INDEPENDENT LABOUR CONFERENCE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18874, 29 May 1923, Page 8

INDEPENDENT LABOUR CONFERENCE.

BAN ON DINING WITH THE ENEMY. DIVISION REGARDING PROHIBITION. DISCIPLINE IN PARLIAMENT (From Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON, April 13. By a veto of 93 to 90 the Independent Labour Conference has carried a resolution that Labour members of Parliament shall not accept the hospitality of political opponents at public dinners and society functions. The intention 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 ids resolution, however, and the chairman (Mr R. C. Wellhead, M.P.) informed him that the committee charged with the order of business did not regard the motion as on© 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: “This conference recommends that the Labour members of Parliament are not to accept the hospitality of political opponents at public dinners arid 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 14 minutes, so that he could not allow tho matter to be discussed. The resolution might bo placed before the meeting- without discussion. After the resolution had been formally moved, a delegate rose and said: “The ‘lust twenty - words are out of order, as the .King la not a political opponent.”—(Laughter and cheers.) The Chairman: I think there is something in ■ that point of order.—(Laughter.) The King is -apart from politics, and cannot bo regarded as ap opponent. It is exceedingly mixed up. In my opinion. Ve ought not to pass it.—("Hear, hear, and cries of “Why not?”) Mr Wheatley: 1 will be satisfied if the resolution ends, at the word “functions. 1 A delegate asked if they could extend the prohibition to all functions other than Parliamentary. Ho thought that would nave to follow. The Chairman; I think you are right. A Delegate: Can we extend it to Town Council Junctions?—(Laughter.) •' Mr Kirkwood: If you were on the floor of the House of Commons you would see tne 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 too noise, said: “I really thought the revolution was knocking at the door.” —(Laughter.) PROHIBITION AND STATE COIwROL. Another question discussed at the confer-, ence 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, Shawlands, and Glasgow City branches, declared antagonism to the drink traffic as “an insidious factor in social degradation,” and affirmed belief in total prohibition. ' | Mr Harrison (Birmingham) protested that Scotland was trying to dominate the conference, to which a Glasgow delegate retortea that it would bo a good thing if Scotland could dominate Birmingham, to bring them up to the Labour standard. They believed that next year far more districts would vote for “no license” than in 1920.

Mr P. J. Dolan (Glasgow), supporting prohibition, declared that one of the greatest obstacles to mass intelligence was the “insidious poison ladled out” by the drink trade in this country. One of the most degrading sights I.L.P. Scotsmen had seen on tneir present visit to London was the queue o£ women and infants in arms outside the public houses. " Scotland,” he added, "is mad enough, but we are not so degraded as to tolerate that kind of thing.” Mr John Carnegie (Dundee), in a racy speech, made a retort to those who declared that the drink traffic led to crime and degradation. One of the biggest bank robberies in Glasgow, he said, was done by temperance men.

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 seek to bring the Parliamentary machine more into line with the democratic forms for which, the Independent Labour Party stood. 1 . There was an. urgent need, the 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 dialectical abilities." NEED FOR DISCIPLINE. This led to a- homily on discipline by Hr C. 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 would have to do groat things, and it could not do great tMngs by means of private members’ Bills and private members’ efforts. Somehow or other they must get discipline.. How were they to get that discipline ? Take dh« Iquor question. The Labour Party 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 out their differences before the measures were brought before Parliament. When 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 the Opposition, which would be ready to do anything to defeat the Labour 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 Yilna and East Galicia were handed over to Poland; condemned the Government in regard: to the Irish deportations; protested against capuaj 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.