The documents as requested:
I have discussed your concerns with the Home Secretary yesterday as to the number of constables needed to break the insurgency.
In light of the utmost urgency of this matter, the government will arrange for further constables to be brought in from adjoining forces. A significant number of army personnel will also be made available, with appropriate vehicles to remove the barricades. The Ministry of Defence will be in contact today with the barracks at Chatham and Dover and exact details will be sent on to you. On this occasion, the government will bear the associated costs for the extra constables. I must ask you however to identify a suitable temporary base in the area as soon as possible.
The Home Secretary has also asked me to underline the absolute importance of barring press reports on this incident. Appropriate steps have been taken with the national newspapers, but it is unclear if this has filtered down to the provincial newspapers. It is vital that you personally take steps to inform your regional titles of the current position and the difficulties they will face if printing this story.
In terms of the severity of the insurgency, we have been unable to confirm whether Communist agitators have been involved. Little or no activity has been recorded in the region during the last year, but this possibility cannot be ruled out. The trade dispute has clearly developed beyond the usual course of events in such matters, and the attempt to found an independent state has all the extremist qualities of a reactionary element. The Home Secretary has asked that you have your police records for the past year examined for any signs as to the seeds of this insurgency. If you have any further issues to
I have been in contact with the Sheriff of Kent and Major Walker today and been fully informed of the outcome of the operation.
The insurgency has been successfully suppressed, but not without heavy fighting. It had been hoped the mixed force of special constables and army personnel would have convinced the rioters to surrender peacefully. When this did not occur, the forces were deployed in order to end the confrontation speedily. I am pleased to report that the decision to use extra forces proved highly effective and the insurgency was ended within two hours. The rioters did put up surprising resistance considering the makeshift weapons with which they were armed, but the ringleaders were either arrested or died in the confrontation. Only minor casualties were suffered by our forces. The barricades have been removed and destroyed.
As suspected, the majority of the insurgents were members of the fishing community. It is still unclear whether there was a rogue element beyond the trade dispute which incited the uprising. Most of the leaders were unfortunately killed in the operation, including a man named Donovan Slacks who was their chief negotiator. It is unknown whether Mr Slacks was a Communist. His plan to found a new state may however indicate him as a mental defective.
The bar on press reports has been almost entirely successful. There was however at least one small article printed before our forces were deployed, but after the insurgency began. The regional newspaper concerned has been briefed and the piece has been deleted from their archive. The circulation however has been estimated at around
indications that central restructuring of the industry would be beneficial both to national and local interests. The witnesses we have questioned agree on the need for consolidation, but also are equally convinced of the utmost sensitivity of this issue.
Any attempt to nationalise the industry and place private owners and fishermen within the scope and remit of government departments is likely to encounter moderate to severe resistance. In light of the Samuel Dossier and experiences in the coal industry, we can only recommend the third option of those discussed here – and then only on a partial introductory basis.
This option provides for the nationalisation of royalties without the nationalisation of administrative and managerial responsibility. The legal basis for this levy is to be found in the sovereign power over waters and ports. It is necessary to promote and revitalise the idea in the mind of the industry that Government is not merely administrator but proprietor of the fishing stocks in our waters, as well as holding dominion over these waters themselves. As such, fishing is conducted under open licence from the Government and the right to royalties may thus be exercised.
The issue with catches returned from international and foreign fishing grounds is still be resolved. Sir ************* must be asked to seek advice from the Attorney General, Sir *****, as to how this may be worked.
This third option would set the levy at 7.5% of gross profits with a sliding scale of reductions. In tiering the levy, certain practices, vessel types and fishing stock may be encouraged or reduced, a key factor in restructuring the industry. Income from the levy may be used eventually to implement further changes in the industry.
In the matter of collection, the fish salesman is to /
Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, K.B.E.,
Board of Trade