§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The MARQUESS of SALISBURY)My Lords, in pursuance of the arrangement which was made yesterday I now rise to move the Resolution in relation to the Regulations which were laid before Parliament by His Majesty's command, and the Motion which I have the honour to move is: "That the Regulations made by His Majesty in Council under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, by Orders dated the 30th day of April and the 3rd day of May, 1926, shall continue in force, subject, however, to the provisions of Section 2 (4) of the said Act. That is, of course, the formal Resolution which is requisite under the Act in order that the Regulations should remain in force for more than seven days. They do not enact the Regulations. The Regulations are already in force in pursuance of the two Orders in Council, but they cannot remain in force for more than seven days unless this Resolution is carried in both Houses of Parliament, and it is for that purpose that I make the Motion.
The Regulations are in your Lordships' hands. They were in the Vote Office yesterday and I have no doubt they are on the Table now and are available to any noble Lord who wishes to peruse them. They consist of 39 Regulations which are strictly in conformity with the precedent which has been set on the previous occasion, that is to say, when this procedure was availed of in 1921. There is, however, in addition an extra Regulation which is on a separate paper relative to the Press and to printing. That provides that in the case of publications which are likely to cause mutiny, sedition or disaffection among any of His Majesty's Forces, or indeed in the civil population, 48 or which tend to impede, restrict or delay any measures taken for securing necessities or purposes essential to the public safety or the life of the community—that in all cases the police shall have special powers to take action against the publication in question and to prevent it: That Order has been considered to be requisite and therefore it is additional to the Orders passed on the last occasion. I thought, it right to explain to your Lordships exactly how the matter stands. I do not propose to discuss these Regulations, but of course it is open to any noble Lord to speak at large upon the subject in pursuance of this Motion, and in respect of any detailed matters upon which any noble Lord wishes to have information my noble and learned friend the Secretary of State for India is prepared to answer any point put to him. I therefore beg to move.
§ Moved, That the Regulations made by His Majesty in Council under the Emergency Powers Act., 1920, by Orders dated the 30th day of April and the 3rd day of May, 1926, shall continue in force, subject, however, to the provisions of Section 2 (4) of the said Act.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ VISCOUNT HALDANEMy Lords, the noble Marquess has stated quite accurately the legal position. Under the Act of 1920 the Government have full power to bring forward these Regulations and the policy which underlies the action they take is a separate matter. That we discussed yesterday. I said all that I wished to say about it and I do not propose to add anything to what was then said. Without prejudice to what I said yesterday upon the question of policy, I am not desirous of offering any comment upon these Regulations. Whether some other of my noble friends may wish to draw attention to matters of detail is another question, but so far as I am concerned I do not desire to take up the time of the House.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYMy Lords, we are about to consider and, I hope, approve the Regulations which the noble Marquess has laid before us to-day. I have read through them sufficiently to satisfy myself that I am not able to understand the whole of them in their working, but everything which I do appreciate seems to me to be 49 entirely right and I trust effect may be given to them. If I intervene for a moment, and it shall be for a moment only, it is from the standpoint of those who are having, in these days of difficulty and anxiety, some opportunity of gauging, directly or indirectly, the feeling and attitude of the great mass of public opinion, especially amongst the poorest classes, at the present juncture with regard to the question of the strike. I have not myself to do with the coal industry in any of its aspects, but I do have to do, in constant daily intercourse, directly or indirectly, with those, some of them as I have said of the very poorest, who are suffering already from the strike and who, if it lasts many days, will suffer in the most acute form.
What I am anxious to call attention to for a moment is the impression conveyed to all those with whom I have been in contact, who have been in hourly intercourse with people, who, although anxious and suffering, are showing at this moment a remarkably fine spirit of good humour and good temper. Except in a few isolated cases, which I see are notified in such news as we have got, there is a spirit of good humour and friendliness all round with regard to the strike, but it is accompanied by a sense of fear on the part of not a few—I think their view is a mistaken one—that if they were not to help and throw themselves on the side of those at present striking they would be tending to do something which would lower the standard of living amongst the poorest classes, not only in the coal industry but in other industries as well. I do not share that fear and cannot think that the result would follow; but it is necessary, if we are to understand the present situation aright, to recognise its existence. I find at present no group of people who are unfriendly in this particular matter, but I do find that there are men who are uneasy because they think that the result that I have mentioned may follow.
As regards the strike itself, I do not think that among thoughtful people there is very great difference of opinion as to its unwisdom and its mischievousness. To my mind it is simply shocking that it should be possible at this time of day in our country for a set of men who are a kind of oligarchy chosen in such a way that it is not very obvious that it rests 50 upon a broad popular basis, to make the extraordinary claim to exercise the powers of the Government as regards the control of the Press, the control of the country's communications and the ordinary living and well-being of the people. That, to my mind, is a condition of things so intolerable that every effort is needed, is justifiably called for and ought to be supported, which the Government may make to bring that condition of things as speedily as possible to an end. The thing does not seem to me really to bear discussion or to admit of argument, so obvious do the facts seem to be.
But there is something more than that. We must not let that thought blind us to the need of discovering, if it be yet possible, some mode of removing the fear that legislation, or lack of legislation, which may follow upon what is now being done, will have the general effect of lowering the standard of living among the poorest classes. The need seems to me to be acute at this moment for a general consideration on the part of the public at large, and not least among our poorest classes, of whether any action or inaction on our part makes us in some measure responsible for the arising of a condition which has resulted in the present' strike. The Government have everyone behind them in what they are doing; we admire the patience and skill which has been shown, as far as we are able to understand, in all the negotiations of the past and certainly the good temper and perseverance and the spirit which has characterised their action from first to last.
What I want to say is that everything that comes to one's notice each hour leads one to believe that the Government would have behind them an overwhelming weight of public opinion if they felt it to be possible, even at the risk of doing something illogical, something that appears inconsistent, to explore yet further the possibility of averting the growth which must arise soon of a spirit very different from that which prevails at this moment. At present the good nature and good humour with which the terribly severe conditions are received by most people are regarded as beyond praise. Can any one expect, when the pressure has become acute, as it will after a few clays or a week has passed, 51 that that temper will be maintained? And, if there be a risk of that temper being broken down, while it is founded on something which is a reality in their fear lest the standard of living should be lowered, we should have brought about a disaster which is greater in one sense than the strike itself if it came to the alienation of public feeling from the side on which it at present stands. Therefore I hope that every possible effort will continue to be made, even, as I say, with the risk of an apparent illogicality, to reach a solution on the part of those who have done so much already to carry the matter through. We want to see that they are undaunted in face of the present perplexity, as they have been persevering and untiring in their efforts hitherto.
§ LORD PARMOORMy Lords, I have a question to put to the noble and learned Earl, Lord Birkenhead, who, I understand, will reply on these Regulations. But, before that, I should like to say a word bearing upon what the most rev. Primate has just said. It is very satisfactory to hear what he says about the good humour of both sides at the present time, but I also think it is absolutely true that on the side of the council of the trade unions it is not a matter of interfering with the ordinary conditions of civilised life. They are actuated by a fear, which exists not only in this country hut has influenced very much countries abroad, and is reflected at the International Labour Office in Geneva—a fear lest the standard of living among the poorer classes should be lowered. The miners' conditions are extremely difficult and it is feared that they are peculiarly liable to be subjected to pressure, either to reduce wages or to lengthen hours.
I do not want to go into personal matters, but having been brought into contact with two of the large coalfields, South Wales and Nottinghamshire, I find in the one all the difficulties which have been mentioned affecting the export trade, while in the other the conditions are extremely satisfactory and prosperous. In Nottinghamshire, or at any rate in the mine that I know very well, there is not the slightest difficulty, and no question of bankruptcy. On the contrary, the profits are very satisfactory, and all that the mine owners desire is that things should go on in that particular mine as they are. They have put 52 up a notice saying that on no account do they intend to lower wages or to ask for longer hours and they hope that work may be re-started as soon as possible.
I think that the conditions of the industry as a whole have been somewhat exaggerated. We all know what was said in the extremely interesting and exhaustive Report of the Royal Commission, who admit, as everyone must admit, that certain mines could no longer be worked on ordinary economic terms, and therefore ask for a general reorganisation of the industry. I should have hoped myself that the Government might themselves have introduced a sort of Reorganisation Bill, showing their sense, at any rate, of the neccessity of their carrying out all the conditions of the Report of the Coal Commission, and then, when that Bill was published it would be time to pronounce an opinion if either one party or the other was not prepared to comply with all the conditions which it laid down.
I wanted to ask Lord Birkenhead this question. As far as I know, the common form of Emergency Regulations which were published, I think, in 1919, are all contained in the volume which I hold in my hand, that is, Emergency Regulations which are dated April 30, 1926. The noble Marquess has referred to another Regulation, dated the 3rd day of May, 1926, and I want to ask him whether that is not a new Regulation altogether. Has a Regulation in that form and in those terms ever been published before under the Emergency Powers Act? It may have been published.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYIt is new.
§ LORD PARMOORThe terms of it, I suggest, are extremely wide, looking at it as a new Regulation. I will not discuss the necessity for some such Regulation, but I want to call attention to the part of it which appears to me to go beyond any of the other Regulations and to have an exceptional character. First of all, it refers to any police constable, if authorised by an Order of the Secretary of State, entering into premises, and so on, if need be by force. The giving of a power of that kind can only be necessitated by very exceptional circumstances. It is beyond the power of a similar kind contained already in the Regulations which have been adopted before.
53 I want, however, to call the noble Marquess's attention to these words:
enter…by force any premises or place suspected of being used for the purposes of printing, producing, publishing or dispersing any document, calculated or likely to cause"—I do not object to the words "mutiny and sedition," but to this part of the Regulation—calculated to cause…disaffection among…the civilian population.As to the other words, I agree with the necessity in regard to what is called mutiny amongst the troops and matters of that kind. But when you come to the question merely of disaffection among the civilian population, that is, surely, giving a very wide and indefinite power altogether. I have read these other Regulations through very carefully and I am not aware of any previous Regulation of a similar character.
§ THE EARL OF BIRKENHEADYes; if the noble and learned Lord looks at Regulation 21, he will find there is one which is verbatim the same.
§ LORD PARMOORIs it verbatim the same as Section 21?
§ THE EARL OF BIRKENHEADYes.
§ LORD PARMOORIf that is so, what is the necessity for it?
§ THE EARL OF BIRKENHEADIt specifies a little more closely the matter of printing and publishing. As I understood the noble and learned Lord's point, it was in regard to that part of the provision which dealt with the civilian population. I do not wish to interrupt him, but perhaps he will be good enough to follow me.
§ LORD PARMOORI am much obliged to the noble and learned Earl.
§ THE EARL OF BIRKENHEADThis is Regulation 21:
If any person attempts or does any act calculated or likely to cause mutiny, sedition, or disaffection among any of His Majesty's forces, or among the members of any police force, or any fire brigade, or among the civilian population, or to impede, delay or restrict any measures in"—and so on, and then the provision follows.
§ LORD PARMOORMay I point out why I think a distinction arises? I was aware of that provision and it appears 54 to me to go far enough. Paragraph (2A) deals with a different matter. It says—
…enter…by force any premises or place suspected of being used for the purpose of printing, producing, publishing or dispersing any document…of this kind. That is a new power altogether. If you apply it to any member of the civilian population it appears to me to go quite outside what we have in Regulation 21. When I read Regulation 21 it appeared to me to be amply sufficient to deal with all difficulties likely to arise. However, I leave it. I did not want to go further than to raise my point upon it, and if the noble and learned Earl is going to answer me I shall be happy to listen to his explanation.
§ LORD OLIVIERMy Lords, may I say with regard to the use of the word "disaffection" that it is a very dangerous word indeed in this connection. When it is applied to the forces of the Crown or the Police it has a definite meaning. It means a disaffection towards His Majesty's Government, whose servants they are. In regard to the general public it may have the meaning of disaffection towards the Crown. But disaffection amongst private individuals is a, very dangerous and wide term. It is a term which has given rise to very great controversy in India owing to the fact that the word "disaffection" is used in Regulation 3, of which your Lordships may have heard, and under which anybody may be arrested and interned. I want to have a definite definition from the noble and learned Earl as to what is meant by, and what are the restrictions of the meaning of, this word "disaffection." It simply cannot mean that if one man publishes a thing which another does not like that is a cause of disaffection and is an offence. It cannot mean that to cause irritation among citizens by the publication of controversial documents is an offence. Actually, of course, it must be something in the nature of an offence which is properly prescribed in relation to His Majesty's forces.
§ LORD BUCKMASTERMy Lords, in considering these Regulations I do not think it is possible to shut one's eyes to the position in which we stand and, although it may not be strictly relevant to recall the circumstances in which the 55 strike arose, I think it is important for the purpose of considering these proposals, lest through weakness we may paralyse the hands of the Government or through zeal enforce Regulations that go beyond the necessity of the case. We are in the presence of what is called "a strike"; but it appears to me to be one of the most wanton and most reckless exercises of tyrannical power that this country has been called upon to meet for centuries. I have very carefully considered the circumstances in which this strike has arisen and I desire to say nothing about the conduct of the Government in the matter. However liable that conduct may be to criticism, now is not the time to criticise it. I wish, however, to say that I do not believe that by any power whatever could they have averted this disaster. I believe it was arranged almost from the first. None the less it would have been possible, I think, for them so to have conducted their negotiations as to have made more plain to the country than it is what was the exact issue upon which they parted from the miners' representatives and the trade union leaders. That is history. It is history which it may be profitable at some future date to examine. At the moment it is simply waste of time.
I hope I do not take an exaggerated view of the gravity of the position in which we stand. To my mind the declaration of a general strike is the gravest news this country has had to face since the eventful days of August, 1914. Everyone who values the ordered progress of this country and the removal of grievances by the use of honoured and constitutional means is bound to lend all the power and support he can to the Government in the difficult position in which they are placed. After all, in saying that, I have only said imperfectly what was said yesterday oy my noble Leader, Lord Oxford and Asquith, in words which I am certain met with the anproval of every member of your Lordships' House, and I can assure the House that I believe that not only did he, in words that we cannot emulate, express the view of every Liberal member in this House, but also of every member of the Liberal Party throughout the country.
So regarded, I am not prepared to enter into minute verbal criticism of 56 these Regulations. It is always possible to criticise matters such as this meticulously. I dislike that word, but it expresses what I mean. If, under these wide general powers, there are arbitrary acts which cannot be justified, this House at least will always be open for them to he criticised and it seems to me that that is the right course that, we ought to take. I do not think that any one who has had any experience of the feeling of the public in the last few days can fail to realise that, with good temper but with set determination, they are prepared to stand behind the Government in this matter. I believe that I can assure the Government that the nation will not fail them and I only sincerely hope that the Government's will not fail the nation.
§ LORD LAMINGTONMy Lords, should like to ask His Majesty's Government whether Regulation 21 gives permission not only for one man but for a number of people to engage in peaceful persuasion? If it does give that permission it seems to me to endorse one of those terrible forms of tyranny that has just been alluded to by the noble and learned Lord opposite.
§ THE EARL OF BIRKENHEADMy Lords, in answer to the last question it is not the present intention of the Government to interfere, in the matter raised by the noble Lord, with the existing law, although many of us took an unfavourable view of the proposals which now many years ago in this respect acquired the force of law. But I must make it quite plain that, being, as we are, at the beginning of an issue hitherto, happily, unexperienced in this country and groping our way, therefore, through perilous days, we can give no assurance at all that this will be the last of the demands that the Government will have to make upon Parliament. We shall make no demands in the shape of additions to the present Regulations which we have not satisfied ourselves, with our responsibility, that the safety of the State requires, but, equally, the moment we satisfy ourselves that any Regulation additional to those which are to-day upon the Paper is required, measured again in the same terms of the safety of the State in the wholly exceptional circumstances in 57 which we find ourselves, we shall not hesitate to come to Parliament for any necessary increase of our powers in any respect.
I do not desire, except so far as courtesy requires to those of your Lordships who have spoken, to tread again the general subject which last night engaged the attention of your Lordships. The most rev. Primate, as is his wont, in a conciliatory and thoughtful speech, has dealt, with many of the topics which are at, this moment in your Lordships' minds. My noble and learned friend Lord Buck-master, in a particularly helpful speech, pledging the Government the support, which we greatly value, of the large number of constitutional Liberals in this country, has given a message of encouragement to the Government in their difficult task for which it is proper that I should express at once the gratitude and the appreciation of the Government. I must, perhaps, be allowed to say this. Although knowing the difficulty of their position—I speak without any attempt at great severity—it is a little astonishing that the leaders of the Labour Party in this House, neither last night nor to-night, have found themselves in a position to inform this House whether they approve or do not approve of the unconstitutional development of what began as a purely trade dispute.
§ VISCOUNT HALDANEWe told you what we disapproved of yesterday very distinctly.
THE EARL OF MIZKENHEADThe noble and learned Viscount says he told us what he disapproved of. There are many topics of which, in an imperfect sphere of humanity, many people approve, but we were, if I may say so without even a tinge of discourtesy, not interested in knowing in the abstract that of which the noble and learned Viscount approved or disapproved.
§ VISCOUNT HALDANEI gave it in the concrete.
§ THE EARL OF BIRKENHEADIf I am labouring under any misapprehension the noble and learned Viscount, I am sure, will very explicitly make the matter plain. I was left in great doubt, after listening to the speech of the noble and learned Viscount last night, whether 58 or not he thought that the proclamation of a general strike was a justifiable action on behalf of the leaders of the Trades Unions.
§ VISCOUNT HALDANEI did not discuss it.
§ THE EARL OF BIRKENHEADThat is the whole gravamen of my criticism.
§ VISCOUNT HALDANEWhat I pointed out was that by the conclusion of your official communication you had provoked it.
§ THE EARL OF BIRKENHEADThe noble and learned Viscount has really not made himself aware of the easily ascertainable chronological stages of this matter. I assure the noble and learned Viscount he has not. I will establish it beyond all disputation. The noble and learned Viscount is unwise to shake his head. He announces a negative conclusion upon matters which do not admit of a negative. Let me assure him that I will make the matter abundantly plain. While discussions and negotiations were taking place, upon which I am entitled to speak with some confidence because I happen to be one of the Ministers concerned in them—while those discussions were actually taking place those who sere charged with theta on behalf of the Government, of whom I was one, became for the first time aware that definite and positive instructions had been given in most of the principal trades and industries of the country to declare and carry out a general strike. The noble and learned Viscount upon that point then is, if he will allow me to say so, completely wrong.
I do not know how to argue this matter with the noble and learned Viscount. A moment ago he said that we broke matters off prematurely upon this ground. We have tried to make the attitude of the Government plain. We are not, we were not and we shall not be, prepared to negotiate as long as this threat to all constitutional government holds the field. I gather that the noble and learned Viscount entertains a different view. He will give me leave to say that he is still not in any way answering the criticism which I made a moment ago and it is that upon this point the responsible leaders of the Labour Party in this 59 House have not up to the present favoured your Lordships even with an expression of opinion. A trade dispute having arisen, whether the merits were on the side of the miners or whether the merits were on the side of the owners or whether the mediators, ourselves, made some great fault, I do not argue any of these points, but I say we are entitled to know from the representative leaders of the Labour Party whether they justify the employment of the weapon of the general strike.
§ VISCOUNT HALDANEThat is not really the point. The point we raise is that the general strike was known of two days before these things happened. The coal owners' lock-out was known and the business of the Government was to continue mediating. Instead, they published this document and put an end to all chance.
§ THE EARL OF BIRKENHEADThe noble and learned Viscount is far too accustomed to the use of precise language to be able in the first place to justify to himself the use of the term "lock-out." There is not and was not ever a lock-out. The term lock-out has a perfectly precise and well-known connotation. The circumstances of this case allow of no such connotation. I cannot allow the noble and learned Viscount to run out upon a statement that two days before, or three days before, it was known there was to be a general strike. It was not known two days or three days before. It was known, and known only, that certain statements had been made that there might be a general strike. Does the noble and learned Viscount really mean that if, at a meeting of trade union delegates, one leader or two leaders say there may be a general strike that is the same thing as the announcement that in fact orders have been issued for a general strike? A Government may very well prudently say we will not regulate our conduct upon vague threats which have not materialised and may never materialise, but the moment these threats have not only been made but specific instructions have been issued a wholly new situation arises. Not only that, but, as the noble and learned Viscount well knows, a commencement had actually been made in carrying out the general strike. Are we not entitled to know 60 whether the noble and learned Viscount is of opinion that as trustees of constitutional government in this country it was our business or was not our business to go on negotiating when once a general strike was in actual progress?
§ VISCOUNT HALDANEYes, go on negotiating to the last.
§ THE EARL OF BIRKENHEADThat is an astonishing doctrine from a great constitutional lawyer. We are face to face with the position in, which quite a different body is assuming the functions of government, is claiming to close down organs of the Press, is declaring a war not against the mine owners, not against those who undertake the unwelcome and unattractive task of mediation, but a war against society as a whole, against the poor clerk who is trying on a wet and foggy day to travel four miles to his task. In view, not of a threat but of that having been carried into execution, in view of what is taking place to-day when we are insultingly invited to accept a safe conduct from the strikers if necessary, are we to continue negotiations?
§ VISCOUNT HALDANECertainly.
§ THE EARL OF BIRKENHEADWe do not propose to do so. I tell you plainly that to whatever unhappy lengths this quarrel may be carried it will be ended and it will be ended only with the recognition alike in fact and in law that there is one Government and one Government only in this country.
§ VISCOUNT HALDANEYes, but what Government?
§ THE EARL OF BIRKENHEADThe noble and learned Viscount says, "What Government?" I will reply to him in language which was used by one who was very recently his leader and who, though not a constitutional lawyer and not a former occupant of the Woolsack, held sounder language upon this question than the noble and learned Viscount holds to-day. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald when he was Prime Minister, when he was charged with the responsibilities which to-day we support, held language very difficult to distinguish from that which I hold at this moment but very easy to distinguish from the doctrine 61 which the noble and learned Viscount has laid down. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, when the tube railway menace was in operation, said:
We shall do our best to advance public convenience while the dispute lasts…The first step that will have to be taken is to issue a Proclamation that a state of emergency exists. I hope that neither side will take that as being a threat or being provocative…The Government must be armed with the power which are required should the dispute spread, or should public convenience demand some action which can only be taken under the powers given to it after the issue of the Proclamation…The major public services must also be continued, and the Government, any Government, all Governments, must give protection to those engaged in their legal occupations.
§ VISCOUNT HALDANEAnd he went on negotiating and averted a strike.
§ THE EARL OF BIRKENHEADThe noble and learned Viscount says that he went on negotiating and averted a strike. The noble and learned Viscount's mind seems incapable of maintaining any contact with actualities. Were they confronted, as we are confronted, with a general strike? Does the noble and learned Viscount not see that that is the whole point he and I are discussing at this moment? So would we have gone on discussing en long as the issue had been confined to a single strike, but we have been confronted with a general assault on the whole principle of constitutional government. The noble and learned Viscount has been good enough to rise three or four times to correct an error if I made one, but he is not able at this moment—if he is I will give way to him—to state whether he and his colleagues on that Bench defend or do not defend the weapon of the general strike.
§ VISCOUNT HALDANEWhat we are concerned with is the conduct of the negotiations.
§ THE EARL OF BIRKENHEADThe conduct of the negotiations! My Lords, I have given as explicit an invitation to the noble and learned Viscount as any power of speech at my disposal enables me to formulate, and I leave the matter with the fact appreciated by everyone of your Lordships that although we have here some five or six former Ministers 62 there is not one who dare tell your Lordships he approves of the general strike.
Now, I will answer very shortly the question which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, has put to me. There is, in fact, nothing in the new Regulations of substance which was not contained in either Regulation 21 or 33 of the old Regulations, but we did judge it expedient to collate these provisions in the new Regulation for a reason which I am hopeful may commend itself to your Lordships. We desired to collate them in relation to the printing, producing or publishing of documents. We are apparently drifting into days in which the nation will be dependent upon indirect and not particularly reliable sources of news, though I ought perhaps to inform your Lordships that, in spite of all the difficulties, the Government are taking steps to see that citizens in this country shall not be denied the opportunity day by day of knowing what is going on in the country.
We have already taken steps which we believe will be extremely effective in that direction and we are hopeful that we shall be able to guarantee, within one or two days, that not only in London but in the provinces every citizen who wishes to learn how this quarrel is progressing and, generally, how the nation is progressing will have the fullest sources of authoritative information open to him. But in the meantime we are bound to take notice of the fact that, by the action, of the trades unions, by the action, I suppose we may say, of the noble and learned Viscount and his friends, nearly every newspaper in this country—.Is that disputed?
§ VISCOUNT HALDANENo, no. The noble Earl has been trying from the beginning to start a new hare—
§ VISCOUNT HALDANEI am not here to discuss the merits of this question. I said so yesterday. What I held to was the one issue that we had before us yesterday, and on that we get not a ward from the noble Earl.
§ THE EARL OF BIRKENHEADBut does the noble and learned Viscount really suppose that he can choose every 63 issue that your Lordships discuss? I assure the noble Viscount that he is wrong. Parliament is met here to discuss a very grave matter of public affairs. It is not for the noble and learned Viscount to say to Parliament: "This is the only issue that interests me." There may be many issues that interest the Government, that interest the Opposition in another place and that interest the public, but the noble and learned Viscount has not observed the very astonishing circumstance that he and his colleagues are completely marooned. They are not in the same position as the Front Opposition Bench in the House of Commons.
There the Front Opposition Bench, when they are asked whether they justify the general strike, do not say, "That is not the issue that we are raising," because they are sensible enough men to see that the issue is raised, has been raised by somebody, that it did not drop "like the gentle rain from heaven," that it proceeded from human agency and that they were the human agents. The noble and learned Viscount was recently the colleague of the very men who are to-day not only admitting their responsibility but glorying in it. We are asking the noble and learned Viscount whether he is one of those who are responsible for the suppression of the Press in this country. He says that this is not the issue that he has come here to discuss. Perhaps he will kindly allow me to discuss it and—
§ VISCOUNT HALDANESay what you like.
§ THE EARL OF BIRKENHEADThis is indeed a notable concession to the freedom of Parliament. The House may be grateful to one whom, I suppose, I may without offence call the mouthpiece in this House of the Soviet. We must indeed be grateful for the permission to a Minister to say what he likes.
§ VISCOUNT HALDANEI am not questioning your right to say anything.
§ THE EARL OF BIRKENHEADThe noble and learned Viscount questions nothing that I say but he utterly declines to take that responsibility which, if he is not prepared to face it, leaves him without any right to sit in this House as the 64 Leader of the Labour Party. We, at any rate, upon this point feel ourselves in no possible difficulty. We propose to invite Parliament, in another place and here, to pass any Regulation which we think it necessary to pass to meet a challenge which has never before in practice confronted the Government of this country. It can be defined in very simple language. It is whether or not the trades union leaders, in order to develop their own view of an individual trade quarrel, are entitled to place punitive and ruinous consequences upon every section of the population of this country who have nothing whatever to do with the original quarrel which, and which alone, requires the attention of society.
That indeed is a plain issue and, although we have not the assistance of the noble Viscount and his colleagues in reaching a conclusion upon that point, we have nevertheless felt bold enough and, give me leave to add, we have felt strong enough to form a conclusion of our own. We have accepted that challenge, we shall carry it through to the end and it will be ended, and will be ended only, by the assertion of the Constitutional doctrine that a trade quarrel has its proper context and ambit among those whom it concerns, whether they be employers or employed, and that the moment it claims to affect and punish and ruin the whole of society it can he and it must be restrained and corrected by authority.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.