52. Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich)asked the Home Secretary whether, in consequence of his refusal to provide police protection for the workers on the "Lady Jocelyn," the services of a section of the Birmingham police, were obtained; what additional expenditure was thereby incurred compared with the expense of utilising the Metropolitan Police; and what statutory 1665 provisions govern the employment of Metropolitan Police outside the Metropolitan Police area?
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna)I understand that the chief constable of Essex obtained the services of a large detachment of Birmingham police, but this would have nothing to do with the "Lady Jocelyn," which is stationed on the south side of the river, within the jurisdiction of the Kent police. I have no particulars of the cost, but probably it would be about the same as that of borrowing Metropolitan Police if the latter could have been spared. Section 25 of the Police Act, 1890, contains the principal statutory provision as to the assistance of one police force by another. By Section 4 of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1829, and Section 5 of the Metropolitan Police Art, 1839, the members of the Metropolitan Police Force are given the powers of constables throughout the home counties in order to enable them to give assistance when required.
§ 55. Mr. HUNTasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that thousands of men are hiding in the docks afraid to go home because gangs of men lie in wait for them in back streets and beat them and kick them because they are working to maintain their wives and children; and whether he proposes to provide sufficient protection to put an end to this state of affairs and the consequent starvation of women and children?
§ Mr. McKENNANo, Sir, I cannot accept the hon. Member's question as an accurate statement of the existing state of things at the docks. The police are doing their utmost to give protection to all the men who are working and to their wives and children, but it is not within my power to end the strike.
§ Mr. HUNTIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the transport workers' secretary said to his members that they must use all their force and tyranny to compel men to join the trade unions? Is he also aware that a man of sixty-two was knocked down, cut about the head, had his money and tobacco stolen, and was then compelled to go away to Rainham, and told to avoid the peaceful pickets?
§ Mr. McKENNAI have no knowledge as to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. As to the second part of it, he has omitted to observe that the place mentioned is not within the area of the Metropolitan Police.
§ Mr. HUNTAre we really to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is not responsible for the safety of people in the country, and for allowing them to be able to work?
§ Mr. McKENNAThe hon. Member was asking me about the police who come immediately under my control. The place to which he refers does not come within my area. His further question has nothing to do with that.
§ Mr. O'GRADYMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would make a statement as to the charges contained in this question, for which there is not a title of evidence? I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is competent for a Member of this House to place upon the Order Paper questions in which there are grave charges concerning a large number of men in the East End of London?
§ Mr. SPEAKERHon. Members who make these statements make them on their own responsibility, and we assume naturally that when questions are handed in at the Table they are founded upon some evidence which they have, and that they are not mere matters of idle gossip.
§ Mr. O'GRADYMay I ask whether it would not be the duty of hon. Members before placing questions of this character on the Order Paper to do as I have done— first of all, to consult the Home Secretary on the matter, and then, failing to get satisfaction, to put a question on the Notice Paper?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI am sure the hon. Member has set a very good example, but I do not see the object of consulting the Home Secretary before handing in a question if you are going to ask him a question afterwards.
§ Mr. CLYNESIn the supplementary question of the hon. Gentleman specific allegations were made against the Secretary of the Transport Workers' Organisation. Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the truth or otherwise of the allegations?
§ Mr. HUNTMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would like an account of the words I have quoted?
§ Mr. McKENNAI assume that the hon. Gentleman believed he had some foundation for the question he asked.
§ Mr. CLYNESThey are wholly scandalous.
§ Mr. McKENNAAs to the question on the Paper, the very fact that 10,000 men are now at work in the London docks proves that the state of things alleged in the question cannot be true.
§ Mr. HUNTMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that a large employer of labour, a friend of mine, the night before last had to stop up all night with a few men at work, and that they had to hide directly daylight appeared?
§ Mr. CHARLES DUNCANGive his name.
§ Mr. CROOKSMay I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he has any evidence whatever of a single case of men at work having been molested? I live there, and I say it is a deliberate falsehood.
§ Mr. C. DUNCANA deliberate lie.