§ Mr. W. THORNEI desire to support my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), and to plead with the Home Secretary to give us an inquiry into the charges that have been raised in consequence of the attitude of the police yesterday at 12.45. I should say that at the present moment we have 2371 in the borough of West Ham more people with broken heads, bruised limbs, and black eyes than there are in any other Division in the country. On 31st May, when a deputation from the Strike Committee waited upon the Home Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and others, we entered our emphatic protest against the attitude taken up by the police in different parts of South and North London, and from that day until yesterday we have made many complaints inside and outside this House. My hon. Friend the Member for East Leeds (Mr. O'Grady) has raised the question on one occasion, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) has also raised the question of the brutal way in which the police have dealt with the men out on strike during the past ten weeks. I am very anxious to hear what the Home Secretary has to say, because, if we can be assured an Inquiry will be given. I think that will satisfy the whole of the Members of the Labour party, and I am quite sure it will give a great deal of satisfaction to the bulk of my Constituents. Last night a small deputation waited on the Home Secretary, and I think he was very much impressed by the statements made. Two of the deputation were foremen working for a particular line of boats. They were ordered by the firm to go out to take men on outside the Victoria Dock, and to their very great surprise, about 12.45 yesterday, for some reason or other best known to himself, Inspector Boxall brought a very large number of mounted police from Connaught Road up the Victoria Dock Road, and he marched them past Freemasons Road, ordered them to block up one side of the road, and then marched them down again in order to block up the other side. If there had been any trouble, one could have understood the inspector giving the word to charge, but those men, about 500 stevedores, were standing on a stand which has been given to them and which has been sanctioned by the Chief Commissioner of Police, and there was no trouble of any kind.
9.0 P.M.
It is quite true the Chief Commissioner has removed them from the stand on two or three occasions for the convenience of the public, and the men have acquiesced in that, and have been satisfied so long as they have had a stand; but they have had this particular stand for nine years, and during the twenty-seven years I have lived in the borough the stevedores have always been 2372 taken on at this particular spot. There were yesterday 500 men standing there waiting. Foremen Lewis and Wicks came out to take the men on for the ship that was to be unloaded, and five minutes before the men were supposed to start work the order was given for the police to charge, with the result that a great number of men, women, and children were severely injured. There were about fifteen men locked up altogether, and one man was charged this morning at the West Ham Police Court. I heard the whole of the trial, and the stipendiary magistrate, who has not been very partial towards the strikers, dealing, in fact, in some cases very severely with them, in consequence of the evidence given by the man Read and his witnesses, clearly showing there were unprovoked assaults committed by the police, dismissed the case. That goes to prove there is some justification for asking for an inquiry. An inquiry was given not long ago in connection with some little trouble at Bermondsey. This case is far more glaring, because, whilst in that case it was proved on evidence there was some little trouble before the police commenced to clear the road, in this case there was no trouble of any kind.
It may be said the police cleared the road in consequence of what happened early yesterday morning at the Albert Docks and at Silvertown. I was in the Court and heard the Silvertown case, where a man was charged with shooting another one. The place where the shooting occurred was at least a mile away from where the charge by the police was made yesterday. I am not in a position to say whether the police were seeking revenge or not. The deputation last night asked for some protection, and we were led to understand that some protection would be given this morning. A man who was on the stand—Foreman Wicks—came and saw me this morning, and he swears that at about ten minutes to seven, ten minutes before the men were to be taken on, the police, for some reason or other, came along, and, although they did not use the same forcible methods as they used yesterday, they, at any rate, used sufficient force to clear the men out. The men did not want to be beaten a second time, and the result was they walked away. The result was instead of eight gangs of men being taken on to unload this particular ship, when it was found that the men were not forthcoming others were employed in their place. I hope an inquiry will be granted. The Home Secretary may, of course, 2373 suggest that, as ten of the cases stand adjourned until next Thursday, he cannot announce a definite decision. But I reply that, in view of the evidence given this morning, as the result of which a particular individual was discharged, there is primâ facie ground for an inquiry. If the right hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance that if anything like a reasonable ground for inquiry is made out in this particular case, I will not press for a general inquiry into the conduct of the police. I hope also we shall have some assurance that when these men appear on the stand again tomorrow, a stand which they have been allowed to occupy for the last nine years, they will not be scattered by the police. If the right hon. Gentleman will give that assurance, it will be some little satisfaction to the men. Let it be remembered that if they are not allowed to use this stand they have no other stand to go to.
Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich)One would imagine from the speeches we have heard from hon. Members opposite that there can be no blame whatever attaching to the strikers, and that it is the non-union men who have set out to assault the strikers. We have heard this sort of statement before, and I cannot help thinking that the House will feel that it is not the non-union men who are to blame for the trouble that has taken place. That may appear to be a bold statement, but I make it after a clear contemplation of the various matters connected with this unfortunate dock strike. It must be admitted, after all, it is a great pity that the men were called out on such a flimsy excuse—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Member must confine himself to matters under the control of the Home Secretary. He cannot discuss questions outside.
Mr. F. HALLI submit that these are matters within the jurisdiction of the Home Secretary, and that he, to a very large extent, is to blame for the continuance of the strike. The right hon. Gentleman may smile, but I think the facts I can quote are sufficiently plain to show that the reason for the strike continuing in the way it has done is to be found in the lack of strength and force displayed by the Home Secretary. The Prime Minister laid it down distinctly that protection should be given to all men who were desirous of working. Did the Home Secretary carry out that desire? I say he did not, and had not the Prime Minister returned at the time he did to the House of Commons in all probability there 2374 would have been many more broken heads than there have been. I do not propose to deal with the position of the stand which these men took up yesterday, but I wish to point out that the Home Secretary, during the whole of these troubles, has gone out of his way to support in every possible manner the strikers, and wherever protection has been required for non-union men he has shown entire sympathy with those who left their work and were more or less annoyed that free labour should take their place. We have had an expression from the right hon. Gentleman that never before has been used by any right hon. Gentleman occupying his important position in the State. We had a term used in regard to these men of, to my mind, a most opprobious nature—one which certainly ought not to be used to free labour, or to any man who is entitled to sell his labour for what he may consider its value. It ill becomes any right, hon. Gentleman to use the form "blackleg" towards free labour.
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna)Will the hon. Gentleman quote?
Mr. F. HALLI am not in a position to quote, but I will ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can deny that he used that particular expression in reply to a question I placed plainly before him. I say he used the phrase, and it is a phrase which no one occupying his high position should use under any circumstances, towards free labour.
§ Mr. McKENNAIf the hon. Member cannot quote the exact words will he name the occasion when, as he says, I used the term "blackleg"? I notice he has himself used it.
Mr. F. HALLI used the word "blackleg" in order to make my point clear against the right hon. Gentleman. I used the word, but I simply quoted it as the expression used by him. The right hon. Gentleman has challenged me to produce the exact reply he gave. If I am not making a correct statement he can say he has not been able to trace that he used any such expression in reply to any question I put to him, but, although he is looking particularly innocent in this matter, I think he cannot fail to remember that I drew his attention to it at the time, although I was unfortunately not able to do it so closely in the presence of hon. Members as I am doing at the present moment. If the right hon. Gentleman's memory 2375 happens to be so very bad, perhaps he will, under the circumstances, kindly look at the questions I have put to him and the answers he has given. He will find that the expression I referred to was used by him in reply to a question put by me. With regard to these unfortunate free labourers, they are men who are desirous of working and providing food and raiment for their wives and children. [Laughter.] We must, be surprised at hon. Members below the Gangway opposite smiling at my speaking of the wives and families of free labourers.
§ Mr. JOHN WARDWe were thinking of Belfast.
Mr. F. HALLI shall perhaps be able to answer the hon. Member by referring to the attention paid by the Chief Secretary of Ireland to matters in Belfast, and perhaps he will not then be in so much of a hurry to challenge me on that point. I was discussing the question of the wives and children of the free labourers. They require the same care and attention as do the wives and children of the strikers. It is just as necessary that their mouths should be filled as it is that the mouths of the wives and children of the strikers should be filled. I hope that the lesson which has been taught by this unfortunate ten weeks' struggle will bear good fruit, and that many a long day may come before we are thrown into such troublesome times again. I do not know whether the House realises to what extent these labour troubles demoralise the entire trade of this country. Those who know anything with regard to the shipping industry and the ships coming to this country should fully appreciate that in many cases business is lost.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThis Debate is raised in order to criticise the Home Secretary's action in respect to the dock strike. The hon. Member must not enter into its general merits.
Mr. F. HALLI am sorry you have found it necessary to call me to Order again. Unfortunately I have not had an opportunity of bringing many of these matters before the House. I shall bow to your ruling, but, under the circumstances, I shall be prohibited from bringing many important points before the House which I was desirous of doing. I hope I may be permitted to mention the unfortunate disturbances which occurred yesterday. The hon. Member for South-West Ham (Mr. 2376 W. Thorne) boasted that there were more broken heads in West Ham than in any other constituency throughout the country. I should like to ask whose are the broken heads—are they the heads of the strikers?
§ Mr. W. THORNEYes.
Mr. F. HALLOr are they the heads of those who unfortunately were surrounded by the strikers when they were on their way to endeavour to earn their living?
§ Mr. W. THORNEThe heads I was referring to were the heads broken by the police.
Mr. F. HALLThis is the first time we have had that plainly placed before us.
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present—
Mr. F. HALLI am glad that the hon. Member has made it plain who he blames for these broken heads. I think it is rather unfair to charge the police with it, although we are in the habit of hearing charges brought in this House against the police. I think the hon. Member would have been better advised if he had not blamed the police for these unfortunate accidents. As the Home Secretary quite rightly agreed that an inquiry should be made into the case of Rotherhithe, I can quite understand the hon. Member asking for a similar inquiry now. I believe that if a clear, open, and free inquiry is held, from my knowledge of the manner in which the police generally discharge their duties they will come out of it with perfectly clean hands. I desire to refer to the firm with whom this trouble arose, the firm of Houlder Bros. The right hon. Gentleman spoke in a very vindictive manner with regard to that firm at the outset. I must say I was a little surprised at the Home Secretary, when the trouble first started, and when he was questioned as to whether he was prepared to find sufficient police to protect the labourers at Grays, saying, as soon as the name was mentioned, "Yes, we know Houlder's." That is hardly a remark which should have been forthcoming at that juncture from the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that in the discussions which may take place in future he will not be in such a hurry, whatever his own opinions may be, to ventilate them with the freedom he did at that time. A question was raised just now with regard to the trouble at Belfast. It seems to me 2377 that if there is any interference or kicking or bludgeoning in Belfast the Chief Secretary promptly deals with it in a manner that is advisable; and if the Home Secretary had adopted the same attitude when these troubles first transpired; if he had shown a certain amount of tenacity; if he had shown a force of character with regard to these matters, an enormous amount of this suffering would never have taken place. I trust that in future the right hon. Gentleman will make himself acquainted with the whole facts before he discusses the matter in the House, and I hope he will have the courage of his own convictions to deal with these matters in a way that the country itself will appreciate.
§ Mr. CROOKSThe hon. Member has made out rather a poor case for the ship-owners. There would have been no such trouble as happened yesterday if the ship-owners had had the good sense to see that the men were taken on in the proper manner, and not driven about as they were. Instead of being condemned the right hon. Gentleman ought to be praised by the shipowners' representatives. He has given protection so great and so successful from their standpoint that he was able to keep London going, and to keep a good many thousand men out in the meantime. We say that more than adequate protection was given, and I do not know exactly what it is that the shipowners really wanted. If it had not been for the personal interference of more than one Labour Member there would have been some serious rioting going on in the last nine or ten weeks. Let the House imagine, if it can, what happened a fortnight ago. We know the men were hungry and were exasperated. A raid was made upon a rectory in the East End. I was asked to go and say a few words to calm the men down. I went and said a kindly word and got them laughing. The women had refused to accept food because the men could not share in it. So you had women and men very angry at the administration of the relief. With that multitude of people demanding food, in came a convoy with nearly a hundred police, forty or fifty of them mounted. Had the people a right to assemble in the streets at all? The men were anxiously waiting for an opportunity of feeding their wives and children and they were laughed at and scorned by a convoy protected by the Home Secretary, the man you now condemn, who gave 2378 you everything you wanted and the man you ought to have, from your standpoint. There ought to be the same fair play given to the strikers as to the men who blacklegged. With all this exasperation going on you insist on the very last ounce out of the men who are standing out The hon. Member says that the strike would have ended long ago if proper protection had been given. On the contrary. These are men that you would not want to keep for twenty-four hours when you can get your proper people in—these wonderful men with their starving wives and families.
Mr. F. HALLUnder these circumstances, does not the hon. Member agree with the attitude of the Prime Minister, that full protection should be given to all men who were desirous of working?
§ Mr. CROOKSYes, and your men were getting the protection and not our men at all. That is what we complain about. Your men were getting the full and adequate and proper protection to the exasperation of men, women and children whom your protection starved in the meantime. If the shipowners had not got all the protection they demanded they would have been bound to concede the men's demands long ago. It was that very action that kept them out. We had yesterday broken heads, and they were not the broken heads of the blacklegs, but of the men who had been on strike. The hon. Member says, look after these free and independent citizens who desire to sell their labour as they think fit, and undersell their poor, half-starved brothers at the best of times. I have seen these men. You would not own them if you saw them yourself, but they wore convenient tools. They were housed in the docks and kept there. They armed themselves with revolvers, and had the police to protect them in addition. Yesterday the stevedores were taken on from the corner of the street at a place allocated by the Metropolitan Police. A stand has been given, and when it has been inconvenient to stand at one, corner the police have asked them to remove to another, and they have marked it off as their stand for being called on. The average London docker is not the kind of man you will find in other parts of the country. He is a kindly, genial, good-tempered, humorous fellow: a kindly word, and you may do anything with him. I have been 2379 in the most violent crowds, and, after all, they have not always been on my side. I have had to stand up to opposition, and pretty stiff, too; but I have always found that a kindly word simply swept them off their feet. I have known London policemen who have had to grapple with crowds in the street with this kind of thing: "Now, Jack, do you want to get me into trouble, and have me reported in the House of Commons?" "No, governor, that is all right," and he clears off. No such thing happened yesterday. The crowd was broken up, and all sorts of people were trampled on who had nothing to do with it. They even raided shops, and one fellow was dragged out from behind a jeweller's shop, where he had gone, not to thieve anything, but only to protect himself. Surely we have a right to say to the authority which represents the police in London, "How was it these men lost their heads, and what compensation are these poor people to get?" All we can get is, "You give inadequate protection." You give too much protection for the wrong people.
This strike has been prolonged owing to too much police protection, and the shipowners knew that perfectly well. They knew they had their goods on the move: barges in the river manned by blacklegs, and vans coming up Commercial Road with plenty of food and plenty of everything. What need they care? They knew they only had to keep on long enough. They had the police on their side, and law and order protecting some people's starving children. You ought to see these men. I should be surprised if the vast majority of them had wives and children whom they were responsible for at all. We are entitled to protest against being told we are not doing our duty to them when we seem to have done too much, and we have a right to complain that someone yesterday did not use his discretion. If they wanted to remove these men from the street they might have done it in a gentle manner. I wonder what would be said in Piccadilly when respectable citizens of the British Empire are turning out from the Hippodrome and stopping the traffic, and my Lord Tomnoddy's motor-car is being called for. Does the policeman say, "Now then, out of it. Charge. Clear them out"? Not a bit. "Pass along gentlemen, please." There is no "Pass along" for these dockers. It is "Charge them." Then you ask for liberty, justice, freedom, and fair 2380 play all round. That is all we have been asking for.
§ Mr. McKENNABefore I turn to the serious matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), I must say a word in reply to the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Fred Hall). For many weeks now the hon. Member has been seeking an opportunity to attack me with regard to my action in connection with the strike. He has put innumerable questions to me. His attack, so far, had been by innuendo and insinuation. Tonight his opportunity has come, and the House has heard what he has to say. He has made two specific charges, and only two, against me. I do not refer to his abuse, and I do not intend to answer that abuse. The first specific charge was that I had used the term "blackleg" in this House. That is a serious charge against me. I asked him to quote, and he could not quote. I wanted him to quote, because if he had done so, it would have clearly appeared in what sense I used the word.
Mr. F. HALLI accept the right hon. Gentleman's challenge, and if he will allow me to show it to him to-morrow, I will do so. I made a perfectly open and fair charge.
§ Mr. McKENNAIf he had quoted, it would have become clear that I used the word precisely in the way he used it himself, that is to say, by quoting it as used by somebody else. It is perfectly proper for him to use the word in quoting; but apparently it is perfectly improper if I use it in answering an hon. Member who used the word. He tells me now that he will quote it to-morrow. Let me remind the hon. Member of what happened last week. In a supplementary question in this House he alleged that I had said that there had been no intimidation in the strike. I challenged him to quote my words, and he replied, "I have not them here, but the hon. Member shall have them to-morrow."
Mr. F. HALLI challenge the right hon. Gentleman to show any report to that effect—any report of these words.
§ Mr. McKENNAI am still waiting for that quotation. I even thought of writing to the hon. Gentleman for it, but, after all, I thought it was hardly worth while. So much for this specific charge. I should not have used the word "blackleg" myself in the House, not that I think it an objectionable term—
§ Mr. McKENNANor a term that might not in many circumstances be most properly used; but I did not wish to use a term that raises an unnecessary amount of friction, and therefore I avoided it. That is what I have to say about the first charge. The second specific charge was with reference to the case of Mr. Houlder. The hon. Member alleged that all the trouble yesterday was due to my treatment of Mr. Houlder. First of all, let me say that the trouble of Mr. Houlder was at the East India Dock. The trouble we have, been dealing with to-night was at the Victoria Dock. That is a little matter of geography. In regard to Mr. Houlder and the East India Dock, I have to state that yesterday Mr. Houlder called at the Home Office at a quarter-past ten. Within five minutes of calling he was seen by my private secretary, and within a quarter of an hour he was seen by the Permanent Under-Secretary. Within half an hour of the time he called at the Home Office policemen had been sent by the chief constable to the East India Dock. They were not sent on the request of Mr. Houlder. They were sent on the request of the Port of London Authority, which was the proper authority to request police, and the number sent was forty, which was the number asked for by the Port of London Authority. When Mr. Houlder comes down to the House of Commons, or writes to the "Times" saying that I refused to see him, I reply that I refused to see him because I was busy elsewhere, and that the purport of Mr. Houlder's visit to me had already been dealt with seven hours before by the Chief Commissioner of Police, who had transacted business with the Port of London Authority, which was the right authority to deal with in the matter. These are the hon. Gentleman's two charges against me. After ten weeks that is all the evidence he can accumulate. [An HON. MEMBER: "Leave him alone."] I had an interview with the Chief Commissioner of Police this afternoon, and it bears out what my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks) has said. I asked him whether in the whole course of this strike any single application for protection had been refused, and he told me that not in a single instance had it been refused. That is why the hon. Member has no evidence to bring before the House. He wanted the truth out, and that is the answer. I now turn to the more serious matter referred to by my hon. Friend the Member 2382 for Leicester, who brought the case before the House in a very fair speech. He also gave me the advantage of notice in advance of the precise circumstances which he proposed to raise. I must at the outset say in connection with the disturbance which took place at the Victoria Dock yesterday about one o'clock that twelve arrests were made. In one case the person accused has been discharged. In a number of other cases the prisoners have been remanded.
§ Mr. W. THORNEThat was not done yesterday.
§ Mr. McKENNAI am not entering into that. I wish to make clear to the House that the facts of this case are all at present sub judice, and that it is, therefore, most undesirable to enter into the circumstances in a controversial spirit. I recognise that what I say in reply to the hon. Member is an ex parte statement, and must not be taken as prejudicing the position of the men who have still to come up for trial. But the charge is made against the police of harsh conduct, and it is necessary, at any rate, so far as I can go while the case is still sub judice, that a statement should be made by me in order to remove any impression hon. Members might have that there was no answer to the charge. What happened yesterday at the Victoria Dock must not be taken as an isolated fact. Between six and seven in the morning there had been a most serious disturbance at the same dock. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was right in the dock."] I must explain the locale so far as I can. The Victoria Dock Road runs along the length of the dock wall. At a point not far from the Custom House Station there is a bridge at the corner of the road into the dock. Early yesterday morning, after the non-union men were at work inside the dock, a rush was made from the Victoria Dock Road over this bridge, and undoubtedly a very severe attack was made upon a number of young men working on a ship called the "City of Colombo."
§ Mr. W. THORNEIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the shipowners were insisting upon the men being taken on in the dock and that the men were going over the bridge into the dock for that purpose?
§ Mr. McKENNAWhatever their intention in crossing the bridge, when they got inside the dock undoubtedly there was a 2383 serious disturbance. Shots were fired on both sides, one striker was wounded by a bullet and two non-union men were wounded by bullets, and eventually the union men were driven back over the bridge and down Victoria Dock Road.
§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDIs the right hon. Gentleman informed that a rush took place across the bridge, or is his statement that the bridge was used for communicating between the road and the dock in the ordinary business way?
§ Mr. McKENNAIt is impossible for me to know the intention in every man's mind in crossing the bridge. All I know is that a large number of men did cross the bridge, and, being on the other side of the bridge and inside the dock, did make an attack upon the non-union men who were working on board the "City of Colombo." I cannot say that they had any intention of attacking anyone before they crossed the bridge, but undoubtedly they did make an attack after they crossed the bridge.
§ Mr. CROOKSThey went in to be taken on.
§ Mr. McKENNAI am quite aware that they may have crossed the bridge with a perfectly innocent purpose, but being on the other side and seeing non-union men at work they attacked them, but their innocent intention could not be known to anybody else. All that morning there was a contingent of police stationed at the entrance from the Victoria Dock Road to this bridge to prevent any further trouble. The number of police—this is very material—stationed at the foot of this bridge was thirty men on foot and six mounted policemen and one inspector, or thirty-seven in all. That was on the Victoria Dock Road side of the bridge, to protect the entrance to the bridge and prevent any further people crossing the bridge or any further fighting inside the dock. About midday the non-union men came out of the dock and crossed the bridge to go to dinner. A number of them, therefore, at that time were in the shops or public-houses in the neighbourhood of Victoria Dock Road. About that time a crowd began to assemble on Victoria Dock Road. Here again the innocent purpose of the assembly is a matter which could only be known to the persons who assembled, but to the police who had already seen one very violent disturbance in the morning when revolver shots were 2384 fired, the appearance when a large crowd assembled and blocked the road, not merely on the side of the path, but blocked the road, and a crowd of the very same length as appeared at the dock in the morning, certainly presented elements which might lead them to the conclusion that there might be further trouble unless the crowd was dispersed.
Of course, the House will understand that in my desire to say nothing which may prejudice the trial of the men, I am anxious to put the case merely as a statement of fact without any suggestion of motive. Therefore, I am merely saying what was in the minds of the police at the moment. I have stated that the total number of police at the foot of the bridge was thirty-seven in all. At that time a superintendent arrived with fourteen more mounted policemen, and he too surveyed the scene, which to him appeared to present considerable disorder, and an order was given to clear the road. The total number of police engaged from beginning to end was fifty-two, one superintendent, one inspector, twenty mounted police and thirty foot police, and the crowd with which they dealt is estimated variously from 1,200 to 2,000. I may take a middle figure of 1,500. I want to bring these facts and figures to the minds of hon. Members in order that we may clearly understand that there could not have been any such lining up and blocking of roads and picketing the side streets as was reported to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester. It would be a physical impossibility with fifty men to block up the edges of the street, to block up the side streets, to have pickets down the street, and still to have such a number of men left as would enable them to charge a crowd of 1,200 to 2,000 men and clear the road. There was, as I am informed, no blocking of streets. There was an order given to clear the roads. I am informed there was no order given to take out truncheons and no order was given to use them, but the road was cleared, and in order to clear the road undoubtedly the police went into shops on one side of the road, in order not to leave the crowd behind them to come out from the shops behind them as they passed down. The injuries done, I am informed, are not serious, except possibly in one case, and even that is not very serious. I understand that there was one man named Taylor, who was an ex-prize-fighter, and should be able to take care of himself.
§ Mr. W. THORNEThey fetched him home out of the ladies' lavatory. He had nowhere else to go.
§ Mr. McKENNAI understand that he received a rather severe blow on the head, but with that exception I understand that no serious damage was done in any case, so that the use of truncheons cannot have been either general or brutal.
§ Mr. McKENNAIn some cases they did, but it was not general. Inasmuch as there was not more than this one case of a head materially injured the use of the truncheon could not have been general. Those are the facts which I have stated to the House as fully and as fairly as I can—the facts as they have been reported to me. So long as the case is sub judice I think that we cannot gain any serious advantage by discussing it here. If, as a result of the trial before the magistrates, facts are disclosed which would justify me in promising an inquiry, I can assure my hon. Friend that I should no more hesitate to give an inquiry in this case, than I did in the case of the Rotherhithe disturbance, but before I make any promise of that kind I think that we should be acquainted with all sides as sworn to before the magistrate, and I hope that my hon. Friend will rest assured that if the circumstances disclosed are sufficient to justify an inquiry I shall have no hesitation in ordering one.
§ Mr. W. THORNEWhat about the stand that was taken this morning?
§ Mr. McKENNAI think that is the only one of the points put by my hon. Friend to which I have not referred. The difficulty about the stand was it was very close to the bridge and running up to the bridge, on the same side of the road as that over which the non-union men were going into the dock.
§ Mr. W. THORNEIf you will send an inspector I will prove it is 150 yards away.
§ Mr. McKENNAIf my hon. Friend states that, there is not much between us. I have seen the Chief Commissioner upon this point. This morning union men were not cleared out of the road. What happened was that they were pushed back 100 yards from this bridge, and the police had laid down, in the interests of order, that 2386 they should not be allowed to take up their stand nearer than 100 yards to the opening of the bridge. If my hon. Friend says they do not want to go nearer than 150 yards, then there is nothing in it. On the whole, certainly having regard to the feeling between union men and non-union men, to my mind the crowd should not take up its stand immediately adjoining the bridge. If my hon. Friends say they do not want to be nearer than 150 yards, and the police regulation is that they should not go nearer than 100 yards, then it is a regulation which can be considered satisfactory.