HC Deb 06 June 1912 vol 39 cc422-8

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Master of Elibank.]

Sir F. BANBURY

I wish to raise a question, of which I have given notice to the Home Secretary—

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Master of Elibank)

When?

Sir F. BANBURY

Half an hour ago, but I happen to have seen the right hon. Gentleman in the House since. The question is, Whether or not it is correct that a certain firm of shipowners—Messrs. Houlder Brothers—having a ship at Purfleet at the present moment, in which they have brought a certain number of free labourers to London, and having been informed that an attack would be made by certain men upon those free labourers, have applied to the Home Secretary for protection for those men in following their lawful occupation; whether it is a fact that the Home Secretary, after having given them an appointment, has evaded seeing them to-day on more than one occasion; and whether it is a fact that the Home Secretary, having sent down certain Metropolitan Police, has given the following instruction: That the Metropolitan Police are not to be used for the protection of free labour, and that the Metropolitan Police are only to be used for the protection of property? I do not say that that is correct. That is the information which is given to me. But I do say this: that, if that information is correct, the Home Secretary has grossly exceeded his duty. The duty of the Home Secretary, as chief of the police, is to see that the peace is preserved, and that everyone who is desirous of earning an honest livelihood in a lawful manner is protected. We all pay rates and taxes for the protection of our lives and property, and the Home Secretary has no right to refuse protection to people who are endeavouring to earn an honest livelihood. I can hardly believe it is possible that the Home Secretary has given these instructions, but when I find that, as was stated by Messrs. Houlder, they endeavoured to see the Home Secretary to-day, and that the Home Secretary, after having given them an appointment, has kept them waiting more than an hour, and has then caused them to be informed that he has gone away, and that his secretary has gone away, and when in addition to that I myself gave notice to the hon. Members who act as Whips for the Radical party more than half an hour ago, and since that time I happened to see the right hon. Gentleman in consultation with a Whip—I cannot be quite certain of that—and now I do not see the right hon. Gentleman in his place on the Treasury Bench—the hon. Member who I asked to give the message to the Home Secretary sends me a note to say that he had forgotten it—

MASTER Of ELIBANK

The Home Secretary is even now on his way and will be here directly.

Sir F. BANBURY

Of course, I accept the right hon. Gentleman's word. At any rate the Chancellor of the Exchequer is present.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)

The Home Secretary will be here in a few minutes.

Sir F. BANBURY

Then I withdraw anything I have said on that matter. I trust I shall receive an assurance from the Home Secretary that he has given no such instructions to the police, but that, on the contrary, he will give instructions to the police to protect any man, whoever he may be, when he follows the ordinary duties of a citizen of this great country.

Captain CRAIG

I think it would be only fair that we should comment for a few moments on the extraordinary revelation made by the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) in order to give the Home Secretary a chance to come to the House and tell us exactly what has happened. I cannot help thinking that the statement of the case made by the hon. Baronet is in every sense true, because it follows what appears to be the system of the Government in all parts of the country where these trade disputes occur. In every instance when I have been present at any of these strikes or disputes in the labour world, the whole policy of His Majesty's Government has been to cater for catching votes among the working classes, and to neglect their real responsibility as Ministers of the Crown. The statement made by the hon. Baronet is a very serious one. If it be true that the Minister of the Crown who is responsible for maintaining law and order in the country has given instructions that men who are willing to earn an honest day's pay for an honest day's work are to be prohibited from doing so by the action of His Majesty's Government, I say that this country is coming to a very strange pass indeed. I was rather annoyed at Question Time to notice that these people who are prepared to work honestly were stigmatised as blacklegs, and I hope in future that word will not be used. It is really rather cruel that men who refuse to be coerced into joining a union should have a term of opprobrium used with regard to them by Members of this House, and that appears to be the view accepted by the Government. In Ireland lately we have had very serious labour troubles and in every instance the employers of labour have been flouted. In one case one man was the chief cause of all the disturbance that was raised. I refer to Mr. Jim Long. Nothing can be more degrading to the honest working classes than for any Government to support a man of that class. The history of this man is not creditable at all to the labour world, and we in the North of Ireland are not accustomed to having men of that class in any position of power or influence in the country. There was an action pending against this man of a very serious character. He fled to the South of Ireland, and when he arrived there he was immediately taken up by the Government, the charge was withdrawn by the Solicitor-General, and he was given a job in order to compensate him for any little inconvenience to which he was put.

Later on, when the strike broke out in Dublin, the Government, instead of immediately laying him by the heels, received him at Dublin Castle, and he was practically allowed to manage the country during a period of turmoil in the Dublin docks. If that was an isolated case it would not have the same importance, but, as a matter of fact, this had occurred before, showing that it was the policy of the Government in order, I presume, according to Limehouse standards, to cater for the many in order to injure the few. If that policy continues to any great extent the natural result is that you cripple the industries of the country, and you invite foreign countries to take up what you refuse to do yourselves, and in every way make it most difficult for merchants and manufacturers of the country to continue. It will be necessary for us to have some information from the Home Secretary. I think it is also fully necessary that the right hon. Gentleman, who is leading the House, and who has unfortunately by his words on many occasions in the country caused these disturbances, raised these class hatreds, and done all that he possibly can to set different parties at each other's throats, should say a few words on this very delicate subject, which is of intense importance to the prosperity of the country—Daughter]—which appears to be a matter for the worst class of laughter from those who sit on the Government benches.

Mr. BOOTH

I believe the House is deeply interested in the point which the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) has raised. My explanation of the absence of the Home Secretary at the present time is that he did not receive notice that this question was to be raised. I have no doubt whatever that if the hon. Baronet will have a little patience he will find the right hon. Gentleman in the House before long, and that he will discuss with becoming gravity the matter which has been referred to. I know the hon. Baronet would be the last person in the world to accuse the Home Secretary of any intentional discourtesy. The question is one which I do not care to discuss in the short time at my disposal. I notice there is a general expectancy that I should enlighten the House at some considerable length, but I think a new Member should put restraint upon himself. [At this point Mr. McKenna entered the House.] Perhaps as the right hon. Gentleman has now arrived I may be allowed to give way to him.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna)

I apologise to the House for my absence. By an unfortunate error the notice sent to me never reached me, and nobody, I think, can be justly blamed for that. With regard to the Houlder case, what happened was this: Messrs. Houlder were engaged in unloading a ship at Purfleet with labour imported from Newport, Monmouthshire. Purfleet is not within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan area. The Essex police anticipated last night that there might be a certain amount of trouble. A communication was made to the Home Office, not from the chief constable but from one of the large shipowners at Tilbury. A special officer was sent down from London in order to apprise himself of the actual state of the case at Tilbury, and he was then informed that there was no special need for assistance being given by the Metropolitan police officers. This morning I was told that new cause for anxiety had arisen, and a request was made for a loan of men from London. I replied that I could if necessary send 100 men, provided they could be of service either in protecting the conveyance of necessary food or of assisting the Essex officers in suppressing actual disorder; but that if it was merely to provide protection for the loading of cargoes, we had such abundant demands for the London police that I could not undertake to send men for that purpose. The Essex police replied that with that limitation they would not require the services of any of our London men, and accordingly no men were sent. It is recognised by the House that it is the duty of Government to preserve peace and to take all necessary steps for that purpose, but when action is taken of a kind which is known to be provocative it is too much to ask that police shall be imported from outside in order to prepare the way for provocative action.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

What provocative action?

Mr. McKENNA

In this case it was not a question of protecting men who would usually be engaged at work at Purfleet, but it was a question of protecting men who had excellent opportunity for work at Newport, but were brought in specially as strike-breakers. If these men had carried on their work, or if actual disorder had arisen, it would be the duty of the Government to use every means in its power to restore order. But it is not, it cannot be, the duty of any Government on every occasion to assist employers in actions which are primarily intended, as I believe in many cases—I do not say in this case—to provoke disorder. I will explain to the House exactly the case in point. In London at the present time, as we know, a great deal of work is going on in the docks in unloading ships. There has practically been no disorder. The men have behaved, if I may say so, with great restraint. Although they, rightly or wrongly, feel it a great hardship to them that in a struggle in which they believe they are fighting for their just rights they should be defeated by the action of the Metropolitan forces, nevertheless they have done nothing to provoke disorder. If you are to bring into this dispute a new element, if instead of taking on men from the shore in the ordinary way you bring in ships for the purpose of supplying strike-breakers, although the very same men might be housed on shore and do their work in the ordinary way, you are introducing a new element which is bound to provoke disorder. We are all anxious to avoid anything in the nature of provocative action, and the history of this strike shows that without unnecessary provocation it is possible to preserve peace in spite of the great conflict which now exists over the whole Port of London. I would ask that the same method should be pursued in other districts. This particular district is not immediately under the jurisdiction of the Home Office, and therefore I have no direct responsibility; but if at Tilbury, or any other district, the same method is pursued, giving only such organised protection as can be reasonably given for necessary cargoes, and if the police are used to preserve order, without disturbance, then I am sure in those places we shall be able to get through this strike without any outbreak of disorder. But if, on the contrary, the employers are instigated to use methods which they know as well as I are bound to be greatly provocative to the men, the result is bound to be disastrous. Hon. Gentlemen and I have precisely the same object. We all alike wish to preserve order, and I would ask them to assist me just as I have done my best to prevent disorder amongst the men, and have done my best to prevent them from using provocative action, so I would ask them to assist me in preventing the employers from using provocative action, and when they know that in a case like this these ships brought in specially filled with strike-breakers; when they know the result is bound to provoke a conflagration in the Port, they are doing a bad service to employers and men alike if they encourage the employers in this action. The result of the present strike in London speaks for itself. We have preserved order and can preserve order only by the methods I have explained to the House.

Mr. RAWLINSON

I understood the Home Secretary to say that this morning an intimation came from the Chief Constable of Essex, who is responsible for preserving law and order, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to lay that communication on the Table of the House at once, and also his reply to him, if it is in writing or by telephone. The person responsible for the maintenance of law and order calls on the Home Secretary to let him have forces to preserve law and order. What is the Home Secretary's statement. "If there had been," he says, "any disturbance, if there had been a riot or heads broken, then I ought to send forces down," but is it not the duty of the Home Secretary to prevent a breach of the peace?

And, it being Half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'clock.