CLAUSE 4.—(Provision as to Exportation of Goods under Licence.) (Hansard, 10 March 1915)

§ Mr. LOUGH
I should like to put to my right hon. Friend a point which he did not completely cover with regard to bills of lading. I quite agree that absolute security must be taken that the goods 1516 shall go only to the consignee whom the Customs have allowed them to be exported to. But it seems to me that that might be secured without such a drastic provision as this embodied in the Clause. The bill of lading is spoilt as a security. Many bankers will not take it in the form in which the Bill puts it. I am only putting these matters with a view of hearing what my right hon. Friend has to say. I am very much obliged for the explanation he has given and the spirit in which he has given it, but it is a far-reaching matter, though I will not press it if he resists. If he says it is safe, I will leave it as it is; but he admitted that it is a substantial change in the law, and no one who knows the vast export from this country at present, all under these bills of lading, carried on in a certain way with the assistance of the banks, cannot but feel that it is a far-reaching provision. If my right hon. Friend can see his way to tell me that he would consider between this and the Third Reading and see whether anything that is necessary can be done, I should be quite satisfied to leave it in his hands.

Mr. SHIRLEY BENN
I should like to press upon the Attorney-General that something should be done to prevent the name of the receiver of the cargo or parcel of goods being on the bill of lading. I will give two reasons. In the first place, if you put the name of the receiver of the cargo on the bill of lading, and the receiver fails before the goods get out to the port of destination, how are you going to prevent the receiver from getting those goods, although he may be bankrupt? In the second place, drafts are attached to the bills of lading and they are not indorsed over until the drafts are accepted, and if you give the receiver of the cargo power to say, "I will not accept these drafts until the goods arrive and I see that they are in good order," you are going to interfere very much with the shipper.

§ Mr. HOLT
I want to ask my right hon. Friend this question. He justified Clauses 1 and 2 by the suggestion that shipowners might be practically acting in a spirit of hostility to this country, not accidentally but intentionally. Suppose you got a case in which these goods were going to be exported by a shipper of that kind, what security would Clause 4 give? In the case of collusion between the master of the ship and the owner of the goods, it seems to me that Clause 4 would give no security at all.

§ Mr. CAVE
I hope the Attorney-General will be very slow to accept any modification of the Clause. I do not think the Committee could engage in more necessary work than preventing goods leaving this country from reaching the agents of enemy countries abroad. I dare say the hon. Gentleman knows that in every port practically, in countries bordering on Germany, there are persons who are forwarding agents for the Germans, and the great object of the Clause is to prevent goods reaching those forwarding agents and going on to Germany. The Clause deals with the case of licences to export to a particular person. Licences are given sometimes rather freely, but they are limited to exports to a particular person in a neutral country. The only object of the Clause is to secure that the goods shall reach that person and no other. If you allow the goods to go "to order," or in any other form of negotiable document, they may be sold before they reach the foreign port, and they may go direct to somebody who may turn out to be a forwarding agent for Germany. We should be careful before loosening the tie sought to be imposed by this Clause. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the suggestion to strike out the Clause.

§ Sir J. SIMON
The right hon. Gentleman who called attention to this Clause put very clearly the point which he wished to be considered. It has been considered. There are two considerations to be borne in mind. One is this. Of course, if the authorities feel that it is safe to give a license to export to a particular country, or to a particular place, without insisting upon the person to whom the goods are going being precisely defined and named, then the Clause cannot come into operation at all. We must, of course, suppose what the effect of the Clause must be in the case of a bill of lading not "to order," but to a named consignee. If you assume that the license is to export goods which you usually prohibit being exported, and if this particular exception is asked for and obtained merely because the licensee says "I wish to send to so and so and nobody else," then I say if we are going to be consistent we must make the document satisfy the recommendations we have made. The House will remember that we have intimated to neutral traders that we draw a very sharp distinction on examining cargoes where in one case the document shows that the goods are merely 1518 going "to order," or in the other case to a named consignee. With what justice can we say that we are going to regard their goods as goods which may be going to the enemy unless their document shows that they are going to a named consignee, while not applying the strict rule to ourselves? Surely, it is right that your document should carry out the rule you have made.