Mr. Chamberlain in the course of his speech answering the
criticisms passed on his Department, dealt chiefly with the Hut-tax and the alleged withholding of the Report of Sir David Chalmers. He showed that, in fact, it was only with- held while inquiries were being made as to controversial matters, but he also protested against the notion that he was bound to act upon the Report. "No, Sir, that is not my position at all. My position is that of a Judge." A Commis- sioner was employed to ascertain the facts, but his evidence was to be checked by other evidence. We absolutely and entirely agree with this statement, and cordially detest the notion that the head of a Department of State cannot, as it were, call expert witnesses without being bound by their testimony. We also greatly dislike the notion that all reports must be published. We hold, instead, that in the public interest it is most important that Cabinet Ministers should not be com- pelled to disclose reports. If such reports as these of Sir David Chalmers must necessarily be published, they will soon become worthless. The Minister will be afraid of appointing independent Commissioners lest they speak too strongly, and the Commis- sioners will not like to speak out for fear of compromising the Department. Unless a certain amount of reticence is allowed to a Department its usefulness is sure to be injured. The government of an Empire is impossible unless in many cases secrecy is not merely allowed, but pro- tected and encouraged.
Previous page
