THE FINAL DAY

Gisborne Times, Volume LXV, Issue 10391, 7 May 1927, Page 5

THE FINAL DAY

OF TRADE UNION BILL DEBATE

MR SNOAVDBN IN FIGHTING FORM

> HOW 4VOULD GOVERNMENT DEAL WITH 5,000,000 STRIKERS?

(United Press A3sn. —Copyright.) LONDON, May 5. All the • galleries were crowded for the final’day of the Trade Union Bill debate. Long queues in the lobbies vainly tried to obtain tickets. Mr Snowden (Lab.) said that ordinarily he was not disposed to provocative language and invective, but he confessed he felt restraint most difficult in dealing with the present Bill. Sir Douglas Hogg had shown he was either ignorant of the provisions or the clauses hadl been deliberately ambiguously drafted in order that magistrates might interpret them in accordance with their own prejudices. Mr Baldwin told them last year’s events and the prevention of general strikes were the mandate for the Bill, but even a legal luminary like Sir John Simon was not sure whether it- made all sympathetic strikes illegal. Those with practical experience' did not doubt it did. “The Bill makes it a criminal offence to coerce the Government” said Mr Snowden. “AVhat. do Governments exist for except to be coerced? It is the Opposition’s duty to coerce s.nl harass the Government. I can imagine only two circumstances in which a general strike would succeed. First, if the Government entered war obviously against the wishes of an overwhelming majority of the peopleq secondly, where a Government sought, without a mandate, to pass a measure against the w islies of the great majority of the people. Do you think the declaration that a general strike is illegal is going to prevent one? Of course' not. All your p.uns and penalties will not have llnsdghtest effect. How are you going to tea l with five million strikers—bring them all to law courts?” A Conservative interjec.or: “flake tho leaders first.” ‘ BILL 4V.LL COST COUNTRY HOKE THAN GENERAL SIT:IKK'’ Alj- Snowden: Tho Bill says nothing about dealing wna the leaders. The Pill will not present g'-rural strikes, but 'will prolong them if they occur. There cannot be imagined anything more likely to promote a general strike than tlie Bill, as in his famous declaration last year Sir John Simon told them a general strike is at present illegal. Sir Douglas Hogg quoted Lord Astbury’s judgment to the same effect. Why in the name of common sense arouse such bitterness and turn the country into a cauldron of political controversy, merely in order to declare the existing state of law. fl'he only reason for the Bill is that the diehard Conservatives have forced it on the Government. Sir Richard Hogg told us the inclusion of employers would be useless and inequitable. I agree. No language in any act can place workers and employers on an equal footing. Tlie employers have a thousand means of coercion at their disposal which legislation does not affect. They can close down the works, go on short time, and dismiss men without reason. Tlie industrial history of Britain has furnished no more glaring instance of organised coercion of a Government than the Aline Owners’ Association practised last year. AYould to Grid the Government, instead of throwing this apple of discord, had provided machinery to settle disputes by reason, instead of force. But the Bill 'will be forced tlu'ougli. It will cost the country more than a general strike.” Mr Wheatley said: “In response to Air -Baldwin’s appeal for the creation of an atmosphere in which we might secure industrial peace by negotiation, the Laborites responded to the extent of facing humiliation. Their reward! is a bill not designed to secure .peace by negotiations but by police,! law courts, and prisons. It is one of the worst actions of British statesmen. “ENLARGING 4YORKERS’ LIBERTY” Commander Hilton Young welcomed the Bill as clarifying the law as to general strikes and enlarging the workers’ liberty.

Air Thomas said the Bill destroyed all hopes of industrial peace. Millions of decent trade unionists resented it, chiefly because they believed it was a mean, miserable attempt by the Government to injure their opponents, and by a minority Government elected by a, fraudulent letter. “NO REAL DEMAND FOR BILL”

Air Lloyd George challenged the wisdom of introducing such a provocative Bill at the present time. Doubtless the Trade Union law needed amendment and clarification, but the Bill only muddled the old obscurities and created a new one. Almost every strike in any large industry could he held under the Bill as an attempt at pressure on the Government. It was the most unwise step possible to introduce it when we were struggling hard to recover our lost trade, which was only possible by means of whole-hearted co-opera-tion between the employers and: workmen. The Bill went far beyond Sir Douglas Hogg’s introductory proposition and used imperfections of the trade union law in order to create injustice. The Bill did not deal with the real needs. There was no real demand for it, even from the employers. They might impound trade union or political funds, but it-would not make the workers work more efficiently. Tlie latter depended on goodwill. Some of the largest cap tains of industry were opposed to the Bill root and branch as prejudicial to industrial peace, yet the Government forgetting our need for trade recovery, introduced a Bill purely for the recovery of Toryism.

CLOSURE CARRIED. (Received May 6, 7.30 pan.) » . LONDON, May 5. Speaking on the Trade' Union Bill, Mr Thomas said: “If you believe the Bill will prevent men striking you are deceiving yourselves. The country will not thank you for it: • 1 only wish you had the courage to test it. You have abused your majority, and struck a blow at industrial peace. Wo will carry the fight into the country and win. Mr Inslcip CO.), in replying to the debate, was bombarded with interjections when he reiterated that the Bill would improve the workers’ conditions. Replying to Mr Snowden’’S reference to the impossibility of imprisoning five million strikers, he said: ‘‘Does not Mr Snowden . know the law is not administered by the police,' but by the law-abiding- character of the race.’’ He added that the fundamental principle of the Bill was whether the interests of trade unionists; or of the whole-country, should prevail. If there were amiguities in wording these could be corrected in committee* . . Sir Douglas Hogg moved the closure, which was carried by 388 votes to 168.. AMENDMENTS REJECTED. Mr dyne’s amendments, and the motion for the rejection of the Bill, were defeated bv 386 votes to 171, after which the second reading was agreed to. ; Conservatives and Laborites voted strictly on party lines. The. Liberals were split, seven voting with the Conservatives, and nineteen with Labor. Sir John Simon abstained from voting. *- •LABOR’S OBSTRUCTION TACTICS'. Shoals of amendments in committee stage were lodged immediately,.

Liberals and Laborites being .responsible for nearly 250. The latter w H move to omit each clause m turn, and alternatively postpone the dates on which the proposals become ope--1 * Sixteen Unionists have given notice of amendments to inchide locLouts as well as strikes in the Bill. —A. and N.E.C.A. and Sun. LABORITEs"wANT MORE TIME FOR DISCUSSION PRIME; MINSTER REMAINS FIRM LONDON, May 5. Mr J. R. Clynes, asked Mr Baldwin to allot move tune tc the Trade Union Bill’s second reading. Five hundred members are in constant attendance, but only 34 have spoken, including 15, Laborites. , , Mr Baldwin replied that he had tried to meet the Laborites wishes bv the allocation of four days to the second 'reading.'Whilst there uasjevidence that many members'■ wished, to speak, there was no evidence that an equal number desired to listen. Mr Clynes further requested an extension of the committee stage, but Mr Baldwin pointed out that trie Government postponed the second reading till after the Easter lioli‘days, -at Mr MacDonald’s request. Members bad had a month in which to prepare apiendnionts.—and A.P.A. and Sun. '■