HC Deb 22 December 1932 vol 273 cc1268-300
Mr. LANSBURY

There are two reasons why this Debate, as I understand, could not usefully be carried further today. One is that the right hon. Gentleman himself has to attend a meeting of the Round Table Conference this afternoon, and, also, we on this side want to raise a domestic question, and there are other Members who desire to raise other domestic questions. He will allow me to say on the question of the papers that I am obliged to him for his courtesy in offering to show me the paper he thinks I refer to, but before settling my mind on the subject I should prefer to look at the OFFICIAL REPORT, because I think that —perhaps it is from my side—we are misunderstanding each other as to the particular paper to which I refer. The only other thing I want to say is that I hope the right hon. Gentleman, when he comes to consider the question of good will and an amnesty in India, will keep in mind the fact that his position is that of representing authority which has really impressed itself—if his statement is correct —upon the mass of opinion in India, and that if there is any giving way to be done it should be done by the strongest side. Most of the leaders who are in prison are personal friends of mine, and I think many of them are personal friends of many other Members in this House and in another place. Very nearly a year has passed since Gandhi was put into prison, with a number of others, and he has been kept there waiting for pledges. I do not think pledges to be extracted from people under those conditions are much use.

I ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember that if Mr. Gandhi died tomorrow every kind of tribute would be paid to him by opponents as well as by friends. I ask him to consider between now and Sunday whether it would not be worth while, seeing the conditions prevailing in India to-day, to make a big gesture, to have a gaol delivery and free these men on their own sort of responsibility. If what he said is true—and of course we accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement about the provincial assemblies and the general spirit of good will—why not add to that good will by setting this man and his friends free? The right hon. Gentleman will agree that no one accuses him of anything but the most honourable and patriotic intentions towards his own people. Having said that I will just leave the matter there, and hope the right hon. Gentleman will give our appeal his best consideration.

The subject that I want to bring before the House is that of the case of Mr. Tom Mann and the other person who are at present detained because they refused to give sureties. Mrs. Duncan was also charged in South-East London, as well as Tom Mann and his friends. I hope that the Home Secretary will consider this matter very carefully. We are of the opinion that during the last few years—I raised this question when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) was Home Secretary—that the police authorities generally and the Metropolitan Police especially have taken up an attitude towards public meetings and processions, which is, relatively speaking, new.

The start of these restrictions took place during the Home Rule discussion and during the unemployment meetings after 1886. Anyone who is acquainted with the history of public meetings in London knows that until 1886 there never was any question of note-takers at open-air meetings or of police note-takers at indoor meetings. I am sorry that there is no representative here of the Liberal party, because the Liberal party and the Home Rulers who were in this House at the time raised the question and brought before the House the new position that had arisen. I called attention to it because I thought that it was the beginning of spying upon political opponents. Those who raised the question at that time said that they did so because it was the sort of thing that was bound to grow. The practice has grown, until to-day the most innocent meetings in London are subject to it. If you look round in those meetings you will find someone there representing Scotland Yard, as if it were the business of Scotland Yard to know what people's political opinions are. We used to think that that kind of thing only happened in despotic countries.

I repeat that in London this sort of thing only started after 1886. I am quite certain that Conservative meetings, official Liberal meetings and official Labour meetings are not dealt with in this fashion. It is only what are considered to be, in the police's judgment, if you please, a sort of outside or left-wing or Communist meeting that is so dealt with. It is no business of the police to know what any of the citizens are thinking about or what they are talking about. The present Home Secretary and other Home Secretaries have again and again, in answer to questions, said that the advocacy of Communism is not an offence against the law. What do the police want to attend Communist meetings for, or have spies at Communist meetings, or at Independent Labour party meetings or at meetings of the Socialist League for? What is it to do with them? Let them mind their own business and look after burglars and people of that kind. It is not their right to know what a man is speaking about or what theory is being advocated.

It may be said, "Oh yes, but we do not go there for that purpose; we go there for the purpose of hearing whether people are saying anything seditious." I have been a victim of these gentlemen who go to inquire as to what we say at meetings. The late Lord Brentford read a statement late one night of something that I was alleged to have said. After the Adjournment, because there was no time to discuss the matter before, he was good enough to show me the document. Everybody who knows me knows that I never said anything of the kind. The gentleman who took the note must have written it out of his imagination, because if there is one thing that my worst opponent, either Communist or Tory, will not charge me with it is the advocacy of violence. I am known as a person who gets shouted down at meetings because I denounce violence, and yet here is a police officer giving information which put into my mouth words that I had never uttered. I am sure that the gentleman who did it wrote it in longhand and had no knowledge of shorthand. It would be interesting to know how many of these note-takers are expert shorthand writers. Everyone knows that reporting is a very skilled business. You can miss a word or you can put a word in.

The police authorities in London have been permitted to arrogate to themselves the right to go about and discover when meetings are being held and who is going to conduct them. I attended one meeting and the police came—this was a year or two back, but it is being done now—and they wanted a list of people who were going to speak. I raised a question in the House, and I was told that no one had instructed them but that they wanted to know. I expect that there was a burglary going on round the corner, or perhaps a murder, but, instead of the police attending to their own business, they were interfering with something that was absolutely no concern of theirs.

Then there is the growth of what we consider as militarism in the police. I have raised this question before, and no one yet has answered it. I raise it again to-day, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will give me an answer. In 1886, when there were disturbances, and in the year or two that followed, you could not have had a charge of the police or of the military as you can to-day. You could not have the sort of charge by the police that you have nowadays, when they plunge into a crowd on horseback armed with long sticks. That never happened. When there was danger of a riot, the Riot Act was read, and the people were warned to disperse. There is no warning to-day. I am speaking of what I know. No one rides along and says to the people on the pavement, "You must clear off," but they just gallop along and charge into the people. I have been ridden down myself when walking along Roman Road at Bow by patrols on the pavement, and no notice was given that we were doing anything—in fact we were not doing anything—illegal. We were just charged by the police.

I want to know why it is that the authorities have taken this power. They apparently have the power because they do not use firearms. You may not fire on the people, but you can injure the people just as much by riding them down with horses. Some of the stories that are told about what happened in Hyde Park on that particular Sunday, and about what happened during the disturbances outside this House in October, go to show that the police to-day imagine that they have the right to disperse a crowd anyhow. If you compare the manner in which they disperse a Labour or Socialist crowd with their manner of dealing with a crowd which assembles to see a great wedding outside the Abbey or St. Margaret's, and which is equally a nuisance, there is a great difference. It does not matter that there is inconvenience to the general public who want to go about their business, that the road is blocked and people have to go round, and so on; the treatment is altogether different.

We feel that the police authorities in London, under the control of military people, of people who are accustomed to order people about, have got it into their heads that they are the masters of this city; but they are no more the masters than anyone else, and they have no right to do anything in the way of ordering the citizens hither and thither just as they please. Certainly no set of people has the right to ride down the general public without having given any notice whatsoever that they are called upon to disperse. Not so long ago, a justice of the peace had to be present to read the proclamation calling upon the citizens to disperse, but, under this military autocracy in London, power has been taken to deal with the public in an altogether different manner. The Communist party and ourselves have nothing in common so far as tactics are concerned. We shall denounce any attempt to incite people to violence under any sort of conditions. That is a matter about which we are denounced by the Communist party, and it is not in defence of this order that we are raising the question to-day. It is because official appetites grow with what they feed on. It is the Communists to-day; it may be ourselves to-morrow. We say that because there is no sort of equality of treatment in this matter.

I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that there is a Fascist organisation in London to-day, which makes much more seditious speeches than are made by any Communist in the country. But no one takes any notice of them; no one has yet attempted to stop the drilling of the Fascists. The example, to which I will call attention later, of Lord Carson's agitation in Ireland, is being followed in London. During one of my elections—I think it was the election before last—a set of able-bodied, well-fed, well-groomed, well-to-do young men marched through my division, for the purpose, if you please, of preserving order. I took no notice of them, because the women took them in hand and smacked their faces for them. But I am perfectly certain that, if they had been 20 or 30 Communists, in red shirts instead of black shirts, who had gone into a Tory constituency, the police would have dealt with them. This matter, really, is entirely a class business. The black-shirts in London are being organised, and they may make their speeches. I notice that hon. Gentlemen smile, but one of these days, when Mosley marches up here, they will, perhaps, smile the other way.

I come to another fact. In dealing with these particular cases, so far as I can understand, the right hon. Gentleman and those who advised the prosecution have not prosecuted for anything that has been done, or anything that has been said; they only anticipated that something might be said or something might be done. Before I proceed to that subject, however, I should like to say a word about Tom Mann. I have no personal knowledge of either of the two other prisoners but Tom Mann is my friend. I have known him practically all his life, and I know him as a man who is rather different from the ordinary agitator. He has not, from agitation, become a Member of Parliament, and from a Member of Parliament a member of the Government; he has remained an agitator all his life. I do not think that that is any discredit to him; I think it, is greatly to his credit.

I have never known him—the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers might look up their records—I have never known him to advocate violence. I have never known him to advocate that unarmed men should go against armed men. He may have done what Sir Oswald Mosley is doing now, that is to say, talked about the day when the workers would probably have to fight for their rights; but I never remember him urging men to throw themselves against the police or the military. In any case, what has he done all his life? What has been his job in life? He has simply been working for poor people, and his position to-day is that he is a very poor man indeed, so that no one in this House can stand up and charge him with being "on the make." That may be done with people like me; it has been done sometimes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Those of you who are not "on the make," look in a looking-glass. The fact is that he is a very poor man, and he is a poor man, not because he has not brains enough to be a rich man, but because he chose to give his life in that particular way to the people to whom he belongs. Therefore, I think he is entitled to some consideration at the hands of this House and of the Ministry.

There are one or two things that he has not done, and this brings me to another matter on which the Solicitor-General may have something to say if he is going to speak. Tom Mann has never yet led a riot at a church, such as has taken place at St. Hilary, in Cornwall, within the last few weeks. Apparently the Solicitor-General does not know anything about that case. They were only Protestant agitators; the Solicitor-General only knows about Communist agitators. The police do not trouble about such people, which shows that there is only one particular set of law-breakers in this connection that they know anything about. It has been referred to in all the newspapers, and I do not understand the hon. and learned Gentleman not knowing anything about it. Why did he not prosecute them? Everyone knows when people are told that they are to assemble and prevent Mass from being said—I am not talking about moving the ornaments, but about what happened within the last three weeks, when, during a service, the people were incited to go—

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Boyd Merriman)

The right hon. Gentleman has raised this topic and has challenged me. Will he permit me to say, first of all, that the police were present, and, secondly, that they are prosecuting?

Mr. LANSBURY

Yes, but you took no steps to prevent the disturbance taking place. One would have thought, when you were going to have a disturbance in the church, you would have used these powers that you are using against Tom Mann to prevent the scandal and the outrage taking place. You have not the pluck to do that, because they have very powerful friends, and you only attack those who cannot hit you back. Tom Mann has not organised a volunteer army yet; he has not imported arms into the country, and he has not yet started drilling, as do the Fascists. I intended to refer to the Elias case, but I understand that there is an appeal and that I must not touch it.

Let me come to the case of Mrs. Kate Duncan. I am going to speak now with very great deference in the presence of my hon. and learned Friend and of the Solicitor-General, because I suppose this is very much a matter of law. This woman was a disturber of the peace and an inciter of others to commit crime and, as such, subject to the provisions of the Statute of 34 Edward III. What is this Statute? I was a victim of it. You may have this lady in the House as well as myself one of these days and, having been prosecuted, she may even speak from this Box. Here is the sort of thing that this Act was passed to deal with. Last year this same public Department had great trouble in dealing with the opening of cinemas and such places on Sunday because of a silly old law, and everyone stood up and said, "These laws ought to be swept away." Of all the tomfool laws to apply in modern times, this one takes the biscuit. That in every county of England shall be assigned for the keeping of the peace, one lord, and with him three or four of the most worthy in the county, with some learned in the law, and they shall have power to restrain the offenders, rioters, and all other barrators and to pursue, arrest, take, and chastise them according to their trespass or offence. Of course, now you are not allowed to chastise them. I should like to see you start chastising them. It means that you can flog them before you imprison them: and to cause them to be imprisoned and duly punished according to the law and customs of the realm. There is no law and custom now to allow the police to chastise anyone.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT

It is all obsolete.

Mr. LANSBURY

This is the Act under which they are put away.

Mr. KNIGHT

A historical document.

Mr. LANSBURY

Member will restrain his impatience and allow me to read it so that the House can decide: according to the law and customs of the realm, and according to that which to them shall seem best to do and good advisement; and also to inform them. It reads like a novel and an ancient one at that— and to inquire of all those that have been pillors and robbers in the parts beyond the sea"— Is it charged against Tom Mann and Mrs. Duncan that they are robbers across the sea? and be now come again and go wandering"— Tom Mann has a residence. He does not wander. He is not a vagrant. and will not labour"— There is no charge against him that he will not labour. He is six years older than the old age pension age. He has committed no crime and even if he had he does not work. as they were wont in times past. No one accuses him of not having worked. He was an engineer— and to take and arrest all those that they may find by indictment, or by suspicion, and to put them in prison; and to take of all them that be of good fame. There was a great controversy about the word "not" which has been interpolated here when I was before the court. The judges decided that it did not matter whether the Act of Parliament had been altered or not. They said, "This chap has to be put away and put away he must be." When you come to interpret the law, you lawyers are wonderful people, especially when you become judges. You really make law. A very learned counsel, Mr. Montague Shearman, argued that this word "not" having been interpolated into the Norman French, which I cannot read, really vitiated the law so far as I was concerned. The judges said, "No one took much notice of it in the past, and we are not going to take any notice of it to-day," so I went down. It reads without the interpolation: and to take of all them that be of good fame"— That is not very good sense, so some johnny put in "not" in order to make sense of it. He said, "This is what they meant and I will make the law read what they meant instead of what they said." I do not think that is good enough. nor put in the peril which may happen of such offenders: And also to hear and determine at the King's suit all manner of felonies and trespasses done in the same county according to the laws and customs aforesaid. I do not think I need read any more. I suggest that this would be good bedtime reading for anyone who really wants to see the kind of law under which Communists and other people are dealt with. You only deal with Communists and common people under this law. You dare not bring it into operation against the Kensitites, the Mosleyites or Carson and company. No one can deny that. It is only poor people. Mrs. Kate Duncan was charged. Let us see the evidence that she was a killer, a robber, a wanderer and a vagabond, and that she had done something she ought not to have done. The right hon. Gentleman may have a longer report of the case. I am only able to quote from the report in the "Times." Mr. Clayton, the solicitor, said that in a speech in Bermondsey Town Hall this lady spoke in a manner calculated to create a breach of the peace, that the defendant seemed—not that she had—to have taken a very prominent part, and that she repeated these words at subsequent meetings as well: The public assistance people should be held personally responsible. I have said that myself many a time and have never been proceeded against. Then Mr. Clayton gives evidence. He is a solicitor. He makes a statement. Mr. Clayton said that he thought that Duncan was then speaking about a Bermondsey murder case. What right has he to pretend to say what he thought. What a solicitor thinks is not evidence, however distinguished he may Be. He says that "he thinks" that she was referring to a Bermondsey murder case. The public assistance people should be identified and their addresses found in order that pressure can be brought to bear upon them. Pressure is brought to bear upon me every day. Numbers of people come to my house when I am at home asking me and begging of me to bring pressure to bear upon this House and upon other people, and, no doubt, bringing pressure to bear upon me to do my job. And why should they not?

Mr. BUCHANAN

What about the tariff people?

Mr. LANSBURY

The tariff people come here. She says that it is the duty of the workers to do this. Is that wrong? What is there in that? Every member of a local public assistance committee who refuses relief to unemployed men or who wants to send an unemployed man to Belmont must be identified so that he can be intimidated. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] Wait a minute. Mr. Clayton said that the Director considered that those words were calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, and that there was no doubt that Duncan had personally endeavoured to carry out those threats. But wait a minute. The fact that the solicitor said that is not evidence that the woman said it. It was much too previous. Detective Inspector Jones, of the Special Branch, said that he was at the meeting in question and heard Duncan use the words alleged. He did not take a shorthand note. He made a note soon afterwards. There is an outrage. That proves exactly what I was saying about myself. I feel strongly about this matter, because, as I have said, the late Lord Brent-ford stood up in this House and said that he had a note of something which I had said at Poplar Town Hall, and I had said nothing of the kind. There never had been a shorthand note taken. It was a longhand note written afterwards. This man was honest enough to say that he wrote down afterwards what he thought the woman had said.

Then the magistrate lends a hand in the giving of the evidence, and I call attention to this fact. The magistrate said: I see that you have been merciful to this woman. He looked at the officer's note-book, and said: Besides what you have given in evidence— what he had remembered, but not what he had written down at the time— I see you have got in your note 'These people are not necessarily local and can walk about under the Common Law without being hissed, booed or spat upon by the workers.' The workers are very peaceful and law-abiding, and, if she said it, it only means that she told them what, apparently, everybody knew. Then Detective Phillips said that he saw Duncan at a demonstration in Hollydale Road, Peckham, outside the works of Mr. Evan Cooke, a borough councillor: The demonstrators— not this woman— used filthy and insulting words. They then went to Camberwell Town Hall where they were refused admission. Meetings have been held outside my house and most uncomplimentary things have been said about me by Tariff Reformers. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] Oh, yes, I have had men outside my door calling me everything from a pickpocket to the Lord-knows-what. Do you think that I care? It does not make any difference to me at all, but I would not dream of asking that somebody should be locked up because he was intimidating me. The point is that there is not a scrap of evidence that the woman used any of this filthy language. The right hon. Gentleman has perhaps a longer note of it than I have, but in the report in the "Times" there is not a word of evidence that this woman used this language at all. This is how the Press reports a poor woman. I have read this sort of thing about myself, and, therefore, I repeat that I feel very keenly about it: Duncan, in a long rambling speech, denied that she had used any insulting words or conduct likely to provoke a breach of the peace. She had been a public worker for five years and would not do anything so foolish. There is not a scrap of definite evidence against the woman. She gives her own version of the case, and she has as much right to be listened to as those people who did not write down but merely remembered. Mr. Campion, the magistrate, said that he would be willing to take Duncan's word. That shows the impression which the woman and the evidence had made upon the magistrate. He said that he would take her word that no such conduct would happen again, and would bind her over in her own recognisances to keep the peace for six months. Mrs. Duncan said "What if I refuse?" and Mr. Campion said, "You will have to find a surety of £50." Mrs. Duncan: "I do not want any surety." I want to say on that point, that when I was before the magistrates I could have gone free by finding sureties, but I would not find sureties and pledge myself to do something which I had no intention of doing. I considered it a gross insult and denial of justice to ask me to give such pledge. This woman was in the same position. I call the attention of the Home Secretary to the fact that the magistrate was willing to let her off on her word without any sureties at all unless this report is wrong. I will read it again: He would be willing to take Duncan's word that no such conduct would happen again.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Oliver Stanley)

Read the next few words.

Mr. LANSBURY

All right. That no such conduct would happen again.

Mr. STANLEY

The next few words.

Mr. LANSBURY

And would bind her over in her own recognizances to keep the peace for six months. That meant herself. She said: What if I refuse? The magistrate replied: Then I shall want you to find a surety. When she refused to find sureties she was ordered to go to prison for a month in default. According to the magistrate's own statement he was willing to take the woman's word in the matter. That being so, it must have been in his mind that there was some doubt as to whether she was the kind of woman stated by the prosecution. Unless the right hon. Gentleman has some evidence which is not given in the report in the "Times," I say that there is no evidence against the woman. It is not worth the paper that it is written on. I should like the Home Secretary or the Solicitor-General to give us some reason why the woman cannot be released forthwith and allowed to go free.

When we come to the case of Tom Mann and his friend it is a little complicated because of the Act of 1817. Here is what Mr. Wallace said for the prosecution: He would ask that the accused men be ordered to enter into their own recognisances and to find surety or sureties for their future good behaviour and to keep the peace. The court had power to make such an order under a very old Act, the Act of Edward III, and the Seditious Meetings Act, 1817, which said that meetings of more than 50 persons within a mile of Westminster, during the sitting of Parliament or of the Superior Courts, for the purpose or on the pretext of considering or preferring a petition, complaint, remonstrance or address to the King, or either House of Parliament, for alterations in matters of Church or State, were deemed to be unlawful assemblies. I would point out that part of that Act is already obsolete. The Courts of Justice were formerly alongside Westminster Hall and were part of this building. Now they are situated in the Strand, and any procession at any time can go past the Law Courts. I came past the Law Courts with a great procession when the Poplar councillors were tried. We were escorted through the City of London and treated quite properly by the authorities. We marched right up to the courts. Nobody thinks now of stopping a procession simply because it is passing the Law Courts, but this Act says that you must not take a procession past the Law Courts.

I am advised that unlawful assembly —I hope the Home Secretary will pay attention to this point—does not constitute a breach of the peace. Therefore, whatever the charge was against these men it could not be a charge concerning a breach of the peace. Unlawful assembly is mentioned in the, Act of 1817. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman must prove something more than was proven at the court. Mr. Wallace went on to say: The accused men were well known members of the Communist party"— It is a matter of agreement between us that to be a, member of the Communist party is not something illegal. I should, however, like to ask the Home Secretary a question on that point so that that position may be affirmed. Membership of the Communist party or of the National Committee of the Unemployed is not illegal. They have not been proclaimed illegal organisations. We have not come to that yet. Therefore, there is nothing against the men because they are members of the Communist party. The statement proceeds or were two of the four national officials of the National Unemployed Workers' Movement. That is not illegal. That is no crime either against the common law or against any particular law. In the 5th December issue of the 'Daily Worker,' the organ of the Communist party, there was an article which began: Unemployed! Call for action on 20th December. Fight for petition to be presented to Parliament. I have written that sort of thing many times. So has the right hon. Gentleman, when he has asked the electors to fight for tariff reform and the Conservative party. It does not necessarily mean that you are going to fight in any other sense than we fight one another across this piece of oak furniture, or whatever furniture it is. Appeal to trade unionists. Starvation is attacking every working-class home. Is anyone going to say that that is an illegal statement? It may be an illegal statement in the minds of the Metropolitan police officials, who are now all military gentlemen and want to use the British public as if they were private soldiers in their charge. We are facing the blackest winter in history, with the National Government launching more vicious economies and reducing the working classes to slave conditions. Is there anything illegal in that statement? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what there is criminal in these statements. The call to action calls for mass action to secure winter and Christmas relief, abolition of the means test, and for the right of hunger marchers to present tile means test petition to Parliament. What is there illegal or unlawful in that? The right hon. Gentleman has to prove that these men were guilty of inciting people to do something that was unlawful. They have done nothing of the kind. There is nothing in that article which incites anybody to do anything that is illegal, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that as well as I do. There is not a scrap of evidence to show that Tom Mann or Llewellyn ever wrote that article or were employed on the "Daily Worker." There is not a scrap of evidence that they had any connection whatsoever with it. You might as well say that I am responsible for what appears in the "Daily Herald" because I am a member of a party—

Mr. BUCHANAN

They are bad enough, but they would not go to that length.

Mr. LANSBURY

I subscribe to the people who represent the Labour movement on the board of the "Daily Herald." Suppose the "Daily Herald" libelled somebody. I should not be personally responsible for that any more than the noble Lord the Member for Southampton (Lord Apsley) is responsible for the "Morning Post." I believe he is a director, or was a director, of the "Morning Post," but he was never responsible and could not be responsible for the editor. Because Tom Mann is a member of the Communist party he cannot be held responsible for what every writer in the "Daily Worker" writes. When I edited the "Daily Herald" I had to be responsible for what others wrote, and I was never allowed to shirk my responsibility. I was editor.

Tom Mann is not the editor of the "Daily Worker" and as far as the evidence goes there is not a scrap to show that he had anything to do with the "Daily Worker." There is no evidence that he or Llewellyn wrote the article or had anything to do with it. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not ride off on this matter, because this is really the gravamen of the case. There is nothing else against them except that in some way they are linked up with this article in the "Daily Worker." I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to prove any connection other than that they were members of the Communist party, and that they were officials of the National Unemployed Workers Society. On 9th December a letter headed "The National Unemployed Workers' Movement, the National Administrative Council"—those are not very revolutionary words—was delivered to the Prime Minister at the House of Commons. It described the officials as Mr. Elias, Mr. Wal Hannington as the organiser, Mr. Tom Mann as the treasurer, and Mr. Llewellyn as the secretary. The letter was as follows: Following our request prior to Tuesday, 1st November, to you and the Speaker of the House to allow a deputation of the unemployed and employed representatives to present a petition to which we have one million signatures, and also to allow this representative delegation to state their views before the House, we are going to make a similar request that you meet this deputation on 19th December. The deputation will also present the million signatures petition. It is our opinion that the Government, and particularly yourself as responsible head of the Government, should have regard to the views of over one million people in this country who have signed this national petition, which we desire to present and await your reply to this request. What is there illegal in that? I should have thought it was a respectable, courteous and gentlemanly letter, written in the best Oxford and Cambridge style. I want someone to tell me any particular sentence in this letter which is illegal. Mr. Wallace, in his submission, said that the letter clearly connected the National Unemployed Workers Movement with the publication in the "Daily Worker," and that the people responsible were Mann and Llewellyn. Is there a shred of evidence of any connection between the two? I have read what the "Daily Worker" said. They called for mass action, a gathering of the unemployed, not specifying where, and this letter was written asking the Prime Minister to receive a deputation. In 1922 I remember that I raised the question as to the then Prime Minister, Mr. Bonar Law, receiving a similar deputation. I went to Downing Street and saw Mr. Bonar Law. He met the deputation and prevented a great deal of trouble. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) under much more difficult circumstances received a very big deputation in Downing Street, and it is a pity that succeeding Governments have broken with that procedure.

The representatives of people who are suffering as the unemployed ought to be heard. I am not arguing as to whether these people are the best or the worst representatives; that is not the point. They represent, however, a considerable feeling in this country, and they have a petition which they say is signed by one million persons. They have a right to bring that petition to the House and to ask for permission to present it, although the House can deny them the right to come to the Bar of the House. But there is nothing criminal in all this. Mr. Wallace in his speech went on to say this—and I ask hon. Members to take particular note of this assumption of the lawyer to give evidence on the matter: These articles and letters clearly indicate that the mass meeting which was to take place was to enforce the receiving of the deputation. How did he know that? There is not a word in the article or in the letter about it. He went on to say: It is well known, from what has happened on former occasions, what is likely to happen when large numbers of unemployed and other people as well get together on instructions to present petitions to Parliament. Really we must look at this matter very closely because if this is going to hold then when the Labour people hold their demonstrations in February and want to send deputations to the House to interview Members the same treatment may be meted out to us. At any rate we ought to have the same treatment if this policy is right. You have no right to deal with us differently. Therefore, I hope we shall face the situation. There are many precedents for sending men and women to the number of five to this House to see hon. Members to put before them any statements they want to make.

The Government base their action on what happened in November; once bitten twice shy, these people called a demonstration and attempted to get into the House. But see what happened on this occasion—and what right have you to assume that it would not have happened with Tom Mann. He was one of the first to help to organise a May Day demonstration in this House when we split ourselves into groups of five and interviewed individual Members. We got one of the best interviews on unemployment with the late Lord Salisbury and Mr. Balfour and Mr. Gladstone arid one of the Liberal Peers. That is the policy which Tom Mann might have followed if he had been given the opportunity, but as it was he was in prison. Mr. Saklatvala came to the House, brought his friends with him, and tried to see the Minister of Labour. He could not ask to see the Prime Minister because he knew that he was not here. What right had he for his assumption where is the evidence upon which he based his assumption, except what had happened before. There is no evidence in the letter or in the article that this demonstration might not have been carried out in an entirely different manner. I defy the Government to produce any evidence of the kind. We have the evidence of what happened after the action of the Government. Mr. Saklatvala came here in a perfectly orderly manner and attempted to get an interview. Detective Passmore gave evidence as to what happened at the last demonstration, but there is no evidence that Mr. Mann was there and no evidence was given that his friend was there. They are mere statements, no evidence at all. Tom Mann made his speech, and this is what he said—there is not a scrap of evidence to contravert it— He did not participate in violence but merely took part in meetings which were admittedly within the right of citizens. He held that these proceedings were entirely unwarranted. He looked upon them as part of the general procedure of the authorities against the workers' committee. His aim and object had been to get legitimate grievances remedied in a fair, straightforward honest and becoming fashion. Llewellyn addressed the magistrate in the same way. He said: No violence had ever been advocated by him, and what violence had taken place was against innocent demonstrators. That is all the evidence. Here is what the magistrate said, and I commend it to the notice of the Solicitor-General and the Home Secretary. Sir Chartres Biron, in making his decision, said: There had been a misapprehension as to the nature of these proceedings. No criminal charge had been made and there was no question of imprisonment. The proceedings were merely putting in force the law which had been the law of the land from time immemorial and which had been held by Judges on very recent occasions to be for the protection of public order. It was merely a preventive measure. In any condition he imposed on the defendants there would be nothing which would in any way interfere with their legitimate activities. The only undertaking he called upon them to give would be merely in the interests of stopping disorder, of which both men said they entirely disapproved. As no one had proved anything to the contrary against them, why should the magistrate want them to enter into recognisances? There was not a scrap of evidence against them, and he accepts their word. It was clear that there was a mass meeting announced and arranged for Monday, which was to present a petition to the House of Parliament. In his view there would be a mass mob within the vicinity of the House of Commons. How does he know? There is no evidence about it except what has happened on some other occasion. But he charges the two men in some way with being responsible for this without a scrap of evidence that they were responsible. I come back to that again and again, because that is the gravamen of our charge against the Government on this matter. Then he went on: There is nothing to prevent anyone presenting a petition to the House of Commons, but it is most undesirable that such a petition should be presented by an organised mass of people marching on the House of Commons. Certainly, but there is no evidence to show that Tom Mann and Llewellyn had any such intention, and my case is that unless you can prove that intention you had no right to arrest. Then he went On: It is common knowledge that this mass of people were meeting on Monday to make this mass demonstration under exactly the same conditions as a meeting in October, when there was great disorder. I may be a very ignorant person, but until Tom Mann was arrested I had no knowledge whatever that this demonstration was to be held, and I believe that the arrest of Tom Mann gave all the publicity that the Communist party desired; it gave the meeting just the advertisement that it wanted. Here is the most astounding statement of the magistrate: He did not say that the present defendants were responsible for that. The magistrate admits that they were not responsible. Why should he have called upon them to enter into recognisances But it showed what such meetings were likely to produce and against which had sworn to preserve the peace. But they have not produced a scintilla of evidence that these men were responsible in any way, and it is the magistrate who said it. What I want to ask is, is it the law of the land, and does the Home Secretary consider that he is really going to maintain respect for the law, if a man can be put away in this way It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say, "No honourable man would refuse to enter into recognisances." The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that if any one of us was charged under these conditions we never would give the undertaking. We have become very mealy-mouthed in these days in the Press. In the old days "Reynolds's Newspaper" used to publish much more seditious matter than this and never be attacked. The "National Reformer," which was a Republican paper, used to attack the Crown and the Princes and the Princesses when they were getting married, used to attack the allowances, and so on. "The Impeachment of the House of Brunswick" was published, also the "Secret History of the Court of England," and last "The Carson Campaign."

It is all very well for hon. and right hon. Gentleman to laugh about it now, but in those days it was a serious matter, and when I say that this is class persecution I am stating only what the facts prove. I was a Member of this House during most of this period, and everyone knows that at that time the Government did not dare to interfere with a test mobilisation of the Ulster volunteers, who landed a huge consignment of 40,000 German Mauser rifles at Larne. I do not know what the position of the present Home Secretary was in those days. If he was in the Tory party he was up to his neck in it, and he is no sort of judge in this business at all. Under the able leadership of the late Lord Londonderry the Ulstermen, with the assistance of Lord Carson, organised an army of 100,000 men. They set up a provisional Government. They told the people in Ulster that the German Kaiser would come and help them if ever they were handed over, and so on. They organised a mutiny in the British Army which caused one War Secretary to resign and the Prime Minister to take his place. All this was done, and I believe it was the beginning of the sort of action that you are complaining about to-day. It proves that in this country there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. It shows that right hon. Gentlemen like the Home Secretary and those who acted together in the years 1910 to 1914 to stop the Home Rule Bill passing did not mind what they did, and no Government dared inter- fere. Here is what one of the leaders said: At the present moment the weapons are under the control of the leaders. The moment a raid for arms is made there will be an order for a general assembly. Here is what Lord Carson said, and he was never prosecuted: I do not hesitate to tell you that you ought to set yourselves against the constituted authority in the land. No Communist has stated anything worse than that. We will set up a Government. I am told it will be illegal. Of course it will. Drilling is illegal. Volunteers are illegal. The Government know they are illegal. The Government dare not interfere with them. Of course they dare not, because they were rich and well-to-do and powerful people. Do not be afraid of illegalities. Illegalities are not crimes when they are taken to assert what is the elementary right of every citizen, the protection of his freedom. It is the doctrine of the Communists to-day—and it is my doctrine—that the first elementary right of a man is that he shall be able to earn his daily bread and live in decency and comfort. These other people were only fighting for political rights but they were not interfered with. It is only a crime to commit illegalities when you commit them for bread. But that fight is over. The people who fought that fight under Lord Londonderry and Lord Carson won. They won because they took advantage of the fact that this nation was at war, and they brought about by their action the terrible conditions that prevailed in Ireland during the last years of the War and immediately afterwards.

If this is going to remain the law of the land then the people of the world will know that this great and powerful nation has one law with which to deal with poor people struggling for the right to earn their daily bread and another law for the well-to-do. I do not agree that the Communist party represents more than a small fraction of the people but they and those who gather around them are calling attention to the fact that in this the richest country in the world there are about 3,000,000 people, sometimes more, sometimes less, living on the verge of destitution. The Government are doing in this matter what all cowardly Governments do. They are resorting to suppression. They are mix ing suppression with a sort of pseudo-charity. The Prime Minister's broadcast defined the Government's policy as a policy which said: "We are going to rely on private charity and private benefactions." That speech was made over the wireless and it has been impossible to reply to it, because the British Broadcasting Corporation arrogates to itself the right to decide who shall speak over the wireless, when they shall speak, and what they shall say on political questions of the day. If the Prime Minister and the Government had chosen they could have used the good will in the country, the real downright generous feeling that exists among multitudes of men and women to deal with the momentary difficulties which are being suffered to-day by so many people. If the Prime Minister had been true to any of the teachings which he himself has taught in this country, if he had been true to the faith he held for many years, he could also have harnessed that good will to fundamental changes in the conditions that produce poverty and distress.

The organised workers have a right to say to the Government that they will have nothing to do with this attempt to put on to the shoulders of decent generous-hearted people a responsibility which belongs to the Government. In dealing with these people as the Government are dealing with them, the Government are accentuating class hatred and class bitterness by proving once more that you treat the weaker people, the Communists, the Labour people—even when they break the law ever so little—in a fashion altogether different from that in which you deal with the rich and well-to-do. The history of the last 20 years proves it, and the example of the right. hon. Gentleman himself proves it. It is no use saying: "That was a good cause and this is a bad cause." Illegality is illegality whether it is committed by a Lord of Appeal, Lord Carson and the Home Secretary or whether it is committed by Tom Mann and Llewellyn.

2.11 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN

I think the right hon. Gentleman has covered almost every aspect of this question, but there are one or two matters to which I should like to direct the attention of the House. In connection with the case against Mrs. Duncan I wish to mention what occurred in a case heard at Birmingham a few weeks ago. I, of course, am not going to discuss here the details of that case in Birmingham, but it was a trial for murder, the most serious indictment that could be laid against any citizen. I say this to the credit of the legal profession that in that case a learned counsel for whom we have very high regard and who formerly sat with the Liberal party in this House—Mr. Birkett—went down to defend in that case. I suggest that the two gentlemen in charge of this Debate ought to have regard to what happened in that case at Birmingham.

Incidentally I would say to legal gentlemen that they ought to have a very deep regard for the rights of the people in carrying out the law. I think if a man has dislikes, and we have all our likes and dislikes, he ought to take all the greater care in seeing that justice is carried out in the cases of those for whom he may have any dislike. I remember a Home Secretary who is a Jew saying to me that he was very diffident about acting in a case of a member of his own race, but in the cases of other people he went to the utmost extremes to give them the benefit of the doubt, and I think that that was good. In this Birmingham case to which I have referred, certain notes were given in evidence, and the judge in summing up pointed out that the notes had not been taken at the time of the alleged statement, but had been written afterwards. Mr. Birkett for the defence was able to convince the judge and a jury of his fellow countrymen of the righteousness of his case on this point, and the judge made some very pointed remarks on the nature of the evidence and gave a certain instruction to the jury.

I do not wish to labour the point, but I would point out its application to the case against Mrs. Duncan. In the case at Birmingham it was only a matter of a short conversation and a comparatively few words. But when a person is charged with making certain statements in a speech lasting perhaps an hour, the point is even stronger. How is evidence to be given of that except by means of notes of the whole speech? One may get two or three words exactly as they are spoken in a speech, but the context may entirely change the meaning of those words. How often in this House do we hear a Member following another Member in Debate and unintentionally taking quite a wrong meaning from some words of the previous speech. But here you have an instance of the liberty of the subject being jeopardised because of evidence of that kind being laid against a defendant. I say that to imprison anyone, and to ask for security on evidence of that kind, is entirely wrong.

I am not a lawyer, but I think I know just a little about it. Hitherto, in the courts which I have attended—and I have watched some of the so-called worst criminals being tried—I have constantly watched the judge being fair to the defence. In Scotland we lay it down that it is the Procurator's duty not to prosecute, but to see that the facts are brought out. Particularly is that impressed upon him in the case of people who are poor. It is constantly emphasised that everything in favour of the defendant shall be stated. Here, not one single thing was brought out in the case of Mrs. Duncan; nothing about her past life. As the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) knows, she is Scotch and has a good record of public service. Nothing of that was brought out. All that is allowed in a court of law is evidence. I have been in a court when the Recorder at the Old Bailey has said: "We are not here to deal with what you think; we are here to deal with evidence. You can say what you like, but you must say it on oath." The notes of the case are handed up to the judge. Judges may be great, but they have no right to take into consideration a single thing unless it is sworn on oath.

I do not share the contempt about solicitors and counsel that is often popularly voiced. I am indebted to the man from Birmingham I spoke about for defending a constituent of mine—possibly the kindest thing a man has ever done without fee, without press, without anything. I have seen even poor solicitors working night and day for people from whom they have no hope of getting any reward. I appeal to them, for the sake of their profession, to see that people are properly tried and given justice. How can you get it when the evidence is not real evidence? What right has the learned magistrate to read from notes not sworn on oath? What right have you to cross-examine on that? The trial of that woman would never have been tolerated in any court if the charge had only been ordinary theft, or even a grave charge of murder. The whole thing was done in an atmosphere of sentence before trial.

There is another point. It is no defence to plead ignorance of the law in this country. On the other hand, it is constantly being taken as good law that the law has a reasonable chance of being assimilated by the citizens. How could anybody say that a Statute of King Edward III—I forget the date quoted—could with any shadow of reason be known by any poor person. It had hardly ever been invoked within recent times. While judges may have given decisions on certain matters, that Statute had not been invoked, and no poor man had a reasonable chance of assimilating the law, or of understanding even that there was such a law, and yet the prosecution was taken under it.

I do not want to bear out the characters given by the previous speaker other than to say I know Llewellyn and I know Tom Mann. He was general secretary of the Amalgamated Engineers' Union. I am chairman of the Pattern Makers', and he and I were associated for some years and worked together. I do not know much about his speaking. I never heard him speak on a public platform. But he was a most moderate man when I met him, and was looked upon as a much more moderate man than I was in the councils of the engineering trade. He was looked upon as capable, and clean in conduct. Llewellyn I have met many times. He is an ordinary decent Welsh chap, with no side about him, an ordinary man of the sort that might be taken from the Welsh coal-fields any day in the year. I say the whole attitude is wrong about this so-called disorder outside the House recently. I was present. The hon. Member for Bridgton would have gone with me but for the fact that as his appearance is so well known the crowd would have known him. I went down to the crowd just to see what was happening. I went through Whitehall right from Trafalgar Square. I met the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), and he and I took diverse ways and met again. We went down to Victoria and along the Embankment. I have seen many Orange demonstrations in Glasgow 60 times worse than anything connected with that demonstration, particularly at night when two or three spirits get to work. That is nothing against the organisers, who are clean and decent men. I have seen Orange demontrations in Glasgow where there have been dozens of ambulances out. I have seen them at Anderson Cross. I went through the whole thing when the demonstration was outside here, and the only untoward incident I saw—and I think a. Conservative Member would bear me out in this—was a special constable acting in a manner most—well I cannot properly describe it. I say this to the credit of the police, that they took the matter in hand and acted with discretion. That demonstration was nothing to be annoyed about.

I think you have lost your nerve. You are in a funk. There is nobody who has any shred of imagination but knows that the Prime Minister has left us because he does not want to come. In seven weeks he may feel better. Why should we not say it? If a man who was unemployed made the journey to Lossiemouth overnight, hundreds of miles, they would not under the National Health Insurance scheme, accept that as a reason for giving benefit, and it is no use our treating well-to-do men differently from the way in which we treat poor people. The whole thing is wrong. I know the Home Secretary better than does the Leader of the Opposition. He and I are kindred Members, and have been associated for many years in public life, and I know there is not much use making an appeal to him, but I do appeal to the legal people, not because they are Members of the Government, but for the sake of their profession. I earnestly appeal to them to see that the liberties of these men and women are safeguarded at this time.

After all, you would not have done it to the leaders of the Labour movement, because if you had, you know you would at once have made these men the greatest men in the movement. It is done because these people are in a small minority, or it is thought they are. It is thought they are unpopular, and you are taking action against them that is fundamentally wrong. The thing that arouses me is this, that it is not done fairly and with decency and credit. None of those people got the trial that they should have got, and I hope the Home Secretary will say that he thinks this prosecution was mistakenly undertaken, and that the trial of Mrs. Duncan was not conducted in a way that did credit to law and justice in this country. I hope that, as Home Secretary, he will take the necessary action to overturn those decisions and that he will act a manly part, not only for his own sake and for the sake of his office, but above all for the sake of giving justice a decent name in this country.

2.28 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour)

The last thing I should desire to do would be to introduce any heat into this discussion, but the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), who has just addressed the House, has, as he frankly said, been known to me, and we have known each other and represented constituencies in Glasgow alongside each other, for a number of years. He has said a great many things to-day about the proper conduct of trials, and anybody might be in agreement with perhaps a great deal of what fell from him, but I must join issue at once with him when he asks me to say that the trial which was conducted in dealing with Mrs. Duncan was improperly done, or that there was distinct unfairness on the part of Mr. Wallace. I would say frankly that this is not the place in which trials before courts should be reviewed. It is most unsuitable, and I suppose that at any rate it will be recognised that men like Mr. Wallace, who have these grave responsibilities, have every right to be protected against assertions to which they cannot reply.

Mr. MAXTON

Are you supposed to defend them?

Sir J. GILMOUR

I was given notice by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, at a late hour last night, of this particular case. I immediately, of course, made inquiries and obtained, within the time at my disposal, such information as I could about the case. Whether it be this case or the cases of Tom Mann and Llewellyn, I want to bring the House back to the position in which any officer in any executive position stands who has to deal with these problems at the present time. I for the time being occupy this post, and I want to assure the House of Commons, and any who may be critics of what I may do, that the one thing above all which I desire to avoid is to allow circumstances to develop into a position in which I shall require to use the forces at my disposal and not only involve my executive and my officers in grave risks, but bring about a conflict and a clash of forces in the streets of this metropolis which can only end in bringing disaster to many people, not only those who are guilty of incitement, but those who in many cases are the dupes of those people.

It is no use saying to me that the action which has been taken is based upon some ancient and antiquated law. It is based upon the practice of many generations, it is true, and it is linked, no doubt, with ancient laws, but it is connected and linked also with the practice of the law coming right up to modern times.

Mr. MAXTON

How can you say that?

Sir J. GILMOUR

It is clear that in certain cases which have taken place in this country in recent times, to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite referred, those cases were restated by the law at that time. This House knows well the possibilities of those outside coming to this House and presenting petitions, and it was only on the occasion of the last disturbance that the hon. Member representing the Shettleston Division of Glasgow (Mr. McGovern) got into touch with those very people upon this particular subject. He was prepared to place his services at their disposal in order that they might, through the proper channels, make their representations. We all know that the statement which that hon. Member made to this House was a thankless and, if I may say so, a proper appreciation of the situation which was greatly to his credit. The fact remains—

Mr. MAXTON

The people wanted to do it themselves.

Sir J. GILMOUR

But they wanted to do it in a manner which is well known as contrary to the Rules either of this House or of decent, orderly methods.

Mr. MAXTON

No, nothing of the sort. These men took the view that, if this petition was to be presented here, they were going to do it through their own organisation and not through any assist- tance from us or hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway. It was a perfectly legitimate view.

Sir J. GILMOUR

Let me quote the words of the hon. Member for Shettleston: Having met Mr. Wal Hannington and Mr. Harry McShane on Friday, and made that offer to them, on behalf of the unemployed hunger marchers I have been informed this morning by Mr. McShane that their council discussed the offer yesterday, and decided to reject this necessary medium and to rely on their massed strength to force Parliament to allow their deputation to appear at the Bar."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October, 1932; col. 1445, Vol. 269.]

Mr. MAXTON

You rely on your massed strength.

Sir J. GILMOUR

I want the House to realise the position of responsibility in which I am placed by such words. This is not my interpretation, but the interpretation of the hon. Member for Shettleston, which was made to this House and is on record. That mass force and that large concourse of people led, as we know on the previous occasion, to grave disorders in the streets of London.

Mr. MAXTON

Where?

Sir J. GILMOUR

It led to disorders in Hyde Park; it dislocated the whole of the traffic throughout London; it led to the necessary calling out of large numbers of police and special constables; and it involved the necessity of envisaging, on the part of those responsible for law and order, that if the forces that were called upon were unable to cope with the large masses of people, it would be essential to call out the military. The House will believe me when I say that neither this Government nor I personally have the slightest desire to employ repressive measures either against freedom of speech or the proper passage of regular and orderly processions; but, when I am told that these processions are being deliberately organised for the purpose of avoiding the proper presentation of their petitions, and that they intend to come in such large forces as to intimidate this House, I am bound to take action.

Some reference has been made to some of my colleagues and myself as having got cold feet. My responsibility is to see that law and order is kept, whatever class is concerned, and I want to say that I make no differentiation between the orderly conduct of people to whatever class they may belong, and those who break the law and disobey the orders of the House are bound to be dealt with.

Mr. LANSBURY

Except Ulstermen.

Sir J. GILMOUR

Let me deal with what is before the House. The fact remains that this body, the National Unemployed Workers' Movement, did organise a mass procession. The House is aware of the result. We saw the disorders, we saw the train of trouble and difficulty which arose from them, and we saw the deluded people who were carried in the train of that disturbance. If I am convinced of one thing more than another, it is that the methods of disorderly concourse which were arranged by the organisers and members of that body are out of tune with and against the interests of the decent working-man. What the unemployed want is not mass demonstration but work, and it is not by disorderly or intimidatory methods that they are going to get that out of this Government or, indeed, of any other Government. Those who take part in such proceedings defeat their object.

With regard to the case of Tom Mann and Llewellyn, all I can say is that they were asked, as many other people may be asked, either now or in the future, to give an undertaking that they will not conduct themselves or incite others to conduct themselves in a manner other than orderly and properly. Is it to be said that it is not proper to ask these men to give this undertaking? If that be so, the only alternative which the Executive has is to recognise, well knowing that these disorders are bound to come, that they must leave the methods of the organisers to develop, and to bring out the police force again and again in order to carry out the orders of this House. Within the precincts of the Houses of Parliament the police are directed under my care to see that no disturbance occurs. If this House is going to abrogate its rights to issue those instructions, good and well, but as long as these instructions are issued to me it is my duty to see that they are carried out; and the only way in which I can carry them out is by inviting those who have published that they are going to bring people in a demonstration in large masses within the precincts—

Mr. LANSBURY

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman kindly to tell the house what evidence he has connecting Tom Mann with the "Daily Worker," what evidence there is that he had anything to do with writing or publishing that article, and what there is wrong in the letter that he wrote to the Prime Minister? Does the right hon. Gentleman maintain that he must take people up without giving evidence of intent on their part or of any action that they have taken which leads him to think that they ought to be put under recognisances?

Sir J. GILMOUR

When the last disturbance occurred, the step which has now been taken was not taken. These disturbances led to very grave disorder and they placed a great strain upon the police and upon law and order. When it was apparent, from information of which I was made aware, that there would be another demonstration, which was announced in the Press, which was in fact a repetition of the attempt to bring this petition signed by a million people to the precincts of this House, not through the ordinary methods of which the House is well aware, but by exactly the same methods as on the previous occasion, it was obvious that the attempt was being organised and directed by the association of which Toni Mann and Llewellyn were members—

Mr. LANSBURY

You have not a scrap of evidence of that.

Sir J. GILMOUR

Let me put this to the House. This particular case was taken through the proper channels. The defendants were brought to the court, and, as far as I know, they never denied that there was justification for their being brought into court. What they refused to do there was to give a plain and perfectly simple undertaking that they would not carry out what the law said they ought not to do.

Mr. McENTEE

They were not charged with that.

Sir J. GILMOUR

Of course, they were not accused of that, but it was made clear that all they were asked was that they would behave themselves as orderly citizens of this country.

Mr. LANSBURY

The point is, the right hon. Gentleman has built up his case against these two men on what happened previously. The magistrate himself said that he did not, hold these two men responsible for what happened in November.

Sir J. GILMOUR

Whether that was so or not, the whole position is this: that if we had a repetition of what happened before it was going to lead to very grave disorders. In an endeavour to prevent it these men are asked to give undertakings that they will not incite or take part in any such disorderly proceedings. Is it too much to ask? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] That is the object with which this action was taken—to prevent a repetition of these disturbances, which I think are contrary to the desire and wish not only of the unemployed but of every decent citizen in the country. All I have got to say is this, that I believe that we were within our rights, that what we did was calculated to cause less disturbance—it was done for that reason and that reason alone—and that these men could have given the undertaking, which was no outrageous undertaking and one which they could have given without any dereliction of their position, without giving away any right of proper free speech or attendance at political meetings. They refused to do it, and they have suffered the consequences. In both cases I have no reason to think that justice has not been carried out, and I do not propose to release them.

Mr. MAXTON

What about Mrs. Duncan?

Forward to