NOISY SCENES IN COMMONS

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24801, 15 February 1946, Page 5

NOISY SCENES IN COMMONS

PASSAGE OF TRADE DISPUTES BILL BEVIN RECALLS 1926 GENERAL STRIKE (N.Z. Press Association—Copyright) (Rec. 10 p.m.) LONDON, Feb. 14. Labour members of the House of Commons sang “The Red Flag” in the House of Commons division lobby last night when the Trade Disputes Bill, which repeals the 1927 Conservative Government’s Trade Disputes Act, passed the second reading by 369 votes to 194. The division followed stormy scenes, in which Mr Bevin roused the Opposition to roars of protest and Government supporters to ecstatic cheers with his version of the events leading to the 1926 General Strike, which, he said, he had waited 20 years to disclose. Mr Bevin declared that the return to the gold standard when Mr Churchill was Chancellor of the Exchequer had upset trade union agreements and caused widespread strikes and unemployment. ,He blamed the Conservative Party, Mr Churchill, and “the City” for the industrial trouble which culminated in the General

This produced an uproar in which even Mr Bevin’s powerful voice was sometimes drowned. He maintained that the General Strike was not a strike against the State and declared that the 1927 act put him under an unjustified stigma. Hard hitting by both sides marked yesterday’s debate on the bill. The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross). moving the second reading, said it was completely false to say the bill was intended to legalise a general strike and compel trade unionists to contribute to the Labour Party’s funds against their will. The bill, he said, legalised nothing that was illegal in 1927. He added that a revolutionary strike aimed at overthrowing the Government by force was and always would be illegal. He described th? Conservatives’ campaign against the bill as characterised by political misrepresentation and chicanery. Mr R. A. Eden said there could be no public advantage in repealing a Statute which firmly stated that a general strike was illegal, and thus restoring the old state of uncertainty in the matter. The bill in no way assisted, and if anything was calculated to hinder, the great tasks confronting the country it was pure party politics for pure party ends, and unworthy of the men sponsoring it. “The Times’’ in a leading article says: “In the midst of a week marked by grave reports of world-wide distress and discontent, the deliberate renewal of an old party battle could be scarcely more misguided. The depth of feeling engendered by the memory of a 20 years’ old defeat wad vividly displayed in Mr Bevin’s speech, which he delivered in spite of heavy commitments elsewhere.”