INDEPENDENT LABOUR

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 132, 5 June 1923, Page 7

INDEPENDENT LABOUR

BAN ON DINING WITH ENEMY DIVISION REGARDING PROHIBITION DISCIPLINE IN PARLIAMENT. (MOM OCB OWN CORRE6PONDBKI.) LONDON, 13th April. By a vote of 93 to 90, the Independent Labour Conference has carried a iesolution that Labour members of Parliament shall not accept.the hospitality of political opponents at public dinners and society functions. The indention was to shelve the resolution, as there was not time to deal with everything on the agenda paper. Mr. Wheatley, M.P. (Shettleston) inquired as to what had happened to his resolution, however, and the chairman (Mr. B. C. Wallhead, M.P.) informed him that the committee charged with the order of business did not regard the motion as one dealing with a matter of urgency. He suggested that Mr. Wheatley should have it out with that committee. .The conference demanded that the resolution be read, and the chairman complied. It read: f"This conference recommends that the-Labour members of Parliament are not to accept the hospitality of'l-political opponents at public' dinners and society functions, except where it may be necessary for the Leader of the Labour Party to. meet the King on State business." The chairman added that the' proceedings had to end in fourteen minutes, so'that he could not allow the matter to be discussed. The resolution [ might be placed before the meeting without discussion. After the resolution had been formally moved a delegate rose and said: "The last twenty words are out of order, as the King is not a political opponent." (Laughter and cheers.) The Chairman: "I think there is something in that point of order. (Laughl ter.) Th 9 King is apart from politics, and cannot be regarded as an opponent. It is exceedingly mixed up. In my opimon we ought not. to pass it." (Hear, hear, and cries of "Why not?"). Mr. Wheatley: "I will be satisfied if the resolution ends at the word 'functions.' " A delegate asked if they could extend the prohibition to all functions other than Parliamentary. He thought that would have .to follow. The Chairman: "I think you are right."' v ■ v A delegate: "Can we extend it to Town Council functions " (Laughter! Mi. Kirk wood: "If you were on the floor of the House of Commons you would see the need for this." The resolution was put to the meeting and carried by 93 votes against 90. The chairman, when he could be heard above the noise, said: "I really'thought the revolution was knocking at the door." (Laughter.) _ = . PROHIBITION AND STATE CONTROL. Another question discussed "at the conference was that of Prohibition. A.woman delegate from Liverpool moved a resolution in support of the public ownership and control of the liquor traffic. An amendment moved by Peterhead,' Siiawlands, and Glasgow City branches declared antagonism- to the drink traffic as "an insidious factox' in social degradation," and affirmed belief in total Pro. hbition

The amendment was lost by 263 against 152 votes, and the resolution was carried by a large majority. A considerable time was devoted to considering the question of the machinery of government.. The resolution introducing this question was -in the name of the Bradford branch, and asked that, "having regard to the imminence of a Labour Government," they should Beok to bring the Parliamentary machine more into line with the democratic forms for which the Independent Labour Party stood. There was an urgent need, the j resolution added, for making secret diplomacy impossible, and also for providing that members who were not Ministers should have actual contact' with the work of the State Departments on which they were expected to vote. Another, consideration was the importance of providing a scheme which allowed a member of Parliament "to make full use of his administrative as well as dialetical abilities." NEED FOR DISCIPLINE. This led to a homily ori discipline by Mr. G. Trevelyan, M.P. The resolution, he contended, went too far. There must |. be some system of effective co-operation. When they got a Labour Government'it j would have to do great things, and it could not do great things by means of j private menders' Bills and private members' efforts. Somehow or other they must get discipline. How were they to get that discipline? Take the liquor question. The Labour P*rty was divided on that question. When they got power and brought in legislation- they must make sure that they had got their party on their side. If they, were a divided party on a question they must fight oat their differences before the measures were brought beforo Parliament. WJien they' had decided on their main policy with regard to finance or the situation on the Ruhr it would not do to have small groups of men breaking away to start a new policy and. to join th« Opposition, which would.be ready to do anything to defeat the Labonr Government. , They must have discipline which would not break up the Government. "Do not," Mr. Trevelyan said, "substitute Parliamentary anarchy for Government tyranny."

Another resolution which was approved, asserted that the supreme object of the Labour Party should be the supersession- of Capitalism by the Socialist Commonwealth.' The conference, by other resolutions, urged the Labour Party in _ Parliament to protest against the decision of the Ambassadors' Conference by which Vilna and East Galicia were handed over to Poland ; condemned the Government in regard to the Irish deportations; protested against, capital punishment; supported the Socialist Sunday School movement; affirmed its belief in the public ownership and control of the liquor traffic; and asked that the Covenant of the League of Nations should be separated from the Peace of Versailles.