HOME OFFICE.

§ Mr. RHYS DAVIES

It was my intention, had it not been for a time of crisis in which we now find ourselves, to raise very pertinent questions with the Home Secretary relative to several points of administration, and I gave notice on Thursday last that I should raise these issues with him to-day. I am a little astonished that neither the Home Secretary nor the Under-Secretary to the Home Office is present this afternoon—

§ The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain)

May I say that my right hon. Friend will be here at the first opportunity, but he has been called away for the moment and I was preparing to take notes during his absence.

§ Mr. DAVIES

I wish the Home Secretary were present. It would be much better for him personally to hear the points we are about to put. Whatever his business may be elsewhere, I feel sure that the matters we desire to raise to-day are as important. I desired to raise several questions relating to the detailed administration of the Home Office; but I feel that the House will hardly be in a mood to listen to arguments relative to 700 ordinary matters of administration, and consequently I will come at once to what I regard as being a very important issue indeed in connection with the Home Office. Some of my hon. Friends and myself have had an opportunity of going into the country this weekend to see how the people generally and the working folk in particular, now on strike and locked out, are bearing themselves in this crisis, and I have had the privilege of visiting two large centres this week-end. I saw thousands of people congregating together in order to hear news from headquarters as to how the dispute arose, and as to any negotiations which may now he proceeding. After seeing Approximately 20,000 people in one city, and about 10,000 in another place attending public meetings, I am astonished to see the alarming reports of riots and disturbances appearing in the official newspaper of the Government.

I have not seen any indication of a disturbance of any kind anywhere. The people who have been locked out or who are on strike are behaving just as if they were on a general holiday. Their good humour is wonderful, and I have no hesitation in saying that it arises from the fact that they know they are supporting a very good cause, indeed. This is not a time, as I said, to deal with the ordinary points that arise in the administration of the Home Office; but I would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us how many local authorities have passed resolutions, since the dispute began, appealing to the Government to commence negotiations once again. For my own part, I feel that our own case is good enough without making any appeal in a humiliating way, but it is only right and proper to ask the Government how many local authorities have passed resolutions urging them to do what the Archbishop of Canterbury has asked them. The right hon. Gentleman, who is taking notes of my speech for the Home Secretary, represents a Birmingham Division, and it may interest him if I read a quotation from a leading article in the "Birmingham Gazette." I am not sufficiently conversant—

§ Sir JOSEPH NALL

On a point of Order. Is it proposed to discuss the whole situation arising out of the general strike?

§ The CHAIRMAN

It certainly will not be possible to do so on the Home Office Vote. So far, I understand, the hon. Gentleman was arguing that the Government newspaper did not represent an adequate view of what was going on in the country. If a general discussion of the settlement of the dispute is wished for, it cannot take place on the salary of the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

§ Sir ROBERT SANDERS

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has this afternoon told us that the Government "Gazette" will be a charge on the Stationery Office Vote, and will be under the Treasury. Will it be in order to discuss points connected with it on the Home Office Vote?

§ The CHAIRMAN

As the Home Secretary has taken responsibility for the newspaper, I do not think that I can prevent discussion on this Vote.

§ Sir R. SANDERS

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he was now taking all responsibility.

§ The CHAIRMAN

I hardly think so. I think he said that he was willing to answer questions with regard to it, but I confess that I think it would be rather a pedantic interpretation of the Rules if, after the Home Secretary said he was responsible, I should prevent discussion on the newspaper. The general situation cannot be surveyed.

§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN

The "Gazette" falls upon the Treasury Vote. I have always understood it was a rule that when there was a specific Vote for a particular purpose, that matter could not be discussed on another Vote?

§ The CHAIRMAN

Although it may be the fact that it will appear on the Treasury Vote, still the Estimate has not been laid, and, as the Home Secretary undoubtedly did take responsibility, I cannot stop the discussion of the matter.

§ Sir HENRY CRAIK

The responsibility taken upon himself by the Home Secretary did not relate to the "Gazette," but to general supervision over any publication that went on. If any difficulty arose, as regards that, he was the responsible Minister to Whom to apply. He surely did not contradict the distinct statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day that he would answer any 702 questions with regard to the "British Gazette."

§ The CHAIRMAN

If I remember aright, on the first day of the publication of the newspaper there were references made to certain zoological and other features, and there were some rather chaffing references made to the Home Secretary, and he took responsibility.

§ Mr. RHYS DAVIES

It will help the House if I mention the subjects that I intend to raise. When interrupted, I was dealing with the point that the Home Secretary is in charge of public order in the country, and using the illustration of the "Birmingham Gazette" to support the view that very many local authorities in this country have made appeals to the Government to alter their policy in connection with the dispute. The local authorities which have passed resolutions have done so because they are responsible for the maintenance of public order in their respective localities. I do not, however, intend to pursue that issue. The points that ought to be dealt with are these: First, the Home Secretary has been appealing for the recruitment of special police, and I do not think that any Member of the House will question the desirability of raising this issue at the first possible moment. I propose to put two or three questions to the Secretary of State through the Foreign Secretary. I cannot understand how, in the Home Secretary's appeal for special constables, it comes about that such contradictory statements are made. Let me say at once that no one will challenge the title of the Home Office to maintain order, but I would like a reply on the very contradictory statements I am about to mention. In the "British Gazette" to-day we have this headline: More specials required. To the loyal men of England. That is to say, Scotland and Wales are entirely left out, of account; there are apparently no loyal men in Scotland or Wales—at any rate I hope that they are not loyal to Tory philosophy or Tory policy. This is what the Home Secretary states over his own name: On Wednesday night I broadcast an appeal for special constables. On Friday night I added to that appeal by asking for 50,000 Londoners during the week-end. I am delighted to say that they are coming 703 in splendidly, but I am a few thousand short of my number. I would like to know who is the wonderful editor of this journal. He ought to be appointed editor of a parish magazine. This is what he says in another column: The reports from the country during the week-end are quite cheerful. They show that recruiting everywhere is more than enough to meet immediate requirements. That is in the same issue as the appeal of the Home Secretary. It will be seen, however, that the Government are still "a few thousand short" according to that statement. How many special constables is it intended to enrol? I understand that there are in London alone already 25,000 enrolled. How many are to be enrolled throughout the country? I should like to know, further, what the cost is likely to be. On that score it was very interesting yesterday—and it was Sunday yesterday—

§ Mr. GROVES

Hear, hear! All day!

§ Mr. DAVIES

Yes, but it was not Sunday to the gentleman who announced these figures. He did not do his task religiously in any case. This is the most diabolical and mocking part of the whole of this business. The announcer in the broadcast of yesterday informed us that a commander in the special police was to receive 10s. per day in wages—for four hours' work by the way.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS

As one who heard that announcement, may I point out to the hon. Gentleman that it refers to a special force on whole time duty?

§ Mr. J. JONES

What about the miner on whole time duty?

Captain A. EVANS

It is a special force which is being recruited outside the ordinary special constables—who are giving their time free.

§ Mr. DAVIES

All my information is from official documents; and I may enlighten the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans) if I read him the official announcement. The services of special constables are urgently required to assist the police during the continuance of the present dispute. 704 They would be required to give at least four hours per day.

Captain A. EVANS

That announcement, I think, refers to the ordinary special constables. The other announcement which was made through the wireless and from which the hon. Member is not quoting at the present time, refers to a different force altogether.

§ Mr. DAVIES

That does not destroy my argument one bit. If these men work eight hours a day it does not spoil my argument. A member of this force is going to get 10s. a day, and the announcer never said yesterday how many hours he was required to work.

HON. MEMBERS

The whole time.

§ The CHAIRMAN

I would ask hon. Members to allow the hon. Gentleman to proceed without interruption.

§ Mr. DAVIES

I wish hon. Gentlemen would behave in this House as well as the working class behave at their meetings. I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary who is, as it were, the villain of the piece, has at last come into the House. I hope I can get the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. I was dealing with the rate of wages which he is going to pay to special constables. If I were called upon, or were willing to do this very doubtful task, I would undertake the job of a commander and nothing short of that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I never interrupt hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I hope they will listen to what may probably be very distasteful to them.

§ Sir HARRY FOSTER

Make it as little offensive as you can.

§ Mr. DAVIES

As I have said, the pay of a commander is to be 10s. plus 5s. per week for clothing and washing—and there will he some washing to do—plus rations and accommodation on an Army basis, plus 2s. 6d. a day subsistence allowance. I have tried to calculate the total sum which one of these gentlemen will receive, and find that his income for acting as a commander in this special police force will not be under £5 a week. If we take the case of a constable we find that the sum payable to him is 5s. a day—so I understood—and he gets all the allowances I have already mentioned, and I calculate that his total income as a special 705 constable will not be much less than £4 a week.

I have been comparing those figures with the wages which it is proposed to pay to the miners, and I wish some Divine Providence would enlighten hon. Members opposite on the comparison. How delighted and how willing they are to pay these wages—these millions—to special constables, to special constabulary commanders, men who after all will not produce anything. They will keep law and order I agree. They will sit on the omnibuses and probably prevent anybody damaging the omnibuses or anything else. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If that statement delights hon. Gentlemen opposite let me repeat it. These men will probably defend the omnibuses. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] But I cannot understand the mentality of those who are willing to pay, it may be millions of pounds per day for this task, while declining to pay to millions of other folk producing the essentials of life a wage as high as that which they are paying to these constables. We on this side of the House are entitled to attack this strange idea that prevails among hon. Members opposite. I dare say that the Home Secretary will spend nothing short of £1,000,000 per day out of the taxes and rates of this country on the special police. I shall be astonished if the sum is less than that; and I object to the readiness with which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are willing to pay away the taxpayers' money in this fashion while they decline to support men who are doing the more necessary work of the world or to pay those people the wages necessary to keep them in decency.

§ Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT

Why do not the miners join the special constables?

§ Mr. DAVIES

I would ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman why does not he become a coat miner?

§ Sir H. CROFT

rose—

§ The CHAIRMAN

It is not the responsibility of the Home Secretary whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman or anybody else either goes down a mine or into the special constabulary.

§ Mr. DAVIES

Before the Home Secretary came into the House I put a question to which I should like a reply as to how many local authorities in this country have passed resolutions which, in ordinary terms, may be regarded as votes of condemnation of the policy of the Government. A question was raised to-day as to the attitude of the people in Newcastle. I do not know what has transpired in Newcastle. I do not know what the Organisation for the Maintenance of Supplies is able to do there; but I assure hon. Members that unless you can get the good-will of the people in this connection the Organisation for the Maintenance of Supplies will avail you little indeed. You must have the goodwill of the people—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—and you are not getting it. [HON. MEMBERS: Yes!"]

§ Sir WILLIAM DAVISON

You are tyrannising over the people.

§ Mr. DAVIES

Another question I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman—because I prefer the statement of the right hon. Gentleman on the Floor of the House on this subject to anything which might be in print in the "British Gazette"—is this: Have there been any real disturbances during the last few days, and, if so, has anybody been arrested for the delivery of speeches in connection with the dispute, and, if so, how many? I think those are fair questions to put to the right hon. Gentleman, because, as I said at the commencement, practically all the Government of this country is now in his hands. He has a very grave duty to perform to the community in that connection. As he knows, it was my intention, in the first place, to deal with other matters entirely than those that I have raised. I had intended to ask something about the coming into force on 1st July of Section 1 of the Criminal Justice Act, and what arrangements have been made with the clerks of the Courts of this country in relation to probation work in future. Another point with which I had intended dealing was the question of anthrax and lead poisoning, and about conventions in which the Home Office is interested. But we are faced with very much graver issues at the moment, and I will, therefore, repeat very briefly the few questions which I desire to put to the right hon. Gentleman. How many arrests, if any, have been 707 made? Have any public meetings been suppressed as a consequence of the passing of the Regulations in this House last week? Has there been any violence of any kind in the country? How many local authorities have passed resolutions protesting against the action of the Government in connection with this dispute? Above all, how many special constables does the right hon. Gentleman intend to enroll, and what is the total cost likely to be to the State, say, per day or per week, in that connection?

I want, before I sit down, to say that I desire to protest once again—and I feel sure that I protest in the name of all my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the House—that when the producer in this country is fighting for a standard of life, he is declined that standard of life by the forces of the employers and the Government. I have been a miner myself, and I know the life of the miner. I do not think God ever intended a man to be a coalminer; and if anybody is critical of the miners, let him go down the pit and work there himself. I protest, therefore, that whilst a million men and boys are failing to secure their rights and a decent wage, the Home Secretary can squander millions of money per week, the money of the State, the money of the taxpayer, in order to bolster up this wicked system and the policy of the Government. We protest against wages being paid in this connection, because, if the men who are producing the necessities of life were properly treated, we should not require a single special constable to do this work for the community.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I only rise to call attention to one special matter, and I am very glad the Home Secretary is here, because he accepted responsibility for this matter in the discussion last week. On Thursday, when I supported the demand of the Government for special powers, without any cavil as to the drastic character of the demands which they made, because I felt that they ought to be equipped with all the powers that they thought necessary to preserve order and to carry on the essentials of civilized life in this country during the emergency, I then urged upon the Home Secretary the importance of using these powers with complete impartiality, so as 708 to give the nation a sense that the Government were acting fairly between all classes of the community. The Home Secretary then gave an assurance which I certainly thought was very satisfactory, and, as I know he is not in the habit of giving assurances without honestly intending to carry them out, those assurances to me were absolutely satisfactory, but I must call his attention to one thing that has happened in reference to the "British Gazette."

I am not going at this stage to criticise the whole of that paper. The time will come when there is a good deal to be said about that paper, and about the way in which it has been negotiated, even from the commercial point of view, but I am not going to say a word about that now. [An HON. MEMBER: "Out with it!"] I am not going to say a word about a good many paragraphs which have been inserted, which contained offensive matter about political opponents—[An HON. MEMBER: "Then why mention them?"]—paragraphs which cannot in the least help what the Government have in view, namely, the preservation of law and order and the sustaining of the spirit of the nation. I think it is unfair to take advantage of the powers they have got. [An HON. MEMBER: "What are you complaining about?"] If hon. Members insist upon my going into that, I will do so, but I am only rising to raise one question. [An HON. MEMBER: "Have it out"] I am raising one question, and I propose to do it, whatever ill-mannered interruptions come from hon. Members opposite.

I want to call attention to the way in which the appeal of the Christian Churches in this country has been suppressed. There was a very important meeting of the leaders of all the Christian Churches of this country on Friday at Lambeth, with the Archbishop of Canterbury in the chair. The Archbishop of York was there, I believe Archbishop Bourne was there. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary referred to his sermon last night. He was present, I believe, at this conference; at any rate, I am informed that he assented to the conclusions come to. The conclusions, therefore, represented the opinion of all the Christian Churches, in so far as their leaders can speak on their behalf. Surely nobody will suggest that 709 they are the class of people who would interfere with the Government of the day in an emergency, that they would encourage disorder, that they would in the slightest degree encourage attacks upon the Constitution. They are just the kind of forces upon which any Government must depend in the last resort if there is a great struggle between the forces of order and constitutionalism and other forces in this land. They are the really strong, potent forces upon which we have to depend. They met, and solemnly they came to the decision that the time for conciliation had arrived, and they made certain suggestions. I am quoting from the "Times," which, to its honour be it said, published them. I am not quoting the whole of them, although they are very short. They said: Our proposal should be interpreted as involving simultaneously and concurrently: (1) The cancellation on the part of the Trades Union Council of the General Strike; (2) Renewal by the Government of its offer of assistance to the Coal Industry for a short, definite period; (3) The withdrawal on the part of the mine owners of the new wages scales recently issued. I am not arguing the merits of the case—I would not be entitled to do so now—I am only giving the appeal made by this very powerful, influential body. Their suggestion is practically that whether it is called a lock-out or what not and the general strike should both be withdrawn, that the mines should be reopened, that the Government should continue its subsidy, and that, meanwhile negotiations should continue. That was their appeal, and it was an appeal from a body of men, law-abiding and loyal. What happened? In the first place—I cannot dwell upon that—it was sent to the broadcasting department. They were told that they must not publish it. It was not published in the "British Gazette." Now this is a paper which is supposed, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day, to give honest news, avoiding everything, of course, that provokes sedition, avoiding everything which would be an unfair encouragement to sedition. Can anyone say it is not really rather a reflection on the organised Christian churches of this country that the considered opinion by their most valued leaders, by the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is known to be a very wise, a very cautious man, who certainly has never been guilty of any 710 charge of impetuous interference in business not his own, and who is respected by the whole nation—a man of his years, of his very ripe wisdom—I should have thought that the Government would have published that. That is suppressed.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary know perfectly well that if there is going to be a conflict, they can only win by the whole of the nation being behind them. There must be a sense that the Government are representing the nation as a whole. This alienates, to a very large extent, the organised Christian churches of this country, and I am appealing to the Home Secretary, who gave what I thought was a very fair assurance last week, an assurance which I accepted in good faith, because I know him, and his word is quite good enough for me, and when he gave that assurance I thought he meant it. Now I ask him, is it right—I am not going into the other details of this paper—to have suppressed that very important declaration? I do not mind saying, I venture to predict that this cannot be settled except upon terms of this kind, without the most incalculable disaster to this country. We are not fighting a foreign fee, and I am perfectly certain something of this kind will have to be done. Would it not have eased matters for the Government to have published it? Because you want to get public opinion on the right lines. It. does not really get it on the right lines to rouse merely the spirit of antagonism, to rouse the mere spirit of saying, "Break them in pieces like a potter's vessel!" [HON. MEMBERS: "Who said so?"] That is a bad policy.

§ Sir H. CROFT

Every word you are saying is mischievous.

An HON. MEMBER

As a matter of information to the Committee, it would be interesting to know if the right hon. Gentleman is speaking on behalf of his party.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I am speaking as a Member of the House of Commons, with a full sense of my responsibility, and with a real desire, as I have shown before, to save this country from disaster. I am as entitled as any man in this House to say that, and I am speaking my honest opinion at this moment quite sincerely. I am for con- 711 ciliation. Hon. Members may take a different view. They may think they must fight it out. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

§ The CHAIRMAN

I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is now getting on to the general question.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I am very anxious to avoid that, and I was only referring to the interruption. I am sorry I have been taken away from it, and, therefore, I conform to your ruling, and I hope others will be forced to do the same; otherwise it will be unfair. I want to ask the Home Secretary, because he gave the assurance, whether he thinks it quite fair to suppress an important document of that kind, about which the nation ought to know, which contains recommendations from the most powerfully organised opinion in this country, given in all honesty to the Government, given with a real desire to save the State from disaster, and given by men who, it is hardly necessary to say, the last thing they desire is to upset the law, the Constitution and the wellbeing of the country.

§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill)

Perhaps as I am taking responsibility for the general conduct of this organ, I may be allowed to say a few words to the Committee after the speech which has just been made by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). I do not for one moment pretend that it is possible to conduct this organ in the present conditions without there being a great many mistakes, both of omission and of commission. Such a thing would be quite impossible. The right hon. Gentleman, who has himself held in very many crises a high, or the highest, responsibility in this country, ought, I think, to be ready to make a little more allowance in the situation with which we are confronted. In view of the responsibilities of the Government at the present time, the many undertakings we are endeavouring to carry out, the functions we are endeavouring to discharge in order to avoid the catastrophe of a wholesale stoppage of supplies in some large areas of the country, this question of the "British Gazette" is a very small part of the problem.

712 This time a week ago no such thing was thought of, but all of a sudden the entire newspaper Press of the country, on which the people of all parties have been accustomed to depend for news, and which, in its balance of variety, has maintained a certain equipoise—perhaps not entirely satisfactory to the Labour party, it may be quite true—but, still, has given an equipoise of opinion to the country, this immense organisation was suddenly put completely out of action. As far as could be seen, there was no means other than that of the telephone and telegraph of conveying from one part of the country to the other information of what had taken place, or of giving information to the people and to the authorities in all parts of the country as to the policy which the Government were carrying out, and which, if they failed in carrying out, could only be attended by some shocking and calamitous breakdown. With all the expert printers and other classes of experts in the production of a newspaper suddenly taken away, and only a handful of loyal technicians, and a few amateurs coming in who have never been in a newspaper office before—[An HON. MEMBER: "Including the editor."]—No—and with no means of distribution that had not to be entirely improvised—in these circumstances it has really been a stupendous task. Yet last night there were delivered from Newcastle to the South of England upwards of 1,100,000 copies.

4.0 P.M.

If you tell me that in this or that part there have been articles which ought to have been put in and which have been left out—that the observations of the Christian churches on this controversy ought to have figured in the paper—well you may be right and I am not going to contest it; but it is only possible to set up the type very slowly in many different places largely by amateurs unaccustomed to linotype—[Interruption]—and consequently the number of articles which can be got ready is very limited. It takes a great many hours after the news is received before the proofs can be completed so that the dies can be stamped and the production can begin and, once production has begun, it is impossible to stop the machines to make any alterations. In these circumstances, I say, quite certainly, that there will be any number of 713 important things that ought to be put in and which the Government would have not the slightest objection to seeing put in which will not be put in. [An HON. MEMBER: "Will you put this in to-morrow?"] Yes, certainly.

§ Mr. KELLY

Will you put last Friday's discussion in?

§ Mr. CHURCHILL

I can only deal with one matter at a time. If importance be attached to it, there is not the slightest objection—

§ Mr. DALTON

A statement by the Head of the Established Church!

§ Mr. CHURCHILL

No reproaches of that kind will have the slightest effect upon me. I am trying to do my best to produce what is advantageous and helpful. The hon. Gentleman is trying to win distinction by rudenesses. I see no reason at all why it should not be put in. I do not know whether it will be possible to-morrow, but, if there be a feeling that it would be helpful there is no reason why it should not be put in. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

§ Mr. CONNOLLY

Why not?

§ Mr. CHURCHILL

I really must ask the Committee not to attempt to judge these matters without weighing the difficulties in which we stand. They are enormous, and in the gravity of the situation with which we are confronted, to my mind it will be far better that gradually in the course of the next fortnight or so, assuming that this horrible ordeal lasts so long, independent newspapers should resume in all parts of the country. Those who sit on those benches have but to raise their fingers and the entire Press will resume. [Interruption.] While we are contending with these great difficulties, and this is the only means by which we can speak to the whole of the people at one given moment—we are bound to go forward in spite of the fact that there will be many shortcomings and some actual errors. The shortcomings are to be attributed to the difficulties, and the errors have no foundation at all except in the extraordinary pressure under which we are working.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question? I understand that he does not know what are the difficulties about printing it 714 to-night, but do I understand that it can go in to-morrow.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL

I have really not read this particular item myself, but I have said, if importance be attached to it—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—I will certainly see that it is put in, but between taking a decision to put anything in and putting it in, many hours may elapse, and I cannot assert that it will be in time for to-morrow. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make some other contribution to our difficulties at the present time than the careful selection of points on which he can make criticisms or create prejudice.

§ Mr. HADEN GUEST

I have a very painful and grave matter to bring before the Committee and the notice of the Home Secretary, and I hope I shall have the support not only of my own Friends on this side of the House but of all the House, for it is a matter which affects the liberty and the independence of the ordinary citizen. In the district which I have the honour to represent, North Southwark, on Friday evening last, in a very poor area, there was a raid by police constables in two motor lorries. They came down and, as they say in the United States, beat up the area, apparently with the idea of impressing the inhabitants with their power and authority and preventing them doing something which they suspected, but of which neither I, as their representative, nor they whom I have questioned are aware. Let me tell the Committee where that area is. It is just on the other side of the Thames. It is called the Bankside Area and is immediately opposite St. Paul's, the area upon which the theatre where Shakespeare's plays were produced stood. It is a very poor area covered with very small and poor houses. It is a very insanitary area. The death-rate is twice what it is in the other part of Southwark. The history of that part of England is a very wonderful one. It is associated with our great poet's name, and the people who live in that area are a sensitive people. I want the Committee to know this. At the last Election some ill-advised supporters of my own made a demonstration against my opponent at a meeting at which the inhabitants of this Zoar Street area attended. The inhabitants of that area thought that it was not fair play. It 715 was not, and I did my best to prevent it, as I always do, and I explained to those people who live in the Zoar Street area that I had not been responsible and could not help it. I lost several hundred votes in that area, because they thought that my conduct⤔of which I was wrongly accused⤔was unfair.

Those are the people to whom the police on Friday night went down, and, unprovoked as I have it, attacked. I will give the precise facts, because this is not only a matter of the gravest importance for my own constituency and for the men and women living there, but it is also a matter of principle, and I wish to know whether this method of dealing with civil disturbances is to be established as a precedent or not. At about nine o'clock on Friday evening a lorry load of police stopped outside a public-house called the "Queen's Head" where a number of men—I have 10 of their names—had been quietly playing cards and a game of darts. The landlord is an ex-policeman and I have the story from him, given as he would have given it in order to provide evidence at a police court. They entered the public bar. They did not ask the people what they were doing. They did not question any of those who were sitting there quietly playing their games. They shouted—I use the word "shouted" advisedly—at them, "Get out of this," and they commenced to beat them over the heads and bodies with truncheons before they had time to get up from their seats. They were uniformed constables and special constables. They then drove them out of the door, and the men were bludgeoned with batons as they ran into the street. [An HON. MEMBER: "Did you see this?"] I have a record of this from the landlord of the public-house whom I myself interviewed on Saturday morning. He gave me a precise statement as he would have given it to his superior officer in giving evidence. I had the story confirmed from half-a-dozen other people in different parts of the area.

I can assure the Committee that I am exceedingly and earnestly and honestly sorry that it should be my duty to raise a matter of this kind at a time such as this, but I hope I shall have the support of all hon. Gentlemen opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "If it be true!"] I hope my reputation in this House is such that no 716 hon. Gentleman will doubt my word. [An HON. MEMBER: "You did not see it!"] The police on leaving this particular public-house proceeded to raid the district. I cannot use any other word. They went up Zoar Street in a little pack, up Cauney Street, up Summers Street by Noah's Ark Alley and a number of other places, and, when they were in those streets, they shouted at the people, using abusive and obscene language which I will not repeat. They chased women, they charged a crowd of children, they went up to a house in Zoar Street and broke open the door by charging it, and they asked the people to come out into the street and to fight them. [Interruption.]

I agree that this sounds an almost incredible story, but it occurred just on the other side of the river. [An HON. MEMBER: "So you say!"] May I say, with regard to this house which they broke into, that I have the evidence of three people living in it. There is a man and his daughter and his son-in-law. May I also say this: Perhaps hon. Members will believe it all the more when they hear this particular man's occupation. The man whose house was broken into was a non-union worker as a fitter in an electrical establishment, and he has gone into work during the last few days. He is what I presume the Government would describe as a "loyal man," and what we on this side of the House would be described as a "strike breaker." The other two people in that house whom I have seen are an insurance agent who is employed by a friendly insurance society, and his wife who is an office cleaner in the city. I can give you their names, addresses, and all the details, and I am quite willing to give the Home Secretary all these facts. I have already, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, given him, on. Saturday morning, a full statement of the facts, and I have endeavoured not to treat the matter as a subject for attack but to give the Home Secretary an opportunity of disavowing the matter at the earliest possible moment.

I have the name of a woman whom I suggest was assaulted. I do not propose to give it to the House, but I will give it, if the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary requires it, to him. I have here the name of the woman, who is a war widow and whose husband was killed 717 on the Somme in 1916. I do not know whether she belongs to the party opposite or to my own party. She gave me this statement. She was chased on to the pavement by a motor lorry. A policeman used an offensive expression to her, a very foul and obscene expression which I could not possibly repeat in this House, but which is regarded in that particular part of the world as the acme of insult. That particular expression—which I will indicate if the Home Secretary will wish me to—that expression was used apparently as a war cry by this particular party at this particular time.

I did not take only one side of this ease. I went down at once to see the superintendent of police in charge of the whole of the police of Southwark. I saw that gentleman. He received me very courteously, very quietly, and we had a perfectly amicable and friendly discussion on the matter. I said to him: "What is the possible reason or justification for this conduct of officers, of uniformed constables, and police constables under your command?" He told me this: that there had been earlier in the evening, a considerable time before this outrage—as I cannot help calling it—took place, a row between a man, who was in plain clothes, I understand, and sonic pickets outside the electricity station, and that the man in plain clothes—I am not sure whether he was a detective or a special constable—had been injured, and no arrests were able to be made at the time. That is one thing. I deplore that. I have been round my district, on Friday and Saturday, speaking to the pickets outside the docks and outside the factories, and going to the strike committees, and saying: "My friends, this is an industrial dispute. [HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] I have said to them: "Keep quiet, let there be no violence, let there be no interference with the transport of food, let us see that no one suffers in this way from any ill-regulated action that we can do anything to avoid." I am proud to say, with a negligible exception, the people in that district have taken my advice; in fact, they had adopted that course before I went down to see them.

I was told that by the superintendent of police. I made inquiry as to what had happened at the electricity station. I found that at the electricity station the 718 men who were employed had come out on strike, and that they had handed over to naval ratings who took over from them, and there was so little disorder that it was like—and hon. Members opposite will appreciate this—one division handing over to another. The whole of the works were handed over, each man standing by his job and handing it over to the naval ratings in running order. Could anyone ask for anything better than that? They disapprove of the strike. Hon. Members may disapprove of the strike; but you cannot have a strike better conducted than that. I cannot, therefore, believe there was any strong or bad feeling. What, however, I want to point out is this: that some hours later this raid occurred. It did not occur at the time. It was not a baton charge of the police against men who had at that time injured a special officer or a detective, it was a raid in that particular little district in that very historical part of England, three hours or so after this offence which is alleged had occurred. This is not an isolated account. I did not see anything of this myself, but there were certain outrages unfortunately committed near the Elephant and Castle by people who overturned an omnibus and burnt it. I regret that very much. I am doing all I can to prevent that kind of thing—all I can. Hon. Members who know me in this House know that I would do that, but some hours alter this occurrence had happened and where nobody, I believe, was hurt—that particular district about the Elephant and Castle was also raided and the people terrified. The Government have really—I must not say the Government—but the police got several people, and one of the people whom they arrested in this case, was a little shopkeeper, a. greengrocer who, I believe, had been up till then a supporter of the Government. He is not so now, I understand.

The point I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary is—and I will endeavour to put it without any heat—that this is what appeared to be the policy of reprisals. That is to say, an incident occurs, a man fights with a picket, the picket is fighting with a special or somebody, and somebody is hurt, and nobody gets arrested for some reason or another. Some hours afterwards the police go down to that district and raid it. That is a policy of what used 719 to be called in the bad days of Ireland a policy of reprisals. It led to a terrible tragedy in that country. I hope it is not going to reopen a chapter of such tragedy in this country. It is a serious question of the Labour party. It is a very serious question for the whole of this House. I should like also on this matter to ask what is the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), who was so very anxious to give us his legal opinion the other night on the position of the trade union. I should like to know on this matter what is the opinion of the Prime Minister.

On Saturday night I listened, if I may say so, with heartfelt satisfaction, so far as it went in my direction, to the very noble utterance of the Prime Minister, with much of which it is quite true I did not agree—but it is obvious that that elevation of sentiment is one of which to be proud. I have said that this is a reprisal raid, but I do not want to use strong language. These poor people say that this man had done no harm. The right hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that a number of the people who were in that particular public house which was attacked, are actually in work at the present time. They are not strikers at all. A considerable number, therefore, in the district are men who do not belong to any trade union. There is really no justification whatever for what has been done.

I ask that the House as a whole should extend its protection to these people. I want peace, I want the peace to be kept during this industrial disturbance. I am doing my best to preserve peace in so far as it lies in my power, but the action of the police in North Southwark makes it very difficult indeed for a man of peace, as I am, to keep the peace—very difficult indeed. I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to let me know—and I hope he feels that I have not put the matter intemperately at all—but I want to know what is the Government account of this matter? I have given the right hon. Gentleman ample notice so that he could find out. What is the Government's action to be in the future in regard to North Southwark? Let me just add before coming to a finish one of the incidents which shows the absolutely indiscriminate nature of these police 720 reprisals. One man whose name I can give—his name is Jones—I have other particulars of him here—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is not my right hon. Friend the Member for Silvertown who sits behind me—was knocked about on Friday and had his left arm damaged. I looked at the arm and found that it was bandaged. I did not, of course, remove the bandage, but I saw a Guy's Hospital card describing the injury and I saw what it stated, and I saw also the injuries of other people. Later in the day, on Saturday, after I visited the superintendent, this man was arrested by a policeman, and on this second occasion he was hit upon the head and a lump was raised upon his head

I inquired about this man, as I was determined in so far as it lay in my power to protect my unfortunate constituents from what I could not help but feel were actions which, in my view, they should be protected from. So soon as I heard that this man was arrested I got into communication with the superintendent of police and asked the charge, and why he had been refused bail, and whether they would accept my proposal of bail and let him out? I was informed—I do not know how far it is correct—that he was charged with moving a large drum on which the electricity cable was rolled, and the weight is so great that it is reckoned, not in pounds, or hundredweights, but in tons. I had noticed that the poor little chap was rather small when I saw him on the first occasion. When I heard he was charged I thought it was a very astonishing thing, and I put it to the secretary of the North Southwark Labour Party, and said to him: '"Will you find out something about this man's height and weight, because I do not see how he could possibly lift cables of that very great weight?" The height of that man Jones is 4 ft. 10 in. and his weight is 8 st. 2 lbs. The right hon. Gentleman will be glad to know, in a public emergency like this, that he does not belong to any trade union, and is willing to take any job at this time which is offered to him.

§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks)

Perhaps I had better reply to the questions put to me by the hon. Gentleman opposite, and then later intervene in debate if other questions 721 are put to me. I do not complain of the hon. Gentleman having brought before the House this case as hon. Member for the division, nor that he called upon the Police Superintendent to ask for full particulars.

Mr. GUEST

May I say in reference to that that I did that merely as a matter of fairness. I did not mean to attack the police without having their version.

§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I have not the slightest complaint to make on that head; the report that I have here fully justifies the hon. Member in bringing the matter forward and also fully justifies the action of the police. I have the full details of the whole thing, and first of all I should like to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the neighbourhood in question is one that would appear to be lively at times. Police protection has been afforded during nearly all last week. There has been a good deal of disturbance, it is quite true, in the neighbourhood.

In some cases attempts had been made to set fire to lorries, and the hon. Member is frank enough to tell us that one omnibus had been set on fire. Motor vans taking men and women from the City to their homes in South Eastern suburbs had been stopped in the Borough High Street and their occupants compelled to alight and the vans overturned, and when the police interfered to prevent this, they were assaulted. This is all prior to the particular assault in question. Nails were thrown in the roadway to injure motor tyres and tintacks to puncture bicycle tyres. Police protection had to be afforded nearly all last week to drivers in that particular district going to the riverside for food, and only yesterday, the 9th May—after the particular occurrence we are now considering—the same police superintendent received a request from the Mayor of Southwark for police protection to enable supplies of coal to be taken to the depot for some poor people who had illness in their house and who were without fuel. I do not know the political complexion of the Mayor of Southwark, but I would assume that he is, as all local authorities ought to be at the present time, entirely independent and desirous of holding the scales fairly between—I was almost going to say the rival parties in this dispute. That was 722 the position in Southwark, and I do not think the hon. Member will disagree with me if I say that it is a difficult district for the police when there is great trouble.

The statements of the hon. Gentleman and my own reports are in conflict with respect to the time. As far as I understood him, he said there was trouble that afternoon at the electric works between some strikers and a special constable and that some hours afterwards—three hours afterwards—police came down and created this disturbance.

Mr. GUEST

The police came outside the Queen's Head, according to the landlord, an ex-policeman, at nine o'clock.

§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I have here the statement of the man in question, a special constable. He is a special constable, curiously, who lives in Walworth, so he is a local man. He was at 7.30 p.m. on the 7th May at the electric power station. He was inside and heard some row in the street. He opened the gates and looked outside and saw about a dozen men there one of whom said, "Are you a—." The hon. Member has abstained from using expressions, and I will abstain also. The man said, "Are you a blank special?" "What is that to do with you?" said the special constable. There were eight pickets on duty and he gave a description of one of them, but it does not really matter one way or the other. I am told this man then struck him on the face and on the back. Other men pulled him away—I want to be quite fair—pulled the first man away. Another man came out of the crowd and said: "Give him one for me," to which the first man replied: "Give it to him yourself," and one of the other men struck him on the side of the face. His report continues: I drew my truncheon from my trousers pocket, and as soon as I did so it was seized and taken away from me. The special constable got information about this through to the police station, and the official report shows, on the roan's own statement, that it was 7.30 and I have no reason to believe that it was not approximately correct. The Inspector of Special Constabulary speaks of this being reported at Southwark Station the same night between 7.30 and 8. The times fit in remarkably. The Inspector of Special Constabulary was a doctor at 723 St. Thomas' Hospital, not a mere boy, but a medical practitioner of 35 years of age, and we assume that he was a man of responsibility. He was on duty, and he received information that the special constable had been assaulted. His report continues: I then proceeded to collect special constables and a few regular police. They proceeded by motor tender to Bankside, an area he frankly said he did not know. On arrival, he found that a constable had been struck—his mouth was bleeding and his clothing was torn—and this man pointed out a crowd of men in the street who, he said, were some of those who had assaulted him. They went up to the crowd, and most of them rushed into a public house.

Mr. GUEST

Is that on Bankside?

§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

Yes. The report of the Inspector says they went into the public house and the police followed and said there must be no disorder, and turned the men out of the public house. He says further: We then proceeded up two adjacent streets to clear the crowd away, no violence being used. I saw no women or children in any way interfered with, in spite of some jeering remarks, and no one, to my knowledge, entered any private house. This is a plain, unvarnished account of the whole transaction.

I will give also the official report from the Superintendent. It is quite true that somewhere about eight o'clock they did go down there. The Superintendent confirms what I have just read from the statement, first, of the special constable, and, secondly, of the inspector of the special constables. The Superintendent himself detailed police sergeant Hayman, who is a regular police sergeant, to go in a motor tender with special constables down to this spot, and he confirms exactly what I have said. He found this unfortunate special bleeding at the mouth, and there was a crowd of people at the corner of Sumner Street and Park Street, and the special constable told him those were the men who had assaulted him. He adds a detail which was not given by the inspector of special constabulary. This sergeant says that as the tender moved across the road the crowd commenced to throw stones at it. Then they went into 724 the "Queen's Head" public-house, several constables were assaulted, there was great disorder, and it became necessary to use truncheons before they could effect the removal of the disorderly crowd.

I am going to put it to the hon. Member that this was the position: Here was a district which admittedly had had considerable trouble during the last few days. A special constable was assaulted and had his head hit and his mouth was made to bleed—there can be no dispute about that. He telephoned, or got word sent by another special constable, for assistance. After all, he was entitled to do that. He was there as a special constable in the exercise of his duty to preserve law and order in that district. The assault was made upon him in the first instance. I am not suggesting, and I do not think the hon. Gentleman himself suggests, that this special constable assaulted anybody. He merely looked out from the gates of the electric station, on hearing a noise, and inquired, "What is it?" and at once one of those—I will not say strikers, whether they were strikers or not I do not know and the hon. Member says they were not strikers—one of those people there joined in an assault on the special constable. If I had been in charge of the police station when word came through that this special constable, or that any constable, had been assaulted, the first thing I should have done, knowing the district, as the superintendent would know it, and knowing what had happened on previous days, my first duty, and it would be very wrong if I had not done it, would have been to send out reinforcements to that district. There was no undue hardship or undue assault upon anybody. I cannot find that anybody was taken to hospital or anything of that kind.

Mr. GUEST

I can give the right lion. Gentleman names.

§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

If the hon. Member will supply me with names, I will have the fullest inquiry made. But beyond that I do lay it down quite definitely—I do not want to be too harsh or too hard—that in these times when there is bad blood about, when there are numerous attacks on vehicles and on lorries, and attacks of one kind and another, the very object of enrolling special constables is to preserve law and order. It is essential in the interests of 725 everybody that law and order should be preserved. The hon. Member tells us himself that he has done his level best in the district to go round and preserve law and order but admits that he has not altogether succeeded. He admits himself that there were difficulties of one kind or another—the turning over of lorries, the burning of an omnibus, and so on. You cannot make omelettes without breaking eggs. You cannot indulge in street rioting in times like these without the possibility of being struck. I want to put this to the hon. Gentleman, whom I have always, found a very fair antagonist: Realise the position in Southwark at the present time; realise the position of the Home Secretary if he had not had sufficient force of special constables and other constables throughout what may be described as the danger portions of South London. Only this very day I have personally seen another special constable who during the last two nights has been engaged on duty on the other side of the Thames, I do not know whether in Southwark or Bermondsey—I forget—and this man told me "I have had a very rough time indeed." When there are rough times people have got to put up with roughnesses on both sides. If this were an ordinary case, when there was no trouble going on, when no men on either side were engaged or likely to be engaged, in making trouble, I should say that I express my regret to the House and the hon. Member that one of his constituents, or four or five of his constituents had been chased out of a public house or dispersed. At the present time I am bound to say I am not going to apologise. I believe there was no unnecessary violence. I have made the fullest inquiries, and I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for having given me such details as he has. I have got the report of the Superintendent, of the Sergeant, of the Inspector and of the actual constable who was assaulted. After full consideration of all those reports and of the hon. Gentleman's complaint, I am bound to say that, having regard to the circumstances of the times and days in which we are living and in the condition of affairs in Southwark, I do not think they in any degree exceeded their duty.

Mr. GUEST

The right hon. Gentleman did not answer my question as to whether 726 this reprisals policy is one being adopted by the Government.

§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

Certainly not. I have told the hon. Gentleman that his figures as to the hours were wrong. What happened was not in any sense a reprisal. A police constable was assaulted and as soon as he could he got word to the police station, and they came down not for reprisals but for the protection of the man himself, and they were received with a shower of stones from the same men who had assaulted him.

Mr. GUEST

May I tell the right hon. Gentleman that I shall continue in my efforts to maintain order there, and in order to do so I propose, with the assistance of my wife, to identify myself more completely with the district, and to endeavour to be always present at any place where there is likely to be disorder, so that the right hon. Gentleman will know that if he sends his special constables down there, then he may find the next morning that I am one of his prisoners and I have been bludgeoned by his police.

§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I shall value the co-operation of the hon. Gentleman in helping me to preserve peace in the district, and I am quite sure from what I know of him that he will do his best to preserve peace and not to inflame the position.

Mr. GUEST

I am not trying to, but, Sir—

§ The CHAIRMAN

Captain Arthur Evans.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS

I am certain the House was pleased that the first opportunity has been taken of dealing with those alleged incidents which are supposed to have taken place in Southwark. With the permission of the House I want to deal with one or two things which have been said by the late Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs (Mr. Rhys Davies). I do not think the House has ever listened to so many misstatements in such a short space of time as those in his speech.

When he rose he told the House that he was a man of peace, was one of those who desired to take the earliest opportunity of advocating the re-opening of negotiations and in the next sentence he 727 endeavoured to make a debating point on an obvious slip of the tongue, made, I presume, by my right hon. Friend in a statement which was addressed to the "loyal men of England" instead of the "loyal men of Great Britain." He then went on to compare two statements regarding special constabulary, one which apparently was printed in the "British Gazette" and the other which was apparently sent over the wireless. He said that in the first instance the Home Secretary said that he desired more men to come forward and volunteer as special constables and he compared that with the statement which had appeared in the "British Gazette" to the effect that an adequate response was being made all over the country. It must have been obvious to the hon. Member, if he sincerely desired to see the right side of that question, that the Home Secretary's remarks referred to in the London district only, and the statement which appeared in the "British Gazette" referred to the whole country. We all know when a statement of that kind is made that it may mean the district outside London. The hon. Member went on to say that the Government proposed to enrol citizens in a new force of special constabulary and that they proposed to pay the rank of commander 10s. a day for four hours work. I challenge the hon. Member to point to any regulations to that effect. He knows perfectly well that no Government would issue a statement of that kind. Then the hon. Member went on to say that he had added up the wages for the rank and file of this new force, and he was of opinion that they would be somewhere in the vicinity of, £4 a week, but he did nothing to substantiate that argument.

I have looked up the regulations, and I find that these special constables of the rank and file are paid 5s. a day, that is 35s. a week. They are also entitled to a subsistence allowance of 2s. 6d. a day, which brings up the pay to 52s. 6d. a week, and then there is a 5s. a week for clothing allowance, making a grand total of 57s. 6d. a week. I hope when one of the hon. Member's colleagues gets up to speak, he will be able to explain how an ex-Under-Secretary can make a statement of that nature at a time like this without substantiating it in a proper way. After 728 that the hon. Member went on to say it was no use the country and the Government making preparations for the continuance of supplies in any way whatsoever, and making adequate arrangements for preserving life and property in this country, unless public opinion was behind them. I do not think there is a single hon. Member on this side of the House who will disapprove of that statement. The hon. Member went on to say that it was not true to say that public opinion was with the Government at this time. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] All I can say is that I visited Cardiff City on Thursday last, and as far as South Wales is concerned and the Principality of Wales that, to say the least of it, is an untrue statement.

§ Mr. MORGAN JONES

Rubbish!

§ The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member appears to be surveying the general situation, but he must confine his remarks to matters for which the Home Office is responsible.

Captain EVANS

I do not want to review the broad field in regard to this question, but I was simply trying to answer the arguments put forward by the hon. Gentleman opposite. As far as I have been able to get in touch with the local authorities and the leader of thought in Cardiff, and as far as I have been able to ascertain the opinion of men belonging to the National Union of Railwaymen at Cardiff Docks, they have not the least sympathy with this general strike. [An HON. MEMBER: "How do you know?"]

§ The CHAIRMAN

As a matter of fact the Home Office have no responsibility for the Cardiff Police. I hope the hon. Member will not go so much into a discussion of the general situation.

Captain EVANS

If hon. Members opposite believe the statement which I have just contradicted, then they will believe anything.

§ Mr. KIRKWOOD

We do not believe a word you are saying.

Captain EVANS

Whether the hon. Member who has just interrupted me believes it or not is a matter of complete indifference to me. There is no doubt as to what the public feeling is on this point. I want to take this opportunity at the 729 request of the editors of a number of provincial papers in Wales representing all political views, of asking the Government if they cannot see their way clear to issue at least one or two official bulletins each day in order that these papers in the South Wales area—who are, I am glad to say, in spite of many difficulties, publishing more than one edition comprising four sheets per day—may have an opportunity of placing in the centre of those editions an official statement of the current state of affairs issued by the Government. They would then have a statement issued by a responsible body, because people are very anxious to have the latest information. As soon as these issues are on the street they are all bought up and they do want to have the latest in formation; not that which they hear on the wireless, but they would like a responsible statement issued by the Government.

§ Mr. THURTLE

They want to have the truth.

Captain EVANS

The majority of the people in this country consider what I have stated is the truth. This is a matter upon which we have to accept the advice given by the Earl of Oxford and Asquith and wait and see. I know there are difficulties in adopting this course. We all remember the way in which this question of dealing with news was dealt with during the War through the medium of the Central Press, Reuters and Press Association, and these agencies, I am sure, would undertake the responsibility of conveying those official bulletins to the public.

Having now dealt with the matters raised by the hon. Members opposite, only want to say, in conclusion, that the message I bring back from South Wales is that in no circumstances whatsoever will the people of that part of the country be a party to any weakness shown by any authority in dealing with this matter. Providing that the Government remain firm, the people will be loyal and they will deal with this matter as it should be dealt with.

§ Mr. MORGAN JONES

The hon. Member who has just sat down has presumed to speak on behalf of South Wales, but when he has spent as many months in South Wales as I have spent years, then he will have some authority to speak on 730 behalf of that part of the country. Those interested in the Circular to which he has alluded no doubt desire the hon. Member to express the view he has put before us, but there are other parts of South Wales—

Captain EVANS

I was alluding to the docks at Cardiff.

§ Mr. JONES

I am speaking on behalf of South Wales. I do not propose to follow the hon. Member in the description he has given of the state of things which prevails in South Wales, but I do wish to raise one issue of public importance. Yesterday I had the privilege of addressing a very large demonstration in the Birmingham area, and in the course of my visit a fact was brought to my notice which fills me, I confess, with some degree of disquietude. There happens to be in the Birmingham area a town councillor who latterly has joined the Labour movement. I understand that this gentleman is regarded amongst our followers in that area as being an extremely moderate person from the standpoint of the views that he holds, indeed he would almost be regarded as too moderate for the most moderate amongst us. Not so long ago, by way of proving his moderation, this councillor incurred the hostility of his colleagues in Birmingham because he insisted upon accepting an invitation to attend the complimentary banquet given to the Foreign Secretary in the present Government, and he attended in spite of the hostility of his colleagues. I give that fact to show what kind of person this gentleman really is. The other day this person was visited by the police and he was told by them that they proposed to arrest him. He was taken by them to the police station.

§ The CHAIRMAN

This man could not have been arrested at the instigation of the Home Office, because the Home Secretary is not responsible for the Birmingham police.

§ Mr. JONES

My point is that it is necessary in these somewhat disturbed days and conditions that we should get an assurance from the Home Office that the law shall be administered without any bias or favour with regard to people outside. I was giving this case as an instance of the danger which now prevails. This person was visited by the 731 police in Birmingham and told he was placed under arrest. When he asked why he was being placed under arrest, and what was the precise charge on which he would be asked to appear at the Court, he was actually refused any information as to the precise charge, and he was called upon to appear at the Court this morning to answer a charge, the particulars of which had been denied to him yesterday morning. I raise this point because it directs our attention to the danger in which the private individual in the State lies to-day We have somewhat lachrymose expressions of opinion from hon. Members on the Front Government Bench concerning the freedom of the Press in these recent days. There, was a freedom in this country before the freedom of the Press was instituted, valuable as that is, and that was the freedom of the private individual; and, surely, if we are to protect the individual against any alleged attacks by our people, the private individuals of the country have a right to be protected against attacks upon, them by the officers of the law and of the Government themselves. I would submit to the representative of the Government that, if the Government are going to put into operation the unusual powers they are now authorised to use, they ought to give us a fairly sound guarantee—if they propose to give a guarantee at all—if earnest, honest, well-intentioned people are to be charged with wrong-doing in the eyes of the law, against unjust treatment such as I have indicated as having occurred in Birmingham.

The discussion this afternoon, initiated for a brief period by the Leader of the Liberal party, has ranged round the suppression of the appeal by the Archbishop of Canterbury and other religious folk in this country concerning the possible terms of peace. I do not propose to carry that argument any further at the moment, but, I want to ask on whose authority the statement was made during the last weekend, through Government organs, in the "Gazette" and over the wireless, that the Free Church Council of this country had handed over their organisation and placed it at the disposal of the Government? Who authorised that statement? On what authority was it made? Some of 732 my colleagues on this side of the Committee questioned the veracity of that statement, and we took steps immediately to get into touch with the Secretary of the National Free Church Council. The Rev. Thomas Nightingale assures us, as private individuals—and I think I have seen the statement made in public—that the executive of that national body has not even discussed the matter, no authority has been given, and no one has been authorised to make the statement.

I want to know, therefore, were the Government deliberately lying in this matter, or had they authority to make the statement at all? It seems to me disgraceful that a Government organ should use in an unauthorised way a statement such as that, when the Secretary of the organisation denies that the executive ever even discussed the matter. It alienates, it must ultimately alienate, either the Government force on the one side, or the working-class people on the other; and I do not mind telling Members of the House quite frankly that when I saw that statement I was very concerned about it from another point of view. I have always been brought up to be a Free Churchman, and, in so far as I can, I have worked heartily for years with the Free Church organisation in this country, and it seemed to me to be a dastardly blow at what I had hoped would be a rapprochement sooner or later between the working class of this country and the forces of religion, this being a deliberate blow making such co-operation between the working classes and religious forces for the future utterly impossible.

I challenge the Government representative here and now to tell us on what authority such a shameful misrepresentation of the facts was made, both over the wireless and in the Government organ, the "British Gazette." If we are to have a fight, and apparently, we are, why cannot we fight honourably? Why must we have this constant lying? For instance, I went last Friday to the Midlands, and in one place, in an official publication, I read that the people in Leicester are told that in Birmingham everything is going all right. I arrive at Birmingham, and I read in Birmingham that all is well at Leicester. You go to Liverpool, and hear that at Leicester things are going all right, and at Birmingham things are going all right 733 You find attempts being made—dangerous attempts—to pit one town and one city against another. Surely, we can fight this fight without getting down to the gutter in this despicable way. Let us have facts, anyhow, upon which to conduct our fight properly and decently, for sooner or later we have got to get together again. There will be a day after this fight is over, and this constant lying, this constant misrepresentation, makes the day after the strike a far more difficult day than it need be if we abstain from lying about each other in this most terrible way. I therefore appeal to the Government to abstain from using in an unauthorised way statements which they know to be inaccurate and untrue, and I ask the Government representative, therefore, here and now to give this Committee, as it has a right to know, what authority they have for making the disgraceful statement they made last Friday over the wireless.