HC Deb 26 June 1916 vol 83 cc510-2
26. Mr. PONSONBY

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the police authorities at Port Talbot asked for power to destroy publications of the Woman's Labour League, issued in 1913, namely, "The Need for Baby Clinics, and Help for Babies," and that they obtained this permission on the ground that they were prejudicial to the Government and the conduct of the War; and will he say what action he proposes to take?

Mr. SAMUEL

a few copies of a pamplet or leaflet, called "Help the Babies," appear to be included in a large mass of literature seized by the police near Port Talbot, but as an appeal is now pending from a decision of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction with regard to this case, I can make no statement with regard to it. The other publication is not included in the list of seizures which has been furnished to me.

27. Mr. PONSONBY

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the police authorities have seized, and in some cases destroyed, a number of leaflets and pamphlets found on the premises of the Independent Labour Party at Port Talbot and at Bargoed, as well as in private houses in Cudworth and Penarth; that they refused to produce the list of pamphlets they were instructed to seize which he stated had been sent to the police in all parts of the country; that the pamphlets seized had not been condemned by the Court, and a number of them issued by the Union of Democratic Control were, after examination as far back as August, 1915, restored to that organisation both in Manchester and London, with an intimation from the Home Office that there was no objection to their distribution; and whether he will prevent any further action of this kind by the police authorities in these districts?

Mr. SAMUEL

I understand that a number of pamphlets were seized by the police at the places mentioned. The proceedings appear to have been taken on a magistrate's warrant under Regulation 51A, and therefore the documents seized either have been or will be brought before the magistrates. I do not know that any of them have yet been destroyed—in one case they are being preserved pending an appeal. I propose to make a statement on the general question in the Debate on tile Home Office Estimates on Thursday.

32. Sir W. BYLES

asked the Home Secretary whether the recent raid on the offices of the Council against Conscription and the seizure of their books and papers are authorised by the Government or by any Minister; and, if so, which Minister?

Mr. SAMUEL

I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for War will deal with this question in answering Question 67.

67. Mr. HOLT

asked the Prime Minister if he, as acting Secretary of State for War, was consulted before the offices of the National Council Against Conscription were raided on 6th June, and their books, documents, and other property removed by the military authorities; if the Secretary of State for the Home Department was consulted; and whether the property seized has been returned to the National Council Against Conscription?

Mr. TENNANT

The action was taken under the Defence of the Realm Regulation No. 51, which makes the competent military authority responsible for the search of premises suspected of being used in contravention of the Defence of the Realm Regulations. It was within his competence and the scope of his duties. The property removed has been returned, except four copies of a pamphlet which contravened the Regulations.

Mr. HOGGE

Are there to be any prosecutions as a result of the raid on these premises?

Mr. TENNANT

I am not quite sure. Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Was the sanction of the Home Secretary obtained before this raid took place?

Mr. TENNANT

No, Sir; nor is there any reason why it should be.

Mr. SNOWDEN

Why, then, did the police assist the military authorities in carrying out this raid?

Mr. TENNANT

The military authorities are perfectly entitled to ask the assistance of the civil authority.

Sir W. BYLES

May I ask whether the objects of this council are not entirely legitimate and legal; and, if so, why this arbitrary ease of violence can be justified?

Mr. TENNANT

If a perfectly legal body chooses to undertake purely illegal actions they must put up with the consequences.