CLAUSE 12.—(Short Title and Construction.) (Hansard, 25 November 1914)

§ Sir J. SIMON
I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words (2) No person or body of persons shall, for the purposes of this Act, be treated as an enemy who would not be so treated for the purpose of any proclamation issued by His Majesty dealing with trading with the enemy for the time being in force, and the expression 'commencement of the present War,' shall mean as respects any enemy the date on which War was declared on the country in which that enemy resides or carries on business.

§ Mr. BOOTH
May I suggest that after the words "War was declared," you should insert the words "by His Majesty," so as to make it clear that you refer to the commencement of a War in which this country was engaged.

§ Sir J. SIMON
I will accept that suggestion.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I am rather doubtful about the next Amendment. I think it ought to be a new Clause, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman wishes to address me on the point.

§ Mr. MORTON
I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (1) to insert the words (2) The expression 'enemy' in the principal Act or in this Act shall extend to and include any company or firm the business whereof is managed or controlled by persons who were or are on or subsequently to the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fourteen, born subjects of or resident or carrying on business in any State for the time being at war with His Majesty, and shall extend to and include any company or firm who were or are acting as agents for any person, firm, or company trading or carrying on business in a State for the time being at war with His Majesty, notwithstanding that the company or firm may be registered within His Majesty's dominions. As the Bill stands at present there is no definition of an "enemy" except in the Preamble. That is an extraordinary way of bringing in a definition. What we desire is to get a real definition of the meaning of the word "enemy," and especially that no one shall be allowed to get out of the consequences of being an alien enemy by registering as a company in this country with someone taking one share. I should hope that the Attorney-General would help us in getting a proper definition of the word "enemy." There may be better words than we have chosen, but we are anxious to know how to obey the law, and that there should be some definition of what an enemy is. We are most anxious in the City to help the Government and the Parliament in every way we possibly can, but, where these difficulties occur, we do ask assistance in getting out of them, so that we can keep within the law and make others do the same. I have proposed this Amendment in order to get the Attorney-General to tell us what he thinks about the matter.

§ Sir J. SIMON
Nobody could resist my hon. Friend's appeal. I can answer very briefly. Enemies, for the purpose of the law relating to trading with the enemy, mean what my hon. Friend will find stated in the Preamble to this Bill. I feel quite confident that is so, and that is the view taken by every judicial authority which has concerned itself with the matter. It must be so, because, of course, damage done to this country if trade goes on with persons in Germany, even though those persons happen to be neutral or British subjects, is just the same as if 1231 trade goes on with Germans in Germany, but the damage that is done by trading by persons of German nationality here is not the same as the damage which arises if you do not have a sufficiently effective law to prevent them in their turn transmitting to the foreign country. The right view is to treat the German in this country as somebody subject to our law, and who has got to obey our law. Our law is that he, like anybody else, must not trade with Germany. If my hon. Friend asks me to say what I think about it, in all other respects, in the dinner hour, my thoughts are too deep for words.

§ Mr. MORTON
I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman expressed those last few words a few weeks ago at the Guildhall. Is it right that by merely registering shares a person should be able to evade the law?

§ The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro)
I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "arrested," to insert the words "in execution or in security."
The hon. Member for South Lanarkshire (Mr. Watson), who was supported by the hon. Member for Central Glasgow (Mr. Scott Dickson), asked me if I would accept this Amendment. I undertook to do so, and in his absence I move it. It is purely technical.

§ Mr. MUNRO
I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to add the words "any money paid into Court in terms of this Act shall be paid in such manner as may be prescribed by Act of Sederunt."
I may say that Act of Sederunt simply means rules of Court in Scotland. The Attorney-General a moment ago said that we had not reached such a stage of civilisation in Scotland as to know what payment in Court means. The difference between the two countries is that here there is payment into Court although there is no definite action in the Court, but in Scotland that cannot be done. Accordingly the Amendment which the Attorney-General moved, to the effect that rules of Court may be made which should deal with money paid into Court, would not quite cover the matter, because in Scotland the money has got to get there first, 1232 and it is desirable that that should be provided for by rules of Court.