At the end of Sub-section (1) of Section eighty of the Army Act the following Subsection shall be added:
The general conditions of the contract to be entered into shall include a stipulation that the recruit shall not be liable, nor shall it be lawful in pursuance of this Act to call upon such recruit, to take duty in aid of the civil power in connection with a trade dispute, or to perform, in consequence of a trade dispute, any civil or industrial duty customarily performed by a civilian in the course of his employment. Provided that, in the event of His Majesty declaring by proclamation, in accordance with the provisions of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, that a 6tate of emergency exists, this stipulation shall not apply as long as such state of emergency exists.—[Mr. Broad.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. BROAD
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I know that what I have to say must be directed through the Chair to the Secretary of State for War and the Minister for Air, but I would have preferred, and I think it would have been more appropriate, that the Home Secretary should also have been present on this occasion, because, after all, the primary function of the Secretary of State for War and the Minister for Air is to recruit, equip and train men for the defence of this country and its citi- 1134 zens against some foreign Power. I am sure that both of these Ministers would be glad to be relieved of having to see that those forces were used against an enemy at home, and although this has to come in the Debate on the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, yet, when, if ever, the forces are to be used in aid of the civil authority, the Minister who will be responsible will be the Home Secretary.
There are two points of view. First of all, there is the point of view of the general community, and—if I may claim the attention of hon. Members opposite, who seem to think this the most convenient place for conversation, I will continue with my argument—the second point of view is the position of the men in the forces themselves. As far as the community is concerned, I am going to say that the use of the military forces in times of trade disputes it one of the most harmful and dangerous expedients to which any Government could resort. It creates a bad atmosphere among the great masses of our people, and there is no question about a class war, for here is the class war in operation. We have to recognise that it is only within comparatively recent years, and within my lifetime, that we have had the use of troops in industrial disputes. From the time of Peterloo, which was not an indus- 1135 trial dispute, until 1893, there had been no occasion on which troops had been called on to fire on the civilian population of this country. Even in those days, when men were not so educated and when, perhaps, they and the masters were more brutal, unrefined and unrestrained than they are now, there was no occasion on which troops were brought into conflict with the civilian population.
We have had several occasions since then when such action has been taken. Those who look back into the records of each of these occasions can see, when they come to examine them, that those troops which had been sent to deal with a possible situation had, by the very fact of their being there, created that situation. It is a remarkable thing in every one of these cases that the very fact of the troops being there was the cause of the trouble, and that the troops had been sent there in advance of the trouble. We know that in 1893, when the men were locked out in the coalfields of Yorkshire and the troops were hurried there, it was not because we had not police forces available who could have been used to keep order if they were required, but that those police forces had been withdrawn to the Doncaster races, and it was on the request of a Noble Lord of that date, who was himself a coalowner, that those troops were sent there. The Minister sent them without having thoroughly understood what he was doing, and the very fact of them being there meant that two men were slaughtered. We had the usual whitewashing Commission, but I am going to say that the blood showed through the whitewash. There was very great significance in that, for a wave of feeling swept through the country as the result of that Featherstone business. It is a significant thing that that same year, 1893, was the year when the Independent Labour party was formed. I have in my hand a pamphlet that was written on that occasion which did a great deal of propaganda work at that time and in which, with almost uncanny prescience, the writer says:If the doom of Liberalism be decreed by the fates, some insanity of this sort will assuredly precede the end.That was in 1893.
There are many rulings in this House that an Amendment cannot be moved as an Amendment to the Army and Air Force (Annual) Act with reference to the employment of troops during trade disputes and it has only been allowed now in the form of a stipulation that the recruits should not be called upon for such service except in the case of an emergency. I do not think, in moving his Amendment, that the hon. Member can argue at any great length the way in which troops may be employed.
§ Mr. BROAD
I would draw attention to the latter part of the proposed Clause, because, since that original decision was given from the Chair, we have had through this House the Emergency Powers Act and this Clause would preclude the military being used in support of the civil authority except after a state of emergency had been proclaimed. In pursuance of that, I would draw attention to the fact that the Secretary of State for War last year, in reply, based his position on the fact that the soldier, like any other citizen, could be called in in support of the civil authorities, so that the position is rather different from what it was in those earlier days when the Ruling was given which has just been quoted by the Chair.
I do not think the position has changed at all as regards this Amendment since that Ruling was given. I think it is exactly the same as when the Ruling was given that this occasion could not be used to move an Amendment with a view to criticising the way in which troops may be used. That is exactly the question which the hon. Member is now arguing. He is arguing his Amendment on the point which has been ruled out of order.
The new Clause suggests that recruits should not be asked to take on certain forms of service in connection with a strike. Would my hon. Friend not be in order in submitting objections to that particular kind of service?
The hon. Member is moving an Amendment to the effect that recruits should not be called upon to perform certain duties during a 1137 strike, but the hon. Member cannot argue as to the way in which troops may be used, which does not arise upon this Bill.
§ Mr. BROAD
I am trying to show why the troops should be relieved of this kind of duty. My new Clause deals with the possibility of troops being used to replace men in industry, and that would have a very great effect on the minds of our people, and even on the troops themselves. These young men have joined because they think the Army is a noble and worthy calling, but a great many of these men have been conscripted by the forces of unemployment and privation. But whatever the reason, I am sure none of these young men ever contemplated that they would be used to fire on their fellow workers, possibly their fathers, or their brothers, or their friends, and that is the position they are now being placed in.
We have progressed a great deal since 1893, and these young men have learned that it is much better to try and secure economic emancipation by the political emancipation which has already been won. It is a dangerous thing for the community that it should be contemplated that troops should be used against their fellow workmen. These troops are men who hope to return to industry some day after their period of service. I want to refer to the argument that the soldier, like any other citizen, is liable to be called in support of the civil authority in case of need. We all recognise that. I have myself seen occasions when civilians have gone to the assistance of the police in case of need. I have seen a case in which soldiers have gone to the assistance of the police in time of need, but they have done so as citizens, and that is a very different thing from those men being lined up in rows armed with lethal weapons to fire indiscriminately on a crowd, which is what has occurred in the past.
This is rather indicative of the mentality of a certain type of employer who thinks that a parade of force is going to cow the people in order to get them to accept any conditions their employers might offer. When aeroplanes are taken to affected areas in an industrial dispute no one denies that they are taken there for one purpose only, because they cannot be used to single out individual men, or keep them back, or surround property. If you 1138 use any weapons from an aeroplane, whether it be a bomb or a rifle, you cannot be sure within a quarter of a mile what you are going to hit, and therefore aeroplanes in such circumstances can only be used for purposes of terrorism. I hope the Minister for Air, if he replies, will indicate any way in which the Air Force or any instrument of the Air Force can be used under such circumstances for any other purpose than that of terrorism. Therefore, whether it is the Army or the Air Force, I say that the parading of these men and despatching them to affected areas during a strike is at once calculated to inflame the minds of the people, and it produces a situation which makes the settlement of a dispute almost impossible. With the sense of order and discipline which is held by our people, and the tactful manner in which the police handle great crowds, surely there is no excuse for retaining in the hands of magistrates and local head constables the power to call on the Home Office to require the Army or the Air Force to send troops to the assistance of the civil authority.
I want to deal with one other aspect of this position. There are a certain number of people among the industrial classes who, during a time of disturbance, are ready to say, "Give them a whiff of grapeshot and that will put them in their proper place." I do not suggest that that is indicative of the frame of mind of the majority, or of a large proportion of hon. Members who sit opposite, but from the workers' point of view there are those who say that no matter what power of voting you have got, or how much you believe in constitutional methods, if the interests of the employers are affected, they will oppose the workers who stand for constitutional methods.
I have already told the hon. Member that this question cannot be discussed on this particular new Clause. The Estimates for the Army and the Air Force have nothing whatever to do with that subject.
§ Mr. BROAD
I should have said "except under the Emergency Powers Act." I want hon. Members to realise how dangerous a weapon this is to use, and how unfair it is to the men enlisting. The experience of the last 25 years has shown that it is unnecessary to use 1139 this power, and I hope the Government will see their way to put in this stipulation which I have moved, so that we shall feel that it is only in case of a great emergency that an ultimate resort will be made to the armed forces of the Crown.
§ Mr. G. HALL
I beg to second the Motion.
As a matter of fact, if I adopted the suggestion of the argument placed before the House by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Duff Cooper), in justifying his attitude in voting with those on this side of the House on the last new Clause, one might say, as he said, that an old law not used is of no use at all. I think we might say that so far the law for utilising soldiers or even navy men in trade disputes is gradually dying out. I have a recollection of an industrial dispute in one of the peaceful Welsh valleys during the year 1898 when there was a very great industrial dispute, and two cavalry regiments were sent to that area. The people there were law-abiding citizens, and there was no need for the troops, but the result of sending them was that it stiffened the opposition of those engaged in the dispute, and they came to the conclusion that the Government sent troops with the intention of intimidating the men engaged in that dispute to accept unreasonable and unjust terms.
There will be common agreement on all sides of the Committee that to-day there is no country in the world where such a great mass of citizens are so law-abiding as they are in this country. The experience of last year goes to prove that there is no need to utilise troops for purposes such as they have been utilised in the past. While it may be admitted that our people are law-abiding citizens in the mass, it is not understood that the psychological effect of sending troops to districts where there is an industrial dispute, is that it makes the work of those attempting to keep the people law-abiding all the more difficult. I have had some experience in industrial disputes, and I know that nothing has stiffened more the action of those engaged in disputes than the thought that the Government are taking sides against the workers and endeavouring to intimidate them.
The hon. Member is not in order in arguing in that 1140 way on this new Clause, and I hope he will confine his remarks to what is contained in the Clause.
§ Mr. HALL
I was endeavouring to point out that there was no longer any need for a recruit to carry out duties which the recruits who formerly joined the Army had to do, and this new Clause would give the recruit the right to decide whether he should be called upon to engage in an industrial dispute in the way in which he has had to do in the past. I only wish to say that the experience of last year proved conclusively that the civil authorities are quite competent to deal with any matter arising in the course of an industrial dispute. Last year we had eight months of industrial strife, and on no single occasion was it necessary for the civil authorities to apply-to the War Office to send troops to engage or interfere in the trouble at all. As a matter of fact, I think it is where imported troops were sent that we had the greatest trouble—imported police, I mean.
The Army and Air Force Annual Bill has nothing to do with where troops shall be used. The right hon. Gentleman could not reply to these questions, because I should not allow him to do so.
§ Miss WILKINSON
I should like to call the attention of the Secretary of State for War to the exact terms of this proposed new Clause, and to ask him whether it is really not possible, and whether it is not in fact in the interest of his Department itself, to accept this Clause as it stands. It is, as you yourself, Sir, have pointed out, an extremely limited Clause. It does not apply at all in cases, such as the last mining dispute, where His Majesty has proclaimed a state of emergency, and where, even if this Clause were accepted by the Government, it would not apply. The position as it now stands is that, even in a case where no emergency has been proclaimed, that is to say, in an ordinary trade dispute, it is possible for the War Department or any of the other fighting Departments to order troops to take the places of men who are out on strike. If this proposed 1141 new Clause be accepted, all that it will mean will be that the recruit will be told, when he joins the Army, that, except in case of emergency, he will not be ordered to take the place of a man who is out on strike.
What will be the effect if the Secretary of State for War refuses this Clause? It will mean that he will be saying to the country that, even in cases where no emergency is proclaimed, he yet is going to take power to order men to take the places of strikers if he thinks fit. I want to remind the right hon. Gentleman, if he needs it, and I want to remind hon. Members,, that the case of a soldier, under his oath, is entirely different from that of an ordinary workman. If a workman is asked to take the place of a fellow workman in a dispute, he has the alternative of either obeying that order or, if he disobeys it, losing his job. It is quite a different alternative that is placed before him; he simply loses his job. The position, however, of the man under Army orders is very different indeed. If he refuses to take the place of a man who is out on strike, he is then subject, not to losing his job, not to any of the ordinary civilian penalties, but to the extreme penalties (hat may be inflicted on a soldier, even in peace time, for disobeying the orders of his superior officers. I submit that, when the average man joins the Army, he does so in order to fight the foreign enemies of his country. He is aware that when a state of national emergency has been proclaimed he may have to obey the orders of his superior officers, even if it means firing on his fellow workmen; but I do submit that, except where a state of emergency has been proclaimed, the War Office or any other fighting Department has no right to call upon that man to face such an alternative, with drastic punishment if he refuses.
This man, before he has joined the Army, the Navy, or the Air Force, may have been a trade unionist of several years' standing, and I submit that a recruit who joins the Army ought to have an option in a matter like that. Then I want to ask the Secretary of State for War to consider the position of the average citizen. The working man pays taxes; the trade unionist pays taxes, just as much as anyone else., according to his income. We all pay for the Army. And 1142 yet, if this proposed new Clause be not accepted, soldiers, sailors or Air Force men can be ordered to take part in a dispute even when no emergency is proclaimed. I would point out that this practice is frequently carried out. It is not some hypothetical case, but is a definite practice which is frequently carried out. In any coal dispute, even apart from national emergency, we arc told that naval ratings may be called in to man the pumps. In the case of power stations, if there is a strike in a power station we are told that naval ratings, or technicians from the Army, may be called in to take the place of those engaged in the dispute. It is quite easy to say that this is being done in order to prevent inconvenience to the public—that the public must be protected, and that, after that, the men and the employers can fight it out. This, again, is not a case where a national emergency has been proclaimed—I want to make that quite clear; the definite case covered by this proposed new Clause is where no national emergency has been proclaimed, but where there is merely an ordinary dispute between an employer and his workmen. There is no guarantee that, before troops are sent in, the matter will be examined, and, if the employer is found to be in the wrong—
The hon. Lady did quite well up to a certain point, but she is wandering from the point which this particular Clause raises, and which has merely to do with enlistment and recruiting.
§ Miss WILKINSON
It takes, perhaps, a little time to develop this argument, but I would respectfully submit that this proposed new Clause says:call upon such recruit to take duty in aid of the civil power in connection with a trade dispute;and what I am trying to deal with is the case of an ordinary trade dispute, where no national emergency is proclaimed. If I might be allowed to develop my argument, I think you will find, Sir, that it is in order, because what I want to show is that you may have an ordinary civil dispute where no emergency is proclaimed, and yet, by the mere fact that the State has power to send in technicians to take the place of those engaged in the dispute, the War Office, or whatever other fighting De- 1143 partment is concerned, is coming down on the side of the employer. Since all ranks pay taxes for the upkeep of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, it is surely unfair that the Minister concerned should have the power to interfere in a dispute in such a way as heavily to weight the scales on one side of a dispute. That is the point I am trying to make, and I want, therefore, to submit—
This particular Bill has nothing to do with the question of the way in which troops shall be used. The question as to what power the Minister has to use troops does not arise on this Bill at all. It has been constantly ruled that to argue that question is outside the scope of this Bill.
§ Mr. LAWSON
While it is true that you are quite right in emphasising the personal side of the contract, I should like respectfully to ask how this matter can be discussed if we do not discuss the possibility of the recruit being called into certain trade disputes? As I understand it, the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) is arguing that the recruit in certain circumstances may be called into a dispute with which he has no concern at all, and I submit that it is impossible to discuss this matter if we are debarred from referring to that question.
There is a proper occasion for discussing how troops may or can be used, and whether they should be used in the case of trade disputes or not; but that is not on the Army Annual Bill. The hon. Member may not know the history in regard to Amendments in this form. Rulings have often been given that to discuss the use of troops in trade disputes is outside the scope of the Army Annual Bill, and it must not be thought that, by allowing this Clause to be moved, a discussion may take place on a side wind which would not be allowed on the main question.
§ Mr. LAWSON
I quite understand, Sir, the history of this question, but the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough was not discussing the question of the use of troops, but the position of the recruit in regard to a trade dispute.
The hon. Lady had been discussing that, and in doing so she was quite in order, but when I called her to order she was going into a series of questions which do not arise on the Army Annual Bill.
§ Miss LAWRENCE
Further on the point of Order. It is a little difficult to catch the distinction that is made in your ruling. The proposed new Clause would provide that a recruit shall not be employed in a trade dispute except in case of emergency. The reason why that provision is put before Parliament, and the reasons why Parliament should adopt this Clause, are impossible to explain if we must not use the expression "trade dispute." I put it to you, Sir, that you are really ruling the Clause out of order, and not the discussion. I do that with the utmost humility.
It is rather difficult to keep hon. Members to the Clause, because of the very narrow issue that is raised, but I really cannot allow a discussion on questions which have been constantly ruled out of order on similar occasions.
§ Miss WILKINSON
It is, as you say, extremely difficult to frame one's speech in such a way as to bring it within these narrow limits. I think it is really the phraseology that is concerned, rather than the spirit of what I am trying to say; but what I want to put to the Secretary of State for War is that the effect that the refusal to accept this Clause is likely to have upon recruiting. I am not going to pretend that I am an enthusiast for the right hon. Gentleman's type of recruiting, but I do want to suggest that, if he is complaining, as he is, that he is not getting the right type of recruits, he certainly is not going to get the right type if he is going to refuse a stipulation of this kind. I submit that, whether a man be in the British Army or not, he is a citizen, and, while he ought to obey his superior officers in time of war or in time of emergency, he ought not to have to forego all his citizen rights when he joins the Army. That is the position of a mercenary army, and not a citizen army such as we ought to have in a country like Great Britain.
I suggest that it is not asking too much, within the extremely narrow limits of 1145 this Clause, to ask the Secretary of State for War, on behalf of the Government, to accept this proposal, which at least puts before the recruit the right to contract out at a time—[Laughter.] I cannot understand that extraordinary outburst. It seems to me extraordinary that there should be a wild desire on the part of hon. Members opposite to take away every decent shred of citizen rights from a man because he is put into uniform. I can quite understand the employers' attitude, which regards every trade unionist as an enemy, but, if you are going to have an Army which is paid for by every rank of the community, you have no right to use that Army to weight the balance in a trade dispute. I, therefore, submit respectfully that at the time of recruiting a soldier ought to be told that he has the right, if he desires it, not to take part in a trade dispute so long as a state of national emergency is not proclaimed. It does not affect the general strike, it does not affect any abnormal emergency—though if I had my way it would affect the general strike. I say that, merely within these narrow limits, in the case of an ordinary dispute, where a national strike is not involved, no case can be made out for not giving this right to the recruit in this matter, unless the party opposite are going to take up the position that they want the man in order to use him for their own employers' concerns, and that, I submit, is not a fair way of using the British Army.
§ Mr. RHYS
I did not intend to intervene in this Debate, but it occurred to me that the hon. Lady who has just spoken torpedoed her own argument when she emphatically declared that the British soldier was a British citizen, because I always understood it to be an elementary duty of any British citizen to uphold the law and aid the civil power in any disturbance that may take place. As I read this proposed new Clause, there is no question, and, indeed, there never could be any question, of using troops in any industrial disturbance of any sort or kind unless the situation became such that there was grave danger, not only to life, but to the very property—
The hon. Member is straying into paths which have already been ruled out of order.
§ Mr. RHYS
I must submit at once to your ruling, but I did think I was entitled to reply to the last argument which the hon. Lady put forward. I wish to emphasise once more that a recruit on joining the Army does not lose the right of British citizenship, nor, indeed, the obligations to uphold the civil power. It is nonsense, if I may say so, for hon. Members to talk about shooting down the workers. That does not arise at all. When a recruit joins the Army at the present day, he does so as a volunteer, and knowing full well what are his obligations. All of us deprecate the use of troops in any sort of industrial dispute, but I am not going to be led away further into that because I know that you, Captain FitzRoy, will call me to order.
May I make one further small point? I do not think this Clause even effects what the Movers of it desire that it should effect, because it merely refers to recruits. We might have a very interesting legal argument as to when a man ceases to be a recruit. If the hon. Lady really knew anything about Army phraseology, she would know that a man is a recruit until he has passed through his recruit drill. He then becomes a trained soldier, and we could have a very lengthy and interesting argument as to what the actual legal position of a private soldier was. There, again, I do not think, from their own point of view, it would effect what the supporters of the Clause desire, but I would like to reiterate what I started by saying, that it is the duty of every British citizen to do his duty by the civil power to uphold law and order.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
You, Captain FitzRoy, have had the unpleasant duty of calling every speaker on this Clause to order, but I am going to see if I can break the record by not contravening the rules of order. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down endeavoured to draw a red herring across the very reasonable arguments used on this side, by talking about a recruit only ceasing to be a recruit when he has passed his examination. This deals with a man who takes the King's shilling and joins the Army. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman does not accept this Clause. It is most innocuous. It gives everything he can possibly want from the point of view of the head of the Army 1147 called upon to assist the civil power. The last paragraph of the Clause really leaves the power for preserving order in the hands of the Government unimpaired. Let us look at what happened during the General Strike last year. As regards the first part of the Clause, even when the Emergency Regulations had been passed by this House, the Territorial soldiers were asked to volunteer for duty. Although when they were enrolled under the Army Act, they were given the benefit of this option. We are passing right away from the days when recruits were used in the way which is being discussed, and which I do not want to pursue now. We have come to a new conception of the use of force on these occasions. It was not the Secretary of State for War who was held up in the General Strike as the tyrant with his grapeshot and machine guns. It was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who was the driving force.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman, like other hon. Members, has gone beyond the scope of the Bill. This is not the time to discuss the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It has nothing to do with this particular Bill.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
To return to the Clause. The charge has been made, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, that the reason for an Army is not to fight—at least for some years to come—a foreign enemy, but to beat down the workers at home. The right hon. Gentleman repudiates that charge, and if he will accept this Amendment, he will give expression to his sincerity. You are getting to-day very young men in the Army, and those young men really may not know what they are landing themselves in for—if I may use such an expression—when they join the Service. Why not let them know that it is not intended to use them in a way which we know is out of date, and have some clearly drawn-up contract as is suggested in this Clause? The Secretary of State could have settled this without practically affecting his power at all or weakening the power of the Government. This Clause would make the matter perfectly clear without weakening the present power of the Secretary of State. There is very little in it. I am quite 1148 certain a Labour War Minister could accept it with a perfectly easy conscience, and I shall be very interested to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the reason for not accepting it.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I wish this Debate had taken place upon the Estimates, because then I should have been able to deal with the points which have slipped in between the intervals when you, Captain FitzRoy, called the various speakers to order; but I conceive it would be out of order if I were to deal with most of the wild statements that have been made on the other side, for example, that the troops were used for indiscriminate firing—that was one of the phrases—upon the civil population, and that the troops were to be used for the purpose of taking the places of those on strike. I am afraid it will be out of order if I pursue that, and as I do not want to be called to order, and show such a bad example to the House, I propose to deal with the Clause, and the Clause only. The Clause is that the contract entered into with a recruit shall include a stipulation that the recruit is not to be liable to take duty in aid of the civil power in connection with a trade dispute. In other words, when he becomes a recruit in the Army he is to contract-out of the civil liability which rests upon every citizen of this country. That is the first effect of the Clause by itself. Its second effect is that, although it is quite clear, I admit, that there is, in certain circumstances, quite properly placed upon the Army the duty of coming to the aid of the civil power, if that duty arose, say, in a year's time, and the Amendment were accepted, there would have to be a roll call, and the recruits who signed this particular form of attestation would have to be put on one side, and could not be used for that duty, while the other soldiers would have to be put on the other side, and could be so used. That ridiculous position would arise from the acceptance of this Clause. Now the hon. and gallant Gentleman can realise why it is quite impossible to accept it.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
The right hon. Gentleman completely missed the point of the Amendment. When you want the soldiers to carry out 1149 their ordinary duties as civilians, you can do what you did last year, and call for volunteers. You did it with your Territorials, and you can do it to-day with your troops. There is no practical difficulty at all.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
On a point of Order. I am precluded, I fancy, from following the hon. and gallant Gentleman into the question of whether I could call upon Territorials to volunteer for duty. I purposely refrained from going into that, and it does not seem fair to raise it, unless I am in order in replying to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I do not want to take advantage of the right hon. Gentleman. He is not easily caught, and I do not think I can catch him. I will not follow that line, but I want to lake his other points about the duty of the soldier as a civilian. I repeat that this Clause is only bringing our modern practice in this country—and I hope it will remain our practice—of not using the troops in this kind of way. We rely on civilians. The great boast during the General Strike last year was that not a shot was fired. I am very glad it was not. The right hon. Gentleman misses the whole point.
§ Mr. HARDIE
I would like to put another point of view. I do not think any Clause like this would have been brought forward had we on this side, and those we represent, had a sense of trust, but from our last experience, as recently as the coal stoppage, when we were told that the Emergency Regulations were to fall equally on all classes, and when we found the Home Secretary protecting the coal owner and the Noble Lord—
§ Mr. HARDIE
I was trying to give a reason why it was necessary to have this in order to give protection against people who made promises and did not carry them out, and were so cowardly that they would not answer questions in the House.
The hon. Member must not bring into this discussion arguments that have already been ruled out of Order.
§ 8.0 p.m.
§ Mr. HARDIE
This Clause is not con fined entirely to dealing with these industrial affairs. The reason for a new-Clause like this is the distrust that has been aroused as the result of experience. Can you imagine a son being called upon to shoot his father? Do those hon. Members who are opposing this new Clause realise what an industrial dispute is? I can remember, as a boy, when the military were called out at Blantyre in an industrial dispute.
The question of calling out the military in such circumstances is not in this Bill at all, and it is quite out of order to discuss whether the military should be called out or not.
§ Mr. HARDIE
I am referring to trade disputes in which the military are called in. Here, in this new Clause, we are told about the use of the military in trade disputes.
I think the hon. Member is quoting the marginal note, but that has nothing to do with the Clause we are discussing.
§ Mr. HARDIE
But the Clause we are discussing deals with the entrance of recruits and, in the case to which I am referring, you had young men who could not get work going in as soldiers to Hamilton Barracks, and they were called out and told that they were to shoot their fathers and brothers. I hope the right hon. Gentle-man the Secretary of State for War will see that something is done to avoid that kind of thing.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I would like to stress the point that this question also applies to the Air Force. The most important thing in the Air Force, and the principal difference between it and the Army, is that the Air Force is the more mechanised of the two. The great need of the Air Force is for highly-skilled mechanics. Look at the effect on recruiting if such highly-skilled men are told that it will be one of their duties, if they are electricians, to work dynamos and so on if there be a trade dispute in the electrical trades. While nothing would be lost to the Air Force by acceptance of the new Clause, you would entice into that force the type of man you badly want at present, while 1151 now you are having to take young boys and train them at immense cost to the State.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I am sorry to interrupt, but I must point out that the Air Force is not affected by this new Clause in any way whatsoever.
§ tioned by an hon Member and I thought it was included.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
He was out of order, but I cannot be expected to rise to points of Order every time an hon. Member is out of order.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 117; Noes, 282.1153
|Division No. 60.]||AYES.||[8.6 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Groves, T.||Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R.,Elland)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Grundy, T. W.||Scurr, John|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Sexton, James|
|Baker, Walter||Hall. G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Hardie, George D.||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Barnes, A.||Hayday, Arthur||Smillie, Robert|
|Barr, J.||Hayes, John Henry||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotncrhithe)|
|Batey, Joseph||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Smith, H. B. Lees (Kelghley)|
|Beckett, John (Gateshead)||Henderson. T. (Glasgow)||Smith, Rennle (Penistone)|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Hirst, G. H.||Snell, Harry|
|Broad, F. A.||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Bromfield, William||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Stamford, T. W.|
|Bromley, J.||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Stephen, Campbell|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Buchanan, G.||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Sullivan, J,|
|Cape, Thomas||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Sutton, J. E.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Taylor, R. A.|
|Clowes, S.||Kelly, W. T.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Kennedy. T.||Thorne. W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Thurtle. Ernest|
|Compton, Joseph||Kirkwood, D.||Tinker. John Joseph|
|Connolly, M.||Lawrence, Susan||Townend, A. E.|
|Cove. W. G.||Lawson, John James||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Dalton, Hugh||Lee, F.?||Viant, S. P.|
|Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)||Lowth, T.||Walsh. Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Lunn, William||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Day, Colonel Harry||Mackinder, W.||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Dennison, R.||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Weliock, Wilfred|
|Duncan, C.||Maxton, James||Westwood, J.|
|Dunnico, H.||Montague, Frederick||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Morrison. R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Gardner, J. P.||Naylor, T. E.||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Oliver, George Harold||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)|
|Glliett, George M.||Palin, John Henry||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Gosling, Harry||Paling, W.||Windsor, Walter|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Wright. W.|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Ponsonby, Arthur||Young. Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Greenall, T.||Potts, John S.|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Ritson, J.||Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Whiteley.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Berry, Sir George||Buckingham, Sir H.|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Betterton, Henry B.||Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Burman, J. B.|
|Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)||Burton, Colonel H. W.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Blades, Sir George Rowland||Campbell. E. T.|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Blundell, F. N.||Carver. Major W. H.|
|Astbury. Lieut.-Commander F. W.||Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Cautley, Sir Henry S.|
|Atkinson, C.||Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart||Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester. City)|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R. (Prtsmth.S.)|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Cazalet, Captain Victor A.|
|Balniel, Lord||Brass, Captain W.||Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Brassey, Sir Leonard||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)|
|Barnett, Major Sir Richard||Briant, Frank||Chapman, Sir S.|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Charteris, Brigadier-General J.|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Briggs, J. Harold||Clarry, Reginald George|
|Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)||Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Clayton, G. C.|
|Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.||Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Cobb, Sir Cyril|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)||Cochrane, Commander Hon. A, D.|
|Bennett, A. J.||Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)||Cookerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.|
|Collox, Major Wm. Phillips||Hudson, Capt.A.U. M.(Hackney, N.)||Remer, J. R.|
|Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Hume, Sir G. H.||Remnant, Sir james|
|Cooper, A, Duff||Huntingfield, Lord||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.|
|Cope, Major William||Hurst, Gerald B.||Richardson. Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Couper, J. B.||Hutchison,G. A.CIark(Midi'n & P'bl's)||Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montross)||Ropner, Major L.|
|Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)||lliffe, Sir Edward M.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouthy)|
|Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Rye, F. G.|
|Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)||Salmon, Major I.|
|Crookshank.Cpt. H. (Lindsey,Gainsbro)||Jacob, A. E.||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Jephcott, A. R.||Sandeman, N. Stewart|
|Davidson, Major-Genoral Sir john H.||Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Sanderson, Sir Frank|
|Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Shaw, R. G. (Yorks. W.R., Sowerby)|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D.Mcl.(Renfrew,W.)|
|Duckworth John||Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Kindersley, Major Guy M.||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)||King, Captain Henry Douglas||Skelton, A. N.|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||Knox, Sir Alfred||Slaney, Major P. Kenyon|
|England, Colonel A,||Lamb, J. Q.||Smith, R. W.(Aberd'& Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)||Little, Dr. E. Graham||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)||Smithers, Waldron|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Fairfax, Captain J, G.||Looker, Herbert William||Sprot, Sir Alexander|
|Falie, Sir Bertram G.||Lougher, Lewis||Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)|
|Fanshawe, Commander G. D.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere||Storry- Deans, R.|
|Fenby, T. D.||Lumley, L. R.||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.|
|Fermoy Lord||Lynn, Sir Robert J.||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.|
|Fielden, E. B.||MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen||Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.|
|Ford, Sir P. J.||Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Styles, Captain H. Walter|
|Forrest, W.||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Foster, Sir Harry S.||Maclntyre, I.||Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.|
|Foxcroft, Captain C. T.||McLean, Major A.||Tasker, R. lnigo|
|Fraser, Captain Ian||Macmillan, Captain H.||Templeton, W. P.|
|Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||McNeill. Rt. Hon. Ronald John||Thom, Lt.Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)|
|Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Thomson, F. c (Aberdeen, South)|
|Ganzonl, Sir John||Macquisten, F. A.||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell|
|Gates, Percy||MacRobert, Alexander M.||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton||Malone. Major P. B.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Wallace. Captain D. E.|
|Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Mason, Lieut.-Col, Glyn K.||Ward, Lt.-Col.A'.L.(Klngston-on-Hull)|
|Gower, Sir Robert||Meller, R. J.||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Grace, John||Merriman, F. B.||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Meyer, Sir Frank||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Grant, Sir J. A.||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-||Wateon, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Greene, W. P. Crawford||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon B. M.||Watts, Dr. T.|
|Grenfell, Edward C- (City of London)||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Wells, S. R.|
|Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Moore, Sir Newton J.||Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.|
|Grotrian, H. Brent||Moreing, Captain A. H.||White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple|
|Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Morris, R. H.||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Gunston, Captain D. W.||Morrison. H. (Wilts. Salisbury)||William0s, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph||Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)|
|Hall,Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)||Nelson, Sir Frank||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Hall, Capt. W. D.A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Wilson, Sir Charles H.(Leeds.Centrl.)|
|Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Hammersley, S. S.||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Harland, A.||Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Harrison, G. J. C||Nuttall, Ellis||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)||Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Withers, John James|
|Hawke, John Anthony||Owen, Major G.||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Penny, Frederick George||Womersley, W. J.|
|Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)||Perkins. Colonel E. K.||Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)|
|Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.||Perring, Sir William George||Wood, Sir S. Hill (High Peak)|
|Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Hills, Major John Waller||Pownall, Sir Assheton||Wragg, Herbert|
|Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Maryiebone)||Price, Major C. W. M.||Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)|
|Holt, Captain H. P.||Radford. E. A,|
|Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)||Raine, W.|
|Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Ramsden, E.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Hopkins, J. W. W.||Rees, Sir Beddoe||Captain Lord Stanley and Captain|
|Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster. Mossley)||Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)||Margesson.|
|Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.||Reid, D. D. (County Down)|