FRIENDS OF DISORDER.

LABOUR’S MONSTROUS OPPOSITION TO BILL

ATTACK ON SPECIAL CONSTABLES MEASURES

When, a month ago, the debate on the second reading of the Special Constables Bill took place in the House of Commons the demonstration made against that measure by the Labour, party was, as we observed at the time, the most remarkable proof that had up to then been given of the spirit in which that section of the House approaches questions of law and order.

Since then the Bill has been through the hands of a Standing Committee, and Monday’s debate on the Report stage of the Bill was, if anything, even more remarkable in the sense to which we have just referred. It is abundantly clear that the Bill has been seized upon as affording a pretext of holding the Government up to odium in the eyes of the working-class electorate, and the pursuit of an entirely fictitious hare was carried on in this debate with untiring energy and vociferation.

The plain facts about the introduction of the Bill, the simple reasons why it is desired that it should become law, were coolly ignored by its critics. The Home Secretary’s statements in the earlier debate, and his patient repetition of them in this one, were simply disregarded by his opponents – with the exception of Mr. J. JONES, who asked, characteristically enough: “Why he did not tell the truth on this question.” The Labour party’s idea of “the truth,” or the idea of it which they are endeavouring to get into the heads of people more simpleminded than themselves, is that Ministers are in a conspiracy to create a new “class” force for the terrorising and a “blacklegging” of working men engaged in trade disputes. That is the agreeable motive imputed to anyone who believes that an enrolled force of Special Constables, to be used “for the maintenance of peace and order and the protection of property” would be a valuable addition to the resources of the community for these purposes. Yet every Labour-socialist member who spoke in this debate had heard Mr. Bridgeman, on the previous occasion, explain that the force in question was not a new force; that it was desired only to take powers for keeping in existence the force already farmed during the war, of the employment of which no complaint has ever been made; and that the Bill simply aimed at carrying out one of the recommendations of Lord DESBOROUGH’S Committee on police organisation, the report of which was signed by two wellknown members of the Labour party, Mr. O’GRADY and Mr. SEXTON. All this was treated as if it had never been mentioned, and the Government was accused of wishing to organise “a new force,” which would be “formed up for the purpose of shooting strikers.”

BLINDED BY CLASS PREJUDICE

It may be that some of those who propounded this monstrous and preposterous theory of the origination of the Bill were not so insincere as they seemed. The secret of the mental processes of Mr. LANSBURY, for example, is unknowable; he is so blinded with class prejudice that there is no understanding his point of view. What is to be thought of anyone who could read to the House, with apparent seriousness, a circular letter announcing the formation of a miniature rifle club, and who could found upon this the accusation that such a club was intending “to use its rifles and revolvers against the workmen, and no one else”? It was pointed out by Lieut.-colonel CROFT that “95 per cent. of the members of the Society of Miniature Rifle Clubs are workingmen”; but we do not suppose that Mr. LANSBURY will deny himself the pleasure of exhibiting this ridiculous mare’s-nest again in public at the next opportunity. Further, the Home Secretary was persistently urged to stultify himself by accepting an amendment to the effect that Special Constables should not be called on to perform any work in connection with an industry in which a dispute is proceeding. It was useless for him to point out that, under the Act of 1831 which governs the employment ofspecial Constables, it is illegal to employ them in this way. The Labour party desired to be in a position to accuse the Government of having rejected such an amendment; that manoeuvre had obviously no other purpose.

‘WILL HAVE TO PROTECT BLACKLEGS’

But the true inspiration of the attack on the Bill was crystallised in a sentence by Mr. J. JONES. They were told, he said, that the Special Constables would not be called upon to “blackleg”; but “they will be called upon to do more, because they will have to protect the blacklegs.” That is candid enough, at least. When, in the natural and normal development of a trade dispute – so Mr. JONES evidently regards the matter – men are subjected to violence for doing what they have an absolute legal right to do, the Special Constables would be given the hideous and unspeakable task of protecting them. That is the dark and sinister motive which people like Mr. JONES detect in the passing of this Bill. It is actually intended to prevent one set of men from man-handling another set of men for doing as the law allows.

In their righteous indignation at such a proposal, these critics forget that both the ordinary police and the military may be called upon to do the same thing. They have not yet quite arrived at the point of demanding that these forces also should not be employed for the preservation of order when a trade dispute is in progress. No doubt that will come in time; there seems to be no logical reason why a trade union, being already placed above the law in regard to actionable wrongs done by it or by any member of it, should not also be invested with full liberty to knock on the head any man who disobeys its authority in connection with a trade dispute.

MEN WITH REVOLUTION IN MIND

It may be noted, too, in passing, that Labour is already showing a strong disposition to interfere, so far as it can, with recruitment for the Army. The Territorial Force is an integral part of our military system; and cases have been brought to our notice in which Borough Councils on which Labour is in a majority have made it impossible for their employees to become members of that Force by refusing them leave for. the period of training in camp, as well as by other methods of discouragement.

The latent motive is everywhere the same – to weaken by any means, great or small, that present themselves the community’s resources for self-protection and the repression of illegal violence. In men who have riotous outbreak, mob-rule, and revolution always at the back of their minds, it is entirely natural that this should be so. It is natural that they should first denounce the Special Constables as a force which no decent working-man must on any account join, and then denounce the Government for keeping in existence a “class” force. The whole attack is a jumble of wrong-headedness, insincerity, and “class” cant; but the purpose inspiring it is clear and intelligible enough,

FAIR WARNING TO THE COUNTRY

The third reading of the Bill has been passed by a majority of 140; but the debate has given the country fair warning of another, and not the least important, of the results that are to be anticipated in the event of a Labour Government coming into power.