§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £433,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for certain Expenses incurred in setting up and maintaining Organisations for supplying the Necessities of Life and in connection with the maintenance of order during an Emergency and for Grants in respect of Emergency Police Expenditure.
§ The CHAIRMANThe Home Secretary.
Captain BENNOn a point of Order. I should like to ask you, Mr. Hope, under whose authority the notice appears in the Estimate that the Vote will be accounted for by the Home Office, because under Sub-head E—"British Gazette"—we have been told that the official responsibility for that expenditure is borne by the Exchequer. I should like to submit to you that, if there is a Minister who is said officially to be responsible for the expenditure of public money, he ought to be present to explain how the money has been spent.
§ The CHAIRMANThe intimation is that the Votes are presented on the authority of the Secretary of State and of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Either Minister can answer for the Vote. I am not responsible for the form in which the Vote is drawn up, and on putting the Question I called upon the representative of the Government who was present.
Captain BENNBut, Mr. Hope, might I point out to you the obvious abuse that might come in by a practice such as this, if some official, unnamed it might be, puts down a Vote to be accounted for by such and such a Minister who might be the Minister who has spent the public money, and then asks some other Minister to come to the House and to apologise for him! I submit that it is an old-established practice of the House that I am urging, that the Minister responsible for the expenditure of the money should come to Committee of Supply, and be ready to answer for it.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYMay I support my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain Benn) in 2170 the point he is putting? In this case the responsibility is peculiar. The Stationery Office are finally declared to be responsible for this extraordinary publication, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself was occupied in an executive capacity as editor. Under these circumstances would you be prepared to accept a Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSMay I, on that point of Order, submit to you, Mr. Hope, that the Vote is in the name of the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary is responsible for the greater part of it, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer for only the £16,000, relating to the "British Gazette."
Captain BENNFurther on the point of order, might I suggest that if you, Sir, would give authority to the statement made by the Home Secretary that the Minister responsible should be here to answer, I should be perfectly satisfied?
§ The CHAIRMANThis form of the Vote may be proper or improper; it may be desirable or undesirable, but no point of Order arises. The Estimate is submitted by the Government and presented at the Table. It may be—I do not say for certain—that on the salary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer something may arise. Anyhow, there is nothing to prevent its going on with the Vote.
§ Mr. WALLHEADMight I suggest that in the circumstances this item of £l6,000 should be separated entirely from the rest of the Vote, and taken on its own basis?
§ The CHAIRMANIf some hon. Member moves to reduce, or entirely to delete some particular item, the discussion will be confined to that.
§ Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONDo I understand, Mr. Hope, if that be done, you are going to confine discussion to the one Item? Surely that is not in the minds of those who are raising these points at all?
§ The CHAIRMANThen they had better not do it. I am not confining the 2171 discussion, but the Rules of the House confine it. Anyhow, there cannot be any point of Order that would prevent the Vote from being taken.
Captain BENNMight I respectfully press this point. You yourself are Chairman of Ways and Means, and occupy a position of official responsibility in connection with the presentation of the Estimates. I suggest that if it is possible for the one responsible for the expenditure of public money to evade the criticism of the House of Commons by handing over the task to some other Minister by means of these words in the Estimate, which so far as I know have no sanction—"that the Vote will be accounted for"—it is quite clear that the practice might spread, and the purpose of the Committee of Supply, which is that, Ministers should be before the Committee and be cross-examined and criticised may be utterly defeated. Therefore, I would submit again that, if there is no point of order, still the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be present and answer for this item for which he is officially responsible. Otherwise we must ask you to accept a Motion to report. Progress.
§ The CHAIRMANI cannot accept that view. No question of order can arise that would justify me in ruling that the Vote should not he taken. I am Chairman of Ways and Means, but I am in no way responsible for the preparation of the Estimates, or their form.
§ Mr. HENDERSONOn a point of Order. Might I ask you whether in the Vote that you read out a few moments ago the £16,000 is included?
§ The CHAIRMANYes—Item E of the Vote.
§ Mr. HENDERSONPardon me, I am referring to what you read when you opened the proceedings. I do not think you are answering my question. Perhaps you would assist the Committee by reading again the question that you read from the Chair at the beginning of these present proceedings.
§ The CHAIRMANThe Vote is divided into sub-heads and comprises many items which are not in the Motion I read from 2172 the Chair, but which are explained in detail in the actual Estimate presented.
Captain BENNI am sorry to be persistent, but might I ask you, supposing the Committee considers that by the introduction of these. words "will be accounted for by"—referring to Items A, B, C, and so on—deprive us of the opportunity of cross-examining the Minister who is really responsible, will you kindly tell hon. Members what redress they have?
§ The CHAIRMANIt is hardly my business to do that, but I know the resource and ingenuity of the hon. and gallant Gentleman so well that I have no doubt he will find an opportunity. There are members of the Government who might he called to account when their salaries come up. It might be in order then, though I cannot promise that it would be, to move a reduction.
§ Mr. J. JONESThough I am not quite so expert as the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn), may I ask, seeing that the Government have for the first time become protagonists in a great industrial dispute by the publication of a newspaper which Was not renowned for its veracity, whether we cannot have an opportunity of getting the proper people here to discuss its contents—the people who were good enough to lie so liberally as they did?
§ The CHAIRMANI cannot accept the premises of the hon. Gentleman any more than I can accept his conclusions.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI see these Estimates deal mostly with matters, apart from the "British Gazette," which concern the Home Office in England. They also deal with proceedings in Scotland and with the Home Office in Scotland, and I want to ask whether we are not to have the presence of tie representative of the Government who is responsible for the Home Office in Scotland and for the organisation which was set up in Scotland? Questions will arise which affect the Scottish Office very vitally.
§ The CHAIRMANIt may or may not be desirable that the Secretary for Scotland should be present, but I have no 2173 possible means of compelling the attendance of any particular Minister.
§ Mr. BUCHANANSeeing that the Scottish Office is not represented—
§ Mr. BUCHANANOh, yes, I see the Lord Advocate. No one respects the Lord Advocate more than I do, as he personally knows, but he is not the Home Office representative in Scotland. We should not accept the Attorney-General as representative of the Home Office in England. All that I am asking is that the representative of the Home Office in Scotland should be present; and with all due respect to the Lord Advocate he has not yet reached that position.
§ The CHAIRMANIt is no part of my function to say whether he ought or ought not to be present. As a matter of Order, the Vote can be taken without his presence, and I have no power to compel his attendance.
Captain BENNMay I direct attention to two Statutes, the 5th of Richard II and the 6th of Henry VIII, under which Members are required by law to attend Parliament? May I further direct your attention to the fact that under the Statute of Henry VIII you, acting as Speaker, and holding the powers of Mr. Speaker, may direct that the salary of any Member not present in Parliament may be stopped? May I ask what action you propose to take?
§ The CHAIRMANI am not fully conversant with the Statutes quoted, but I am aware that it was the practice in the past for the House occasionally to order a call; but I believe that practice fell into desuetude because the members of the Bar found it so much more profitable to be in the Temple than in the House that they protested successfully against its application. It has fallen into desuetude, and it certainly cannot be revived without notice and in Committee of Supply.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI am sorry to stand between the Committee and the other Ministers whom they wish to hear. The reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here at the moment is that he anticipated I should speak for 2174 a pretty long time, as I was responsible for the expenditure of about £420,000 of this Vote. It is quite true the Chancellor of the Exchequer was responsible for £16,000 for the "British Gazette," and he will be here in ample time to meet the criticisms of the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) or any other Member who desires to deal with it. The Committee may congratulate themselves that the sum I am asking for is much less than at one time seemed likely. I remember that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when pressed in the House during the general strike, mentioned the sum of £750,000 as being the likely amount of the expenditure. We now find that that is reduced to £433,000. The reason why the Home Secretary is responsible for this Vote is that there had to be some Member of the Government who undertook to be responsible for what are called the supply and transport arrangements and their organisation by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson), when he was Home Secretary, was, I believe, Chairman of the Cabinet Committee which dealt with those matters. Quite obviously it is essential, in the case of a very serious emergency such as occurred at the beginning of May, to have some Member of the Government primarily responsible for the management of affairs in dealing with that emergency, and I propose—there is no reason why I should not—to tell the Committee how this Government organisation was run.
It is the right of the Committee to know how that organisation, which received a certain amount of approval, was conducted. In the first place, the Cabinet elected a Committee of its Members to arrange all the details of the maintenance of supplies and the organisation of the country during the period of emergency. I have reason to believe that all Governments have worked under a somewhat similar organisation. The Committee of the Cabinet consisted, as might be imagined, of those Cabinet Ministers who would be likely to be concerned in any such emergency as the general strike, and included the President of the Board of Trade, the Home Secretary, who is responsible for the maintenance of law and order, the representatives of the Army, the Navy and the Air Services, the Minister of 2175 Labour, the Minister of Transport, though not a member of the Cabinet, and, of course, the Secretary for Scotland. They were directed by the Cabinet to be a Cabinet Committee to prepare the necessary oraganisation, and the Home Secretary was, as is usual, appointed Chairman of that Committee.
§ Mr. WALLHEADAt what date was this?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSIt is set up at the beginning of each new Government. It is set up as a matter of ordinary routine. That Committee met from time to time during the course of the last 15 months—not with anything like great regularity, but from time to time. When the emergency arose, the Committee met every morning at the Home Office, with the Home Secretary in the Chair, and there received all the reports of what was going on, and took such steps as seemed then desirable to meet the emergency. I am not going to ask hon. Members opposite as a whole to agree with me that they took what were the best steps in all circumstances, nor to agree with me that we should have taken the steps we did, with the result that ultimately took place, that the strike was called off. But from the point of view of the general public—and the right hon. Gentleman who was Prime Minister in the last Government quite definitely agreed—in an emergency, it is the first duty of the Government to provide for the maintenance of the life of the people of the country. That was our object, and, I may say, our sole object—to keep all the organisations supplying transport, food, and coal running as far as we could on the ordinary lines
. The arrangement was that all the expenditure, for parts of which each of the different Departments was responsible, should be got together in one Vote, put down, as it is to-day, and moved by the Minister who was primarily responsible as Chairman of that Cabinet Committee for the organisation of the scheme and the expenditure of the money.
Captain BENNDoes this Estimate include any expenditure at all in connection with the exercise of any powers under he Emergency Powers Act?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSOh, yes. The Committee to which I am referring, 2176 and the whole organisation, really came into being as an effective organization in consequence of the powers under the Emergency Regulations issued under the Act. I think it will be an advantage to the Committee that there should be one Minister responsible for the expenditure of the whole of this money. The plans of the Government were that we should not interfere with the ordinary carrying on of people's business. All we said was, "We want you to carry on. We want trade run, we want omnibuses and trams to run, we want the butcher and the baker to go on carrying on their business in their shops providing the necessaries of life." Of course, where there appeared to he any difficulty in carrying out those arrangements, then it was the duty of the Government to take such steps as would enable these people to carry out their ordinary duties, and if this was not possible, it was our duty to carry them out ourselves as an alternative.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI will give full details later on but I must first of all tell the Committee something about the organisation that has spent the money. First of all the Postmaster-General was appointed Chief Civil Commissioner. The country was divided into 11 divisions, in each of which there was a Civil Commissioner, and those Commissioners were junior members of the Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where are they?"] I am answering for them, and I am prepared to take any censure that is necessary. In addition to these 11 gentlemen, each of whom represented the Government, and who, if communications had been completely cut, would have represented the Government officially and actually in his own immediate district, each of them had a staff of officers connected with him who were conversant with the particular matters of business such as finance, food, coal, railway transport, liaison officer, and so forth. There was, in fact. a skeleton organisation formed by the Government before the strike under which the country was split into 99 areas where they had some organisation. I do not want to weary hon. Members by going into too much detail, but if any points 2177 are omitted, and hon. Members will ask questions, I shall only be too glad to answer them.
§ Mr. J. DAVISONrose—
§ The CHAIRMANThe Home Secretary has not given way, and he says that he will be prepared to answer questions put by hon. Members, but he means at the close of his speech, and not during his speech. The hon. Member cannot ask questions in the middle of a speech, and the right hon. Gentleman has not given way.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI am sorry the hon. Member did not hear what I said. I stated that I did not wish to weary the Committee, but if hon. Members would make their comments and ask me questions after I had finished, I should only be too glad to answer them afterwards. Having set up that organisation, the first thing the Government had to do was to see that every possible step should be taken to prevent interference with the measures the Government took to secure that volunteers should be entitled and able to carry out their duty. That was primarily the responsibility of the Home Secretary, who is responsible for law and order, and, accordingly, I made arrangements at the earliest moment for the transport of police from one part of the country to the other, where they might be most wanted. I take this opportunity of saying that, having been given those powers, I did transfer a certain number of police from one part of the country to another.
§ Mr. WALLHEADWill the right hon. Gentleman say if he had power to transfer the police against the wishes of the local authorities concerned?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSIn the first place, I had power to transfer only when I was asked to do so, but I have now power to transfer, and therefore there was no question of transferring police against the wishes of the local authorities or the chief constables, and I may say that there was the utmost harmony prevailing in regard to these arrangements. Part of this money is required for the transport of the police and for the further force which we decided to raise. During the strike the special constabulary were increased from 98,000—which was the 2178 number for all over the country before the strike—to 226,200 by the time the strike was ended, and I am sure hon. Member on all sides will be glad to know that, with the assent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am proposing to increase in London the uniformed special constabulary from 8,000 to 15,000 as a permanent force.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSBecause we think it is desirable, and because we found the special constabulary of very great use during May last. Therefore we think it is desirable, rather than increase the ordinary police force, that the special constabulary should be allowed to join for three years.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSNo, but the cost included here is for the special constabulary during the period of the general strike.
§ Miss WILKINSONIs any test for fitness applied in the case of the special constabulary?
§ Mr. BROMLEYThere was no general strike.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI am dealing with the cost of all these organisations, and I will call it an "emergency" if the hon. Member prefers it.
§ Mr. BROMLEYA national strike.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSYes, I will call it a national strike if the hon. Member wishes it. As the hon. Lady will know, during a period of great emergency if was not possible to pay the same attention to the qualifications of special constables as is possible now, and it is for that reason that I want to get a regular, organised, carefully selected—
§ Mr. PALINGAre political opinions taken into consideration?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSNot in the slightest degree. As the hon. Member knows, special constables can be enrolled under whatever Government is in power, and I am sure that if at some remote 2179 future time a Labour Government should require to ask for these powers, they would not for a moment think of asking, shall I say, trade union or any other such qualifications for special constables who might desire to enlist.
Before I turn to the question of cost, perhaps the Committee would like to know one or two more details as to the volunteers who rolled up, and helped the Government in this national emergency. There was in each of the 99 areas a volunteer service committee working with the Government organisation. I need hardly say that there is no item for the expenses of the chairmen of these committees; they worked entirely without salary. There were altogether—and I think it is a magnificent reply on the part of the country to the national strike—488,155 volunteers, and we were able to supply 62,629 to different employers and others who wanted to make use of their services.
§ Mr. JAMES BROWNHow many of those went to the mines?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI do not think any of them went to the mines, because the Government did not undertake the running of the mines or anything of that kind; but the Government provided volunteers for anyone who was unable to get on without them and desired to continue his work. There were many organisations in that position, such as the railways, the trams—
§ Mr. KIRKWOODWhat about the O.M.S.?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSAs the hon. Member will know, there is no item in these accounts for any expenses of the O.M.S. They were not a Government organisation; they paid their own expenses, and Parliament is not being asked to pay a penny towards them. Therefore, it would be quite out of order either to say what they did or to criticise their action.
§ Mr. J. BROWNSeeing the trouble regarding the mines, it would not have been wonderful if a number of these volunteers had gone to the mines.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSIf the mineowners had asked for volunteers, I am quite sure that large numbers of 2180 men would have volunteered. [Interruption.] There was no work that these volunteers were not willing to do to help the country in its time of need. [Interruption.] I have tried to describe the organisation, and now I must say something as to the money it cost. One of the most expensive departments was the food department, which spent £119,000. The expenses of that department were made up as follows—I am giving the Committee more details than appear in the White Paper.
The lorries at Hyde Park were hired, and cost £132,000. The labour pool lorries cost £2,000. Administration cost £6,000. The Office of Works' expenses in the parks were £6,000. The total, therefore, was £146,000. From that we recovered from the milk pool—the arrangements in connection with which will be familiar to hon. Members—a sum of £73,000, which reduced the total cost to £73,000. Then there was a small sum of £6,000 for the cost of excess yeast which was prepared because of the strike, and I should like particularly to refer to this, because it is an interesting point. It is a rather curious fact that very few people seemed to know or to realise at the time that one of the most essential features in the maintenance of the life of the country was the provision of a supply of yeast; and, thanks to the foresight of the supply and transport organisation of the Government, all that was arranged, so that when the trouble came ample supplies of yeast were forthcoming, in order that the baking of bread should not be stopped throughout the country.
§ Miss WILKINSONMay I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that that fact in itself points to the necessity of having a really sensible housewife on any future committees of this kind?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSWe did know—and that is what I am trying to point out—without any housewife. Fortunately, many of us are married, and we happened to know that yeast was essential. We made provision accordingly, and there was a total expenditure in that respect of £6,000. Then the salaries, wages and travelling expenses of the inspectors of the Board of Trade were £3,000; the salaries and expenses of regional area food officers £19,000; the salaries, wages and expenses of area food 2181 Officers—who were continued during the continuance of the coal stoppage—were £9,000; the Office of Works in Hyde Park, £24,000; and there is a contingency item of £5,000.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYAre those extra staffs?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSOh, yes. The ordinary staffs of the Board of Trade, the Home Office and the Ministry of Health received no extra salary at all.
§ Mr. PALINGAnd the Civil Commissioners?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSNo; the Civil Commissioners received no salaries.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYWho were these people?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThey were extra clerks, inspectors who had to go all over the country arranging details, and so on. Of course, the staff of the Home Office was nothing like large enough, and the staff of the Ministry of Health cannot control the whole food organisation in 99 areas throughout the country, though they can control it from their own centre. It would be quite impossible for the staff of, say, the Board of Trade to split up, and cover the whole detailed organisation throughout the country. These salaries and expenses were those of the men who were taken on for this particular organisation.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI thought they were all volunteers.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSNo; there were, as I have said, 400,000 volunteers, but there was a certain number taken on, even before the strike began, in order to be prepared for the emergency organisation, and the Government allocated them to different areas in order to take charge of the work there.
§ Miss WILKINSONHow long had they been on the staff?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSA month or two beforehand. As the hon. Lady knows, and as she said just now, any housewife of intelligence knew there was probably going to be a strike, or national emergency. We were wise enough to do what the housewife would have done, and prepare for it.
§ Miss WILKINSONThe right hon. Gentleman would have been so disappointed if the emergency had not arisen!
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThere was a very serious trouble—
§ Mr. J. DAVISONWhat I want to ask is what necessity existed—
§ The CHAIRMANI have already said that, if the right hon. Gentleman does not give way, the hon. Member cannot press his question now.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON - HICKSI am hoping to draw my remarks to a conclusion soon, and then the hon. Member can ask me any question he likes. I do not know that I need weary the Committee with any further details. Perhaps they will like to know something of the work conducted by the transport organisation in Hyde Park. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is here, and he, like my other colleagues, will, of course, answer any detailed criticisms that may be directed against the Vote which I am putting before the Committee. In fact, I am in the rather pleasant position of making a general statement. When the trouble and the criticism comes, my colleagues will have the opportunity of replying and I shall sit and listen to them.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSMilk was the only article of food the Government really undertook to distribute, and milk is, of course, a very vital necessity.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODYou had a good supply of water.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSNo, the milk was exceedingly good during that period. The supplies of milk in London were even better than before.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODDo you not know that that is a very seditious statement to make—that during the general strike people were better supplied with milk than they were before? It means that we should go on and do likewise. If I were Home Secretary, I should arrest you.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThe hon. Member knows that statements made in 2183 the House are privileged, and he could not arrest me.
Now I come to the transport organisation, to which a great deal of the success of the Government work was due. I cannot speak too highly of the efforts that were made by the officials of the Ministry of Transport to prepare this great organisation which carried out so very successfully the maintenance of the food supplies of London during that time of emergency. Lorries were collected in Hyde Park. They were told off to do work, partly the collection of milk, partly the collection of food at the docks, and partly the distribution of food. Hyde Park was one great hive of industry—all working together in order to protect the whole community against the results of the strike. Whatever views one may have—and I am not forcing my views on that point—regarding the general strike, everyone will agree it was absolutely essential that some such organisation as this should have been put into operation, in order to maintain the life of the community of this great City of London, and the same kind of organisation was carried on throughout the whole country.
§ Dr. SALTERWere the lorries commandeered, or paid for at ordinary commercial rates?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSWe had power to commandeer them, but only in one instance was it found necessary to do so. They were paid for at ordinary commercial rates. That disposes of transport. My right hon. Friend will be able to answer any further questions The other subject that came under his control is the supply of electricity. The Committee will like to know that the most careful arrangements were made for the maintenance of the supply of electricity, which is of vital importance to a great city such as London. Whenever an electricity organisation reported to us that their men were out, and unless steps were taken the supply of electricity in any particular part of London would be jeopardised, we were able to supply from among our volunteers a sufficiency of men to carry on.
§ Mr. SEXTONWas that always done in consultation with the local authorities?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSSome electricity organisations in London are municipal and some are commercial. If either one or the other communicated with us by telegram or telephone, and said their men were going out and Chelsea, Clapham or some other part of London would be without electricity, we supplied them with the necessary volunteers. Ultimately, before the emergency was over, we supplied volunteers to no fewer than 33 power stations in London, and it is enormously to the credit of the Minister of Transport and the Electricity Commissioners, who were under him, that the supply was maintained.
§ 9.00 P.M.
§ Mr. T. HENDERSONWere not naval ratings used?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSNaval ratings were brought up to London for that purpose, but we also had this register of volunteers, and I am glad to say we did not need to use the whole of the naval ratings or the whole of the volunteers.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODDid the naval ratings get an opportunity of volunteering?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI do not think you will find any complaint from a single naval rating with regard to his use in connection with the strike. They all came quite voluntarily.
Finally, some portion of the Vote is for the work the Secretary for Mines did in regard to coal. His work, in the first instance, was dealing with the export of coal and bunkering ships; secondly, regulating inland distribution, and enforcing restrictions as to consumption. His first duty was to issue Regulations to prevent the export of coal either in bunkers or ships, and to keep as much as possible in this country. That we did. Then we had to regulate the internal transport and the distribution of coal. so as to provide the fairest possible distribution, and get it on the railways or such other organisations as could undertake it. On the whole I think the Committee will also agree with me there that the work of the Secretary for Mines and his officials was exceedingly well done.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODWas it as well done as he does his work here?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI am really rather surprised at that question. My 2185 right hon. Friend does his work here to the entire satisfaction of the Prime Minister and the Government and the House of Commons. I will say one word about the Civil Constabulary Reserve.
§ Mr. T. HENDERSONWe are agreeably surprised to hear that you were responsible for all this. We thought it was the Postmaster-General.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThe Postmaster-General was the Executive head. He controlled all the organisation. But the Postmaster-General is not a Member of the Cabinet. Of course, the Cabinet itself is responsible for these matters, and in the capacity of a member of the Cabinet I was responsible to the Cabinet for the administration. I need hardly say the Postmaster-General and I worked in the utmost harmony. I should like to take this opportunity of saying to the House of Commons how much the nation owes to these volunteers in the Government and out of the Government—my colleagues, including the Postmaster-General—who undertook this very difficult work, and those thousands of volunteers up and down the country who placed their services at the disposal of the country in a time of great emergency.
There was one further organisation, called the Civil Constabulary Reserve. We did not know for how long or how short a time the emergency would exist, and we thought it might be desirable to have a further force. Every effort that I made and that my colleagues made was in order to prevent the military being called in, or firearms being used. As the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Bromley) has said, this was a national strike. Britons were on one side and Britons were on the other, and it was highly desirable—I take full responsibility for saying this—that, if possible, the great trouble should be got through without a single death taking place. I am very glad to tell the Committee that not one single shot was fired throughout the whole of this emergency. I thought it desirable, and the Cabinet thought it desirable, that there should be, in addition to the ordinary special constables, another force called the Civil Constabulary Reserve. The special constables were not able to give up the whole of their time, but I thought there might be a body of men who might be prepared to give up the whole of their time. Accord- 2186 ingly, a—it is difficult to describe it—semi-military force was created, called the Civil Constabulary Reserve.
§ Mr. BROMLEYIt was a body similar to the Irish Auxiliaries.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSOpportunity was accordingly given to any Territorial soldiers or their friends who desired to do so, to join this new force. We did not call up the Territorials; we did not want to call them out as such. But an opportunity was given to any of those who wanted to serve, for pay, full time, to do so. Of course, no one knew how long the emergency would last. In London 11,162 men joined this Civil Constabulary Reserve, and in the provinces 7,321. They were only in existence for a little over a week. They were really whole-time special constables. The moment they were raised, they were placed directly under the control of the civil power. The military power had no authority to move a single one of them. They were handed over to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and he was responsible, as the civil officer, for the control and use of these men of the Civil Constabulary Reserve.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYWho was in command?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThey were under-inspectors and superintendents. In the first instance, they were appointed by the Territorial Department of the War Office, but after enlistment they became policemen absolutely, free from the control of, and having nothing to do with, the War Office organisation. In London, they were placed under the immediate command of the Commissioner of Police (Sir William Horwood) and, of course, the Home Office, and in the provinces they were placed under the command of the civilian chief constables.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYThe Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThe Chancellor of the Exchequer had nothing to do with it.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYOh! I thought he was in command.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI bow to the hon. and gallant Member. He has scored off me this time. It is one of his jokes, and I appreciate it. However, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had nothing to do with it.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSCertainly. The action we took was essential to the maintenance of order, and the provisioning of London. There was a time, as the Committee knows, when the docks had been closed for, I think, five days, when it was essential to get food from the docks into London. If we had sent down a few policemen or a. few soldiers, I take the responsibility for saying that there might quite likely—knowing what I knew then, and what I know now of the condition of affairs round the docks—have been a collision between the police and the military, and the strikers round the docks. Hon. Members may say that we sent down too great a force, and that we sent down a force which did not need to be used. It was the fact of sending down that superior force, with tanks, that saved bloodshed and saved trouble. [Interruption.] Yes, and opened the docks, and got from the docks food that was essential for the people of this great city, and it was brought out without any bloodshed or trouble of any kind. That was the reason why the tanks were used. The Government take full responsibility for having used them, and I say that it was an essential and a wise measure to take.
§ Mr. WALLHEADWill the right hon. Gentleman tell us what position Lord Birkenhead occupied? Did he revert to his old job of galloper?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSLord Birkenhead, as Secretary of State for India, pursued the duties which the Secretary of State for India is called upon to do. I have given a general outline of the work that was done and of the organisation for which this Vote is asked. Every possible effort at economy was carried out. There was no extravagance 2188 of any kind. The amount for which we are asking is less than we thought would be necessary.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThere was the utmost and rigid economy exercised. I should like to say how much all members of the community, including those who were engaged in the national strike, and their wives and children, are indebted to the organisation throughout the country, to the volunteers and those who kept going the essential services of the country. There was no distinction of any kind made. The striker and his wife and children had the same opportunities of sharing in all these services, and they received the benefit of them just as much as those who were not engaged in the strike. The whole organisation redounded greatly to the credit of all concerned. We always do manage to carry through our difficulties, and to fight our troubles in a fairly amiable way, although some hon. Members opposite have not been very amiable with me.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODYou never expected to get away so easily as you have done.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI was intending to end my speech by thanking the great body of hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). I am sure the Committee realises that the work was well done, and it was done in the interests of the country as a whole.
§ Mr. PALINGIs the right hon. Gentleman going to deal with the "British Gazette"?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSYes.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYHad the Committee over which the right hon. Gentleman presided any sort of liason with the editor or the staff of the "British Gazette," and was the right hon. Gentleman consulted about the communiqués,and especially the instruction to the armed forces, giving them a free hand in any measures they took?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSAs far as the "British Gazette" is concerned, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible, but for the Orders which were issued by the Committee over which I presided, I am responsible.
§ Mr. PURCELLI beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
I think we ought to congratulate the Home Secretary upon the amazingly one-sided statement he has made. He has done it extremely well. He has told us about the wonderful Government efforts which were made during the period of a so-called nine days' general strike, but to our amazement we find that many of the people were in the employ of the Government for some months or so beforehand. That means that they knew, or had made up their minds, that there was to be a general strike. As one who was in Downing Street at midnight on the 2nd May, let me say I am satisfied that the Government had made up its mind that afternoon that there should be a general strike. On that evening the Government had determined that there should be a general strike on the Tuesday, and no matter what anybody else did or desired to do there would have been a general strike. We are told that this is a wonderful piece of organisation, and I agree that it is. I am not complaining about it. Any Government has a right under the existing circumstances, any capitalist Government, to look after its friends, but the fact of the matter is that this Government used its time, not in trying to find a reasonable settlement of the dispute, but how to defeat the general strike, and they organised for that purpose. The Home Secretary has spoken of the tremendous work that was done, and what it has cost. I think we are paying a terrible price for it. It can be summed up in this way—It was a scab and blackleg organisation and this is the account for it.
They did something worse than that. They set up in this country a condition of things, only temporary, of course, which we should put an end to as speedily as possible. They brought into play a large number of people who under ordinary circumstances will not work, I say that emphatically, who have no desire to work. It took the Government nine months to organise these men to do a week's work and they had to pay them before they started. Wherever the peace was broken, it was mainly these people who were responsible. If you have any doubt about that, let me call your attention to a statement in an official document, not a statement in one of our own publications. It is reported in connection 2190 with the arrival of a detachment of police from Birmingham at an omnibus depot in Smethwick, which is just over the border, when these services were resumed after the strike. The representative of the Chief Constable of Staffordshire says that there was no disorder or any likelihood of disorder in the view of the Smethwick police, who had adequate forces. The incursion of the Birmingham police was not at the request or desire of the county authorities, but when some 30 or 40 omnibuses emerged to start the services there arrived on the scene two superintendents, two inspectors, 20 constables of the regular force, 10 motor-car loads of special constabulary, reserves wearing steel helmets, a fleet of cars driven by Birmingham constables, and a motor ambulance section. This is the organisation that is supposed to protect the public. This is the type of organisation under the Home Secretary and his hydra-headed Strike committee which is supposed to be an efficient machine for the protection of the public.
It was designed for the purpose of creating disorder and encouraging our people to enter into the fray when they would turn round and call out the troops. [An HON. MEMBER: "They failed!"] I know they did, but it was not because of the Home Secretary or his Committee that they failed. I will tell you why they failed. The first order we issued to our people was that wherever they found spies in their committees, or people likely to incite to disorder, they were to turn them out instantly. We told them that any disorder was not to our advantage. This was broadcast throughout the country, and that is the reason why they failed. In one case the town council came to our trades Council and asked us to assist in policing the district. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] In many places. In many places we had a close association with the authorities. We assisted them in this respect, we did our best. I am not asking for any cheers on behalf of ourselves or any of our committees; we did it as part of our business. Even in regard to food there were instances in which the local trades committee was anxious to help in its distribution. What happened? Our people were warned off the grass, so to speak, and particularly was this the case in Bristol. There the Chief Constable entered our trade union 2191 premises and ordered that the co-operation between the local authorities and ourselves in the matter of the distribution of food should be stopped. We saved you a considerable sum of money; but whenever we displayed our readiness to do this, we were at once ordered off.
Let us take the case where you had it your own way. I take the case of Weymouth. A report from the local transport workers' union states that an ex-Admiral and four plus-four men had to load a 10-ton truck. A man, who would do the job by himself, got 8s. a day, but it took this ex-Admiral and these four plus-four men a whole day to load the truck. If the dispute had gone on for another three or four months, the Vote would not have been for £433,000, but for something nearer £400,000,000. Take the London omnibus service. That was a very efficient service, you say. We had on each omnibus five men doing two men's job. And how honest all these gentlemen were! We had to limit the fares that they were to take to 3d, nothing more and nothing less. There must always he some test of honesty with regard to the handling of money, even on a. London omnibus, and in this case we limited the fare to 3d. There may be other reasons. What were the reasons for having three men on the front instead of one efficient man? You paid the greatest compliment to the working classes of this country during the general strike that they have ever had paid to them. You said that it takes five heroes during a strike to man a two-man omnibus, even when the limit of fares is 3d. There was barbed wire, too, in every direction, yet people chance themselves with the ordinary general strikers every day. This was the class of man that you were fighting against, the class of man that you organised all your forces to beat down. You did not organise them very efficiently, you could not have organised them very efficiently or they would not have had to be armed, as was the case in several instances with regard to the omnibuses. It was patent to everybody that the men were armed.
The thanks that you gave to many of our people in this connection was that many of them, who committed no offence whatever, were sentenced without any real charge against them or without any charge that could be substantiated in the 2192 ordinary course of things as, for instance, during times when there is no general strike or when a general strike atmosphere does not prevail. I am satisfied of that in eight cases that I know personally, and I dare say that hundreds of other cases could be given. Take the example of a miscarriage of justice of a vile type in which a railwayman with 25 years' service, who applied for his job back, was assaulted on the lift going down to ask for his job by one of these emergency men and four minutes afterwards was sentenced to a month's imprisonment. That was in London on the Thursday after the general strike had been declared off. Your organisation may have been good or bad, but loyal workers were penalised in the way I have just indicated.
There are many other matters that could be referred to. We can point to the attacks on many of the offices and the smashing up of all the typewriters. I do not know why they should have singled out typewriters. There were instances in St. Pancras, Salford, Manchester and Birmingham.. In Birmingham we had the breaking-in of the premises and the destruction of all the stationery without any reason whatsoever. I could understand them going in to arrest their man and taking him out, but to go and destroy the office requisites in a most wanton fashion shows that their desire was not merely to arrest the individual, but to get us into a disturbance that would have led to the calling out of the troops. That was the tendency.
§ Major EDMONDSONWhat offices were these?
§ Lieut.-Commander ASTBURYThe hon. Member referred to Salford. What trade union offices were broken into there?
§ Mr. PURCELLI am referring to trade union offices, some of which were situated in houses. In one case, where the man died, he was secretary of a branch of a union and his typewriters and papers have been taken and not returned.
§ Lieut.-Commander ASTBURYThat was not a trade union office, but was a hotbed of Communism.
§ Mr. PURCELLIs that to be said with regard to the Birmingham case, or the St. Pancras case? As a matter of fact. they were representatives of their unions in every case of which I am speaking.
§ Lord APSLEYWhat trade unions?
§ Mr. PURCELLThey were representatives of trade unions. It does not matter what unions.
§ Lord APSLEYWhat trade unions?
§ Mr. PURCELLYou have no sense of fairness. I was challenged as to the place. I now propose to give two or three places where the association with the authorities was to the advantage of good order. In Colchester, no special constables were enrolled at all, as the result of an arrangement made locally between our own people and the authorities. At Leyton, the same thing prevailed, and there are several other eases. Where the trade union representatives and the local authorities came to some arrangement, there seems to have been no disorder at all. When you refer to the quietness of the country in all respects, you must give some credit for that work. I do not want you to give the Trades Union Congress any credit at all, because they are capable of looking after themselves. When, however, you speak of the wonderful efficiency, we profoundly disagree. When we remember the amount of money available for this purpose, I am satisfied that we have been lucky to get off as well as we have without any bloodshed taking place.
So far as we have seen, these people, who were brought in and who were not concerned with the merits or demerits of the case at all, had as their chief concern that if a row broke out they would be very pleased to begin it and to do their damnedest. That was their attitude. Many of these young men who came from public schools and colleges had made up their minds what they were going to do if they got their opportunity. In many instances they were inciting people to do it. Outside our office we saw it happening. A parade of 10 motor-cars drove straight through a crowd there one day. Their business was to start a riot so that our people could get the worst of it and then the blame would have been all against us. I am glad to say that we got out of it.
I want to agree with the Home Secretary in one thing. I have heard in several big cities of Europe that the general strike was a wonderful thing, 2194 particularly in regard to the fact that there was literally no bloodshed at all in connection with it. It is a great compliment to our countrymen. We pride ourselves on being able to get through in the fashion we did. You ought to acknowledge that there is something to be said for the other side when you remember that, apart from the miners themselves, we had at least 1,750,000 workmen and workwomen on the streets of this country on the Friday of the first week and I daresay that it reached 2,000,000 by the early part of the following week. So far as the first week was concerned, that figure of 1,750,000 people on the streets included large masses of people who were, generally speaking, casually employed and living in our great cities. There is also this that must be said: The Home Secretary spoke about the ability to transport a large amount of food from dockland to the proper quarters. We knew on the Sunday that arrangements would be made for that to be done, and we are entitled to say now that we had urged our people to keep off the streets as much as possible at the time. I am not now arguing whether or not we had power to do things. I am merely stating that it is possible for the working class so to arrange its conduct that it can be the main element in preventing disorder. That is all that I am urging. We take no special praise for what we did. We can urge our people to be orderly. We can be in a fight to change the present social order in its main elements and can do it in what might be called an orderly fashion, so far as life and limb are concerned.
§ Mr. PURCELLThe hon. Member must take for granted what I say and not what he thinks I say. All these things tend to show that there was a desire on our side to run the thing in an orderly way. Not a word have we heard about the very savage sentences passed upon some of our people. One case that I would like to mention, relates to Bolton, where 10 lads were sentenced to terms up to three months for withdrawing the pin from the wheel of a coal cart.
§ Sir FRANK MEYERIs it in order to discuss sentences inflicted on people when we are considering a Supplementary Estimate of this kind?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThere is nothing whatever in this Vote to justify any reference to those sentences.
Mr. PUFICELLThe Horne Secretary has made a statement as to the orderliness of things during the strike. I am mentioning a case from Bolton which shows that there was something of a disorderly kind. Other cases could be mentioned. The removal of food mentioned by the Home Secretary was not such a wonderful achievement as he would make us believe. I understand that the number of people engaged in that work, apart from soldiers, tanks and machine guns, was abnormal. People who know something about transport tell me that the whole of the work could have been done with a third of the labour in a quarter of the time, and with less than a third of the number of lorries used, to say nothing of the assistance of the troops. Therefore, it seems to me that it would have been better for the Government to have accepted the offer that was made.
§ Captain WATERHOUSEAccept food from hooligans
§ Mr. PURCELLIf they are hooligans, you are an arch-hooligan. They are a dozen times better than you will ever be. So far as our people are concerned, if it was not for them, some of you would be literally lousy in a month.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member had better address his remarks to the Chair.
§ Mr. PURCELLI am not going to stand insults anyhow.
§ Mr. A. HENDERSONIs it right for an hon. Member who has just entered the House to begin immediately by describing those whom a Member is speaking of as "hooligans"?
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton)We have been called "murderers."
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI hope that hon. Members in all parts of the Committee will abstain from using epithets.
§ Captain WATERHOUSEMay I say, in reply to what was stated by the right hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson), that I have heard every word that the hon. Member has said.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSOn a point of Order. I think that you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, cannot have heard what took place. The expression "hooligans" did not refer to any Member of this House.
§ Mr. PURCELLIt referred to our people.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSIt was not addressed to hon. Members at all.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI did not hear the expression.
§ Mr. POTTSIf I make a statement in this House and I call people "hooligans," shall I be in order in doing that, having regard to the statement that the Home Secretary has made?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat is a hypothetical question which I should have to consider on its merits when it arose.
Captain EVANSOn a point of Order. During the strike the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) alluded to certain acts of hooliganism and said they were purely acts committed by hooligans.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat is not a point of order.
§ Mr. PURCELLI do not wish to continue the discussion to any great length, and I will merely say this with regard to the whole of this question. The Government may get it into their heads that they can fight the trade union movement. They may also think that they can defeat the trade unions. I want to assure them that they are in a fool's paradise. I can assure them that the trade union movement has survived ills quite as big as this. It is recovering very rapidly, if it ever needed to recover, and it will recover more rapidly as the days go by. The responsible people are men who have great experience, who have assisted in the making of laws in this House, and have assisted in a large number of negotiations with employers throughout the land. I have not the least doubt that whatever the Government do these men will come back. It may be that there are some 2197 little strands frayed out on the edge of things, but that will not affect the centre of this business at all. On the contrary I think that they will yet lead this great working class army to.another dispute of much larger dimensions than the one through which we have passed. [How. MEMBERS: "Now we know!"] I am not here to hide anything. While many of you think that the general strike was a disaster for the trade union movement, I am satisfied that so far as those eight clays were concerned it was a demonstration of illimitable brilliance so far as the working classes are concerned. There has never been in history an act more brilliant as when some 2,000,000 men and women came out to give aid to and to show that they sided with another million people who were being hardly put to it. Hon. Members opposite may laugh and jeer at that. These people will yet be your masters, and I am certain they will treat your children far better than you treat them. They will be much more generous. They will not deprive your children of education as you have deprived them—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIt is an old-established rule that speakers must address the Chair.
§ Mr. PURCELLThen, Sir, you will have to keep the others in order. In conclusion, I say that this is by no means the last general strike. It is the first, general strike. You will get it in good time, my friends!
§ Mr. PURCELLI only want to add this. The stress under which the working class is suffering will compel a general strike. It is not that Members on these benches or trade unions desire that there should be a general strike. It is that there is always a feeling, deep down in the hearts of these people, that they are not being treated correctly or decently. Many of them are simply moving in the direction in which they are moving, because of economic factors that are always bearing down upon them. Many of them do not know exactly where they are going. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I repeat that statement, but there are millions more who 2198 have been side-tracked by the Tory party in this country, and as soon as they get back on the proper line, and realise the need for association with their fellows in industry, I am satisfied that this is the side on which they will be found. As soon as that happens it will be goodbye to general strikes. General strikes will be finished with, but so will the Tory party and the capitalist class.
Captain BENNOn a point of Order. This proposed reduction covers the whole Vote, and the Vote includes Item E, which relates to the "British Gazette." May I remind you that your predecessor in the Chair promised that unless the Minister responsible for the "British Gazette," namely, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was present—
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSHe is here.
Captain BENN—he would accept a Motion to report Progress. Therefore, I presume that some Member will be at liberty to move to report Progress, pending the attendance of the Minister who is officially responsible.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANWe had better wait and see what is going to happen.
§ Mr. BROMLEYI support the Amendment, which is also on the Paper in my name, for a reduction in this Vote of £100. I do so for the purpose—if hon. Members on the capitalist benches will agree—of presuming to offer some quite friendly advice, against the next time. [Interroption.] The hon. Member for Streatham (Sir W. Mitchell] is sometimes —if I may say so without offence—so truculent, that I thought, just now, he was pulling out a gun from his pocket.
§ Mr. BROMLEYIn the first place, I should like to point out to the Committee that even hon. Members on this side slip into the mistake of referring to the late upheaval in the trade union world as a general strike. It was nothing of the sort. Had it been a general strike, as some of the trade unions' representatives desired, it would have been much more difficult for the Home Secretary to have given such an airy and satisfactory report upon it. It was due to the lack of truculence among the trade unionists 2199 that it blew over so easily, and that the Government, with their skeleton forces of volunteers, were able to carry on. Had it been a general strike, there would have been no safety men left in the mines, no people to build the huts in Hyde Park in which the milk was stored, no people carrying on any work at all, or conveying foodstuffs as trade unionists did. All those great forces about which we have heard to-night—with all the false figures that were given—could not possibly have taken the place of three million strikers. If the Government had had to carry out the essential services and the safety work and convey the food, they would not have had any surplus to do some of the easy work which they actually performed. The capitalist Government of this country have taken a dangerous road. We have it on the admission of the Home Secretary that preparations were made for a great national strike a month before it took place.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSLonger than that.
§ Mr. BROMLEYI am speaking from my understanding of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, and I gather that their blacklegs were actually in their service a month before the event. But that arrangement was built up on an organisation of many months standing. It may be said, to the credit in some way, of the general council that they were not prepared for a national strike at all, and therefore, were not in the truculent mood which has been suggested. I am not going to fall out with the idea of a capitalist Government looking after the capitalist interest. I know that is inevitable as long as the system lasts. We may call the Government by what names we wish: we may try to impress the minds of the people by any political subterfuges we think fit, but we all know quite clearly, on both sides, that the capitalist Government represents the capitalist interest at all costs. If there was no bloodshed in the recent upheaval, no thanks are due to the people who organised the crushing of the trade unions. Hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite know that, and they know that we know it whether their supporters behind them know it or not. [Laughter.] Possibly the supporters 2200 behind them do know it; and would have been only too delighted to have seen the preparations that they claim to know were being made, carried into effect. [HON. MEMBERS: "How do you know!"] If I know more than hon. Members opposite that is possibly why I am not so hilarious and jocular as they appear to be.
I put this to the Government—that there was no need for this expenditure of money, because the organised workers had offered to work all foodstuffs and all essentials. That has been laughed at with great hilarity from the Government side, that they, British people, should consort with other British people, below the caste line, I suppose, for organising in a struggle of this sort to keep the nation fed. That would be beneath their dignity. That was not what the capitalist Government were after, so much as endeavouring to crush the working people. Here was an offer to assist in the working of foodstuffs, and I suggest that an unbiased Government that really desired to hold the scales fairly during a struggle of this character would have said: "Let us work together to conduct it as safely as possible and bring it to an end as speedily as possible." But preparations were made for quite another purpose, and what I suggest to hon. Members opposite℄and I do it without truculence or any appearance, I hope, of a threat℄is that possibly the great delight at what they feel to be a victory, although in their own minds but a transient victory, will bring a great resistance next time, and they may not, as has already been indicated, be, able to control so many of our class to do the work that some of them did.
I was struck during the speech of my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment by the wonderful control of certain hon. Members opposite who, I understand, were in positions of responsibility for the handling of men and possibly endangering human life during the recent disturbance. Why, they could not run a trade union if they could not balance themselves better than that. It only indicates what we, on this side, know very well. It is not only the desire to ridicule and gibe at hon. Members here, but it is the blood lust, and we know it. The danger is this: You have had in this country an organised upheaval about which Members on the 2201 Government side, on the Capitalist benches, have been boasting that there was almost no bloodshed. Why? Because so far the organised workers of this country have endeavoured to carry out their battles, either large or small, in a spirit of which we have so far been proud, and in most other countries of Europe now, owing to the aggression and the repression and the brutality of the Capitalist Governments of those States, you have workers' forces being formed, workers' defence forces. Do you want to bring it here? I know there may be some people in this country who would be delighted to do so, and I suggest that that will be the beginning of the end. It was tried in Ireland, with the same sort of forces that were to have been organised to meet this general strike had it gone on, and how did it end in Ireland? I suggest that, with all their desire to protect the present Capitalist system, hon. Members opposite may with advantage consider the possibility of the next upheaval, because trade unionism is not crushed by any means. In fact it has learned some lessons that will strengthen it for the future.
10.0 P.M.
I would like to say a word or two with regard to the special civil constables, of whom we have heard so much, and the organisation in Hyde Park. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman, when he was describing their activities and the great assiduity with which they attended to their duties, did not mention those who were paying attention to the pockets of the other fellows. They seem to have raked together a very tidy average lot among the constables, and we find thieves, ordinary braggarts, drunkards, and something similar in calibre to those whom I saw in Ireland during the disturbance there. I had the pleasure, I almost said, of seeing the Black and Tans and the Auxiliary Forces there, and I do not want to say too hard things about my fellow men, but those I saw were not such as I would have invited to a wedding party. They were the same class of men in many instances that were organised, at quite good remuneration, into this force to crush down the British working men. We have had insults and sneers hurled at the organised British workers, of alien influence, alien gold, alien this, that and the other, but what about the Capitalist benches, and what about the 2202 blood strain in many of the Capitalist Government of this country? We can show as clean and pure a British strain on this side as they can, and if closely examined, possibly a little more, so that when we are subjected to these sneers it leaves us cold, and we do not get all of a sweat, like some hon. Members opposite.
When any Minister replies to this Debate, I should like to hear if any of this extravagant expenditure that, under the circumstances, need not have been expended, has been paid to employers to make up for the damage done to their stock and property while these very efficacious volunteers were at work. Possibly the Minister of Transport can answer whether they are going to pay for the damage they did on the railways. To talk about their taking the place of the British workers is amusing. They certainly ran a few buses and brought a few clerks from their clingy offices and a few typists. They were the class of people who were driving those buses, and they were delighted with the sunshine and with the flappers admiring them, and everyone believing they were heroes, but, as has been suggested, none of them went down the mines, none of them went down the London sewers, or did the hard, dirty work of the world, and they had very great difficulty in carrying on for nine days with the work they did. But there was a number of these people who went to work on the railways, and I want to know if the railways are to be compensated by public money for the damage they did. There were sonic hon. Members of this House, I think, who made a very savage onslaught on railway work, but I think they stopped at sweeping platforms and snapping tickets, and I never heard that they did any difficult job. They tore up the main line—
§ The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley)They did not kill anybody when they did it.
§ Mr. SULLIVANOn a point of Order. Is it customary for Front Bench Members to intervene in this way?
§ Mr. BROMLEYI am not surprised—
§ Mr. SULLIVANI am, to some extent, a stranger here, but as the Minister of Transport has been interrupting frequently, I would appeal to you, as the 2203 crowd behind is, probably, trying to follow his example.
§ Mr. BROMLEYI was reminded, when the Minister of Transport was kind enough to set me right, that, possibly, the data I might have as to what took place on the railways during the dispute was not correct. Possibly I might give a little more detail than his own Department, with all respect to the Department over which he presides with such ability and his usual good humour. Taking only the electric railways here, the Minister of Transport, when he answers, can tell us about those scions of nobility, how many motors they worked out, and how many thousands of pounds' worth of damage they did in running round these little circles. When we come to the main lines, will he tell its how many very valuable engine fire-boxes were burnt out, and lead plugs dropped; whether they are prepared to repair the engines and turntables; whether they have compensated the seven people injured in the accident at Brixton by one of the volunteers not understanding the machine he was controlling; whether they are providing new crossing-gates, because of those people who seemed to take a great pride in decorating the front of the locomotive! I am not joking about this. I am pointing out, first, the unnecessary expenditure in this particular Estimate, all, or nine-tenths of which might have been avoided, had the Government been an unbiassed Government, instead of a capitalists' representative Government, and had worked with the people who would have worked with them to provide foodstuff and the essentials and necessities of life, and to bring the dispute to a close. Then I am trying to show that, unless the Front Bench can assure us that in this £433,000 the payment of the damage to employers' property has been put right, there is a further expense and loss to the country by the manipulations of those gentlemen who took care usually to do their work in the sunshine!
When the Minister of Transport and other Members opposite protest, I take it that they suggest there was not a, great deal of damage done. A friend of mine, who was not connected with the trade union movement, was in conversation with a gentleman who had worked on one 2204 of the railways during the dispute, and this gentleman was bragging, like many others, because they worked for a few days out of a long life-time, and carried on the railways, and my friend, on purpose to sound this braggart, said to him, he supposed he was very proud of having assisted to smash the union. The man was sufficiently frank to say: "I do not know about smashing the bally union, but if the railway company had kept us on a few more days, I am certain we should have smashed the North Eastern Railway." I think that is largely true. What was the class of men? Apprentices, students, ex-convicts. You had to take some back on your railways—two, at least. Let me say this to the Home Secretary, who wants peace now. There were two men taken back into the railway service who. not long before the strike, were sentenced, I believe, to something like 12 months' imprisonment for stealing His Majesty's mails en route, and there were one or two others who had been in prison for ordinary theft. So plentiful were these volunteers, and of such high calibre were they, that these people were taken back. What I want to suggest to the. Home Secretary, for the purpose of peace, is that, in spite of a great deal of patience and a great deal of appeal, two of the convicts who stole His Majesty's mails are still driving engines, but they will not be much longer. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because you will have to empty the prisons to drive the others along with them. They are exceedingly useful people when you want them. I only put this to the Committee, that here is £433,000 expended unnecessarily, expended with full knowledge aforethought, and with the intention of fighting the trade unions, and which has been a waste of public money. I have put one or two questions to the Government Front Bench as to whether compensation for damage done by these blacklegs is included in this Vote. I support the Motion for the reduction.
Captain BENNI should like to say a word or two about this Estimate, and to hear what justification the Chancellor of the Exchequer can make for some of the features in it. I should like to say, at the outset, quite frankly, that I, myself, thoroughly disapproved of the suppression of the newspapers by the withdrawal of the printing labour. This was 2205 a conflict which could only ultimately be settled by the clash of public opinion, and anything which prevented the free-play of public opinion, in my judgment, was hindering the just solution of the problem. Therefore, in the circumstances, I can well understand the necessity for some official organ—an official and an authoritative organ, which would give due weight, where due weight should be given, instead of which we got a propaganda sheet of a vulgar type. I say nothing about the technical imperfections. I can hardly think there is a sphere of activity from which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would shrink, but as a compositor, I do not think he is at his best. I say nothing about the technical aspects. I say nothing about the vulgar tone of the advertisement of the Government and their friends which apeared in the paper, because I do not want to take up time.
I want to refer only to one aspect. We held during the general strike that these matters should be settled by Parliament. We are Parliamentary men. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who are 'we'?"] If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a foolish interruption, it is not for me to prevent him. I did not include himself in the category. I say that there was a body of opinion, in which I am not including the hon. Member, but a body of sane opinion which held that it was in this House that the issue should be decided, that it was here that the matter should be thrashed out and that the public should know from our Debates here what the rights and wrongs of the struggle were. This is the "British Gazette." Instead of reporting the proceedings of this House in a full and authoritative manner, it reports them—I could give many instances—in a vulgar and partisan spirit. The "Times" newspaper, despite the condition of the printing trade at that time, did produce full, careful, detailed, and correct information about the Debates in Parliament, and I say that it did possibly as much as anybody to help to bring about a settlement of the dispute.
Meantime the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and those persons whom he had collected from the "Morning Post" office, were producing a Parliamentary report which was a disgrace in any case to journalism—even of partisan journalism. It was an absolute disgrace 2206 to anything that purported to be official or authoritative. I do not know whether hon. Members have studied the reports in that paper. I am not certainly going to read the matter now that the general strike has finished and that the emergency has pased, but hon. Members can see for themselves how very vulgar some of these reports are. Instead of publishing in the paper what the Government on the one side said, and what, on the other side, the Opposition said, or of putting the case for both, which is what I understand ought to have been done, they indulged in such phrases as these:
Mr. George Lansbury followed with an angry, shouting speech.The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer wasA striking one.Thenthere was pandemonium on the Socialist benches.[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Some hon. Members opposite may think that I am reading from one of their party organs, but. I am reading from the official "Gazette." Further, I find a reference toone of the moderate members of the Socialist party,and so on, and so forth. Let me take another specimen. It speaks of Mr. Herbert Smith asThat dour, glum, heavy-browed and unsmiling person.Here is another, but I will not read it ℄[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on!"]— because it refers to an hon. Lady Member of this House, and the reference is such that I should have thought that no decent journalist would have given it. It goes on to say that as she marched to the Table,the Socialists shouted their glee, but their joy was short-lived.That is the national organ! I am under a bond not to occupy more than one or two minutes, otherwise I could give many other examples of this vulgarity and partisanship. But I say that the Government responsible, and the Minister responsible, for abusing the trust—for it was a trust—to produce an official and authoritative description of events, if he believed that the House of Commons should rule and not an outside body, should have devoted his 2207 attention to giving a correct description of the proceedings of this House, and should have avoided this vulgarity and partisanship. It will do nothing but bring into ridicule and contempt the very House on which the safety of the country depends.
§ Mr. DAVISONThe question I desired to ask the Home Secretary was this. In view of the fact that no trouble has taken place with regard to either the General Strike or the lock-out, as you may be pleased to term it, what justification exists for the repressive measures he has introduced?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThat could have been discussed yesterday morning, but it would he our of order to-day.
§ Mr. DAVISONOh, no. The Home Secretary definitely invited questions from Members of the House. I put a definite question to him and I want a definite reply.
§ Sir HENRY SLESSERThe question of the "British Gazette" merits very serious consideration from this House. In the first place, those of us who in the past have read with such delight and appreciation the literary work of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and are concerned that our great literary men should preserve unto the grave and beyond the reputation which they deserve, must really be distressed for the reputation of the right hon. Gentleman that he could have been in any way associated with this publication. We have been told, and it has not been denied, that he edited this paper. It is difficult to believe that the right hon. Gentleman, who has written with so magnificent a style and phrasing on other occasions, should have produced this abortion. The only reason I can think of which can have led the right hon. Gentleman to produce this misbegotten child is that he wished to exhibit to the country that State Socialism, as it appears in this enterprise, is a very disastrous experiment. I can think of no other reason which could have prompted him to countenance such a journal as this. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) has already observed that while this strike was in progress there was before 2208 the right hon. Gentleman—in the case of the "Times" newspaper, for instance—examples of how newspapers could be properly conducted, and could decently take one view or another of the issue, and at the same time preserve their dignity and their self-respect. When my hon. and gallant Friend spoke of the vulgarity of this newspaper, which I do not think is contested in any part of the House— [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] I am sorry to hear it. I thought the literary taste of this House was sufficiently high to admit that this was a very vulgar newspaper. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I can only say—
§ Mr. DAVISONI. have not yet received a reply to my question.
§ Sir H. SLESSERrose
§ Mr. DAVISONOn a point of Order. Am I entitled, when the Minister is present, to receive a reply?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANNot upon some question that does not arise.
§ Sir H. SLESSERrose—
§ Mr. DAVISONOn a point of Order, Captain FitzRoy, I demand an explanation from4 the Home Secretary, because he challenged me and every other Member of the House to ask questions.
§ Sir H. SLESSERI submit to the Committee that perhaps it is one of the most unsatisfactory features of the situation that we should have such an undermining of the prestige of the Government by persons in high authority. If there is any doubt as to the capacity of modern Governments to check unsocial evils and stop the growth of Bolshevism or restlessness in the country, it can only be due to the diminishing respect in which the people who govern are held by the community. The production of such a newspaper as this is calculated to produce disaffection amongst His Majesty's subjects. Loyal as I am, I find it difficult to respect any Government or Minister who can make himself responsible for such a production as this.
May I just deal with one specific case in this newspaper to show not only how 2209 vulgar but how unscrupulous was this journal. I wish to mention a particularly unfair treatment which I myself received. I abstained from any comment on this matter during the strike, but as two or three copies of this journal had been devoted to extracts from certain works which I have published on trade union law, and as an utterly unfair use has been made of those quotations, I wish to point out that they were absolutely torn from their context and applied in connection with things to which they were never intended to apply. I say it is unfair, when dealing with a public opponent at the public expense, to make extracts from his books without reference to their context or to their sense. I wrote a book in which I commented on a proposal made for calling a general strike in order to prevent the exportation of arms by the Government of this country to Russia. It is evident to anyone who has read that book that that was the purpose of the article, which dealt with a specific political act where there can be no doubt that it was political. Extracts were taken from this article, torn from its context, and published under the heading of "Direct Action." Then my name follows, to which is added:
A Socialist admission.The admission, if it be an admission, was not the admission of anyone quâ Socialist, but possibly, if it be an admission at all, it is an admission made from a legal point of view. However that may be, how utterly unfair it is, and I think the right hon. Gentleman, now that the excitement of the strike has passed away, will admit how utterly unfair it is, when a paper like this, in which there was not even, I think, a correspondence column or any opportunity of reply, snatches extracts from text-books written in an entirely impartial manner and, from a legal point of view, in another connection altogether. Surely, if there were an occasion when precaution and great scrupulousness ought to have been practised, it was this.Then, may I take another example? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) expressed in this House a certain legal opinion, and that opinion was quoted at length in this newspaper. I noticed that a few days afterwards the Attorney-General wrote an article in this newspaper entitled, "The 2210 Truth of the Coal Negotiations"; but from beginning to end there was never any official statement from the Law Officers of the Crown, or, indeed, from the Government at all, as to the legal position involved here. Were that speech merely to have been set out as part of a Parliamentary Debate, I would not have minded so much, but I do complain that what I said on the next day was curtailed to, I think, not more than an eighth of my total speech. I am quite prepared and am modest enough to say that that represents the respective capacity of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley and myself. But this is not a party organ; this is an. official organ; and we are being asked this evening to vote a considerable sum of money for the publication of an official report of what happened during those days.
I say it is a most dangerous precedent. Some day, when another Government may occupy the benches opposite, an official journal may be similarly edited and produced which may give partial and biased opinions to us. But that is not to say that a Government should not publish accurate information. There is a Government publication, which I read with great interest, the "London Gazette." It is impartial, is conducted in a highly literary and efficient style, and contains all sorts of interesting information. May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, the next time he proceeds to take upon himself the mantle of an official editor, he should follow the example of the "London Gazette"— which I think was started in the reign of James II for the purpose of purveying accurate information—rather than the example of the "Daily Mail," or something worse, in the production of these official papers
No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will say, when he comes to reply, that the emergency was such that it was necessary to produce in the public mind a feeling which would bring the strike rapidly to an end. I think that any proper speeches or representations which anybody or any Government might make ought properly to be reported in this newspaper; but to report fairly is one thing, and to cover your newspaper with large headlines and —[HON. MEMBERS: "Lies!"]—in-accuracies, is another. I notice, for 2211 example, that Mr. Hodges, who is represented in some quarters as a very wise and excellent man—and I am not saying a word against him—is here stated to have received a severe snub; and from day to day it was quite impossible to say whether any particular person would or would not be selected in this official journal for praise or censure. I do not think that, when we are dealing with official news, as apart from party newspapers and party opinions, censure and blame for any part of the public of the country should appear. The Government should have restricted themselves solely to recording facts, and if they had done that, if they had taken an example from a paper like the "Times," which admittedly has political views, no one could properly complain.
Apart from anything else, I say that this was an utter waste of money. The Money that was spent on this newspaper could very properly, from the beginning, have been saved, because almost. from the beginning we had the "Times," certainly after the first few days, and I think most hon. Members opposite, if they were sincere, would admit that they themselves would have preferred to read the "Times" during that time rather than the official organ. That being so, and seeing that you had in existence both that excellent publication that was issued by the Trade Union Congress, which was far better than the "British Gazette," and that you also had that equally excellent publication the "Times," to whose composition so many hon. Members opposite devote, deservedly, a great deal of their time, why should we he called upon to ask the taxpayers to pay to finance a partisan, biased, vulgar newspaper such as can only diminish that prestige of the Government which we all wish to seek to support and, what is more serious, diminish the well-deserved literary reputation which the right hon. Gentleman won before he started turning newspaper correspondent and editor?
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill)I think it will be generally agreed by the Committee that whatever else the British Government may or may not have done, at any rate it has sickened the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South-east Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) of 2212 State Socialism in newspapers. He has made a long complaint in support of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Leith (Captain Benn) about the many defects, shortcomings, vices, partialities, vulgarities—that was a word he used with a frequency which betrays considerable lack of fertility of vocabulary—which characterised the "British Gazette." I must point out to him that none of those difficulties would have arisen, and none of the defects and faults of the "British Gazette" would ever have seen the light of day, if he had only succeeded, as doubtless he tried, in persuading his friends not to gag all the other newspapers in the country. After all, all the newspapers, as far as we knew, and as far as some people could try, were to be completely silenced. That was the position that was suddenly sprung upon us. Only one exception was to be made, and that was the newspaper which was supporting the general strike.
§ Sir H. SLESSERThe right hon. Gentleman must know that. the "Daily Herald" ceased simultaneously with all the other papers and afterwards the "British Gazette" and the journal to which he refers, the Trade Union Congress organ, appeared.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe journal was published as an official journal—
§ Mr. LANSBURYTo correct your lies.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe hon. Member, I am sure, will allow me to reply to the attacks which have been made.
§ Mr. LANSBURYrose
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI think the hon. Member might allow the Chancellor of Exchequer to finish his sentence in regard to the publication of this particular paper.
§ Mr. LANSBURYOn a point of Order. Is the Minister entitled to stand at the Table and make an absolutely untrue statement about a matter of fact?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat is not a point of Order.
§ Mr. MONTAGUEDisgusting yellow journalism.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI have been asked a question on a point of Order.
2213 I might be allowed to reply. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, whatever he said, thought that what he was saying was a fact.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLIf we are to be subjected to a great deal of hard language and a great amount of sharp talk, we are entitled to reply; but if we are to be interrupted on wrong points of Order or alleged points of Order, then it is very difficult to carry on the Debate. I do not think it should be supposed that these tactics really do any harm to those who sit on this side of the House. They do not. [Interruption.] There are only 16 or 17 minutes left. I can assure hon. Members opposite that it is a matter of absolute indifference to me whether I am allowed to make my case or whether I am not. [Interruption.] I do not mind in the least. I have plenty of opportunities of speaking in this House. I have to trespass more than I like on the good temper of the Assembly. [Interruption.]
If it would be better to pass the remaining 17 minutes in howling rather than in arguing, then I am prepared to facilitate the general wish; but if we are to be allowed a Debate, we must be allowed liberty of Debate. We must not be shouted down and interrupted because we say something that annoys hon. Members opposite. [Interruption.] Very frequently I hear the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and other hon. Members opposite say things with which I disagree, and which I even think are untrue. When they call me the harshest names that the dictionary contains, I can hardly be expected to leap forward in gratitude and agreement with what they say. I have to put up with it. Anything that is not unparliamentary, I think we ought to put up with. Why should the Labour party be so mealy-mouthed about Parliamentary Debates? We are not afraid of hard language and rough, blunt terms. Why should they be? [Interruption.] Fancy! Revolutionary and advanced politicians afraid of hard words!
§ Mr. LANSBURYHow many lies have you told?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLDo let me come back to the point. As I understand it, the "Daily Herald" ceased publication, and another broadsheet, the name 2214 of which I have forgotten, but not from any want of respect—I have to be very careful, I suppose, in what I say now—was started. I ask the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley this question: Was not that. broadsheet, the Trade Union official newspaper, worked by union labour?
§ Mr. LANSBURYWhen it was worked by union labour—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member for Bow and Bromley has been asked a. question and hon. Members should allow him to give his reply.
§ Mr. LANSBURYI am not able to say how the paper was produced. The only point on which I interrupted the right hon. Gentleman was his statement that a Labour newspaper had been permitted to run when others had been stopped. The "British Worker" did not start, and, as I understand, was not permitted to start until the Government started the "British Gazette." I sit here and have to listen to many things with which I disagree, but I do not think I interrupt—[HON. MEMPERS: "Oh, oh!"]—and I am subjected to as much interruption as any hon. Member in the House, but I have never complained.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI am not complaining at all. What I understood was, that when trade union labour was called out from all other papers, and its inaction was maintained throughout the strike as far as it was within the power of those who gave the summons to enforce it, the trade union newspaper was produced during the whole of the strike, I presume, by trade union labour and not by blackleg labour.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThere were a great many difficulties which confronted us in this emergency. For the first two or three days the main question was, not what should be put into the paper or how it should be produced, but whether anything could be produced at all, and I think it is very remarkable, consider- 2215 ing that there were only eight or nine persons who were experts at all concerned in the whole of that production that we got over these difficulties as well as we did. There was only one man for two whole days who could set up type on which a newspaper is founded, and consequently anything which was put into the paper had to go in seven or eight hours before the paper appeared. It was so difficult to get type set up, so hard pressed were we on the first day, that it was thought desirable by those conducting the paper to take a large block of copy which was in what is called stereo, left from a previous issue of the "Morning Post," and printed on the back of the paper. When you are reduced to these straits and these difficulties, it is quite possible there may be some slips in the editing of the paper; it is possible some views get through which ought not to get through, and others get there in a form in which under ordinary circumstances they would never be allowed to appear.
I make all admissions upon that score. But after the first three or four days were over we were getting on much better, we were getting a few more people able to set up the news as it came in, and consequently we were able to open our columns much more widely and deal with the editorial side in a more thorough manner. Take the case of the statement of the Archbishop of Canterbury and that of Cardinal Bourne. At the time they came in it was very difficult to get them into the paper, and it was thought that, in view of the other news and the limited means of setting-up, we had better leave them out. I was much fortified by the attitude that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) took as Prime Minister in the late coal strike, when some of the Ecclesiastical authorities intervened, and he said he was not going to have secular affairs intervened in by highly-placed divines, they had much better confine themselves to a sphere with which they were more acquainted.
Then there was the question of the speech of Lord Oxford. I saw on the tape, which still continued to work, some four or five lines of a speech by Lord Oxford in the House of Lords, and I saw it amounted to what may be called a 2216 patriotic declaration. I immediately said to the editor of the "Gazette," "Find out what Lord Oxford has said, and let us have some report."
§ Captain W. BENNYou did direct what went in?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe hon. and gallant Gentleman need not imagine that I shirk any responsibility. I asked that they should endeavour to find out what had been said, but it appears that the reporters of the Press Gallery in the House of Lords had also been called out, and the only copy of that speech which existed, I believe, was a copy which, I learned long since the strike, Lord Oxford for better security had handed to the Chief Whip in the House of Commons. What did I do? I wrote the next day to Lord Oxford, and I sent the letter to him by a common friend, saying that if he had anything to say to the nation we should be delighted to print it and give it as large a circulation as possible. I said the same thing to Lord Grey. They both availed themselves of the invitation, and, of course, not a single word was altered in any way. I wrote to the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs and asked him if he would care to say something. My right hon. Friend no doubt felt his literary activities were already bespoke. I was quite ready to print the honest, helpful and fair opinions of any person who was endeavouring to get this country out of its difficulties. I would gladly have printed the admirable statement which has now seen the light and which has been made by the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Bromley). I would have gladly given the utmost publicity to any such statement.
When you say to me that this paper ought not to have been partisan, but ought to have been entirely impartial, there I entirely differ. I decline utterly to be impartial as between the fire brigade and the fire. When you are in a great difficulty and in a fight of this kind, however unfortunate it may be, it it absolutely no use people pretending they do not know what side they are on. Here I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree with me. The ancient Greeks had a very salutary law that in disturbances of this kind, which sometimes in that 2217 country took a very serious form, anyone who could not make up his mind which side he was on was put to death.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLAt any rate, I want to make it perfectly clear that it was no part of our duty in producing a newspaper at a time of great crisis to put our very limited staff to work on filling the paper with a lot of defeatist trash. I hope that we got out of that difficulty in such a way that it will not be necessary for either of the parties in the State to conduct their disputes in future on the basis of the whole of the newspaper Press going out of action. It is very much better to let them all bay and blare away together, because in some way or other they correct each other. When you talk of the "British Gazette" and the organising of a newspaper, you have to make up your mind first of all whether you wish to fortify the faithful or to convert the heathen. We thought it essential, in the early days of this dispute, to rally and organise as well as we could those people in the country who were going to help in keeping the vital services going, and from that point of view we undoubtedly disposed of the limited forces which we controlled to the best possible advantage.
I cannot think that this was an unworthy achievement, with all its faults, which I perfectly clearly see. I cannot pretend to have read every word that appeared or to have sifted and garnered all the things that were published, but
§ I am sure that if we had gone on for another week or 10 days a very wide latitude of opinion would have been possible in its pages, so long as it tended to a peaceful solution of the difficulty in which the country found itself. But that did not arise. In eight or nine days it came to an end. In that time we achieved something. With a handful of experts and a lot of amateurs of all kinds we printed a paper which in its last issue attained 2,500,000 copies, and was delivered next morning at breakfast time from Newcastle to Bristol. I believe that it played an important part in raising the general strike, and some part in upsetting the Liberal party.
§ One last word. The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Purcell) has indicated that a time may come when another trial of strength will occur—which I devoutly hope may not be the case—and when something like this will be tried again upon the country or the community. I have no wish to make threats or to use language which would disturb the House and cause bad blood. But this I must say: Make your minds perfectly clear that if ever you let loose upon us again a general strike, we will loose upon you—another "British Gazette."
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 262; Noes, 122.
2221| Division No. 336.] | AYES. | [11.0 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Betterton, Henry B. | Cazalet, Captain Victor A. |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) |
| Ainsworth, Major Charles | Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton |
| Albery, Irving James | Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Chapman, Sir S. |
| Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool,W.Derhy) | Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart | Charteris, Brigadler-General J. |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer |
| Apsiey, Lord | Braithwaite, A. N. | Clayton, G. C. |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | BrIdgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Cobb, Sir Cyril |
| Asthury, Lieut. Commander F. W. | Briggs, J. Harold | Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Briscoe, Richard George | Coltox, Major Wm. Phillips |
| Atkinson, C. | Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Conway, Sir W. Marlin |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. J. | Cooper, A. Duff |
| Balniel, Lord | Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Couper, J. B. |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y) | Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.) |
| seamish, Captain T. P. H. | Bullock, Captain M. | Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry |
| Berm, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Burman, J. B. | Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) |
| Bennett, A. J. | Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Crookshank, Cot. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro) |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish- | Butt, Sir Alfred | Cunlifie, Sir Herbert |
| Berry, Sir George | Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Davidson, J.(Hertr'd,Hemel Hempast'd) |
| Bethel, A. | Campbell, E. T. | Davidson, Major.General Sir John H. |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | lliffe, Sir Edward M. | Rice, Sir Frederick |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil) | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) |
| Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S. | Ruggles.Brise, Major E. A. |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Jacob, A. E. | Rye, F. G. |
| Dixey, A. C. | Jephcott, A. R. | Salmon, Major I. |
| Drewe, C. | Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Ron. Sir William | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) | Sandernan, A. Stewart |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | Kidd, J. (Linllthgow) | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Ellis, R. G. | Kindersiey, Major G. M. | Sanderson, Sir Frank |
| Elveden, Viscount | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'I, Exchange) |
| England, Colonel A. | Lamb, J. Q. | Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Rentrew,W.) |
| Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y) |
| Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) | Skelton, A. N. |
| Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Looker, Herbert William | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon |
| Faire, Sir Bertram G. | Lord, Walter Greaves. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Fermoy, Lord | Lougher. L. | Smithers, Waldron |
| Fielden, E. B. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Finburgh, S. | Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Forestler-Walker, Sir L. | Lumley, L. R. | Sprot, Sir Alexander |
| Forrest, W. | Lynn, Sir R. J. | Stanley, Col. Hon, G. F. (Will'sden, E.) |
| Foster, Sir Harry S. | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Foxcroft, Captain C. T. | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. |
| Frece, Sir Walter de | McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus | Strickland. Sir Gerald |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | MacIntyre, I. | Stuart, Crichton., Lord C. |
| Ganzoni, Sir John. | McLean, Major A. | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Gates, Percy | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Styles, Captain H. Walter |
| Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | MacRobert, Alexander M. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Manningbam Buller, Sir Mervyn | Sugden, Sir Wilfried |
| Goff, Sir Park | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. | ajor.Gen. Si Frederick H. |
| Cower, Sir. Robert | Mason, Lfeut.-Col. Glyn K. | Templeton, W. P. |
| Grace, John | Meller, R. J. | Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Meyer, Sir Frank | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell |
| Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) | Tinne, J. A. |
| Grotrian, H. Brent | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Titchffeld, Major the Marquess of |
| Guest,Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.(Bristol,N.) | Monsell, Eyres, Corn. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Hall, Lleut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Morden, Col. W. Grant | Waddington, R. |
| Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne) | Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) | Wallace. Captain D. E. |
| Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive | Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Hammers'ey, S. S. | Murchison, C. K. | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Hanbury, C. | Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Nelson, Sir Frank | Waterhouse. Captain Charles |
| Harland, A. | Neville, R. J. | Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley) |
| Hartington, Marquess of | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Nuttall. Ellis | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Hasiam, Henry C. | Oakley, T. | Wells, S. R. |
| Hawke, John Anthony | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) | White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple |
| Headiam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Oman, Sir Charles William C. | Williams, Corn. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Herbert, S.(York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by) | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Hills. Major John Waller | Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Pete, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Withers, John James |
| Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St.Marylebone) | Pielou, D. P. | Weimer, Viscount |
| Holland, Sir Arthur | Power, Sir John Cecil | Womersley, W. J. |
| Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k. Nun.) | Pownalf, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde) |
| Hopkins, J. W. W. | Preston, William | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich. W.) |
| Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossiey) | Price, Major C. W. M. | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Horiick, Lleut.-Colonet J. N. | Radford, E. A. | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Howard, Captain Hon. Donald | Ralne, W. | Young, Rt. Hon, Hilton (Norwich) |
| Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) | Rawson, Sir Cooper | |
| Hume, Sir G. H. | Rees, Sir Beddoe | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen, Sir Aylmer | Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) | Captain Viscount Curzon and |
| Hurd, Percy A. | Ramer, J. R. | Captain Margesson |
| Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel | Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Charieton, H. C. | Fenby, T. D. |
| Ammon, Charles George | Cluse, W. S, | Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Gardner. J. P. |
| Barker. G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Compton, Joseph | Gibbins, Joseph |
| Barr, J. | Crawfurd, H. E. | Gillett, George M. |
| Batey, Joseph | Dalton, Hugh | Gosling, Harry |
| Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Greenall, T. |
| Broad, F. A. | Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | Greenwood, A. (Nelson and coine) |
| Bromley, J. | Day, Colonel Harry | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Duncan, C. | Grundy, T. W. |
| Buchanan, G. | Donnie, H. | Guest. Haden (Southwark, N.) |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Lunn, William | Snell, Harry |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | MacLaren, Andrew | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Hamilton, Sir R (Orkney & Shetland) | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | Stamford, T. W. |
| Hardie, George D | March, S. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Harris, Percy A. | Montague, Frederick | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Murnln, H. | Sullivan, J. |
| Hayday, Arthur | Oliver, George Harold | Sutton, J. E. |
| Hayes, John Henry | Palln, John Henry | Taylor, R. A. |
| Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | Paling, W. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Thurtle, E. |
| Hirst, G. H. | Ponsonby, Arthur | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Potts, John S. | Townend, A E. |
| Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Purcell, A. A. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. |
| Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Viant, S. P. |
| Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Riley, Ben | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen |
| John, William (Rhondda, West) | Ritson, J. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Runcirhan, Rt. Hon. Waiter | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Saklatvala, Shapurjl | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Jones. Morgan (Caerphilly) | Salter, Dr. Alfred | Welsh, J. C. |
| Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Scurr, John | Westwood, J. |
| Kelly, W. T. | Sexton, James | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Kennedy, T. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Wiggins, William Martin |
| Kirkwood, D. | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Lansbury, George | Shiels, Dr. Drummond | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Lawrence, Susan | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Lawson, John James | Sitch, Charles H. | |
| Lee, F. | Slesser, Sir Henry H. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Lindley, F. W. | Smilile, Robert | M r. Allen Parkinson and Mr. |
| Lowth. T. | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) | Charles Edwards. |
§ Question put accordingly, "That a sum, not exceeding £432,900, be granted for the said Service."
2222§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 118; Noes, 260.
2223| Division No. 337.] | AYES. | [11.12 P.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Hardle, George D. | Saklatvala, Shapurjl |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hitisbro') | Harris, Percy A. | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Ammon, Charles George | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Scurr, John |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hayday, Arthur | Sexton, James |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Aberullery) | Hayes, John Henry | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Barr, J. | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Batey, Joseph | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Been, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Hirst, G. H. | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Broad, F. A. | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Slesser, Sir Henry H. |
| Bromley, J. | Jenkins, W. (Neath, Glamorgan) | Smillie, Robert |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Buts) | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Buchanan. G. | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Snell, Harry |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Charleton, H. C. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Stamford, T. W. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Kelly, W. T. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Collins, Sri. Godfrey (Greenock) | Kennedy, T. | Stewart, J. (St. Roliox) |
| Compton, Joseph | Kirkwood, D. | Sullivan, J. |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Lansbury, George | Sutton, J. E. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Lawrence, Susan | Taylor, R. A. |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Lawson, John James | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.I) |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Lee, F. | Thurtle, E. |
| Davison, J. E. (Smetheack) | Lindley, F. W. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Lowth, T. | Townend, A. E. |
| Duncan, C. | Lunn, William | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. |
| Dunnlco, H. | MacLaren, Andrew | Viant, S. P. |
| Fenby, T. D | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen |
| Garro-Jones, Captain G M. | March, S. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Gardner, J. P. | Montague, Frederick | Watts-Morgan Lt Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Murnln, H. | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Gillett, George M. | Oliver, George Harold | Welsh, J. C. |
| Gosling, Harry | Pallin, John Henry | Westwood, J. |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Paling, W. | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Greenall, T. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins) | Ponsonby, Arthur | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Potts, John S. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Grundy, T. W. | Purcell, A. A. | |
| Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Riley, Ben | M r. Allen Parkinson and Mr. |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll) | Rltson, J. | Charles Edwards. |
| Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | |
| NOES. | ||
| Aciand Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Albery, Irving James | Applin, Colonel R. V. K. |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Ansley, Lord |
| Ainsworth, Major Charles | Allen. J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) | Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh |
| Atkinson, C. | Gratrlan, H. Brent | Oman, Sir Charles William C. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol. N.) | Perkins, Colonel E. K. |
| Balniel, Lord | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Hall, Lieut.-Col. air F. (Dulwich) | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) |
| Beamish, Captain T. P. H. | Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne) | Pielou, D. P. |
| Bean, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Power, Sir John Cecil |
| Bennett, A. J. | Hammersiey, S. S. | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish | Hanbury, C. | Preston, William |
| Bethel, A. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Price, Major C. W. M. |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Harland, A. | Radford, E. A. |
| Blrchail, Major J. Dearman | Hartington, Marquess of | Paine, W. |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Rawson, Sir Cooper |
| Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Hallam, Henry C. | Rees, Sir Beddoe |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Hawke, John Anthony | Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) |
| Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart | Headiam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Renter, J. R. |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. |
| Braithwaite, A. N. | Herbert, S.(York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by) | Rice, Sir Frederick |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Hilts, Major John Wailer | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St.Marylebone) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Brockiebank, C. E. R. | Holland, Sir Arthur | Rye, F. G. |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Salmon, Major I. |
| Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Bullock, Captain M. | Hortick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. | Sandeman, A. Stewart |
| Burman, J. B. | Howard, Captain Hon. Donald | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Hudson, R. S. (Cumberi'nd, Whiteh'n) | Sanderson, Sir Frank |
| Butt, Sir Alfred | Hume, Sir G. H. | Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange) |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer | Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W) |
| Campbell, E. T. | Hurd, Percy A. | Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y) |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (OX. Univ.) | lliffe, Sir Edward M. | Skelton, A. N. |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen't) | Smithers, Waldron |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Jacob, A. E. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Clayton, G. C. | Jephcott, A. R. | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Sprot, Sir Alexander |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Staniey,Coi. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.) |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. |
| Cooper, A. Duff | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) | Strickland. Sir Gerald |
| Cooper, J. B. | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. |
| Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Kindersley, Major Guy M. | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn' |
| Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) | King, Captain Henry Dcuolas | Styles, Captain H. Walter |
| Crookshank,Cpt.H.Rindsey,Gainsbro) | Lamb, J. Q. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Cunliffe, Sir Herbert | Lane Fox, Cot. Rt. Hon. George R. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Davidson, J.(Hertt'd,Hemel Hempst'd) | Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) | Templeton, W. P. |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Looker, Herbert William | Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil) | Lord, Waiter Greases | Thompson. Luke (Sunderland) |
| Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Lougher, L. | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Lucas.Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Tinne, J. A. |
| Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Dixey, A. C. | Lumley, L. R. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Drewe, C. | Lynn, Sir R. J. | Vaughan-Morgan. Col. K. P. |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Waddington, R. |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus | Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Ellis, R. G. | Maclntyre, Ian | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Eiveden, Viscount | McLean, Major A. | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| England, Colonel A. | Macmillan, Captain H. | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s,-M.) | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley) |
| Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | MacRobert, Alexander M. | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | Manningham-Builer, Sir Mervyn | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Margesson, Captain D. | Wells, S. R. |
| Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. | White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple |
| Falls, Sir Bertram G. | Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K. | Wiggins, William Martin |
| Fermoy, Lord | Meller, R. J. | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Fielden, E. B. | Meyer, Sir Frank | Williams, Corn. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Finburgh, S. | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Forestier.Walker, Sir L. | Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Forrest, W. | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Withers, John James |
| Foxcrott, Captain C. T. | Mansell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Frece, Sir Walter de | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) | Wood, E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde) |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive | Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) |
| Gates, Percy | Murchison, C. K. | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L |
| Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph | Yerburgh. Major Robert D. T. |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Nelson. Sir Frank | Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich) |
| Goff, Sir Park | Neville, R. J. | |
| Gower, Sir Robert | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Grace, John | Nuttall, Ellis | Captain Viscount Curzon and Lord |
| Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Oakley, T. | Stanley. |
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSclaimed, "That the Original Question be now put."
§ Original Question put accordingly.
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 269; Noes, 106.
2227| Division No. 338.] | AYES. | [11.23 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut..Colonel | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston.s.-M.) | Looker, Herbert William |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | Lord, Walter Greaves- |
| Ainsworth, Major Charles | Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | Lougher, L |
| Albery, Irving James | Everard, W. Lindsay | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Fairfax, Captain J G. | Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman |
| Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool,W. Derby) | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Lumley, L. R. |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Fenby, T, D. | Lynn, Sir R. J. |
| Apsley, Lord | Fermoy, Lord | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | FIelden, E. B. | MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. | Finburgh, S. | McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Forestler-Walker, Sir L. | Macintyre, lan |
| Atkinson, C. | Forrest, W. | McLean, Major A. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Foxcrolt, Captain C. T. | Macmillan, Captain H. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Frece, Sir Walter de | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John |
| Bainiel, Lord | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | MacRobert, Alexander M. |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Ganzonl, Sir John | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn |
| Bleamish, Captain T. P. H. | Gates, Percy | Margesson, Captain D. |
| Bann, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. |
| Bennett, A. J. | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K. |
| Bentlnck, Lord Henry Cavendish- | Goff, Sir Park | Meller. R. J. |
| Bethel, A. | Gower, Sir Robert | M eyer, Sir Frank |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Grace, John | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) |
| Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Monsen, Eyres, Corn. Rt. Hon. B. M. |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Grotrian, H. Brent | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. |
| Bowater, Sir T. Vanslttart | Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.) | Morden, Col. W. Grant |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) |
| Braithwaite, A. N. | Hall, Lleut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Morrison-Belt, Sir Arthur Cllve |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Hall,Vice-Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne) | Murchison, C. K. |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Nall. Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Nelson, Sir Frank |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Hammersley, S. S. | Neville, R. J. |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. H. I. | Hanbury, C. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Nuttall, Ellis |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y) | Harland, A. | Oakley, T. |
| Bullock, Captain M. | Harris, Percy A. | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) |
| Burman, J. B. | HartIngton, Marquess of | O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh |
| Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Oman, Sir Charles William C. |
| Butt, Sir Alfred | Hallam, Henry C. | Perkins, Colonel E. K. |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Hawke, John Anthony | Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
| Campbell, E. T. | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Pets, G. (Somerset, Frome) |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A, | Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Plelou, D. P, |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) | Herbert, S.(York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by) | Power, Sir John Cecil |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Hills, Major John Walier | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Preston, William |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St.Maryiebone) | Price, Major C. W. M. |
| Charterls, Brigadier-General J. | Holland, Sir Arthur | Radford, E. A. |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Raine, W. |
| Clayton, G. C. | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Rawson, Sir Cooper |
| Cobb. Sir Cyril | Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Rees, Sir Beddoe |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A, D. | Horlick, Lieut,Colonel J. N. | Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) |
| Colfax, Major Wm. Phillips | Howard, Captain Hon. Donald | Remer, J. R. |
| Coiling, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Hudson, R. S. (Cumberi'nd, Whiteh'n) | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. |
| Cooper, A. Duff | Hume, Sir G. H. | Rice, Sir Frederick |
| Couper, J. B. | Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) |
| Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn., N.) | Hurd, Percy A. | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend) | Iliffe, Sir Edward M. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro) | Insklp, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Rye, F. G. |
| Cunliffe, Sir Herbert | Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S. | Salmon, Major I. |
| Davidson,J.(Hertt'd, Hemel Hempst'd) | Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, cen'l) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Jacob, A. E. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Jophcott, A. R. | Sandeman, A. Stewart |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Sanderson, Sir Frank |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William | Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange) |
| Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) | Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl (Renfrew,W.) |
| Dixey, A. C. | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y) |
| Drewe, C. | Kindersley, Major Guy M. | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Lamb, J. Q. | Skelton, A. N. |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon |
| Ellis, R. G. | Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Elveden, Viscount | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) | Smithers, Waldron |
| England, Colonel A. | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Spender-Clay, Colonel H. | Tinne, J. A. | Williams, Corn. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Sprot, Sir Alexander | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Wlll'seden, E.) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Streatleild, Captain S. R. | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. | Withers, John James |
| Strickland, Sir Gerald | Waddington, R. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. | Wallace, Captain D. E. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) | Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull) | Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) |
| Styles, Captain H. Walter | Warner. Brigadier-General W. W. | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser | Warrender, Sir Victor | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Sugden, Sir Wilfrid | Waterhouse, Captain Charles | Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich) |
| Sykes, Major-Gen, Sir Frederick H. | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) | |
| Templeton, W. P. | Watts, Dr. T. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) | Wells, S. R. | Captain Viscount Curzon and Lord |
| Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) | Wiggins, William Martin | Stanley. |
| Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Hayes. John Henry | Scurr, John |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hilisbro') | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Sexton, James |
| Ammon, Charles George | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertlliery) | Hirst, G. H. | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Barr, J. | Hirst W. (Bradford, South) | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Batey, Joseph | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Sltch, Charles H. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Sresser, Sir Henry H. |
| Broad, F. A. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Smillie, Robert |
| Bromley, J. | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhtthe) |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Snell, Harry |
| Buchanan, G. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel | Kelly, W. T. | Stamford. T. W. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Kennedy, T. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Close, W. S. | Kirkwood, D. | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Compton, Joseph | Lansbury, George | Sullivan. J. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Lawrence, Susan | Sutton, J. E. |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Lawson, John James | Taylor, R. A. |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Lee, F. | Thurtle, E. |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | Lindley, F. W. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Lunn. William | Townend, A. E. |
| Duncan, C. | MacLaren, Andrew | Trevclyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. |
| Dunnico, H. | Maclean. Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | Viant, S. P. |
| Gardner, J. P. | March. S. | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Montague, Frederick | Watson, W. M. (Duntermllne) |
| Gillett, George M. | Murnin, H. | Watts-Morgan. Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Gosling, Harry | Oliver, George Harold | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Palin, John Henry | Welsh, J. C |
| Greenall, T. | Paling, W. | Westwood, J. |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Ponsonby, Arthur | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Grundy, T. W. | Potts, John S. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.) | Purcell, A, A. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Richardson, R. (Houghton.le-Spring) | |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Riley, Ben | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Hardie, George D. | Ritson, J. | Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. |
| Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Saklatvala, ShapurJl | Charles Edwards. |
| Hayday, Arthur | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
§ Resolutions to be reported To-morrow. Committee to sit again To-morrow.
§ The remaining Orders were read, and post poned.
2228§ It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§ Adjourned at Twenty - seven Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.