Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury be good enough to tell us what business it is proposed to take on Friday?

We propose to take the Second Readings of the Police Pensions Bill, the Lead Paint (Protection against Poisoning) Bill, and the Industrial Assurance (Juvenile Societies) Bill [ Lords ], and other Orders.

Wolverhampton Corporation Bill

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

I beg to move,

"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, thanking His Majesty for His Most Gracious Message communicating to this House that His Majesty has deemed it proper by Proclamation, made in pursuance of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, and dated the 29th day of May, 1926, to declare that a state of emergency exists."

I will not trouble the House with any further speech, as I understand an Amendment is to be moved from the Front Opposition Bench, with which I will afterwards deal.

An Amendment has just been handed to me, but I do not find it to be in order. This is a new Proclamation, and the substance of the Amendment would, I think, perhaps be relevant to Regulation 21, when we come to deal with the Regulations. It is not an Amendment that I can accept to the Address which has been moved.

May I ask, Sir, if you would be good enough to inform the House what the Amendment is, as it has not been possible to have it on the Paper, and perhaps then you might allow me to ask a question about it?

The Amendment which has been handed to me is to add the words,

"but praying that His Majesty may exercise His Royal Prerogative to grant pardon to those of His Majesty's subjects who have been convicted of offences which arose from the circumstances creating the state of emergency, and which left unimpaired the peace of the Realm."

The question I should like to ask you is whether, as a matter of fact, although this is, perhaps, a new Proclamation, it is not a continuation, really, of an old one, and is made necessary by a decision of this House relating to the necessity or Irequent renewal? It is because this House has decided that a Proclamation, once issued, must be renewed, that we now have to make this reply to the Message from His Majesty, and, in these circumstances, might I submit to you, with respect, that a reflection upon what has happened in relation to the previous Proclamation is quite germane to the consideration that the House is now asked to give to the renewal of that Proclamation?

I think the subject-matter of this Amendment ought to be a separate Motion. I observe that there is already a Motion on the Paper to very much the same effect. I cannot entertain it as an Amendment to this Motion. I think the subject of it may be relevant when we come to Regulation 21, to which I understand it refers.

Perhaps, by the leave of the House, I may say that, if the question be raised on Regulation 21, which I hope will come on not too late this evening, I shall be quite prepared to make a full statement on the whole matter.

I am really in the hands of the House, and I am perfectly willing to meet the convenience of the Home Secretary, but my own view was that it would be far better to raise this question as a general question relating to the Proclamation as a Proclamation, rather than to any specific Order or Regulation under the Proclamation. The objection that we shall have to take to it is in relation to the administration that has taken place—a position which I know the Home Secretary will fully appreciate, and perhaps, Sir, if you would see mo and call upon me, I might, in just two or three sentences, say all that I have to say on the matter now.

There are other questions that might arise upon the ruling on this question. This is merely a Motion to thank His Majesty for his Gracious Message, and the question, it seems to me, properly arises on the Regulations which have been made under the Proclamation.

The point I want to raise is whether it is necessary that this Proclamation should be issued at all now. I think, after full consideration, that it would be better if it were raised in this general way, as to whether it is necessary. I will change the ground, and, I think, put myself in order. The question I wish to address myself to is whether this Proclamation ought to be issued at all—whether the state of the country and our experience of the last Proclamation justifies its continuance now. The case is a very simple and a short one. It is the question of the necessity of the whole thing. I know perfectly well that a Government faced with conditions such as the Government was faced with a week or two ago is bound to ask for emergency powers. I never shirked stating that had we been in the position the Government was then, whatever view we should have taken of the matters that brought about emergency, we should have had to issue those Regulations, and when the Attorney-General said, in the course of the previous Debate, that he had only taken the Regulations that were left behind, he stated the truth. But the question of the issue of those Regulations is always this. They are admitted to be the establishment of a law—I do not know that my language is technically correct—and of a method of administration of justice which, in normal circumstances, would not be tolerated in this country, because if we pride ourselves upon anything it is that we are not only just but that we pursue the forms of justice and that it is absolutely impossible for any State to get the calm acquiescence in law that it is necessary to obtain support from its citizens unless it is not only good in its intentions as to justice but is accurate and careful, and even meticulous, in the way it observes the forms in which justice is to be administered.

Those Regulations destroy those forms. They admit things that ought not to be admitted at all in ordinary circum- stances. Whatever may have been said about the conduct of the general strike, the whole world has borne wonderful testimony to the good temper and the patience of the people of this country. We have fought each other, we have disagreed with each other, we have seen work done by people who we thought ought not to have done it, and there has, apparently, been more passion over that in this House than outside. The good humour, the sense of good-fellowship, the meeting of both sides—I will not characterise them—like that meeting that took place in Toynbee Hall, when both sides sat down and listened to a very delightful concert and appreciated each other's company and exchanged views which, I hope, would have benefited, at any rate, one side, is one of the delightful memories that can be culled even from the darkest experiences. I hope this House is going to play its part in the demonstration of this good humour. We have been peaceful, and we do not require these Regulations. The country does not require this Proclamation. It is insulting the country at present to have it, and it is not helping to peace, quietness and good order.

No one could have gone through administration without seeing some of what one might call the humours of the magistrate in absolute power—sentences so grossly unequal for precisely the same misdemeanour, precisely the same breach of the same Regulation, a small fine in one case, a large term of imprisonment in the other, and what is more—and every hon. Member surely will appreciate this—a man who breaks the law under ordinary circumstances is a law breaker and has the psychology of a law breaker, but a decent fellow who never means to break the law, who does not belong to that type of person but finds he has unwittingly done something against a Regulation that has been issued under this Proclamation finds himself imprisoned, that is an insult to British citizenship that ought not to be repeated by this House. In the course of the Debate on the individual Regulations those cases will be brought up and I only want to refer to them generally. It is not fair to the magistrates. The records of some of the cases have not been very bright in our traditions and our history of administration of the law. Sentences I leave on one side. There have been observations made by magistrates, both stipendiary and otherwise, let alone Judges of higher status, that ought never to have been made at all from the bench, observations that were called forth by the unusual state of the judicial mind, observations that reflected upon public policy on the strike. We hold different views. We take different standpoints and we fight it out, but when we sit upon a bench, whether our principles and opinions are Tory, Liberal, or Labour, we are called upon to take those political cloaks off and hang them up in the ante-room and not allow them to decorate our shoulders when we are sitting to administer the law of the country. Here, again, it is impossible to do that, I think, under this administration. Therefore, I beg the Home Secretary to look at it as a Home Secretary, and make up his mind whether really he is justified in issuing this further Proclamation, whether he would not be fully justified and very adequately met if he dropped it and said, "I am so pleased, I am so proud of what my people have done during times far darker than any that can now come, that I believe by the administration of the ordinary law and by a straight appeal to the ordinary man in the street I shall get through my difficulties, and get through them with greater courage and distinction than if I have had this special legislation passed." I ask him to agree to the deletion of the Proclamation for the reasons I have indicated.

I should like to add a few observations to what my right hon. Friend has said. I begin by repeating the good effect that has been produced throughout the world and here by the excellent conduct of all engaged in any activities or no activities during the recent stoppage. I should like to repeat what I said when the Home Secretary was unable to be present, that I attribute to him no small measure of the success of the efforts to keep order. I look to him as being largely responsible for the good conduct of the police and auxiliary forces and the special constables. I am glad that efforts made to remove the special forces from the control of the Home Office and put them under a less responsible Minister were frustrated. I have looked upon the Home Secretary as a man who might be classed among the extremists and who might, possibly, not keep his head. I now see I have done him an injustice. I believe he carried out the traditions of the high office he adorns. Having said that, I want to add a few words of appeal to the Home Secretary and the House not to proceed with, at any rate, certain of the Regulations. I do not want to go into the details of any particular Regulation, but it is obvious that the Government are not going to put in force certain Regulations which they could very well put in force with regard to the coal mines. I refer particularly to the first Regulation of all.

The Regulations may be divided into two parts. There are those that put certain emergency powers in the hands of the Government, securing fuel, light and other necessaries of life in the face of a possible continuation of the coal stoppage. We should not wish to deny those powers to any Government. But there are other Regulations falling into a different category which are, broadly, classed amongst those for the supposed preservation of public order—arrest without warrant, search without magistrate's order and all the rest of it. The second category I consider unnecessary to get over the difficulties of settlement and resettlement. I do not want to follow my right hon. Friend in referring to certain cases of the application of the Regulations to offences, because I have been in private communication with the right hon. Gentleman. Generally speaking, what I may call the penal Regulations are not now required. I thought that we did not need them even before the so-called general strike, and I am certain they are not needed now, after the experience of the last month. It would be a gracious act on the part of the Government to show their trust in the people and their desire to come to an early settlement of our present difficulties, if they dropped these more contentious penal clauses. That is the appeal which I make to the Home Secretary and I hope he will see his way to set this example. The Prime Minister has urged us to look forward and not backward. Let that advice be translated into action and let certain of these Regulations be dropped, because if they are passed again by this House it will show a want of trust in the good sense and constitutionalism of our people.

I should like at once to join in the testimony which the Leader of the Opposition has paid to the conduct of the people of this country during the recent crisis. [HON. MEMBERS: "Including this House!"] Yes, including this House. There are some 40,000,000 people in this country, and only a very small proportion came into conflict with the law, even under the provisions of the Emergency Regulations which have been animadverted upon by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). I am quite prepared to deal, at the appropriate time, with the cases which have come under the operation of the law, but I am bound by the ruling of Mr. Speaker that I cannot do it on this Motion. I have a full report, which I caused to be obtained for me, of all the cases, and I shall be prepared to give the fullest information to the House of the different categories into which the cases fall.

I think I am entitled to say to the House that, while the good temper of the mass of the population, including the mass of the strikers, was splendid, and worthy of the name of Englishmen in every possible degree—[HON. MEMBERS: "Britishers!"]—worthy of the name of Britons in every possible degree, at the same time I am unrepentant in saying that there were a few who did not maintain the same spirit which is usually attributed to England.

Even though they were Scotch.

We Englishmen suffer from many disabilities, and one disability is that we cannot claim the hon. Member opposite as a national colleague. I wish to pay a full tribute to the hon. Member and his colleagues. Although they are not Englishmen, they have maintained the same good spirit and temper that was shown on the south side of the Tweed.

We have taught the Englishmen how to keep their temper.

I am bound to say that there were cases which were outside the general good temper, and on these I shall be prepared to say something to the House later this afternoon. On the general question as to whether the Regulations should or should not be continued, I must very regretfully say that I cannot fall in with the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull, in spite of the very kind compliments which he paid me, which I appreciate coming from one of my political opponents. It is always nice for a Home Secretary, who has a great many hard things said about him, to receive in this House commendation from his political opponents. As the member of the Government responsible for the administration of law and order in this country, I must confess that I am unable to advise the House to dispense with these Emergency Regulations.

I am rather surprised that the Leader of the Opposition should have asked us to dispense with the Regulations because, with very minor alterations, they are the Emergency Regulations which his Government put out two years ago. There was an emergency declared when the Labour Government were in office. His Majesty, on the advice of the Labour Government, made a Proclamation declaring that there was an emergency, although I think that at the moment the strike had not actually begun. The Emergency Regulations were ready to be put into operation. If they were necessary then, they are equally necessary now. I quoted a month ago, and I hope the House will forgive me quoting again, a speech made by the present Leader of the Opposition in this House in 1924. He said:

A state of emergency does not now exist.

I ask the House to believe that quite as great a state of emergency exists to-day, when a strike is in operation, and a very important strike.

There is no strike in operation at the present time.

Hear, hear. It is a lock-out.

Let me at once substitute for the word "strike" the word "stoppage." There is a stoppage in a large and important trade.

No; it is a lock-out.

The hon. Member will not be so conciliatory as I am. I am trying to be conciliatory by using a neutral word. Let me quote further what the Leader of the Opposition said:

"The Government must be armed with the powers which are required should the dispute spread."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1924; col. 1682, Vol. 171.]

On a point of Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman in order in repeating himself? If I repeated myself, Mr. Speaker, you would pull me up. The right hon. Gentleman has repeated that about 20 times in this House.

The right hon. Gentleman is quoting the Leader of the Opposition.

He has quoted him 20 times. Let him get something new to justify his existence.

The hon. Member evidently does not like quotations from his leader. I am prepared to meet the views of the hon. Member, and I will not quote any further. I will ask the House to refer to the quotation which I made a month ago when I was moving the original Emergency Regulations. I ask the House to agree with me that the emergency is as great now as then. [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] Yes, because the House will remember that the general strike had not then been declared. It was the coal strike which was in operation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Stoppage!"] It was the coal stoppage which was in operation then, and there is a coal stoppage to-day of very great importance.

Speaking on behalf of the Government and as the member of the Government responsible for the administration of law and order, I am convinced that it is necessary to have these Emergency Regulations. I shall be prepared to defend the maner in which these Regulations were administered during the last month and I shall be prepared to say that they will be administered in accordance with the best traditions of British justice, as they have been during the past month I entirely concur with what was said by the Leader of the Opposition as to the remarks of an extra-judicial character-made by magistrates. I take the very strongest view in regard to remarks made from the Bench, whatever Bench it may be, which are unnecessary to the decision of the case before the Court. When I have exercised the very onerous and responsible duty of appointing stipendiary magistrates, I do not mind telling the House that since I have been in office I have invariably seen the magistrate whom I have proposed to appoint, and I have quite definitely told him that I would not appoint him to the office unless he gave me an undertaking not to indulge in the kind of outside remarks which have been too common in the Press of the country during the last few years.

There is no need whatever—I am glad to have the opportunity of saying this—for any bench of magistrates, or any Judge, to go outside the strict lines of the law and to make observaions of any kind, whether of a political character or otherwise, beyond those that are necessary for administering justice in the case before the Court. That I say quite fully, with the responsibility that attaches to my office, and I am quite sure that I shall have the assent and approval of the whole House in asking magistrates to deal with their very difficult work of administering justice on the lines of the remarks made to-day by the Leader of the Opposition and myself. I hope the House will allow the Resolution to be carried now, in order that we may get on to the details of the various Regulations which hon. Members desire to discuss. There is a matter of personal convenience which I should like to mention although I hardly like to do so, but I have an official engagement later in the evening and if Regulation 21, which deals with acts likely to cause sedition, could be reached at a reasonable time—it is the Regulation on which my conduct during the last month will probably be called into question—I should be glad, and would take the opportunity of making the fullest possible explanation as to the way in which these Regulations were applied. I hope the Motion may now be put.

The statement has been made so often in this House that these Regulations are brought forward in order to protect the public. I want to refer to Regulation 6, under which certificates were granted to people to drive motorcars whether they were able to do so or not.

That question is not now in order. It will be in order on the next Question.

We want to discuss the Proclamation.

May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether I should be in order in criticising the conduct of the King on this Motion, seeing that the Proclamation is introduced in a Message from the King? Would I be in order in criticising the conduct of the King?

Certainly not. The Question is—

Have we any right to discuss the Proclamation? That is what I want to know.

I was asking you, Mr. Speaker, a very civil question, and I was attempting to put it in the best way I knew, possibly not in the right way, but in the way I thought best. Right in the midst of my putting the question you put the Question to the House, and I submit that it is not consistent with the dignity of the Chair to do that.

Order, order!

The hon. Member put a question to me which I answered by saying, "Certainly not." The hon. Member cannot bring His Majesty's name into discussions in this House. What is done is done under the advice of His Majesty's Ministers. The answer "to his question is perfectly clear. Any discussion of the Regulations must come on a subsequent Motion. The issue of the Proclamation is the sole matter now before the House.

I wish to address myself to the Proclamation and to protest in the most emphatic manner possible as a member of the working class against it. I believe, rightly or wrongly, that the Proclamation is directed—

May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the hon. Member is in order in addressing the House after the Question has been put?

I do not think I had completely put the Question.

I am protesting against the Proclamation which has been issued by His Majesty on the advice of his Privy Council, whatever that body may be. We are informed on the highest authority that this side of the House was not represented on that august body, and that being the case, this Proclamation is a biased Proclamation, a class Proclamation, and however you may try to gloss it over there is no denying the fact that it has been issued by those who are against the working classes. The proof of that is that there were no working class representatives at the Privy Council which advised the King to take this action and it, therefore, goes out to the country that the Government are acting against the best interests of the working classes. The Government have proclaimed to the people of this country that they are a biased Government They are letting the electors understand that they are behind the mine owners. There are some Privy Councillors in the Labour party, but what is the use of our having Privy Councillors unless they are represented at the Privy Council when a state of emergency arises in this country? The working classes can see the part this Tory Government is playing; this hard-faced Government, this scab Government. It is backing the mine owners against the mine workers, and from that point of view I want to protest against this Proclamation.

If His Majesty wanted to get at the two sides of the question surely it was common sense to call in some of the Labour leaders who are Privy Councillors. What is the use of the King appointing Privy Councillors from the ranks of Labour and then, on a question which involves life and death for tens of thousands of our people, a question which involves the means by which the working classes live, a question so momentous and of so much gravity and consequence, they are not called in to the Privy Council? We had no representatives there. Why? Why is it that those who advise His Majesty advised His Majesty not to invite the Labour Privy Councillors? If I were a Labour Privy Councillor when a matter so vital to my class was being discussed, and I was not invited, and none of my colleagues was invited, I would resent it, and would fling their Privy Council in their face. This way of treating the working class of this country is getting a bit too much, this treating us simply with contempt. This was done without considering us in any way. Yet here we are, the Labour party that is going to be the future Government, for weal or woe—that remains to be seen. Here is sitting the future Labour Government the next Government. Let it come when it will. And we are not considered. Had this been a Liberal party on this side it would have been recognised.

What I rose for more than anything else, on behalf of the working classes of this country, was to say that it serves the Privy Councillors right that they should be treated with contempt in this fashion when they do not resent it and do not feel that they have been insulted, when they try to accommodate themselves to conditions they never were brought up to, conditions which are foreign to them, and yet they get absolutely nothing in return but treatment with contempt by the ruling class of this country. I want to tell the House that they may well treat the leaders with contempt. But the working classes of the country are looking on. The working classes have demonstrated that they are not going to take their licking quietly; they are not going to bow the knees; they are not going to doff the cap in order to be Privy Councillors or Members of Parliament or Prime Ministers.

The people of this country are taking cognisance of what is going on, and they are determined that they are not going to allow all this to proceed in the calm manner in which it has taken place so far. If there are those who think that the working classes are going to stand by and see their women and children starve, they never made a bigger mistake. When I think of the Proclamation, and that men who are in power behave in the dirty and despicable manner in which they do behave because of Proclamations such as this being issued, when I think of my poor colleague who used to sit on these benches, the Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala), lying in gaol—[ Laughter. ] There you see the gentlemen of England laughing when I mention the fact that the humblest Member of this House has been thrown into gaol. To think that this Government would throw that man, who has said less than I have said, into gaol! Here I have in my hand, Mr. Speaker, as you know—

That is not concerned with the Proclamation at ail. What the hon. Member has just been referring to has nothing to do even with the Regulations.

But the Government cannot get these Regulations without this Proclamation. Am I right, or am I wrong?

There is a proper time to discuss the one, and a proper time to discuss the other.

I think, Sir, that that is a very diplomatic reply. The fact remains, and you know it, that the Government cannot get the Regulations without the Proclamation. You know that the hon. and gallant Member for Leicester (South) wanted to put a question through you to the Secretary of State, because on May Day I told the miners of Durham that they were not to stand by and see their women and children starving, that my advice to them was, as I have always given it to my class—I would not be worthy of the name I hold if I expressed any other view—that the man who stood by and saw his women and children starving was not worthy of the name of a father, and that whoever would come between him and the necessaries of life for the women and children, he ought to murder him. I stated that. The question was sent up to you, and you would not allow it to go through, and no question was put. Why? Because I have a certain following in this country. [ Interruption. ] I am not anxious to go to prison. I know what it is to lie in gaol. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] For standing up for what I believed to be right; that is the reason why I went to gaol. I may be wrong again, but I cannot think of anything else except that I have a following, I have a backing in the country, and there are men who would support me on all sides of this House. By Regulations, by a Proclamation such as this, you place in the hands of those who have such a low conception of British character, power to arrest a poor chap like Saklatvala, although they knew that he was carrying no weight, and that his party cut no ice. [ Interruption. ]

I have three times told the hon. Member that what he is saying is irrelevant to the subject under discussion, and I must now ask him to resume his seat.

I desire to join in the protest against the issue of the Proclamation, and I do so because it is perfectly plain that there are no circumstances in the country to warrant the issue of such a Proclamation. My second ground of protest is because of the experience that the working classes have already had under the working of the Regulations. When one takes account of the circumstances of the country to-day, I can quite well understand that the Government should be concerned about what may happen because of public opinion, because of things that the Government or the local authorities have been doing. At the same time, I protest against the issue of this Proclamation, because the way to avoid difficulties is not by Regulations, such as those which will follow upon the issue of this Proclamation, but rather by attempting to deal justly with the working class. I have had sent to me to-day by one of my constituents a sample of the rations that are being supplied to women and children in my constituency—to the wives and children of miners who have been locked out. This is not a piece of carbolic soap, but a piece of cheese—

This is not relevant in the least to the Question now before the House. We are considering a Motion of Thanks to His Majesty for the Message received. These questions may possibly be raised under a particular Regulation relating to them.

This is a Message of Thanks to His Majesty for the issue of the Proclamation, and I am submitting reasons why we should not send any Message of Thanks at all. My reason is that the Emergency Powers Act and these Regulations would not be necessary if the Government and the local authorities did not treat the working classes as they have been treating them by supplying miserable rations like this, instead of the relief to which the people are entitled. I thought I would have been in order at this stage in doing so. You, Sir, have referred me to the Clause in the Regulations dealing with food. I want to deal with the whole situation, and to show the intolerable insult which it is to the working class that the Government should seek to put these Regulations into operation. As a member of the working class and a representative of that class in the House, I protest against any Message of Thanks, or against any such step as this being taken by the House after the manner in which this scab Government has dealt with the people.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will not think that we are merely wasting the time of the House. Some of us feel very strongly in regard to this Proclamation, which to my mind is aimed at the miners, and I do not want to give a silent vote upon it. I want to state my objections to giving any Vote of Thanks to anybody for a Proclamation of this kind. You, Sir, have told us already that the King is not to blame for this Proclamation. I cannot understand then why the Home Secretary came up from the Bar of the House yesterday and announced a Message from the King. We are now occupied in passing a Vote of Thanks for that Message. If the King is not responsible, then it means that the Home Secretary is asking for a Vote of Thanks to himself for the Message which he brought in yesterday. For a Proclamation like this, which is aimed at over 1,000,000 miners who are starving, I would not give a Vote of Thanks to the Home Secretary or the Prime Minister or even to the King. I could understand the last Proclamation, because, when the House was considering it, a general strike had taken place. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The general strike had not taken place when the Proclamation was issued, but it had commenced, when this House was considering the Proclamation, so that things were different on the last occasion. Now, only the miners are locked out, and therefore this Proclamation must be aimed at the miners alone.

The miners have been locked out and have been on strike on previous occasions, and I ask the Home Secretary or any hon. Member, has the conduct of the miners in the past, on those occasions, been such as to warrant a Proclamation like this? For 13 weeks in 1921 they were locked out and there was not the slightest disturbance in this country. In my own county it was considered that there was likely to be trouble in one colliery, and the police came to the miners' offices and asked if it was necessary to send extra police to that colliery. We said, "No," and we sent a miners' agent to that colliery and he cleared away all the trouble. The experiences of 1921 and 1912, and—in some northern counties—of 1892, entitle us to say that the conduct of the miners in previous disputes does not warrant this Proclamation. The Proclamation makes it easy to put miners in gaol, but miners have beer there before. Anyone acquainted with mining history knows that, long years ago, miners were put into prison when fighting for their rights. Once in my own county the gaols were filled and the bishop had to place his stables at the disposal of the authorities as a prison for miners. That did not break the spirit of the miners. They were determined to fight, and they are determined to-day to continue fighting until they win a living wage.

It is not fair on the part of the Government to ask the House for this Proclamation. The Home Secretary should bear in mind that the local magistrates' courts to-day are presided over by men, many of whom are biassed against the miners. In my own county we hold nine out of 11 Parliamentary seats; the Durham County Council is held by Labour, as are most of the local bodies, and yet of the magistrates in Durham, over 300 are opposed to Labour and about 30 are in favour of Labour. When miners are tried for offences against these Regulations, they will be tried in many cases by men opposed to them, and, in one case, men have been sent to prison by a coalowner. During the general strike, several hon. Members opposite said they would have sympathy with the miners if only the general strike were called off. That was a common expression. Where is that sympathy with the miners now, when hon. Members are prepared to endorse this Proclamation? The Proclamation seems to me to show that they have no sympathy with the miners, but that all their desire is to push further down the million and a quarter miners and their wives and bairns, who are starving. Had the House any sympathy with the miners they would refuse to agree with the Proclamation or the Regulations made under it.

4.0 P.M.

I want to oppose the vote of thanks for the Proclamation which has been issued, and the Regulations which, I expect, will be moved immediately afterwards by the Home Secretary. As the previous speaker has said, things are different at the present time from what they were when these Regulations and the special emergency was proclaimed a month ago, when the general strike was looming in the air. Undoubtedly, the threat of a general strike compelled the Government to advise the King at that time to issue a Proclamation of emergency.

You voted against it.

I am voting against it again, and I hope the hon. Member will come in with me. When the Government, a month ago, advised the King to proclaim a state of emergency, the general strike was the thing which they had in mind. That was, as they said, and made a great deal of capital out of it, an attack upon the Constitution, which justified them in proclaiming a state of emergency. Had it been only an ordinary trade dispute, had it been only a question of trade unionists versus employers, the country, they said, would not have been threatened, and the Government and the Constitution would not have been In danger. Consequently, because it was in their view an overt act at rebellion, a state of emergency had to be proclaimed. Are we to understand that the miners' dispute has now assumed the character of an attack upon the constitution? Are we to assume that the Home Secretary and the Government which he represents, are looking upon this miners' dispute now as an attack upon the constitution? Or do they intend, if they get this vote of thanks, and the Regulations, to put those Regulations into operation, irrespective of whichever party is responsible for preventing fuel from being supplied to the community? What I would like to know from the Home Secretary is, are the Government prepared to put into operation the Regulations which give them power to take over the mines of this country and operate them on behalf of the community?

That cannot be dealt with at the present stage. Such questions will arise when we come to the Regulations.

But I wish to submit to you, we are passing a vote of thanks for a Proclamation of a state of emergency. Arising out of that Proclamation are certain Regulations, and in opposing the vote of thanks, I think I am in order in bringing forward certain points in reference to those Regulations, though not in arguing and discussing them in detail, to justify my reasons for opposing a vote of thanks.

I do not think so, because this Motion really is not effective. This Motion does not bring the Regulations or the Proclamation into effect at all.

I want to point out, with due respect to your ruling, that we are asked to continue a state of emergency.

Not under this Motion at all.

Not under this Motion, but we are being asked at this moment to thank the King for a message to continue a state of emergency in this country. If that be so, and that is my view of it, then these emergency Regulations are at present in existence, and we are being asked to vote this to continue them. I submit, that while it is perfectly right and proper for the Home Secretary to move each Regulation to be continued, as they are down in the Command Paper, I am justified and in order in referring to the Regulations which are at present in existence, and which we are being asked to thank the King to continue. That, I submit, is perfectly in order.

I have already ruled more than once that the question of the details of the Regulations must be dealt with when we come to them, and not on this Motion.

The Home Secretary, in replying to the Leader of the Opposition, referred to stipendiaries and their judgments.

In deference to what I said, the Leader of the Opposition reserved his remarks on details until a later stage.

But may I point out that the Home Secretary, in his reply, certainly introduced matters relating to stipendiary magistrates and their judgments, and the question I am asking is this: If it be in order for the Home Secretary to refer to questions of judgments and stipendiaries, is it not in order for an hon. Member on this side to adduce arguments to show that the carrying out of these Regulations might have been wrong?

What the Home Secretary did was to reply to remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition about observations from the Bench. That is all he did.

But if we are to thank the King for a Proclamation, are we not in order, in reviewing the conduct of the Regulations in the past, to show why we cannot give our thanks?

No; that is what I have already replied to half a dozen times. I must ask the hon. Member now to keep to the subject under discussion. If the hon. Member cannot keep away from the other point, I cannot allow him to continue.

I want to point out that you have only ruled against me once. You may have ruled against other hon. Members. I have not been pulled up before for being out of order, but I have been putting points of Order to bring out exactly what is the position. You have been giving rulings on the points I have raised. You never called me to order on those points. I want to put to you, that having been asked by the Government to give a vote of thanks to the King for a certain Message, even although we do not refer to the Regu- lations, we have a right to refer to the conduct of the Government during the past month in operating the Government of this country, because while the Message is supposed to come from the King, you yourself have stated that it is on the advice of his Ministers. So that what we are actually being asked to do here to-day is to give to the Home Secretary and to the Government a vote of thanks for the advice they have given the King, and for the actions they have been committing during the past month. I deliberately and frankly decline to give any vote of thanks to the Prime Minister or to any member of the Government. As a matter of fact, the people of North Hammersmith, by an overwhelming majority, gave their vote of thanks to the Opposition, and yet, in spite of that definite and deliberate statement of no confidence in this Government, the Home Secretary has the brazen effrontery to promenade up the Floor of this House with a Message from the King, and then we are asked to thank him for giving this particular advice to the King. I have heard, in my time, of very many things which are considered brazen, but the most brazen action I have known is the action of this Government in asking us to thank them for what they have been doing. Why, the whole country is opposed to it. [ Laughter .] Of course, the volunteers may not be out of sympathetic feeling with the Government which paid them.

Excuse me, Sir, the volunteers were not paid. [ Interruption. ]

The hon. Member has been led away again from the subject under discussion.

The question of volunteers is not in the Regulations. I have been stating my position with regard to the Government asking for thanks for this. The only people who are likely to thank them are Members like the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), who, in the declaration of confidence that he gave to the Government, showed that he was ignorant of what was happening in trade unions and among trade unionists, and that he did not understand the composition of trade unions. Lay Members of this House two years ago, when an Amendment of the Insurance Act was brought in, pointed out where it would lead to, and we have been proved right, and the eminent lawyer has been proved wrong.

This is not in the least relevant to the matter before the House.

I understand part of the action of the Government is based upon advice given in this House by the right hon. Gentleman, and I am not going to thank the Government for acting upon that advice in declaring a general strike illegal. A general strike is not illegal; it is not unconstitutional. A general strike is perfectly constitutional. The right hon. Gentleman was not so keen, so anxious or so alert in giving his advice when Sir Edward Carson was preaching rebellion.

The hon. Member must please resume his seat.

I do not think there is a single individual in this House belonging to any party who actually believes that this is a real Message from His Majesty. I believe that you are doing a great disservice to the ruling House in this country at the present moment. I agree that a big number of the miners are not revolutionaries, and that they are not out for the purpose of destroying the Monarchy. You are the ones who are trying to convince the people of this country that His Majesty is opposed to the miners at the present moment, and you are asking this House to pass a vote of thanks to His Majesty for a Message which his Majesty never wrote, for a Message which His Majesty does not believe in.

I cannot allow this. I do not allow the King's name to be used on one side of the House or the other. It is not permissible in any way to use it for advancing arguments for or against a vote of thanks.

On a point of Order. I want to ask exactly what is before the House. One moment you rule that it is a Vote of Thanks to His Majesty, and that we are narrowed down to discussing what is in the actual Vote of Thanks; then, when a Member proceeds to argue that we ought not to thank His Majesty, you rule that His Majesty's name must not be brought in. What actually are we discussing? If we are not discussing the Regulations, then surely we are discussing the Vote of Thanks to His Majesty, and a Member is entitled to criticise the Vote of Thanks. If, on the other hand, we are not discussing that, we must be discussing something akin to the Regulations.

It is not possible for me at this stage to give lessons on the Constitution.

On a point of Order. That may be very smart—

Withdraw!

I cannot allow the hon. Member to proceed. It is not in Order for him to address such remarks to the Chair. I have been very patient, but there is a limit even to my patience.

I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I do not desire to do anything that is against the Rules of this House, but I am being asked by the Government of the day to pass a Vote of Thanks to His Majesty for having sent us a certain Message. I recognise, as a Member of this House, that that Message is the Message of the Home Secretary and the Government, and I want to enter my protest against that Message, because I represent a constituency to which that Message will have no value whatever. Under the original Regulations—I am not going to discuss them—I made special appeals there for my constituents to be orderly and to behave themselves, and only two of them have been arrested even under those Regulations. My protest to this House is that there is no necessity for a Vote of Thanks to any Government for introducing Regulations that are unnecessary. I cannot sit in silence in this House to agree to a Vote of Thanks, even in the name of His Majesty, for Regulations that I recognise are for the purpose of driving back to starvation the men whom I represent, and I am not going to be a party to supporting a Vote of Thanks to the Home Secretary for starving miners and their wives and children. This is a Vote of Thanks to the most hypocritical Prime Minister and Home Secretary that this country has ever known. It is a Vote of Thanks to those who are out to drive back into slavery and misery the men whom I seek to represent here, and I am never going to be a party to giving a vote of thanks, even in the name of His Majesty, to a set of the most hypocritical tyrants and political humbugs that this country has ever known.

I have listened to the speech of the Home Secretary and most of the speakers who have followed to see exactly what are the reasons why we should thank any person in connection with these Regulations. I understand now that we are entitled to discuss the question of thanking the Government for these Regulations, and I want to ask the Home Secretary why he has never given us a reason for thanking him. In his speech introducing the Regulations he dealt with many subjects, but the one subject with which he did not deal was the reason why we should thank him or any person else for introducing those Regulations, and I submit that it is the duty of any person in the Government, when introducing such Regulations, to show reasons why we should give thanks for those Regulations. I have no reason at all for thanking the Government. The hon. Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood) characterised the Home Secretary's chief as being a political humbug in connection with these matters, but I think there is some reason for thanking the Home Secretary, for I think the Home Secretary, more than any other man, should receive our thanks for winning Hammersmith. Whatever his faults are, he is very open, and I said at one time in this House that I thought he was stupidly honest. I repeat that. I think his actions are apparent, but I cannot see why we should thank His Majesty's Government, which is really the Prime Minister. We can at least thank the Home Secretary for Hammersmith, but we cannot thank the Prime Minister for anything, because he is the man who tries to run with all sides without doing anything at all. Those who listened to his speech yesterday, and to his utterances before yesterday, recognise in him a man who is prepared to say one thing one day, and without the slightest conviction to alter it another day. He is the head of this Government—

On a point of Order. Has all this nonsense anything to do with the subject before the House.

It is not in order for an hon. Member to use that word in rising to a point of Order.

I often use language worse than that, and I have no objection to it. I never object to getting my own medicine back. My point is that there is no reason for thanking His Majesty for these Regulations. We can thank the Home Secretary, but we have no reason for thanking his colleagues, particularly his chief, the head of the Government, for this particular Message, and my own view is that for a man who has talked so much about peace and goodwill in industry to bring in these Regulations for imprisoning the humblest and meanest

of the citizens, and selecting them for vindictive treatment, is asking too much It would be wrong on the part either of this party or of any section of the House to pass such a vote of thanks, and I am glad my colleagues have protested SJ stoutly against this Motion.

Question put,

"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty thanking His Majesty for His Most Gracious Message communicating to this House that His Majesty has deemed it proper by Proclamation, made in pursuance of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, and dated the 29th day of May, 1926, to declare that a state of emergency exists."

The House divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 100.

Resolved,

"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty thanking His Majesty for His Most Gracious Message communicating to this House that His Majesty has deemed it proper by Proclamation, made in pursuance of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, and dated the 29th day of May, 1926, to declare that a state of emergency exists."

Address to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

I beg to move, in line 2, after "1926," to insert the words:

In this particular instance the delay is not the responsibility of the owner of the cargo. The responsibility for these accumulated charges is the action of the Government under these Regulations, and it appears to me unfair that the powers that the Government has conferred should be abused in an endeavour to impose these additional charges on the owner of the cargo. Obviously, if it is in the interest of the nation that the Government should bring about these unnecessary charges, the whole community should bear them. I want to quote—and I desire to be very brief for this point is a very simple one and does not require long speech—I want to quote one or two cases which have come to my knowledge. The one instance is at Plymouth, where certain coal vessels have been held up over a certain period. There are certain retailers in this town and in other towns affected by this practice. Dealers who get their coal by rail or by other methods are not to the same extent affected by the policy of the Government—those dealers who have small quantities of coal, The Government are endeavour- ing to force upon the particular persons to whom I refer the charges which their policy has brought about, and it is not fair or just.

In another case at Gravesend there is a cargo of coal which was really scheduled to be discharged on the 1st May. Owing to the delay the boat—this was before the strike occurred and before even the actual coal lockout occurred—this cargo of coal was locked up immediately the regulations of the Government came into force. This boat has now been lying in the river for something like a month. The additional charges brought about by the Government's policy have accumulated to about 5s. per ton on the coal. In the meantime there had to be secured a certain amount of coal for the people concerned and arrangements had to be made for other merchants to supply them. They naturally paid for that coal at the current market prices. Owing I say, to the policy of the Government 5s. per ton has been placed on this coal. Therefore, in view of the national emergency, and if it be part of the Government policy to hold in reserve this mobile quantity of coal, the least the Government can do is to meet, out of the public Exchequer, the additional charges which are unfair to a certain class of dealers. I have endeavoured to state this clearly and I trust that the President of the Board of Trade will state quite clearly to this House that he realises that this is a charge the Government should bear, so that merchants and many others shall know exactly where they stand in this matter.

The hon. Gentleman opposite has put his point, if I may say so, with extreme clearness, but I am wondering whether a reply will be in order in dealing with the actions which he is criticising. The action taken has been taken under Regulation 12, and not under Regulation 3.

You placed an embargo on the coal?

That is quite right, but, as I say, the Regulation which gives the Board of Trade power is Regulation 12, which is consequential upon Regulation 3. Therefore, what is apparently in the hon. Gentleman's mind is that he does not desire to omit Regulation 3, but to criticise the administration of Regulation 12. If I am in order in replying to the questions he has raised on Regulation 3, I shall do so.

I think the two Regulations really hang together.

What has happened is that Regulation 12 came into automatic operation as soon as the emergency occurred, following the precedent of all such stoppages, and the power obtained under this and the equivalent Regulations was to do two things; first, to prohibit any ships from leaving a port with a coal cargo, and, secondly, to prevent a ship unloading. That was the action that was taken. It was found necessary because, after all, one never knows how long a stoppage in these days may last. Regulation 12 applies to the coal in the ships in our ports at the time that the emergency arises. Therefore, it is necessary, not to take possession, but to prohibit the transference of these cargoes as the emergency becomes more acute, and for the time being it is not desirable to relinquish the force of the Regulation.

What the hon. Gentleman who has moved the Amendment says is this: You have not taken possession of the cargo, but you have prevented the ship from clearing its cargo, if you allow that ship to clear its cargo, to unload and to deliver it to the consignee, you ought not to make a condition of so allowing it that any extra cost should fall upon the consignee. The hon. Gentleman said it ought to fall upon the Government. But the Government means the taxpayer. I submit that that really is not reasonable. I assume that proceeding under Regulation 12, we give a permit to release the coal. A condition is made that some of the extra cost, which in this case is the cost of keeping a crew on board, shall fall upon the consignee. Suppose that instead of simply holding up the cargo and then releasing it, the procedure had been to requisition it. Suppose the coal had been requisitioned, and, instead of being delivered to the original consignee, had been delivered to somebody else. Surely it would have been quite reasonable to charge the purchaser with the extra cost of the coal? He would pass it on to the consumer. If there is an inevitable rise in price, I think it has to be borne, generally, by the consumer; I do not think we can have the taxpayer bearing the whole of the extra cost inevitably incurred. Undoubtedly, as between the taxpayer and the purchaser of a requisitioned cargo, it would be fair to charge the purchaser with the extra price, and not to put the charge upon the taxpayer; and is the position really any different when the person who receives the cargo is the person to whom it was originally consigned? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] I think not. It is only by chance, so to speak, that the original consignee is allowed to take possession of his cargo, because a complete "stop" was put upon all coal which was on board ship when the emergency broke out. The Government have complete power to requisition it if they think it necessary, and to deliver it to anybody.

It is quite true that in this case delivery is ultimately made—or, rather, the coal is ultimately released—to the original consignee, who has established a claim to that coal, not by reason of his contract, which may be overridden, but by reason of the fact that he has established a need which, in the opinion of the Mines Department, is a need which ought to be met in the national interest—although it is quite true that that need is being met out of coal consigned to himself. I think the same reasons must apply in that case as would apply if the cargo were being delivered to somebody else—the extra cost ought to fall upon the person who receives the coal just as it would fall upon him if he were getting coal which had been requisitioned from somebody else. Therefore, as between the claim by the original consignee that he ought to receive his original consignment at its original price, and the claim that the difference ought to fall upon the taxpayer, I think in all fairness the cost ought to fall upon the consignee. Observe what would happen if anything else were done. If we were to give way and to say that the taxpayer should bear the extra cost in this case, I do not see why the taxpayer should not be landed with many extra charges which might be incurred in connection with the Regulations, and that, I think, would be altogether wrong. I think that an extra cost inevitably incurred must be passed on as one of the inevitable burdens which fall upon the general public. Therefore, following the precedent which has been set on other occasions, I think the Mines Department must continue the practice which they have already begun.

The Regulations under which this embargo has been placed upon coal came into operation a few weeks ago under conditions vastly different from those obtaining at the present time. The General Strike is now over, and the danger for the community which the Government held to exist has passed away, and these Regulations are being maintained, if they are being maintained for any reason at all, because the Government are definitely upon the side of the owners in this trade dispute. I think no other conclusion can be drawn from the facts of the case.

The question before us relates only to No. 3 of the Regulations. An Amendment has been moved to leave out No. 3.

From what we were told when we were discussing the Address of Thanks, I understood that when we got to the Regulations we should take them paragraph by paragraph, and that the numbers of them would be called out, but that has not been done. What I want to know is whether, after we have got through the Amendments, we shall then be at liberty to have a general discussion?

If the Amendment be disposed of in reasonable time, there will be a general discussion on the main question after that.

I have no desire to get out of order, and what I was coming to is the Regulation under which the Government place an embargo upon coal. As I see it, the weapons that are in use in the dispute are these: On the one side is the convenience of the general community, and on the other side is the power of resistance of the miners, resting upon the question of their food supply. It is, after all, a question of pure starvation. The weapon the miner is fighting with is starvation, and I do not see why the owners should be placed in a privileged position by having their coal stocks preserved by the action of the Government. If the miners are to be brought under the play of the forces of sheer hunger and starvation, the wreckage of their homes, and the influence of these things upon the health of their wives and their families, surely they ought to have left in their hands the weapon of inconvenience caused by the dispute, as that might induce pressure to be brought upon the owners to give way, and thus the conditions would be equalised. By putting into operation this Regulation, and placing an embargo upon coal, the Government are aiding the employers in their dispute, using a weapon to compel the workmen to take lower wages or work longer hours. The Government are using these Emergency Regulations, which were originally passed for an entirely different purpose, against the miners in a purely industrial struggle. It cannot be urged that the miners' dispute is against the State; the Constitution is not in danger; it is a dispute on a question of wages, and the Government have no right to use this powerful weapon against men in the fight they are making on behalf of themselves, their wives and their families.

I understand that the purpose of Regulation 3 is to secure that the supply and distribution of food and stores in the country will be satisfactorily carried out. I notice that the powers of the Board of Trade under Regulations 2 and 3 may be exercised in Scotland by the Secretary for Scotland. I think it would have been only fair to the Scottish Members who have shown an interest in this matter that there should have been a representative of the Secretary for Scotland on the Treasury Bench while we were dealing with this matter, but it looks as though the Secretary for Scotland feels little concern with regard to these matters. In the supply and distribution of food in Scotland pretty much the same circumstances have arisen as we have experienced here, including alterations in prices. For example, in Glasgow the price of coal has gone up to 3s. 6d. per cwt., and various difficulties have also arisen with regard to foodstuffs; and I want to deal with the position of those people who are in a state of poverty through this lock-out, and to whom the price of food is a material consideration. The parish council of Glasgow have decided to supply food to the wives1 and children of the men who are locked out, and have refused to give them payments in cash, and I think it is right that Members of this House, of all parties, should know exactly what has occurred in Glasgow. Women and children who went to the Dovehill feeding centre for the distribution of foodstuffs were handed out such things as these. What I am showing to the House now is a ration handed out to a mother for herself and her children. This is supposed to be a piece of cheese, this horrible looking thing, and not a piece of carbolic soap. This other thing is supposed to be what, I think, is called a black pudding. It is quite mouldy looking. I want to make my protest to the Government, and I hope the President of the Board of Trade, in operating this Regulation, will see to it that food is placed within the reach of the people, and that men are not to be left to be starved out because this sort of thing is going on. When we are taking these powers, I suggest that the Secretary for Scotland might take the power to prosecute people who are responsible for the distribution of such an abomination as this ration evidently is.

5.0 P.M.

In the absence of the Secretary for Scotland, who seems absolutely destitute of real interest in this matter, or of any administrative ability, I hope the President of the Board of Trade will pass on to the Scottish Office the protest I have made. Certain I am that every decent person in Scotland, to whatever party he or she may belong, will object to the disgrace that has been brought upon the City of Glasgow by the action of people who, in cold blood, can give such food-stuffs as these to women and children in distressed circumstances. I hope that some of the hon. Members opposite who represent Scottish constituencies will join with me in this protest, in order that this kind of thing may be stopped. I hope that if this industrial dispute is going on the women and children are not going to be treated in the abominable fashion represented by the reasons which I have explained to the Members of this House.

I can scarcely understand why the Government are making this proposal. Since the handling of coal from ships is not now suspended and as the transport men are all at work, I cannot see why the Government should need any restrictions with regard to the movement of coal, and more especially coal which has been ordered for the purpose of domestic distribution. If it ha-d bee0 coal going to an open market without any designation as to how and when it was to be used, we could understand the holding up of a cargo of that kind. We could understand the holding up of coal passing from one place to another for the ordinary market, but when you have a cargo of coal specified for a purpose within London itself, where this question arises, it is difficult to see why any Government should seek these powers because the conditions which make Regulation No. 3 necessary have passed away. Why should the Government seek to impose Regulation 3 unless they have it in mind that this fight is going to be very prolonged and that conditions even more desperate than the general strike produced are going to ensue. If they have that in mind, why have they not the courage to tell us exactly what is their object. We do not want to keep food or fuel from any section of the community, and we do not want the mouldy food and rotten cheese which has been shown to us to-day handed to the poor women and children. I would like the President of the Board of Trade to tell us whether the Government really anticipate greater difficulties while the miners are sitting idle through being locked out than existed before. Does the right hon. Gentleman wish us to believe that the Government anticipate greater difficulties than were caused by the general strike.

I would like that question properly answered so that we may know exactly what is in the mind of the Government. I think we might have some explanation given to us as to what is meant by the involved sentences contained in these Regulations because when you read them you begin to feel that the man who drew them up had been working overtime and had lost his grip of the English language. We want to know exactly what all this means. It is no good going to the Scottish people with anything of this kind, because any such conglomeration of words as those to which I have referred may constitute a trap, and we are not going to allow ourselves to be led into traps of this kind, I hope the President of the Board of Trade will analyse and parse this Regulation and tell us what interpretation should be placed upon it, and inform us whether the final explanation is to rest with the President of the Board of Trade, the Home Secretary, the Speaker, or with the authorities in the other House where they have greater knowledge of grammar and English. To ask for Regulation 3 under present conditions is simply asking for something in anticipation of a state of things which has been absolutely wiped out by the cessation of the general strike.

I want to know whether, if we pass this Regulation, the President of the Board of Trade intends to carry it out to its full and logical conclusion. This Regulation is to be taken, according to the wording of it, in conjunction with Regulation 2, which refers to such things as Scottish Act to which I have referred. Consequently, the mines can be opened and the miners asked to resume work and to produce the fuel necessary to secure the well-being of the people of Scotland. I submit that his a perfectly fair interpretation of these Regulations, and I am sorry my colleagues who preceded me have not protested more because the Secretary for Scotland is not present to answer these points. Of course, I do not question the ability of the President of the Board of Trade in matters affecting English legislation, but I doubt whether the right, hon. Gentleman has any knowledge of the Act of Parliament which I have just mentioned, which has never been repealed, and which is still in operation. I hope some day, if this Government does not steal a march upon us, and we have a Labour Government in office in the near future, that, so far as Scotland is concerned, there will be no need to pay compensation when we take away the mining royalties.

The Government claim that they are asking for these Regulations in the interests of the life of the community. There is an industrial dispute proceeding. It is a dispute between two sections, the employers and the workmen. The Government declare that they are taking up a neutral position in regard to this matter, and holding themselves apart from the contestants. They tell us that it is in the interests of the community that they are asking the House to adopt these Regulations. Surely the interests of the community mean that the people are entitled to have a, sufficiency of fuel, that the1 normal industries of the country shall be carried on, and that there should be the least possible delay or objection from any side. So long as coal is not being provided for the maintenance of the industrial life of the community then the life of the community is being impaired and the prosperity of the country is being retarded. The Government are seeking powers under these Regulations which will confer upon them very sweeping powers, and I submit that it is not sufficient for this Government, once they have got these Regulations passed, merely to extract from them those sections which give them power to repress the miners' side and leave free and untrammelled all the activities of the coalowners and all those powers which tend to starve one side into submission. If they want these Regulations to be used as Regulations in what they allege are the interests of the community, they might put the whole of the Regulations into operation, irrespective of whether it is the miners or the mineowners who are suffering. As I have pointed out, as far as Scotland is concerned, those who are in the main claiming to own the coal there have no right to that coal, and consequently it is imperative, from that point of view at least, that we should have the Secretary for Scotland here. I am taking up a point which deals with his Department, under a Scottish Act of Parliament which gives him very wide powers, and if I thought, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you would accept it, I would move the Adjournment of the Debate until we get some representative from Scotland on the Front Bench. Would you take a Motion for the Adjournment?

Yes.

I put the wrong question. I know that on Derby Day we are all anxious for the Adjournment of the House, although I suppose some people would rather that the race itself had been adjourned till another day. If I can move to report Progress—

That is applicable to proceedings in Committee. The hon. Member may move the Adjournment of the Debate, but, of course, once that has been moved, discussion can only proceed on the reasons for Adjournment, and on no other point.

I quite accept that, and I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

The point I have raised is really very material so far as it affects Scotland. I have quoted an ancient Act which has never been repealed, and I want to put it very definitely and clearly that we ought to have a representative from Scotland present who can make a statement with regard to what I have said. I see that a representative from Scotland has now come in.

Now that there is a representative from Scotland here, I do not think the hon. Member will be entitled to move the Adjournment of the Debate on the ground that he is not here.

That, of course, will raise a laugh from people on the other side, but the laugh was with me in getting you to accept a Motion for the Adjournment because there was no Scottish representative present. Now that he is here I want to put this to him. There is in existence an Act of Parliament in Scotland which lays it down that the minerals in Scotland are the property of the Crown. If that be so, and I think the Lord Advocate will admit that that Act of Parliament has never been repealed, then this particular Regulation No. 3 must be taken in conjunction with Regulation No. 2, which makes specific reference to the Secretary for Scotland, and gives power to the Secretary for Scotland or the Scottish Office in regard to directing the production of fuel in Scotland.

I am putting forward the suggestion that we cannot have the Government selecting from these Regulations only those parts which can be used against the miners or against individuals or parties who are in sympathy with the miners, but that, if they wish to act up to the statement contained in the Regulations that they are being passed in the interests of preserving the life of the community, they must put them into operation fearless of which section they are going to affect. I submit to the Lord Advocate that this Act of Parliament gives power to the Government to produce or give directions for the production of coal irrespective of the mine owners in Scotland, and irrespective of those who call themselves the owners of mining royalties—to give directions to trained miners in Scotland to go down the mines, if they are so willed, and produce fuel, and protect them against both mineowners and mining royalty owners. That, I submit, is the purpose of this Regulation; that, I submit, can be the effect of this Regulation; that, I submit, would be the effect of this Regulation if we had an impartial Government, and not a Government that is behind the mineowners and against the miners.

I hope that when the Lord Advocate comes to reply he will tell us exactly what he intends doing with these Regulations in Scotland, in view of the Act of Parliament which is already in existence. I expect that he will come forward with some sort of reference to a legal decision that may have been already given in Scotland that coal is not a mineral, and, consequently, cannot be considered to be within the scope of the Act to which I have referred. If coal is not a mineral, however, I should like to know what it is. Is it a vegetable? If it cannot be said to be other than a mineral, I submit that it comes within the scope of the Act to which I have referred. I hope the Government are going to play the game, and are not going to stand behind the mineownere only—that they are not going to get these Regulations put into operation to starve the miners into submission, to get them to accept the mineowners' terms, but that they are going to carry this matter to the fullest extent of the powers which are given to them, and to take over, or at any rate to throw open during this dispute, the mines in Scotland, and invite the miners to go there and work on the terms on which they were left, paying them for the production that comes from the mines, and, if there is anything left after giving the miners a decent standard of life and comfort, to tell the mine-owners that they can have the balance. That is what would have been done by a fair-minded Government. I put it to this Government, in the light of the vote of no-confidence passed upon them by the electors outside, that they ought to consider very carefully every step they are taking under these Regulations. The suggestion I am putting forward, if carried into effect by the Government, would go a long way towards showing that the Government are not going to use these powers in a tyrannical and partial manner, but that they are prepared to consider the interest of the community first, and the wealth and profits of the mineowners as a secondary matter altogether.

I did not have the advantage of hearing the reply of the President of the Board of Trade just now to the Mover of the Amendment, but I have had an indication given to me of what his argument was in reply to the Amendment. I think he would say with me that anyone who has had experience at the Board of Trade in the last few years, and knows the legal difficulties which arose from the aftermath of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, that it is perhaps to be expected that the Board of Trade, in such a time as this, will, in any case where it thinks it has not a very sound case in law, and where it is afraid of what the action of the Courts will be should any case be taken to Court, endeavour to cover themselves in the meantime by inducing people in business, or others affected by the Regulations, to take certain steps now which will indemnify the Board of Trade. That is actually what is happening, and it was the main reason why this Amendment was put down.

We want to submit that the President of the Board of Trade has made out no real case in support of the action which has been taken by his Department in this matter. First of all, in regard to the conservation for the benefit of the community of the existing stocks of coal, they decided that it was best to reserve the coal that was afloat, as being more mobile for distribution in case of necessity, and that that coal was only to be used as a last reserve. Obviously that was action taken by the Government in the interest of the whole community, and not of sections of the community. But when they put their policy into force of requiring the owners of specific cargoes to pay all the detention costs and any other special charges arising out of the action of the Government in the interest of the whole community, it means that those costs fall upon a comparatively small portion of the population. That, I think, in equity is indefensible, and that is our reason for moving this Amendment to-day. The President of the Board of Trade, I understand, said that if this were to be discussed it ought not to be discussed upon Regulation No. 3, but that it would be more in order on Regulation No. 12; but I understand that Mr. Speaker ruled that the discussion might continue on this Regulation.

What I said was that I hoped we might be allowed to have one discussion, and not two. I may point out that the suggestion made by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment as to taking possession of the coal is not correct. This coal is subject to the total embargo referred to in Regu- lation No. 12, and licences have been given in particular cases to the consignees to receive the coal.

That is the position, and that is why I want to refer now to Regulation No. 12, upon which the President of the Board of Trade rests himself in this matter. Regulation No. 12 says:

I should have thought, with great respect to the knowledge and ability of the President of the Board of Trade, that, before we were asked to give a vote on this to-night, we ought to have a legal opinion from the Law Officers as to what the effect of Regulation No. 12 may be, and I hope that, before the House goes to a Division on this Amendment, we shall have, either directly, or indirectly through the President of the Board of Trade, if he has legal advice, a definite legal interpretation of that particular point. With regard to the question of equity, there are large numbers of consumers of coal in various parts of the country who always rely in normal times upon seaborne coal for their necessities, and they are going to be mulct in heavy aditional charges purely because of action that has been taken by the Government, not in their interest, but in the interest of the whole community. As I have said, I think it is indefensible that these costs should be placed upon them, and not upon the community as a whole.

There is another point to which I should like to refer in dealing with this Amendment to Regulation No. 3. The Secretary for Mines yesterday, in reply to a private notice question which I put to him, said that he was inquiring into specific cases which had been put to him of alleged profiteering in the price of coal. He also said that the Government would be prepared to requisition the stocks of traders —I take it either coalowners or wholesale merchants—who were demanding unfair prices from the community; but that he did not propose to do so until the matter was urgent, or at any rate1—I do not remember the exact words—far more acute than it is at present. If this Regulation is going through to-night, I think we ought to have a more definite assurance from the Government, because cases of profiteering are already known; they are already with us. I want to pay this tribute to the Government, that they did make it perfectly clear during the general stoppage, in such a way as to have a very good effect, that, if there were any attempt to profiteer in food at that time, they would not hesitate to requisition the stocks of any trader who attempted to obtain undue prices from the community. That is a very good thing to do, and is probably far more effective than having a general control of prices. If that was a good policy in regard to food distribution during the general stoppage, it is equally good during the stringency in regard to coal due to the dispute in the coal industry. On that point I should like to have an assurance from the President of the Board of Trade that under the powers of Regulation No. 3 the Government will immediately, in the case of any trader who is unjustifiably raising prices to the community in this period of emergency in the coal industry, take steps to have his stocks requisitioned, and thereby protect the community.

I desire to oppose all these Regulations, and this particular Regulation No. 3 in particular. My reason is that I think it is a piece of machinery which is set up to assist the coalowners against the miners. I believe that the whole of the designs behind these proposals are for the purpose of forcing the mine workers of this country to accept a reduction in wages. I cannot conceive any other reasons for the promotion of these Regulations. I observe that the objective is to inflict punishment upon anyone for in any way abrogating the intentions or designs of those who propose these Regulations, and I observe also that, so far as the question of fixing maximum prices is concerned, that, too, is to be left to the Government. I do not see any grounds for supposing that that is going to be of any assistance to the people who are to-day involved in the present dispute. I observe also that the Government speak of their power to take this or that thing, or to control distribution, or to make certain Regulations with regard to consumption and with regard to the use of certain goods and the manufacture of certain articles. I observe that they seek to retain certain powers and to apply them in accordance with this Regulation, with the addition of Regulation No. 12.

My view, and I think that a large number of people to-day would back it, is that, if you come to this House and ask for these powers, you should do what some people call the big thing, and take powers to get at the seat of the trouble. I would ask, why all these Orders, Regulations, and so on, when you can attack the seat of the trouble? If these people cannot manage these mines correctly, why do not the Government take possession of them and try to operate them themselves, at least until they have had the necessary inquiry and negotiations have taken place in order to settle down and come to some decent conclusion? The money that we are spending in one way and another on all the emergency measures that are being adopted throughout the country, the millions that must eventually be spent on Commission after Commission and inquiry after inquiry, would be sufficient to pay, as far as I can see, the difference between the old rate of wages and the new one that is at any rate proposed to be substituted.

I may remind the hon. Member that this is the specific proposal of Regulation 3.

And I am urging that the cost of the adoption of this specific proposal could easily be part of the cost that we would be relieved of if the need did not arise. That is the only point I have to make with regard to it.

I now come to another point. The Regulation says:

Another thing with regard to it is that it is protecting a certain number of traders and monopolists who ought to be left to look after themselves. Giving them the protection of this House and of the President of the Board of Trade and the Home Secretary means that they have that assistance in their business to encourage them to continue and to bring in larger masses of goods in order to assist the forcing down of the miners' wages. I hope you will be mistaken. I sincerely trust you will never be able to carry out your Orders. I sincerely trust every attempt you make will be defeated. I hope men in foreign ports will refuse to load your ships, so that you do not get what you are asking for. Speaking for myself alone, as far as I am able to do anything, I shall encourage people not to comply with your Regulations and not to assist in carrying them out. I believe they are designed to defeat the miners, and that it is part of the policy of the Government to bring in Regulations which will help the coalowners to defeat the miners. We have clear indications that that is the object, and for that reason I oppose it.

I want to return to the question raised by my hon. Friend beside me (Mr. Alexander) as to the legal difficulties that may arise if the policy of the Government is, as we understand it has been, to give clearances under Regulation 12 on condition that the cost involved by detention and so on shall fall on the shipowners. As I understand the position, through a mistaken view of the way in which this sort of condition may be exercised by the Government, as has been held in many cases in the Courts, many of which I have had to consider, millions of pounds have had to be paid by the State because the State has used conditions such as these to compel persons, in order to obtain a licence to deal with commodities, to pay what the Courts have in fact decided was a tax which could only properly be levied by the House. I am very fearful that what is being sought to be done under this Regulation may very well be treated hereafter by the Courts in very much the same way they have dealt with the conditions that were laid down in the Wilts Dairy case and other cases. We do not know at the moment exactly how far the doctrine goes, but we were assured at the time when the Government were using the Regulations to restrict the moving of milk and other matters, and claiming to charge a fee for a licence for giving that permission, that they were acting wholly within their powers under the Regulations, and subsequently the Courts held that that was entirely wrong. The result of that mistake cost the State an enormous amount of money.

Take this present case. Under Regulation 12, it is true, power is given to refuse the clearance of any ship, or to grant it subject to such conditions as to voyage or otherwise as the Commissioners of Customs and Excise may prescribe. The conditions that are in fact being laid down are these. We will give you this permission if you will make yourself liable for certain costs of detention, for certain wages payable for masters as well as for the men. Why will the Government say that in principle is different from the Wilts Dairy case? There it was held that to say you would give permission if the subject would agree to incur a certain liability—in that case the cost of a licence—was utterly irregular. It amounted to taxation and it had ultimately to be made up out of the revenues of the country. Here you are saying, not that permission will be granted according to the social necessity of the case, not that it is to be given or refused to clear the particular ship because there is or is not in any particular case a shortage of coal, but in order to save the Government from certain financial liabilities which might otherwise arise. That seems to me very likely to be quite as much a financial imposition on the subject which may be held, as it was in the other cases, ultimately to be a thing which can only be levied, by taxation. Although there are not many Members in the House to-day, and although the tendency of many hon. Members is always to assume that whatever the Government do is right, yet all these feelings and all these confidences existed when the Regulations were made which in the Wilts Dairy case the House of Lords held to be utterly irregular.

There is a further difficulty in this case. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, it is extremely doubtful whether Regulation 12 ever contemplated a condition of this kind at all. It is a very broad statement to say that "conditions as to voyage or otherwise" means a condition that you are to indemnify the Government against expenses which they might otherwise be called upon to meet. I should read those words "or otherwise" to be ejusdem generis with voyage. I do not think it was ever contemplated, except in the subtle mind of someone at the Board of Trade, that the Regulation would ever be used in this way.

It is not under paragraph 1, as I understand it, that this arises, but under paragraph 2.

Whether it is under 1 or 2, you are, in fact, using a licence or condition for the purpose of making the subject suffer a financial liability which he would not otherwise suffer. I think that is common ground between us. The condition is made, "We will let your ship clear if you will suffer a certain financial liability." I do not think it matters whether it is a liability for wages or for demurrage. Whatever the liability is is immaterial. My point is this. This is a Regulation made under Statute to secure the safety of the realm in certain ways. Can you make a valid Regulation, can you use a Regulation validly, for the purpose of making the subject suffer a financial liability in order to obtain a licence without going through the formality of a taxing Statute? I may be wrong. [ Interruption. ] If the hon. Members says I am wrong, it does not follow that I am. Those who raised this point in the case of the Wilts Dairy were also told they were wrong, and the Government were complacent and took up very much, the same attitude, but the House of Lords decided that the Government was wrong, and in the result the taxpayer had to pay an enormous amount of money. I do not believe the Courts will hold that the Government could use this condition as a means of escaping a liability which they might otherwise have to incur. I see here the cloven hoof of the bureaucracy which we have seen before and which the House of Lords has so very properly denounced in that series of cases.

There is another thing which strengthens my view. I take it that if the subject is to suffer this tax to get this condition, one would imagine, if it was to extend to something of this sort, compensation for stoppage would be recognised in the Regulation, but when you look at Regulation 31 you see that the compensation payable is limited to property requisitioned or of which possession is taken under these Regulations. To refuse clearance to a ship unless a, certain indemnity or liability is incurred by the subject is neither to take possession nor to requisition, and therefore if a subject can in fact be levied in this way under Regulation 12, he is without a remedy, and rather than assume that he is without a remedy, I would assume that Regulation 12 never intended to give the Crown this power to levy the subject at all, because the dilemma is that he cannot get compensation. Unless he admits that he has certain liabilities, there is no compensation. Is it not much more likely that the power does not in fact exist, and that the Government are seeking to do precisely what earlier Governments sought to do in the Wilts Dairy case, and that it will be found ultimately that what is being done here is illegal, that it is not justified by the Act, that it requires a financial Resolution of the House and proper taxing legislation, and that in the end the taxpayer will be mulcted possibly in millions of pounds to make up for the negligence of the Government?

Perhaps I may make one or two observations which I hope will remove any doubts the House may have after listening to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He says he may be right and he may be wrong, and I gather he does not mind whether I express an opinion which agrees or disagrees with his, but, at any rate, for what it is worth I should like to express my opinion on the matter. He has referred to the Wilts case, which was a case under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, where it was provided that a licence might be granted for the removal of milk from one area to another, and a condition was made that a licence would be granted in return for a certain payment—I think 2d. or 3d. a gallon. It was held in the House of Lords that that was not an exaction or a payment which could be required to be made as a condition of granting a licence. I think most people would recognise that there is a wide difference between such a case and what is sought to be done under No. 12 of the present Regulations. This present Regulation provides that there shall be a power to prohibit the unloading of any particular cargo in cases where it is deemed necessary and proper, and such prohibition will be properly made in proper cases if the Regulation is passed.

But it may be that the consignee of a particular cargo will come forward and say, "I am the person to whom this cargo will necessarily have to go." It is ridiculous that the Board of Trade should go through the machinery of, first of all, requiring the unloading of the cargo to them and then the sale of it to the person to whom it will eventually go. The President of the Board of Trade may say he is prepared to release the cargo to the proper consignee on payment of the same charge as would be added to the cost of the cargo if it were to be only passed to him through the rather circuitous route I have contemplated. That is not the exaction of a payment or a levy as the condition of the grant of a licence. It is the adoption of another method than that contemplated by the Regulation, which is the prohibition of the unloading of the cargo and the requisition of the prohibition of the unloading by the Government. There is a wide distinction between the two cases. It is a voluntary arrangement which may be made which will, of course, displace what is contemplated by the Regulation, namely, the prohibition of the unloading. If the Regulation were framed in the way the Regulations in the Wilts Dairy case were framed, namely, a power on the part of the President of the Board of Trade to grant a licence and the licence were only granted in return for a payment, no doubt the matter would be to some extent parallel with the Wilts case, but in the view I take, this is a wholly different case and I hope it will not be thought there is any risk on the lines of the decision to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred which will lead the House to think it is not desirable to include this particular Regulation.

May I put this to the hon. and learned Gentleman? As a fact the position adopted by the Board of Trade is far worse than was the case in the other instances. There they did something illegal but put their illegality into writing. Now they are doing something which we maintain is equally illegal, not putting it into writing, but trying to force these payments out of the subject under the necessities of the case, and it is our view that? it is quite likely the Courts will hold that they are not more exceeding statutory authority in this case than in the case of the printed regulation which was the subject of the Wilts Dairy decision although the result on the subject is the same.

The hon. Member can only speak by leave of the House.

I wanted to get the view of the Solicitor-General on the point he made. He says it is voluntary, but as a fact the President of the Board of Trade knows that in many cases he could offer to avoid any demurrage charges by unloading the coal on the quayside, letting the ship go and not taking it to the consignee at once. Even then the costs mount up and still they have to be mulcted in them.

6.0 P.M.

I am not qualified to deal with the question of law, but looking at it as a question of equity, a cargo comes in and the Government put an embargo on it Expenses run up all the time and when the time comes when you are going to get possession of your cargo, the Government says, "We will only give you the right to get possession if you pay certain of these charges incurred because of our action." I am not a lawyer, but in equity that seems to be something which is absolutely wrong. It was done time and again during the War, and private individuals had to suffer disabilities on that account, and to incur expense which they ought not to have incurred. Apart from these Regulations, I hold that in respect of the cargoes which have been held up the Government should bear the expense and not the individuals.

In my opposition to this Regulation I do not intend to follow the lines of argument adopted by several of the previous speakers. I do not believe that those who were responsible for the framing of the Regulations intended to do anything, willingly, against trade or traders. I believe, rightly or wrongly, that these Regulations were framed for the purpose of trying to defeat the miners. It may have happened that, incidentally, some traders did suffer disadvantages as a result of the Regulations. Regulation 3 and the other Regulations have been in operation for over a month, and before we are asked to continue the Regulations for another month or an indefinite period the House is entitled to know what Regulations have been put into operation during the past month. We are entitled to know how they have worked, what directions have been issued by the Boa-rd of Trade during the last month, and whether and when and under what directions commodities have had a price fixed.

This particular Regulation allows the Board of Trade to fix a maximum price for certain articles. I want to know on what articles during the last month maximum prices have been fixed by the Board of Trade and to what price coal has to soar before the President of the Board of Trade considers that the price is sufficiently high as to justify the fixing of a maximum price. Coal which had been produced in my division at 3s. 9d. and 4s. 3d. for 23 cwts., is being sold in the town of Peebles at 3s. 9d. per cwt. I want to know whether the price has to go up to £3 0s. 9d. before the President of the Board of Trade fixes a maximum price. I do not believe that this Regulation would be necessary if it were read in connection with Regulation 2, for the acquiring by the Board of Trade of any articles essential for the life of the community. If we had a Socialist majority in the House of Commons, I would have no objection to the Regulations being in operation, but it is because of those who have to operate the Regulations that I am suspicious.

Regulation 3 gives power to deal with the distribution and supply of foodstuffs. I want to know whether the dealers in the type of foodstuffs exhibited in the House this afternoon had the consent of the Board of Trade to the distribution of such foodstuffs. None of these Regulations would be necessary if there were not hungry miners. None of these Regulations would be necessary but for the-action of the Government in seeking to help the coalowners in their attempt to destroy the miners. No Regulation would be necessary if there were not starving people in the country. I want to know what the Government have done during the last month under Regulation 3, what powers they have used to-see that food was properly distributed, what powers they have exercised to see that prices were not charged which would allow exorbitant profits to be made and create starvation amongst the people who could not pay the price of these commodities. I hope we shall get some reply from the President of the Board of Trade, so that we may know whether we are justified in passing this Regulation.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The House divided: Ayes, 108; Noes, 268.