THE NEW BILL

Southland Times, Issue 20203, 14 June 1927, Page 8

THE NEW BILL

“ BAITING TRADE UNIONS.” STRONG CONDEMNATION. London, April 14. One need not turn only to Liberal or Labour papers to find condemnation of the proposed Trade Unions Bill, and one staunch Tory organ sees no good whatsoever in it. Even so typical a Diehard as the Earl of Halsbury, K.C., son of the former famous Lord Chancellor, while regarding the Bill as necessary, considers the section which deals with intimidation “far from satisfactory.” “No one,” he says, “who is in favour of law and order can doubt that the law needs strengthening. I do not desire to go beyond the object of the section, but as it at present stands, I do not think the section will attain its object. From a considerable personal experience in prosecuting for riot and intimidation in South Wales during 1925, 1926, and in the present year, I do not think it deals with the practical difficulties w’hich obtain. To begin with, referring to another Act of Parliament is a very easy matter for the draftsmen of a Bill, but it is hardly fair on the men. They ought to have one Act where they can see and read what they may or may not do. In actual fact every one of the South Wales jrioters knew the section of the Trades Disputes Act, 1906, declaring peaceful persuasion to be legal. Not one in twenty had heard of Section 7 of the 1875 Act, which makes intimidation and besetting illegal, and it was with genuine surprise that they learned that what they had done was an offence.” Lord Halsbury, too, considers the clause giving powers to the AttorneyGeneral to act “on his own” as a departure from all previous English practice. But Truth, which weekly publishes an article by a Tory member of the House, calls this measure one for “baiting the Trade Unions.” This Tory merwher declares that from the party standpoint the result will be sensational. This, he says, |is not the time nor the way to deal with (the General Strike; it would have been wiser to accept the contrition of Labour [after that catastrophe with silent satisfaction. The retort which the Bill makes, “If you do it again you'll go to gaol, and serve rvou right,” doesn’t agree with the cry of ■peace in our time. “Nor,” he goes on to pay, “is it easy to see even if thumbscrew ;and rack were added to large fines or imprisonment, how large bodies of men are io be prevented from striking if they want Ito strike!” A most unjust section is the (deprivation of the workman’s right to strike. “It is,” he says, “a fiat denial of civil freedom to declare, as the Bill does, >that workmen who hold jobs on the most (precarious of tenures, are liable to be locked out by the employers individually or in a body if they decide to withhold their labour. . . . Faced with this challenge the best type of British workman can have no choice but resistance,” he concludes. The fuller realisation of this aspect of •the Bill is becoming marked. Yesterday an the calm language of The Times’ political correspondent it is remarked: — ‘The movement, initiated by Conservative back bench members, to secure that the committee, when it considers the Trade (Unions Bill, shall have power to ensure that in any legislation affecting the rights of organised workers, care shall be taken to see that such legislation equally applies to organised employers is growing.” As for the difference between contracting put and contracting in for political purposes, there is a good deal of eyewash in this. It may appeal to the unthinking (voter outside Labour ranks as a check to the wild Communists, but one imagines its effect will be apt to annoy moderate Labour and stir it up to more active anti-Tory (tactics. But perhaps the gravest defect of the Bill is tnat it runs completely counter to pn accepted principle of Constitutional practice that Governments do not, except in the rarest cases, alter the legislation of fheir predecessors. The opinion is widespread that the Bill goes too far in that direction. Lord Grey has uttered a warning against the policy outlined in this Bill which he describes as a shattering blow to the Trade Why, he asks, press this Bill, the General Strike is now held to be Illegal by high authorities? If such a disaster, he says, has to be fough* again, it prill be beaten by the direct action of *he pommunit y.