EMERGENCY POWERS.

§ Sir HENRY SLESSER

I wish to call the attention of the Attorney-General to the last words of paragraph (2). These are words which seem to me to lend themselves to very considerable difficulty if they are to be applied. I am sure that hon. Members would welcome the opinion of the Attorney-General as to what he thinks is the exact scope and purpose of this paragraph. It says:— If any person approaches or is in the neighbourhood of or enters any such place as aforesaid with intent to do injury thereto he shall he guilty of an offence against these regulations. That is clear. And notwithstanding that no such act or injury is committed by him, he shall be deemed to be guilty of such an offence if by reason of his being in possession of any explosive or incendiary substance or lethal weapons or dangerous missile. That is clear. What is not clear is the concluding part of the paragraph:— Or otherwise from the circumstances of the case or his conduct or his known character as proved, it appears that his purpose was to do such injury. What is the meaning of the words:— His known character as proved. The usual provision in a case of criminal liability is that a man is found guilty or not guilty on the facts, and the question of his character is normally postponed until the determination of whether he has or has not committed the offence. If he is found in possession of firearms, then, 454 in law, in many cases you may draw the inference that from the possession of the firearms he intended to do injury. That is quite a normal provision, just as the finding of a person carrying various tools after dark justifies the assumption that the person intends to commit a felony. The words which I do not quite understand are— His known character as proved. Does that mean that evidence may be given in the court as to his general character? Do the words "as proved" mean proved on the occasion on which his case is being heard, or do they mean that earlier convictions may be proved in the course of the hearing under this regulation to prove his known character before a decision is made in his particular case? The emergency which is now, unhappily, with us will pass away, but the principle introduced into this regulation may not pass away. It seems to me that we are giving permission in this Regulation to introduce during the trial of the case evidence of previous convictions before there is a decision in the particular case in question. I have always said, and I adhere to it, that once a Proclamation is being made, the necessary Regulations must be made, but the very fact that the Act in question requires that the Regulations should be laid before Parliament shows that it was intended by the Legislature that the Regulations in detail might be criticised, otherwise the Proclamation of the Regulations would have given force to them and there would have been no necessity to bring them before Parliament.

I am sure the Attorney-General and Home Secretary will appreciate that in raising this question I am not raising any general issue as to the Regulations. I am raising what some people may think is a small point—but from the point of view of jurisprudence it is an important point—as to the meaning of the words— His known character as proved. Does that mean previous conviction or evidence of bad character given by the police, or whoever is prosecuting? We may get a case where a man is charged with intention to do this wrong, but if he is not in possession of firearms or missiles, that is not an offence. In order to get a conviction you have to add to the evidence of intention proof that the individual's known character, proved 455 character, is bad. I believe I am right in saying that even in the Defence of the Realm Regulations—I may be wrong—this particular phrase was not introduced when this country was at war with a foreign enemy.

I do not remember it, but I am open to correction on that point. Intention gathered from the possession of weapons and intention gathered from acts may in proper cases be grounds for consideration, but intention gathered from previous bad character is an extremely dangerous principle to introduce into the Regulations. I do not want to criticise the Regulation as a whole—that has been done by my hon. Friends behind me—but to get a specific answer to this question I want to ask the Attorney-General the meaning of the words— Known character as proved. The word "conduct" I can understand, but the words "known character as proved" are very dangerous. May I give an illustration. A man may be known as a bad character, as a forger. I believe it is a fact known to criminal psychologists that people who are liable to commit forgery are not the sort of people who are addicted to crimes of violence. These words are without any qualification, and under them it may be bad character in the sense that the man has committed a forgery, but he may not be a bad character for the purpose of suggesting that he intends to injure property. Surely bad character ought to be bad character of a sort which is in some way connected with the kind of offence he is charged with committing. It is utterly irrelevant in the case of a man who is charged with blowing up a bridge to consider whether he forged his grandmother's will 20 years before. I cannot see the purpose of connecting the two. These words are capable of a very dangerous extension. We must remember that public opinion may be in a highly excited state when these cases come before magistrates and courts, not very high trained in the administration of the law, although perfectly unbiased, and we do not want legislation or Regulations which arise from a scare. One wishes to protect the State and the liberty of the subject, but surely it is enough that we should protect society against a man with weapons, and against a man whose con- 456 duct is suspicious. It is going beyond the necessary limit to consider his character many years back, and in quite different circumstances. It is for that purpose I have risen, and I do not think I can be accused of taking an obstructive course in asking the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House what these words mean.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN

This is the first time I have intervened in the debate on these Regulations, and I do not desire to detain the House very long. The hon. and gallant Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench who has just spoken has raised one or two important points which require an answer from the Attorney-General. He has raised a question in regard to the words "known character," and I want some explanation as to what they mean. I do not know Scottish law very well, and I know English law still less, but I understand that in Scotland, under the Prevention of Crimes Act, the police are already empowered to arrest a person on suspicion, if he has a criminal record A man who has been convicted of burglary on a number of occasions, and is found at or near a place under circumstances under which the police consider he is likely to commit a burglary, can be arrested without actually committing a crime, merely because of his past record. That is already the Common Law of Scotland. If a person has committed violence on many occasions and is found by the police forming part of a riotous assembly, then, without having committed any definite act of violence, the police under the present law can arrest him. But in addition the police in Scotland already possess wider powers.

Yesterday the Attorney-General, in reply to a question, stated that one of the reasons why they wanted this Regulation was that a man who was arrested could he dealt with summarily; that they could go through the procedure of having the alleged criminal convicted and sentence at the police court. I am sure the Attorney-General knows that a convicted person of had character can under the Prevention of Crimes Act be dealt with summarily already. Under the normal law a magistrate in Scotland can sentence a man only up to 60 days' imprisonment, but under the Prevention of Crimes Act he has power to sentence up to the limit of six months, when a man is known to be a person of bad 457 character and is found near a locality where he is likely to commit a crime. If that be the present Common Law of Scotland, there is no need to alter it. Why, then, are these words "known character" put in? Do they mean past convictions? Is it the man's criminal record? If not, what is "known character?" I have neither hid from this House my own views on public matters. I am a republican. I would abolish the monarchy to-morrow, and if I am seen in the neighbourhood of Holyrood Palace I may be described, because I am a republican, as a man of "known character" if I am seen in that neighbourhood. But it is not a crime to be a republican. I am proud of it, and I have never concealed from, my constituents the fact that I am a republican.

What is the meaning of "known character"? I know men who have unpopular and advanced views, but whose private character may be unchallengeable. What is to be the test of "known character"? If the Home Secretary were seen at or near a Communist meeting, it might be that he should be placed in gaol, because, in those circumstances, he would be a "known character." The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Lloyd George), whose views on land are well known, may be a "known character" if he is seen within a considerable distance of a landlord. What is "known character"? It may be that the Attorney-General, who, when he is asleep, always seems to have a nightmare of Communists or of Irish deportees, if he were seen within a considerable distance of anything like that, might be a "known character" I want to put it to the Attorney-General that this business of "known character" ought to be clearly defined. [Interruption.] The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) is constantly interrupting. I do not blame her—it may be a fault of her sex—but she is constantly interjecting. I do not say it is bad, because I am one of the worst offenders myself in that way, and I ought to take my own medicine. I ought to take it much worse than sometimes I get, but, supposing she were seen near the neighbourhood of a brewery, she might be a "known character." The one thing I have in common with her is my anti-drink activity. Take our late Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for 458 Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson), who is well known in our party for strong anti-betting views. I almost had a quarrel with him at a party meeting over that, as my views are not so narrow, but what would happen to that right hon. Gentleman if he were seen in the neighbourhood of a racecourse? What is a "known character"?

Quite seriously, I represent in this House a number of people who, unfortunately, have spent part of their life in prison. I represent a poor constituency, where criminals are not uncommon. I do not know why they should choose me as their representative, but they have done it, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) said yesterday in regard to himself, they have done it, and they do it with consistency. Here are these poor people, and it is not fair that these folk, even with all your Poor Law procedure—and Scotland is much better placed than England in regard to poor people having some legal defence—should, if they have had a bad character, be quite easily, especially in this case, when feelings are high, landed into prison. I think these people who have been convicted in the past have every right to see that they are not flung into prison for nothing in the future. I am not ashamed to stand up for even a criminal to see that he gets a decent, fair chance, and I want to ask the Attorney-General, in all seriousness, what does "known character" mean? Does it mean the holding of political opinions? Does it mean the holding of unpopular views? Does it mean being in association with a trade union? Does it mean past criminal convictions? One of the best colleagues that ever I had—and I am sure that even hon. Members who are not of our opinions will agree—my bedmate, has been in prison. [An Hon MEMBER: "Who is that?"]. I mean the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). Is that to be taken into account? The hon. Member on my right, the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), my bedmate in so far as this place is concerned, reminds me that he has had three convictions.

The whole issue is, what is a bad character? It is not sufficient to give the Attorney-General a blank cheque in this matter, because these Regulations 459 arise from the dispute, and while we are not entitled now to discuss the merits of the dispute, we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that the dispute is the cause of them, and I will be quite frank and open in saying that, while we may have two or three members in either party who may differ from the majority, this dispute has caused a cleavage between the parties—those for the men in the street and those against them. That is the issue, and we cannot lightly hand over to those who are against the men at the moment, namely, the Government, the decision as to whether or not they are "known characters."

I want to put this last point to the Attorney-General, and it may raise you, Mr. Speaker, to your feet to challenge me, but I want to do it without the slightest heat, because I believe it is true. The Attorney-General yesterday made the point, and in normal times I fairly well agree with him, that our Judges will decide this point and go into the whole question, and that they are the right people to do it. Let me be quite frank, and say that in normal times one of my hobbies, when I am free from here—or perhaps it is not quite a hobby, because my constituents occasionally demand it—is attending police courts and criminal courts of one kind and another. In normal times, I should say that they give you fair decency in their judging, and, if I had to choose between a judge and jury trial and a summary trial by a judge alone, ninety-nine times out of a hundred I would take the trial from the Judge himself. I say that quite frankly, with some knowledge of them, because I think there is less chance of prejudice. That is my own personal view, not shared by anything like the majority here; but that is in normal times, with normal crimes. Here, however, you have a very different state of things. Whether we like it or not, we know that nearly every Judge is appointed largely because of political views. Let there be no mistake about it. The present Chief in Scotland is Lord Alness, who was appointed for service to the Coalition Government, and I can recall Judge after Judge who has been appointed purely for political reasons. I am not saying it is wrong, and in normal times it may fit the bill fairly well, hut here we are, when passions are running 460 high, and when feeling is at its very worst.

I might be before a magistrate tomorrow. A colleague of mine in this House, from whose views I differ, has today been sentenced to two months for a speech, a mild speech. I hope in this House and on the platform possibly to deliver a much worse speech, and not be ashamed of it, but I am not going to hand over to men who have been politically appointed the interpretation of what is meant by "known character." I think my private character is as clean as that of any hon. Member, and I do not say I am any better than the men opposite in private life, or any worse, but I am prepared to lay my private life open to anyone to examine. But in my political views, in my holding of concientious views, I refuse to allow my political opponents to be the judge of what is right and what is wrong. My character, because I am a Republican, is bad to the Home Secretary, who starts with prejudice, and this handing over of the interpretation of the words "known character" to our political opponents is selling our birthright, which I hope the Labour party of this country, apart from the merits or demerits of this dispute, will take the strongest possible stand against and do everything possible to defeat.

§ Mr. BATEY

I beg to support the Amendment. [Interruption]. I am prepared to wait until hon. Members opposite finish their conversation.

§ Mr. SPEAKER

If the hon. Member will proceed, I will see that he gets a hearing.

§ Mr. BATEY

Last night when the Attorney General was speaking on this Regulation, he said that we on this side had voted against the previous Regulation, the object of which was to safeguard human life. The Attorney General was not in the House during much of the Debates on the previous Regulation. If he had been, I am certain he would not have uttered that remark. [Interruption].

§ Mr. SPEAKER

Will hon. Members please give a little more attention?

§ Mr. BLUNDELL

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman who is leading the House at the moment, if it is true that 461 Major Braithwaite has been returned for the Buckrose Division?

§ Mr. SPEAKER

I understand the reason for the conversation. Now, perhaps, it may cease.

§ Mr. BATEY

I am certain that none of the hon. Members opposite who represent mining constituencies would dare to resign their seats and fight at the present time. I was proceeding to deal with the remark made last night by the Attorney General.

§ Mr. NEIL MACLEAN

I suggest that the House should adjourn until hon. Members who are engaged in conversation leave the Chamber.

§ Mr. BATEY

As I was saying, had the Attorney-General been present during the discussion on the previous Regulation, he would not have made the remark to which I have drawn attention, because all the discussion on the previous Regulation arose from the fact that we objected to the police having power to search people who were in meetings or in processions. We had no intention of endangering human life. I support this Amendment on the grounds that the Government have shown indecent haste in bringing forward this Regulation. So far as we can judge of the country at present, there is no need for a Regulation like this. Hon Members ought not to be deceived by the form of these Regulations. This Regulation was not decided upon after a general strike had been declared. According to the paper which accompanies the Regulations, it was decided upon at Buckingham Palace on the 30th April—Friday last—long before the decision had been taken for a general strike, and before many of the miners had left the pits. There was no need for such haste in bringing forward a Regulation of this kind. The marginal note to this Regulation is "Injury to property," and the object of the Regulation is to safeguard property and to ensure that not the slightest injury is done to property. I wish to make my position clear. I am not in favour of the slightest injury being done to property. I believe we can win this struggle without any injury being done to property. There is no need to injure property, but I would point out the contrast between the Government's anxiety to protect pro- 462 perty from the slightest injury, and the fact that they are throwing the mantle of the State over the coalowners and assisting the coalowners to starve the miners.

HON. MEMBERS

No.

§ Mr. SPEAKER

If we discuss the question, we shall get back to the main issue, which it, was agreed we should take at the end of these Amendments.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN

Is an hon. Member not entitled to point out that the Government intend to take certain steps for the protection of property, and—provided he does not travel too far—is he not entitled also to contrast the Regulation made in this respect, with the fact that they do not take the same steps to protect human life.

§ Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) had already done so.

§ Mr. BATEY

That is just drawing the line at what I want to show. I have not the slightest wish to come into collision with the Chair, but I think on these Regulations I am entitled to point out the indecent haste of the Government to protect property, and their eagerness to assist the coalowners to starve the miners. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] There is no question about it. In supporting the Government you are helping to starve the miners.

HON. MEMBERS

No.

§ Mr. WALLHEAD

It is perfectly true.

§ Mr. SPEAKER

It is obvious that to pursue this matter will raise a question which is only in order on the main issue. If we are to discuss a series of Amendments to leave out particular Regulations, we must deal strictly with each one, as it arises, and wait until we have disposed of them before coming back to the general question.

§ Mr. MACLEAN

Is the hon. Member not entitled to argue on this particular Regulation that the Government have taken sides, inasmuch as the coal mines of the country will be properly protected under this Regulation, whereas the miners who are not working have no regulations made for their protection.

§ Mr. SPEAKER

I have already ruled.

§ Mr. BATEY

This Regulation provides that if any miner injures in the slightest way any property in connection with a mine, he is liable to the penalties laid down. There is no question as to where we stand on this matter. We regard the lives of our miners, and those of their wives and "bairns" as of far more importance than pulley wheels. That is the difference between us and some of the hon. Members opposite. This Regulation goes much further than appears at first sight. It goes to the extent of saying that anyone who prevents the working of a mine is to be liable to penalties. Are we to infer that if any miner takes any step to prevent the working of a mine, he will be liable? To think of working a mine at the present time with blacklegs, is to think of a step which will lead to a breach of the peace, and the Government are not justified in asking the House to pass a, Regulation which will make it easier for the coalowner to fill his pit with blacklegs and thus cause a breach of the peace. I want the Attorney-General to give some consideration to that aspect of the question, because, as sure as I am here, if any coalowner attempts to work a colliery with blacklegs there will be trouble. There is no doubt about that. It seems to me that under this Regulation the only safe place for a workman, or for anyone who has any sympathy with the workmen is in bed. If a workman gets out of bed he is in danger under this Regulation. I hope that the House will not allow the Government to have this Regulation, which may simply be the means of lighting a fire which it will be extremely difficult to put out. The Home Secretary said yesterday that the country was steady at the moment. Let us try to keep it steady. We will do that better by not giving to the police the powers that are proposed here.

§ The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg)

I spoke on this Amendment last night and can do so again only by leave of the House, I am anxious to say a few words in answer to the points that have been raised. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) suggested that the words, "conduct or his known character as proved," were an 464 innovation in our jurisprudence and he was anxious to know what they meant. I am not sure that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) did not answer him, when he said that, so far from this being an innovation, his objection to the Regulation was that it was so much less drastic than the existing law. If I had wanted to score a direct point I might have answered the hon. and learned Gentleman by saying that the phrase meant exactly the same as it did in the Regulations of 1921, and in the draft Regulations of 1924, which he approved.

§ Sir H. SLESSER

The draft Regulations of 1924 were net published.

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

The 1921 Regulations, on which this is based, and, so far as our information goes, the 1924 Regulations, contained it. The actual words come verbatim from the 1921 Regulations. The hon. and learned Gentleman put to me a question which I am glad to answer. He said, "Suppose a man is proved to be a forger, would that be evidence against him of such a charge as this?" My answer is the one which any lawyer would give, "Certainly not!" The object of this part of the Regulation is quite simple. The Regulation deals with people who are found on or near places which are vulnerable spots, and under circumstances which render it probable that they are there for an illegitimate purpose, namely, for the purpose of injuring a particular place. Obviously, since intention is difficult to prove, one has to lay down what constitutes admissible evidence to show that the intention was not legitimate. It would be open to anyone to prove any legitimate object. If you find a man at night on a railway bridge which is a vital means of communication and along which trains are running although the trains service has been officially stopped by the trade unions, the fact would be relevant, and the circumstances of the case would be such as to give rise to the inference that the man was not there for a legitimate purpose.

§ Sir H. SLESSER

There are words in this Regulation, "his conduct" and then "known character as proved." There is the question whether there was a previous conviction.

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Previous conviction of acts of violence you cer- 465 tainly may prove. The question might be whether the man had gone there for the purpose of destroying or setting fire to a railway or building, or whether he had gone there for some perfectly innocent purpose. The fact that he was a man who had been previously guilty of trying to wreck railway trains or setting fire to buildings would be relevant. The only object of this provision is that, inasmuch as it would not be otherwise clear whether "his known character as proved" —which means as proved in the court—was to be admissible evidence, this Regulation puts that point beyond doubt. It does not mean that if you prove a man is a known criminal, therefore he must be convicted. The Regulation does not say so. What it does make clear is that, if there is a question as to whether a person charged with being a person on a railway bridge, or near a building with intent to damage it, is there for a legitimate or illegitimate purpose, it is relevant to consider what his known character is. It is open to him still, of course, to prove that he had a legitimate reason.

Two other points have been raised. The hon. Member for Gorbals was doubtful as to the suitability of our tribunals for trying these cases, "because of their political opinions." I submit that that is a wholly unjustifiable suspicion of our judiciary. It is not a political question with which they are dealing at all. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) said that if any mineowner tried to run his mine after the Miners' Federation had said that it should be closed, trouble would be caused. I can only say that a suggestion of that kind, that people are not to be allowed to carry on their business in a lawful manner because any body of trade unions has forbidden them to do so, is the very best justification for a regulation of this kind.

§ Mr. MARDY JONES

The concluding words of the Attorney-General's speech are the most provocative words that have been uttered in this House since the dispute started. They are an open challenge to the Miners' Federation as such, and as such we accept them. I tell the Attorney-General and the Government that I and every other miners' member in this House will do our utmost to prevent any mine-owner working any mine with blackleg labour. These regulations are a scrap of paper so far as the miners are concerned.

466 The Attorney-General can take it from me that his words will be remembered and will be repeated throughout the country during the week-end. The right hon. Gentleman has led off with a challenge, and we accept it, and the Government will have cause to regret it.

§ Mr. J. JONES

I am not a miner and I have no desire to discuss the legal jargon that has been introduced into this Debate. I had a past character that to some extent I would like to forget, but it is as good a character as that of most hon. Members opposite who try to make jokes at our expense. What we would like to know is this: In an industrial dispute do you want more powers than those which the law already gives you? What is the meaning of these additional words? We have not been told yet. If the Attorney-General wishes to score a point against us, why does he agree with the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), who told him that the law is already strong enough? If the law is already strong enough, why insert these words? In the East End of London we know what it means; we know what you are going to try to do. If any of our men who have taken an active part in the trade union movement are found near the docks or the level crossings or the railway bridges, they will be suspect, and any policeman who likes to take action can arrest them. That is really what the proposal means. Anything that these men say or do, and their past records as workers in the Labour movement, will be brought in as evidence against them. That is the object of these additional words, and there is no other object.

We accept that challenge. We are prepared to do the picketing ourselves—we have done it before—and we will take the consequences. The law of England, we are told, is not strong enough unless the Government introduce special provisions in an Emergency measure. Yet you have been asking for peace— "peace in our time Oh Lord!" That is not what you mean. What you mean is, "Let us have the pieces all the time, Oh Lord! We will be satisfied if we can get the gold." So far as the docks are concerned you can go on with it. Certain men are well known here in London and in the dock districts of the country. What is their past record? They have fought these battles in troublous times, 467 and if we are going to be told by the Attorney-General that the Government are going to put all this power against us we are willing to face the music. We have faced it before. The men who fought from 1914 to 1918, 40,000 of them have come back and are in the East End, are quite as ready to put their back to the wall in opposition to those who want to force wages down, as they were to fight the Germans. We are willing to fight now. Bring out all your horse, foot and artillery. Threaten us with what you like. We are going to have peace if we can get it, but we are not going to be told that we are to be starved into submission; we are not going to be told that all the power of the State is to be organised again t us.

I ask the Attorney-General to be careful, in spite of the big majority at his back. We have not entered on this quarrel because we want to fight. For five months we have done our best to

§ Mr. LANSBURY

I beg to move, after the word "Regulations," to insert the words "other than Regulation 21."

The Regulation we propose to leave out is No. 21 and, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will read it to the House. It says: If any person attempts or does any act calculated or likely to cause mutiny, sedition, or disaffection among any of His Majesty's Forces, or among the members of any police force, or any fire brigade— I notice it leaves out the boy scouts— or among the civilian population, or to impede, delay, or restrict any measures taken for securing and regulating the supply or distribution of food, water, fuel, light or other necessities, or for maintaining the means of transit or locomotion, or any other purposes essential to the public safety or the life of the community, he shall be guilty of an offence against these regulations: Provided that a person shall not be guilty of an offence under this regulation by reason only of his taking part in a strike or peacefully persuading any other person to take part in a strike. (2) If any person without lawful authority or excuse has in his possession or on premises in his occupation or under his control, any document containing any report or statement the publication of which would be a contravention of the foregoing provisions of this regulation, he shall be guilty of an offence against these regulations unless he proves that he did not know and had no reason to suspect that the document contained any such report or statement, or that he had no intention of transmitting or circulating the document or distributing copies thereof to or amongst other persons. In all the discussions on these Regulations, it has been taken for granted that those who support the Regulations are supporting them on behalf of the community and those who object to the Regulations are objecting to the defence of the community—that we are willing that the community should be attacked, and that hon. members on the other side are the only ones who are willing to defend the 472 community against these attacks. I want to say that if this were purely a matter of defending communal interest I certainly should not be moving to leave this Regulation out. The proof of that is the fact, that in the early part of this debate there were a large number of Regulations which dealt with the life of the community and to which we have made no objection and moved no Amendment whatsoever. The fact remains that on the major part of these Regulations we have not raised any objection, because in the main they deal with the community. But these other Regulations are rather more to do with the people who are concerned in the dispute.

I want to challenge the whole theory that in objecting to these kinds of penal regulations we are actuated by any motive against the community. The dispute is not one against the community; it is against the private owners and private capitalists and monopolists who control the services. Had the industry been carried on on proper lines, on lines of service to the community, as well as for the benefit of the working people engaged in the industry, we would not be discussing these Regulations this afternoon. It is because of the failure of the organisers of that industry, the failure of the men who control that industry to carry it on properly, that we are face to face with the present crisis, and I want to challenge altogether the theory that those of us who are taking part in this dispute are taking part in a dispute against the community. It is a dispute against men who have failed to carry out their duty. Most of these Regulations are more or less legal in their character, and I certainly do not claim any legal knowledge at all and can only read them as an ordinary layman. With regard to the first part of this particular Regulation, I would like to ask the Attorney-General a question, in view of the fact that we are allowed, even 473 under the Emergency Powers Act, to take part in a strike; we are allowed to picket, and generally to persuade people not to blackleg. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not to work."] Well, persuade people not to work. There are a good many people in this country who take a good deal of persuasion to go to work, and they manage to do extremely well on it. It is those who are usually most anxious to shove other people in. On this occasion, we are anxious to keep them out, and we are not doing anything illegal in doing so.

I want to ask the Attorney-General if he will kindly tell us whether, under the first paragraph of Regulation 21, it will be legal for any of us to persuade, for instance, a Special Constable not to act as a blackleg? We are supposed to be able to ask any civilian not to take part in work where there is a strike, and what I am anxious to get at is whether it is quite certain that in the framing of the first paragraph of Regulation 21, we are not infringing the guarantee that is on the face of the Emergency Powers, and that we shall have the same right as under the Emergency Powers Act, to persuade and do our best to prevent people carrying on the distribution of food, water, fuel, light, etc., whenever any of these are taken over by whoever acts on behalf of the Government. It is very necessary that we should have that clear. [HON MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"] I am glad to hear that hon. members opposite are so constitutional. All this legislation, of course, is really unconstitutional, because it is special, and is brought in to abrogate the ordinary law, or to supplement it—probably that is a better way to put it—and it is necessary, from the point of view of hon. members opposite, because of some conditions that have arisen. What I am anxious to do is to safeguard the men outside and those of us who go out to them and talk to them. We want to be quite sure that the right which they have at present of picketing or persuading people not to do these things, shall not be jeopardised by this particular Regulation. It is very necessary that this should be done, because already men are being interfered with for acting as pickets.

§ Sir WILLIAM DAVISON

Peaceful picketing.

§ Mr. LANSBURY

I will say "peaceful picketing" to please the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison), who, I am quite sure, would have been a picket if the Ulster revolution had really taken place. He would have shouldered a gun with the rest of them, and he would not have been a very peaceful picket, either. What I want to be quite sure about is that we may tell the men that they may peacefully picket, that they may peacefully persuade and that that will be the law when this Regulation is in operation. I raise the question now, as there are in some districts some police officers, and I rather think it is because of this Regulation, because I suppose it is known they are in operation at the present moment, that I ask the Attorney-General to give us a little more explanation as to what it really means.

Paragraph (2) of this Regulation is one which it is extremely difficult to defend in any circumstances. It ought to be read in connection with paragraph (2) of Regulation 33, which says: Any police constable may, if authorised by order of a Secretary of State or of a Chief Officer of Police, enter, if need be by force, any premises or place suspected of being used for purposes so endangering the public safety, and may search any part of such place or premises, and may seize and detain anything found therein which is suspected of being used for such purposes as aforesaid. Those purposes are set out in the rest of the Regulation, but this particular Regulation 21 says: If any person without lawful authority or excuse has in his possession, or on premises in his occupation or under his control, any document containing any report or statement the publication of which would be a contravention of the foregoing provisions of this regulation, he shall be guilty of an offence against these regulations, unless he proves that he did not know and had no reason to suspect that the document contained any such report or statement, or that be had no intention of transmitting or circulating the document or distributing copies thereof to or amongst other persons. That Regulation, taken in conjunction with the other, gives the police officer full power to enter any premises, and to find any document for which he may be searching. During the War, and since the War, on two occasions—I am not sure it was not three occasions—offices with which I have some connection have been searched, and they have never been 475 searched by people coming in and saying, "We are going to search this place. Stand by and see what we find." Nothing of the kind. It may be quite a joke to hon. and right hon. Members opposite, but I want to put it to them that if you search a person's premises or a man's clothes, you ought, I think, when you take away the things from him, to leave an inventory of what it is you have found. That is not done. You go into premises and you just search them, and take away whatever you please. You do not even show the man what you are taking away. You do not even let him know what you have found there. I say that it is an extremely dangerous power to put in the hands of anybody, and especially under the very wide powers of this Regulation. I never say in this House or outside but good things generally of the police of the Metropolis. I have always received courtesy and decency at their hands even when they are doing an unpleasant duty; but when they search the offices of which I am speaking—

§ Mr. PENNY

What kind of offices?

§ Mr. LANSBURY

Newspaper offices on two occasions, and an office for the promotion of Home Rule for India, where they discovered a book of which each Member of this House possessed a copy. Therefore, nothing happened on either occasion. But the point I want to make is, that I have no knowledge of what they took away on either occasion, I was in charge, and I maintain that before anything should leave the premises, I ought to see them when they are discovered, and have a list in my hands at the same time. I undertake to say there is not an hon. or right hon. Member opposite who would say that is an unfair proposition. I would, therefore, ask the Attorney-General whether it is not possible to provide that, if you are going to have this Regulation as to the right of an officer to collect papers and cart them away, that the man or people there should know what it is he is taking away. I am not asking that in regard to piles of newspapers, as was the case of the Communist Party, because I understand in that case pantechnicon loads were taken away, but I am asking that when you search a man's private desk, you should let him see what it is you find there.

476 I know it will be said this afternoon, as was said on another occasion, that it is a disgraceful thing to think that anything of the kind should happen, but in these times spies and agents-provocateur are always to be found. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) made a passionate appeal yesterday for a settlement of this dispute, but everyone in this House knows that in his early days he had to go through very much worse conditions than we will be asked to go through in regard to the Regulations being moved here, and everybody knows that during those disturbed times people were continually being put into prison for various offences, and that now and then it was proved that faire documents got around, and people were charged with offences of which they were not guilty at all. It seems to me that if any member of the Fascist party, or any member of any party, or a police officer had a particular spite on a trade unionist, it would be perfectly easy to find whatever documents he wanted to find at a particular place. It is because of that I ask that something shall be done, in the deletion of this Regulation; that something shall be done to make it perfectly clear that when a man's premises are being searched that he shall he there. As I read this Regulation—and again I say I am not a lawyer—I am not sure whether a person need be present who is the occupier of the premises. I am not at all sure but that I can be searched without being on the premises at all. I say that that gives any enemy of a man whose premises are being searched power, as we say in the East End, "to put them about it." For these reasons, I move the exclusion of this Regulation.

Before sitting down I should like to repeat that whatever the learned Attorney-General may say in reply, we are not moving this Amendment because we are not in favour of the rights of the community. We are doing it because we believe these Regulations, and the whole of these Emergency Powers, are being taken—the good ones as well as the bad ones—in the defence of a system of working in industry—as in the case of the miners—which has entirely broken down. Instead of dealing with that situation in a manner and on the lines where it ought to have been dealt with, you are 477 passing this legislation. You may pass the most coercive legislation you please. As I listened to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division yesterday, I was reminded of the time—not time but times,—when over and over again he and his friends were defeated in this House. The same arguments were used as are being used against us to-day. I remember the late Lord Salisbury's "twenty years of resolute Government." But in the end you had to give to a handful of Nationalists what might have been given peacefully 40 years before. It subsequently came after years of bloodshed and coercion. Today I am only asking, the miners are only asking, for justice, for a living standard of life. All the British Parliament can do is to take hours in passing this coercive legislation. I think it is a disgrace to the British Parliament.

§ Mr. KIRKWOOD

I beg to second the Amendment.

I rise to support my comrade, the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), who has moved the rejection of Regulation 21. I think it is because I can speak from personal experience that the Labour party selected me to second the Amendment, that is experience of teaching sedition, of being arrested and standing my trial in the High Court of Edinburgh. That occupied 11 days. I had preached sedition according to those who arrested me. At the end of the trial they had to liberate me without a stain upon my character. That, nevertheless, does not alter the fact, that powers similar to these asked for by the Government now, that are being asked on behalf of this disgraceful, rotten British Government, act in the direction that I have already indicated, of men being arrested and thrown into gaol without a trial. I claim on behalf of the British race that it is our right to have a trial before we are thrown into gaol.

These Regulations place in the hands of any insignificant creature whom this disreputable Government cares to place in charge of any particular district, and arm with executive authority power, and he may use that little bit of power to display it before the world at large, and make himself such as the Attorney- 478 General made himself a few moments ago in the eyes of this House. But man, proud man, Drest in a little brief authority. Most ignorant of what he's most assur'd, Plays such fantastic tricks before High Heaven, As make the angels weep. [Laughter.] That, Mr. Speaker, may seem to amuse individuals, but I would ask them just to think of the words which I have quoted from Shakespeare. [An Hon. MEMBER: "From Burns!"] That shows how much you know. I will not elaborate upon that. This that I have quoted embodies our inheritance; the inheritance of the British race. It is not the inheritance of the reigning class alone, but amongst other things, is our glorious inheritance, just as it is our inheritance that we are able to stand here, a minority of men, and give expression to these sentiments of millions of people who are outside, and who axe looking to us to express their sentiments, because here you have a powerful Government that think themselves all-powerful. They have reckoned without their host. They are trying by these Regulations to crush something which every power that ever reigned in any time has failed when it has attempted to do it, to crush liberty! I warn them, while there is yet time, that our people will never give way from where we stand. We are standing for something upon which the very fate of the British Empire depends. We are standing here to-day defending the British Empire. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Standing here to-day as we have stood before, not to smash the British Empire. The ruling class of Britain at the moment are doing their utmost to smash the British Empire. It is impossible for us to continue a British Empire if our race submit willingly to conditions such as these. I know my class, and hon. Members would have no respect, and how could you respect men, if they calmly submitted to rules and regulations of this sort?

Our race will never willingly submit to rules and regulations such as these. Our forefathers fought for the rights of British subjects and died for them, and you are asking us here to-day to pass these Regulations. You have brass faces on you to think you can come down here 479 quietly with a quite contented smile on your faces to do this. But remember One may smile, and smile, and be a villain all the while. [Laughter.] I wish from the bottom of my heart that it was a laughing matter. I know where I may find myself within a week. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where?"] In gaol. I must tell the House now that one member wrote to me. I have the letter. I do not know what happened. He said he was going to raise the matter, this Derbyshire member, a gallant captain. I told him to raise it, and get the Home Secretary to arrest me, and deal with me if he thinks well, because of what I said at Cockfield in Durham. I will say here and say anywhere else what I wish, and bear the consequences.

§ Mr. SPEAKER

I would remind the hon. Member that we are not now discussing the general law, but Regulation 21.

§ Mr. KIRKWOOD

Yes, Mr. Speaker, but if you look at the Regulation you will find it is a very serious regulation, because it deals with sedition. It deals with individuals who interfere with policemen. I have interfered with policemen. I am very friendly with the police in my own locality, and I will do all I can for the Chief Constable of Glasgow. I know the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hill head (Sir R. Horne.), who is watching all that is going on, has considerable influence, and will do all he can in an opposite direction. This Regulation goes on to say: The Fire Brigade. Of course, you would interfere with the Fire Brigade! Of course, you would interfere with the conveying of food, water, etc.! This Regulation will only be applied—this is my point—to my class, the working classes.

§ Sir W. DAVISON

It is for the protection of your class.

§ Mr. KIRKWOOD

I can assure the hon. Member, well fed and stout as he is, that we can protect ourselves. This law is directed against the working-classes. There is no denying the fact. Had the workers continued to work under the conditions submitted to them by the em- 480 ployers, had the workers remained at work, there is no getting away from the fact that this Regulation would not have been produced. Is there anybody who can deny it? No, not one. That proves conclusively, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this is class legislation. This Government have at their head the Prime Minister, who used that phrase, Give peace in our time, O Lord. When he said that, I shouted to him, "Never mind appealing to the Lord. Appeal to the lords that are behind you. They are the lords—not the Lord God up in the sky." The Government of this country are putting out these rules and regulations in order to crush the workers, and I want to protest, as one who has come under the ban of regulations such as these, when they were called "D.O.R.A." Some of the hon. Members below the gangway know what "D.O.R.A." I was. They had something to do with "D.O.R.A." I was whipped by "D.O.R.A." I was deported and separated from my wife and family without a trial by regulations such as these. I say again, this Regulation 21 will place power in the hands of some nincompoop, for instance, the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Woolwich—Sir Kingsley Wood, to make no mistake. He is away up in Newcastle to put Regulation 21 into operation there. [HON. MEMBERS: "He has failed."] He will miserably fail.

§ Mr. R. RICHARDSON

He has been sent back.

§ Mr. KIRKWOOD

What, has he been sent back? In Glasgow I came under similar regulations, and I look about as decent a man as is in this House. Not only that, but my character will stand the closest investigation. It has had to do so. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Why? Because I was a rebel against the hellish conditions that prevailed. If I'm design'd slave, By Nature's law designed. Why was an independent wish E'er planted in my mind? If not, why am I subject to His cruelty and scorn? Or why has man the will and pow'r To make his fellow mourn? Ask yourselves the question why. These Regulations work out in this way. A man may be taken from his bed, taken from his wife and family in the middle 481 of the night and taken before the chief constable, or whoever this Government may appoint—a man who never committed any wrong according to the laws of this country. That was my fate. He may be taken away and it may be intimated to him that he has been tried elsewhere. In my case it was intimated to me by Colonel Levita, who is now a member of the London County Council, and was at that time in charge of the forces of Scotland. He said: "You have been tried, Kirkwood, by Court Martial in Edinburgh, and sentenced to deportation." It was a lie; but I was deported. I do not want to go over what happened to me, because hon. Members can see for themselves that with all the tyranny that was exercised upon me they did not crush me. You have never crushed the spirit that I represent, because the spirit I represent is the spirit of liberty. [An HON. MEMBER: "For whom?"] Liberty for all, not liberty for a few to dictate terms.

HON. MEMBERS

Come over here.

§ Mr. SPEAKER

I should like to have these remarks addressed to me, and I think the lion. Member should confine his remarks to the Amendment.

§ Mr. KIRKWOOD

To come back to Regulation 21, and the point I was making when I was side tracked—not willingly, because I have a heavy weekend in front of me, and I wish to reserve my strength. The point I wish to make was to warn this House, because I still have a respect for this House, and nobody knows that better than you, Mr. Speaker, and the House I think appreciates the fact that we are anxious for the welfare of our country. I do not want the British House of Commons to repeat the mistake it made before in passing a Regulation such as this. When I was deported, and when I was away from February to August, George N. Barnes put a question to the Government inquiring if David Kirkwood and his family were being supported by the Government. The reply given by the Government was that they were, and it was a lie. It was a lie, and the lie was told by the Government. I do not want them to fall into anything like that again. I do not want anyone to be treated by his fellow countrymen as I was treated. I want the great tradition 482 of the British race to remain unimpaired, even during this terrible crisis, because it is a crisis; and all that is wanted here is what we guarantee, what this House, guarantees to the miners. Who served this country during the terrible crisis of the War better than the miners? No industry, no set of men, behaved so courageously, made more sacrifices.

§ Mr. SPEAKER

I have allowed the hon. Member—

§ Mr. KIRKWOOD

I am just finishing, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is making wider and wider departures from the Regulation before us.

§ Mr. KIRKWOOD

I was just finishing. If you do not want to let me do it, I will not do it. I want to appeal to the House, even at this last moment, because I will put my whole life into this to the very end, and so will my colleagues; but I do not want to do anything that I should regret. Our Front Bench have appealed for peace, done everything but sold their manhood in order to get peace. We will not sell our manhood. We will not surrender, but we appeal to you as intelligent men on behalf of one of the most useful sections of the community. It is for you to chose to-day whom ye will serve, God or Mammon.

§ Sir H. SLESSER

I want to put an important point to the Attorney-General which arises on Regulation 21. As I understand the Act under which this Regulation is made, it provides in terms that no Regulation shall make it an offence for any person or persons to take part in the strike or peacefully persuade any other person to take part in the strike. That proviso is very properly put verbatim into these Regulations. I am not going to disown a partial responsibility for some of these Regulations, but I would like to know if the Attorney-General agrees with my interpretation of a certain part of that Regulation. The earlier part of the Regulation makes it an offence to do acts that are likely to cause mutiny or sedition, and it goes on to say that it is an offence also to impede, delay, or restrict any measures taking for securing and regulating the supply or distribution of food water, fuel, light or other necessities. Supposing a person peacefully persuades another person to take part in a 483 strike which has its result through the other person the impeding, delaying or restricting of measures taken for maintaining the supply of necessities. Would that be an offence under this Regulation? Here, again, I want to make it quite clear that people should know exactly the view of the Government in regard to these Regulations. I read that provision to mean that a mere delay in the production of a necessity which results from a person being peacefully persuaded to strike is not an offence. The Preamble provides that No such Regulation shall make it an offence for any person or persons to take part in a strike, or peacefully to persuade any other person or persons to take part in a strike. My contention is that by the drafting of this Regulation we are going beyond what is laid down in the Preamble, which provides that you cannot make a regulation which interferes with the right to strike. I should be glad to know whether the Attorney-General agrees with me that where it is solely a matter of peaceful persuasion to strike, although that persuasion may impede the supply of necessities, it would not be an offence under this Regulation.

§ Sir W. DAVISON

We have just listened to an impassioned essay on liberty by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), He suggested that this particular paragraph of the Regulation which is now under discussion was an infringement of the liberties of the people of this country. The hon. Member rightly said that liberty was one of those things which all classes of this country prized more than anything else, and he suggested that this particular paragraph was something which interfered with the liberty of the working people of this country. There is only one section of it that I should like to refer to this afternoon as pointing out how the liberties of the working people of this country are being interfered with, and it will also deal with the point put by the late Solicitor-General with regard to the phrase "peaceful persuasion."

§ Sir H. SLESSER

I was not discussing "peaceful persuasion." I simply quoted from the regulation, and asked the opinion of the Attorney-General on that point.

§ Sir W. DAVISON

I merely said that the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to peaceful persuasion. I wish to draw the attention of the House to something which came within my personal knowledge in regard to what happened in a certain district yesterday evening, and what happened to a certain person in my own employment. This particular person and a number of working girls were cycling, and there were also wo or three lorry loads filled with working girls going from the city to their homes. They were all held up at a certain part of London by people who were "peacefully persuading" them not to continue their journey to their homes. Very nasty words were used to these young women who were ordered out of the lorries, and the lorries were turned back and the cyclists were pushed off their bicycles.

§ Mr. STEPHEN

Where was this? Were these people official pickets?

§ Sir W. DAVISON

How am I to know that? They said they were acting on behalf of the general strike, and this kind of thing is happening all over London where people are being pulled out of tramcars and other vehicles. If the Trades Union Council have the power which they say they have to prevent this kind of thing which is in the nature of a revolution they ought to exercise their control. I am only answering the argument used by the hon. Member fur Dumbarton Burghs that this regulation is an attack on the liberty of the working people. I think this paragraph is required to secure liberty for the working people because it deals with any person who attempts to impede, delay or restrict any measures taken for maintaining the means of transport or locomotion.

The spirit of liberty which has always animated the British people will not allow the means of transport to be restricted by any section of the community. We have been told by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs that the few should not be allowed to tyrannise over the many. A general strike of this character is really a case of some 4,000,000 trade unionists trying to dictate to some 40,000,000 other inhabitants of this country, and it is simply an attempt by the few to tyrannise over the many. I say that this Regulation is essential to secure the liberty of the working people, and it is a travesty to 485 talk of peaceful persuasion when girls and men tired after their day's work are being forced out of lorries and tramways on account of a dispute with which they have no personal concern.

§ Mr. MORGAN JONES

I do not think the tone of the speech to which we have just listened is likely to be helpful or conducive to harmony in this House. The point to which the hon. Member has referred is one to which we must have due regard, but the whole of the argument is not all on his side. I ask the Attorney-General to give me an assurance on the following point. Under the Regulation we are discussing, it is possible to prosecute anybody who may be deemed to be attempting or doing any act calculated to create disaffection among the ci