BRITISH STRIKES

Southland Times, Issue 20172, 7 May 1927, Page 7

BRITISH STRIKES

TRADES UNION BILL SECOND READING OVERWHELMINGLY CARRIED FLOOD OF OPPOSITION AMENDMENTS (By Telegraph—Press Assn. —Copyright.) (Rec. 5.5 p.m.) London, May 5. At the House of Commons, Mr John Wheatley said: "In response to Mr Baldwin’s appeal for the creation of an atmosphere in which we might secure industrial peace by negotiations, Labourites 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 most shameful actions of British statesmen.” The Hon. Edward Hilton Young welcomed the Bill as clarifying the law as to general strikes, and enlarging the workers’ liberty. Mr J. H. 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 and miserable attempt by the Government to injure their opponents, and by a minority Government elected by means of a fradulent letter.—A. and N.Z. and Sun Cable. CHALLENGING, PROVOCATIVE BILL. LLOYD GEORGE OPPOSES MEASURE. (Rec. 5.5 p.m.) London, May 5. Lloyd George challenged the wisdom of introducing such a challenging provocative Bill at the present time. Doubtless the Irade 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 be 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 the lost trade, which was only possible by means of wholehearted co-operation between employers and workmen. The Bill went far beyond Sir Douglas Hogg’s introductory propositions. It used the imperfections of the trade union law in order to create injustice. The Bill did not deal with real needs. There was no real demand for it even from the employers. They might impound a trade union or political funds, but it would not make the workers work more efficiently. The latter depended on goodwill. Some of the largest captains 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 the Bill purely for the recovery of Toryism.—A. and N.Z. and Sun. LABOURITE’S PASSIONATE DENUNCIATION. MR. PHILIP SNOWDEN SPEAKS. GALLERIES OF HOUSE PACKED. (Rec. 5.5 p.m.) 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. Philip Snowden said that ordinarily he was not disposed to provocative language and invective, but confessed that he felt restraint most difficult in dealing with the present Bill. Sir Douglas Hogg had shown that he was either ignorant of the provisions, or the clauses had been deliberately and ambiguously drafted in order that magistrates might interpret them in accordance with their own prejudices. Mr. Baldwin told them that 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 w’as not sure whether it made all sympathetic strikes illegal. Those with practical experience did not doubt it: “The Bill makes it a criminal offence to coerce the Government,” said Mr Snowden, "what do the Governments exist for except to be coerced. It is the Opposition’s duty to coerce and harass Governments. I can imagine only two circumstances in which a general strike would succeed, first if the Government entered war obviously against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the people, secondly where the Government sought without mandate to pass a measure against the wishes of the great majority of the people. Do you think a declaration that a general strike is illegal is going to prevent one. Of course not. All your pains and pen at ties will not have the slightest effect. How are you going to deal with five million strikers—Bring them all to law courts? A Conservative interjector: Take the leaders first. Mr. Snowden: The Bill says nothing about dealing with the leaders. The Bill will not prevent general strikes, but will prolong them if they occur. There cannot be imagined anything more likely to promote a general strike than the Bill, as in his famous declaration last year, Sir John Simon told them that 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 the law. The only reason for the Bill is that the Diehard Conservatives have forced it on the Government. Sir Douglas Hogg told us that the inclusion of the employers would be useless and inequitable. I agree. No language in any Act can place workers and employers on an equal footing. The employers have a thousand means of coercion at their posal which legislation does not affect. They can close down their works, go short time, dismiss men without reason. The industrial history of Britain furnished no more glaring instance of organised coercion of the Government than the Mine-owners’ Association practised last year. Would to God 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 through. It will cost the country more than the general strike.—A. and N.Z. and Sun. SECOND READING CARRIED. VOTING ON PARTY LINES. (Rec. 7.55 p.m.) London, May 5. Speaking on the Trade Union Bill, Mr J. H. Thomas said: “If you believe the Bill will prevent striking you are deceiving yourselves. The country will not thank you for it. I only wish you had the courage to test it. You have abused your majority and struck a blow at industrial peace. We will carry the fight into the country and win.” Sir T. W. H. Jnskip, in replying to the debate, was bombarded with interjections when he reiterated that the Bill would improve the workers’ conditions. Replying to the Hon. Philip Snowden’s reference to the impossibility of imprisoning five million strikers he said: “Does not Mr Snowden know that 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 the trade unionists of the whole country should prevail. If there were ambiguities in the wording these could be corrected in committee. Sir Douglas Hogg moved the closure which was carried by 388 votes to 168. The Hon. J. R. Clyne’s amendments and the motion for the rejection of the Bill were defeated by 386 votes to 171, after which the second reading was agreed to. Conservatives and Labourites voted strictly on party lines. The Liberals were split, seven voting with the Conservatives and nineteen with Labour. Sir John Simon abstained from voting;

Shoals of amendments in the committee stage were lodged immediately, the Liberals and Labourites being responsible for nearly 20 of the latter. They will move to omit each clause in turn and alternatively postpone the dates on which the proposals become operative. Sixteen Unionists have given notice of amendments to include lockouts as well as strikes.—A. and N.Z. and Sun Cables