§ (1) If at any time it appears to His Majesty that any action has been taken or is immediately threatened by any persons or body of persons of such a nature and on 80 extensive a scale as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel, light, or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community, or any substantial portion of the community, of the essentials of life, His Majesty may, by Proclamation (hereinafter referred to as a Proclamation of emergency) declare that a state of emergency exists.1852
§ No such Proclamation shall be in force for more than one month without prejudice to the issue of another Proclamation at or before the end of that period.
§ (2) Where a Proclamation of emergency has been made, the occasion thereof shall forthwith be communicated to Parliament, and if Parliament is then separated by such Adjournment or Prorogation as will not expire within five days, a Proclamation shall be issued for the meeting of Parliament within five days, and Parliament shall accordingly meet and sit upon the day appointed by that Proclamation, and shall continue to sit and act in like manner as if it had stood adjourned or prorogued to the same day.
§ Mr. ADAMSON
I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "scale," to insert the words "whether by financial operations or the exercise of a monopoly and the artificial raising of the price, or the withholding of supplies, or failure to produce, or otherwise."
Frequently during the course of these proceedings we have been assured by the Government that this Bill was not an attack upon trade unions, that it was not an anti-strike Bill. If they were correct in making these statements I expect they will have no difficulty in accepting my Amendment. On this side we are rather suspicious that the provisions of this Bill are intended only to be applied to the trade unionists and to the working classes of the country. That has been strenuously denied from the other side, not only by the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General, but by numerous speakers who have taken part in the proceedings. If it is correct that it can be applied to all sections of the people, I venture to suggest that the Home Secretary should have very little difficulty indeed in accepting this Amendment. A threat to withdraw labour unless a higher price is paid is no worse than the withdrawal of any of the essentials of the national life from the market unless a higher price is paid for them. Therefore, unless the provisions of this Bill are to be applied to that section of our people covered in the Amendment, as well as to the working classes, we are going to have the continuance of one law for the rich and another for the poor. So far as we on these Benches are concerned, we are going to do all that we can to prevent one law being given to the rich and another to the poor in the coming days. We believe that that has gone on too long, and that whatever the law of the land is it should be applied equally 1853 to all sections of the community. Therefore I hope this Amendment will be given effect to so that the great trusts, trading combinations, and financial combinations, will be brought within the provisions of this Bill as well as the working classes of the country. During and since the War the profiteer has again and again been holding up the essentials of national life until a higher price has been paid.
§ Mr. ADAMSON
As a matter of fact the Government themselves have not been free from profiteering. Again and again we have had the question of Government profiteering brought up in this House, and there is very little doubt indeed but that the Government have profiteered on some of the things that they have controlled during the War. I think that at one period we had the Food Controller boasting that he had made a certain amount of profit on the year's transaction. I want to ask the Home Secretary not only does he intend to apply it to those provided for in this Amendment, but to the Government themselves in the event of them holding up any of the essentials of life until they get a higher price paid for them. Recently we have had the Government being challenged on the price they have been charging for sugar. We have had one who is engaged in the sugar industry pointing out in various parts of the country that the Government could afford to sell the sugar at a much cheaper rate. According to that gentleman, the Government themselves have been holding up the essentials for national life and have just as much need of this Bill being applied to them as to any other section of the community. If we are to have even-handed justice, the Food Controller and perhaps the Home Secretary may some day be brought within the provisions of this Bill. At least, I hope the Home Secretary will accept this Amendment and make it possible for him to be brought within the provisions of this Bill if the Government intend to continue in the evil' course they have indulged in on certain occasions.
This week the newspapers have been telling us that the Rubber Growers' Association has decided deliberately to curtail the production of rubber by 25 percent., 1854 the reason being that the price of rubber has fallen seriously in the market. In the interests of the shareholders they think it is a very good thing to curtail production. That is ca'canny with a vengeance, but when it is applied to that section of the community that is not the term used. The term used on these occasions is that it is in the interests of the shareholders, and is quite respectable and permissible. It is only when the workers of the country decide to withhold their labour until they get a higher wage for it that it is described as ca'canny. I hope the Home Secretary, on behalf of the Government, will have no difficulty in accepting this Amendment, because in our opinion, unless the Government are going to carry out this Bill in the way it has been said on that side they will carry it out, namely, with even-handed justice to all sections of the community, then we shall have possibly a serious state of affairs arising in this country.
§ Mr. SHORTT
I am bound to say I can-not follow the speech with which my right hon. Friend brought forward this Amendment. I cannot conceive that he has so misunderstood the whole Bill as that speech would leave one to imagine. He apparently is under the impression that anybody who does anything to cause a state of emergency is to be immediately prosecuted. The Bill provides nothing whatever of the sort. The Bill simply provides that where something is done which is calculated to deprive the community of the essentials of life, then regulations can be made. It does not say in the least that people who are doing that which is causing the emergency are necessarily doing something that is criminal. The criminal part comes in whore regulations are made for feeding the people, and for commandeering lorries or food, for example, and people interfere with the lorry or the distribution of the food. But the mere fact that there is a strike on a railway or a strike in a mine, and that causes a state of emergency, does not make a strike illegal any more than if you have financial operations which starve the community. That is not necessarily illegal, but you would have to make your Regulations.
With regard to this Amendment, it is impossible as it stands. It absolutely weakens the Bill instead of strengthening 1855 it, and it is impossible to have it now without adding to it words such as "or withholds his labour or takes part in a strike," or something of that sort, because what is the result of these words if you put them in? Let me remind the House that there is not a single thing enumerated in this Amendment which is not covered by the Bill as it stands. The Bill says, "if at any time any action "—not any action by any particular kind of individual, but any action "by any person or body of persons," whether they are financiers, producers, great employers of labour, or workmen, is immaterial. It is any action by any person. That is as broad as it could be, and was deliberately made so. But if you are to limit it by inserting words such as those in the Amendment, you at once limit the words entirely, and the Court would hold that words which are not included in the enumeration are not intended to be included in the Bill. Even if I were prepared to accept this Amendment, which I am not, I could not accept it without adding words "including any thing done By the workmen."
§ Mr. SHORTT
I am sure the hon. Member would, because he is reasonable, but I should not like to say the same for my hon. Friend's colleagues all round him. I am sure he would, and his long experience shows him perfectly well that I am telling the truth, and always have done in regard to this Bill. I cannot accept this Amendment. It weakens the Bill, is absolutely unnecessary, and I cannot believe that my right hon. Friends opposite think it is necessary. It would be a little bit of valuable propaganda out side, but they know it would not alter this Bill in the slightest.
Mr. J. JONES
I do not claim, of course, to be a lawyer, and to understand all the technicalities of the law, but I suggest that, as far as the principle of the Bill is concerned, the House in the first Clause has already accepted all the implications contended for in the principle contained in the Bill. That is to say, you have made up your mind, and the House is agreed, that in certain eventualities the Government shall have the power to do certain things. Those certain things are to provide that certain 1856 public necessities shall be provided for in the event of an emergency arising. That Clause has been carried. We are now asking in this Amendment that even-handed justice shall be meted out to all sections of the community. The House has decided that it is wrong for bodies of workmen to do certain things. Of course, not being a lawyer, I cannot enter into the technicalities of what is right and what is wrong, because lawyers do not agree on what is right and what is wrong; it all depends on the side for which they are appearing. But, so far as we ordinary common or garden people are concerned, we have a general conception of what we consider right or wrong. In this case we are asking that all sections of the commmunity who take advantage of their opportunities to hold up supplies of the essentials of life to the people shall be placed equally before the law.
That is the purport of this Amendment, and we get from one of the principal law officers of the Crown a complete evasion. He says to us that if we are willing to accept that workmen shall be placed in the position of potential criminality because they break the law, he is quite willing to include the words. I am one who is supposed to be an extremist inside the party of which I happen to be a member, and if he will guarantee to include all sections of the community in the provisions of the Bill definitely, and not by mere statements of skeleton arrangements inside the proposed measure, if he will undertake to put financiers, manufacturers, and people who control the supply of commodities on equal terms with the workman, we will risk the chance to the workman. Some of us happen to have appeared in courts of law as prisoners in the dock, and I am prepared to face again the consequences involved if necessary, but not on principle, not because I like it, but because I have to. But I do suggest that when people are talking about even-handed justice, we know the governing class have a way of evading the law. What chance would we have against an association such as the rubber manufacturers, or the Federation of British Industries, or any other national organisation of employers in proving that they were guilty of an offence in withholding supplies or in deciding that short time should be worked in their particular industry? Is there any law either now in existence or projected 1857 that can say they are guilty of any crime if, in consequence of the condition of their industry, they refuse to go on any longer producing?
What control has the workman over production? Only in this sense, that he may run the risk of losing his job if he does not work hard enough to suit the convenience of his employer. In so far as we are concerned, if it is wrong for a body of workmen to adopt a policy of saying, where they may have the power under extraordinary circumstances, to decide that they will not produce as much as they might do, if that can be brought forward against them as an offence, should not the same offence be operative against a body of employers who, in consequence of the international condition of their industry, say that it is impossible for them to continue because they cannot find the capital necessary for development, or that the trade will not stand the possibility of increased production? So far as we are concerned, if the same offence was going to bear the same penalty, if all sections were going to be treated alike, we would not have the same suspicion of the Bill; but we know by actual experience, by our own experience inside the trade union movement, and in continual negotiations with employers, and in the circumstances of each particular industry, that without justification those concerned are able to keep back supplies and to deprive the community of the things that are essentially required.
What has happened in connection with this present strike of miners? Before the strike had started and in connection with our own union of 25,000 members, members got notice at once, although many of the firms concerned had supplies of coal that would last for a month. Our men were sacked. They were thrown into the streets, and why were they deprived of the essentials of life—because that is what it means? Their wives and families were brought into a condition of semi-starvation. We have had to advance them money from our funds to maintain them during the period that the strike has been on. This was not because there was an immediate shortage of coal, but because the employers thought they would get the men up against the miners; that they would divide one section of workmen against the other. Is that a crime, or 1858 will it be a crime under the new Bill? Suppose on the top of that a body of employers say: "These men are in the wrong." They are going about now saying to the people the reason why you are in the condition you are is because of the miners strike! [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to get that applause. [An HON. MEMBER: "You have got it!"] It demonstrates beyond the possibility of doubt that behind this Bill there is something more than the safeguarding of the mere supply of the necessaries of life for the people. There is the spirit of venom and bitterness. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I do not charge the representatives of the Government on the "opposite Bench with having that bitterness, but I am charging their supporters who occupy a most extraordinary position, and who would like, if they could, to destroy the trade union movement in this country, and organised labour politically and industrially. But they are out for a big job if they try to do that.
I would suggest to them that the mere fact of these things happening now without this Bill gives us the impression that greater things will happen if they get the change under the Act. Consequently we are asking that, if you are going to decide or decree that the welfare of the community shall be provided for, that the essentials of life shall be guaranteed that the women and children shall not starve, that you shall deal out to those who have the power, which we have not got, to control industry at the very outset, and who at the very beginning can decide whether men should work or idle, whether they shall live or starve—place them, I say, within the purview of this Bill, and do not leave their position to the possibility of a legal quibble. We know when we go into courts of law where we stand. But to lock out workmen is not to he guilty of an offence! Give us the force of law. The employer gets the law on his side in protecting his workshop. He can get the military, if necessary, while we who strike have to depend upon the efforts of the men who have no legal protection when they are peacefully picketting. The man who goes on picket as a rule has to run all the risks of losing his individual liberty, while other men are now being enrolled at from £1 to £2 a day to blackleg in the case of a possible strike. Pay our men £1 to £2 per day and you will 1859 have no strike. [HON. MEMBEES: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, the Government have to guarantee the volunteers so-called, who are nothing better than blacklegs, this £1 to £2 per day, and they are paying them now, and these men are not doing any work. I suppose that is the policy of economy with efficiency.
We want, therefore, inside this Bill to have the protection of the law. If you are going to argue, and we have been arguing to-day, for the supremacy of the law, remember, we have been up against men who deny the right or the law, and who say that they have a better method, and better machinery, to enforce their claims than any constitutional machinery we may advocate. I want, I say, to ask those who represent the Government and who are better legally equipped than ever we can hope to be—our knowledge of the law is got from the wrong side of the dock!—we want to ask these hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to make this law so definite that no man can misunderstand it. Put the profiteer in the same place as the dock labourer. Say: "If you are withholding goods from the people, if you are profiteering at the public expense, if you do anything that interferes with the liberty of the community you will have to go through the mill the same as any other profiteer would have to do if he exercises similar power." This is all we are asking for in this Amendment, and I hope the House will give us that right. Although we may not be able to quote the law and the prophets, I trust we shall be able to get a little justice before this Bill finally becomes law.
§ Captain LOSEBY
The hon. Member who has just sat down is either very stupid or competely dishonest. The same thing might be said for the Amendment, and the Mover, who has either completely misunderstood the very simple and very clear words here, or has deliberately misrepresented them for the purpose of deceiving this House or deceiving the country. I have my own suspicion that it was done with the deliberate object of deceiving the country. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, who is a very able speaker—
§ Captain LOSEBY
—might not be a lawyer, but we have heard him on many 1860 occasions in this House, and we know-something of his intelligence. We cannot believe that he is so stupid as he pretends to be. What does this Bill say? It deals with any person or body of persons, not necessarily trade unionists at all, and only when action has been taken on such an extensive scale as to be calculated to interfere with and endanger the existence of the community; in that case, and in that case alone, can certain action be taken to protect the community of which the hon. Gentleman forms a part. I am not going to argue with him. I am just going to follow him in one point he raised quite deliberately for the purpose of prejudice. It is perfectly true that there are employers in this country who are a disgrace to the country. It is true that there are employers who limit production, and they are not the friends of the community. This may also be true of certain individual colliery owners. I expect it is because they are only human beings, but they do not come within this particular Bill.
§ Captain LOSEBY
I will deal with that point. The same reproach can be levelled against workmen. We have, of course, much more sympathy with them when they deprive the community temporarily of the essentials of life, because we recognise that it is their only weapon, and they must, therefore, raise that weapon. That, however, is not the point, because they do not come within the law. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite seriously suggest that if it were possible to say, "We will deal with this person and with that person," it could be done under this Bill? This Bill does not touch a particular individual case, and it only deals with one particular national crisis. Hon. Members opposite know that they are misrepresenting the position entirely, and I only rose to enter my protest against what I know, and they know, is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts of the situation.
§ Lieut.-Colonel CROFT
On this subject which has been raised by the Leader of the Labour party (Mr. Adamson) and the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), I think it is necessary to ask one question. I want to know whether it is contended by them because of the enormous fall in the price of rubber in consequence of which a certain organisation 1861 has decided to reduce the output, that that that should constitute a state of emergency in this country under this Bill. That is what the arguments which have been used amount to, and it has been given as a reason in favour of this Amendment. If they apply this argument to the rubber industry, would it not equally apply to the reduction of 30 per cent. in the output of the building trade as against the pre-War level? One only needs to quote those instances in order to show that it is impossible to conceive that hon. Members who have raised this point really can believe that it has anything at all to do with the Bill. It is the old game of party politics, and for these reasons I hope they will not press this Amendment, because if they do the result will only be a decisive verdict upon that all-important subject as to whether labour is fit to govern.
§ Major MOLSON
I was ratehr sorry to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), which was so different from the conciliatory and moderate speeches made by the members of the Labour party and all other parties in the House who have spoken on this subject, and I regret that any question of class should have been brought into this matter. I think this Bill is one which is really for the benefit of the whole community: in fact I believe it is more for the benefit of the poor than the rich. I am very sorry that any class question should have been allowed to enter into our discussions on this point. With regard to profiteering, I am as much against it as any member of the Labour party and I would like this measure considered simply on its merits as a Bill for the benefit of the whole country, and for the protection of the poor members of the community in cases where a strike holds up the necessities of life I wish to enter my protest once more against any class questions being introduced in our discussion of this subject.
§ Mr. SEXTON
If hon. Members below the Gangway wish to make out that commodities are not held up. I will give them an example. It is an admitted fact, and I am informed by experts on the Cotton Exchange that it is true that raw cotton is considerably cheaper this year than it was in pre-War days. In spite of that a sufficient supply of cotton cannot be procured. The warehouses are bursting with clothes, and yet they are being held up in 1862 order to keep up the prices of wearing materials.
§ Lieut.-Colonel CROFT
I am very sorry if the hon. Member misunderstood my argument. I can quite see the immorality of proceedings which hold up goods in order to increase the price, but I am asking the Labour Party whether it is a fact that they believe the holding up of rubber is a question of an emergency for the purposes of this Bill. If it applies to lubber and cotton, do they believe that it also applies to the building of houses? I suggest that neither of these two things constitute a national emergency under this Bill.
§ Mr. SEXTON
That is our quarrel under this Bill. This measure deals with organisations which are perfectly legitimate in their objects, which temporarily hold up an industry in order to improve their conditions. I want to know will the same rule apply to the owners of warehouses who are holding up goods in order to increase prices at a time when people want cheap clothes? I do not mind if this principle applies all round. I have listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Bradford (Captain Loseby), and I respectfully protest against a lecture from him, and I think it is a deplorable fact that the Trade Unions and Trade? Unionists of Bradford have returned a representative of such a character.
§ Mr. PERCY
I would not for one moment accuse any hon. Gentleman opposite of either trying to deceive himself or anybody else. I have listened with very great attention to most of the speeches which have been delivered on this Amendment. I have to acknowledge with a sense of personal gratitude, as a Member of this House, that the speeches that have come from the opposite side have been thoroughly honest and mostly very able. Every man cannot see a subject from the same angle. We have all been brought up in certain conditions of life and consequently are apt to look at matters only in the light of our own experience. It is not every man who has the unique ability to look at questions from different angles and different points of view. May I remind the hon. Members that the question raised by this particular Amendment is whether this is an Act applying to only one section or to certain sections of the community who are included in the working classes, or whether 1863 it is intended to apply to everybody who, by any kind of action, prevents the necessities of life reaching the community. If I for one moment thought that this Bill was intended to apply to only one class of the community I would offer it my most active opposition. I would ask hon. Members to analyse the Bill very carefully. I would give them one (illustration. A good deal has been said about rubber and about certain action which has been taken to secure a temporary reduction in the production of rubber. I would ask this question. If rubber producers find that they have to sell their rubber at less than actual cost and thereby lose part of their capital, are they not entitled to protect themselves against absolute loss, and would their doing so be considered an offence against this legislation? I do not know that rubber would come under these provisions, because it is not an essential of life. Let me therefore put a concrete case. Suppose the mine-owners agreed in combination that they must get higher prices for their coal and that if they could not get them they would shut down all the mines—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The hon. Gentleman is becoming very discursive. I would ask him to confine his remarks to the Amendment.
§ Mr. W. GREENWOOD
Like the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), I know very little about the law. The only experience I have had in it I got, like him, as a prisoner in the dock. I do, however, know something about the cotton industry, having been engaged in it for about 35 years, and when I hear an hon. Member say that raw cotton is below the cost it was before the War—the price is now four times the pre-war price—I wonder really what sort of expert advice hon. Members on the Labour Benches employ.
§ Mr. GREENWOOD
It may be so, but the advice is very bad, and it seems to me somewhat on a level with that given to 1864 the hon. Member who spoke of 1,000 mills having stopped in Lancashire, when what was really meant was spindles! The only difference between the two is a difference of 100,000 to 1, and that, I suggest, is a pretty fair margin, even for a mistake by a Labour Member. I regret that the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) should have made the statement that certain employers were deliberately stopping men on account of the coal strike, before the coal strike began. At a time like this, it would be far better to state positive facts only.
§ Mr. GREENWOOD
It would be far better for the hon. Member to say that a particular firm, owing not to the Coal Emergency Act, but purely and simply because they wished to create ill-feeling or to set one section of men against another, had deliberately caused unemployment; and it would have been far better for him to have given the name of the firm, and so let the House know who these men are. I have attended many meetings of employers. The discussion there has been on the question, not how to discharge men, but rather how to keep the works going in the spirit of the appeal of the Prime Minister. Employers have been compelled to shut down, not because they had not the coal to carry on—for they had plenty of coal—but they have been compelled to cause unemployment, much to their regret, because they have had to carry out the instructions of the Coal Mines (Emergency) Act. I think it would be better if we were to try at this period to create a better and not a worse feeling between all sections of the community. [HON. MEMBERS: "Drop the Bill!"] With regard to the dispute we have on now, to me it appears that neither the Government nor those opposed to them thoroughly understand the position, or the present dispute in the coal mining industry would not have dragged on so long as it has. All of us should realise the value of time, and we ought not to take up time in discussing things, but ought to come to decisions and to realise how much depends upon what we are doing. We ought to remember that time lost can never be regained. We ought to try and work together in a better spirit than we have done in the past.
Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE
This Bill as it stands is a purely class Bill. It has been brought in to break up the working-class movement in this country; it is a Bill to break strikes.
I am speaking to the Amendment which is now before this House. This Bill is a purely class Bill. This Bill, if it becomes law, as it will become law because of the tame majority behind the Government—this Bill is a Bill, unless it is amended or altered, to put down the working-class movement in this country, to break up strikes, to break up the trade union movement and, what is more important, break up the striving of the working classes to power in the control of industry which they work. This Bill shows the weakness which the Government and the employing propertied classes behind them feel. They are beginning to realise that they represent only 5 per cent. of the population of this country, and this Bill, unless it is amended or altered, is a Bill in the interest of this 5 per cent.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
On a point of Order. May I point out that you, Sir, have already called the hon. Member to Order for making a Third Reading speech. Is he not defying your ruling and discussing the Bill and not the Amendment?
With all respect, I do not consider my remarks are any more away from the point than the speeches—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
Perhaps I had better read the Amendment—After the word 'scale' insert the words 'whether by financial operations, or the
|Division No. 339.]||AYES.||[9.35 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. William||Finney, Samuel||Irving, Dan|
|Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)||Glanville, Harold James||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Lunn, William|
|Brace, Rt. Hon. William||Grundy, T. W.||Morgan, Major D. Watts|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)||Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)|
|Cairns, John||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Myers, Thomas|
|Cape, Thomas||Hartshorn, Vernon||Newbould, Alfred Ernest|
|Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)||Hayward, Major Evan||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)||Raffan, Peter Wilson|
|Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)||Hirst, G. H.||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)||Hogge, James Myles||Robertson, John|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Holmes, J. Stanley||Rose, Frank H.|
§ exercise of a monopoly and the artificial raising of prices, or the withholding of supplies or failure to produce or otherwise.' "
§ The Question is that those words be inserted. Will the hon. Member make his remarks without making a Third Reading speech.
I will continue to develop the argument which I was putting before the House until I was interrupted. The object of this Amendment, if I am right in interpreting it, is to endeavour to prevent the Bill from being a purely class measure, which it is at present. It is a class measure put forward by the Government representing 5 per cent. of the community, the propertied classes in this country, to down the remaining 95 per cent. Actually there is no need for this Bill, because the means by which this oppression is carried out is entirely in the hands of the propertied classes. The police, the Army, and the forces which are at the disposal of the Home Secretary are controlled by the upper classes, and they have already the power they think necessary in order to carry out the oppression which they intend to carry out under this Bill. It is idle to say that this Bill is applicable to all classes. It cannot be applied to all classes. The soldiers who are to blockade the coal mines, the police officers who are controlling—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
called the attention of the House to continued irrelevance on the part of Mr. Malone, Member for East Leyton, and directed the hon. Member to discontinue his speech.
§ Question put, "That the words 'whether by financial operations, or the exercise of a monopoly and the artificial raising of prices, or the withholding of supplies or failure to produce or otherwise' be there inserted in the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 57; Noes, 214.
|Royce, William Stapleton||Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)|
|Sexton, James||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)||Wintringham, T.|
|Shaw, Thomas (Preston)||Tillett, Benjamin||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)|
|Sitch, Charles H.||Waterson, A. E.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)||White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)||Mr. Tyson Wilson and Mr. Neil Maclean.|
|Swan, J. E.||Wignall, James|
|Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte||Green, Joseph F. (Leicester. W.)||Neal, Arthur|
|Ainsworth, Captain Charles||Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)||Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)|
|Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James||Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Greenwood, William (Stockport)||Oman, Sir Charles William C.|
|Bagley, Captain E. Ashton||Gregory, Holman||O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.|
|Baird, Sir John Lawrence||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.||Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Percy, Charles|
|Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.||Hailwood, Augustine||Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)|
|Barnett, Major R. W.||Hamilton, Major C. G. C.||Pollock, Sir Ernest M.|
|Barnston, Major Harry||Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)||Prescott, Major W. H.|
|Barrie, Charles Coupar||Harris, Sir Henry Percy||Pulley, Charles Thornton|
|Barrie, Rt. Hon. H. T. (Lon'derry, N.)||Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)||Purchase, H. G.|
|Barton, Sir William (Oldham)||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Rae, H. Norman|
|Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)||Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)||Ramsden, G. T.|
|Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Randles, Sir John S.|
|Borwick, Major G. O.||Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon||Rankin, Captain James S.|
|Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Hills, Major John Waller||Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.|
|Breese, Major Charles E.||Hinds, John||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Broad, Thomas Tucker||Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.||Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)|
|Brown, T. W. (Down, North)||Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy||Reid, D. D.|
|Bruton, Sir James||Hood, Joseph||Renwick, George|
|Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)||Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn. W.)||Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Butcher, Sir John George||Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)||Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)|
|Carew, Charles Robert S.||Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)||Rodger, A. K.|
|Carr, W. Theodore||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Roundell, Colonel R. F.|
|Casey, T. W.||Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere||Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)|
|Cautley, Henry S.||Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)||Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)|
|Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)||Jephcott, A. R.||Seager, Sir William|
|Churchman, Sir Arthur||Jesson, C.||Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John|
|Coats, Sir Stuart||Jodrell, Neville Paul||Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)|
|Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.||Johnson, Sir Stanley||Shaw, William T. (Forfar)|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Johnstone, Joseph||Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)|
|Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale||Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Simm, M. T.|
|Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)||Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)||Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)|
|Coote, William (Tyrone, South)||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Smith, Harold (Warrington)|
|Courthope, Major George L.||Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)||Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr||Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.|
|Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Stewart, Gershom|
|Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)||Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)||Sturrock, J. Leng|
|Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page||Lewis, Ht. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)||Sugden, W. H.|
|Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)||Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)||Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.|
|Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)||Lindsay, William Arthur||Taylor, J.|
|Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)||Lister, Sir R. Ashton||Thomas-Stanford, Charles|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Lloyd, George Butler||Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)|
|Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)||Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.||Thorpe, Captain John Henry|
|Dixon, Captain Herbert||Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)||Townley, Maximilian G.|
|Doyle, N. Grattan||Lonsdale, James Rolston||Vickers, Douglas|
|Du Pre, Colonel William Baring||Lorden, John William||Waddington, R.|
|Edge, Captain William||Lort-Williams, J.||Wallace, J.|
|Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)||Loseby, Captain C. E.||Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)|
|Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)||Lynn, R. J.||Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.|
|Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)||Macmaster, Donald||Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.|
|Elveden, Viscount||McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)||Whitla, Sir William|
|Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.||Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Wild, Sir Ernest Edward|
|Fell, Sir Arthur||Maddocks, Henry||Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)|
|Ford, Patrick Johnston||Mallalieu, F. W.||Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)|
|Forestler-Walker, L.||M alone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)||Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud|
|Forrest, Walter||Marks, Sir George Croydon||Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert|
|Fraser, Major Sir Keith||Mason, Robert||Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)|
|Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Matthews, David||Wilson-Fox, Henry|
|Ganzonl, Captain Francis John C.||Middlebrook, Sir William||Wise, Frederick|
|Gardiner, James||Moles, Thomas||Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)|
|Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)||Molson, Major John Elsdale||Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato|
|Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham||Morden, Colonel H. Grant||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John||Moreing, Captain Algernon H.||Yeo, Sir Alfred William|
|Goff, Sir R. Park||Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash||Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)|
|Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.||Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.||Younger, Sir George|
|Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)||Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert|
|Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry||Murchison, C. K.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Parker.|