§ Mr. LANSBURYI should like to join in the appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, through the Financial Secretary, on the question of Russia. As I understand it, the answer to us every time is that the Russian Government conducts its business on a different basis from others, and has repudiated private property and private debts and so on. If you are going to consult them about any debts at all—and everyone says if it were not for their system of government and their system of running business, you would be willing to do that—I should like to suggest that, unless you are banking on the destruction of the Soviet Government, the longer we put it off the worse the position becomes here, and the more aggravated becomes the position of the men who want at this moment to negotiate, and who a little later on may be strong enough to refuse even to negotiate a settlement. It is no use repudiating our interference in Russia. It is no use saying it has no analogy with the Alabama claim case. If anything it is a worse case than the fitting out of privateers. It was stated in the House that up to £100,000,000 worth of ammunition and guns was sent. to Russia to back the armies that were attempting to overthrow the present régime. I only wanted to say that to emphasise the importance that we on this side attach to a settlement with Russia.
I have risen to call attention once more to people who are in prison for political offences, or for offences committed in the pursuit of political objects. I should like to ask the Home Secretary to give us all the information he can in reference to Irish prisoners, both in this country and in Northern Ireland, because I understand from the spokesmen for 1296 Northern Ireland that they have left the question of who shall be released almost entirely in the hands of the home Government. If that be so, I would beg the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what reason there is, if any, for keeping any of these men. He may argue that some of them committed more serious offences than others. In this House, from 1910, I think, to 1914, there was an Irish Member, Mr. O'Brien, who had actually been sentenced to death for offences committed while conducting a political agitation. There was also in this House a few years earlier Mr. Michael Davilt, who served a long term of penal servitude for alleged serious offences. There was no Member more highly respected and honoured than he was.
These Irish prisoners are men actuated by exactly the same high motives as I am willing, whether others are willing or not, to ascribe to the right hon. Gentleman himself and the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. R. McNeill), who not so long ago actually organised an army which, in circumstances that might have arisen, could have been used against the authority of this House. You may say these men committed these crimes. The only difference between them and the right hon. Gentlemen opposite is that the circumstances arose which in their judgment impelled them to commit the crime, whereas the War, very fortunately, saved the right lion. Gentlemen opposite from engaging in an armed rebellion. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can get out of that dilemma in which he is placed, and I want to ask him to take that into account in considering the case of these Irish prisoners, because Ireland. I am told, is now more peaceful than it has been for a very long period, and I am told by friends on both sides that this question of the prisoners, if it could be settled, would have a very satisfying effect indeed, and it is in that spirit, that I put it before the right hon. Gentleman.
With regard to the other prisoners—many hon Members think that if I had my deserts I should be with them—unquestionably all people engaged in a political agitation that they really believe in do, and must if they are really sincere, say seditious things and act seditious things. On the last occasion on which I 1297 enjoyed the hospitality of His Majesty in prison, an officer came to me as he was going to lock the door, and seeing that I looked very dejected and pretty miserable, said, "Well, you know, you must cheer up, Mr. Lansbury. Nothing has ever been done in this, country until someone went to prison." I said, "I wish to the Lord it was you instead of me." In all our history the rebels of to-day get over there to-morrow. There are two of them there now. It has been proved all down our history. At this moment a very considerable agitation is going on as to the proper method of getting redress for grievances which everyone admits are very dire and very grievous to be borne. In the last part of this discussion we have been reminded how, in the judgment of some of us, rich people have got away very comfortably with big sums of public money, while masses of men who gave their bodies in the War are walking about in a starving condition. There is a great argument amongst the working-classes as to whether we are going to get proper redress of those grievances through this House, and through Parliamentary machinery, or whether we shall have to pass through the sort of hell that Russia and other countries have passed through. It is unnecessary for me to state what. my own view is about that, because it is perfectly well known, and it is jeered at by the other side just as much as if I stood to advocate Communist methods.
In my view, every man ought to have an absolute right to say what he likes, and the Government ought never to interfere until it comes to action—to doing things. Then I think I, and anyone else, ought to take the responsibility for whatever we actually do. With regard to the Communists, as far as I know, there was nothing definitely charged against them except that they circulated seditious papers and pamphlets and made seditious speeches and so on. If any of them could have been charged with doing anything, their sentences would have been mush heavier than they are serving. They are in prison because of what they said, as many right hon. Gentlemen in 1913–14 would have been in prison for much greater cause for what they said. No one can deny that. I am not standing here to complain about their treatment as prisoners. Given prison treatment, and given a prison, there are conditions and 1298 regulations, and I think they have been done justly by. But I want to urge on the right hon. Gentleman that we ought to put all such men in a separate class and create a class for political offenders, unless you are going to put them all in first-class. I am not joking at all, but I quite seriously suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should think of the time when Socialist legislation is being pushed through, and you may have an agitation on the other side, and the Noble Lord the Member for Newark (the Marquess of Titchfield) might be very glad to be a first-class political offender rather than the other class. It is time this thing was settled. During the suffrage agitation you know what had to be done. You had to get a new sort of arrangement by which baskets of food were sent it., and great difficulty was experienced by prison authorities in administering the arrangements of the preent Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. McKenna. for dealing with prisoners not guilty of moral turpitude.
There were 12 of these men charged, and there are 12 in prison now. Seven will be released on 10th April if all goes well. The whole 12 committed the same offence. The reason the remaining five are in is because they have been there ho ore. That is to say, they have done similar things. They are going to be kept longer, because it is said they are a kind or hardened offenders. I put it to the House, what would you think of them if they were not hardened offenders? You could not change the religious belief of the right. hon. Gentleman by sending him to prison. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, yes."] I am sure you could not. If a Roman Catholic or a high Anglican authority came to this country and said, "You have all got. to worship in one particular way, and if you do not you will go to prison," the right hon. Gentleman would go to prison, and, if they let him out at the end of 12 months, he would repeat the offence and go again. He would object, as I would object, to the punishment being cumulative, because he had obeyed the dictates of his conscience and continued to advocate the thing for which he had been punished.
I never believe in raking up against a man something for which he has paid the penalty, in order to increase the punishment, especially in regard to these 1299 men, who ought not to be suffering now because they have suffered before. They have paid the penalty for what they did on a previous occasion and they ought not now to have their imprisonment lengthened because they have been imprisoned before. I do not believe there is a man in this House who would respect any one of them who would give a pledge that he would never engage in this kind of propaganda again. I would have no respect for any of them if they gave any such pledge. Either they believe in the cause or they do not believe in it. If they do believe in it, they have a right to try to convert the country to their point of view. Their point of view is quite definite, that the possessing classes will not give way when their interests are affected. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not mind my saying that the whole of the Carson agitation gave point to that contention, because it was the big possessing classes who stood behind the Ulster revolutionary movement. [HON. MEMBERS "No!"] It was in this country, whatever it was in Ireland. Many working people believe that no matter what we may pass in this House, if it is fundamental, if it deals with property, or takes away property without giving compensation, there will be a revolution on the other side. These men preach that.
With regard to the propaganda carried on by these men respecting the Army, I will not argue whether they did right or wrong, but the fact remains that soldiers now are voters. Military men sit in this House. I enjoy hearing them speak on behalf of their regiment; "The regiment I command," one hon. and gallant Member said the other day. We never hear a private soldier stand up here and say, "The regiment of which I am a Member," because private soldiers are not allowed to come here. Private soldiers are, however, allowed to vote, and we have a perfect right to go to him and put it to them that we want to get rid of Armies, Navies and Air Forces, and to get them to vote for candidates who believe in that. policy. We have no right to say that there shall be a limit to the propaganda to be put to these men. In these circumstances, I appeal to the Home Secretary to exercise his very great powers in recommending the King 1300 to grant to these men a reprieve or a remission of the remainder of their sentences.
I should like to make an appeal on behalf of the Ammanford miners who are charged with rioting, wounding and sedition. Of the men whose names have been supplied to me, Rainford, Doherty, Wilson and Llewellyn, only one is charged with wounding. The others are charged with rioting or sedition. What the sedition was I do not know. I have no doubt that some rioting did take place. I wish the right hon. Gentleman could have heard' a speech, which was only very partially reported in the Press, by a miner who bore the stamp of sincerity, at the Albert Hall. I had never met him before that occasion. If the right hon. Gentleman could have heard the story which that man told as to the causes of the trouble I believe he would take a different view from the one he now holds. These men were suffering under very extreme provocation. They were dealt with in a harsh and brutal manner, and each one has more than paid the penalty. I do not believe that any one of them Had been in prison for a similar offence. I do not believe that any one of them had ever been in trouble in the ordinary way of offences against the law, such as burglary, theft or offences of that kind.
The House and the right hon. Gentleman ought to take the circumstances and the conditions in that district into account, and these men having served this imprisonment ought to be released. They are all workmen. It cannot be said that they are paid agitators. They work at the coal face or above the pit. I have been near the district where they live and have met their friends, and I am told that they are decent men, and not so bloodcurdling as I am supposed to be. They are men who have never committed any sort of crime for which men go to prison. I do beg the right hon. Gentleman to give these men, and the others I have mentioned, favourable consideration. I do not complain of the treatment of any of these men in prison, so far as I know about it. I believe that they have had the benefit of whatever rules and regulations there are, but the best place that a prison can be made it is still a prison. Whatever amelioration you get while you 1301 are in prison, it is still a prison. It means the locking of the door at night and being ordered about.
I am one of those who think that being a martyr and martyrdom is nothing to be proud of, or any of that sort of nonsense. I hope that I shall have pluck enough to take whatever comes my way for anything I do, and now that I am free to stand at this box and speak for these men, I want to say that to be in prison with the knowledge that you have cone nothing of which you are ashamed, that you have only been fighting for something which you believe to be for the benefit of your fellowmen and your fellowwomen, is the hardest and cruellest thing that one can suffer. I can think of nothing more grievous than to keep these men, some of them quite young, in prison during the months of spring end summer. The last six weeks that I spent in Brixton Prison was the most glorious autumn that this country ever gent through. The tragedy was not for me, an did man, but for the young men and young women, who had done nothing at all but stand up for something they believed in. The tragedy was in taking this glorious time out of their lives.
I appeal to the Home Secretary that he will consider these men, who are guilty of no crime in the ordinary sense. When they were offered their freedom, at least seven of them refused to take their freedom, but preferred to stand up for the thing they believed in. The right hon. Gentleman and the people of this country cannot forget the tradition that lies behind us. We must not forget that our creeds to-day could not find expression in this country had it not been for the fact that men went to the gallows, the stake, and to prison in defence of the freedom of conscience and the freedom of speech. When I was in prison a priest said to me, when I went on hunger strike, "You are violating the temple of the Holy Ghost," I replied that he would not have been privileged to tell me that ad it not been for the men who lit the light in England which has never gone cut, namely, Latimer and Ridley. These young Communists, these trade unionists, these Irish Nationalists, are fighting for a cause which, whether hon. Members in this House believe in it or not, will one cay win in this country, and they will be honoured and respected because of what 1302 they have done. If the right hon. Gentleman can say that he will ask the King to give these men a free pardon, he will be remembered as the man who, before it was popular to do so, recognised the right of men and women to stand up and speak the truth that is in them.
Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGANI have but little to add to the very well-reasoned and impassioned appeal made to the Home Secretary on behalf of the men in whom I am particularly interested. I come from the district where the Amman-ford miners live, and I have known one of the prisoners, the young man Rainford, for a large number of years. He has borne an exceptionally good character, and there is grave doubt as to whether he was guilty. He is the only one charged with wounding. I appeal to the Home Secretary to show mercy in the case of these men if he possibly can. There is a very strong desire in the district that the matter should be reconsidered. The men have paid the penalty, and I should he very grateful if something could be done on their behalf, especially on behalf of Rainford. I have interviewed the right hon. Gentleman once or twice, but with no success so far. I do hope that he will find a way of meeting the general desire in the locality that there should be some revision of the sentences, especially in the case of Rainford.
§ Mr. MACKINDERI would like to add my appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that these men should be released. I do not know any of the men who are in prison, nor do I admire some of the things for which they stand; but if there is one thing I do admire and have always admired ever since I came to the age of reason, it is the right, which I always understood I had in this country, to say the things in which I believe. I do not admire some of the principles advocated by these men, nor do I admire some of the principles that hon. Members opposite believe in. When we gain power, which we shall do some day, I would not like the Home Secretary to be put into prison for expressing opinions different from the opinions which I hold now and which I should hold then. It has always been a matter of history, and history will always repeat itself in this respect, that the more a thing is repressed the more vent and the more public favour it gets. 1303 I believe sincerely that the right hon. Gentleman has made more adherents to the cause which he is trying to suppress than any one of the men who is now imprisoned. I honestly believe that. The same thing has been tried in other cases.
I had the pleasure of visiting Oxford University a few weeks ago, and I found that two undergraduates who had expressed certain opinions in which they believed were told by the Vice-Chancellor that they must do that which the Home Secretary has asked these Communist prisoners to do. The undergraduates were told that if they wanted to remain there they must dissociate themselves from the party which they conscientiously believed was right. The result has been that the repressive methods have gained many adherents to the cause and that instead of losing two it must have gained many.
I believe that we ought to let people express their opinions. I say frankly, as a trade unionist, that were I in a dispute where I thought soldiers were to be employed on one side or the other, I would do all I could, by speech or letter or writing, to try to induce the troops not to shoot in any trade union or political dispute. I believe troops are employed for the purpose, not of intervening in such disputes but of defending the country. I would have no hesitation whatever in asking the troops to do exactly what these men have been sent to prison for. Free speech is one of the most glorious things that the British tradition has got. There are hon. and right hon. Members of this House who have said much worse things. I would not have said that but for the expression of derision which I see on the face of one hon. Member opposite. I add my sincere expression to the hope that the Home Secretary will let these men loose. It will be a big thing, and will be very worthy of the high office he holds.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODI understand that seven of these men will come out on 11th April, and I think the other five should come out at the same time. In saying this, I do not want to appeal for mercy in any sort of way. I want the House to understand that it would be a blow to the English tradition if we continued to keep in prison men who are 1304 obviously unjustly treated by being in prison alone. Everybody knows that my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) has repeated, publicly and with emphasis, the very words which were incriminating so far as the Communists were concerned. There were things which prompted the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible for the whole of the internal affairs of this country, acting on exactly the same principles and on an extreme conviction of the rightness of his policy, to make a speech in which he said, "Shoot and be damned!" There are cases after cases in this country where people have made in public seditious statements urging others to do what was obviously wrong. The case of these Communists is the first, instance where men, for advising people to do what was wrong without it being proved against them that any overt results happened from their preaching, have been sent to gaol. I have before me a speech made by the Bishop of Salford at Manchester the other day. It appears there has been a birth control clinic opened in Salford, of which the Bishop does not approve, and he made a speech to this effect:
The strange thing is that the fathers and mothers do riot rise up in arms against those who have dared to defile the minds of the people and hound them out of the district. One would expect a hue and cry.Then he goes on:When the time comes, and I hope it is not far off, the people of Greengate, having discovered the real nature and effects of the instruction imparted, will chase them from their streets.There you have an instigation to violence absolutely on a par with what the Communists have been sent to gaol for. There are endless cases that one could quote of even hon. Members of this House making speeches which, if they had resulted in some more or less brutalminded person acting on them, would have involved them, quite rightly, in criminal prosecution. The whole point is that for speech alone people should not be sent to prison.This is the only country in the world where, hitherto, it has been possible to say that for speech alone you could not be sent to prison. The danger seems to be now that we are gradually working round to the conclusion that it is not where justice demands that you should be 1305 rent to prison but where the opinion of the majority thinks you ought to be imprisoned. There has never been a time in history when there has not been a majority of the people in this House in favour of putting into prison some one who is not there. At the present moment, if the House voted on the matter, many would be in favour of Mr. A. J. Cook being in prison. They would say this man is a danger to the community and ought to be in prison. Yet there is not one man, although he might vote that way, who will not say that it is not according to the tradition of England to send a man to gaol because of his unpopularity; he would have to be convicted of some definite crime. It is s question of proof of crime, not of the unpopularity of a man.
There has never been a time in this country when a political party has been so unpopular as the Communists have been. They have been a perfect nuisance to the Labour party, and there is no doubt that they are a perfect nuisance to society. But that is no reason for sending them to prison. That is certainly not a good enough reason for changing the whole traditions of this country, and sending people to prison for the expression of opinions. The Home Secretary is, and, I think, has always been, a very fair and decent upholder of the old traditions of England, and he and I in many cases take the same view. He knows, as well as I do, that constant pressure is put upon people in his position to do the popular thing although it is unjust. It was just that spirit that created the St. Bartholomew massacre in France in the year 1572. There you had a King who became suddenly convinced that he had better be popular, and the Huguenots were massacred.
I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to be firm, and not to give way to that sort of pressure; to realise that these men have got into prison, not in the interests of themselves, but, as they think, in the interests of England, and that they should come out of prison as soon as possible. I remember when a liberal Government in previous years put into prison a man named Crossley, who had done a precisely similar act; it think he circulated to the troops at Aldershot a leaflet urging them not to shoot. Afterwards Tom Mann a rd a good many other printers got into 1306 prison. The Home Secretary of that day, after they had been in prison for about three months, released them. The feeling was that it was undesirable to imprison people merely for expressing opinions. The idea was—and it applies equally now—that if you put people into prison for expressing opinions, you will have to keep them there perpetually. It is quite certain that when they come out they will again render themselves liable to arrest. You cannot put them in again—or where is it to end? Not only are you to be perpetually responsible for keeping people in prison indefinitely because they have the strength of character to stick to their principles, but you have the danger of increasingly widening the net. You have the Member for Bow and Brornley—you know as well as I do that he ought to have been in gaol a long time ago. You know that the risk will be indefinitely extended if you maintain this idea of putting people into prison for saying things that are deemed to be seditious. Do not let us get into this interminable struggle against freedom of opinion in this year 1926; and do not let us indefinitely widen the field of a struggle which can only injure England and that traditional love of freedom of speech which has made this country great.
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks)I think the House would now wish me to answer in regard to the eases which have been raised to-night. The first is the case of the Irish prisoners. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansdury) raised it in debate some few nights ago and he offered then to send me. a list of the cases he desired me to inquire into. I only got that list yesterday, so it has not been possible for me to communicate with Ireland, and I am not in a position to answer the hon. Member. But. I have asked for full details of the cases, and when they are supplied to me I will communicate with the hon. Member. I have also been asked to consider two other cases in which I am directly responsible. I do not make any complaint about the way in which Members have spoken regarding my attitude, but I do want the House to realise that in these matters you are asking me to do something in regard to which I am personally responsible, and which is not a 1307 Government matter. It is a long tradition that the Home Secretary is individually and personally responsible for the advice he has to give to his Sovereign, and it is really a question of this kind that is raised. I do not object to it being raised. It is part of the many unpleasant duties I have to perform to deal with questions of this kind.
8.0 P.M
Two cases have been brought before me, that of the Communists and that of the Ammanford miners. I want to make it quite clear that these men are not in prison for any expression of opinion. That was made clear, I think, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General in the Debate we had last year. He quoted a judgment of Lord Erskine—a very great Judge whose opinion is still good law—that no man can be imprisoned for holding any opinion, nor for propagating that opinion through constitutional methods. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley made a remark about the proper method of redressing grievances and hoped that the grievances under which a large proportion of the community are suffering would be removed by the House of Commons and that the people would not require to do what the people of Russia had done. There is all the difference in the world between the people of Great Britain and the people of Russia in regard to the redress of grievances. There is no power of free democracy and there is no House of Commons in Russia to which these grievances could be brought and which could give a clear and full decision upon them. Here we have the freest democracy in the world. Go wherever you will and you will not find greater freedom of democracy or a wider spread of the right to vote. Practically we have universal suffrage. I have said before and I say again that if the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley chooses to hold extreme Communist views—
§ Mr. LANSBURYI speak at least three times a week, and I say almost identically the same thing as the right hon. Gentleman has said.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI want to support the hon. Member and to let it be known far and wide that if those who hold extreme views in regard to property 1308 or anything else in this country can by constitutional methods, by means of the ballot box, induce a majority to put them into power in order to carry out those views, there is nothing unconstitutional in their attempting to do so. If the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley, or if the Communists who are now in prison can, when they come out, so spread their propaganda without these incitements about which I have been speaking, and can persuade the majority that their policy is right, and they come here and form a Government, they will be entitled to put their views into operation, and if I or any other member of the Conservative party then on the opposite side of the House tries to seduce the soldiers of the Crown, who will then be the servants of that. Government, and tries to seduce them against their allegiance to that Government, I should probably be put in prison, and I should deserve it. There is no dispute about that
These men were not prosecuted for holding opinions. They were prosecuted and have been found guilty by a Judge and jury for conspiring to publish and utter seditious leaflets, conspiracy to incite persons to commit breaches of the Incitement to Mutiny Act, and conspiracy to endeavour to seduce from their duty persons serving in His Majesty's Forces. That is very different from mere expression of opinion. I am faced with the verdict of the jury on these counts. The men were well defended. The jury found them guilty and the Judge passed what has been stated in this House to be by no means a heavy sentence. I am asked to do the popular thing. It is so easy. It is said that I am almost every day subject to pressure from various quarters to let various people out of prison. I want the House to believe that that which is so easy for me to do it is difficult and unpleasant to refuse to do. I am bound to tell the House that I cannot see any reason which would justify me in advising His Majesty to revoke the sentences. There is no suggestion that the men, if liberated, would not do the same thing again to-morrow. An hon. and gallant Member has said to-night that they would do so, and has stated that the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley would be implicated with them in assisting them to break the law again.
1309 I do not want to make any threats. I hope sincerely that when these prisoners come out they will devote themselves to the proper and peaceful propagation of their views, that they will do as the great Labour party and the trade unions have done, that is, spread their views by honest endeavour. The Labour party has not grown by dishonest means or by attempts to seduce the Army and Navy. The party has got to its present position because its leaders have convinced millions of their fellow-subjects that their views are right. They have done that through the agency of the ballot-box and the Constitution of the country. I appeal to those who hold Communist views to do the same thing. If their views are right they will succeed; if they are wrong they will not.
I am asked a more difficult question with regard to the Ammanford miners. There were several defendants who had been engaged in a series of riots in South Wales. It is true that I have had the privilege of seeing the hon. and gallant Member for East Rhondda (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan) on more than one occasion. In addition to that I have received a very important and representative deputation from the Council of the Trade Unions Congress, introduced b.' one of the Members of the Opposition Front Bench. I had a very long interview with them. There is no complaint made here against the conduct of the trial, against the conduct of the police, or as to the justice of the sentences. All that is asked is that I should advise His Majesty as a matter of clemency to reduce the sentences. There are five men who are still remaining in prison. Their names were given by an hon. Member opposite. I think it fairer that I should call them A, B, C, D, and E, though I will give the names if desired. What did I do alter I had seen the Trade Unions Congress deputation? I got the prisoners' names. I sent down to Wales for the whole of the records of the five trials. I went through them with great care, and asked the Judge to be good enough to come and see me. He came and saw me. I went through the whole of the trials with him. I discussed the sentences with him, and I have written a full letter to the Trade Unions Congress in regard to the matter.
1310 Let me remind the House that these were very serious riots. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley has said that there was provocation. There is always provocation. The first case is that of A. His sentence expires in a fortnight. He was convicted of rioting and stirring up other men. His case was heard by a jury and he was convicted on the two counts. These men were not sentenced immediately their cases were heard. The Judge waited until all the cases were heard, and those who were found guilty were brought up for sentence. This man A was given two sentences of five months each, to run concurrently. The next prisoner B, was one of the guiding hands in the very bad riot on 9th July. He went armed with a heavy stick. There were three separate charges against him and the sentences were six months and six months, to run concurrently, and two months, making eight months in all. The third man, C, was a man about whom very strong testimonials had been sent to me by people in the neighbourhood. He was convicted as one of the leaders of a very hostile crowd, because he personally threatened the safety men in the mines and did his utmost to force them to leave their work. Hon Members know what happens when safety men are taken out of the mines, not merely for the employers but for the miners themselves; the whole place goes to rack and ruin. This man received two sentences of eight months to run at the same time. He had been twice previously convicted on similar charges.
The fourth man, D, was a workman, one of the leaders of the riot of 5th August. The deputy-chief constable was very seriously wounded indeed. The prisoner was heard to say, as soon as the deputy-chief constable was knocked down, "Don't run away. We have plenty here to master this b…lot!" He was seen to throw stones at the police. He has been no less than seven times previously convicted of disorderly behaviour. That is the kind of man who does no one any good. You do not want miners or anyone else to be led by a man who has been seven times convicted of disorderly behaviour. You want to keep the Labour movement clean and pure. It has a very great past, and will have a very great future. The last man, E, was a man who actually knocked out 1311 the deputy-chief constable with a pit prop. The jury found that he was guilty. That man is extraordinarily lucky not to have been indicted on a much more serious charge.
§ Mr. MACKINDERA whole pit prop?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSA great chunk of a pit prop. It was heavy enough and strong enough to knock out the deputy-chief constable in such a way that he might quite well have died. He was in serious danger of death for some days, and but for the mercy of God this man would have been charged on a much more serious charge. What am I to do? I am responsible for the maintenance of law and order. I have the sole and the very unpleasant duty of dealing with the prerogative of mercy. I cannot do what I am asked to do. It is very easy to be popular. I am sure that if I were to do this, hon. Members opposite would, as they say, praise me from one end of the country to the other. I would like to do what they ask, but I cannot. If I had not seen the Judge and gone into the matter thoroughly I might, perhaps, have agreed to the views of hon. Members opposite, but after all the trouble I have taken and the full way in which I have gone into the matter, I cannot, consistently with what I deem to be my duty, advise the remission of these sentences. These men were convicted by juries of their own countrymen. It is admitted that the sentences are not harsh, and so long as I am Home Secretary the men must serve the sentences that the law has imposed upon them.
§ Mr. MARDY JONESWill the Home. Secretary express an opinion upon the conduct of the chief constable at Carmarthen, who was responsible for seeing these prisoners taken from Carmarthen gaol to Swansea? Is he aware that. the prisoners were not only handcuffed, but chained together?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThe hon. Member came to me some time ago during the trial, and I said at once that no prisoners in this country need be chained together while. I was Home Secretary. I communicated at once with the Governor of the prison, who wont quite frankly to the men and said, "There is going to be no attempt to 1312 escape?" They replied, "Certainly," and the handcuffs and chains were taken off them.
§ Mr. MARDY JONESI am glad to hear that. It reveals the. peculiar psychology of the police of the county of Carmarthen that they should have thought fit to chain these men together at all. They had no grounds for thinking that the men would seek to run away. For the information of the House I would say that that action on the part of the Chief Constable of Carmarthen was very strongly resented by the miners of South Wales generally. We are not standing up for any action that is illegal, but we do consider that the police themselves ought to show a little more consideration in a matter of that sort. It does not help to smooth matters over just now for the authorities to act in that way. I think the Home Secretary would still be well advised to treat these men with some clemency.
§ It being a quarter past Eight of the Clock, and there bring Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without question put.