BRITISH STRIKES

Southland Times, Issue 20171, 6 May 1927, Page 7

BRITISH STRIKES

TRADE UNION BILL LIBERAL PARTY CRITICISES MEASURE AMBIGUITY OF LANGUAGE DEPLORED (By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright.) (Rec. 5.5 p.m.) London, May 4. In the House of Commons, resuming the debate on the Trade Unions Bill, Sir John Simon said: “As to the four objects of the Bill outlined by Sir Douglas Hogg, if everything is what he claims for it the countrywill find it impossible to resist such objects.” He regretted that the Labourites had announced their intention to repeal the measure, because this precluded them from amending a Bill demanding Labour’s dispassionate consideration. The House must examine the method and language with which the Government sought to carry out its praiseworthy intentions. From the wording of the clause dealing with the general strikes, it was obvious that a great deal of complication and misunderstanding was bound to arise. He failed to understand how anyone drafting the clause did not realise that lock-outs should be included as well as strikes. The whole clause was highly ambiguous and full of vogue expressions which it would be unfair to ask a Magistrate to define. In reference to intimidation there was need for a clear definition of the exact rights of picketing, but it would be a grave injury to our national reputation if we did not remember for ever the reasonable spirit of orderliness of the men themselves, the feature of the general strike which impressed the whole world. He thought it would have been an immense national advantage if the Labourites had made a really- effective and collective repudiation of what happened. Instead there had been spasmodic Labour contentions that last year’s stoppage was not a general strike, and that anyhow the general strike was legal. It was as certain as the sun in heaven that if the British people thought that under the present law it was legitimate for employers or workers to combine to substitute the will of some outside committee for the will of Parliament, they should insist on the law being altered. It would have been far better if the Government had introduced one clause in the Bill declaring in the simplest terms that a combination of either employers or workers to coerce the Government or Parliament constituted an unlawful conspiracy.—A. <fc N.Z. UPROAR IN HOUSE OF COMMONS. LABOUR MEMBER SUSPENDED. (Rec. 8 p.m.) London, May 4. In the House of Commons, Mr Baldwin, speaking on the Trade Uniol! Bill, said that since 1906 there had been a great change in the attitude of the trade unions, a change from industrial to political action. Successive Governments had entrusted the trade unions with certain work connected with social legislation. Side by side with this development some of the unions had come gradually under the control of what was called the minority movement. Mr John Bromley challenged Mr Baldwin to cite a single such union. Mr Baldwin said he was not going to quote names, but would not withdraw his statement. Mr T. Williams declared that Mr Baldwin’s statement reflecting on large organisations of some half million members, was transparently untrue. While the Speaker was endeavouring to restore order, several Labour members rose and interjected. Mr John Beckett, addressing Mr Baldwin, said: “Admit you are a liar!” (Cries of: “Name him!” and “Withdraw!” Mr Beckett refused to withdraw-, declaring: “I hope you will name the liar as well.” Mr Winston Churchill moved the suspension of Mr Beckett, which was carried by 321 to 88. Mr Beckett, as he left the House, shouted: “I will go outside and tell the country what our front bench has been doing.” Mr Baldwin, resuming, said he received the Labour demands in the name of the unions, to which he had referred. From his experience of last year the Miners Federation was under the control of a minority movement. The record of the Government showed that they had been pacifists, and the Labourites had been militarists. When he came into office in 1924 he had no intention of introducing trade union legislation. Mr Baldwin declared that Mr MacQuiston’s Bill of 1924 dealing with the political levy was withdrawn at his suggestion, on the ground that he did not desire to be responsible for firing the first shot. Snce then the Government, for the sake of peace, changed its mind on the question of subsidy, which exposed them to a charge of cowardice, or not knowing their own minds, and of wasting the country’s resources. Continuing, he said: “I believe that if democracy were given time to reflect, it would refrain from creating a grave situation by the declaration of a general strike. Unfortunately the general strike was only postponed. Mj- view is that w-hen the general strike was declared, the extremists in the Labour Party got their way. I recognise that many leaders accepted it simply to keep a united front, but the unity was onlj 7 apparent. There was a fissure through the whole edifice.”—A. and N.Z. MR BALDWIN DEFENDS MEASURE. GENERAL STRIKE MANDATE FOR BILL (Rec. 8.30 p.m.) London, May 4. Mr Baldwin concluding his speech on the Trade Union Bill, said: Mr Clynes charged us with trying to split the trade union movement. I think the movement is splitting itself. I am asked, “What is the mandate for this Bill?” My reply is, “Our mandate is the events of the last year.” I was pressed to pass the Bill during the strike, and again immediately afterwards. I declined because the chances were that the Bill would then have been of aYnost vindictive kind. Labour members speak as though thejexclusivelj- represented the workers, but we have more worker supporters than they. We intend that a general strike shall be 1 illegal, intimidation shall be illegal, and ! compulsion to subscribe to political funds shall be illegal. Amid further interruptions Mr Baldwin concluded: “I believe the Bill will commend itself to the country. If Labour cares to make its repeal an issue at the election, the Government will meet them with confluence. Mr Tom Shaw said that Mr Baldwin sought assistance to elucidate the Bill, but did not help them to understand it. The real reason for the Bill was not the general strike, but the growth of the Labour Party. What had the general strike to do with the political levy? The debate was adjourned. A division is expected on Thursday, after Mr Lloyd George and Mr Thomas have spoken.—A. and N.Z. and Sun Cable.