Lords Sitting of 25 October 1926

Preamble
Parliament having been summoned by His Majesty's Proclamation, dated the 20th day of October, issued under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, the House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
STATE OF EMERGENCY.

  MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE EARL OF BALFOUR): My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships of the following Message from the King:—
  "The continued cessation of work in coal mines on the 20th day of October, 1926, having constituted in the opinion of His Majesty a state of emergency within the meaning of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, His Majesty has deemed it proper, by Proclamation made in pursuance of the said Act, and dated the 20th of October, 1926, to declare that a state of emergency exists."
  In consequence of the Message which I have just read to your Lordships I now beg to move that the Regulations made by His Majesty in Council under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, by Order dated the 20th inst., shall continue in force, subject, however, to the Provisions of Section 2 (4) of the said Act.
  Moved, That the Regulations made by His Majesty in Council under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, by Order dated the 20th instant, shall continue in force, subject, however, to the provisions of Section 2 (4) of the said Act.—(The Earl of Balfour.)
  VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I do not propose to discuss these Regulations at length. We have discussed them before and I desire to take now the same attitude that I have taken upon previous occasions. But there is a question of a special nature which has arisen. These Regulations have been used for the purpose of stopping two large meetings in a part of the country which has hitherto
  570
  been peaceful—namely, Staffordshire. They have been so used, we are informed, because the Chief Constable thought that the holding of large meetings might be a disturbing circumstance in the conditions of the day. What I wish to say emphatically is that that is not a question which the Government can leave to a Chief Constable without giving him some directions about it. I want to know whether directions were given or whether the Chief Constable acted on his own initiative.
  I have no doubt that the Chief Constable is an admirable public servant, but this is a question too big for any Chief Constable to decide. To stop meetings which prima facie are being peaceably held to listen to Mr. Cook, who is not always very careful in his language but whose speeches have not hitherto been followed by anything very surprising, is to exercise a very delicate jurisdiction. All past experience shows that this kind of interference with meetings is apt to produce worse consequences to public order than would have been produced if the meetings had been left alone and allowed to go on, in which case there is no reason to suppose that they were likely to attain to any greater dimensions than in the past. The Chief Constable may have been quite right, or he may have been acting under directions given by the Government, in which case the Government and the Chief Constable ought to tell us why it was that a course which was so exceptional and should have been treated as exceptional and only justified by circumstances which have not appeared in the public communications, was taken in this instance.
  I should like to know from the Government what control the Government exercise at headquarters over the administration of these Regulations. It cannot be that they leave them to be applied merely on local prejudices. Chief Constables, excellent men as they often are, are not trained in dealing with great political questions, and this is a great political question and one upon which peace, law and order and a great deal more depend. This is an exceptional power and I should have hoped that it was a power with regard to which the Government had given some direction as to the spirit in which it was to be exercised. I should like to know from the

  571
  Lord Chancellor or from the noble Earl opposite what duty the Government conceive to be on them to see that these very unusual powers, going far beyond anything that the Common Law affords, are exercised with due attention to principles which go far beyond the particular circumstances; otherwise the exercise of such powers may very greatly disturb public peace and prejudice the chances of a settlement.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, I think I can at once give an answer to the noble and learned Viscount. Regulation 22 provides that:
  "Where there appears to be reason to apprehend that the assembly of any persons for the purpose of the holding of any meeting or procession will conduce to a breach of the peace and will thereby cause undue demands to be made upon the police, or will promote disaffection, it shall be lawful for a Secretary of State, or for any mayor, magistrate, or chief officer of police who is duly authorised by a Secretary of State …. to make an order prohibiting the holding of the meeting or procession."
  The position in Staffordshire, as I understand it, was this. A very large proportion of the miners had gone back to work and there had been formed what was called a "Council of War," or something of that kind, which was to carry out a campaign in this district, among others, with a view to bringing pressure to bear upon the men to leave the work to which they had returned. In those circumstances the police officer of the County informed the Secretary of State that if these meetings which had been announced were held and language such as had been used were used at those meetings, then there was grave danger that a breach of the peace would be occasioned.
  On that information my right hon. friend the Home Secretary authorised the Chief Constable, if as to any particular meeting he thought that a breach of the peace was likely to be caused, to prohibit that meeting. It is under that authority, given expressly by my right hon. friend, that two meetings, and two meetings only, were prohibited last week. I want to make it clear that there was no general order prohibiting meetings, still less an order prohibiting meetings to be addressed by any particular persons, but two particular meetings from which a breach of the peace was apprehended were prohibited under that Regulation. It is quite clear that the police, who are
  572
  acting under this authority, must take care not to exercise it unless in their judgment there is danger of a breach of the peace; and, after all, you must trust the police officer on the spot to say whether a meeting is likely to lead to disorder. I think the House will be satisfied that it was right, under the conditions that existed and in view of the information received, to give this authority to the police officer and to trust him to exercise it, and I do not doubt for a moment that he exercised it in a proper way.
  LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, there are one or two points in the speech of the Lord Chancellor that I think require further elucidation. I understood from what I saw in the newspapers that the Chief Constable in this case had taken action because he had a general authority, apart from a particular authority conferred upon him by the Home Secretary. I now understand that this is not the case and that the Home Secretary did not purport to give, and did not in fact give, any general authority to the Chief Constable delegating the responsibility which, under the terms of Regulation 22, is thrown upon the Secretary of State himself.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not want to be misunderstood. The authority given was general, relating to meetings which were about to be held in the County. It was given upon information that if a series of meetings were held it would cause trouble.
  LORD PARMOOR: I am sure that the Lord Chancellor will not mind my pressing the question a little further. His remarks suggest a half-way house between that which I understood him to say in the first instance and my own first impression, and I am not quite sure that I understand the explanation. Was the authority given to the Chief Constable as regards any meetings within his jurisdiction—that is, South Staffordshire? So far as the Chief Constable is concerned, was he authorised without any further reference to the Home Secretary to interfere with meetings held in South Staffordshire? It appears to me in the first instance that, though this may be technically right under Regulation 22—I

  573
  do no want to make it a technical question—it is a very doubtful policy to devolute generally a power of this kind from the Home Secretary to the Chief Constable. I do not want to lay further emphasis upon that which was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, but there is a great difference in a matter of this kind between the responsibility placed upon one of His Majesty's Ministers and the responsibility merely of a Chief Constable. I think that the Chief Constable is not the person who ought to exercise authority of that kind, and. I want to say a word or two in a minute on the other alternative. Whether he should be allowed to exercise it in a particular case is another matter.
  I agree with the noble Viscount that we are dealing with very important constitutional questions. Here is an authority which goes much further than the Common Law. It gives power—I use that expression in the first instance—to stop a meeting or procession which will conduce to a breach of the peace and will thereby cause undue demands to be made upon the police or will promote disaffection. Is the Chief Constable by a general order to be made the judge of those two very important matters, which, of course, interfere very materially with the Common Law liberty of the subject on a question of this kind? Is he to be the sole authority in any particular case or in any particular district to say whether there is likely to be a breach of the peace without anyone helping him at all, or is he to be the sole authority to prophesy whether a meeting is likely to promote disaffection? It is a very extreme power if it has been given to a Chief Constable. Of course, a Chief Constable in those circumstances might interfere proprio motu with almost all meetings which either were of a political character or might cause disaffection, or in the present case where there is an industrial dispute between the miners and the mine owners. I admit that I do not read Section 22 as giving any such power. I thought the Lord Chancellor said further—he will correct me if I am wrong—that as regards these particular meetings information had been sent to the Home Secretary and that then the Home Secretary gave authority to the Chief Constable.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am very sorry I did not make myself clear to the noble Lord. The information given by the Chief Constable originally was that a series of meetings was about to be held within his jurisdiction which would be likely to cause trouble, and upon that, as I said, the Home Secretary gave a general authority to prohibit any particular meeting.
  LORD PARMOOR: I do not know what the information was which passed between the Chief Constable and the Home Secretary. I recognise at once that in a matter of this kind you must have a controlling authority and there appears to be no doubt that the Home Secretary is the right person. What was the nature of the information which induced the Home Secretary, who, after all, is the controlling authority, according to what the Lord Chancellor has told us, to give this power, and what made him think there was likely to be a breach of the peace or that disaffection would be promoted?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think I have already answered that twice.
  LORD PARMOOR: I hope the Lord Chancellor will recognise that I am quite courteous in asking for information. If the fact is, as he stated, that this was a general power given in a particular district, I think the further question then arises, in that real responsibility in a matter of this kind is undoubtedly placed upon the Home Secretary: What was the nature of the information upon which the Home Secretary gave authority of that character? Of course, the noble and learned Viscount tells us nothing if we are merely told in the words of the Regulation itself. We want to know whether any information was given as to the conditions in South Staffordshire which made the Home Secretary apprehensive either of a breach of the peace or that a meeting likely to promote disaffection was going to be held. To my mind that is an extremely important question. It is a constitutional question of primary importance. So far as South Staffordshire is concerned there has been, I believe, no sign heretofore of anything likely to promote disaffection, or anything like a meeting which would conduce to a breach of the peace. It is a

  575
  matter which, no doubt, will have to be enquired into further, but I must say that it is entirely unsatisfactory, when the liberty of the ordinary subject is interfered with to this extent, to hear through the Home Secretary that '.he information which he received was merely in the words of the Regulation—in other words, that he had not before him the information upon which he could exercise any discretion as regards giving this authority to the Chief Constable or not.
  I have throughout this discussion endeavoured to do everything I could to bring about peace and settlement. I think it is a terrible national disaster that this lock-out or strike should continue—I have said it more than once and I say it again—but are you likely to cause further friction, or are you likely to further the cause of settlement, if, without some special reason and without full consideration, you seek to prohibit meetings between the miners and their leaders or secretary at which, as I understood, there was a chance of discussion both on matters as they are and on possibilities at any rate of a settlement, which we all desire? I thank the Lord Chancellor for the information which he has given me. I am sure he will understand that I asked the question in all courtesy.
  LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, may I be allowed, before the Government replies, to call attention to one or two points which I think want clearing up. The fact is that there is a serious disparity between the statements made by the Lord Chancellor in this House and by the representatives of the Government elsewhere, and it is with a view of ascertaining the exact position that I can attention to that fact. The Lord Chancellor in his opening remarks unquestionably said that this authority to the Chief Constable was expressly given. Subsequently, when challenged, he stated that that was not quite what happened, but that it was a general authority given to the Chief Constable. The Lord Chancellor stated that the reason why this authority was given was that in this County a large number of men had gone back to work, and it was felt that an attempt to get them out again might lead to disorder. But the fact is that a large number of men have gone back to work in
  576
  one or two other counties, that meetings have been held and are being held, and addressed by the very man, Mr. Cook, who was banned here, and that no action to prohibit those meetings was taken.
  Moreover, I believe it to be the fact, and I ask for information, that there has been no disorder at all in Staffordshire throughout the mining dispute; and as a further indication that the people are singularly peaceful, yesterday, when this meeting was banned and in a, sense broken up by force, still there was no disorder, according to my information. That is a great certificate to the character of the people of this County. The Lord Chancellor stated that this authority was given to the Chief Constable because the Chief Constable of Staffordshire had represented that meetings were going to be held at which he thought there might be disorder. You would naturally conclude from that that Staffordshire was the only County in which such authority had been given, and the Lord Chancellor, if I heard him aright, did not use any phrase to cover the fact that this authority had been given to all Chief Constables in milling areas. I want to ask if that is so.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not aware of it.
  LORD ARNOLD: I think the noble and learned Viscount will find that he is mistaken on that point, because of what was said elsewhere by representatives of the Government with regard to the matter. That is what I am complaining of—the disparity between what is said here and there.
  THE EAEL OF BIRKENHEAD: What disparity?
  LORD ARNOLD: The noble and learned Viscount says that so far as he knows this authority has only been given to the Chief Constable of Staffordshire.
  THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: The noble and learned Viscount did not say anything of the kind.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord asked me whether I was aware that authority had been given to all Chief Constables in mining areas. I said I was not aware of it.
  LORD ARNOLD: In his opening statement the noble and learned Viscount distinctly said that authority was given to the Chief Constable of Staffordshire, and he subsequently said it was because the Chief Constable of Staffordshire had, in effect, asked for it. I contend from that that it is a most fair inference that it has not been given elsewhere. If it has been given wholesale—that is the point I am making: that this general authority has been given to the Chief Constables of all mining areas, whether they have asked for it or not, and it has been used in Staffordshire, according to the Lord Chancellor, because it was anticipated there might be disorder there, owing to the fact that men have returned to work and meetings are now being held to get them out, whereas precisely the same thing (I am not sure whether to an even greater extent) has happened in other counties, and no attempt has been made to ban meetings, although Mr. Cook has been there—I do submit that we are entitled to a little more information. The Lord Chancellor says he does not doubt for a moment that the Chief Constable did the right thing. Has the Lord Chancellor seen the Report which the Chief Constable wrote to the Home Office? Well, surely it is an extraordinary thing for the Lord Chancellor to say what he has said when he has not read that Report. I think that also requires more explanation.
  On the general question I submit that the Government do not appreciate the seriousness of the position, because this mining dispute, which is of very great magnitude—about a million men have been locked out now for about six months—
  THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Locked out?
  LORD ARNOLD: Yes, this is a lock-out—this mining dispute has been conducted with a peacefulness and an absence of disorder which is, I believe, without parallel in the history of the world in any industrial dispute of similar magnitude. I think that is correct. That, in itself, is all the more remarkable, because the Government throughout—well, not throughout, but certainly after the first two or three weeks—behaved, as I said last time, with partiality towards the owners and unfairness towards the men; which makes it all the more striking that
  578
  the conduct of the men has been so peaceful. The fact is that throughout the whole crisis the Government have made blunder after blunder, miscalculation after miscalculation, and this action against Mr. Cook—because that is what it comes to—which they now support, is only the latest of their series of blunders.
  This Government have throughout the whole of this lock-out shown that they are profoundly ignorant of the psychology of the workers; and the fact that the Lord Chancellor, as it seems to me with quite insufficient evidence, because he has not read the Report, entirely supports what has been done in Staffordshire is a circumstance which again shows that the Government are lacking in knowledge of the psychology of the workers, because they cannot expect, if action of this kind is to be taken, that it will not lead to trouble. Of course it will. As the noble Viscount my Leader pointed out, this is not the way to deal with a situation like this, and my own view is that the whole matter calls for inquiry. At any rate I hope that, before your Lordships adjourn, we shall have more specific information given to us upon the points which have been raised from this Bench.
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I rise in order to put a point which has not yet been put before your Lordships. But before I do so I should like to add my testimony to that of the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, to the fact that there is a discrepancy, and a very serious discrepancy—because I was in another place myself a short time ago—between the statement made by the Home Secretary and that made by the Lord Chancellor. I would humbly ask the noble and learned Viscount that this matter should be cleared up in your Lordships' House to-day before we adjourn.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As the noble Earl talks about a discrepancy I may say that I have a copy of the answer given by the Home Secretary in another place.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I distinctly understood the Home Secretary, in his reply in another place, to say that the power given was a general power to Chief Constables in mining areas.
  THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I have not seen his replies to any supplementary questions. There may have been, but his principal answer, which I have before me, does not say so.
  EARL DE LA WARR: Well, it was supplementary question. We shall have to leave it until we see the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow. I am only sorry that the noble Earl, who appears to be so interested in the matter, did not take the trouble to go to another place and listen.
  THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Why should I?
  EARL DE LA WARR: In order to receive accurate information.
  THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: When the noble Earl is older he will not suggest that a member of your Lordships' House should go to another place to obtain accurate information in order to deal with conjectural observations by the noble Earl.
  EARL DE LA WARR: It is not conjectural. I only suggested that as the noble Earl did not obtain all the information from the ordinary sources—
  THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Nor have you, and you are making the case; you do not know what was said in the supplementary answer.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I have definite information, and that will be borne out by the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow. I can only apologise to the House if, owing to my inexperience, I have made, any reflection upon, or impinged upon the respect due to, your Lordships' House. The point I desired to raise was this, that these Emergency Regulations do give to the Government definite powers for dealing with the situation which exists in the coalfields to-day. And in order to bear out what I say I am going to quote from authorities from which I think your Lordships—certainly the Front Bench opposite—will find it very difficult to escape. My first authority is Mr. Baldwin. Speaking about the position taken up by the mine owners in their refusal to enter into negotiations with the miners in response to a request by the Government, and it having been made perfectly
  580
  clear that the one thing that was holding up negotiations was the refusal of the mine owners to enter into those negotiations, Mr. Baldwin said this:
  "They acted with stupidity, and they acted with a want of courtesy to the Government.. Whether such a conference was likely to lead to anything or not, it was their duty to accept that invitation. But when people say we should have forced them to come, I ask the question again: How can you force people to come to a conference any more than you could force the mine owners to come to the Macmillan Inquiry?"
  The first answer to that is that the Government carried on without the miners at the Macmillan Inquiry.
  But the crucial point is this, that in that statement is implied an inability of the Government to coerce the owners. Is that so? If you read these Regulations you will see that it is not so, that in the Government's own Regulations are contained powers for coercing the mine owners. If you turn to Regulation 14 you find this provision:—
  "The Board of Trade may take possession and may from time to time, as may be deemed expedient, relinquish and resume possession of:—
  (a) All or any buildings and property for the time being used, or intended to be or usually used or which may be deemed requisite for the purposes of the storage, distribution, supply, or disposal of coal.…"
  Later on you find this:
  "Any plant, machinery, vehicles or articles which may be deemed requisite for the purposes of maintaining the supply or distribution of coal."
  I ask how, in face of those powers which the Government are taking to themselves, can they continue in this farce of stating that they have no powers with which to coerce the mine owners to enter into negotiations?
  We have other authorities than our own for stating that the whole of this situation—the mere fact that we are having to meet here to-day, the fact that this lock-out is still being continued—is due simply and solely to this refusal of the mine owners to enter into negotiations and the impotence of the Government to exercise any compelling influence over them. What did Mr. Churchill say?
  "If there has been any prolongation of this dispute through the negotiations, then

  581
  it is entirely the fault of those who did not accept the considered invitation of His. Majesty's Government that has led us into this very lengthy period of uncertainty which is so much to be deplored."
  You may have noticed that this is still verbally the opinion of His Majesty's Government because I think it was only in Friday's newspapers that we read a speech by the Minister of Education—I regret that I do not have it with me—who used almost those self-same words. The position is this. The Government have in their hands, through these Regulations, a two-edged sword. How are they going to use that sword? At the present moment they are content to tell us that the responsibility for the continuation of this stoppage lies with the mine owners, but they are only prepared to use this sword against the miners in order to stop their leaders going and taking consultation with the men in the districts. I want to appeal to the Government—I know it is not much use—and to ask whether they do not think it is time to take some steps in the matter and to utilise those powers which they do possess against the body that is responsible for the trouble. I would close by asking them one definite question and it is this, which sums up what I say. Why, when their spokesmen blame the owners for not entering into negotiations to end this dispute, do they permit the Emergency Regulations which can be used against either side to be used only against the miners and not against the mine owners?
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I think that we ought to uphold the Government in the action they have taken. If the Government cannot in their discretion enforce order, who can? I call to mind an incident fourteen years ago when a strike took place in Australia and I myself and five other men went down to the wharf armed with guns and shot and fired at the strikers and pickets. We burst the strike in twenty-four hours and the Chief Justice afterwards gave a verdict that as we were not members of an association or union we were justified in firing at the pickets' legs when they had interfered with the workers. Had we not taken the action we did on that occasion there might have been serious disturbances, but as it was Mr. Hughes, who was then Prime Minister of Australia as well as head of
  582
  the Wharfers' Union, called off the strike and that was the end of it. That was a result of half a dozen men taking the law into their own hands. What I would point out is this, that if we are going to criticise the Government for acting as they have done we cannot be sure when other determined men may do the same as we did.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I cannot help thinking that the noble Lords who have addressed the House to-day on this subject occupy an extraordinarily pathetic position. This industrial dispute has now lasted for a very long time. Two of the noble Lords spoke of it as a lock-out.
  several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
  THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Apparently they are still satisfied with their own misdescription of what has happened. It is a somewhat astonishing circumstance that the hero for whom they apologise to-day (the actual circumstances being on the hypothesis lock-out) should have been interfered with by an insolent Government because the men are locking themselves in and he intends to prevent it if he can. We are face to face with this fact, that a quarter of the million men who are engaged in this trade, although every species of intimidation has been applied to them have gone back, being, unlike noble Lords opposite, wearied by Mr. Cook; and we are still told that it is a lock-out! Are the men who have gone back protesting against a lock-out or are they attempting to safeguard their rights to sell their labour when and how they choose the moment they have wearied of imbecile counsels?
  When I consider the case of noble Lords I am astounded by the bankruptcy of their argumentative position. And, indeed, a moment's reflection suggests a strange paradox. The noble Lords who have addressed this House to-day are more extreme than any of the more accredited leaders of the trade unions. We find Mr. Havelock Wilson, who possesses trade union credentials of forty years' standing—not very obviously to be claimed by the thirty years' corresponding period of high Toryism of Lord Parmoor—explaining in clear language what the legal responsibility would be of the Mercantile Marine if they responded to the frenzied appeals

  583
  made by Mr. Cook, the protégé of noble Lords opposite, to impose an embargo upon foreign coal. Nor is the matter ended there. Then we come to the Trades Union Congress, an assembly of really serious Labour people to which no noble Lord opposite so far as I know could win admittance by any means known to me. That is the only authentic place in which Labour opinion can be stated, and no noble Lord sitting opposite can, by any device known to me, obtain admittance there. Therefore, I hope I shall not offend them when I say that if I want to look anywhere for an authoritative statement of trade union opinion I shall not, without any disrespect, go to noble Lords opposite. If I wish to acquire an exact and contemporary evaluation of the merits and demerits of Mr. Cook I shall not go to noble Lords opposite, who are galloping miles behind the band and galloping very slowly. I shall, on the contrary, go to the authoritative mouthpiece of the trade union movement, the Trade Union Congress.
  What do we find there? I We find Mr. Thomas, who really is a Labour man and who, unlike noble Lords opposite, drove engines when he was young and did manual things, if I may use a homely expression. He has grown up in the movement. What does he say of Mr. Cook and of this movement? He makes it absolutely plain that the folly and stupidity of Mr. Cook, to whom, apparently, a hearing has been denied in circumstances which I will presently examine somewhat more closely, has ruined not only his own trade union but has also very nearly plunged the whole powerful corporation of railway trade unions into ruin. He has cost the country, with his insensate campaign, a sum of very nearly £300,000,000. He has destroyed the prospect, a very real one six months ago, of a restoration of prosperity in our trade; and he has never even pretended that he did this out of any particular regard for the coal trade. The protégé of noble Lords opposite has never even condescended to deceive the nation.
  EARL DE LA WARR: Might I ask the noble and learned Earl if he disagrees with Mr. Churchill when he stated that the prolongation of the dispute since the refusal of the mine owners to negotiate is due to the mine owners and not to Mr. Cook?—a most important point.
  THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Very much is to be excused the noble Earl's inexperience—
  EARL DE LA WARR: The noble Earl will answer me?
  THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: If the noble Earl will allow me; but surely I may make a preliminary gesture of indulgence. When the noble Earl is older he will realise perfectly plainly that no Minister ever makes himself responsible even for everything his colleague actually states, and still less makes himself responsible for the noble Earl's recollection of what his colleague actually states.
  EARL DE LA WARR: It is a quotation from the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Does not the noble Earl perceive that when you make a quotation from the OFFICIAL REPORT you have to examine the whole context of a very complicated question, finding at each stage that things have altered. If I may appease the excitement of the noble Earl, but little suited to the atmosphere of this House, I will tell him that there have been many moments in this controversy when, if Mr. Herbert Smith and Mr. Cook had not existed, I should have had to admit plainly that I thought the mine owners were the stupidest people in the world. But the clients of the noble Earl have completely exculpated them from that charge, though they were otherwise exposed to it. I really must ask the noble Earl to restrain himself; I have answered his question.
  EARL DE LA WARR: No, the noble Earl has not touched it.
  THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: If he will put a plain question to me I will answer it.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I have been accused of taking something out of the context. I have given a very full quotation. I am not going to trouble your Lordships by reading the whole speech of Mr. Churchill; it is reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT of September 27.
  THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Very likely, but the noble Earl will appreciate the point I am making. When I am developing a general argument, to reply to

  585
  me that on a certain date a colleague of mine made certain observations is not an answer at all if my argument has merit. If my argument does not possess merit, then the quotation is unnecessary. Let me recommend the noble Earl to apply his mind, which I see in these matters is vivid and interested, to the arguments that I myself, and not any colleague of mine, am actually developing. That argument is that Mr. Cook has never since this controversy began applied himself to it at any stage with any desire to procure a settlement; that, on the contrary, his whole mind has been not to procure a settlement but to destroy, if he could, this industry with the object of advertising, in the first place, and applying, in the second place, the doctrine of nationalisation in the coalfields.
  I do not suppose that the noble Earl or his friends have ever found leisure to read "The Miner's Next Step." Inasmuch as they are defending Mr. Cook to-day, I would ask this question with a good deal of plainness: Is there any noble Lord sitting on that Bench who accepts the arguments on principle which are contained in Mr. Cook's pamphlet "The Miner's Next Step"? Is there one? Even the noble Viscount who has been the great champion of many lost causes will not, I think, venture to defend this. We find ourselves, therefore, in this somewhat paradoxical situation in this House—that whereas four champions have raised their lances in the lists on behalf of Mr. Cook, there is not one who dares tell your Lordships' House and this country that he agrees with the fundamental principles on which the whole Cook campaign has depended, and the acceptance of which by Mr. Cook and Mr. Cook's dupes has alone stultified and destroyed the efforts that have been made by the Government.
  Mr. Cook has never concealed his true purpose. I do not know whether he resembles noble Lords in this respect, but he said: "I am the devout, the humble disciple of Lenin." I do not know whether the noble Viscount, who is, we know, a great philosopher, is a disciple of Lenin—humble I hope he would not be even in that capacity. Perhaps Lord Parmoor, who qualified for many decades in the strictest schools of Conservative orthodoxy is now a disciple of Lenin. I do not know. I am anxious
  586
  to receive a clear view upon these matters because the measure of their indignation at the refusal to give Mr. Cook the opportunities for his two recent speeches must obviously be greater or less according as they share the fundamental enthusiasms upon which Mr. Cook has been nurtured. I am led to suppose by the silence upon that Bench that there is none of them who is prepared to proclaim himself really a disciple of Lenin. That being so they start by being obviously entitled to put themselves forward in a position of considerable altruism because, not agreeing with the logical and intelligent principles which have led Mr. Cook to his present attitude, they are nevertheless rallying to his support. I could forgive them for supporting him if they, like Mr. Cook, admired Lenin. I cannot forgive them for supporting him when they do not even share the intelligent foundation upon which Mr. Cook's view logically depends.
  Now, what is the immediate quarrel? We are told that two speeches of Mr. Cook have been interfered with by the Home Secretary. I do not know in what oratorical loss the nation may have been involved by this suppression, but considering that Mr. Cook has made 298 speeches—so. I am informed—in the last five months, one may perhaps be forgiven the conjecture that no particular novelty has been lost to the oratorical anthology of the nation. But the case is made by way of complaint that it is not made clear whether there was a general or a particular prohibition. No more flimsy criticism was ever made, but before I attempt a particular reply to that question, let me ask one on my own part. What is the suggestion made by noble Lords? There is a Regulation—quoted either by the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, or the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, I forget which—to the effect that where the Home Secretary apprehends that the result of a meeting may be to produce disorder there is power to prevent it. Now, it is apparently made a matter of complaint that instead of proclaiming a meeting from Whitehall as a matter of central authority the Home Secretary has given an authority—and to me it would have seemed singularly unimportant whether it was particular or whether it was general—to the Chief Constables in certain districts, acting

  587
  as his agents, where they are satisfied that the result of a given meeting would be to produce disorder, to prevent such a meeting being held.
  I have no doubt, though the statement was not made in the answer of the Home Secretary—I have not read the supplementary, having been hitherto unaware of the duty of a member of this House to be constantly in attendance in the Gallery of the other House—that he argued from the assumption that the authority given by the Home Secretary was a general authority to Chief Constables everywhere, in each district, where they were satisfied that the holding of a particular meeting in that district would be to cause disorder, to prevent such a meeting being held. What other system could conceivably be adopted? Insanity would lie along any other road, and what would have been the criticism of us made by noble Lords in this House and made in another place supposing the Home Secretary acting from Whitehall had proclaimed a meeting here or a meeting there? The only criticism we should have been assailed with then would have been: Did you consult the Chief Constable? Did you accept his advice? If not, why not?
  We have adopted the only sane and the only reasonable course. We have said there are certain men in each district who have not by accident attained to the position of Chief Constable. If the noble Lord had reflected a little more closely and deliberately on this matter he would know that to be Chief Constable of a great district means slow and gradual promotion, which is not conceivable except by merit, in one of the great Services. Does Lord Thomson challenge that? I see he shakes his head.
  LORD THOMSON: I do not think a Chief Constable is appointed after slow and gradual promotion. I know several who have been put in their positions without any previous experience of that sort of work.
  THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Many people have been projected into great positions without much experience.
  LORD THOMSON: That is irrelevant. You have made a definite statement about Chief Constables and I contradict it flatly. It is no good bringing in an irrelevant gibe about myself.
  LORD JESSEL: May I point out that the noble Earl did not say anything about police service? He said by promotion. It may be any other service, but they have got there by great merit.
  THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I was most careful to use the expression service to the State and I should be sorry to suppose that men who get to these high and responsible positions should be denied access to them which is furnished by long and distinguished service in the Army or Navy. But I will take note of the fact, as doubtless others will, that Lord Thomson is of opinion that Chief Constables are often promoted without any reasonable presumption founded upon their previous career that they are men of competence and capacity.
  LORD THOMSON: I never said anything of the kind. It is most unjust, and utterly unsuitable to this House where one always gets fair treatment.
  THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: The noble Lord is a great authority on that.
  LORD THOMSON: I have been here two years.
  THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: That is a long time in the history of this House! My proposition is that if you take Chief Constables all over the country they are men who have been promoted as a result of great competence exhibited in one or other of those careers which lead to appointments to that position. Does the noble Lord say "No" to that? He does not. The noble Lord would have saved a great deal of trouble if he had made no observation.
  LORD THOMSON: I did not make an observation until you referred to me.
  THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: The noble Lord disputed the proposition which was the necessary foundation of the argument.
  LORD PARMOOR: May I say, having been for forty years a member of Standing Joint Committees and having had to do with these appointments, that the noble Earl is absolutely incorrect in what he states.
  THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Really confusion increases. Does the noble Lord,

  589
  having for forty years appointed Chief Constables, mean that they are appointed on adequate grounds or inadequate grounds?
  LORD PARMOOR: You said promotion in the police force. It is not so necessarily. Of course the appointment is on competent grounds. That is another matter.
  THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: The noble Lord may be of opinion that he is assisting his colleague, but I assure him he is flattering himself though the task would be a humble one. We are now agreed. Lord Thomson, who has been the protagonist in this, agrees that if you take the Chief Constables of the country as a whole, they are men of ripe experience and integrity, who have been promoted because of great merit in one branch or other of the Public Service, and that is all that I have said. What is the position of the Home Secretary in relation to these advisers? We knew perfectly well that Mr. Cook was to attempt a great intensive campaign. Whether it was sympathised with by noble Lords opposite we have never been afforded means of knowing, because not one of them has had the courage to say whether he agreed or disagreed with the General Strike. This House has never known, has never had guidance from the Front Bench of the Official Opposition, whether they agreed or disagreed with the General Strike. They have been taught the truth by the true trade union leaders elsewhere, but they have never attempted to say it. Now we are criticised by them because the Home Secretary has not asserted a centralised claim from Whitehall to determine this matter but has said that the men on the spot shall be given authority, as agents of the Home Secretary, and if they, knowing all the facts, all the local dangers, all the local history of previous strikes, advise him that in a particular district to hold a certain meeting would be likely to lead to a breach of public order, he will support them.
  Is that wrong? What is the suggestion? Would it be right for the Home Secretary to say: "I will not be guided by the advice of Chief Constables: I will myself give a decision"? Take the Chief Constable in the case of Staffordshire. He was appointed Chief Constable, I
  590
  believe, as long ago as the year 1888. Does any one suggest that the Home Secretary could possibly arm himself with a more efficient and experienced adviser? Does any one suggest that the Chief Constable had in this matter any axe to grind, or that he has not complete knowledge of Staffordshire and the conditions there? I say plainly that in my judgment the Home Secretary behaved with the greatest possible discretion when he said that he would support the Chief Constables in the country if in a particular case they took the view, and so advised him, that a meeting was likely to result in disorder, and I think that noble Lords have been very ill-advised to choose this question, at a moment like this, as a means of attempting to invade the authority of the Home Secretary.
  I would add this in conclusion. More than one of the noble Lords who have spoken from the Bench opposite have spoken in disparagement of the owners. I am not one of those who take the view that the owners have been right in all that they have said and all that they have done, or in all that they have abstained from saying and doing, in this matter. But I will say this. In the course of this struggle, protracted now for so many months with consequences so ruinous to the commerce and industry of this country, and even at a moment when it is generally recognised and plainly said by those who, unlike noble Lords opposite, are the accredited leaders of the trades union movement that it has been the obstinacy of the men's leaders which over and over again has defeated the reiterated efforts of the Government, it is an astonishing circumstance that in the whole of the five months not one word of censure has fallen from those Benches of the attitude either of Mr. Cook or of Mr. Smith.
  LORD THOMSON: My Lords, it had not been my intention to intervene in this debate. This is not a question with which I am really conversant, and I sometimes doubt when I hear people discussing coal whether they are very much more conversant with the details of the industry than I am, but there are one or two points that have been raised to-day to which I should like to draw attention. I have never found in this House during my limited experience of it that one could put a straight question

  591
  without getting a more or less straight answer. To-day a very definite question has been put by my noble friend Lord De La Warr and, in the long oration to which we have just listened from the noble and learned Earl, so far from answering that question he has not even approached it. He began by telling us that we on this Front Bench were pathetic. Personally I do not feel pathetic. On the other hand, he told us that we were galloping miles behind the band. I admit candidly that, though an old soldier, I know a great deal less about galloping than does the noble and learned Earl. He seems to me to have reached considerable eminence by galloping.
  My point is this: Why cannot this question be answered? I agree with every word that fell from my noble friend Lord Parmoor and from my noble leader, Lord Haldane, on the subject of Chief Constables. I yield to no one in admiration for these people. Old brother officers of mine are Chief Constables at this moment. But I submit to your Lordships that a man who has been trained in the Army or the Navy is not always competent to deal with these delicate industrial questions. I myself, when I was a soldier, have been out on duty in regard to strikes. I was not the commanding officer at the time, but I have been staff officer to a man who was entrusted with the job of controlling a strike, and there is no department of work in the Army that officers are more afraid of than tackling industrial disputes. They know their ignorance. They have studied the Army Act, but that Act does not take you very far in regard to an industrial dispute. The bravest officer of the Army or Navy is afraid when he is asked to tackle these questions. He knows his limitations. It is a very excellent thing that some people should know their limitations. The last thing that I wanted to do was to sneer at Chief Constables. I merely shook my head when the noble and learned Earl made a remark about them because I felt that these men are not always capable of dealing with the situations with which they were apparently entrusted.
  With all respect to the noble and learned Viscount upon the Woolsack, his description of that which took place is really different from that which has just
  592
  been given in answer to a supplementary Question in the other House, and at this moment I really do not know what were the orders given to these Chief Constables. If orders of the kind conveyed to my mind in the House of Commons were given to Chief Constables, I am sure that most old soldiers and old sailors would be very chary about putting them into effect. A definite question has been put, and that is my only justification for rising. The noble and learned Earl quoted extracts from Mr. Cook's speeches and referred vaguely to a document written by Mr. Cook which I have never read, and I have very grave doubts whether my noble Leader has read it either. The whole point is that we should give the context, as the noble and learned Earl pointed out in regard to a speech of the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite definite in his description of the attitude of the miners. He said:—
  "They have taken a more reasonable position. It may not be adequate to the needs of the situation, but it has certainly been a position calculated to put them in a better relation with public opinion than anything they have done before."
  That is a very apt statement that can be made and quoted without reference to the context. That is the "chit" given to the miners. I turn to what he said about the owners. The owners are described as rude, discourteous and stupid. And yet nothing is done to control these men.
  I do not want to take up your Lordships' time, but we are passing certain Regulations at this moment. We have assembled to do this, and there is a clause in these Regulations which we could put into effect. Regulation I states that it shall be lawful for the Government—
  "to take possession of any land, building, or works …. and any property (including plant, machinery, equipment, and stores) used or intended to be used "
  in connection with the production, manufacture, treatment, consumption, transport, shipment or use of any coal.
  THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: What do you suggest?
  LORD THOMSON: That you apply the Emergency Regulations.
  THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: The noble Lord will forgive me if I interrupt. The noble Lord has read out a number of words which I think I have understood but which would not be easily understood by a layman, and I would be indebted to him if he would state shortly what it is that he proposes that the Government should do, or threaten to do.
  LORD THOMSON: The Government can apply these Emergency Regulations, which we are here met to pass.
  THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: But how?
  LORD THOMSON: These Emergency Regulations give power to the Government. The Board of Trade may take and as may be deemed expedient relinquish and resume possession of buildings and property used for the supply or disposal of coal.
  THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Will the noble Lord state what we are to do if we do that?
  LORD THOMSON: If the noble and learned Earl does not know what the Government ought to do when those are the Regulations which we come here to pass at the instigation of his own Government, surely it is quite unnecessary for me to explain to him the meaning of the Regulations which we have come to pass.
  THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: The noble Lord, if he will forgive me for saying so, adopts such a ridiculous attitude. We are taking power to pass all these Regulations. It is no good reading seven or eight lines which cover different operations. He must tell us what we ought to do or ought to threaten to do.
  LORD THOMSON: Does the noble and learned Earl expect the Opposition to come and tell the Government what they ought to do? My point is that the Government come to this House to pass certain Regulations. In those Regulations is this clause, and it gives the Government power to take over the mines, and the noble and learned Earl has been asked why he does not apply those Regulations. He makes a long speech quoting Mr. Cook. I am sorry to have taken up the time of the House
  594
  doing what I feel is useless—namely, asking for an answer to the question, which I submit is in the interest of the country, while this ruinous waste is going on. I think that the question put by Lord De La Warr should be answered in as clear and emphatic a manner as possible. The Question is: Why, when their spokesmen have blamed the owners for not entering into negotiations, do the Government permit the Emergency Regulations, which can be used against either miners or owners, to be used only against the miners?
  THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, I venture to suggest to noble Lords opposite that perhaps in the course of the debate we have wandered rather far from the actual point before your Lordship's House. As regards the question which evidently is very dear to the heart of Earl De La Warr, that some words in Regulation I could be used to coerce mine owners, I doubt whether any lawyer on this Bench, or in any part of the House, would suggest that those words had any reference whatever to means of coercing either mine owners or anybody else. The purpose of those words, whatever it may have been, and I do not propose nor do I desire to explain them, has nothing whatever to do with coercing either. They belong to a wholly separate class of argument, and I am perfectly certain, in spite of persuasion which I see being exercised upon one of the noble Earl's learned friends near him, no one will get up and suggest that the powers of taking buildings in that clause were ever intended as an instrument for coercing any party to the dispute.
  I do not know who suggested to the noble Earl this particular argument, but I venture to tell him that it is not one really relevant to the issue before the House, or any which can come before the House in connection with this dispute. The point that we have got to decide is quite a simple one. The Home Secretary has given instructions to the Chief Constable of Staffordshire that if he is of opinion, having regard to all the local circumstances, that disorder would follow upon a meeting being held, that meeting may be prohibited. What else could the Home Secretary do? What is the first thing that any man of sense would do who was conducting an inquiry into the

  595
  conditions? Obviously decision has to be taken. Obviously the people who have to advise the authorities in London must be the persons who are acquainted with local circumstances. We are not supporting any general proposition that no meeting where Mr. Cook is to speak, or where his views are to be advanced, shall be permitted. We do not hold that view, but we hold that where the circumstances are such that, in the opinion
  596
  of those best qualified to judge, a meeting held in the existing circumstances of this great dispute would lead to disorder, that meeting should be prohibited. That is our first duty as a Government, and we carried that out with caution and consideration, and I venture to say that the House should endorse our action.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before six o'clock.