BALDWIN ATTACKED

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 37, 6 May 1927, Page 9

BALDWIN ATTACKED

POLITICAL ACRIMONY BITTER LABOURITES TRADE UNION BILL DEBATE Bp Cable. — Press Association. —Copyright LONDON, Wednesday. The Trades Unions Bill debate was continued to-day and bitterness once more intruded into the House. A Labour man attacked Mr. Baldwin, calling him a liar and he was ordered to leave the House. The Prime Minister, Mr. Baldwin, said that since 1906 there had been a great change in the attitude of the trades unions—a change from industrial to political action. Successive Governments had entrusted the trades unions with certain work connected with social legislation. Side by side with this development some of the unions had come gradually under the control of what was called the minority movement. Mr. J. Bromley, Labour member for Barrow-in-Furness, challenged Mr. Baldwin to cite a single such union. Mr. Baldwin said he was not going to quote names, but he would not withdraw the statement.

Mr. T. Williams, Labour member for Don Valley, Yorkshire, said the Prime Minister’s statement was a reflection on large organisations with about 500,000 members. It was transparently untrue. While the Speaker was endeavouring to restore order several Labour members rose and interjected. “ADMIT YOU’RE A LIAR” Mr. J. Beckett, Labour member for Gateshead, addressing Mr. Baldwin, said: “Admit you are a liar.” Cries of: “Name him,” and “Withdraw.” Mr. Becket refused to withdraw the remark. He said: “1 hope you w’ill name the liar as well.” The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Churchill, then moved the suspension of Mr. Becket. The motion was carried by 321 votes to 88. As Mr. Beckett left the House he shouted: “I will go outside and tell the country what our front bench has been doing.” Mr. Baldwin resumed his speech. He said he had received Labour demands in the name of the unions to which he had referred. Judging by his experience last year the Miners’ Federation was under the control of the Minority Movement. The record of the Government showed that the members had been pacifists and that the members of the Labour Party had been militarists. The Prime Minister went on to say that when he came into office in 1924 he had no intention of introducing trades union legisla ion. Mr. Macquiston’s bill of 1924, dealing with the political levy, was withdrawn at his suggestion on the ground that he did not desire to be responsible for firing the first shot. For the sake of peace the Government since then had changed its mind on the question of the subsidy. This had exposed it to a charge of cowardice and of not knowing its own mind; also of wasting the country’s resources. “I believe that if the democracy were given time to reflect,” said Mr. Baldwin, “it would refrain from creating a grave situation by the declaration of a general strike. Unfortunately the general strike is only postponed. EXTREMIST RULE “Labour members speak as though they exclusively represented the workers,” said Mr. Baldwin, “but we have more supporters among the workers than they have. We intend that general strikes shall be illegal, that intimidation shall be illegal, and that compulsion to subscribe to political funds shall be illegal.” Amid further interruptions Mr. Baldwin concluded: “I believe this bill will commend itself to the country. If the Labour Party cares to make its repeal an issue at the next election the Government will meet it with confidence.”

Mr. Tom Shaw, Labour member for Preston, said Mr. Baldwin had sought assistance to elucidate the bill, but he had not helped them to understand it. The real reason for the bill was not the general strike, but the growth of the Labour Party. What had the general strike to do with the political levy?