LIVELY SCENES

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLVII, Issue 131, 3 May 1927, Page 8

LIVELY SCENES

SECOND EDITION

TRADES UNION BILL. PROVISIONS EXPLAINED. MAKING GENERAL STRIKE ILLEGAL. (By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) Received May 3, 10.55 a.m. LONDON, May 2. Sir D. Hogg, before a full house of House of Commons and crowded peers’ and strangers’ galleries, moved the second reading of the Trade Union Bill. Ho said the main principles were as follow: (1) A general strike was illegal and nobody should be penalised for refusal to participate therein. (2) Intimidations to make a man leave work were illegal. (3) Nobody should bo compelled to subscribe to the funds of any political party unless he so desired. (4) Civil servants must give full allegiance to the State. Sir D. Hogg asked: “Is anyone prepared to assert that any of these propostions is wrong?” Mr Jack Jones: “Yes.” Amid Labour interruptions Mr Jones remained standing. The Speaker interjected: “I may as well tell you that unless you are willing to listen to the debate you will not be present to participate in it.” Mr Jack Jones: “I do not care; you can chuck me out now if you like,” Amid frequent interruptions, Sir D. Hogg went on to deal with tile illegality of last year’s general strike and Mr Justice Astbury’s decision. Mr J. H. Thomas: “Is it not a fact that Mr Justice Astbury never had the question of a general strike before him?” Sir D. Hogg: “I think you aro mistaken.” Mr Thorne: “Stick to tho truth; you aro telling lies all through.” The Speaker: “if you cannot control yourself you must not remain in the House.” Mr Thorne: “Then let him keep to the truth.” Sir D. Hogg contended that a largo section of the Labourites still regarded the general strike as a weapon and intended to use it in the future like the Edison bell record. It was the Government’s duty to clear up beyond the possibility of doubt that the general strike was illegal. Sympathetic strikes remained legal if directed against employers and not against the State and the community. The only reason that general lock-outs were not included in the clause dealing with general strikes was that the former was never likely to happen. If it did, the Government had the power under the emergency acts to take over the works. Though a general strike was hard to define, lie knew one when lie saw it. The Labour interruptions increased and the Speaker threatened several members with expulsion. Sir D. Hogg said it was asserted that tho political levy clause was unnecessary because exemption from payments was available, and on the contrary it was objected that tho clause would cripple the unions. Both propositions could not be true. Mr Jones: “What a brain.” Sir D. Hogg’s next remark was drowned by Labour yells of “withdraw,” and tho Speaker again intervened. Mr Jones: “Wait till ho has done lying about the bill.” Tho Speaker: “I have warned you several times, I must call upon you to withdraw immediately.” Mr Jones: “I am going now, sir, but I will be here when Sir D. Hogg and his crowd have gone with him.” He left the House shouting: “It’s a hog’s bill.” When Sir D. Hogg again arose to continue he was received with Labour shouts of “divide.” Sir I). Hogg continued, stating that tho clause dealing with civil servants was necessitated by the history, of last May when State officials were actively engaged in fomenting rebellion. Labour cries of “Rubbish.” Sir D. Hogg: “This is intolerable; the Civil Service must be free from party political tics.” The sixth clauso forbade public authorities insisting that employees must belong to particular unions. To tho revolutionary section of the community the bill was necessarily abhorrent, hut the Opposition rep resented a larger and moro moderate section of Labour. It was disappointing to find that this section was unwilling to join with the Government in declaring tho unlawfulness of a general strike. If tho moderate Labourites had the moral courage to co-operate to remedy the deficiencies of the bill their help would be welcomed. The Government believed tbe bill was just and necessary. It vindicated the authority of Parliament and the freedom of the State and protected the working man. Mr J. It. dynes, in moving tho rejection of the bili. caid it might be excused if it wc.ro panic legislation, but on the contrary it was a deliberate act of class hostility. Tho intimation of the willingness to include lockouts was a surrender to the rather shame-faced criticism of some of tho Government’s supporters. It would bo tho duty of the opposition when it became the Government to repeal the measure because ho believed it to bo a malignant endeavour on tho part of the Government to back up organised capital in its struggles with organised labour. The hill was not duo to last year’s general strike. —Australian Press Association and Sun.

AUTHORITY OF STATE . AITJST BE VINDICATED. BILL BEFORE THE COAIMONS. (By Electric Telegraph .—Copyright.) Received Alay 3, 11.47 a.m. RUGBY, Alay 2. Tho second readiii- of tho Trades Union Bill began in tho House of Commons this afternoon. Three and a h'Jf days have been set aside for tho debate, and most of the prominent members of the Liberal and Labour Parties have arianged to speak before the division, which is certain to result in its passage, is taken on Thursday. The Attorney-General, Sir D. Douglas Hogg, who moved the second reading, said tho Government believed the bill was well and aptly drafted, but if tiro discussion revealed ambiguities the Government would bo glad to cooperate in framing amendments to clear them up. They would, however resist amendments aiming at defeating the bill, which tho Government regarded as just and necessary to vindicate the authority of the State and protect tho liberties of its citizens. If a case was made out, even to prevent misapprehension and misrepresentation, the Government had no objection to includo in the bill a general lock-out by employers. Clause one, he said, was framed as being declaratory instead of being an amendment of the existing law. One of its advantages was that it ensured that if a general strike wore threatened there would be an early opportunity

of obtaining a judicial decision whether the enterprise was legal or illegal. Clauso 2 was necessary as the peaceful persuasion permitted by the 1906 Act was misconstrued in practice, and during last year’s stoppage tiro defence set up by many of those charged with intimidation was that their conduct was justified as they were members of a strike picket. Denling with tho clause affecting a political levy, he said ho had had complaints from trade unionists alleging that they found themselves practically compelled to subscribe to a levy under tho present contracting-out provisions. —British officiul wireless.