HL Deb 14 July 1949 vol 163 cc1297-312

3.10 p.m.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON) rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, thanking His Majesty for His most gracious message, communicating to this House His Majesty's Declaration that a state of emergency exists within the meaning of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, there are two Motions which stand in my name on the Order Paper but perhaps it would be convenient if we were to arrange that whatever discussion took place should take place on the first one—which I now move—on the understanding that when we come to the second one it will be taken formally.

I am sure that the House will be desirous that anything we say on this serious matter should not in any way prejudice as early a settlement as possible. It is a fact which we cannot escape that at British ports on several occasions during recent months we have had sporadic and unauthorised strikes which taken together have held up business for a considerable time; and it is also undeniable that in this particular case there is no industrial dispute at all in London between the employees at the clocks and the Dock Board. The strange fact is that in Canada also, so far as the docks are concerned, there is no industrial dispute; I understand that all the men there are employed on the usual conditions. It is also, I think, undeniable that in this particular industry there has been provided an exceedingly elaborate and commonly-accepted system of negotiation and arbitration in the event of differences. The dock labour organisation which has been set up in this country during recent years has meant the emancipation of dock workers from conditions which were formerly exceedingly distressing. Some of us are old enough to remember the demonstrations that used to be held in Trafalgar Square and elsewhere. But that is all past history. We have in the dock organisation, in London and at our other ports, a very efficient, acceptable and smoothly-working organisation so far as the dock worker is concerned. This strike is an adventitious and entirely outside matter which has intruded into our otherwise well-ordered working in the docks.

I expect that many of your Lordships will have heard the statement made on the wireless last night by the Minister of Labour, and some of your Lordships, like myself, will perhaps have had the advantage of reading some or all of the discussion which took place yesterday in another place. I would particularly commend those who are not very familiar with the case to read the courageous statement which was made in another place by Mr. Mellish, who himself took great pains to get to the bottom of the trouble. There is no doubt at all that his statements are correct—that the point whether this Canadian ship was or was not "black," in the accepted sense of the term, is not in question. It is without doubt that an agreement was arrived at and that, notwithstanding that agreement, the men were called out. It is an extraordinary demonstration of loyalty to sentiment overriding judgment. The trade unionists, the men who are employed at the docks, get it into their minds that some particular action taken is in the nature of "blacklegging." It arouses within them feelings and sentiments which do not lead them to inquire into the merits of the case. They are impelled to their action by what in this case is clearly an entirely mistaken sense of loyalty to something which in itself has not occurred. That is the position. It has spread from these particular ships to others throughout these docks, though happily not through all the docks, and it is a case of men banding themselves together, or at least acting together, from an exceedingly mistaken sense of loyalty.

It is most unfortunate that, for one reason or another, the issues in this case have not been made as clear as we should have desired. The fact is that these thousands of men are being kept out, or are keeping themselves out, not from any considered decision on the case, because it is true to say that at a good many of the meetings only a small proportion of the men affected attend. The votes are run by a show of hands. Many are reluctant to take part in these meetings. Large numbers stay away, and I have no doubt that, when the real facts of this case get into the minds of the men, we shall come to the end of this most unfortunate dispute. It is impossible to imagine that, with ships coming in from all parts of the world, dock work in London can be held up because of some alleged dispute in some other country. Such a situation would make the conduct of the docks in any part-of the world completely, impossible; and it cannot be entertained.

The regulations which are before your Lordships are very wide in their scope. They are, of course, in accordance with the Act of Parliament. We are all glad to know that their administration is in the hands of five exceedingly experienced and sensible men. I have no doubt that the powers given them will be wisely used. It is, however, necessary to safeguard the life of the community, and it is on that account that the Government have felt bound to ask your Lordships to approve this most drastic step. I myself am quite sure that, when we can get the real facts of the case into the minds of the men, we shall soon come to the end of this trouble. There is no doubt that originally a delegate—or very likely a paid representative, at all events a delegate—from the Canadian Communist Party was sent across in one of these ships. That appears to have been proved, as your Lordships will see from the speech of Mr. Mellish in another place. These men have been persuaded, by appeals to a mistaken sense of loyalty, to take first one action and then another, until now we have drifted into this present deplorable condition. I do not propose to analyse it. I say only that it is quite evident that, in order to safeguard the life and food of the community, these regulations are necessary. I only hope that your Lordships will support our action and will express our good will to those in charge, and to the men in the hope that they will soon see sense and bring this foolish dispute to an end. I beg to move.

Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, thanking His Majesty for His most gracious Message, communicating to this House His Majesty's Declaration that a state of emergency exists within the meaning of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920.—(Viscount Addison.)

3.20 p.m.


My Lords, these emergency regulations which the Leader of the House has asked your Lordships to approve to-day are undoubtedly, as he himself has said, of an extremely drastic character. I do not imagine that powers so far-reaching have ever been asked for by any Government of the day in the whole of our history in respect of an individual dispute of this kind. The regulations are, I am afraid, a deplorable commentary on the failure of the machinery for settling industrial disputes—however admirably conceived it may have been—to stand up to the strain which is being put on it in the special circumstances of to-day.

My Lords, there will not, however, I imagine, be any difference of view in any part of the House as to the desirability of approving these regulations in the unhappy situation in which we are placed. The Home Secretary, in the speech with which he wound up the debate in another place last night, gave some formidable figures of the appalling damage which is being done to our trade at a moment of great national danger, when the utmost efforts are needed by every individual citizen to save us from economic disaster. The people in this country must be assured of the necessities of life and of the raw materials which will enable them to buy those necessities. That, I think, is common ground among all Parties in the State. For any section of the community to hold up such supplies is not only wrong in itself but can lead only to untold suffering, which it is the aim of all of us to avoid.

It is not my intention to-day to go into the genesis and character of this unhappy dispute. These have been fully dealt with already, both by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary in another place and by the Leader of the House in the speech which he has just delivered to us, and I am quite ready to accept their account. But, my Lords, why have not all these things been said before? Why has it been left till now to say them? Parliament has occupied its time during the last few weeks and days with matters of far less urgent importance than this. Why have the Government not asked us days ago for an immediate opportunity to say what they said to us last night and to-day? I am quite certain that there is not one of us who would not willingly have acceded to such a request. It is surely very evident that this is, above all, a case for disclosure and yet more disclosure of the full facts, for it is abundantly clear that what has happened is that the dockers who are, after all as patriotic and sturdy a body of men as any in the country, have been entirely misled as to the nature of the dispute in which they have allowed themselves to be involved.

There is no evidence that I have read to show that the great body of dockers are actuated by any unworthy motives at all. On the contrary, their guiding impulse seems to have been—as indeed the Leader of the House has said—a sense of loyalty and a desire to help their fellow workers. That is really what has been behind this action of the general rank-and-file of the dockers. Loyalty in itself is an admirable quality. That is what makes the present dispute so distressing to those of us who remember the patriotism and the courage of the dockers in the darkest days of the war. Yet we must not forget that loyalty, if it be misdirected, can be a quality as dangerous as, and perhaps more dangerous than, any other. In this case it has clearly been deliberately misdirected by men who themselves are not patriotic but are concerned only to encompass the downfall of this country. In such circumstances, what is evidently most necessary, I repeat, if this dispute is to be prevented from spreading further, is that the true facts and the full facts should be exposed.

Here, if I may again repeat myself, I cannot resist the conclusion—and I think there are many of us who cannot resist the conclusion—that the Government themselves have been sadly at fault. Up to last night, the full facts of the dispute had never been divulged, either to the dockers themselves or to their fellow workers; or, indeed, to any of us—at least, I had never read a full account until I opened my morning paper to-day. Even now, my Lords, it seems there is much that still needs saying. We have had general statements from the members of the Government that the trouble has been "stoked up" by Communist agitators. But we have had no detailed evidence or proof, except one or two extremely courageous speeches by private Members in another place. Could such proof be produced by the Government, if they had it, I cannot doubt that it would have a great and possibly decisive effect upon the dockers themselves. Neither they nor the rest of the British people are, I am sure, Communistically inclined. But vague general statements, unsupported by evidence, are worse than useless, and are liable to do a good deal more harm than good. I therefore beg the Government, if they can, to tell us more than they have yet done, and to see that this information, and also the full facts as to the damage which is being done to the country and in particular to their own fellow-workers by the dockers' present attitude, gets through to those who are at present on strike.

Even now, from all I hear—and I have heard stories from various sources—they seem to be totally unaware of the full issues which are at stake. They hear plenty, very little of it good, from the agitators who move about among them, but they hear little from those from whom they should properly be getting information to guide their judgment. If it is indeed impossible for responsible trade union leaders to get in touch with these men at the present time, could not more be done by means of the wireless and by the distribution of simple and effective leaflets? I think the broadcast which was made last night by the Minister of Labour was undoubtedly a step in the right direction. But I hope the Government will not leave it there. The simple facts should continue to be drummed in day by day until they are fully realised by those immediately concerned. I remember very well that one of the arguments used by the Government at the time of the debates on the Parliament Bill against granting any substantial power of delay to your Lordships' House, was that it is possible by modern systems of information and education to make any issue clear to the people in a very short time indeed. I heard it said again and again from the Benches opposite. Why are those methods not being used now? As the Government themselves agree, it is evident that there is widespread misapprehension. Why is not it being allayed?

I should also like to ask what other measures the Government have in mind. We are being asked to grant immense powers. How do the Government intend to use them? Surely Parliament, which is granting these powers, is entitled to know. I gathered from the speech of the Attorney-General in another place yesterday that in the view of the Law Officers of the Crown this is undoubtedly an illegal strike; that it is, in effect, a criminal conspiracy against the community. I understand that to be the legal position. Is it proposed to proceed, not against the rank-and-file, who are, after all, only the innocent victims of this propaganda, but against the instigators of this conspiracy? Are the Government going to take any firm and effective action? Not to do that when they have already announced that this is an illegal conspiracy, would appear to many of us a very feeble and weak position to take up. The Attorney-General, in his speech yesterday, said: I do not believe that democracy can be safely rested upon the policeman and the prison … Persuasion is much more effective than coercion in matters of this sort. I think we should all agree that normally, persuasion is far the better course. But surely there are occasions when even democracy itself must be protected. If the life of the people is being threatened by men who are actually promoting illegal action for their own evil purposes, it is the essence of democracy that they should be restrained, otherwise we shall have not democracy but anarchy.

My Lords, I do not want to say any more to-day. No doubt far wider issues are raised by this and other recent disputes regarding relations between trade union leaders and the rank-and-file, regarding the relationship of both to the State, and so on and so on. But this is not the time, I am certain, to explore such questions as that. To-day all that matters is to prevent the strike spreading further and to get the existing strikers back to work, to make them realise that there is a greater loyalty even than to their own section of the community—that is, their loyalty to their country in a moment of acute economic danger. With regard to this, I am quite certain that we are all, in all parts of the House, in agreement. Equally, I think, we all recognise that the Government have a responsibility, the present Administration have a responsibility, which they cannot shirk—to see that the King's Government is carried on. That, as I conceive it, is the purpose of these far-reaching regulations. I hope that the Government can give us some satisfaction with regard to the points which I have raised. If they can, we shall certainly give the regulations our full support.

3.33 p.m.


My Lords, noble Lords on the Liberal Benches support this Motion without hesitation, but with deep concern that it should be necessary—as it is necessary—to invoke powers of such gravity. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House and the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, who have already spoken, have emphasised their sense of the gravity of this step, and it is, indeed, a most serious flatter that a British Government should be obliged, in time of peace, to ask for powers so extensive and so arbitrary, powers to direct great industries and to determine the actions, and, indeed, invade the liberties, of great numbers of people. Moreover, it has been found necessary to employ soldiers, sailors and airmen, not in the national military services for which they were enlisted, but to load and unload ships in the docks. These are powers which elsewhere have been used by dictatorships to establish and maintain their own arbitrary rule, and they could easily be used to suppress the liberties of a people. They should, of course, be sparsely and carefully used, and under the most complete safeguards.

That those safeguards do prevail in this country is evidenced by the fact that yesterday in another place and to-day in your Lordships' House the Executive have had to come to Parliament to obtain its sanction, on behalf of the nation as a whole, for such powers being conferred and used. In a democratic State we have our normal system of established government and we have our normal system of industrial management, involving collective agreements, freely arrived at after discussion, and which, as a rule, are honourably maintained, and must be honourably observed if the system is to work at all. But in an emergency such as this, it is vital that the Executive should act, and act strongly, to protect the economic life of the whole nation and, indeed, the daily bread of the people, from being injured and prejudiced by the action of a tiny minority of the less-informed and headstrong who would, in effect, hold the whole country to ransom. When the case is clear beyond doubt, as in this instance, there is no other alternative but for the Government to come to Parliament and ask sanction for powers even so drastic as these.

I am not one of those who hold the view that all this might have been avoided if the Government at the very beginning of this matter, in Liverpool, had used troops to unload and load these ships. I do not think that that would have been a proper course to take at that stage of this matter. If that had been done at so early a stage, we may be sure that plenty of disputes would be fomented here and there from time to time, precisely in order to compel the Government to bring in the military, with the result that a feeling of resentment would necessarily grow up among the working classes as a whole and among trade unionists in particular, based on the idea that the present Government were using the military to defeat trade unionism. Perhaps, as the noble Marquess has said, the Government might, at an earlier stage, have made the whole matter much clearer to the people and particularly to the classes of workers involved. The speech made by the Prime Minister yesterday afternoon and the admirable broadcast of the Minister of Labour yesterday evening might have had a considerable effect, not only on public opinion in general but in particular on the opinion of the persons directly concerned, if that speech and that broadcast had been addressed to them at an earlier stage.

The question now is who should judge whether a particular ship is what is called "black" or is "white." I do not here enter into the question of what is proper to be done in one country with regard to a ship which is declared "black" in another country. That is a matter which need not he argued here. The question does not arise in this instance. There is no real controversy as to whether this ship is to be regarded as "black," for the trade union authorities mainly concerned have declared that it is not "black." The dockers' union in Canada the dockers' trade union in this country, the Trades Union Congress here and the corresponding body in Canada, have all declared that no industrial dispute arises in this particular matter at this time and at this place. It is true that some attempts are made to cause confusion by questioning this point here and that point there. It reminds one of Canning's poem, The New Morality, in which he speaks of one: Who finds with keen, discriminating sight, Black's not so black—nor white so very white. There are some who may be disposed to challenge particular points of detail here and there. The question is, who should judge: should it be a group of dockers in London, led by unofficial leaders who spring from nowhere, or should it be the representative trade unions and unions of employers in this country and in the country where originally the dispute arose—that is, in Canada? Therefore the matter is perfectly clear. This is not an industrial dispute. It is in effect. I believe, mainly a political issue, fomented not from trade union or industrial quarters at all. We know that there is a definite campaign throughout the world fomented from a centre by Communists. It has been very evident in France and in Italy, where strikes alleged to be industrial have undoubtedly been political and revolutionary in their character. It is this movement which has been preying upon the more innocent-minded of the working people in the docks at Liverpool and elsewhere, and will do so again. Therefore, it is essential that this issue should be carried to a conclusion as a matter of democratic principle. These questions must be decided in accordance with the established procedure of negotiation and democratic government, and we must make head against this movement which pursues ends that are mistaken by means that are fraudulent and tyrannous, and often violent and cruel. All your Lordships would wish to support the Government of the day, no matter what their political complexion may be, when they take action as they must, to defend the rights of the community as a whole.

3.41 p.m.


My Lords, I rise for only a moment to support the Government and join in making an appeal to the dockers to reconsider their decision. I have always very great sympathy with the dockers. In the past they had a hard deal, but their position now has been improved beyond all expectations, and I feel certain that if this strike is continued they will lose a great amount of sympathy and possibly some of the gains which they have obtained in recent years. It is quite plain that on a matter of this kind the Government cannot give way. If the strikers were successful, it would mean that industrial disputes in future would be settled not by negotiation, but by the unreasonable methods of the strike and the lock-out. If this strike were successful, it would follow that the machinery for negotiation which has been so carefully built up is to a large extent useless. Moreover, it would make many people very doubtful about the wisdom of entering into any negotiations with the trade unions, if the trade unions are unable to enforce the agreements which they have reached on behalf of those they represent. There is no doubt the country is suffering greatly from the strike. I fear that it is also prejudicing our position overseas, especially in the United States at a time when the United States have been making considerable sacrifices to help us. Criticism is bound to arise when they see a strike of this nature taking place.

I want to support as strongly as I can what the noble Marquess has said about further information being given to the strikers. I believe that a large number of the men, possibly the majority of them, have entered into this strike through misapprehension. They have been exposed to an active and pernicious propaganda. That ought to be met by even more active propaganda on the part of the Government. The broadcast address given last night was admirable, but if addresses of that kind are to be any good, they must be repeated time after time. Members of the Government feel that if they make a statement, that is enough. It is sufficient in this House—we do not wish it to be repeated time after time—but those of us who have to preach sermons know perfectly well that we have to repeat a thing a dozen times before it makes any impression on the average man. Therefore, I feel that the Government must go on saying this, time after time. They must issue leaflets tracts written in the simplest possible language—and see also that some of those leaflets are addressed to the dockers' wives. I do not think it is realised what influence a woman has on the striker if the strike continues for some period. If an active, widespread and vigorous propaganda is undertaken at once, without delay, it will have a great effect upon the men.

There is one more point I would like to make, which really repeats what the noble Marquess has said. There is nothing the British working man dislikes more than having been "taken in" and deceived, unless it is being "taken in" by foreigners. If he sees that he has been deceived by Communist agitators, paid by foreign countries, the effect on him will be very great and the reaction will possibly be decisive. I would press the Government to make it quite plain to everyone who these Communist agitators are. Frequent speeches have been made saying that this strike is due to Communists, but we have not been given the reasons on which that statement is based. Now the Government must have definite reasons before they make a statement of that nature. They must know where the money comes from and the names of the people who are acting for the Communists. Let them expose them. Let the workers know who these people are. Then, I believe, there will be a great reaction against the men who have so misled them. The Government, of course, must hold out to the last; there can be no compromise on a matter of this kind. But none of us wishes our fellow countrymen, who are loyal and patriotic, to go back to their work feeling resentful, defeated, angry and bitter. We have to persuade them. I hope that while the Government are prepared to stand firm, they will also use every method of persuasion in their power to induce the dockers of their own will to go back to their work.

3.47 p.m.


My Lords, the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has asked me to say something. I am glad that this discussion has not turned mainly or largely upon any legal question and I should like to thank all the noble Lords who have spoken for the tone and temper of their speeches about what is a very difficult situation. There is not a shadow of doubt in the first place that this dispute is doing us most grievous harm at a most critical time in our history. I think the first thing we all want the dockers to understand is that that is so. I entirely agree with the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, when he said to the House that we must remember what the dockers did in the war, notwithstanding all the long bombardment to which they were subjected. We well know what a gallant and good set of men they are, and, whatever view we take of this, we must avoid the error of treating all these men as if they were enemies of our race. It well may be that in the timing of this matter we have made mistakes. I am not saying it is not so. If we rush in too soon, we are apt to do more harm than good. On the other hand if we delay in taking action, I agree that we create the impression of weakness, and that is bad. It is all a question of timing.

The tragedy of the whole situation is that the disputes at the Bristol port and Liverpool were settled and the controversy between the two unions was exposed at that time. Then it broke out in London, and it was settled. On June 23 or 24 work was resumed, following an agreement between the owners of the two ships concerned, and the seamen from these ships, who were striking and who were undoubtedly guilty of a criminal act in their breach of the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act of Canada. There is no doubt about that at all. The agreement that was made included two clauses: first, that there should be no victimisation and, secondly, that these seamen on getting back to Canada should not be prosecuted. All the dockers returned, and for three or four days peace reigned in the docks and everybody was at work. Then it was alleged that the agreement had not been observed, that the dockers had been, to use a well-known phrase, "double-crossed."

The point of controversy was this. It was said, first of all, in regard to the promise that there would be no prosecution, that that meant the Canadian authorities themselves should not prosecute. The two parties to the agreement were the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, on the one hand, and the seamen on the other. Obviously all the C.P.R. could say was that they would take no steps in regard to prosecution. It was obvious that they could not bind the Canadian authorities, although I may add that it was very unlikely, in the event of that agreement having been concluded, that the Canadian authorities would have taken proceedings. But plainly it is not for the C.P.R. or anybody else to bind the Canadian authorities in that respect. The second controversy arose over the question of no victimisation. There is no doubt that everybody agreed that the men would be paid their current wages to take the ships back to Canada. But they said that the agreement implied that they could go on working in the ship without joining the new union. I should explain to your Lordships that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company had on May 4 of this year made an agreement with the Seafarers' International Union whereby they undertook that only members of the Seafarers' International Union should man their ships. I need hardly tell your Lordships that anybody interested in this matter knew of that agreement. Therefore, when the question of no victimsation came up in the agreement of June 23 or 24, it must have been obvious to anybody signing that agreement that, although the obligation of no victimisation extended to the return voyage back to Canada, it could not have been meant to extend to the position thereafter, in view of the perfectly well-known agreement which the Canadian Pacific Railway Company had made with the Seafarers' International Union.

That, my Lords, is the position. Now a meeting is taking place this afternoon between, on the one hand, the Executive of the Lightermen's Union and the Executive of the Stevedores' Union and, on the other, the representatives of the seamen's committee from these ships. I am afraid I cannot tell your Lordships at this time the results of this meeting. I am most anxious that anything I say now shall not stand in the way of, or be any impediment whatever to, a satisfactory solution of this difficulty.

I would like to add this. So far as the law is concerned, under regulation 1305 a strike or lock-out is illegal if it is reported. It is the fact that neither the employers nor the workers reported this matter to the Ministry. I think that is rather technical, and if we go into that matter we may get into the region of whether this is technically a lock-out or a strike. I take the view that plainly this is a strike. I take that view for this reason. If I, for instance, have a farm and a staff of men working on that farm, and they say, "We will cut the barley, but we will not cut the oats"; and I then say, "If that is your line, then you do not come at all," then I should regard that not as a lock-out, but as a strike. Particularly would I consider this to be so in this case where, after all, the individual employers do not engage men until they have got ships to unload or load. However, I do not want to go into that controversy, which is much too legalistic to find a place in this matter.

There is no doubt that if any man is exploiting a situation like this, and fomenting a strike, not for genuine reasons in furtherance of a trade dispute, or to support his colleagues in a trade dispute, but in order to bring about chaos, to upset the established organisations of this country and to bring in red ruin in the breaking up of law, then he is plainly guilty of a criminal offence. But before you start a prosecution you must be absolutely certain that you have all your facts provable beyond question, so that in a prosecution you will not fail. This is a matter peculiarly within the province of the Attorney-General, who will not hesitate to act if and when he has information of the sort I have indicated, but who in my judgment would be very unwise to act if his information fell short of that sort of evidence.

I am not going to indulge in general talk about Communists and Communist activities. I have no doubt that Communists generally are on the look-out to see where they can make mischief; but I am afraid they are frequently clever enough not to put themselves in default. I have nothing more to say on that topic, except to assure your Lordships that these great powers which we have will be used with discretion, as I am sure the five people who are using them sufficiently appreciate. I cannot tell the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition exactly what is going to be done, but I can promise him that, having armed these five with these powers, we will keep your Lordships informed of exactly what is being done. I say again it is absolutely deplorable to us, and to any section of this House—in fact to any person who believes in democracy—that we should have to ask for these powers. And the sooner we can get rid of them the better. As I said before, it may be that we delayed too long in asking for these powers. If we did, I think that is a fault on the right side; and the sooner we can get rid of them the better.

I join with all your Lordships—and this is the most important message that can go from your Lordships' House—in urging all these dockers not to let a perverted sense of loyalty (for that is what it is) to a trade union ideal prevent them from thinking this matter out for themselves, or encourage them to continue to strike and play against this country of ours at a most critical time. That is the plea I make. I earnestly hope that, as a result of the discussions which are taking place this afternoon, this tragic affair may come to an end. If I say no more now, it is because I cannot help feeling that if I do I might do more harm than good.

On Question, Motion agreed to, nemine dissentiente: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.


I now beg to move the Motion standing in my name with regard to the regulations.

Moved, That the regulations made by His Majesty in Council under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, by Order dated the 11th day of July, 1949, shall continue in force subject to the provisions of Section 2 (4) of the said Act.—(Viscount Addison.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.