RECORDER OF LONDON'S CHARGE. (Hansard, 19 March 1912)

§ Mr. LANSBURY
I am sorry to detain the House, but the matter to which I wish to call attention is of very serious importance to the persons concerned. It will be within the recollection of the House that some prosecutions are taking place against certain men charged with having published words inciting troops not to do their duty. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Into the merits or demerits of the question it is not my province to go. I am sure those who are cheering the prosecution will agree that the biggest criminal in the land is entitled to a fair trial. The matter to which I wish to call attention is the charge of the Recorder at the Old Bailey in connection with this case. Yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) asked the Attorney-General what was the charge against these men, and if it had anything to do with Syndicalist opinion, or otherwise. The Attorney-General, in his reply, made it perfectly clear that it was not a question of prosecuting them for their views, but simply for having published that advice to 1841 the troops. The Recorder, whose name I do not know, in charging the grand jury, said:— Many of you, who might not have known a month ago what Syndicalism meant, probably know by now what it is, as it has occupied a prominent position. It is a diabolical system invented by somebody or other for the purpose of promoting a general strike and apparently establishing a Socialist Republic. A more ignorant statement was never made than that, because it is perfectly well known by anybody who has studied the subject that between the advocates of Socialism and Syndicalism there is very great opposition. It means striking in one trade and inducing the workmen in other trades to strike. You cannot go on disseminating dangerous overtures broadcast without doing infinite mischief, and it is not until the matter has reached a serious condition as it is alleged to have done in this case that the law is set in force. This I am glad to say is a very unusual crime; therefore the prosecution is under the provisions of an old Statute. Then he goes on to say:— The article in question is entitled 'An Open Letter to British Soldiers.' It begins in the usual bombastic way. 'Men, Comrades, Brothers. You are in the Army; so are we. You are in the Army of destruction; we are in the army of construction.' The article (said the Recorder) contended that syndicalism benefited the workers. Judging by the experience which the country was having of tens of thousands of people out of employment, and their wives and children without means, it did not appear to be benefiting them. Hon. Gentlemen opposite cheer ironically those statements, but I venture to point out to the House and to the Attorney-General that not one of them had any relevance to the charge against these men. I should hope, too, that all sense of justice and fair play has not been lost on the opposite side of the House, and that no one on the other side will say that these men are on their trial for opinions that the judge happens to hold as to their particular connection with this matter. I can not think that any right-minded man will uphold the right of a judge to make statements of that kind. I have risen for the purpose of appealing to the Attorney-General to make it clear that these men are not being tried for advocating Syndicalism.

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs)
The question raised by my hon. Friend is in connection with the charge of the Recorder to the grand jury. I may repeat what I said yesterday, that the opinions which these men may hold or have published in the newspaper called the "Syndicalist" has nothing whatever to do with the charge for which they are on trial. They are on trial solely and simply for having published an incitement to the 1842 soldiers to disobey their officers. The question which my hon. Friend has raised refers to the charge to the grand jury and not to the charge or summing-up to the jury who try the case. I agree with what he said that many of the observations are irrelevant. The only point that will be before the jury at the trial of these men will be as to whether or not they have publicly incited soldiers to disobey their officers.

§ Mr. F. E. SMITH
I confess I regret that the Attorney-General, speaking with the high authority he naturally brings to considerations of this kind, has not expressed his disapproval of the great and obvious inconvenience—and, I make bold to say, the public danger—of anyone while a case is pending inviting this House to establish itself as a critical assembly to denounce the statements of a judge. No more dangerous precedent could be set in this House or anywhere else. What is to prevent any section in this House who are dissatisfied with the summing up of a Recorder in a case actually pending, raising the matter on the question of the Adjournment of the House? The hon. Member introduced his speech to the attention of the House by asking whether the love of justice still exists on this side of the House. We are old-fashioned enough to believe that the fundamental objects of justice are not served by calling in question the observations of a judge. Other and more orthodox tribunals exist.

§ Sir RUFUS ISAACS
How does the right hon. Gentleman suggest we could review a charge of this kind?

§ Mr. F. E. SMITH
I entertain no doubt at all, having had some experience of the Court of Criminal Appeal, that if they were not satisfied, and it was brought to the notice of the Court of Criminal Appeal that prejudice was created by an improper statement made by the learned Recorder, the circumstances would be duly considered. I, for my part, enter a protest against this method being adopted in the House of Commons, which, of all tribunals in the world, is the most unsuited, while a question of this kind is pending decision, to interfere or control that decision.
And it being Half-past Eleven of the' clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.