CLAUSE 10.—(Additional Provisions as to Trading with Enemy.) (Hansard, 25 November 1914)

§ Mr. POLLOCK
I have two Amendments on the Paper which perhaps the Attorney-General may see his way to accept. The Clause at present runs, it will be observed:— If any person without lawful authority deals, or attempts, or directly or indirectly offers, or proposes or agrees …… There does not seem any reason why the words "directly or indirectly" should be placed there.

§ Sir J. SIMON
I agree.

§ Mr. POLLOCK
I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "control" ["claim or control"], to leave out the words "for the purpose of enabling," and 1225 insert instead thereof the words "in such a manner as to enable."
The Amendment is important, and it will be observed that this is a very powerful and very useful and a very important Clause. It imposes upon the person who deals directly or indirectly with the enemy, by means of placing credits or money in a manner in which the enemy can get hold of it, certain penalties, provided for those who are guilty of the offence of trading with the enemy. It is to prevent persons from remitting money or placing money in neutral hands in such a manner that the enemy can get hold of that money. That being the object of the Clause, as I understand it—and I fully welcome it as a very important one—I would ask the Committee to look at the words:— If any person without lawful authority deals, or attempts or agrees to deal, with any money or security or money or other property which is in his hands, or over which he has any claim or control, for the purpose of enabling an enemy to obtain money or credit. … he shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence. For the purpose for which the Section is to be used I do not think those words will be very effective, because if you are charging a man with the offence it will be very difficult indeed to prove that the purpose he had when he remitted the money was the purpose of enabling the enemy to obtain money or credit. In almost all cases he would be able to say, "I gave the money, because I was asked to do so, into neutral hands; I had no idea it was going to be used to enable the enemy to obtain money or credit." I think therefore that those words, "for the purpose of enabling," ought to be deleted, and that there should be substituted for them the words "in such a manner as to enable." That would leave the defence to show—and I think rightly to show—that what you ordinarily presume from the remission of money, that it has been sent out to enable the enemy to obtain credit on money, was not the case, and it would be for the defendant to show that he had no reason to suspect that any difficulty would arise at all, and he would be cleared, and ought to be cleared, of the offence. Relatively to that I further propose to add, at the end of the Clause, the following words as Sub-section (4):— Where any person has in his possession money due to an enemy and has 1226 reason to suspect that there is danger of Section three hereof being infringed by the payment thereof, such person may pay the sum so due into Court in accordance with rules to be made under this Act, and such payment shall, for all purposes, be a good discharge to such person. The effect of those two Amendments would be to strengthen the Clause. Instead of the prosecution having to prove that it has been done in a manner to enable the enemy to obtain money or credit, it would safeguard any person from being placed in a dangerous or difficult position, and you would give him the liberty to pay the money into Court. If you give him the option to pay the money into Court, if he has any doubt or thinks there is any danger, he can avail himself of the provision which I suggest. I beg to move the first Amendment.

Mr. ROBERTSON
I am afraid the first Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member would operate in far more effective manner than he has shown. Even supposing a person had not the slightest intention of bringing about the effect to which he alludes, he seems to suppose in that case that it would be a good defence that the person had not foreseen what was going to happen. It is possible that the Court might overrule the Clause, and still say that they were not going to punish the man because he had no intention. But the words of the hon. Member really makes the Court punish a man if the effect is to enable the money to go to the enemy. It might be probably difficult to prove that the person meant the money to go in an improper way, but surely some proof is necessary before you penalise anyone. In regard to the correlative Amendment, there seems to be some mistake. It runs:— Where any person has in his possession money due to an enemy, and has reason to suspect that there is danger of section three thereof being infringed by the payment thereof, such person may pay the sum so due into Court. That is simply a question as to money due to the enemy, but it does not entitle the person to pay it at all. No question arises of the company being safeguarded in this way. He is bound under the law not to pay the money, and I hope therefore that the hon. and learned Member will not press these Amendments.

§ Mr. CAVE
I think the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend goes too far, where we are creating a criminal act, and I hope he will not insist upon it.

§ Mr. POLLOCK
I will withdraw it. I confess that I put both Amendments forward simply for the purpose of trying to strengthen the Clause, and I think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade rather agreed that the words as they stand in the Clause might give a loophole to some we might wish to catch. I do not think my words are very artistic or very happy, and I shall be very glad if some hon. Member can think of other words, but, if that be impossible, I will not delay the Committee further.