UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 1923

  • 1923 : Political Events

    1923 : Political Events

    We post daily with the news from 100 years ago, but here are some of the main historical events from 1923.

    1. The French occupation of the Ruhr was a response to Germany’s inability to pay war reparations after World War I. This event led to economic and political instability in Germany, including hyperinflation and the rise of extremist political groups.
    2. The Treaty of Lausanne officially ended the Ottoman Empire and marked the end of the Turkish War of Independence. The treaty led to the formation of modern-day Turkey, with Mustafa Kemal Atatürk as its first president.
    3. The Irish Free State started its first full year following a long struggle for independence from Britain, with the Constitution of the Irish Free State having been agreed on 6 December 1922. The treaty also resulted in the partition of Ireland into Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State, which had been agreed in 1922.
    4. The general election of December 1923, in which the Conservative Party, under the leadership of Stanley Baldwin, won the most seats in the last election to have a third party winning 100 seats.
    5. Stanley Baldwin became the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom three times between 1923 and 1937, succeeding Andrew Bonar Law on 22 May 1923. He was a member of the Conservative Party and was known for his efforts to promote national unity, his opposition to appeasement in the lead-up to World War II, and his support for the British Empire.
    6. The first successful transatlantic radio broadcast from Europe to North America took place on December 3rd, 1923. This event marked a major milestone in the development of long-distance communication technology and paved the way for the widespread use of radio in the 20th century.
    7. The Munich Putsch was a failed attempt by Hitler and the Nazi Party to seize power in Germany. Although the Putsch was unsuccessful, it marked the beginning of Hitler’s rise to power in Germany.
    8. The Mutual Agreement between Greece and Turkey was aimed at resolving tensions between the two countries in the aftermath of the Ottoman Empire. The agreement aimed to stabilise the region and prevent further conflict between the two countries, although to hundreds of thousands of refugees as part of the population exchange between the two countries.
    9. The Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. was dedicated on May 30th, 1923. The memorial is a symbol of the United States’ commitment to preserving the legacy of President Abraham Lincoln and is one of the country’s most famous landmarks.
    10. Benito Mussolini and the Italian Fascist Party continued their rise to power in Italy in 1923, following a series of political and social upheavals. Mussolini’s dictatorship lasted until 1943, when he was overthrown and later executed by Italian partisans.
    11. The launch of Time Magazine, one of the most influential news magazines in the world. The magazine was first published on March 3rd, 1923, and has since become a leading source of news, analysis, and commentary on a wide range of topics, including politics, business, and popular culture.
    12. The introduction of the Marriage and Divorce (Religious Marriages) Bill, which aimed to provide greater legal recognition for religious marriages and to strengthen the rights of married women. The bill was part of a broader movement in the UK to reform family law and to promote gender equality in the early 20th century.
  • Ramsay MacDonald – 1923 Speech on Deportations to Ireland

    Ramsay MacDonald – 1923 Speech on Deportations to Ireland

    The speech made by Ramsay MacDonald, the then Labour MP for Aberavon, in the House of Commons on 12 March 1923.

    When I put certain questions to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bonar Law) this afternoon my object was to find upon what constitutional procedure the action of yesterday took place. Every Member of this House must feel that when such proceedings take place it is the duty of the Opposition to see that the Government justifies itself. As the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) said, we do not associate ourselves in any way with any action of a hostile character taken against the Irish Free State. That is not the question that is involved at all. The question that we raise is, What power had my right hon. Friend to do what he has done, under what Regulations, under what Statute did he act in doing what he did. Did he take the power which he ought to take to safeguard the rights and liberties of the deported men? I am not a lawyer, and cannot approach the question from a legal technical point of view, but I do care for the proper administration of the law of this country, and for the rights, not, only of citizens of this country, but also of people who are domiciled in this country and made subject to the law of the country. This is not merely a lawyer’s point. We have got to bring to bear upon those questions a broad commonsense intelligence which will do justice to all people who are our citizens or our guests. I do not know whether the learned Attorney-General is going to speak first, but we want to know straight away the Government’s statement of its own case.

    I am not going to assume that the men who were deported are guilty simply because the Government or the Home Secretary has deported them. It is my duty to satisfy myself that my right hon. Friend acted legally in the performance of that duty. I would like to know what pains he took to satisfy himself that whatever statements were made against them were sound evidence against them? I ask how long he took to investigate this matter? It could not have been done in 24 hours, for the domiciles of these people were scattered pretty far, north, south, east and west. What machinery did he put into operation to investigate every case, as he had no business to deport any man unless the case against that man as a separate individual was established to his satisfaction? Moreover, what steps did he take to satisfy himself that the people deported were subjects of the Free State? Did he satisfy himself that he was not handing over any subject of this country to the independent jurisdiction of a, State that enjoys the status of an independent Dominion within the Empire? The right hon. Gentleman told us this afternoon that he acted under Regulations drafted in accordance with the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act of 1920. I do not know what view is taken by my legal friends to the right and to the left of me. I take the layman’s view, and I think it is the safest thing to take the layman’s view to begin with.

    What is the common-sense view of the Act of 1920? That Act was passed by this House at a time when the whole of Ireland was part of the sovereignty of this country. We were responsible for Cork, just as we were responsible for Belfast, and just as we were responsible for London. Ireland in 1920 was in rebellion against us we had our troops in Ireland; we had our police in Ireland. We were suppressing a rebellion that had broken out in Ireland. We drafted and passed the Restoration of Order in Ireland. Act, which applies not to the present disturbances in Ireland, but applied to the disorderly situation in Ireland when it was in rebellion against us. That was the purpose of the Act, and that is the meaning of the title of the Act. Certain Orders were issued under the Act. Regulation 14B in particular was drafted, not, for the purpose of sending people from England into Ireland, but for the purpose of deporting rebels in Ireland into England and to give them a residence here for the time being. What are the operative parts of 14B? So far as T can understand it and its application, the first paragraph applies to the case now before us, and the paragraph towards the end, which relates to arrests in Scotland and Ireland. It is purely technical, with no political substance in it. The political substance, as I understand it, is confined to the first Clause. What does it say? 14B enables the Secretary of State

    “by order to require a person forthwith, or from time to time, either to remain in or to proceed to and reside in such place as may be specified in the Order.”

    Is that what happened to the deportees of yesterday? Are they compelled by Order to remain in the place to which they are deported? Take the next words—

    “and to comply with such directions as to reporting to the police as to movement,”

    and so on. And then it goes on

    “or to be interned in such place as may be specified in the Order.”

    Has the Home Secretary specified the place in which they are to be interned in Ireland? We ought to get information on that point. As has been said, a very important thing has happened since 1920. Ireland is no longer in a state of rebellion against us. It may be in a state of rebellion, internal to Ireland itself, but the rebellion is not against us. That is not all. Ireland now has the benefit of the Irish Free State Constitution Act, which we passed last Session. What happens? Supposing these Regulations still run on common-sense lines as well as in law, what happens? If these Regulations had been put into operation in 1920, and Irishmen had been arrested here for engaging in a conspiracy to aid the rebellion in Ireland in 1920, and if they had been deported from this country under those Regulations and sent to Ireland, they would live been under the jurisdiction of the British military or of some British authority for which a Minister in this House was responsible. Therefore, if injustice had been done to the deportees in 1920, this House, which is the guardian, as it must always remain, of British liberty and the rights of individual British citizens, was at liberty to raise the question of injustice, to censure the Minister, and to pass judgment on what he had done. That is no longer the case. That is the common-sense, Constitutional and good, sound Parliamentary point of view.

    The Home Secretary agreed to deportation yesterday, and the arrested people have gone. They are now in Ireland. Suppose they were shot; I do not suggest it for a moment. Suppose something happened to them which we all agreed was an act of gross injustice. Who in this House is responsible for it? No one. I cannot question my right hon. Friend. I could question the Secretary of State for the Colonies, or his representative in this House, but supposing, as a result of the answer to those questions being altogether unsatisfactory, one of my hon. Friends asked Mr. Speaker for leave to move the Adjournment of the House, what would Mr. Speaker say? Mr. Speaker would say at once that under the Irish Constitution Act this Parliament had handed all its responsibilities to the Irish Government. Quite properly Mr. Speaker would say, “Therefore I cannot allow the matter to he discussed, and I will not accept, as being in order, a Motion for Adjournment.” Is not that a substantial argument? I am quite certain the very last man who would resist that argument is my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Therefore he must see that the responsibility which he took upon himself in allowing these Regulations to be regarded as alive in the circumstances of 1923, is an enormously greater responsibility than that which he would have taken upon himself had he deported under these Regulations in 1920. Moreover, I want to get some more information about the Committee to which the right hon. Gentleman referred this afternoon when replying to a question.

    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridgeman)

    The Advisory Committee?

    Mr. MacDONALD

    Yes, the Advisory Committee. It seems to me this is very much a case of hanging a man first, and trying him afterwards. That is why my first question was what steps did the right hon. Gentleman take to see that the evidence which justified deportation was good evidence. He replied to me this afternoon on the lines that he himself had been satisfied, that his legal advisers had been satisfied, and if the men concerned still had a grievance, then this Advisory Committee had been set up to investigate any statement they might make. I want to know what is the Advisory Committee? What is its power? Who are its members, and who is the legal authority? Who is President of it? That is the first point.

    The second point is: Whilst they are investigating in order to give advice, what is to be the position of the deported person? Is he to be kept in gaol in Ireland, or may he come here and await the advice which the Committee is going to give? The third point is this: Supposing the Advisory Committee comes to a conclusion upon the two cases which were cited this afternoon, the one cited by the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) of a person who is a British subject, and who, as the hon. Member says, was not, as a matter of fact, in recent times involved in any political conspiracy against the Irish Free State, and the other case cited by my hon. Friend the Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala), the case of mistaken identity. [HON. MEMBERS: “The same case.”] Is it the same case? Well, it does not matter. [Laughter.] It surely does not matter when it is a case of grave injustice being done. I quite honestly fell into a mistake. I understood there were two cases. It does not matter if there is only one; that is enough for me. I think one has as much right to justice as half-a-dozen. Let us take this one case. Supposing the Advisory Committee find on investigation that this case is genuine as stated by my two hon. Friends, what power has this Government to take it back? Has my right hon. Friend made an agreement with the Irish Free State that if any mistake has been made they guarantee to rectify that mistake?

    These are questions upon which, I make bold to say, every Member of the House of Commons who has got any respect at all for the duties of the House will insist upon getting information. It is not enough for a Minister to say, “There is a very bad state of affairs in Ireland and therefore I am going to act “—I think the right hon. Gentleman used the actual expression” according to the convenience of the Irish Government.” No. Hon. Members behind me have done quite as much for established self-government in Ireland as any other hon. Members? We believe in it quite as much, we back up that government quite as much, but that is not enough to justify deportation from this country upon such Regulations as those which my right hon. Friend has quoted. I therefore hope without any further delay, and in order to enable some hon. and right hon. Members who are more entitled to address the House than I am—[HON. MEMBERS: “Hear, hear!”]—on a point of law, yes, but not on points of policy. I know my duty to this House. I know the duty that must be performed in this House. Whatever the substance of the rights or wrongs of the case may be, this House must satisfy itself that the administration of the Government, especially in matters like this, is sound, is sane, is safe and is in accordance not with convenience but with law.

  • Jack Jones – 1923 Speech on Deportations to Ireland

    Jack Jones – 1923 Speech on Deportations to Ireland

    The speech made by Jack Jones, the then Labour MP for Silvertown, in the House of Commons on 12 March 1923.

    I beg to move, “That this House do now adjourn.” I hope, Sir, you will excuse me if during the course of the discussion I may display a certain amount of ignorance, as is only natural. I do not claim to be a constitutional lawyer. I only claim to ask for my fellow citizens their constitutional rights. We have been led to understand that the common citizen has a common right. The question I asked the Home Secretary to-day was not raised because I am a believer in the policy of those who are trying to upset the Free State Government in Ireland. I have been one of their most persistent and consistent opponents ever since they adopted the policy of trying to destroy the Treaty between Ireland and Great Britain and I have run some little risk in that connection. Therefore I am not here as a champion of those who want to destroy constitutional relationships between Great Britain and Ireland, but I believe even the Devil himself ought to get justice, even if he cannot always give it. Therefore I want to raise the case in the first place of one whom I happen to know. The only crime he has committed as far as I know—and I am acting upon information, personal of course—is that for some period he was the secretary of a branch of the Irish Self-Determination League in the East End of London, and he acted when all of us who are Irishmen stood on the same ground, and under similar circumstances will stand again, but when peace was made, when the two countries entered into an Agreement signed by the representatives of both, and when afterwards that Treaty was agreed upon by a Free Vote of the people North and South, and when eventually the Parliaments of Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland were constituted we accepted the situation loyally as democrats and agreed on the principle that the majority must govern. However we might have differed upon details we agreed upon the main principle.

    What has happened in the meantime? A certain number of people in the South and West of Ireland have repudiated the Treaty, have differed from the understandings arrived at between the representatives of the Government of both countries and have gone in for actions which have been more injurious to Ireland than anything the British Government could do against Ireland. None of us are defending the attitude which has been taken up, but there is a certain number of people in Great Britain who, because of their past history, have evidently been on the books of the Government of this country and have made themselves unpopular and, perhaps to some extent, undesirable. Amongst them there are men and women who have washed their hands of this policy ever since the Treaty was signed. Some of these have been arrested equally with those who may have been guilty.

    The point I want to raise is this. Since when has deportation become a British industry? I know aliens have been deported for offences against the State. That may be justified in international law. What I am protesting against is the deportation of our own English-born citizens to another country because of a constitution which you have arranged. The Home Secretary to-day in answer to questions said he was doing so under certain defined powers contained in Acts of Parliament. I notice that one of the Acts was passed before the Treaty was signed, which in my opinion, although I am not an expert in legal matters, makes a considerable difference. The Regulations that existed under the Defence of the Realm Act in War time are not exactly the same as after War time. They have been modified very considerably in my opinion, although of course I would not claim to have the same kind of knowledge as some right hon. Gentlemen opposite. If a British citizen feels he has no security that at midnight policemen and detectives may break into his house, escort him to the coast and take him away to any place they like, no man in this House or outside can feel secure in the expression of his political views.

    We have always posed as being leaders of constitutionalism all over the world, as being the Mother of Parliaments, whose Rules have been adopted by all other Parliaments, and we have been looked upon as the champions of liberty all over the world. I am not asking you to be the champions of licence. If a man breaks the law, let him be tried where he lives. Surely the law of England is strong enough to punish an Irishman if he breaks the law. But we have a bigger argument than that. What is going to be the result of this policy of the wholesale deportation of suspected persons from Great Britain? It is to feed the Irregulars with an argument which they have been using all the time, and which they can use now with greater force than ever. The argument will be that the Free State Government of Ireland is in a regular relationship with the British Government, and while we are striving to break down the barriers between Great Britain and Ireland which existed in the past and trying to kill race prejudice, we now have an argument that the Government in Great Britain is used against the people in Great Britain of whom the Free State Government may have a suspicion.

    I am not suggesting too much in asking this House to realise that citizens of this country who have been arrested, if they have committed a crime should be tried for it here. I am not defending any man who commits a crime. If a man wants to break the law, he must take the consequences of having done so. We are asking that this course of procedure shall be negatived and that we shall no longer put in force this policy, imitated from countries with which we have been at war, of sending away people because they have committed a crime. The ease to which I particularly referred in my question was that of a man who occupies a responsible position, whose whole life depends upon the position in which he now finds himself. I may be guilty also, because during the period this man was secretary of the Self-determination League in East Ham and Forest Gate was a member of the same organisation. I am not ashamed of it, and if there is any deportation to come along I will go. But I am not appealing for any mercy; I am only appealing for common justice, and common justice in this particular case, and the other case to which I can refer. The law of this country has been broken. I know that we shall have cases quoted against us, eases that occurred during the War. I have had some of those cases and I know exactly what they mean. During the War Irishmen coming to Great Britain carrying on a campaign against the interests of the British Empire, might find themselves in durance vile subject to all sorts of penalties, but I am suggesting that the Treaty was signed between Great Britain and Ireland, as a consequence of the movement that took place in Ireland, after the Defence of the Realm Act Regulations were so amended as not to give the same power as existed under the Defence of the Realm Act as originally instituted.

    Now we find the two Acts have got to be quoted. When did these two Acts become correlated so as to enable you to arrest any Irishman, and those not in the true sense of the term Irish, but who were born in this country, though probably of Irish parentage, and as a consequence are English citizens? What authority exists to deport English citizens from their own country to be tried in another country, it may be under martial law, for all we know? Have we agreed that martial law shall exist for English citizens? I suggest that we have amended those portions of the Defence of the Realm Act. Therefore, in moving my Motion, I ask those responsible for the government of this country to release all those persons who have been domiciled in Great Britain. Let them be tried here for any offence which they may have committed, and let the law of England deal with them as they happen to be English citizens.

  • Viscount Astor – 1923 Speech on Juvenile Employment

    viscountastor

    Below is the text of the speech made by Viscount Astor in the House of Lords on 16 May 1923.

    My Lords, I desire to submit to your Lordships the Question which stands in my name upon the Paper. I need not remind your Lordships that in spite of a slight improvement in trade there is still a tremendous amount of unemployment in this country. Hundreds of thousands of men and women are unable to find work, and the labour market is not able to absorb them. Nor need I remind your Lordships that at the present moment tens of thousands of children leave school every year, and no opportunity is provided to these juveniles between fourteen and eighteen to find employment.

    A man who is out of work for any considerable period of time becomes demoralised. Nothing is so demoralising as hanging about with nothing to do. If that is what happens to adults, how much more demoralising is it for young men and women, boys and girls, who have no regular training, to wait for months and even years with absolutely nothing to do. It is particularly demoralising when they are able to draw what is called the dole, and do nothing all the time.
    After the Armistice the Government decided that it would not be in the national interest that this sort of thing should go on. Training centres for juvenile employment were established, and were so successful that something like 200 of them were in existence at one period.

    Unfortunately, when the cry for economy was raised the Government grant was diminished, and eventually withdrawn altogether. These unemployment centres were consequently closed clown. As a result there was such a popular clamour for their re-establishment that last December the Government decided on 75 per cent. grants to juvenile unemployment centres which were started by local authorities. I regret to say, however, that it was announced recently in another place that the Government contemplated the closing down of these juvenile centres at the end of Tune.

    I raise the question to-day because, if the Government are not able to announce that they intend to continue these juvenile centres, I am very anxious that people should realise what the policy of the Government is going to be in order that public opinion may be mobilised and make itself felt, and that the Government, not for the first time in relation to this question, may reconsider its decision. I find it difficult to understand the attitude of the Government, because only the other day the Minister who is responsible for the administration of these juvenile centres paid eloquent tribute to their success. As recently as last December the Government, in a circular which was sent to local authorities, stated that it was thought most desirable, after consultation with the Board of Education, that is the Department primarily interested in the welfare of persons of this age, to revive these centres which had been closed down, and thus to mitigate the evil effects of unemployment.

    If it was desirable in. December, 1922, to mitigate the evils of unemployment by setting up these juvenile unemployment centres it is equally desirable now.

    It has been my good fortune to visit several of these centres, and I can say from my personal experience of those which I have visited that they have been extraordinarily successful. Young men and young women, boys and girls, have been taught occupations such as carpentry, they have had organised games, they have learnt the principles of citizenship, the responsibilities of leadership and esprit de corps. I know of another centre, which I have not myself visited but which I have heard about, where when it was started those who were responsible for running it were horrified to find how quickly young men who came to the centres had lost all that discipline which had been instilled into them during their period of school training and had become disobedient. I am glad to say that after six months those responsible for the centre are able to report that the boys again act under their control, and are working well, and that the effect upon them of the discipline and training which they get in the centre has been entirely beneficial.

    I agree that there may be some centres which are not so good as others, but that is no reason for sweeping away those which have done good work. If there are any which are not satisfactory let us change the conditions governing them, but do not let us scrap the whole lot. The other day I noticed a letter written by Sir Arthur Yapp, of the Y.M.C.A., to The Times, in which he stated that he had heard with consternation that it was proposed to close down these centres, and he heard the news with consternation because of the excellent results achieved. I submit that there is absolutely overwhelming evidence that these centres have been successful, not merely in manual training and in developing the intellects of the boys and girls attending them, but, a matter which I think is oven more necessary and desirable, in developing their characters.

    What are the objections? We are told, first of all, that we cannot afford the cost; that they are too expensive. There is nothing so costly as false economy. There is nothing so ruinous to a nation as neglecting the welfare and development of its rising generation. If we have to economise, I suggest that it is unfair and unwise to begin with the children. It is also, I understand, suggested that these centres can well be closed down in the summer—that in the summer there is not so much need for them as in winter. I do not believe that to be the case. I believe that it is particularly in the summer that organised games can be developed: that as the summer goes on you will find an increasing number of young men and women with nothing whatever to do, and that it is desirable to have these centres to which they can be attracted. Anybody who has had anything to do with boys’ clubs, for instance, will know how difficult it is to get the right men to run them, and the right spirit established within those clubs. The success or failure of these centres must depend upon having the right men to run them, and the right spirit established in them. Therefore I suggest to the Government that it would be unwise, and extravagant, having got sixty or seventy centres established, to close them down for the summer months and then have to re-open them in the winter.

    I remember a conversation that I had after the Election with a trade unionist and Socialist, who told me that what had struck him during the last Election was the fact that young men and women were attracted by what he described as the loudest noise. They had lost all sense of control and discipline. They would not even listen to their trade union leaders. It is doubly necessary that we should keep any machinery which promotes discipline in the rising generation.

    We hear and read about proletarian schools. I have heard it alleged that in these schools boys and girls are taught that there is no God, and that it is not for them to respect law and authority and government as we understand them. Nowadays the man in the street judges the ruling classes not by the labels that they wear but by their actions. There is not a single man in this House who would deliberately take his boy or girl away from school and let him or her run around without any supervision or control. Yet that is what the Government’s action proposes to do—to have tens of thousands of young men and women with no control or discipline and no chance of getting work.

    If we can only teach citizenship to the rising generation I have no fear whatever of Bolshevism or atheism, but if we turn boys and girls into the street, give them nothing to do, and convert them into hooligans and loafers, we shall have great responsibility, because we shall be providing soil upon which the seed of Bolshevism and atheism will take root and flourish. I trust that the noble Earl, when he replies, will be able to announce either that the Government do not intend to close, or if they have done so are willing to re-open, these centres, because I am convinced that if the Government do shut down these centres they will be prejudicing the welfare of the rising generation. I am equally certain that public opinion will insist upon having them re-opened.