HC Deb 10 June 1921 vol 142 cc2287-304

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

About a year ago—to be exact, in April last year—the House very kindly granted me its patience for a long time while I introduced a Bill which to all intents and purposes was the same as the Bill which I now ask it to read a Second time. I explained the working of the Bill then at such length and carried the Second Reading after we had debated it for five hours, that I shall best study the convenience of the House if to-day I make a very short speech indeed. If hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House who opposed me last year will recall the Debate to their memories, they will remember the object and working of the Bill. I do not propose therefore to deal with the Clauses of the Bill at any length, but to confine myself to a speech of about six or seven minutes. In order that there may be no doubt about the object of the Bill, I will just read this: on any question relating to a proposal to stop work or arising out of a stoppage of work, a trade union may, and in the case of trade unions in the industries named in the Third Schedule shall, decide that a ballot vote of its members shall be taken under this Act, and thereupon the provisions of this Act shall be observed by the trade union and the members thereof. This Bill differs from the Bill of last year in that it is now to some degree compulsory. Complaints were made last year that the Bill was permissive, and, with the unhappy experience of the past year before us, we have decided to make the Measure compulsory in certain trades which are named in the Third Schedule. The trade unions in respect of which the provisions of the Bill are compulsory are the mining industry, the railway industry, the shipping industry, and the gas, water, and lighting supply industries—that is to say, the vital services of the nation. There is another alteration, to Clause 3, it does not amount to very much; the altered composition of the Committee which is to be constituted as the Trade Union Ballot Regulation Committee. The numbers are the same, but the complexion is a little more certainly trade union. The committee is to consist of the President of the Board of Trade, the Minister of Labour, the Registrar of Friendly Societies—those three are independent gentleman—and the remaining four are to be specifically trade union officials and leaders, namely, the Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour party, the Chairman of the Trade Union Congress, and two other persons appointed by the Trade Union Congress at its annual meeting.

In order to be perfectly candid with the House, I must draw attention to another very trivial alteration in the present Bill, namely, that the ballot papers for distribution shall be issued not later than 3 days after the receipt of the notice from the trade union of an intention to take a ballot. It was a longer period, I think, in the other Bill. Except for those alterations, the Bill is practically the same as that which I had the privilege of carrying on Second Reading a year ago. Whatever I may have said in support of the Bill last year has been strengthened by the unhappy dispute through which we are now passing. The miners to-day are engaged upon a ballot as secret as may be possible. If a ballot of that kind had been taken before the trouble began, I at least am of the opinion that perhaps we might have avoided the misery which has resulted from the stoppage in the mining industry. At any rate it would have afforded a chance of peace. People objected to this Bill last year on the ground that it dealt with domestic concerns. I take the strongest objection to such an argument. I will not use the words "strike" or "lock-out," but the strife now going on is not a domestic concern; it is a national calamity.

Major MORGAN

Do the owners ballot their shareholders before they lock out the men?

Mr. SAMUEL

I need not discuss that. I can only say that the employers are perfectly willing to take a ballot before they lock their people out, in that unhappy contingency.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Members being present—

Mr. SAMUEL

I hope that the public and the general body of Trade Unionists in this country will take notice of the fact that a well-known trade union leader in this House attempted to have the House counted out when a matter like this was under discussion. I take it it is an indication that some of the Labour Members are afraid to face the issue. I have received many letters in support of this Bill. They have come unsolicited, among them a letter from a working woman in Glasgow who takes the same view of the Labour leaders as I have just indicated. She says: What right have the Labour leaders to try and block this Bill? We want it, and we shall have it sooner or later. We will let them know what we think.

Mr. SWAN

A Russian princess!

4.0 P.M.

Mr. SAMUEL

I fail to understand the meaning or sense of the interruption. Some hon. Members told us that the Bill was inexpedient and that it will cause irritation. To whom will it cause irritation and how will it cause it, seeing that it provides one of the finest elements of democratic government—freedom of conscience and freedom of action by secrecy of the ballot, the things which our fathers struggled for for years. [An HON. MEMBER: "They want to imitate the Bolsheviks!"] With regard to the claim that the Bill is inexpedient, I suggest that that argument does not hold water and that the answer is to be found in the Report of the Conference of Transport Workers about the Triple Alliance strike proceedings. Evidently certain leaders endeavoured to stampede the rank and file of the workers in to a strike which the best element among the workers did not want. One can see that on reading the report of the transport strike proceedings, and if this proposed trade union ballot had been in existence there would have been no opportunity for those who were engaged in fomenting the agitation to tell the miners that the Triple Alliance would come to their support or to en- deavour to upset the whole industrial organisation of the country. I will ask only one more question and that is what are the Labour leaders afraid of? Why do they try to count out the House? Why do they oppose the Bill? The public will draw its own conclusions as to the cause of the opposition of Labour to this proposal. I base my advocacy of this Bill on one single object, and that is this strife in industry.

Major MORGAN

Lock-outs!

Mr. SAMUEL

I did not say "strikes," I said this strife. I am not dealing with the coal dispute at the moment.

Major MORGAN

We are not afraid of it.

Mr. SAMUEL

What I want to say is that this unhappy strife in industry, whether called lock-outs or strikes, they are equally undesirable, ought to be rendered less possible than it is at this moment. The way to do that is to assist the steady backbone of trade unionism to express its opinion in the ballot, without fear of that intimidation which at the moment seems to prevent many voting, as I am sure they would vote, or even voting at all. This is not a domestic question; the disputes which have developed in the last few years have become of national importance. For that reason I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill.

Sir W. RAEBURN

I beg to second the Motion. The evils which this Bill is trying to redress are many and manifest, but the redress of them is not quite so simple a matter as many would imagine. In fact, we have not got the machinery for carrying out the intentions of this Bill. These are points, however, which may be raised in Committee. My opinion is that this is a matter which should be taken up by the Government.

Mr. SAMUEL

An hon. Member on my right has taken upon himself to assert within my hearing that I am paid for this. I wish to say that that is entirely inaccurate.

Major MORGAN

That remark was not addressed with reference to the hon. Gentleman's action in bringing forward this Bill. It referred to another incident altogether.

Mr. SAMUEL

. I should like to ask for what it is suggested I am paid?

Major MORGAN

For being a Member of Parliament.

Sir W. RAEBURN

I repeat that in my opinion the Government really ought to take up such a Bill as this. It ought to give us something much more effective than any private Member can hope to bring about by a Bill brought forward under these circumstances. Last year the great argument used against it was that we had no right to interfere with the internal economy of trade unions.

Mr. SWAN

Nor in the economy of wages either.

Sir W. RAEBURN

The effect of these strikes is not confined to trade unionists. The whole trade and well-being of the country are affected by them. It has been an argument used in this House time and again from the Labour Benches that when the Government confer any privilege on any section they have a right to see that that privilege is not abused. I do not need to go further than the Trades Disputes Act. No other body in this country has had such privileges conferred upon it, and therefore I think it is perfectly open to the Government, or even to private Members, to urge that something should be done in regard to the method of ballot. Exception was taken to the use by my hon. Friend of the word "strike." Someone said "Lock-out." I am going to deal in a moment with something that had nothing of the lockout about it, but was an absolute strike, and can be called by no other name. When I spoke on this Bill last year, I was told that there was a most perfect arrangement for balloting among trade unions, and upstairs the same view was expressed. I do not care who controverts it, but I have the most ample evidence that the ballot in many instances is not only a farce, but really plays into the hands of the extremists. I will read an account of a ballot which was taken about a month ago in regard to a strike which held up the whole of the service involved, and it is acknowledged to be a true example of what is going on. The statement has also been made that thousands of voters in the miners' ballot were under 16 years of age. That statement was challenged at the time. A few months afterwards the coal strike took place, and statement after statement was made from authoritative sources as to the number of boys who voted. Here is a newspaper with which we are all quite familiar. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"] I am not allowed to name it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"] It is the "Times." It says: Of 990,359 underground workers, 53,893 are under 16 years of age, and of above-ground workers, including females, 234,294 are above 16 and 23,571 under that age. Under the ballot as at present conducted, an immense number of boys vote. It may be all very well to say that they earn wages, but I do not think anyone can contend that a boy under 16 years of age is a very suitable person to express an opinion and give a vote on something which, perhaps, is going to be tremendously detrimental, not only to his parents, but to the whole country. What we want is some arrangement whereby boys of that age should not be allowed to vote. We have just passed through in Glasgow a very severe time of strikes and hold-ups. We had the dockers going out on strike—not locked out—and, if they had had their way, the whole of the utility services of Glasgow would have been stopped. This is what an old miner writes about that strike: A correspondent in a newspaper suggested the other day that the Government should rush through a secret ballot Act which would prevent decent workmen from being terrorised into voting against their conscience—not to speak of their interests—when a strike threatens. Recent events have proved the great need for this. Party politics have been no doubt largely responsible for the failure of previous Governments to pass such a measure, but surely it is the duty of the present Coalition to put this matter right at once. It is certain that if the Government introduce such a Bill they will have the overwhelming support of the electorate in passing it. I have had no end of letters from working men and women in Glasgow protesting against their not having a voice in all these hold-ups. Why do they not take a ballot? They say, "What is the good of our having a ballot? If we are known to be voting for the other side, we are terrorised and insulted." One of my servants was followed from the dock to his home and was so severely injured that he is not able to be back at work yet. I will give an example of what took place in a recent ballot connected with one of the greatest services of the country. I must not give the names: By yesterday morning's post the Union representative received an inquiry from the National Union, London, as to the views the men took on this dispute. He wired that in his opinion the men were dead against striking or having anything to do with it. By midday about 1,000 ballot papers arrived by post. They were opened and laid on the counter of the Union's local office, which I may say adjoins this office, and is more or less crowded with men all day long or men going in and out. It soon became known that the ballot papers had arrived. Men went in and took one or more as they wished. Some took away as many as a dozen, and filled them in, returning them, when they were put into a box and counted later. There was no check on the ballot papers issued, and no signature to them, and if a man took a dozen, and he could if he liked, and did in many instances, he filled up the whole dozen and put them into the box. The counting of the voting papers was done by three Union officials, no one else being present, so that they could twist the votes any way they desired. That is not a case that occurred weeks, months, or years ago. It occurred within the last six weeks. It was in a matter of the greatest national importance and might have turned the whole decision of the Triple Alliance when they decided, no doubt as we see now, for reasons that have nothing to do with the dispute, not to carry out the request that had been made. This Bill may be imperfect in its machinery, but there is no doubt that the great body of the workers, the moderate men, the older men, are going to demand better protection than they have now from these strikes, protection against the action of a few men in London who decide whether they are to be allowed to work, when they are to be allowed to work, and when they must go out. There has been a great deal said about the right to strike. You have that in the highest degree. I want to see a Bill giving the right to work, and that men who are willing and anxious to work should be allowed to work. It is all very well to say, "Have you no secret ballots among the employers?" The employers, so far as I know, do not use intimidation towards each other. They do not adopt any of the tactics of trade unions. If in retaliation for this Bill hon. Members opposite say, "Include yourselves in this Bill," we are quite willing to abide by the same rules that this Bill would impose upon trade unionists.

Mr. MYERS

Most of my colleagues on this side are actively associated with trade union administration. They are, in the main, trade union officials, actively engaged in carrying out the duties and responsibilities of trade union administration. I am associated with the trade union movement, but not in the direction of an active administrative capacity, so that I can speak with a little more freedom upon the aspect of the question that is contained in this Bill. It would be very difficult to find a trade union official in this country, either in a minor or a major degree, who desires anything in the nature of a trade dispute. If the records of trade union activities were investigated it would be found that in almost every industry in the country our trade union leaders have always been active in the direction of preventing a stoppage rather than rushing into one. A stoppage is a thing that trade union leaders desire to avoid, and the suggestion that the leaders of the trade union movement rush the rank and file into stoppages cannot be substantiated by the facts of the case. The people who throw about this suggestion in various ways blow hot and cold on the whole question. One day we have a condemnation of the rank and file because they are not inclined to accept the views of their trusted leaders, and a few days later the position is reversed, according to the circumstances of the case, and the condemnation is thrown about in respect of leaders endeavouring unduly to impress their opinions upon the rank and file in that direction.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

Both statements may be true.

Mr. WATERSON

This is not a Scotch joke.

Mr. MYERS

There is no consistency on the part of those who set themselves up as judges as to what trade unionists and trade unions should do. I have here a fair example, taken from one of the London newspapers, which deals with the miners' dispute, and it is an indication of the somersaults that are turned upon this matter. It is a Sunday newspaper. Referring to Mr. Frank Hodges, it says: There was a touch of irony in the regrets of Mr. Smillie. What does he think of it? Neither Labour nor Capital has any reason to congratulate itself on his successor. As an architect of ruin, young Mr. Hodges, clever but rash, is very likely indeed. The following Sunday—certain events had happened in the meantime—the following paragraph appeared in the same paper: Mr. Frank Hodges had been fighting the struggle of his life. He had behaved like a man and a leader with courage and brains and the note of real leadership that is in him. That was the same newspaper, and it is typical of much of the discussion on this matter on the part of people who are very ill-informed as to what the real functions and activities of our trade unions are. Under the provisions of this Bill we are to set up a committee of from four to eight people. Of course the standing of these individuals suggests that they will be able to bring to bear a keen sense of intelligence and ripe judgment upon their deliberations. By what means are these people to be familiarised with the detail of the issues that are at stake? It does not seem to me that we can pick out any half-dozen men in the country who are not actively associated with trade union organisations and understand the whole aspect and wages who can be depended upon to form an accurate judgment as to what they should do in any particular set of circumstances. Any half-dozen people brought together as on the lines provided in Clause 3 of this Bill would be more likely to make trouble and take a wrong step than any similar number of trade union officials.

When I look at the names attached to this Bill, gentlemen who would hardly pass muster if they made application for membership of a trade union, I do not wonder at the one-sided nature of the proposals, which are typical of the frame of mind of these individuals. This Committee is, to take into consideration the question of a strike in a particular locality. What is the spectacle which at present confronts the country? There are millions on the streets, out of work. Speaking roughly, 75 per cent. of the workers unemployed to-day are upon the streets owing to the fact that they received notices from their employers to terminate their employment. Are we to have under this Bill a committee set up to pass judgment upon the workers' point of view if they decide to withhold their labour; and are the employers to have absolute freedom to give notice to the workers to cease work when and where the particular whim takes hold of them? Analysed from that point of view, the Bill carries its own condemnation. It is one more evidence of the class spirit which is entering so much into the discussion of these questions and which is making trouble all along the line.

Sir W. RAEBURN

It is not proposed by the Bill that the Committee set up shall have anything to do with wages. Its whole purpose would be to see that when a ballot is asked for it is properly carried out.

Mr. MYERS

This Committee is to take upon itself the duty of carrying out a ballot and of framing the terms of the ballot.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL

That is not in the Bill.

Mr. MYERS

There is provision for the Committee that is set up to institute a ballot and to frame the regulations under which the ballot shall be taken. [HON. MEMBERS: "No! "] If good feeling between employers and employed, which often gets lip service in this House, is to have any possibility of fructifying a vastly different spirit from that in this Bill must be shown. The spirit behind this Bill is the combative spirit, the spirit that says, "Well, we are out to fight." [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] During the War there was put forward an idea that had never been known before in the history of working-class organisations. As profiteers rushed up the cost of living the working men of the country had to be satisfied with what was termed a war bonus. If the workers of the country had exercised their full power under the law of supply and demand—another doctrine which often gets lip service in this House—they could have extracted considerably more in wages from the community. But now, the aftermath of the War having come, and with war bonuses on the down grade, a Bill of this character, with its vicious spirit, comes as a challenge to the working people of the country, who are on their defence. The Bill brings the atmosphere of the fight into the industrial world, and the industrial workers will be ready to accept that challenge. The workers would rather meet industrial problems in the conciliatory spirit which is associated with the name of Mr. Speaker, but if the issue raised in this Bill is forced the workers of the country will meet it.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

I had not proposed to intervene in this Debate, but I think the last speech is very provocative and unjustified. There never can be any answer to the demand for a secret ballot. In any discussion, when a man has to record a vote, his vote and how he records it should be a secret between himself and his Maker, and any man who resists that is doing so with a bad conscience and in fear of the probable results. Those who resist it do so because they hold their positions, in whatever walk of life they are placed, whether in a trade union or otherwise, with a bad conscience, and know that if a secret vote is exercised they would probably cease to hold that position. Those who oppose the secret ballot in this matter do so because they know that under it their little days of tyranny would be numbered. In any community a small band of violent extreme men can "boss the show." A French author has shown, in one of the world's great novels, "The Three Musketeers," how four men can dominate a community if they are determined to do it. I am not going into what I have heard about happenings in some trade unions. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about your own?"] I wish to avoid, above all else, a provocative attitude because I have every sympathy with the trade unions, and I desire to see them flourish and prosper and be thoroughly representative. If we had perfect employers we would have no trade unions and the very strength of the trade union movement is the expression of the deficiency of the employers. I know many employers who have had both trade union men and non-trade union men in their employment, firms like the great engineering firm of Redpath, Brown and Company, which has been in existence for 126 years and has never yet had a trade dispute. There are plenty of firms up and down the country of that description, and if they were all of that description trade unions would never have come into existence, but "there are others." All that those in sympathy with this proposal want to be assured of, is that the unions shall be truly representative of their own members.

Above all things, the Britisher, whether workman or employer, is more or less pugnacious. He is like the men of old who fought duels though they knew duels were wrong, did not believe in them and regarded duelling with hatred and horror, but feared lest they should be stamped as cowards if they did not fight duels. It is often the case in regard to a trade dispute where you have an open ballot that the British working man who is like all Britishers one of the most pugnacious animals in the world—they are all what we call in Scotland, "Thrawn a bit"—is impelled by the very fact of an issue being put before him in this way to say, "Is this going to be a fight; then I am on the side of war." That is just because, like the old duellists, they want the credit of being afraid of nothing. I believe it is sheer publicity which brings out this latent pugnacity and causes many disputes. A man has the right to go in and mark his paper with nothing but his own conscience to answer to. There is no moral weight behind the arguments against it. They remind one of the arguments of the old Tory party in the days when it was first proposed to abolish open voting and when they said that every man should vote openly and not be ashamed, while the landlords were driving their tenants like sheep to the polls. Those whose grandsons sit upon the Labour Benches to-day made the welkin ring with tales of oppression. Does the gospel of freedom, which was preached then, not apply to the present situation? As it is, I am afraid those who oppose this must be taken as standing confessed advocates of the theory that in a poll of the men the views expressed should be those which they think the men should hold and not the views the men really hold. Would they not be in a far stronger and better position? Think what weight it would have if they could come and say, "Every man went into that box freely, and none of his mates waited outside to chip or chaff or possibly threaten him; nothing of that kind happened, but he acted as a free man." I pray of these gentlemen to accept the principle of this Bill and make the best of it, to shape it properly, so that the true views of their constituents will be obtained, and they will immeasurably strengthen and increase the moral weight of the great trade union movement.

Mr. JAMES WILSON

In opposing this Bill, I want it to be clearly understood that I am no supporter of strikes. Strikes and lock-outs are a barbarous way of settling industrial differences, involving, as they do, the economic conditions and the life and well-being of hundreds and thousands of our fellow people who are not involved in the dispute. I am sure I speak for all of us who sit here, because, instead of being agitators, as we are often termed, I think we could be more correctly described as a professional fire brigade exercising our influence to quell the fires of disturbance. It must not be understood that, if we are opposing this Bill, we do it because we believe strikes or lock-outs are a good thing. We believe that that is the wrong way of settling disputes, but we oppose this Bill because we believe that of all the proposals that could be submitted to this House in order to create industrial strife, this Bill tends most in that direction. The time has gone past when the trade union movement is going to be coerced into any position, or is going to be subject to outside interference. I say without the slightest hesitation that the average trade union official or executive is equally as representative as this House of Commons. At least, he is elected to his position upon a single issue, which is clear, definite, and distinct. For instance, a trade union official is never elected on the promise that he is going to hang the Kaiser, or make Germany pay—

Mr. MACQUISTEN

Or make the employer pay.

Mr. WILSON

Or that he is going to inflict due punishment upon war criminals, and forget to do it, because the position of the trade union official is this, that if he ceases to function in accordance with the policy and the spirit and the principles of the trade union movement, the trade union movement is sufficiently democratic in every aspect to find an opportunity very soon of replacing such an official. The hon. Member who preceded me (Mr. Macquisten) rather suggested that our object in opposing this is that many of us who are trade union officials hold our positions unworthily and that we are rather subject to a bad conscience. It is regrettable that suggestions or innuendoes should be thrown from that side to those who sit over here. I am not sure that I am quite on the basis of selection to official position of my hon. Friend's trade union, but if a careful analysis could be made, and the consciences could be searched, both of the officials of my own trade union and those of my hon. Friend's trade union, I am satisfied that on balance my people would not be found wanting.

The other object, as it appears to me, of this Bill is that at long last we are going to kill the extremists by this Bill. I can never be regarded as an extremist. I would do everything to avoid a strike, because of the consequences. I would do the same thing with regard to a lock-out. Both are out-of-date. Common sense ought to prevail. But if you want to play into the hands of the extremists, certainly support this Bill. This is one of the things that will fortify, I admit a small element, but a noisy one in the trade union movement. We are working in order to keep the trade union movement flowing along on a constitutional and an even keel. We have our difficulties, as no doubt those on the other side of the House have their difficulties. None of us on this side want to have recourse to anything that is unconstitutional, but if you do want to give a fillip to any element in this country tending towards unconstitutionalism, then by all means support this Bill, because that is one of the things that will give, what you regard as the extremists, the best advertisement they could have. After all, the best allies are your own papers, which continually give it free advertisement by publishing articles about extremists, until these people have come to regard themselves as being something important, and all the time, especially in Bills like this, and speeches and articles, you are undoing all that we are able to do in trying to keep stability in the trade union and industrial movement in this country.

For that reason, anyone who is inclined to support the Bill, if he looks at it in that respect, I am quite sure, will consider that, after all, it would be well to withdraw the Measure and not press it to a Division. But if we are going to have an amount of coercion applied to trade unionists, then what about the coercion of employers? What amount of coercion are we going to apply, for instance, to the Government, who are a very large employer of labour, and responsible, to a very great extent, for the industrial conditions in the country, because it can be quite fairly put, and I think sustained, that if the Government makes charges of breaches of faith as regards contracts, I think that can be more than exemplified so far as the Government itself is concerned. We read with consternation the other day that the Government have been guilty of a most iniquitous breach of faith, so far as the agricultural community in this country is concerned.

Sir F. BANBURY

The best thing they ever did.

Mr. WILSON

You may think so. That does not detract at all from the plain fact I am stating, that the Government have, in the last few days, been guilty of an unwarrantable and unjustifiable breach of faith, which has left, not the workers I am talking about particularly at the moment, but many of the farming community in a very parlous state, and left many men, who are striving on small incomes to stimulate the agricultural industry in this country, faced with bankruptcy. It has left working people in almost exactly the same position. Is that a policy consistent with a Bill like this? If the Government are responsible for that kind of thing, how can this same House of Commons, any of you on the opposite side of the House who are backers of the Government, justify attempting to apply coercion to the trade union movement, and supporting your Government in a wanton policy like this? One could go on enumerating additional cases where the Government themselves are responsible—neither employers, nor workmen—but the Government themselves. Their policy has created unrest and is arresting the industrial activities and social progress of our community. This Bill possesses none of the advantages claimed for it by its supporters. If we want to do anything calculated to upset stability, or create unrest, and promote revolt in the trade union movement, then we certainly should support this Bill; because I am satisfied it will have all those effects. On the other hand, we have to remember that we as a community have that bulldog tenacity or donkeyfied stupidity that fortified us during the last four or five years, and of which we are all proud—that we still possess these characteristics. I believe there is a better way. After all, to find a real solution of these problems it is desirable to get employers and workers to reason together. You will not create that atmosphere by framing a Bill like this, coercing as it does the one side. I do hope, in the interests of industrial peace, about which I am more concerned than about anything else, that this House should not give a Second Reading to this Bill.

Mr. SWAN

Like the last speaker I hope the House will not consent to put this Bill on the Statute Book. I am not going to make any reflections upon hon. Gentlemen who have put their names to this Bill; their intentions may be very sincere, and they may think that they are serving national interests and purposes—I think they are not. Anyone who suggests that any responsible trade union leader is anxious to have strife knows absolutely nothing about the mind or the work of the trade union leader, the difficulties and troubles of himself and his men and their respective families in the event of a strike. If the House does give assent to this Measure it does not necessarily prove that it is right. Nor would such a course serve a useful national purpose. What we believe it will do is to add to the growing opinion in the country that this House is preferred to add a greater force to the iron heel of the oppression of the rank and file of the working classes. Before labour leaders assent to a strike they exhaust every avenue of settlement, knowing, as they do, what it all means to their people. There may be something in what the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite said about us being mediocrities.

Many of us have not had the facilities to acquire knowledge like certain captains of industry. That is not our fault, but it is because of the oppressive industrial conditions for which in many cases the Governments of the past have been responsible. One thing which has been said I quite agree with and it is that trade unions came into existence because of the indifference of employers in regard to wages and the interests generally of working people, and they would not grant conditions which would enable the workers to develop their powers and faculties. When working people find that employers are not ready to concede these amenities, whether in the case of the miners, artisans, or agricultural labourers, and when they find there is such obduracy shown towards them there is bound to be a spirit of resentment created against that class, and you produce an atmosphere for the dissemination of ideas which makes strikes more likely to arise than if employers approached these questions in a more magnanimous manner. The working classes have the same right to have all the essentials of life as the wealthy. They have the right to have sufficient food and decent housing accommodation. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Bill?"] We have got our secret ballots. On many occasions we have negotiated for better wages and hours, but in the case of the miners' lock-out neither the Government nor the employers discussed the problem in a reasonable frame of mind. Did the Government make any inquiries as to the justice or the merits of the case? What was done was that we had the employers saying they had come to the conclusion that certain economies must be effected. The economies were cuts in wages below a reason able standard of living. There was no discussion. "Here is an offer. Accept it, or you will be locked out." This Bill simply follows upon the lines by which the mineowners have brought creeping paralysis upon the country. We want to see an entirely different frame of mind in the country for the peace and well-being of the whole nation. Working men will not be coerced either by secret ballots put forward by the hon. Gentlemen responsible for the promotion of this Bill—

Captain THORPE

How can you coerce with a secret ballot?

Mr. SWAN

I will tell the hon. Member there is a growing opinion in the country that this House is not anxious to settle industrial disputes on the lines of equity, but with the dice loaded in favour of the financiers and employers.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker with-held his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. SWAN

When negotiations break down the employers adjourn and lock the door, but if the workers, whose claims are unchallengeable, suggest a strike, the Emergency Powers Regulations are brought into operation.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. SWAN

The Emergency Powers Regulations are brought into operation, and the men are made liable to a fine or imprisonment; or to both. We think that a secret ballot under these conditions—

It being Five of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday, 27th June.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3, till Monday next (13th June).

Adjourned at One Minute after Five o'clock.