HC Deb 18 November 1926 vol 199 cc2087-108

"A Direct Betrayal." "They are terms of despair." "Who the Hell gave the Delegates their mandate?" "Have we been sold again?"…"No words can describe the magnificent heroism of our miner comrades." Still the cry is 'Surrender.' The Devil! Fight on.

There is a lot more of that kind in connection with this campaign, the party I do not say acting illegally, but acting, in my view, in such a manner as would be exceedingly detrimental to the efforts that are being made on all hands, and have been taking place during the last fortnight to arrive at a settlement. They are deliberately intended to go down to the districts and work up a state of feeling which will prevent anything in the nature of a peaceful settlement of the dispute. I took the responsibility quite clearly. On 29th October I wrote to all the chief constables calling their attention to this campaign of the Communists and quite definitely and distinctly authorised them to ban all the Communist meetings during this period at which these speakers were announced to speak. I am not standing here in a white sheet. I did it because I believed it to be right in the interests, not merely of the country, but of the Labour party as a whole.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

Is the ban now removed?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

It is very difficult, of course, to say what the future is going to be. To-morrow is a very anxious day for us all in the mining world. If a settlement takes place tomorrow and the men go back to work, I hope, of course, that not only this ban but all other restrictions will be removed. Nothing would be better than to see the country restored as fast as possible to the old-time friendship and the old-time working, and the liability to anything in the nature of these Regulations I hope will very soon be at an end.

Mr. SUTTON

Must the men submit to slavery still?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I have taken no part in the mining negotiations. I am not on the 'Cabinet Committee. I have had my own very difficult job to carry out. My duty has simply been to preserve law and order as far as I could. I am not expressing any opinion. I have not really had time to go through the terms fully. That is a matter for the miners' leaders and the trade union leaders who are helping them in these negotiations. All I am saying is that if they come to terms no one will be more pleased than myself that all my powers will very quickly come to an end. I hope hon. Members do not think it is an easy task to have to administer these regulations. It is very difficult indeed.

Now I come to the facts. Having the House that I authorised the banning of these Communist meetings, I am going to tell them what. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting and the hon. Member for Caerphilly did not know when they made their speeches accusing me of banning so many more meetings during the last months than in previous months. Nearly all the 63 have been these Communist meetings. There has not been a larger proportion of meetings of the ordinary type unattended by those engaged in this Communist campaign than during the previous few months. I have been asked about a meeting that was banned when the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) was going to speak. On the 14th of this month the hon. Member was announced to speak at a meeting in conjunction with the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). I am not going to say anything about the unfortunate incident that occurred in regard to the hon. Member for Dumbarton. But after the summons against the hon. Member for Dumbarton in respect of a particular speech, on which I express no opinion, he came down to Derbyshire with his colleague the hon. Member for Bridgeton in order to make a further speech. The banning of that. meeting was the banning of a meeting intended primarily to be attended by the hon. Member for Dumbarton. Surely the House is not going to say that the chief constable, knowing that a summons had been issued in regard to a particular speech by a particular person, was not justified in banning that person from making another speech.

Surely if the Regulations are to be acted on at all, no one can deny that that was a proper exercise for the discretion of the chief constable. The hon. Member for Bridgeton was speaking the same night at another meeting at which he was, I understand, advertised to speak without the co-operation of his colleagues, and was not banned in any way at all. Not only was he not banned, but he went and delivered his speech, and there was nothing to complain of in it. The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) probably did not quite realise the real facts of the case.

Mr. BUCHANAN

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the inspector in charge of the meeting that was banned, which was to be addressed by the hon. Member for Bridgeton and the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs, in the first place allowed the hon. Member for Bridgeton to go in, and was prepared to allow him to address it, and it was only on his superior later arriving that he banned my hon. Friends from addressing the meeting? Further, is he aware that two miles away, under the same Chief Constable's authority, a meeting was allowed to be held at which the two speakers named were present, and at which no disturbance took place before or after?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I have the report of the Superintendent in regard to this banned meeting:—

"The meeting duly commenced at 2.30. About 3.30 I received information that Maxton and Kirkwood had arrived. I proceeded there, and found them in the lobby of the hall. I was in uniform. I went up to Kirkwood and said, 'My instructions are to ban you.' I said to Maxton, I understand you are the principal speaker here to-day.' He replied, I am.' I then said, 'I am serving you with a form of notice banning the meeting.' I handed both of them a copy of the formal notice bearing their respective names. Maxton said, 'The meeting is going on inside.' I replied, Yes. If you both assure me you do not propose to enter and will go quietly away, there is no reason why it should not proceed.' Maxton said, 'Do you think we shall tell the like of you what we are going to do?' I said, 'My reply must be that the meeting is definitely banned.'"
Mr. STEPHEN

May I ask you to lay that?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

It makes it difficult to read these statements desir- ing to give the fullest possible information. It is an old Rule of the House, and I am bound, if the House desires it, to lay the Paper, but I am equally bound to say it makes my position a little more difficult when I desire to give the fullest possible information to the House. It is clear that the hon. Member for Bridgeton was not banned, and that he went to the meeting, which was held. The meeting was quite satisfactory—I hope there was a good audience—and there was nothing for me to complain about.

These are the accusations made against me, first of all, the rise in the number of prohibitions from 22 to 63 and, secondly, that Communist meetings were banned. I have explained how the number rose from 22 to 63, that it was because of the banning of the Communist meetings, which were part of that particular campaign for preventing a settlement in the mining areas. I have stated, quite frankly, that I accept the fullest possible responsibility for that action, that it was not an attitude taken in this particular case by the chief constables themselves, but that it was my own action, communicated to the chief constables, telling them that in my view at this juncture these meetings would not be conducive to a peaceful state of the mining areas. I suggested to them that they should ban them and they did. It was entirely my responsibility.

Mr. WALLHEAD

On a point of Order. The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) read an extract from a speech which the Home Secretary had delivered.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

That is not a point of Order.

Mr. WALLHEAD

The right hon. Gentleman has given way.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

The hon. Member can speak later. I have nearly finished.

Mr. WALLHEAD

But you cannot speak again in reply.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I can by the courtesy of hon. Members. There is only one other speech to which I would refer. I refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Whiteley), who made three complaints. One complaint concerned the speech of a certain Colonel Leather, which I admit was a very stupid speech, a very improper speech. If that speech had been delivered in a mining area he would certainly have been prosecuted, but delivered, as I understand it was, at a Primrose League meeting—[HON. MEMBERS: "That made it worse."] At all events, it was not a very inflammable meeting.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

Has anything happened as a result of any meeting I addressed?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I must ask hon. Members to listen to the statement of the Home Secretary. There will be time for an answer if necessary.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

The right hon. Gentleman gave way. The question I put to him is this: You said that there was no disturbance as a result of the speech of Colonel—whatever his name may be—because there was no inflammable matter about, I ask you pointedly was there any disturbance in any of the districts that I visited?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

The hon. Member is being prosecuted in a Court of law, and it would be absolutely improper for me, as I think it is improper for him, to attempt to discuss the case in the House of Commons while a prosecution is pending against him.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

I want to press for an answer. He is simply quibbling.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The right hon. Gentleman has not given way.

Mr. SAKLATVALA

Was there any disturbance?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The Home Secretary is addressing the House.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

The hon. Member for Blaydon raised a further point,, in regard to the importation of police into certain areas, and he made a very grave accusation.

Mr. WHITELEY

A true one.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

The hon. member came to see me this afternoon, and he saw my Under-Secretary yesterday, in regard to this accusation. He promised that he would give particulars. When he saw me this afternoon he said, "If I give you particulars of these allegations, will you inquire into them? I do not want to raise them in the House." I said that, I would. The hon. Member has not yet furnished the particulars. Instead of doing so, he has chosen to come here into the House to make a statement, without giving me any particulars at all. All that I can say to him, as said this afternoon, is that if he will give me the particulars, I will cause the fullest inquiries to he made into the accuracy of the statement.

Mr. WHITELEY

On a point of explanation. I have the particulars, which the Home Secretary will get, of the actual cases to which I wish to draw attention; but the statement I made to-night was a general accusation in regard to the importation of police into our county, not in any particular area, or on account of any meeting or demonstration, or anything that is being held in the county, but a general accusation as to the type of police that has been imported into the county generally.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I am not going to accept a general accusation. If the hon. Member or any other hon. Member has a complaint to make I will have the fullest inquiry made, if they give me particulars. If they tell me that certain language or certain action has been bad, and where the things of which they complain have taken place, I will have inquiries made, but it will not do to come to the House of Commons and to make a general accusation, while at the same time the hon. Member is preparing a special accusation respecting the police. If he can give me any particular cases, or if any other hon. Member can give me particular cases of which they complain, I will cause inquiries to be made. Finally, he said that he and his friends had to sit in the Police Court and suffer insults from the Magistrates. That is a very serious complaint. I do not know at the moment to what he refers. It is not quite fair to the Magistrates of a county like Durham to make these allegations in the House of Commons, without substantiating them.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

If any accusations of that kind were made, they could not properly be made in a Debate of this kind. If they were made, it would be my duty to point out that it must be made on a Motion. I can only say that I hope the subject will not be pursued.

Mr. WHITELEY

On a point of Order. I had that in mind, because in a previous Debate when I took the opportunity of bringing definite information to the Home Secretary respecting the action of a particular magistrate you ruled me out of order.

Mr. BUCHANAN

On a point of Order. You rule, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it is not competent for any hon. Member of this House, unless on a specific Motion, to make reference to a decision or an action of a Justice of the Peace. May I submit that that rule refers only to persons appointed under the Crown; that is to say, appointments which are the direct outcome of the action of one of the Secrearies of State in this country or the Secretary of State for Scotland, such appointments coming under the Crown; but that in regard to magistrates, not being Crown appointments, not being Parliamentary appointments, it is quite competent for a Member of this House to criticise them?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I have made inquiry into that point, and I under- stand that the rule against criticizing judicial decisions or the action of judicial persons while in the discharge of their functions has been held to cover the case of magistrates.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I will not pursue the matter further, except to say that if any hon. Member who has an accusation of this kind to make likes to send such accusation to me I will have inquiries made. I think I have answered all the accusations which have been made with regard to the administration of these Emergency Regulations. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the meeting at Caerphilly?"] Oh, yes. The complaint there was that the chief constable had acted with bias because he stopped a debate between a Tory speaker and the Labour agent, and had allowed a debate between the Labour agent and a Communist. I really think that is a very small matter. The point I have been addressing myself to is whether in the exercise of the powers entrusted to me have exercised them fairly, honestly, and with good intention, or whether I have exercised them with a deliberate political bias. All I can say is that if I have, I am no longer fit to stand at this Box or to serve in any other capacity. The House of Commons can be my judge. I am a House of Commons man. I have been here for many years, and I am prepared to take the verdict of this House as to whether I have in a time of the gravest difficulty exercised these powers in a manner conducive to the welfare of the country as a whole.

Mr. BUCHANAN

I want to raise, Mr. Speaker, a point of order in connection with a matter I raised when the Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hope) was in the Chair. In a ruling which the Deputy-Speaker gave just now, in the course of the Home Secretary's speech, he said that no reference could be allowed to the decisions of any justice of the peace or persons holding the office of justice of the peace in this country. I want to raise this point, as to whether this is not expressly laid down in the "Manual of Procedure." On page 29 of the "Manual of Procedure," Rule No. 8 says: Unless the discussion is based on a substantive motion drawn in proper terms. See May, 271,323 where the authorities mentioned include the Heir to the Throne, the Viceroy of India, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the Lord Chancellor, the Speaker, The Chairman of Ways and Means, Members of either Houses of Parliament and Judges of the Superior Courts of the United Kingdom, including persons holding the position of a Judge, such as a Judge in a Court of Bankruptcy or a County Court Judge. I submit that the last definition, "or a County Court Judge," defines what is meant by a Judge, and, therefore, it follows that a Justice of the Peace is not a Judge, and that a Member of this House has a right to discuss the decision of a Justice of the Peace.

Mr. SPEAKER

There cannot be an appeal to me from the Deputy-Speaker, who was acting just now. I did not hear what his ruling was, but I have no doubt it was a perfectly correct rendering of our Rules. I am not prepared to say anything more in the matter.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. WALLHEAD

There is one point on which I think we are entitled to ask for a specific reply from the Home Secretary. In a speech at Scunthorpe, a day or two ago, the Home Secretary, dealing with the connection which is sup- posed to exist between the Communist party in this country and the Government in Moscow, said: No one is going to deny that there is a connection between Communism and Moscow. Surely no one who knows the facts will deny that there are members of the British House of Commons who have been over to Moscow and have been in close touch with Moscow. Those are the men who in the House of Commons itself have threatened us that we shall have a general strike again and again, until the revolutionary views which they hold are carried out. We are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us a somewhat more specific statement, and to give us the names of those who have been over to Moscow and are in close touch with Moscow. The implication there is that there are Members of this House who are in the pay of Moscow, who take their orders from Moscow, and who are influenced in their duties towards this country by Moscow. My hon. Friend the Member for the Gower Division (Mr. Grenfell), the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. R. A. Taylor), the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. T. Griffiths) and the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. H. Hall) and myself, were in Moscow last year. The right hon. Gentleman can acquaint himself with our activities there. We visited the British Embassy and we saw Sir Robert Hodgson, who knew what we were doing, and I think we are entitled to know whether the implication is, that we are in the pay of any Government outside this country?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I am sorry that I omitted to answer this question. There is nothing whatever in the speech I made at Scunthorpe which suggests by implication or otherwise that hon. Members in this House are in the pay of Moscow. There is not one single word or one single suggestion of that kind in any shape or form. The hon. Member I had in mind was the hon. Member who advocated in this House a recurrence of the general strike. That is the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Purcell). What I stated was that there was certainly one hon. Member of this House—I do not accuse the hon. Member who has just spoken—who had been in close touch with Moscow, the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, and he stated in this House, I heard him, that this will not be the last general strike, "there will be another and another and another until we get our own way."

Mr. WALLHEAD

That may very well have been a prophesy, although I think it is a very likely prophesy. But I still think there is an implication here, because it does not mention any hon. Member by name but says that there are some hon. Members who have been in Moscow. The charge is too general and the details altogether too limited for us to be entirely satisfied with it. My opinion is that the right hon. Gentleman talks too largely in his speeches. We have a right to some protection and to ask that he will not make these charges. On the general question his answer has been particularly weak. There is plenty of evidence to show that the right hon. Gentleman is engaged in a policy of preventing his political opponents having the right of free speech. I hold that it is a constitutional right of the Opposition if you speak on political platforms in this country about any policy advocated in this House. I would like to know when last a British Government prevented its political opponents—the official Opposition—from holding meetings and from exercising the right of free speech on the platforms in the country. I do not know when what occurred now occurred previously. The Home Secretary admits that he has permitted the chief constables to ban these meetings. We have attempted to put questions to him on that matter, and we have been told that there is nobody to whom we may put those questions. All authority has been denied. We cannot get any information as to whom we shall put questions on the action of the police officials in banning meetings on the authority of the Home Secretary. That is an infringement of the constitutional right of Members of the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman has no right to issue instructions from his office and then to attempt to use his powers not to allow questions to be directed to him in this House on the matter.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

What does the hon. Gentleman mean? He says that I have used my power to prevent questions being put to me in this House. I have done nothing of the kind.

Mr. WALLHEAD

You evade questions which are put here.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

No.

Mr. WALLHEAD

We have put questions with regard to the banning of meetings by police officials in the counties. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] In this House. The meetings were banned in the counties of Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire.

HON. MEMBERS

When did you put questions?

Mr. WALLHEAD

The Fascists are treated in a different manner, but a Fascist organisation is just as likely to be financed from Rome as the Communists are to be financed from Russia. At any rate, if the "Manchester Guardian" is anything to go by, the French Press are charging the Fascist Government of Italy with attempting to suborn their law and to stir up revolution in France. And if they do it there, they may still do it here. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea North (Mr. Saklatvala) has just handed me a copy of a reply to a question which states that the action of the Chief Constable in banning his meetings was taken under the authority given by the Home Secretary in pursuance of No. 32 of the Emergency Regulations, and that the Chief Constable suppressed the meetings arranged by the Communist party as they were likely to give rise to disaffection, and that the Home Secretary was not disposed to disagree. It is on the instructions of the Home Office that these officials act, and I think we are entitled to ask that we shall have the right to put questions in regard to the matter of the gentlemen who receive instructions from the Home Office.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I think, Mr. Speaker, that I ought to state that while you were out of the House I informed the House that the banning of the Communist meetings was done by my order, and I respectfully submit that if hon. Members desire to put questions in regard to these particular meetings I am responsible in this House.

Mr. HAYES

I rise to reply to some of the points put in this Debate by the Home Secretary. The, charge from this side of the House against the Home Secretary is that he has been somewhat prejudiced in the administration of these Regulations against the working classes. If there was any justification at all for that charge I think it would be found in the statement which the right hon. Gentleman made when asked to explain why he did not commence a prosecution against a certain colonel who made a very stupid speech. "Stupid" was the word used by the right hon. Gentleman when he said that, had that speech been made by the gallant colonel in a mining area, he would have been prosecuted, my point is, do these Regulations apply only in the mining areas? Surely these Regulations are applicable throughout the length and breadth of this land, and yet there have been working-class people prosecuted and sentences passed upon them for having made speeches under these Regulations supposed to have caused disaffection in areas which are not mining areas. If it is good enough to send to prison members of the working class for making speeches contrary to the Regulations in an area which is not a mining area, then it ought to be good enough for this gallant colonel to be sent to prison for making a speech on the borders of a mining area in Yorkshire. In that respect I think the Home Secretary will have to review his attitude in the administration of these Regulations if people like this Colonel Leather and Lord Hunsdon and other people who have made speeches which have caused disaffection are allowed to go unhindered. The Home Secretary will have to review his attitude if he desires to get this side of the House to believe that he is carrying out these Regulations without bias.

The Home Secretary said that in some of his speeches he had appealed for peace. He must know, and he does, in fact, know, I am sure, that the primary duty of the police force of this country is the preservation of public tranquillity. He knows also that there is nothing more likely to cause unrest and ill-feeling among the populace than when the police take action which is arbitrary or in excess of what is regarded as their general duty. The right hon. Gentleman has quite frankly taken the full responsibility for the banning of meetings, but not only have meetings been banned, but it appears that the right hon. Gentleman has, in fact, banned particular speakers. It seems to be more a case of the speakers than of the meetings. The right hon. Gentleman went on to explain that the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) was allowed to make a speech in an area. other than the one which was attended by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), but under Regulation 22 it seems to me that the Home Secretary has not the power to delegate his authority, to give general permission to the chief constables of the country in respect of the general prohibition. According to the wording of Regulation 22, it would appear that the Home Secretary may authorise chief constables to prohibit meetings that may be held in contravention of the Regulation. How can the Home Secretary delegate his powers from now until the end of this emergency, when, according to the Regulations, he is to be the judge as to whether there is likely to be a breach of the peace? It would be interesting to know whether the right hon. Gentleman issued that special instruction to chief constables on the advice of the chief constables, or whether he sought their advice before issuing these instructions to them. He knows very well that a large number of Thief constables would prefer that these Regulations were not enforced. He knows very well that chief constables, superintendents, and inspectors of police in their own areas, if left unfettered by the Home Secretary, are quite able to deal effectively with their own local people. There is nothing more than the excess of power, or the importation of foreign constables into their own area, which is more likely to create disagreement with the local police.

The right hon. Gentleman should remember the experience of the police force in Liverpool in 1911—an experience which the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) will not forget. On that Sunday in Liverpool the police came into conflict with those who were involved in an industrial dispute. The conflict was not due to the way in which the local police handled the men engaged in the dispute, but was due entirely to feeling that had become inflamed by the knowledge that police from the Birmingham area were introduced to do a job that the Liverpool police were able to do without such assistance. You must have regard to the psychology of the workers when they are engaged in industrial disputes. The psychology of the docker in Liverpool at that time—I am not sure that it has been altered—was expressed in words which were often spoken, "We do not object so much to our local coppers knocking us about but we do object to the Birmingham men being brought in to do it." I am giving the saying in the local vernacular.

I can assure the House that those who have had experience in handling the public in industrial disputes know only too well that the temper of the people is best maintained by allowing the local police to do their job for themselves. It may be said, of course, that all chief constables are impartial. It is very remarkable that the first ban which took place with any degree of publicity was a ban in Staffordshire against Mr. Cook, the Secretary of the Miners' Federation. The instructions of the Home Office appear to have gone out against the Communist party, but neither Mr. Cook nor any of the other banned speakers belongs to the Communist party. They are not members of the Communist party.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

Mr. Cook is not under any ban at all. He was banned at one meeting.

Mr. HAYES

I am referring to the particular meeting at which he was banned. I am wondering why he was banned.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

That question was answered.

Mr. HAYES

It has not been answered in the sense that any real explanation has been given. Immediately after the ban was put on it was removed. There would appear to have been no justification in the circumstances either for the removal or the putting on of the ban. The police carry out their work under far more difficult circumstances when Regulations of this kind are imposed upon them, whether they like them or not. I am wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman did seek the opinion of the local police officers as to whether he should prohibit these meetings and processions, or whether in his desire to maintain the tranquillity of the country or in his conception of what was the maintenance of tranquillity, he instructed the chief constables, and through them their superintendent and inspectors. I know that many of them in the minefields have been able to do better without these repressive tactics. Where there are great concourses of men, smarting under a sense of injustice owing to industrial conditions, the local police officer is often able to preserve order by a give-and-take method. It is not much of a give-and-take method if, when speakers go to a district, the Home Secretary puts on the local police force a tremendous tax, which is also put on the concourse of people gathered together, by saying that a man's speech shall not be delivered because it is likely to cause disaffection. If that argument is to be followed, I cannot understand why every speaker who has been in the minefields throughout the dispute has not been banned or subsequently summoned or arrested.

Would we have been faithful to the people whom we represent if we had gone into the minefields and preached a defeatist policy? I admit frankly that I have spoken at many meetings, and I trust that I have never gone outside the law. But I have never struck a defeatist note. I have attempted to encourage the miners in the strike, for their heroism deserves every support. If men are to be banned because they are likely to make speeches calculated to strengthen the miners in their fight, it is the limit. The Home Secretary will have to alter his policy both in emergencies which arise in this country, and in the general administration, if he is to change the opinion that was expressed by a very eminent authority in this country not many years ago. I may, with the permission of the House, quote a statement made at Bradford, in which it was said, in reply to the Tory party's claim to be the party of law and order: As long as it is the working men of England or the Nationalist peasants of Ireland, there is no measure of military force which the Tory party will not readily employ. They denounce all violence except their own. They uphold all law except the law which they choose to break. They always welcome the application of force to others, while they themselves are to be immune. They select from the Statute Book the laws they will obey and the laws they will resist. Is that a true statement of the Tory outlook with regard to administration? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If it is not a true statement, will hon. Members of that party be good enough to challenge the present Chancellor of the Exchequer on those words, because they are words which he uttered concerning the party of which he is now a shining light? They were uttered in reply to the "Fire and be damned" speech which the present Home Secretary delivered in an unconstitutional moment, when it did not suit him to be constitutional.

Mr. BUCHANAN

I rise to correct a statement made by the Home Secretary. I think it was an unfair and untrue statement and one which ought not to have been made about a Member of this House. During his intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Wallhead) the Home Secretary said that the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Purcell) had been in close touch with Moscow, and had made statements in this House in favour of general strikes, or at least expressing the opinion that general strikes would occur and occur again. The Home Secretary did not explain that the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean did not say that he necessarily believed in general strikes. What the hon. Member did say was that general strikes would occur and occur again, but that does not imply that the hon. Member himself is a fomenter of strikes. The fact is that strikes will occur, whether the hon. Member likes it or not, and whether the Home Secretary likes it or not. I regret the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean cannot be present owing to exceptional circumstances, but I can say that he has received no payment from Moscow directly or indirectly.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I did not say so.

Mr. BUCHANAN

I know you did not say it. You are too "fly" a criminal for that. [HON. MEMBERS "Order!"] If that were so, you might be convicted, but you may imply a thing without actually saying it. You tried to imply that to every miner who reads what you say and to allow innocent people to deduce that this man is in the pay of Moscow. This man held Socialist opinions many years ago and his opinions to-day remain more or less unchanged. He has stated that times without number, and I regret that an officer of the State, holding the office which the Home Secre- tary holds, should imply that any Member is in the pay of an outside Government. The Home Secretary in his speech neglected to reply to one point raised by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). Hon. Members opposite constantly fling across at us the statement that we are directly or indirectly in the pay of the trade unions and are subsidised to create strife on behalf of the trade union movement. That is a common, every day occurrence in this House.

The hon. Member for Camlachie proved that the Chairman of the Unionist Association is a prominent coalowner. Is the right hon. Gentleman opposite, with his speeches about trade union activities and the necessity for a Bill to inquire into the working of trade unions, is he, as a prominent member of the Conservative party, prepared to make as public their income and expenditure as the Labour party are to make theirs? Is he prepared to say whether the new Chairman of the Unionist party, a prominent coalowner, is not subsidising the Tory party at the present time? What income will they derive and have they derived from the coalowners of this country? I make bold to say that the Conservative party in this country largely maintain their financial position, largely run their candidates, by the subsidy direct of the coal-owners, and that this attitude of the Home Secretary is the direct outcome of the coalowners' instructions to him.

In his speech to-night he quoted a Communist document which said they must withdraw the safety men and take steps to see that the proposed peace was not accepted, and he went on to say that that document was not illegal. It is not illegal for a miner or anybody else to give his opinion on the peace terms. It is not illegal for the Home Secretary to give advice to the miners to vote in favour of these terms. It is not illegal or wrong, and, therefore, I say that it is quite constitutional and correct for a person not a miner to influence miners to vote against the peace terms. Here is a Communist who comes along, not acting illegally, but issuing a document which the Home Secretary says is not illegal, but that while it is right for him, as Home Secretary, to urge miners to vote for peace, it is wrong and ought to be banned for some other person, not a miner, to advocate the rejection of those peace terms. It cannot be defended, and what the Home Secretary is setting out to do is to try to repress every idea which he thinks wrong, and with which he does not agree. We have now found out, after an elaborate process of questioning, a process that was riot successful with his Under-Secretary—I pass no reflection on him, because if the Under-Secretary is as ill-informed as the chief constables, I pity him, and he is not to blame; the Under-Secretary could not inform us—but we now find out a thing of which Mr. Speaker had no knowledge and of which the Clerks at the Table had no knowledge, namely, that the Home Secretary officially banned the Communist meetings.

I want to ask a question that was put to his Under-Secretary the other night, in the right hon. Gentleman's absence, as to whether a certain summons had been issued by the Home Secretary in his capacity as Home Secretary or whether it had been instigated by him as a piece of political spite against a particular opponent. This is not far-fetched. We have seen the vendetta pursued against the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Purcell). We remember the speech which the right hon. Gentleman made at a Unionist gathering at Twickenham. In the course of that speech he dealt with the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean. He then came to the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), who previously had made a speech in this House. The right hon. Gentleman, before the summons was issued, before proceedings were started, outlined that he intended on behalf of His Majesty's Government to place the hon. Member in prison. He quoted part of a speech which the hon. Member had made on the Floor of this House, and said that if that speech were repeated, in other words, if the hon. Member dared to say outside what he said inside the House, then he, the Home Secretary—not the Chief Constable, not justice, but he, the Home Secretary, would plant his opponent in prison.

It is past the stage of reason. All that the Home Secretary can do is to take a man from his wife and family, and plant him in gaol because he is his opponent. That is the stage we have reached with the Home Secretary. The attitude of the Home Secretary was that we were privileged here, and were afraid to repeat it outside. He has us both ways. He says we are cowards, because we say it here, and if we repeat it outside, he uses his vendetta, his spite, almost his hatred, to put a colleague in gaol. I ask any unbiassed hon. Member at least to hold the balance between the two sides. Let any person holding liberal ideas go over the Twickenham speech. I am not afraid of this matter being judged. In the Twickenham speech there are spite, spleen, hatred, the love of merely planting an opponent in prison. I ask for a definite answer from the right hon. Gentleman—did he directly or indirectly cause the proceedings to be taken? I am not blaming the Under-Secretary or making a single reflection on him. He did not know at hat time. But we have the right to ask, was this done against the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs by the Home Secretary? That question ought to be answered?

The Home Secretary may think he is doing a great day's work by stopping our meetings. He may think he is getting peace in our time by that particular method. He may go on banning meetings. He may even imprison the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs. All that sort of thing was done years ago. They tried to sabotage us, and the people they thought would delight in our imprisonment sent us hack to the House, with greater majorities than ever. This is the method that we have reached—the Government cannot argue, they cannot reason, but use the brute force they possess through their great majority in this House. I see in one of to-day's papers that a man was fined£25 because he said, "Vote for the Labour representatives in order to get control of the local police." The right hon. Gentleman thinks that is progress. You cannot kill ideas, you cannot kill thought. Neither with imprisonment nor with gaoling will the hon. Member for Dumbarton ever be killed. You cannot kill his ideas or his speech. I know that you can do anything with some hon. Members—make the man a sir or a lord, send him to "another place," and you have killed him for all time; but in the case of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs and his col- leagues, even the Home Secretary, with the little majesty he has got, cannot suppress them. We will go on repeating what we believe to be true inside this Chamber and outside this Chamber, and try to get the people of the country to accept our views. I hope the Home Secretary will at least reply to the point I have raised: Has he, in a personal vendetta, raised this prosecution, or has he not?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

If I may speak again, by leave of the House, I need hardly say that I have no personal vendetta against the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). I have explained—my speech is on record. The hon. Member made a speech in this House and I made a speech in this House referring to the speech of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs. I cannot go further than that, and I will not go further than that, to-day. As soon as the case is over, there will be plenty of opportunities for the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) to raise the case again, and I will answer fully all his questions. But it would be grossly improper to discuss it in any way now, and it would not be desirable in the interests of the hon. Member, because I may have a defence to make, or I may not, but it would be very unfortunate if I were to make a defence which might react against the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs. Therefore, I say to the hon. Member for Gorbals, as I said an hour ago, that I cannot and I will not discuss the case of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs until it is over, and then I will be prepared to discuss it as fully as the House wishes.

Mr. LANSBURY

I would like to emphasise the point made by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Purcell) is one of my oldest friends in the Labour movement. I have known him all his life, I am much older than he is, and he has held the view that he holds to-day all the years that I have known him; and for the Home Secretary to say that because he goes to Moscow and is friendly with the Bolshevists he comes back here and advocates a certain policy is sheer, undiluted nonsense. It is quite easy to look up who the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean is and what his record is. I have worked with him in all kinds of movements connected with Socialism, and both of us hold the view that either through Parliament or through the general strike or in some way Socialism will come in this country. I have said—I expect the Government have records of it—when other people have said "Never again," I have said "Again and again," because 1 believe that Socialism must come. I am not ashamed. My constituents know it, and when they do not want me any longer they will turn me out, like we shall turn the right hon. Gentleman out, and other hon. Members too. But that is beside the mark. Hon. Members need not worry about me, and I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman has many sleepless nights about his majority either.

I want to call attention to another very serious fact. Our case against the Government, at least my case against the Government, is that during the strike or lock-out they have taken sides definitely against the men. Whatever our views theoretically may be to-night, here we have the Home Secretary definitely stating at a critical moment, knowing there was to be a campaign to induce the miners not to return to work, choosing that time to suppress Communist propaganda. All that is being used against the miners. I know it is argued that this action is being taken against the Communists, but it is really against the men being allowed to hear the arguments of the Communists. When it comes to banning some of the sort of people the right hon. Gentleman has banned, it is not merely Communists, but many other people. My point is that the Home Secretary has admitted that at a critical point in this dispute he has used the whole power of the forces of the Crown, and his extraordinary legal powers under the Emergency Powers Act, not to preserve order, but to suppress Communist propaganda. Those powers were not given him for that purpose, and yet he stands up and says, because certain efforts were being made by certain trade union leaders to bring about a settlement, and another section did not want a settlement, "I throw my whole weight in to prevent propaganda of that kind." That is an abuse of his powers. The right hon. Gentleman has really abused his power and the trust the House of Commons placed in his hands.

Look at the result of all this. I am one of those who have always thought that the more a movement is persecuted and denounced the stronger it becomes, if it has any foundation of truth in it, because you cannot suppress truth by coercion. There may not be any truth in Communism, and, if so, it will die a natural death. We have often heard the Scriptural quotation, "If it is of God it will live, and if it is of the devil it will die." I think the Home Secretary would have been better advised to have left the Communists alone, because by adopting this policy the Government have only stirred up the miners to such an extent that there is a stronger feeling against the Government terms than there would have been but for all this coercion. The reason for this is that the miners have realised that what the Communists were saying was true, and that the Government did not want the truth to prevail.

Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are always very scornful about the men in the coalfields and their enjoyment. I want to point out again that in spite of all your Emergency Regulations, and in spite of all your weighting of the scales against the men, they are now only exhibiting the same sort of courage that you were so proud of during the War. They are exhibiting it to-day, however, on behalf of their own women and children. That is all there is to it, and I think this House of Commons is betraying the trust reposed in it by the people of the country in allowing the right hon. Gentleman to stand at that Box to-night and admit, and, really, glory in the fact, that he has used the powers under the Emergency Powers Act, given to him to preserve law and order, in order to prevent propaganda against the infamous, wicked terms which the mineowners and the Government are trying to impose upon the men.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter before Eleven o'Clock.