Statement to members from the Political Bureau¶
Core Argument¶
This Political Bureau statement, issued in the wake of a political trial, presents the convictions of leading Revolutionary Communist Party members Roy Tearse, Heaton Lee, Jock Haston, and Ann Keen as a direct class attack by the capitalist state, while simultaneously claiming a moral and political victory. The core narrative thrust is that the trial, despite resulting in prison sentences, vindicated the party’s political line. The key claim is that the not-guilty verdicts on the charges of “conspiracy” and “incitement” completely refute the press and political establishment’s accusation that the party instigates strikes. The evidence cited is the testimony of apprentices themselves, who stated they were “bitterly hostile to the Bevin Ballot Scheme” and would have struck regardless of the defendants’ influence. This is used to argue that strikes arise from genuine, legitimate grievances, not revolutionary agitation.
The convictions were secured on the lesser charge of “furthering” an illegal strike under the Trade Disputes Act. The statement argues this sets a dangerous legal precedent for the entire trade union movement, as the court ignored a previous House of Lords ruling that a strike can only be “furthered” during its course, not before. The conviction was based on evidence of organising the Tyne Apprentices’ Guild and issuing propaganda leaflets prior to the strike. The Political Bureau frames the appeal—which will cost an extra £1,000—as a vital class issue that must be fought to the House of Lords to define “furtherance” properly.
The document contains a notable polemic against the party’s own King’s Counsel, Curtis Bennett, who is accused of failing to cooperate in drawing out the defendants’ political position or presenting their legal defence effectively. The statement reveals that the comrades considered dismissing him and conducting the trial themselves, but were deterred by the impact on the Defence Committee, the inexperience of the comrades in court procedure, and the strategic importance of taking the case to appeal. This internal critique is sharp, but the overall polemic is directed outward: against the capitalist press, the Labour and Stalinist leaders who accused the party of incitement, and the judge who gave a “bitter” three-hour summing-up that introduced the war issue to prejudice the jury.
The statement’s historical context is the wartime struggle against the Bevin Ballot Scheme, a compulsory arbitration mechanism that criminalised strikes. The imprisoned comrades are presented as irreplaceable leading figures, and the party’s response to this “severe blow” is a call for intensified internal unity, discipline, and party-building. The message from the prisoners themselves, reproduced at the end, affirms that the trial has strengthened their conviction in the programme of the Fourth International and issues the watchword: “Unify the ranks! Build the party! For the victory of the Fourth International!”