we are going to fight for South African justice. I am surprised to see an old Yorkshireman like the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) railing against free speech.

That is where you make a mistake, I am not.

They bleat across the House by shouting “What about Pietermaritzburg bye-laws?” Have you ever seen Pietermaritzburg bye-laws or read them? They are drawn up by hon. members like the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien). They tried to stop the Salvation Army from playing its band in Pietermaritzburg, but they couldn’t do it. We are asking the Government to hold a proper enquiry and to watch this man in future. Hon. members would do the same. If there was an enginedriver driving an engine to-morrow between Pietermaritzburg and Durban and he was always treading on the toes of a South African party man would they ask the Government to watch him? No, they would have sacked him long ago. In this case, it is not a working man but a colonel in the British Army, an English gentleman and a man of honour, and he can insult the Labour party as much as he likes. The Labour party is not going to be satisfied with a man like Col. Fulford as chief of police in Natal. We are going to fight it, and we ask for an investigation.

We have listened this afternoon to a series of insinuations, innuendoes and assertions unparalleled in this House, and the gentleman who has just sat down—a man incapable of preserving and looking after his own private honour and who has taken the privilege of Parliament and would not go outside and repeat what he said within when he was called a coward and a liar. I am quoting from a correspondent in the Press who termed the gentleman a liar and a coward and challenged him to go outside and repeat a statement—

On a point of order, sir, the hon. member said just now I was incapable of looking after my private honour.

If the hon. member used those terms he must withdraw.

Yes, I said that and I bow to your ruling, sir.

I would like to read you the order, sir. If a member withdraws on a point like this, he is asked by our rules of order to express regret.

I have pleasure in complying with any rule you put before me, sir.

The hon. member may proceed.

I should say, perhaps the hon. gentleman neglected to preserve his personal honour—

The hon. member is practically repeating what he said just now.

Then I withdraw, but I want to make it clear that I say the hon. gentleman was called upon by a correspondent writing in the public press, a correspondent signing his name, asking the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) to repeat outside the House what he said within and thereon he called him a coward and a liar, and this is the gentleman who makes an attack on me. To return to the matter before the House, I think the amount of assertions and innuendoes we have heard show that personal animus against Capt. Fulford has been put up here to-day. In Pietermaritzburg the law is being properly carried out and I have no doubt it will always be so. It is noted for peace and order and goodwill. I hope this matter will now be brought to a close. Immediately the Prime Minister rose this afternoon and made a statement followed by the Leaders of the Opposition the matter should have dropped. When the member says with regard to the enquiry that people who would have been present were put in prison, who was put in prison?

I was for one, and the hon. member for Troyeville was another.

They are speaking venom against this man and prejudging him as no man has ever been prejudged in this House before. I do not think this House should countenance such a performance as we have seen here this afternoon, and I do hope that the matter will be brought now to a proper and a final issue.

I venture to say that had you been able to judge of the manner in which the privilege of moving the adjournment of the House was to be used by the Labour party in this House, you would not only have hesitated to accord them the privilege, but you would most certainly have declined to lend yourself to what has taken place this afternoon. Surely the bankruptcy of the Labour party must be apparent to everybody when they have to adopt such means as these to endeavour to better their position at a petty provincial by-election in Pietermaritzburg, because the whole trend of this debate this afternoon has been simply one of making political capital of the most hollow case that was ever presented to a deliberative body. Those of us who listened to the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen)—and I am sorry to have found him participating in this sort of thing—must have been struck by the completely hollow case which he presented. He made a statement to this House that Capt. Fulford had interfered with the holding of meetings at certain three points, as I understood him, in Pietermaritzburg, but did he quote the terms of Captain Fulford’s reply? Did he mention to us as that of a complainant any name that carries any conviction in this House or in the country at large? No. He mentioned no name that any person would place the slightest credence in, and he said in the most slipshod manner, if you will pardon my using such an expression, that the desire had been to hold meetings at certain points in the town, and that desire had been negatived. He never so much as gave an inkling of the grounds of Captain Fulford’s refusal and never once referred to the state of the law in that particular locality as to the holding of meetings of this sort in the public street. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has seen fit to jeer at Pietermaritzburg as a singular place where these restrictive by-laws prevail, but it is quite well known—and if the hon. member knew a little more about it he would be aware of the fact—that these by-laws are common to almost every town of any size in South Africa, and they deal with certain specific matters in a manner which the merest child knows, and the merest child is willing to respect. These by-laws say that no procession, performance, singing, dancing and gatherings in public places and thoroughfares in the municipality, shall take place, and if they do take place an offence is committed. There is no necessity for the commissioner of police either to grant or refuse his permission. The mere taking place of these gatherings, which are against the by-laws, is an infringement of the by-law as it stands. Yet in so far as the district commandant of police is concerned, a very virulent and vicious attack has been made upon an officer who is not only absent from this House and unable to be heard, but whose Ministerial head is known to be absent from this House and unable to defend a subordinate, as I am sure he would, if the Minister of Justice were here to-day. Taking advantage of the known absence of the Minister of Justice, and with a wish to avoid his generally fair attitude to subordinates who are attacked, the hon. member brings forward a resolution which is, as I have said, the most hollow that has ever been held up to the light. What does his case consist of? Ex parte statements based upon the information of people whose names have not been disclosed to this House, and whose names, if they were disclosed, would probably excite ridicule rather than respect. He says those meetings were prohibited. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) has referred to the case put forward by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen) as a “plain unvarnished tale.” So “unvarnished” indeed, may I add, that anybody could see through it. The whole case is simply a last political manoeuvre because it is realized that the case in Pietermaritzburg is very desperate for the Labour candidate. We have had to listen with pain to the most venomous attacks upon an officer who can never overtake the attacks made upon him here this afternoon, and who will never have an opportunity of facing his accusers and giving them the lie in their very teeth.

He will have the same opportunity as the victims in Boksburg cemetery.

The hon. member shows his spleen and his venomous spirit by what he says now. As far as those incidents alluded to in his speech are concerned, there was not only an enquiry by a magistrate, but there was also a final enquiry by a bench of judges, who pronounced upon the case at very great length absolving Capt. Fulford from blame, but I am not going to weary the House by quoting that. In the first place, the magistrate held an immediate enquiry, and subsequently a bench of judges acquitted Capt. Fulford of any sort of culpability in regard to what had happened.

The magistrate who volunteered evidence at that enquiry was deported from that area.

I understand that the hon. member refers to the case of Mr. Malcolm Hill. He was, as far as I am aware, quite an acceptable witness, and had he tendered his evidence at any time he could have given evidence before the magistrate and the bench of judges, but if he did not do so that was due to his own neglect. The Prime Minister rose in his place, and in the difficult position in which he was placed this afternoon, said he was unable to express any opinion about this matter as the Government knew nothing of the charges. He had had no previous notice. He said the matter would form the subject of enquiry, and if any blame was established against Capt. Fulford he would be dealt with—the matter not be left there. We, naturally, should like to ask what is the other side of the question? It no blame is established against Capt. Fulford what is then to happen?

Give him a medal.

The hon. member may very flippantly say “give him a medal,” hut by that time the hon. member’s close and personal friend, Mr. Sidney J. Smith, on whose behalf this magnificent effort is being made, will have won the election and the real purpose of this effort will have been achieved—the purpose of this reconnaissance will have been accomplished. After the Prime Minister’s statement, the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) rose in his place and visualized to us what the methods of Moscow might be if they were introduced into this country. I do not think I have ever listened to a speech that breathed more hatred in short breaths than that of the hon. member for Troyeville. To show how transparent the whole of this attack was the hon. member for Springs could scarcely be restrained from making an entirely unprovoked attack upon Col. Molyneux, who lives in Durban, a long distance from Pietermaritzburg, and who has nothing to do with the matter. He speaks of Col. Molyneux as if he had still some sort of connection with the defence force. He ought to have known very well that Col. Molyneux was long since turned out of the defence force by the Minister of Defence in circumstances which reflected no credit on the Minister.

That is not correct.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) in his best manner speaks of Capt. Fulford having shot down the working classes. What can be the object of these words, so ungoverned, so unlicensed and so untrue—simply hurled at a man for the mere passion of injuring him and hurled at him when he is gagged and his hands are tied behind his back and he is unable to utter a word or raise a finger in his own defence? These are the methods which the Labour party have employed this afternoon, methods of which they are exponents in this House, and these are methods which I resent and which I am always here to counter and stand up against.

Sir Galahad!

Sir Galahad or not, I prefer to try and imitate that character than to personify the mean sort of action that has been going on here this afternoon.

The hon. member must not say that members of the Labour party are guilty of mean actions in this House.

I withdraw the statement that the hon. members are being guilty of mean actions in this House. Their actions are such as I certainly should be ashamed of, and every other man in the House should be ashamed of. We have had the Hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) wallowing in an orgy of hatred.

The hon. member must moderate his language.

We had the hon. member in his characteristic style—no, I do him an injury to call it characteristic, he has excelled himself—we have never seen him in more evil temper than when attacking a man who was unable to defend himself, a man who, under circumstances known to exist beforehand, was being attacked like a lamb led to the slaughter. At this moment no one knows what his defence may be, but the object of the Labour party will have succeeded, and, as far as we are concerned, we are absolutely powerless; we have no information, and I say advisedly that the whole of this attack has been brought off in circumstances which have left this man no opportunity of defending himself, and no spokesman in this House. Why was the attack not made upon the Government, or upon the responsible officer for the administration of police affairs in Natal? We know that the Deputy Commissioner of Police for Natal is that distinguished officer Col. Sholto-Douglas, than whom there is no better police officer anywhere, and whose mind would be revolted by anything savouring of unfairness. But no, the attack is made, not upon the Government who sit on these benches, responsible in this House for the administration of police affairs or the Deputy Commissioner for Natal, but the attack is made upon these benches, upon the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), who was referred to by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) as an accomplice of Capt. Fulford. Where does police discipline come in in this world if the mere adherence of a police officer to the well-known by-laws, not Only of Pietermaritzburg, but of every town of importance in the Union, is to be made the occasion for a hollow and miserable political attack in this House? The whole object and thrust of this attack is against the South African party, and that is the proof of its design. Its design has been purely political, and is based upon the most flimsy support that was ever put forward for any serious-minded motion in this House. I cannot speak with sufficient reprobation of the manner in which the rules of this House have been exploited this afternoon.

The hon. member must not say that.

I always defer to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect. I will say this, that this afternoon I have witnessed what to me seems to be a most painful breakdown of the ordinances of this House built up for the protection of free speech.

I do not know if the hon. member realizes that he is reflecting on my decision in accepting this motion.

I hope that would be the last thing to enter your mind, Mr. Speaker. I am referring to the conduct of this debate and I think you yourself admitted at one stage that you had difficulty in controlling some of the statements hon. members were making. That, I think, is sufficient warrant to me to remark upon the lamentable way in which hon. members gave way to their feelings of hatred, their acknowledged and admitted and openly avowed feelings of hatred against Capt. Fulford.

No, not against Fulford, but against his actions.

This unfortunate officer for doing what he conceived to be his duty, has been hunted from pillar to post by men who have taken upon themselves the task of persecuting him.

That is not true.

And they have shown this afternoon in this House that their overweening hatred for Capt. Fulford would lead them to worse excesses than the rules of this House have allowed them to do.

I am sure we ought to compliment the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) on having at last risen to champion the person who cannot defend himself. The hon. member has continually attacked people who could not defend themselves, so I am glad to see he is now changing his attitude in this respect. I hope it is not a temporary conversion. In connection with the whole matter, if the hon. member does not know it, the Labour party does not come appealing to this House or to any other body with regard to their right to hold public meetings in the towns, but we come because of the fact that although the by-laws of Pietermaritzburg say that no procession, music or gatherings, shall take place without the consent of the local authority, nevertheless the Labour party would be prepared to carry on and have their meetings, and take the consequences, but for one fact, that we have a duty to the people of Pietermaritzburg that we dare not transgress the law so long as we have a police officer like Capt. Fulford, because the record of this officer has shown that he is temperamentally unfit for the controlling of large gatherings of people. A man who says he is prepared to take life for the moral effect—it is a serious responsibility on the Labour party at Pietermaritzburg to endanger the lives of the people of that town. The Labour party in years gone by have shown that they are prepared to take the consequences of any action they believe to be right and proper in connection with the principles for which they stand. Members of the cross-benches have suffered, and are prepared to suffer again. They feel that such a responsibility should not have been placed on the people of Pietermaritzburg. In connection with this by-law we have records of certain religious bodies having to fight it, and that it was suspended in their favour. The Salvation Army says that their place is right in the heart of the city where the people are. We as a Labour party say we have a message for the people, and it is an insult to say we are not orderly. I have never yet known a meeting of the Labour party not being orderly because of the Labour members’ presence there. The action of this officer shows what his mentality and temperament are. We are satisfied with the assurance given us by the Prime Minister, that he will make an investigation, but I would emphasize that this may be another instance of what we have often suspected and felt in this country, that bureaucratic control is drifting just as much into the hands of officials as in England and in the United States, about which complaints are being made. It is felt that the control by this House and by Ministers is not as wide as it ought to be. Certain officials are inclined to act in this way, and the danger is very real and apparent. The motion has served its purpose. We are anxious to be assured that an officer with a record such as Capt. Fulford has shall be carefully watched to see that the people of the district are not in danger because of the peculiar mental kink that officer seems to have.

I think the debate has served at least one useful purpose. What I fear is the effect on outside opinion, and I think it would re-assure the opinion outside of the high court of justice—Parliament—

I do not think the hon. member should criticize the action of Parliament.

With great respect, I do not propose to do so. I am rather criticizing what I fear would be the opinion of the public outside.

Why anticipate it?

Because I have an intelligent anticipation of what will be said. I submit, subject to your judgment, I am entitled to forecast what public opinion of this debate will be. Am I in order?

The hon. member may proceed, but he must not create an impression which might discredit with the public outside the proceedings of this House.

I shall endeavour by my remarks to show that probably the proceedings of this House this afternoon are not typical of our usual proceedings and that they will not be typical of the future. Parliament is considered as the high court of justice, and should not accept ex parte statements and on them to proceed to a certain course of action. If the mover were in earnest about it, and if he were not as by an interjection he showed he was biassed against this officer, he would have moved for a select committee, or a body of men who would have taken evidence, which we cannot take in this House. If the hon. member by his own admission is prejudiced and biassed against this particular officer, there ought to be the best possible reason why he should not have moved in this matter, or using the language he did. I do not want the public to get the idea that Parliament is a place where an hon. member can vent his private spite under cover of our rules. If they got that impression, it is unfortunate, and it will diminish the respect people have for Parliament and the authority it ought to exercise. The hon. member who moved the motion may say it is very urgent; there are elections imminent, and it is necessary it should be done to-day, but by calling for a select committee he could have achieved the same purpose. I hope questions of this sort will not be raised again. As the matter has been fully discussed, I now move—

seconded.

I had hoped that after the extraordinary speech of the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) some member of the Ministry would have got up and repudiated the doctrine laid down by him. The hon. member apparently admitted that under the bylaws the local authority has the power to prohibit these meetings. If that is so the police officer is only acting rightly in carrying out the regulations.

I submit under the rules of the House that the Chair should put my motion that the previous question be not now put.

The previous question is put at the end of the debate. The hon. member is thinking of the closure.

Am I not entitled under rule 80 to ask that my motion be now put?

No, the debate has to continue.

The doctrine laid down by the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) is a monstrous one. This has been one of the most unhappy debates we have ever listened to in this House. Charges have been made contrary to all the traditions of the House and to all the principles of fair play; charges made on the basis that anonymous statements are proof and that you merely have to make a charge in order to establish such proof. The Prime Minister most properly undertook that there should be an enquiry. I welcome that enquiry, because I believe it is in the interest of the police officer concerned that there should be the fullest enquiry. Should he be found guilty, the Prime Minister has most properly undertaken to punish him and he will have the support of every hon. member who values the right of free speech. There is, however, one point on which the Prime Minister was silent. The enquiry may result in Major Fulford being found entirely innocent. What step does the Prime Minister propose to take on the assumption that the officer concerned is not guilty, to recompense him for the public indignity that has been heaped upon him?

The hon. member for Iliovo (Mr. Marwick) commented on what he described as the hollow case put up by the mover of the motion. When I proposed the adjournment of the House I did so distinctly bearing in mind the record of Capt. Fulford, and that is why I brought the matter up. Had this prohibition of Labour meetings been made by any other police officer it is very doubtful whether I should have referred to the matter, but you cannot separate any individual from his record. That is why in business life testimonials are needed by persons seeking employment. If you separate individuals from their records then merit will go unrewarded and the antithesis of merit must also go unrewarded. The hon. member for Illovo referred to a magisterial enquiry into the conduct of Capt. Fulford on a certain occasion and he said that Capt. Fulford was acquitted on all charges. The assistant resident magistrate of that district was cited as a witness and was prepared to give certain evidence, but before that could be done he was hustled away, degraded and sent to another district.

The hon. member must not further refer to the happenings of 1922.

I was only replying to a point raised by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). Another hon. member has said that an attack was made on the South African party. That I wish to repudiate. The attack is against the methods introduced into the public service by the South African party. We want the public service to recognize that there is a different Government in power now. We want the public servants, especially those in the armed forces, to recognize that the methods of dragooning which prevailed before the present Government came into power have ceased for all time. That is the object of Bringing forward the motion. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) did not attack Capt. Fulford but defended him; he sought for an explanation of his conduct. It is inconceivable, however, to members of the Opposition that any Labour member should take an opposite view to that entertained by his colleagues where the conduct of a public servant is under review. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) cannot be separated from his record, although it was made by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). I come to the hon. member for Standerton, and we find him the other day getting up and speaking in favour of a motion for enquiry by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) on a matter of purely local import—a parish affair of muckraking. Then we find him to day standing up to oppose a motion that the House adjourn on a matter of public importance, the public importance being the vindication of the rights of free speech in South Africa. His action thus explained why the South African party is a fading force in this country to-day. No party can exist if it jettisons the fundamental principles upon which society is built. The question of the local by-laws has been raised, and again I say local by-laws, wherever established cannot override the basic laws of the State. If they interfere with the right of free speech the by-laws must be declared ultra vires. If by-laws such as that are on the statutory documents of Pietermaritzburg city, it is time the position was tested. The Prime Minister has given us his assurance that an investigation of the matter would take place, and that it would be dealt with wholly on its merits. Having the Government we have, we of the Labour party are perfectly satisfied full justice will be done in this matter, and if there is occasion to deal drastically with anyone responsible for an attack on the prime rights of citizens of Pietermaritzburg whatever political complexion they may have, we know they will be justly dealt with. I therefore ask leave to withdraw the motion for the adjournment.

Previous question put and agreed to and the original motion dropped.

stated that his Excellency the Governor-General had requested that a message under Section 58 of the South Africa Act, convening a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament for the purpose of considering the Precious Stones Bill, be conveyed to this House, and announced that he was the bearer of the message.

handed the message to Mr. Speaker.

read the message as follows—

His Excellency the Governor-General having been informed by his Ministers that the House of Assembly passed the Precious Stones Bill during the Fourth Session of the Fifth Parliament; that the Senate during that session passed it with amendments to which the House of Assembly did not agree; that during the present Session of Parliament the House of Assembly again passed the Bill, and that the Senate passed it with amendments to which the House of Assembly did not agree; hereby, and by virtue of the provisions of Sections 58 and 63 of the South Africa Act, 1909, convenes a Joint Sitting of the members of both Houses of Parliament, to be held on Wednesday, the ninth day of November, 1927, at 10 a.m. for the purpose of the members present at such Joint Sitting deliberating and voting together upon the said Bill as last proposed by the House of Assembly and upon amendments which have been made therein by the Senate and not agreed to by the Assembly.—Athlone, Governor-General.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

Hon. members will understand why this is done. I shall move later that the House adjourn otherwise after we have decided the combined sitting, we will have to meet again, when the great majority of the members would like to leave before that meeting could be held.

seconded.

Motion put and agreed to.