§ Mr. KIRKWOODAs arranged at Question Time to-day, I desire to raise the subject of a meeting which was arranged to take place in a welfare hall at Clown, Derbyshire, on Sunday last, but which was banned by the Chief Constable. I put a question to the Home Secretary 1407 to-day, and his answer was so unsatisfactory that I decided to raise it on the Adjournment to-night. Whether his absence at the moment is a studied insult to myself personally or an insult to the House I will leave entirely with the House to decide. I gave him due warning, and he should be here, because I have serious allegations to make against the Secretary of State for the Home Department for Great Britain.
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking)May I interrupt the hon. Member? Will he tell me what warning he gave the Home Secretary?
§ Mr. KIRKWOODI gave him public warning to-day, and Mr. Speaker will bear me out that I am acting within my jurisdiction at the present moment. If the Home Secretary has not paid any attention to it it will strengthen my case, because it will prove that he is not fit for the high and honourable position he occupies in the State. This is a very serious matter. Here is a meeting of miners in a part of Great Britain which is off the beaten track, where only men who are free and like myself happen to be on holiday are able to go. These people have been misinformed. It is reported in the capitalist Press that the miners are rushing back to work by tens of thousands, and it was our duty, we who were free to go, to tell them the facts of the case, to tell them that the miners are not rushing back; that it is absolutely false. When we go to Clown, to a place in this land of the free, this land of free speech, the present Home Secretary has so organised those in authority locally that we are deprived of what is the inherent right of every British subject—the right, of free speech. Everyone who boasts about, being a Briton should safeguard this right as he would his very life.
Our forefathers sacrificed their lives for free speech. Here we are to-day, in 1926, the heirs of all that glorious heritage of the past, and we have a Home Secretary who has the brass face to stand at his place and simply tell us, the Members of the House of Commons, that our heritage is gone. Whether the other side agrees with us or not, the fact remains that we on these benches represent a considerable paint of view 1408 in the country at the moment. We have been sent here time after time by tens of thousands of majority, and the Home Secretary has the hardihood to say that he has handed away the right of free citizens. He is going to bar people from hearing individuals speak to them. There has been no trouble. There is no excuse under the sun. I was there at this place. Again, I do not know whether it is a personal feud beween the Home Secretary and myself, but when I went there and had finished speaking, the superintendent of police intimated to me that he had taken notes of my speech both there and at Creswell, but that he did not like to take the responsibility of arresting me, and that he had sent on my speech to his chief to be dealt with.
§
On Monday night, when I was leaving my home, I was handed a handful of summonses. Here they are, a handful of summonses in the land of the brave and the free, summoning me to appear at the Court at a place called Renishaw. It must be remembered, to begin with, that I am a Scotsman and not an Englishman. -The summonses simply state that I have been summoned because I delivered a speech which was calculated to put a stop to the production of fuel. As a result of that, I sent on to the Superintendent of Police, the only name on my summonses, a letter requesting him to send to me the words of the part of my speech which had been value for my being summoned, in order that I might get my witnesses and my defence ready, as I am going to defend myself against the Home Secretary or any other Secretary that this rotten Government cares to produce. What did I get for my courteous letter? [Laughter]. He who laughs last will laugh longest, and the fool always laughs at his own folly. I sent the following letter to Mr. Willis Clarke, the Superintendent of Police at Renishaw—that is the "chiel" who told me he did not care about arresting me himself:
DEAR SIR,—I would be glad if you would send to me, by return, copies of the statements contained in my speeches at Clown and Cresswell respectively, complained of by you under the Emergency Regulations, 1926, as referred to in the summonses delivered to me at Glasgow.
§
What do you think I got back?
DEAR SIR,—I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 9th inst. concerning
1409
the summonses received by you, and to say that I have forwarded same to my chief constable to be dealt with.
§ Yours faithfully,
§ W. CLARKE."
§ That is how an English superintendent of police acts—not towards Davey Kirkwood, but to a Member of this high and dignified institution of the British Empire, the House of Commons. A Member of the House asks that what is going to be brought against him should be submitted to him in order that he might be able to prepare his case—which comes on next Monday—and this is what he is told. I have been pushed off and I have no evidence of what they are going to put against me. I am to be rushed into it and, as you know, Mr. Speaker, I give all my time to my Parliamentary duties. I was sent here by my constituents to give my time to Parliament and I do so and I have not had time—[An HON. MEMBER: "What did you say?"] I will say here what I said.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThese remarks must not be made across the Floor of the House.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODI leave it to any fair-minded man to judge between the Home Secretary and myself. He is a Secretary of State and is quite capable of defending himself against me, but he has gone one worse than merely attacking David Kirkwood. He is attacking the inherent right of every British subject, that is the right of free speech, and every right-thinking man whether he be Tory, Liberal or Labour, must defend the right of free speech and must therefore support me in my claim. Last Tuesday in speaking here on the Emergency Regulations I pointed out to the Home Secretary where he would land himself by handing out this power to big, dirty, stupid, chief constables. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
§ Mr. SPEAKERAn expression of that kind is a matter of taste. I cannot call upon the hon. Member to withdraw, but I do not myself think he improves his case.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODI hope I have the right to put my point of view here. The individuals who are shouting at me—what have they said about Cook and about every trade union leader? But they say 1410 these things where they are safe. They have not the courage to stand in this House and make those statements. That is the only difference. We are prepared to take the responsibility and to take whatever punishment is put on us for the statements we make. We will not apologise. As a result of making that speech here in the House, the Home Secretary has evidently sent out word to Chief Constables to suppress certain meetings in certain districts. If he considered that the speech I made was a wild speech, and that the names I have called him were not true, it was the easiest thing in the world for him to go into the country and make a speech and refute those statements. What does he do? He goes to garden parties and makes an attack on me and a colleague of mine. He dare not go out to a public meeting. When his colleagues asked him to go to a public meeting and address it, he has always too much to do He is afraid to face the music.
This is the only opportunity that we have. This we hold to be a free institution where we have the right to give expression to our opinions. I hold that you, Mr. Speaker, have a right to protect me in the country from legislation that has been handed over to individuals who are too small, not big enough, to handle a situation such as may have arisen in Derbyshire. They have no right to think that any little insignificant superintendent of police, though he may be six feet high, can come forward and insult a member of the British House of Commons, and tell him that he has taken a report of his speech. Why should I be insulted in that fashion? Why should you allow me to be insulted in that fashion? I make a speech as a Member of Parliament; I was advertised as a Member of Parliament—and I can make a speech when I am on the platform, not requiring anybody to prompt me, because what I say I believe. It is the truth, and I believe that truth shall ultimately prevail. Remember, at the same time, that I have raised this question more in sorrow than in anger, because I have been twitted by comrades of mine about how I have boasted of the liberties of my native land in every country on the continent. And here I am myself being made the victim. Believe me that the Home Secretary is more exacting, plays littler games at the moment in this strike than 1411 did the Home Secretary during the War. When we went to visit our comrades the Communists who were in gaol at Wands-worth, he asked us to give him a promise that we would say nothing of what we saw inside. Fancy standing at that box and asking us to give him such a pledge that we would not say anything! We know what it is to be in gaol; we know what it is to receive one who is a friend coming to see us, and if we were prepared never to pledge anything, would it be, a big man who would ask us to give a pledge like that? And he asked everyone to give a pledge. When I was lying, my country's prisoner, locked up in solitary confinement in Edinburgh Castle during the Great War, Colonel Levita, the Chief of the Scottish Command at that time, did not ask of my people who came to see me one thing. They were at liberty to come, and that was during the War. Here we have produced a man at the moment, a Home Secretary who is prepared to go worse than the greatest tyrants that we had during the War, when you had the blood lust on. You have a, Home Secretary now who is prepared to suppress free speech and anything in order that he may get his little, mean, paltry, point of view. I am sorry he is not here.
But man, proud man!Dress'd in a little brief authority;Most ignorant of what he's most assur'd,His glassy essence,—like an angry ape,Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven,As make the angels weep.
§ Captain HACKINGThe hon. Member who has just addressed the House said he had given the Home Secretary due warning that he was going to raise this matter this evening. I was in the House when he gave that so-called warning, and I think I am right in saying that he announced that as he had not received a satisfactory reply to his question, he would move the Adjournment of the House. That is a very different matter from saying that he would raise the matter on the Adjournment.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODOn a point of Order. Did you not think, Mr. Speaker, that I said I would raise this matter on the Adjournment of the House? You have to judge between us.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member certainly did use the words "move the Adjournment of the House." I was, 1412 perhaps, more accustomed to him than the Home Secretary, and I understood that he was not using the correct technical phrase. The Home Secretary does not know the hon. Member so well as I do.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODThat will mean that you have difficulty in understanding my accent, and that will mean that the superintendent of police in Derbyshire would also have a difficulty.
§ Captain HACKINGAs you, Sir, have no doubt satisfied the House that we on this side did not understand the accent of the hon. Member so well as you did, at any rate, I think no blame can be attached to the Home Secretary for not being in his place to-night. I think the most bitter enemy of the Home Secretary would never accuse him of shirking responsibility. The hon. Member has stated that this is a personal feud between himself and my right hon. Friend.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODBut not on my part.
§ 11.0 P.M.
§ Captain HACKINGThere, again, if I might defend my right hon. Friend, he holds no animosity to anybody. In fact, he has a very great affection, I know, for my hon. Friend. The last thing that he would desire to see would be my hon. Friend in trouble of any kind. This particular matter to which the hon. Member desires to call the attention of the House and of my right hon. Friend is in connection with a speech which he made at Clown, in Derbyshire, and he complained that, first of all, the superintendent of the police did not give him a definite reply to his letter, but preferred to send his letter on to the chief of police under whom he was serving. As far as I am aware, that is quite in order. He was quite right in sending his letter on to the chief, in order that the chief should give it a considered reply. My hon. Friend said he has received a batch of summonses. I am not aware of the number of those summonses, but I am quite sure that he will answer the summons. I am also certain that he is quite capable of putting up a very good defence, and I am quite sure he will receive a fair trial. I wish him the very best of luck, and I sincerely hope the result will be entirely satisfactory from his point of view.
§ Mr. MACLEANWhy did not you withdraw the summonses? [Interruption.]
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) just now was championing the cause of free speech. Let us have it in this House, at any rate.
§ Mr. MACLEANWas the interruption or interjection I made just now not a perfectly legitimate one to make?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI was referring to the fact that sometimes there is a reluctance to listen to the other side of the case. I was not referring to the hon. Member.
§ Captain HACKINGThe hon. Member was saying that he considered it an insult that a report should be taken of the speech he made on this particular occasion. I should have thought he would rather have taken it as a compliment that a report should be taken of the speech he made.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODNot by the police.
§ Captain HACKINGThere was one thing which I did like about the hon. Member's speech, and that was the part in which he said he was speaking more in sorrow than in anger. This is a purely personal matter between himself and my right hon. Friend. I am sure my right hon. Friend regrets very much he is not in his place to answer the questions which have been put to him. I am quite certain it is not any matter of discourtesy. The last thing he would desire would be to be discourteous to my hon. Friend. I cannot very well reply for my right hon. Friend when this is a personal matter. All I can do is to congratulate my hon. Friend on the absence of anger in his speech and to regret most sincerely his sorrow.
§ Mr. CLYNESI think that in the statement the hon. Gentleman has made he has passed over too lightly what I feel is the central ground of complaint in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). It is that he has tried to secure for himself, through the proper channels, the terms of the charge that will be preferred against him and not-withstanding what he has said as to the procedure of passing on that letter, I 1414 do ask my hon. Friend whether a Member of this House is not entitled to be in possession, before he enters the Court on Monday, of the terms of the charge to be preferred against him. I ask him whether he will immediately represent to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the desirability of putting those terms in the hands of my hon. Friend.
§ Captain HACKINGMy right hon. Friend has made a perfectly reasonable request and, had notice been given to the Home Secretary, I am certain he would have been in his place to answer the points that have been raised. I will certainly represent to my right hon. Friend what the Leader of the Opposition has said, and I am quite certain that he will do his best to let the hon. Member have the nature of the charge, if it is within his power to do so.
§ Mr. SAKLATVALAI wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that it is within my experience that the Chief Constable of Derbyshire, in his enthusiasm, is exceeding even the wide and elastic powers given to him under the Emergency Powers Regulations. Last week two meetings at which I was to speak in Derbyshire were advertised to take place on Saturday afternoon, one at 5.30 and another at 7.30. The meetings were not organised by the Communist party, but by the local miners' officers. One was to be in the Miners' Welfare Centre and the other in the Cooperative Hall. Hints were given to my friends on the spot that if I personally did not speak, or the chairman was somehow or other able to prevent me from speaking, the Chief Constable would allow the meetings to go on, but that if I should be on the spot he would put down the meetings. I would like to know whether the Emergency Powers Regulations were framed to pursue individuals for whom the Home Secretary has got a dislike for and who, rightly or wrongly, are supposed to be trying to overthrow the tyranny of the political party to which the Home Secretary belongs. Are we to use those Regulations to safeguard the position of the Conservative party and to pursue speakers who are able to expose the Conservative party's polities and the Government's tactics? I submit the the local Chief Constable, the 1415 same one who is now responsible for this muddle, has been going beyond his powers in sending such private hints. A Chief Constable who acts in that way is not fit to hold his position, and the sooner he is got rid of the better. At any rate, he is the last person in the world who can be trusted to act fairly in this particular case.
Of course, no man with any self respect would pay the slightest regard to such messages, even though coming from a Chief Constable, and on Saturday morning I went to Alfreton, which is very near the place of meeting. The streets were full of police inspectors actually watching and scanning my face. I reached Alfreton at half-past eleven and at a quarter to twelve the man in charge of the Welfare. Hall was given a notice to say that the meeting was banned. Another notice was given to the secretary of the Co-operative Hall saying the meeting was banned, and within a few minutes after serving that notice a man from the police comes up and says "We have seen Saklatvala in Alfreton this morning and that is why the meeting is banned." That is a gross abuse of the powers of the Chief Constable, even under the Emergency Regulations. It is the action of a cad and a coward.
I have submitted to this House on a previous occasion the manner in which a meeting was banned against me by the Chief Constable of Glamorganshire. He put up the proper notices in the proper places, but the Chief Constable of Derbyshire did not put up proper notices, even in the wording of the notice which banns the meeting:
The meeting to take place at the Co-operative Hall, speaker Mr. Saklatvala, is banned.That is not banning the meeting. As far as we understand the Emergency Powers, a meeting can be banned only if the Chief Constable has reason to fear that excitement will be caused by the meeting, and that power is not intended to be used as a weapon against certain persons. Not a single notice was given to the public notifying them that the meeting was to be banned and that they were not to go. The public were kept in the dark. A Turkish sultan might be ashamed of adopting such tactics. Another meeting was advertised at 1416 Market Hall in East Consett. There was the same position there. I would not have resented it if the Chief Constable of Nottingham had followed the general principle of banning a meeting because he thought the population would become excited. But the tactics adopted were first of all to see if I could be personally stopped from going to that meeting. Individuals were sought by the superintendents of police to see if I could be personally stopped from speaking, and as that was not done the meeting was banned under the Clause that the Chief Constable apprehended that the miners would go wrong after hearing me. He knew perfectly well that the miners would go right after hearing me. The meeting to be addressed by Saklatvala in the Market Hall was banned, but we were ready to hold an open air meeting in a place where such meetings' have been invariably held on Sunday mornings. No notice was put up to the public, but in lieu of notice, even this outdoor meeting was stopped with the distinct information that if I went out of the district the meeting could go on. Not only that, but I think word was sent to the Secretary of the Labour Club in Mansfield, and also a list containing is names. This is the black list of those whom the Chief Constable does not like. If this is the way that the Emergency Powers Act is to operate then I am very much surprised, because it seems to me that that Act was never intended to keep order but was intended to be used as a weapon by the Tory party to suppress their opponents.
§ Mr. MORGAN JONESI am interested in this subject because I raised at Question Time yesterday a matter concerning my own constituency, and I asked the Home Secretary whether or not certain meetings which had been banned in my constituency were banned because they were held under the auspices of a particular political party. This is a subject of great interest to everyone who likes freedom of expression of political opinions. When we had those discussions two months ago I remember the Home Secretary gave an explicit pledge that the Regulations would be used only for the specific purpose of dealing with cases that had a bearing on the industrial situation, and he assured us that these Regulations would not be used in any vexatious way.
1417 What happened last week-end? I may say at once that, politically, I have no sympathy with the Communist party, and when I was returned to this House I was opposed by them at the Election. During last week-end a young lady who was employed in the office of the Communist party came to my constituency, and on her arrival in the district she was confronted with a notice from the Chief Constable which conveyed two intimations. One could only bear the interpretation that for the future all meetings held under the auspices of the Communist party in the county of Glamorgan in certain areas were to be banned. That is an extremely important principle, because we have an extraordinary situation developing there. My own Parliamentary agent was going to undertake a public debate first with a Communist and then with a Tory speaker. Will the House believe it, that on the day on which the debate with the Communist was to take place he was sent for by the police inspector and told that the debate with the Tory speaker was to be disallowed but the debate with the Communist was to be allowed? I never heard of anything so stupid.
It is obvious that these Regulations are being used for purposes having no relation whatever to the original purposes of the Emergency Powers Act. I think we are entitled to ask the Under-Secretary to tell us if we are to understand that these Regulations are to be used for the precise purpose of suppressing discussion of political questions because they happen to relate to the Communist party. I say that the Communist party have every right to place its point of view before the public, and if they run counter to the law, of course, they must take the consequences. No police officer, unless he abuses the powers of the Emergency Powers Act, has a right to suppress any political party in this most unfortunate way. What is the consequence of all this? In the name of safeguarding British institutions it is sought to suppress an unpopular party, and as a consequence these people became martyrs before the public. We make them popular by suppression. I dare say they will be glad of it, but I assert that this is a piece of utter folly entirely unwarranted by the Emergency 1418 Powers Regulations. I, therefore, ask the Under-Secretary to give us an explicit answer as to whether these Regulations are being used for the purpose of suppressing the discussion of public questions by the Communist party, because it is the Communist party; and, further, if he has the right to suppress the Communist party, why is the Home Secretary himself going to Newport next Monday and running the same risk of creating disorder? Just as there are opponents of the Communist party in my constituency, so there are opponents of the Tory party in Newport. If we are to assume that one set of opponents will create disorder in one place, what right have we to assume that there will be peace in Newport next Monday? If the Home Secretary is to go down there and be protected, why are not Communists equally entitled to be protected?
§ Captain HACKINGA specific question has been asked of me by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) in connection with the banning of certain meetings. At Question Time yesterday I thought I made it clear to the hon. Member when I told him that the responsibility was given to the Chief Constable in any district to ban meetings if in his opinion to hold them would be likely to create a breach of the peace. When the hon. Member suggests that these meetings are banned in order to suppress certain political thought, he is quite wrong. It is only if the Chief Constable believes that the meetings would lead to a breach of the peace that he has the authority to stop these meetings.
§ Mr. JONESThe public notice does not state it in general terms in that way, but says that meetings held under the auspices of the Communist party are to be suppressed.
§ Captain HACKINGI have not seen the particular notice, but that is probably because, in the opinion of the Chief Constable, if a meeting is held under the auspices of the Communist party, it would be likely to lead to a breach of the peace. Whatever party was taking part in the meeting, if, in his opinion, it would be likely to lead to such a breach of the peace, he would be authorised to prevent the meeting.
§ Mr. MAXTONIs that a legitimate interpretation, in the hon. Gentleman's opinion, of the Emergency Powers Regulation?
§ Captain HACKINGCertainly; the Home Secretary is responsible for keeping the peace, and has authorised the Chief Constables—who are primarily responsible for this duty—that if in their opinion they consider there is likely to be a breach of the peace they must ban the meeting.
§ Mr. MAXTONThey may ban a meeting, but to lay down a general policy over an area—is that a legitimate interpretation for a Chief Constable to put on the Regulation?
§ Captain HACKINGA general ban has not been placed upon Communist meetings. I am getting tired of repeating that it is only when Communist meetings are likely to lead to breaches of the peace that they will be banned.
§ Mr. PALINGThese are not the only cases. Does the Under-Secretary say that the meetings that were stopped in the neighbourhood of Doncaster a fortnight ago, were stopped because they were likely to lead to a breach of the peace? It is sheer bunkum. The hon. Gentleman knows that they were stopped because the people belonged to this particular party. I am not a member of it and have no intention of becoming one, but they have as much right to hold meetings as anyone else, and to say that there is any fear of a row is talking utter nonsense. The trouble was that the Home Secretary was probably afraid that a bigger advertisement was being given to the case of a certain woman who was sent to prison with a nursing child. I suppose he was ashamed of the advertisement being given to that case, and tried his best to stop it and gave the Chief Constable power to stop all meetings. To say they were afraid of trouble arising is utter nonsense. I should like to ask another question. I wonder if the Home Secretary is as keen in following up people who are likely to cause trouble from the other point of view. For instance, a case was brought here a week or two ago in relation to a Judge in the Doncaster area. Here is a statement he made a few weeks back: 1420
You really must not joke with these people, as afterwards the statement is taken as serious.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI cannot allow an attack on Judges in the House. That can only be done on a tabled Motion.
§ Mr. TAYLORDoes that apply to expressions of opinions of a political character by Judges apart from their conduct in a legal sense in a particular case or cases?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt applies to any act of a Judge in Court.
§ Mr. TAYLORMay I take it that Members of this House have no right or opportunity of bringing before the House expressions of opinions of a political character made by a Judge in Court which are not connected with the administration of justice?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThere is a procedure by which it can be done. It cannot be done without proper notice. That is a safeguard which the House itself has imposed over a long series of years.
§ Mr. NEIL MACLEANIs a man not entitled to read out in the House a statement made by a Judge without criticising or commenting upon it in any way—not attacking the Judge, but merely quoting the statement made by him? Surely that is so.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI do not think that could be done without notice. I must uphold the Rules of the House. It is essential that we should not have political interference with the administration of justice. There is a remedy provided by our Rules, and it must be observed.
§ Mr. LANSBURYMay I ask the Under-Secretary if he will tell us whether the Home Secretary has given instructions that the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) shall be forbidden to speak anywhere in the country.
§ Captain HACKINGAs far as I know, he has not. I think I should have known it if he had done so.
§ Mr. LANSBURYThen I ask the hon. and gallant Member how he accounts for it that the hon. Member is banned?
§ Mr. PALINGI do not intend to disobey any ruling of yours, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to ask, in relation to 1421 these cases which have been brought up during this lock-out and in relation to the lock-out, and which are causing ill-feeling and have been published in the papers, if I am not within my rights in referring to them in this House when they have been published in this way.
§ Mr. SPEAKERNot in a Debate like this. It can only be done on a proper Motion properly tabled.
§ Mr. PALINGI will leave it at that. I would like the Home Secretary to turn his attention to the cases on the other side. The Emergency Powers Act seems to have been used merely for the suppression of people on our side of the dispute. I would like him to turn his attention to 1422 the other side. I am referring not only to Judges now but to people connected with coal-owning and with the management side of the industry, who seem to be able to do almost anything they like and to say anything they like. Provided it is on their side and against the miners and the working classes generally, the Home Secretary is not interested in it and is not prepared to use the Emergency Powers Act for the prosecution of those people.
§ It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 27th September.