* * Sir Douglas Hogg argued that after the general
strike of last year it could not be pretended that to inscribe truisms in a declaratory statute was merely fussy. The Government were convinced that it was necessary to show plainly what the law was. Labour professed to believe that the judgment of Mr. Justice Astbury had nothing to do with the general strike. Surely, then, it was necessary to place the matter beyond dispute. lie ex- plained that industrial strikes, whether sympathetic or not, would still be fully permissible provided that they were directed against employers only. Of course, that is precisely Where vagueness is bound to come in. Is it possible to prevent any strike whatever from pressing on the community or part of the community, or from reinforcing some political cause ? The Government's way of attempting to dispel the vagueness will he to bring an action before the Courts in order to prevent trade union funds being used in support of a strike regarded as illegal in nature. The idea, in fine, is that before a strike everyone will be informed whether it would be legal or not. There is no suggestion in any circumstances of confiscating trade union funds. * * * *
