Commons Sitting of 10 January 1918

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT.
For the County of Lancaster (SouthEast Lancashire, Prestwich Division), in the room of the Right Hon. Sir Frederick Cawley, Baronet, Manor of Northstead.— [Captain Guest.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Port Glasgow Water Order Confirmation Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Port Glasgow Water," presented by Mr. MUNRO;read the first time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be read a second time upon Thursday, 24th January, and to be printed.
Marriages Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order made by one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State under the Provisional Order (Marriages) Act, 1905," presented by Mr. BRACE; read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.

NATIONAL PHYSICAL LABORATORY.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 15th January; Mr. Baldwin]; to lie upon the Table.
MINISTRY OF RECONSTRUCTION.
Copy presented of a List of Commissions and Committees set up to deal with Questions which will arise at the close of the War [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

NETHERLANDS GOVERNMENT CLAIMS (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 1, 1918).
Copy presented of Correspondence with the Netherlands Government respecting the Claims preferred against His Majesty's Government for damages sustained by the
278
Netherlands steamships "Elve" and "Bernisse" through the action of German submarines [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

DEATHS FROM STARVATION OR ACCELERATED BY PRIVATION (ENGLAND AND WALES).
Return ordered, "of Deaths in England and Wales in the year 1917 upon which a coroner's jury has returned a verdict of Death from Starvation or Death accelerated by Privation, together with observations furnished to the Local Government Board by Boards of Guardians with reference to cases included in the Return (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 132, of Session 1917–18)."—[Mr. Stephen walsh.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      COFFEE.
      1. Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of state for India whether shipment of coffee: from Mombassa is permitted while coffee from South Indian ports is held up for w ant of freight; whether coffee and other articles of merchandise formerly shipped from ports on the Malabar coast. are now held up on the Coromandel coast; and whether he can hold out hopes of early provision of tonnage?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir Lea Chiozza Money): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The shipment of coffee: from any of the places mentioned is dependent upon the uncertain contingency of space being available after all priority cargo ready for shipment has been loaded. I fear, therefore, that it is quite impossible to avoid inequalities such as those referred to, and that there is no likelihood of any improvement in the situation in this connection.

      BEEF.
      Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether a larger number of animals were slaughtered for beef prior to the 1st January last than the corresponding period of 1916;

      279
      and whether the supplies of home-grown animals for beef are greater or less for the coming four months than for the corresponding period of 1917?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): I have been asked to reply. An estimate based on over 10,000 returns from slaughter houses in Great Britain indicates that in December, 1917, the number of cattle slaughtered for beef was 9.4 per cent. greater than the number slaughtered in December, 1916. The number of live-stock in the country is estimated to be less than that of a year ago, and consequently supplies of home-fed beef in the next four months equal to those of the same period last year can be forthcoming only at the expense of a further depletion of our livestock.
      Mr. LAMBERT: Is there any evidence that farmers are holding up beef animals?
      Mr. CLYNES: I understand there was some evidence to that effect at the beginning of this year as the result of the recent Order fixing life prices.
      Mr. LAMBERT: Is there now any evidence of it?
      Mr. CLYNES: No, I cannot say so at the moment.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: May I ask whether large numbers were slaughtered last December by order of the Government for the supply of the Army, and that this is one cause of the shortage?
      Mr. CLYNES: I shall have to receive notice of that.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Was the shortage due to the ridiculous Order given by the Food Controller? May I have an answer?
      Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member thinks the question of sufficient importance —
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I do.
      Mr. SPEAKER: Then put it down.

      RACEHORSES (RATIONS).
      Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister what was the Food Controller's recommendation to the War Cabinet with regard to corn rations to racehorses; and what decision has been come to?
      Mr. CLYNES: I have been asked to reply. The Food Controller informed the War Cabinet of the cereal situation before the decision to allow a limited amount of winter racing was reached.
      Mr. LAMBERT: Has it been decided to stop horse-racing altogether?
      Mr. CLYNES: No; the decision of the War Cabinet, after receiving the information referred to in my reply, was not to that effect.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is it likely to help on the economy campaign to continue horseracing?
      Colonel Sir H. GREENWOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the disastrous effect upon our credit in Canada and the United States, from whom we are borrowing money to live, to continue horse-racing in this country?
      Mr. CLYNES: As my reply indicates, the Food Controller placed before the Cabinet the cereal situation before the Cabinet made its decision.
      Mr. ANDERSON: Does that mean that the suggestion of the Minister of Food on this question has been turned down by the War Cabinet?
      Mr. CLYNES: It does not mean that the Minister of Food made any suggestion. He placed the facts of the situation before the War Cabinet.
      Mr. LAMBERT: May I ask the representative of the Prime Minister is there any reason why horse-racing is not stopped, considering the very serious shortage of cereals in this country?
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I think the right hon. Gentleman had better give me notice of that question.
      Mr. LAMBERT: I beg pardon!
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Well, I handed it over to the Food Controller. The only answer I can give now is that the other facts and considerations which should be taken into account were considered by us, one of which was that the amount of food involved was absolutely trifling, and that the effect on the habits of the people was out of proportion to the saving of food.
      Mr. KEATING: Is it not the opinion of the Cabinet that it will be impossible to keep up the breeding of horses if horseracing is stopped?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Of course, that consideration was put before us, but, judging by myself, the main consideration in making the decision was the interference with the habits of the people.
      Mr. L. JONES: Are we to take it the Food Controller does not make recommendations to the War Cabinet, but simply places facts before them?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: He does both, like every other Minister.
      Mr. JONES: But in this particular case did he make any recommendation at all to the War Cabinet?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: How does the right lion. Gentleman expect me to remember every recommendation made months ago?
      Mr. KING: Did the War Cabinet—
      Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member give notice?

      WINES AND SPIRITS (CLEARANCES).
      Mr. KEATINGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he will take steps to ascertain the figures of clearances of wines and spirits from bond from the Annual Returns of the Customs and Excise during the years 1914, 1915, and 1916; and whether he will amend the Regulations of supplies by basing the average over the three years instead of the year 1916?
      Mr. CLYNES: Various points connected with the prices and distribution of spirits are now engaging the attention of the Food Controller, and the suggestion of the lion. Member will be considered in due course. The information referred to in the first part of the question will be utilised in this connection.

      TEA.
      Sir J. D. REESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether any Order has been made under Regulation 2 F of the Defence of the Realm Act for the purchase of tea by the Government?
      Mr. CLYNES: No, Sir.

      FOOD PRESERVATION.
      Sir R. COOPERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he will state the percentage of deterioration per annum in the value of the food brought into the country under the existing system of preservation; and whether
      282
      his Department is taking into consideration the application of scientific methods of food preservation in order to obviate this wastage?
      Mr. CLYNES: There are no figures available which would enable me to answer the first part of the question. The application of scientific methods of food preservation in order to prevent wastage is under 'investigation by a Committee of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, on which the Ministry of food is represented. The cold storage accommodation has already been increased and will be increased still further.

      MEAT SALES.
      Mr. CAUTLEYasked whether, with a view to creating confidence in the: grading of cattle committees to be set up; by his Meat (Sales) Control Order, the Food Controller will provide in his final. Order that the farmer and butcher representatives of the grading committees shall be respectively appointed by the local farmer and butcher associations, instead of being nominated by the auctioneer member of the committee, as is now commonly the practice under the temporary Order for the time being in force?
      Mr. CLYNES: The representatives of farmers and butchers upon the grading comnittees set up under the Cattle (Sales) Order are being appointed by the Area Advisory Live-stock Committees, on which the local farmers' arid butchers' associations are already represented. It would, therefore, appear unnecessary to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.

      BUTTER.
      Mr. L. WILLIAMSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the Star Tea Company, on whose behalf Mr. W. G. Lovell, of the Ministry of Food, interfered with the Llanelly Local Food Control Committee in a letter, dated 7th December last, were fined £43 and costs at the Llanelly Police Court, and that in the course of the hearing a Mr. John Dunlee, of 85, Albert Street, Regent's Park, stated that lie bought the butter f.o.b. Cork at 238s. a cwt. and sold it to the defendant company f.o.b. Cork at 245s. 6d., making a profit on the transaction of £7 10s. a ton; and whether he will consider the possibility, in these days of food scarcity and high prices,. of eliminating such middleman's profits; altogether?
      Mr. CLYNES: The profit, amounting to 7s. 6d. per cwt., was not in excess of that authorised by the Food Controller's Orders; the price charged was, however, in excess of that fixed by the local food committee. It is impossible altogether to dispense with the services of middlemen.
      Mr. WILLIAMSasked whether Mr. W. G. Lovell was appointed in October last to be deputy-chairman of the Department's Butter Committee; whether he is the official responsible for fixing the price of butter in bulk and in lb.; whether, before his appointment, he was managing director, or chairman of directors, of Messrs. Lovell and Christmas, Limited; whether Messrs. Lovell and Christmas do a large business in turning bulk butter into 1bs.; whether Mr. W. G. Lovell is still a holder of ordinary and preference shares in Messrs. Lovell and Christmas; whether 4,690 preference and 11,170 ordinary shares are held by the Lovell family; whether Mr. Robert Douglas Cubley, described by Mr. W. G. Lovell in his letter of the 7th December to the Llanelly Local Committee as the managing director of the Star Tea Company, still holds ordinary and preference shares in Messrs. Lovell and Christmas, Limited; and whether, having regard to the necessity of inspiring public confidence in the equitable administration of our food supply, he will consider the desirability of removing Mr. Lovell from a position which conflicts with his personal, family, and trade interests?
      Mr. CLYNES: The answer to the first, third, and fifth parts of the question is in the affirmative. The answer to the second and fourth parts of the question is in the negative. I have no information:as to the matters raised in the sixth and Seventh parts. The Food Controller has always endeavoured to secure in every branch of his Department relating to supplies the services of a competent and experienced business man with full knowledge of the particular trade. Mr. W. G. Lovell is eminently fitted for such a post, and Lord -Rhondda is confident that his advice has always been given with an entire disregard of his personal interests.
      Mr. WILLIAMSasked whether there were in December last two wholesale prices for butter fixed by the Ministry -of Food—one for butter in bulk:and the other for pounded butter; whether the price of the latter was £14
      284
      per ton more than that of bulk butter; whether the expense of passing butter through the pounding machine and its general handling does not exceed 60s. per ton; and on whose advice did the Food Controller fix the price of pounded butter at £14 per ton over that of butter in bulk?
      Mr. CLYNES: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. The information available shows that the cost of putting up butter in 1-1b. rolls, and of providing wrappers, very considerably exceeds 60s. per ton. The prices for butter in bulk and for pounded butter were fixed by the Food Controller, after consultation with the Advisory Committee for the Control of Butter and Cheese Supplies.
      Mr. WILLIAMSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been drawn to a letter dated 7th December, 1917, from one W. G. Lovell, of the Ministry of Food, to the local food control committee of Llanelly and the reply of the committee dated 14th December; whether he approves of the attempt of a trading company to escape prosecution for profiteering by going behind the back of the local committee to officials of his Department; whether Mr. W. G. Lovell was authorised to write the letter of 7th December suggesting to the local committee the advisability of withdrawing the prosecution of the Star Tea Company; and, if not, what disciplinary measures have been taken to prevent the repetition of an action which has aroused both indignation and suspicion in South Wales?
      Mr. CLYNES: The Director of Supplies of Butter and Cheese ascertained from the Star Tea Company that their profits derived from the transaction in question did not exceed those authorised by the Food Controller. He thereup in suggested to the Llanelly Food Control Committee that, in view of a possible misunderstanding, it might be advisable to consider whether it was worth while going on with the case. In so Writing Mr. Lovell does not appear to have exceeded the limits of the discretion vested in him as a responsible officer of the Department.
      Mr. WILLIAMS: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the letter of 7th December, and does he know that it contains many misrepresentations; and, in view of the facts, will he look into the matter and ascertain whether this gentleman did not exceed his authority in writing such a letter to the

      285
      local food control committee regarding a company, the managing director of which is an important shareholder in his own private company?
      Mr. CLYNES: I have had put before me the general information upon which my reply is based, but I cannot recall the letter referred to.

      BOARD OF TRADE (REORGANISATION).
      Mr. GEORGE TERRELL (by Private Notice)asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet completed the scheme of reorganisation of his Department for the purpose of meeting the needs of British commerce and industry after the War?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): Yes, Sir; a White Paper giving particulars of the reorganisation of the Board of Trade -to meet the needs of British commerce and industry after the War was presented to Parliament yesterday, and understand that copies will be circulated to-morrow morning.

      SHIPPING LOSSES.
      Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the total value of all ships and cargoes of all descriptions sunk by enemy submarine and mine from 4th August, 1914, to the latest date on which he has particulars, and that date?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): We are not in a position to give this information, nor is it considered in the public interest that it should be given.
      Mr. HOUSTONasked whether the Admiralty informed the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller that a certain steamer torpedoed on Christmas day while crossing from a French Channel port to an English Channel port was torpedoed while under Admiralty protection or escort?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: It is regretted that the 4nformation given to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Con-troller was incorrect. The vessel in question was not being escorted at the time she was torpedoed.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Who was responsible at that date for giving to the Parliamentary
      286
      Secretary to the Shipping Controller this incorrect information with such disastrous results to his reputation?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: The information came by telephone, and we accept the responsibility, and regret that incorrect information was given.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is it considered wise for the Government to make a statement in the public Press regarding shipping, contrary to the statement of the owners of the ship, who are more likely to know what happens to their own ship?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I have stated that the incorrect information is information for which we were responsible.
      Mr. MacVEAGH: As this statement contains an attack upon a Member of this House, and the statement has been found to be inaccurate, has any apology been, or will any apology be offered, to that Member?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I have already raid that for the information which was incorrectly given the responsibility is ours, and I have said that I regret that that information was given. I do not know what more I can say.
      Mr. HOGGE: Why does the right hon. Gentleman apologise only for the inaccuracy of the statement that has been made, and make no apology to the hon. Member who was wrongly attacked?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: Really that not a question to put to me.
      Mr. HOUSTONasked whether the steamer torpedoed on Christmas Day while crossing from a French Channel port to an English Channel port, and receiving such serious damage that over six months will be occupied in repairing, has been reported or returned in the published list of vessels unsuccessfully attacked; and, if so, on what date was it so officially reported?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: Vessels damaged by submarine or mined are not included in any published list unless and until they become a. total loss, when they are included in the published list of the week in which this information comes to hand, with a reference to the week in which originally attacked. I ought, perhaps, to add that we do not apprehend that this particular vessel will take six months to repair. I think it desirable to say, further, that of the total number of British vessels damaged by enemy action for the

      287
      ten months, January to October, 1917, inclusive, it has been found impossible to salve four only. Of the rest, the repair of more than half has been actually completed.
      Mr. HOUSTON: What is the use of returning in the official lists the number of vessels which are unsuccessfully attacked by enemy submarines when in a case like this, in which the ship is out of commission for more than six months, and in another case which I know, the ship is out of commission for twelve months, no notice is taken? May I correct the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the time which vessels take in repairing? Is he aware that the Director of Shipping has said that the repairs to this ship will occupy six months?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I consulted the Department this morning, and they say that it will not take six months.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Who said that?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: The officer responsible. With regard to the other point, the vessels unsuccessfully attacked are not injured in any way. The vessels that have been attacked and damaged do not appear in the paper unless and until they become a total loss. Of all the vessels that have been attacked during the tea months which I have given it has been found impossible to salve four only. More than half of all the rest have been completely repair ed.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Is it not more important in the public interest to know the number of vessels damaged than the number undamaged, which is merely eye-wash? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the temporary repairs to this steamer at Portsmouth occupied a month, and that the permanent repairs, according to the Director of Shipping, will occupy six months?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: According to such information as I have, the expectation is that it will not take six months to repair.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Well, we will wait and see.
      Mr. HOUSTONasked whether the refrigerated steamer torpedoed and sunk on passage from a French Channel port to a British port was, at the time she was torpedoed, escorted by a naval armed
      288
      vessel; and whether the captain asked for an escort or protection before leaving the French port?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The answer to the second part is that no application was made for an escort either to the French authorities on the other side of to the naval authorities on this side If my hon. Friend understands that an escort was asked for, perhaps he will give me his authority, privately. He is aware, of course, that the vessel was defensively armed.
      Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the German authorities have stated that British hospital ships carrying a Spanish officer aboard would be immune from submarine attack; whether the British hospital ship "Rewa" carried a Spanish officer while in the Mediterranean; if so, whether this Spanish officer was landed at Gibraltar or a Spanish port while the "Rewa" was on a voyage to this country with wounded; if so, can he state why this Spanish officer was landed; and whether he has reason to believe that the presence of a Spanish officer on board would have prevented the ship from being sunk in the Bristol Channel on 4th January?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: The Spanish agreement is confined to the Mediterranean, and the special guarantees given therewith refer to that sea only. The "Rewa" carried a Spanish officer while in the Mediterranean. He was disembarked at Gibraltar in acordance with the agreement. As the Bristol Channel is not covered by the Spanish agreement, the presence of the Spanish officer on board in that Channel would not have afforded any additional guarantee of the ship's safety beyond that given by The Hague Convention. It may be added that in the course of recent correspondence the German Government stated that the free navigation of hospital ships bearing the usual distinctive markings was guaranteed in the Atlantic Ocean and North Sea, with the exception of the English Channel, and that consequently such ships could move freely, provided they kept to the west of the line from Land's End to Ushant. This particular ship satisfied the proviso, as has already been stated in the Admiralty communication to the Press of the 8th January.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman or the British Government

      289
      attach any importance, the slightest importance, to any assurance given by Germany
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I have done my best to answer the question.
      Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that a convoy of about twenty ships left Falmouth on the 26th December; that within 14 miles of that port two new ships of 11,000 tons and of 10,000 tons, respectively, were torpedoed; and that one sank within thirteen minutes and the other was left in charge of an armed trawler, disabled, within 14 miles of Falmouth from 3 p.m. on the 26th to 4 a.m. on the 27th December, a period of thirteen hours, on a moonlight night; whether he is aware that the hostile submarine, having followed and further damaged the convoy, then returned and completed the destruction of the 10,000-ton ship at 4 a.m. on the 27th December; and what action the Admiralty has taken to show their appreciation of the perspicacity of those responsible?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: It is true that two ships were torpedoed in this particular convoy, but the circumstances are somewhat different from those stated in the question. One of these ships was sunk; the other severely damaged. A destroyer and two armed trawlers were left to guard the ship that remained afloat, and on information of the attack reaching the base, two tugs and two trawlers were immediately dispatched to the assistance of the damaged ship. Unfortunately the tugs failed to find the vessel, and the report of an inquiry held to ascertain the reason for this has not yet reached the Admiralty. The gross tonnage of the vessels sunk was actually about half that stated in the question. One vessel was new, and the other one was built in 1907. The Admiralty have no information to lead them to believe that the submarine inflicted any further damage on this convoy. The circumstances connected with this attack are receiving full consideration.
      Mr. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly tell us why it was that this new ship was left for thirteen hours, 14 miles from Falmouth, on a moonlight night?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I have said that an inquiry is being held into that, but it was not the fact that the vessel was absolutely
      290
      alone, because I have spoken of two trawlers remaining behind, and two tugs and two trawlers were dispatched.
      Mr. LAMBERT: When do you expect to receive the result of the inquiry?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: There ought to be no delay. I hope it will be received shortly, and I will let my hon. Friend know as soon. as I get it
      Mr. HOUSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many experienced British shipmasters would very much prefer to be without the protection afforded by the Admiralty?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: That is a matter of very, very high policy.

      SHIPS PURCHASED.
      Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many ships contracted for or building in America for or on account of Norwegian or other neutral owners were purchased by British subjects and or the British Government; how many ships contracted for or building in America were on account of British subjects c r the British Government; and the total cumber of all these ships that have been requisitioned by the American Government?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. Twenty-nine Norwegian contracts in respect of ships building in the United States have been taken over by His Majesty's Government. So far as the Shipping Controller is aware there have been no purchases on private account by British subjects of ships contracted for or building in the United States on account of Norwegian or other neutral owners since the establishment of the Ministry of Shipping. Precise information is not available as to how many ships had been contracted for or were being built in the United States for private account of British subjects, but 169 steel vessels (including the Norwegian contracts above referred to) and two wooden vessels had been contracted for by His Majesty's Government. The American Government have requisitioned 158 of the above-mentioned steel vessels.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Is the lion. Gentleman aware that his information is, as usual, inaccurate?

    PRIVATE SHIPYARDS.

      DRAFTING OF UNSKILLED WORKMEN.
      Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what extra number of skilled and unskilled workmen could be profitably employed in the private shipyards of the United Kingdom for building mercantile tonnage; and what steps are being taken to supply the private yards with as much labour as can be economically utilised?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: The additional number of skilled arid unskilled workmen that could be profitably employed on private shipyards at the present time is approximately 17,000, but this number will increase progressively during the year.
      It is being arranged that a considerable number of skilled men shall be released from the Colours for work in the private shipyards and engine works.
      Unskilled workmen are being drafted into the shipyards from non-vital industries, and, as stated by the Minister of National Service in his speech on Monday, the appeal for labour for shipyards has met with the most gratifying response; large numbers of men are coining forward, and are being rapidly put to work.
      I would also add that the establishment of schools for training men in the use of pneumatic tools, to which I referred in the Debate on the Vote of Credit on the 13th December, is being proceeded with as rapidly as circumstances permit.
      Mr. P. A. HARRIS: How is it possible to provide men for the new Government shipyards when you cannot at the present time meet the demands of the private shipyards on the West Coast?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: We have a large number of men at work by substitution and replacement, and, with additions, we hope to provide all that are necessary for output.
      Mr. HARRIS: Are the men employed at Government shipyards on the West Coast being obtained at the expense of private shipyards?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I have stated frequently that we are taking no men from our own Royal dockyards or private shipyards.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British shipbuilders are clamouring for labour, in spite of what is being done?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: No doubt that is true, but we are not taking men from the private shipyards.
      Mr. PRINGLE: What labour is available for the private shipyards?

      FINLAND (FOOD FROM AMERICA).
      Mr. TREVELYANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any and, if so, what reply has been sent to the appeal to the Prime Minister from Professor Georg von Wendt, the official messenger of the Finnish Senate, to permit food to come to Finland from America in order to prevent immediate famine in Finland?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): A reply to the Finnish appeal was sent, on the 17th of November, to the effect that the state of supplies here unfortunately precluded any possibility of Finnish requirements being met from this country; and that, as regards the supplies from America, it was understood that a representative of the Finnish Senate was already discussing the matter with the authorities at Washington.
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government has recognised the Government of the Republic of Finland; and, if not, whether this step will be taken without delay?
      Mr. BALFOUR: His Majesty's Government have not yet felt able to recognise the Republic of Finland as an independent State, but they have instructed His Majesty's Consul-General at Helsingfors to enter into relations with the de facto authorities there for the transaction of business.
      Mr. LYNCH: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer candidly the question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—which really lies at the root of the whole matter—is the Foreign Office infected by the policy of wishing to restore the corrupt monarchy of the Czar?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member ought to put a question of that sort on the Paper for me to see.

      WAR AIMS.
      Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs

      293
      whether he has considered the advisability of now issuing, in conjunction with our Allies, a Note stating specifically what the Central Powers must accept as regards the evacuation of conquered territory before peace can be considered, and what aims we shall pursue at the Peace Conference when it is held?
      Mr. BALFOUR: I do not think that anything need be added to the statements about war aims recently made here and in the United States.

    RUSSIA

      STATEMENT BY MR. BALFOUR.
      Mr. R. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government has any official diplomatic means of communication with the Council of People's Commissioners which is the Government of Russia; whether any diplomatic official has been sent to the British Embassy at Petrograd; whether he is exercising the usual privileges of an Ambassador as regards couriers and other means of communication; and whether he is yet in a position to make any statement regarding the recognition of the Government at Petrograd?
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether Constantine Nabokoff is still in communication with the Foreign Office as in October, 1917; whether he will state the exact diplomatic relations existing with Russia; (2) whether M. Litvinoff, Russian Plenipotentiary in London, is recognised in any official capacity by the Government; if not, whether the Government has any channel of official communication with the Russian Government; what is that channel; (3) whether it is due to any decision of the War Cabinet that M. Litvinoff, Russian Plenipotentiary in London, is not allowed to receive telegrams from Russia; that his cables to Russia are held up; and that he is not allowed the usual courtesies given to other international representatives; and whether M. Litvinoff will now be allowed the facilities needed by his accredited mission to the British nation?
      Mr. BALFOUR: The question of the hon. Member for Leicester is the first of a series of four questions on the subject of our diplomatic relations with the Administration at Petrograd, and a single answer will perhaps suffice.
      294
      We have not recognised that Administration as being de facto or de jure the Government of the Russian people, but we carry on necessary business in an unofficial manner through an agent acting under the direction. of our Embassy at Petrograd.
      The Bolshevik Administration have appointed M. Litvinoff as their representative in London, and we are about to establish similar unofficial relations with him.
      M. Nabokoff, who was the Chargé d'Affaires under the late Republican Russian Government, will presumably remain in London until he is either confirmed or superseded in his post by a Government recognised as representing the Russian people.
      The present arrangement is obviously both irregular and transitory. Though it cannot be fitted into any customary diplomatic framework, it is, in our opinion, the best that can be devised to meet the necessities of the moment.
      Mr. KING: Can the right lion. Gentleman tell us exactly the position of M. Nabokoff; whether he will be able to tender communications, or even advice, to His Majesty's Government, although he has been officially superseded by the authorities now in power?
      Mr. BALFOUR: I cannot say that he has been officially superseded, but I do not think I can really add anything to the statement in the answer, which I attempted to make clear, and which I think was clear.
      Mr. KING: In view of the attempt being made by the party to which M. Nabokoff belongs to foster revolt against the present authorities in Petrograd, can the right hon. Gentleman not make it clear that we have no part with persons who are plotting against the existing power in Russia?
      Mr. BALFOUR: I cannot add anything.
      Mr. LYNCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to follow the lead given by President Wilson, and the Government cultivate good relations with this Government, which, whether we wish it or not, is, de facto, ruling Russia? May I ask —
      Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has said that he can add nothing to, his answer.
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the

      295
      statement that Mr. George Tchitcherine was sent back to Russia at the personal request of Mr. Trotsky was made on the authority of the Foreign Office; if so, by what channel was this personal request of Mr. Trotsky communicated; whether any subsequent communications have been received from him; and whether such communications have been returned to him simply acknowledged or diplomatically considered?
      Mr. BALFOUR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The release of Mr. Tchitcherine was decided on the recommendation of His Majesty's Ambassador at Petrograd, who had been informed by an official attached to the Embassy of the attitude adopted by Mr. Trotsky in the matter. As far as I am aware, Mr. Trotsky has not, since the early days of his assumption of office, endeavoured to open diplomatic intercourse with His Majesty's Embassy in Petrograd.
      Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the first part of the answer, denying that Mr. Tchitcherine was sent back at the personal request. of Mr. Trotsky, is in direct opposition to the information given to Mr. Tchitcherine himself by the Home Office?
      Mr. BALFOUR: I have said that the statement was not made on the authority of the Foreign Office.
      Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister on what date and on what grounds the decision was taken to return to Russia Mr. George Tchitcherine, Mr. Peter Petroff, and Mrs. Petroff?
      Mr. BALFOUR: I have no further statement to make on the subject.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the Secretary for Scotland what arrangements have now been made to reimburse parishes in Scotland for the cost of maintaining the dependants of Russian subjects who have returned to Russia under the recent convention?
      The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife on the 20th December. The whole cost of maintaining the dependants of Russian subjects is reimbursed to parish councils from public funds.

      SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
      Captain CARR-GOMMasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) whether there are, in the Salonika Army, several cases of Staff officers and officers employed at the base and Army headquarters who have had more than one period of leave, while there are a number of regimental officers in that force who have had no leave at all for over two years; (2) if the leave parties from the Salonika Force are in two categories: the fortnightly parties, which are for officers and other ranks serving in front of divisional headquarters, and special parties, reserved for all ranks behind brigades; whether, for some months past, there has been no fortnightly party, while the special parties have been sent off constantly; and whether he will draw the attention of the Commander-in-Chief to this matter in view of the desirability of having a fair distribution of leave?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I have no information bearing out my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestions, but the usual leave arrangements have been necessarily dislocated owing to recent movements of troops in other theatres. With regard to the other points in the questions, I am communicating with the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief.
      Captain CARR-GOMM: May I ask if the hon. Gentleman will impress on the authorities concerned the necessity of allowing the officers and men who have served in the front line at least as good an opportunity for leave as those on the Staff and behind the lines?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I will bring the matter to the notice of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief.
      Mr. WING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are men out there nearly three years who have had no leave?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I am coming to a question on that point.
      Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it is. possible to consider the granting of leave to soldiers who have been for over two. years in the Balkans?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: At the end of last November there were, unfortunately, seine 900 men who had had no leave, owing to the lack of transport facilities, and the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief informed me then that he was in full sympathy, and would take advantage of any facilities offered to remedy matters. I am communicating again with the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, and shall hope to hear that the position is improving.
      Mr. G. LAMBERT: When does the hon. Gentleman expect to hear from him on this matter, as it is one which excites a good deal of public interest?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I may say, on behalf of General Milne, that he has all along done everything possible to give the men leave, and I know for a fact that it is merely because of the difficulty of transport, recently in particular, that more leave has not been given. I am communicating with him to-day.
      Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether similar inquiries have been made with regard to the troops Palestine and Mesopotamia, and whether there is any possibility of those troops getting leave?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The same difficulties arise so far as all distant theatres of war are concerned.

      NATIONAL SERVICE MEDICAL BOARDS.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if the statement made by the Chief Commissioner of Medical Service before the Select Committee on Medical Examinations that all members of the medical boards are civilians now is in accord with the facts; whether the president of the Derby recruiting medical board is a retired major, Royal Army Medical Corps, with no experience whatever of general practice; whether he still remains president of this board; is he aware that the conduct of this chairman has been notorious through the whole district for the way he has treated the men who came before him as recruits; whether he is aware that during the first seven weeks that this man acted as president of the medical board no less than six civilian doctors resigned; whether this president is now assisted, or was up to
      298
      quite recently, by an elderly captain of the Royal Army Medical Corps; and whether steps will be taken at once to change the personnel of this board?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): All members of the National Service medical boards are civilian medical practitioners. Certain of the presidents of the recruiting medical boards continued to act as chairmen of the National Service medical boards during the period of transference of the medical department from the control of the Army Council to that of the Ministry of National Service, but these have now been relieved with the exception of two, who will be relieved within a few days. The president of the recruiting medical board at Derby relinquished his position on 1st December, 1917, and has been succeeded by a well-known highly qualified civilian medical practitioner. Inquiries are being made regarding the alleged action of the late president of this board.

      COURTS-MARTIAL (DEATH SENTENCES).
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if the Field-Marshal Commanding the Forces in France personally reads and examines the records of all field general courts-martial upon privates in which the sentence of death has been passed, and that before confirmation the Field-Marshal Commanding the Forces consults the Judge Advocate-General in France; and, if this be an incorrect statement of the position, whether he will explain who is the superior authority, if any, who examines judicially the record of the courts-martial in these cases before confirmation by the Field-Marshal Commanding?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief the Forces in France personally reads and examines the records of all courts-martial in which the sentence of death has been passed before he confirms the sentence, and in every such case receives the advice of the Deputy Judge Advocate-General in France before confirmation. He also receives reports from the Commanding Officer of the soldier under sentence and intermediate commanders. The second part of the question, therefore, does not arise.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the UnderSecretary of State for War what is the average time that elapses between the passing of sentence of death on a private soldier of the Expeditionary Forces by field general court-martial and the carrying into execution of that sentence; whether many cases have occurred in which thirty-six hours only have elapsed between the passing of sentence and its execution; and if he will say what steps are taken under those circumstances to secure a proper consideration of the case by higher authority?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: It is impossible to give the average time that elapses between the passing of sentence of death on a soldier and the carrying out of that sentence with exactness, because, in the first place, the proceedings do not always show the date when the sentence was carried out; and, secondly, it has not been found possible in the short time available to extract and examine every case since the commencement of the War received from every Expeditionary Force in order to make the necessary calculation. So far as I can judge, I should estimate that the average time would be somewhere about fourteen days. I am not aware of a single case in which the period has been so short as thirty-six hours. I think the hon. Member must be confusing the passing of sentence with promulgation of sentence, which takes place after confirmation and a comparatively short time before execution.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any medical examination of a soldier takes place after trial when the death sentence has been imposed and confirmed except where the soldier is wounded; and whether the records at the War Office reveal one solitary case in which such examination has taken place of a soldier executed for alleged cowardice whose defence was that he was suffering from shock?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I have written to France for full information as to the medical examination, particularly in shellshock cases. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be good enough to await the reply.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the UnderSecretary of State for War if it is the practice to accept without opportunity of cross-examination the certificate of a military doctor that. a private soldier,
      300
      hitherto suffering from shell-shock, has been passed as fit to take part in operations on the field of battle, as a complete answer to a defence in a charge of alleged cowardice or desertion, that the conduct complained of was due to the return of the symptoms which the military doctor considered had disappeared?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer is in the negative. The certificate of a military doctor cannot be received in evidence before a court-martial without calling the doctor as a witness to give evidence on oath upon which he can be cross-examined.
      Mr. H. LAW: Can the. hon. Gentleman say whether the medical evidence in these cases is that of specialists in nervous diseases or of ordinary R.A.M.C. officers?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: That is the point of a reply I gave before the Recess.

      1914 STAR.
      Major KERR-SMILEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any decision has been conic to regarding the inclusion among the recipients of the 1914 Star of those French and Belgian liaison officers and interpreters attached to British units who rendered most valuable assistance during the period for which the medal has been awarded?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: This question is still under consideration.

      BILLETING RATES.
      Mr. L. WILLIAMSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that in the early days of the War the price paid for billeting soldiers at Carmarthen was £1 3s. 7½d. per week; that it is now 19s. 3d. for the first soldier and 17s. 6d. for each additional soldier; and whether, having regard to the increase in the price of food, he will consider the advisability of reviewing these prices?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The rate first mentioned by the hon. Member was admittedly too high, and was reduced in August, 1915. The reduced rate was increased in December, 1916, to the figures mentioned, which allowed for a further

      301
      rise in prices. The question whether any further increase is now necessary is under consideration.

      ARMY PAY INCREASES.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the recent increases of pay to soldiers have been granted to the men of the Non-Combatant Corps; if not, on what grounds have these men been refused the increase; and, in view of the fact that the men of this corps are a part of the Regular Army and are doing work which would in any circumstances have to be done by soldiers, why they are treated differently from other men in the matter of pay; and will the matter be immediately reconsidered?
      Mr. FORSTER: Men of the Non-Combatant Corps share with others the relief from the compulsory allotment towards separation allowance and the abolition of hospital stoppages. The question of extending to them the recent increase in pay was considered by the Cabinet and decided in the negative. They belong to a special corps exempted by the tribunals from combatant service, and they are not employed in the danger zone. Their liabilities are, therefore, strictly limited, and their pay conforms to their liability.
      Mr. WING: Is the lion. Gentleman aware of the intense dissatisfaction of the men in the Infantry fighting forces at the great disparity of pay between them and the A.S.C. non-fighting force, and will he give some consideration to the men of making pay in both Services more equal?
      Mr. FORSTER: I think that the main object of bringing about the recent increase in pay was to bring the rate of pay of the men who are actually fighting more nearly to the level of those who are not.

      CULTIVATION OF LANDS ORDER.
      Mr. WILESasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, having regard to the uncertainty which appears to be prevalent in some of the county sub-committees formed in connection with the Cultivation of Lands Order for the purpose of selecting grass land for ploughing, he will state whether it is their duty in making such selection to bear in mind the needs of the milch cows
      302
      and other horned stock at present on the farms, or whether the committees are to proceed without any consideration of the cattle?
      The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Prothero): The agricultural executive committees have been constantly urged to consider the maintenance of milk production. The real dearth of cakes and other concentrated feeding-stuffs must in any ease reduce the numbers of fattening cattle in the country, but it should be remembered that a larger production of both meat and milk is practicable from arable land than from a corresponding acreage of grass. Moreover, as the Board have only asked for the ploughing of one-ninth of the total area of grass, there is no reason to fear that the practical men composing the agricultural executive committees will take such action as would unnecessarily injure the live-stock interest.

      BRIXHAM FISHERIES.
      Colonel BURNasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will sanction the request of the Brixham Fisheries Development Committee to have two lights fixed at Tor Cross to safeguard the Brixham fishermen from trawling in the restricted area of Start Bay?
      Mr. PROTHERO: The Board have no authority to sanction the exhibition of lights. The decision in this matter rests with the naval authorities, to whom the Board have made several representations as to the difficulties under which the fishermen are working.
      Colonel BURN: Will my right hon. Friend. assist matters in this respect, because it is a very serious thing to fishermen, who do not want to transgress the law, and who wish to add to the food of the people?
      Mr. PROTHERO: I quite agree that it is a serious thing for the fishermen, but there are certain considerations with the Admiralty as to the fixing of lights.

      GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (OFFICE ACCOMMODATION).
      Captain CARR-GOMMasked the First Commissioner of Works if there are

      303
      900 rooms in the Hotel Cecil building; whether the inspectors acting for his Department have made any Report on the use of this building by the Air Board; and, if so, will he state the nature of this Report?
      The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): The number of rooms in the Hotel Cecil is 665. The inspectors of the War Cabinet Committee on Accommodation have made a Report to the effect that the accommodation occupied by the Air Board is being satisfactorily utilised.
      Mr. HARRIS: Is it not a fact that this hotel was commandeered before it was inspected by the Department concerned?
      Sir A. MOND: No; it is not a fact.
      Captain CARR-GOMMasked how many new sets of buildings have been taken over by the Government since the House adjourned in December?
      Sir A. MOND: The number of premises taken over by the Government since the House adjourned in December is thirteen.
      Captain CARR. - GOMMasked whether any additional building accommodation is now being demanded by Government Departments; and, if so, which Departments are making these applications?
      Sir A. MOND: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. The list of demands for accommodation is so extensive that, for the convenience of the House, I purpose circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
      The following is the list referred to:

      DEPARTMENTS REQUIRING ADDITIONAL ACCOMMODATION.
      Admiralty-6 demands.
      American Army Headquarters — 2 demands.
      American Navy.
      Australian Imperial Force—3 demands.
      Air Ministry—3 demands.
      Agriculture, Board of—3 demands.
      Agriculture, Board of, Food Production Department—2 demands.
      Customs—5 demands.
      Foreign Office—2 demands.
      Food Ministry—10 demands.
      Government Laboratory, Home Office.
      Inland Revenue—3 demands.
      Ministry of Munitions—11 demands.
      Ministry of Labour—21 demands for Labour Exchanges.
      Military Service (Civil Liabilities) Committee.
      National Health Insurance Commission.
      National Service Ministry—demands.
      National War Museum.
      Pensions Ministry—5 demands.
      Royal Commission on Paper.
      Shipping Ministry—2 demands.
      Stationery Office—2 demands.
      Trade, Board of—7 demands.
      War Office—7 demands.
      Department of Overseas Trade (Development and Intelligence).
      American Consul—General.
      Indian Trade Commission.
      Inter-Ally Council on War Purchases and Finance.
      Ministry of Reconstruction.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he assented to the proposal to use the British Museum for the purpose of the Air Ministry; and, if so, under what authority he acted?
      Sir A. MOND: The proposal to use the British Museum for accommodating the Air Ministry was submitted by the President of the Air Board to the War Cabinet Committee on Accommodation. A large amount of space was required, and this space was not available in any other single building except the British Museum. As Chairman of the Committee on Accommodation I submitted the proposal in principle to the War Cabinet for decision. The War Cabinet assented to the proposal. Later, as Lord Rothermere was able to considerably reduce his demands for space, the matter was again before the War Cabinet, and I was able to advise that there was no longer the same necessity for accommodating the Air Ministry in the British Museum.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: In view of the fact that the control of the British Museum is vested by Act of Parliament in certain trustees, why was the decision of the trustees overruled by the right hon. Gentleman's Department and the Government?
      Sir A. MOND: The building of the British Museum is a Government building. It is under my Department, and is not vested in the trustees; and, obviously, the War Cabinet has the power of overruling the trustees of any museum.
      Mr. HARRIS: As the British Museum is not available, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the taking over of Carmelite House for this purpose?
      Mr. LYNCH: May I ask whether, before the right hon. Gentleman fakes over the British Museum, he will commandeer Buckingham Palace?
      Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the First. Commissioner of Works whether he has entered into agreements with the Government Departments who have erected buildings in St. James's Park and other parks under his control providing for the removal of the whole of these buildings at the end of the War?
      Sir A. MOND: The Office of Works is the only Department which has erected buildings in the Royal Parks, and, as I stated in this House on the 19th December last, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for the Harborough Division of Leicester, it is not intended that these buildings shall be permanent. They will be removed as soon after the declaration of peace as the interests of the State will allow.
      Captain CARR-GOMM: Will the Office of Works have any regard at all for the open spaces of London?
      Sir A. MOND: I have very great regard for the open spaces of London, and no one would be more pleased than myself to see these buildings disappear.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, why are the latest buildings in St. James's Park being erected in a very substantial manner in brick and stone?
      Sir A. MOND: The reason of that is that I am unable to obtain any timber from the Timber Controller to erect them in timber.

      NATIONAL EXPENDITURE (COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS).
      Mr. MACMASTERasked the Prime Minister (1) what steps the Government have taken to carry out the recommendations made by the Select Committee on National Expenditure in their First Report to the House of Commons, dated the 24th October last, and specially that the Treasury should determine from time to time the rates of profit and should
      306
      satisfy themselves that the principles adopted in settling the conditions of contracts were sound; that the Treasury should lend greater support to the financial branches of the Ministry, generally, in their efforts to promote economy; that the Treasury should insist upon a more complete co-ordination between Government Departments in the purchase of munitions of war and the materials required for their manufacture; (2) what steps the Government have taken to carry out the recommendations made by the Select Committee on National Expenditure in their Second Report to the House of Commons, dated the 13th December last, and specially that a more active financial supervision should be exercised by the Treasury over the Departments so as to ensure the adoption of sound financial methods in every province of administration, to prevent undue profits being made by contractors, and to prevent competition between Departments in purchasing supplies?
      Mr. BONARLAW: I would refer my hon. And learned Friend to the reply which I gave on the 14th instant to the right hon. Member for the Cleveland Division.

      PEACE CONFERENCE (BETHLEHEM).
      Mr. FIELDasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the suggestion that Bethlehem should be the scene of a Peace Conference; and if His Majesty's Government will let it be known to the Russian and Turkish authorities that every facility would be granted for delegates to attend if the Governments desire to use the Church of the Holy Nativity for this purpose?
      Mr. BALFOUR: The suggestion of the hon. Gentleman does not seem very practicable.

      MILITARY PLANS.
      Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister if His Majesty's Government, when early in 1917 it instructed Sir Douglas Haig to readjust the plans for the 1917 campaign which had been unanimously agreed on in November, 1916, by the military representatives of the Allied Powers, first consulted and ascertained whether Sir Douglas Haig approved of such readjustment?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The readjustment of military plans referred to was made after full consultation, and in agreement with the Commander-in-Chief, at a Conference between the British and French Governments and their military advisers.

      RECONSTRUCTION (POOR LAW UNIONS).
      Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Prime Minister whether he has received a protest from the Association of Poor Law Unions in England and Wales against the action of the Government in constituting the Sub-committee of the Reconstruction Committee to consider and report upon the steps to be taken to ensure the better coordination of public assistance in England and Wales without appointing a representative of the Association upon it; and if he will consider the advisability of appointing a representative of the Association upon the Sub-committee?
      Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Association of Poor Law Unions in England and Wales, representing by direct election 556 unions and a population of over 34,000,000, have protested against the action of the Government in constituting a Sub-committee of the Reconstruction Committee to consider and report upon the steps to be taken to ensure the better co-ordination of public assistance in England and Wales, and upon such other matters affecting the system of local government as may from time to time be referred to it, without appointing representatives of the Association on such Sub-committee; that the Association asks the Government to remedy this defect in the constitution of the Sub-committee; and whether the Government proposes to comply with this request?
      Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Minister of Reconstruction how many of the fifteen members, of the Sub-committee appointed to consider and report on the transfer of the functions of the Poor Law authorities in England and Wales have acted in the capacity of guardians of the poor, and thereby acquired practical acquaintance in the administration of the Poor Law?
      The MINISTER of RECONSTRUCTION (Dr. Addison): I have explained, in reply to similar questions, that the Com-
      308
      mittee referred to was not constituted on the principle of according representation to particular interests, and I have now received from the Committee a Report on the transfer of the functions of Poor Law authorities in England and Wales. I have sent copies of the Report, as promised, to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tavistock, and asked him to furnish me with the views of the Committee of the Association of Poor Law Unions upon it. I am hoping to arrange for the publication of this Report without delay, in order to enable all those interested to consider the proposals of the Committee.
      Mr. ROWLANDS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it necessary that a body like this, to deal with so considerable a situation, should have upon it representatives from a body that represents 556 unions and 34,000,000 people?
      Dr. ADDISON: I have answered a great number of questions on the subject within the last few months, and I do not think I have anything to add.

      DARDANELLES COMMISSION (REPORT).
      Mr. PRINGLEasked the Prime Minister whether the War Cabinet has decided to publish the final Report of the Dardanelles Commission; and, if so, when it will be issued?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The War Cabinet, after most careful consideration, and acting on the advice of the General Staffs, military and naval, have decided that it is not in the public interest that this Report should be published for the present.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this Report must be published in accordance with the express terms of the Act of Parliament? Is it proposed to amend the Act of Parliament?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: No; we do not propose to amend the Act of Parliament. The Act of Parliament says that the Government must have the responsibility of deciding whether or not such publication would give information to the enemy. We have decided that it would.
      Sir TUDOR WALTERS: The motto of a late Government was "Wait and see." Is it the case that the motto of the present Government is "Wait and not see"?
      Mr. PRINGLE: Has the decision been arrived at solely from strategical considerations, and in the public interest, or in deference to the possible effect that the publication of this Report might have upon the fortunes of certain members of the War Cabinet, and certain members of the Naval Staff?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: That is a perfectly legitimate question if my hon. Friend thinks it possible to conceive a case of that kind—
      Mr. PRINGLE: It is!
      Mr. BONAR LAW: But that has not influenced us in the least. We have taken our decision in consequence of the statement of the Naval and Military Staffs that, in their opinion, the publication of this Report now will give invaluable information to the enemy.

      PRESIDENT WILSON'S MESSAGE.
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether he endorses President Wilson's message to Congress of 8th January last, and particularly whether the Government will co-operate in entire good will in the President's efforts to win Russia to active participation in the cause of the Allies, and will refrain from all acts that indicate unwillingness to accept to the full the establishment in Russia of the Republican régime?
      Mr. BALFOUR: No human being, so far as I know, has ever indicated any "unwillingness to accept "the Republican régime in Russia, which has been consistently welcomed in this country. It is quite obvious that all Russia's Allies must earnestly desire her "active participation in their cause."
      Mr. LYNCH: Mr. Speaker, I shall refer to this matter to-night on the Adjournment.

      INCOME TAX.
      General COLVINasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue have ruled for the purpose of assessing Income Tax that a secretary of a Territorial Force Association is not performing service of a military character; whether he is aware that Section 30 (1) of the Finance Act,
      310
      1916, states that where any person who during the current Income Tax year has served or is in service of a naval or military character in connection with the present War for which payment is made out of money provided by Parliament is entitled to claim relief; and will he state what is the character of the services performed by a secretary of a Territorial Force Association if it be not of a military character as defined in the above Section of the Finance Act?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: As at present advised, I am unable to accept my hon. and gallant Friend's interpretation of the Section referred to. I understand, however, that the matter is likely to come before the Courts for decision.

      HOSPITAL SHIP SUNK.
      Mr. L. WILLIAMSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the South Wales newspapers were repeatedly forbidden by the Censor to publish any account of the sinking of the hospital ship in the Bristol Channel near Swansea by a submarine; what public interest was served by such suppression; whether the "Daily Mail" newspaper, which exclusively published the news on 8th January, had previously received permission to do so; if so, on what grounds was such preferentia1 treatment meted out to this journal; and, if not, what steps the Government intend to take to punish the only newspaper which refused to obey the Censor's orders.?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. In accordance with the instructions of the Admiralty, publication of news regarding this matter was suspended until the facts had been verified, and an official communication could be made to all the Press simultaneously. This communication was issued at mid-day on the 9th. January. The "Daily Mail" on the morning of the 9th published a statement that a hospital ship had been sunk, although the Press Bureau had refused permission for the publication of this statement. I fear that it is not possible to take proceedings against the "Daily Mail," but the action of that newspaper in publishing news which other newspapers had loyally held up, at the request of the Admiralty,

      311
      has been brought to the notice of the conference of representatives of the newspaper proprietors.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the advisability, without taking proceedings, of confiscating the type and plant and suppressing this paper?
      Sir G. CAVE: Rather too late to do that.
      HON. MEMBERS: No!

      GOVERNMENT ORDERS.
      Mr. PETOasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether among the forms of wealth that are to be subject to conscription goods manufactured to the order of the Government are included; and, if not, why manufacturers whose businesses are controlled find it impossible to get payment for their deliveries?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: If my hon. Friend will be good enough to furnish me with particulars of any case in which it is alleged that undue delay by Government Departments in making payments has occurred, I shall have inquiry made.

      CONSCRIPTION OF WEALTH.
      Mr. PETOasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can make any statement as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the conscription of wealth after the War; whether he can say if it is intended to include wealth represented by Government Loans; and, if not, whether any other forms of wealth will have immunity from confiscation?
      Mr. MACMASTERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he recently stated to a trade union congress Parliamentary Committee that capital after the War might be subject to taxation; and whether, in any event, such taxation would be applicable to loans solicited and obtained by the Government through the issue of bonds, shares, or certificates, in order to enable them to carry the War to a successful end?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government have not considered the question of a possible tax on capital and have no intention of proposing such a tax. I shall take an early opportunity of referring to the
      312
      remarks made by me to a private deputation which have been published in the Press, and the most suitable opportunity will probably be in connection with the discussion of the Report of the Select Committee on Expenditure.
      Mr. MACMASTER: Would not this be a better opportunity, seeing that the question is now directly addressed to the right hon. Gentleman?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir; I really do not think it is the kind of question that can be dealt with by question and answer.

      COURT OF SESSION.
      Mr. CURRIEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether any estimate exists of the cost to the country and to all parties concerned of the holding of annual Courts for the fixing of fiars prices in Scotland; whether representations have been made to him that the legal and other expenses involved in Court of Session proceedings regarding the stipends of parish ministers in Scotland are out of all proportion to the sums of money usually involved; and whether he has power to suspend or curtail during the War expenditure of this kind in Scotland?
      Mr. MUNRO: I am not in a position to give an estimate of the cost referred to in the first part of my hon. Friend's question. As regards the second and third parts, I am aware that the proceedings in processes of augmentation before the Court of Teinds are cumbrous and expensive. I have, however, no power to suspend or curtail either the proceedings themselves or the expenses which they involve.

      ROYAL COMMISSION ON HOUSING (SCOTLAND).
      Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has now considered the Report of the Royal Commission on Housing in Scotland; and if he proposes to introduce emergency legislation to deal with the more urgent of the evils disclosed?
      Mr. MUNRO: I have considered this Report, and am hopeful that the more pressing needs of the situation can be met by administrative action, without waiting for legislation. My hon. Friend, how-

      313
      ever, may rest assured that the recommendations of the Commission as to legislation will not be lost sight of.
      Mr. WHITEH0USE: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly state whether by administrative action he will be able to deal with the points put to him in the Memorandum of the Scottish Members?
      Mr. MUNRO: I should like notice for that.
      Mr. TENNANT: Are we to understand that in the event of it not being possible for the right hon. Gentleman to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission as he would wish, he will then introduce legislation in the coming Session?
      Mr. MUNRO: That is a matter for the Leader of the House, but I should hope to be able to introduce legislation if it should be found necessary.

    NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

      WOMEN'S AUXILIARY CORPS.
      Mr. CURRIEasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, whether he has arranged that National Health Insurance payments due by members of the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps serving overseas will be treated in the same way as those of nurses employed by the Army Council?
      Sir EDWIN CORNWALL (Comptroller of the Household): The conditions under which nurses are employed, at home and abroad, by the Army Council are not the same as those for members of the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps, and the matter referred to in the question raises certain difficulties upon which I am in communication with the War Office with a view to arriving at a satisfactory solution.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      LIVE-STOCK COMMISSIONER (SCOTLAND).
      Sir J. D. REESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (1) whether Mr. M'Dougall, Livestock Commissioner for Scotland, is of military age; if so. whether there are no farmers or others in Scotland not of military age who are qualified to perform the duties he now discharges; (2) for what reason Mr. P. M'Dougall was exempted
      314
      from military service; whether the reason was that his services were urgently required on his farm; and, if so, why was he given a Government appointment, the discharge of the duties of which is either incompatible with the performance of his own duties on his farm, or, in the contrary event, is overpaid at £1,000 a year?
      Mr. CLYNES: Mr. M'Dougall, who has been appointed by the Food Controller as Chief Live-stock Commissioner for Scotland at the salary stated, is of military age. He had, before his appointment, been exempted from military service as a farmer, but he is now unable to give more than general supervision for a few hours each week to the work of his farm. His exemption will be continued on the ground of his special capacity for the performance of his duties in connection with the supply and distribution of live stock and feeding-stuffs, which are of even greater national importance than his work in a private capacity.
      Sir J. D. REES: Is it seriously suggested that this gentleman's qualifications are so exceptional that no farmer of non-military age can be found in Scotland to carry out these duties, and is it seriously proposed to continue this exemption, which is regarded as a public scandal?
      Mr. CLYNES: It is agreed, I believe, by all who have considered this question that an absolutely arbitrary age limit cannot safely apply to all cases, and I understand that it is the intention of the Food Controller to continue the exemption in this case.
      Sir J. D. REES: Is the Food Controller aware of the serious affront to the men of military age which is conveyed by maintaining this exemption, and is it seriously contended that in a country of farmers nobody else in the country of non-military age can be found to perform these functions?
      Mr. CLYNES: In the face of the serious food situation it is necessary for us to procure and retain the most competent men for these duties.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that there is no farmer in Scotland above military age who is competent to do this work?
      Mr. CLYNES: Certainly not. Somebody or some tribunal has to determine the case in question, and whatever the decision somebody would find fault with it.
      Sir J. D. REES: Who is responsible for this exemption? Is it any trbiunal and, if so, which tribunal? Is it any Minister, and, if so, is it the Food Minister?
      Mr. CLYNES: So far as representations were necessary on behalf of the Food Ministry, they would be made by the Food Controller.
      Sir J. D. REES: Who is responsible for this exemption?
      Mr. J. B. WATSON: Is it not a fact that of the six Deputy Commissioners the larger number are also of military age?
      Mr. CLYNES: I should require notice of that question.
      Mr. CURRIE: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether this exemption is due to the action of the tribunal or the Ministry?
      Mr. CLYNES: I think it will be gathered from my answer that it is both.
      Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is it not true that M'Dougall is also running his farm?
      Mr. PRINGLE: And also getting £1,000 a year from the Government?
      Mr. CLYNES: My reply is that he is not able to give more than a few hours a week to his farm work.

    MR. BARNES' GLASGOW SPEECH.

      PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
      Mr. BARNES (War Cabinet): I wish to explain that my speech at Glasgow yesterday has not been fully or accurately reported, and the published summaries do not convey an accurate account of what I said, or meant to say.
      Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order. I would like to ask, is it in accordance with the Rules of this House for a Minister make a statement in regard to a speech made outside this House?
      Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to offer a personal explanation in regard to something which has appeared in the papers.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Will the House have an opportunity of discussing the matter?
      Mr. SPEAKER: Not on this occasion.
      Mr. BARNES: I desire to make this explanation because I notice there are in the Press this morning a number of astounding headlines, and as there is some
      316
      risk of harm being done I wish to take this opportunity of allaying any misunderstanding at the earliest possible moment. I have no intention of disclaiming responsibility for the course adopted by the Government in regard to the 12½ per cent. increase in wages. I expressed my approval of the course pursued in regard to giving effect to the promise which had been made to remove the skilled men's grievance when it was brought before the Cabinet, and I supported it there. The matter was referred to Lord Milner and myself, and we both agreed. I had no intention whatever of making an attack on the Minister of Munitions or of fixing upon him individual responsibility. What I had in my mind to say was, "We butted in." I ought to have said that. What I meant to say was that neither the Minister of Munitions, nor myself, nor the War Cabinet appreciated at the time the extent to which we should be forced by pressure to embark upon this policy. I desired to emphasise to the various classes of workers who might consider themselves affected the importance of not taking advantage of an honest attempt to meet a grievance.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman issue an authorised report of his speech?
      Mr. HARRIS: Is this an example of the "Do it now Government"?
      Mr. PRINGLE: What about Winston? Where does he come in?

      PREMIUM BONDS.
      Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix, brought up, and read. Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 168.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. McKENNA: Can the Leader of the House say if the House will sit on Friday, and, if so, what business will be taken?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have put down a Motion to-day to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule. The object of that is this: I understand that an agreement was come to last night to complete the Committee Stage of the Non-Ferrous Metal Industry Bill to-day, and we hope it may also be possible to get the Second Reading of the National Registration Bill. If we get that to-day and the Second Reading of the Military Service Bill to-morrow the House will not sit on Friday, but if we do not, then the House will have to sit on Friday to take one or other of those Bills.
  Ordered, "That the Proceedings on the Non-Ferrous Metal Industry Bill and the National Registration Bill be not interrupted this day under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour although opposed. "—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

  NON-FERROUS METAL INDUSTRY BILL.
  Considered in Committee.—[Progress, 15th January, 1918.]
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  NON-FERROUS METAL INDUSTRY BILL.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Power to Require Information and Inspection of Documents.)
    The Board of Trade shall have power at any time to require any person able to give information with respect to the constitution, control or management of any company, firm, or individual which has applied for the grant of a licence, or to which a licence has been granted under this Act, to furnish such information within such time as the Board may direct, and for the purpose of obtaining or verifying such information any person appointed by the Board in that behalf shall be entitled to inspect any books and documents belonging to or under the control of such company, firm, or individual
    The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the first two Amendments standing on the Order Paper—to leave out the words
    336
    "Board of Trade" and to insert instead thereof the words "High Court," and after the word "time" to insert the words "on the application of the Board of Trade upon an originating summons and for a sufficient reason to be specified therein"—standing in the names of the hon. and learned Member for Norfolk (Mr. Hemmerde) and the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. J. M. Henderson), I think they would conflict with Clause 1 as amended and passed by the Committee yesterday. The hon. Members do not seem to have observed that this Clause simply confers the power referred to in Sub-section (2) of Clause 1, and the proposals which they have put down would conflict with that Sub-section.
    Mr. JOHN HENDERSON: On a point of Order. I understand that Clause 1 deals with the parties applying for a licence, but Clause 2 gives the Board of Trade power at any time "to require any person who may be able to give information with respect to the constitution," and so forth. It might be a person outside the company, firm, or individual applying for the licence. This gives the Board of Trade power to call upon any outsider who may at any time have been connected with the company and who may have certain information at his command to give evidence.
    The CHAIRMAN: I see the hon. Member's point, but I observe that the words about which he has some fear are going to be moved out by a subsequent Amendment on the Order Paper standing in the name of the President of the Board of Trade. The Amendment—to leave out the words "any person able to give information with respect to the constitution, control, or management of"—standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones), I think is met in better form by an Amendment further on standing in the name of the President of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I think the substance of it is met by the Amendment of the President of the Board of Trade, though it is not in the same form. My view was that the Clause as drafted was a great deal too wide. It gave power to call upon anybody anywhere to give evidence. I suggested that it should be the company, firm, or individual who should be called upon to give the required information.

    337
    I think the words of the President of the Board of Trade will meet the case, and I therefore do not move.
    The CHAIRMAN: The. same remark applies to the Amendment—after the word "person" to insert the words "employed by and"—standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Hexham Division (Mr. Holt).
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir A. Stanley): I beg to move to leave out the words "able to give information with respect to the constitution, control, or management," and to insert instead therof the words "who, being a director, partner, manager, or officer of, or the holder of, or person interested in shares or securities."
    I move this Amendment in accordance with a promise which I gave yesterday.
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what that promise was? I am afraid I was not here when it was made.
    Sir A. STANLEY: The Clause as originally drafted gave much wider powers of investigation, and the object of the Amendment is to limit it to persons directly interested in the application.
    Mr. HENDERSON: I have no objection whatever, and I welcome the Amendment, but I fail to see why the Board of Trade should call in a shareholder and examine him. I can quite understand the desire to examine a director, partner, manager, or officer.
    Sir A. STANLEY: I think it is quite clear. Shares might be held on behalf of an alien enemy.
    Mr. HENDERSON: You are giving an extremely wide power to hunt registers to find out whom you may think is interested. You must have some evidence before you can ask to examine the register. It seems to me extraordinary to ask us to give the Board of Trade a roaming power to call in Tom, Dick, and Harry, and to ask them for whom they 'hold their shares. You might have shares in the names of nominees or of half a dozen bankers. You might suspect some shareholders of being enemies, and in order to make an exhaustive investigation you might have to call them all in. It is a most extraordinary power to give to any Department.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    338
    Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there inserted."
    Mr. HENDERSON: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "or the holder of, or person interested in, shares or securities."
    The Board of Trade must have some sort of ground before they go and examine a man, and such ground as they would have would enable them to get the information they require, if it were possible. I do not think any Department ought to have the power to call in anybody they like and examine them as to what is their holding, and on whose behalf they hold the shares. The shares may be held as security for anything. It is a most extraordinary power to give.
    4.0 P.M.
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Clyde): I am afraid it would be necessary for the Board of Trade to have these words in the Bill and this power committed to them. Obviously, as the Committee can see, nothing is more difficult than to detect such a thing as real enemy interest in a concern. If, in particular, we were to be limited to what appears on the share register, I am afraid there would be very many cases in which complete enemy ownership—and, indeed, complete enemy control—would be quite immune from any powers of the Bill to restrict or modify it. As the hon. Member himself has said, it is not infrequently the case the shares are actually held and entered on the register in the name of somebody who is not the true proprietor of them at all. Accordingly you might easily have the great bulk of the capital in a particular concern entirely held by enemy shareholders in fact, although in appearance and form the register was innocent of any taint of the kind. There is no expedient— I do not say it is used for improper purposes—more commonly resorted to, for one reason or another, than to put shares on the register in the name of a bank. If there were no means of ascertaining who was the real owner of those shares the Board of Trade or anybody who wanted to discover whether the company really was in the hands of the enemy would be deprived of an absolutely essential power to ascertain what the real facts were. I think that the hon. Member apprehends abuses. I admit it is true that all powers are capable of abuse, but, on the other hand, I am afraid that this power is not

    339
    only useful but indispensable if effective knowledge is to be obtained as to who holds the true interest in a particular company. What I have just said holds good a fortiori of some unregistered concerns.
    Mr. HOLT: On the whole the President of the Board of Trade has not unfairly met the Committee. He has removed from this Clause what appeared to us to be the most objectionable feature. I am bound to admit that if you are going to have a Bill of this kind you must put in a large number of objectionable powers, but that is an objection which applies to the Bill as a whole. I would suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire that as the President has met us fairly we might accept his Amendments to this Clause.
    Mr. HENDERSON: I do not want to press the matter unduly. It is perfectly well known in commerce, and especially in banking, that any number of people put their shares into the names of their bankers, for the very obvious reason that they may want to borrow on the securities from time to time. There is not a large company in Great Britain, or anyhow in England, in which half a dozen bankers are not the holders of shares. If you cannot get from the manager or director or partners, or an officer, some indication of enemy influence being exercised, how can you go to a bank and say, "You must disclose to us who is the real owner of these shares"? You are landing yourselves in hopeless inquiries which will cause friction and trouble. If you cannot ascertain the facts from the director or manager, you cannot get them by a roving commission. However, I do not press the Amendment if the Committee thinks it should not be made.
    Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.
    Words proposed there inserted.
    Sir A. STANLEY: I beg to move, after the word "Act "["a licence has been granted under this Act"], to insert the words "is able to give any information as to the constitution, control, or management thereof or the business carried on thereby or the beneficial interest of any person therein or in any shares or securities thereof."
    Mr. HENDERSON: I should have thought that this would have been suffi-
    340
    cient to enable the Government to accept my Amendment. It only reproduces the same thing.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I beg to move to leave out the words "such time as the Board may direct," and to insert instead thereof the words "one month."
    I move this Amendment merely for the purpose of obtaining some information. The Clause provides that the information is to be furnished within such time as the Board may direct. If the President will look at the Clause he will see that the company, firm, or individual has to apply for a licence before it can trade. Thereupon the books, papers, and so forth of the applicant have to be examined, and somebody has to give information upon them. Unless there is some reasonable period specified within which the information must be sought and the books examined, it is clear that a firm might be held up for some considerable time, not in its general business, but in a particular business in respect of which the licence has to be obtained. The ways and methods of Government Departments are very often protracted. I do not lay any blame on the Board of Trade for that. The proceedings may be protracted. If there is some stimulus which will require the Board of Trade to obtain the information and give a decision within a reasonable time, the interests of traders will be considerably forwarded. It is for the purpose of obtaining information on that point that I move this Amendment.
    Sir A. STANLEY: I am not at all sure that the Bill does not meet the point. With the consent of the right hon. Gentleman, we will agree to consider it later on.
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: It may be met somewhere in the Bill, but I have not been able to trace it. This was a manuscript Amendment, and I would apologise for raising the question unexpectedly. Will the President give us some time as being the period in his mind within which these proceedings must be concluded or the information obtained? There is no specific time mentioned in the Bill, but probably there is some time in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. CLYDE: I agree that the point is well worthy of consideration. What was probably in the mind of my right hon.

    341
    Friend the President when he answered was this: The period of six months which is mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Clause 1 is the period during which these questions about licences are to be settled.
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: That is the preliminary.
    Mr. CLYDE: I follow that that is not quite enough for the right hon. Gentleman. He thinks that during that six months some new person may come forward and there might be some risk of delay.
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: Or revocation.
    Mr. CLYDE: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. There is a possibility of something of that kind. I think it would be a great pity to say that the period should be one month. I should imagine that for the most part the information required on the matters referred to would be obtained in a very short time. Would the right hon. Gentleman be content with the assurance that this particular point will be considered, and that, if necessary, we would put in something more?
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: You mean on Report?
    Mr. CLYDE: Yes.
    Mr. L. JONES: This is the period within which information required by the Board of Trade may be obtained. The difficulties must be greater or less, according to the kind of search to be made. Therefore, I do not think that to say within one month or within one week will be good enough.
    Mr. CLYDE: We will consider that point.
    Mr. HENDERSON: There is something in the point raised by the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe. It is quite possible that it might require more than a month to acquire the information. You might require to go to the Continent to obtain it. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment did not quite gather that the people who made the examination were to produce the information within a month. That might be very difficult. If there is a delay in furnishing the evidence it cannot be laid to the Board of Trade. I want the Board of Trade to fix their time, and not the man who furnishes the evidence to fix his time.
    Mr. JONES: A shareholder in one of these companies might be in America, and might be holding in the name of somebody in China. It would take some considerable period to ascertain all the information the Board of Trade require. You must, therefore, have some freedom for the Board of Trade in this matter.
    Mr. HOLT: May I make the suggestion that the Board should take power to issue provisional licences during the investigations? It is quite possible that it might be undesirable to issue a licence to a person and then have to revoke it. The provisional licence might be issued for a fortnight or a month while the inquiry is being made.
    Mr. CLYDE: We will consider that Amendment negatived.
    Mr. BRUNNER: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words, "relating to the business of winning, extracting, smelting, dressing, refining or dealing by way of wholesale trade in metal or metallic ore to which this Act applies."
    The Clause as drawn gives the Board of Trade the right to inspect any books and documents belonging to the firm. These worth; would limit that right to that part of the business relating to non-ferrous metals.
    Mr. CLYDE: I am not quite sure that there is any great difference between us though I may not have quite apprehended the purpose of the words. The words at the top of page 3, "to inspect any books and documents belonging to or under the central of such company," and so on, are governed wholly by the preceding words, namely, that this is only for the purpose of obtaining or verifying such information, and the word "such" carries us back again to the words "with respect to the constitution, control or management of the company," and of course no company is in question except a company of the description that he proposes to put into the Amendment. Does not that mean that these words are not necessary? The only purpose for which the Board of Trade could ask to see books and documents is to get information with respect to the constitution, control or management. I think that really renders these words unnecessary as far as I understand the point for which they were suggested. If I am wrong the hon. Member will put me right.
    Mr. BRUNNER: I do not see that it would do any harm if we restricted the right of the Board of Trade to apply their inquiries only to such books and documents as relate to the non-ferrous portion of the company's business.
    Mr. JONES: I think the words are wider than the Lord Advocate has perceived. We made out yesterday, for instance, that ship owning and shipbuilding companies might have to take out licences under this Bill because incidentally they have transactions in these metals. If the Board of Trade is going to inquire into the business of these companies I think they will only wish to do so in so far as they deal in metals and there is no need to give them a roving commission to examine into the books and affairs of the company which are not concerned with non-ferrous metals. If that is covered by the Clause it is all right, but I am not at all sure that some such Amendment limiting the powers of inquiry to non-ferrous metals alone is not necessary. I think we ought to be quite clear on that point before we allow the Clause to pass.
    Mr. SHERWELL: The importance of the point is really accentuated by the use of the word "management" in the powers concerning information. Information is to be obtained not merely relating to control and constitution but to management. That, in the case of the company to which my right hen. Friend (Mr. Leif Jones) has referred, could cover an investigation of the whole of the affairs of a concern which was only, partly interested in non-ferrous metals, and, in consideration of the fact that a firm which has a very wide form of management is included in the powers for which information is required, the Government would be well advised to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I should like to ask a specific question to bring this to the point. If the firm of Rothschilds has to be licensed, is it to be considered as the intention of the Board of Trade to investigate the whole of the affairs of the firm of Rothschild? I am sure they do not want to undertake anything of the kind. It is totally unnecessary. It would not only be resented by the firm itself, but still more by its customers. Take the case of any of our joint stock companies. It cannot be the intention of the Board of Trade to investigate all their affairs. The Board of Trade would no doubt say it is riot their intention. Then why cannot
    344
    they make it clear in the Bill? To have this roving power of such an extensive character might be most obnoxious, I will not say only under the present regime but still more under another regime. I hope the Board of Trade will make it perfectly clear in the Bill that it has no intention of getting a roving commission to look into affairs with which the Bill is in no way connected. It cannot be the object and they might as well make it clear.
    Mr. CLYDE: It would not do to limit the right of inspection as defined by the words of the Amendment, which would give an advantage to the astute defender of a bad case. Moreover, there are such things as directors' minutes, which you cannot split between the metal business and the rest of the business. The right hon. Gentleman's point, however, is good for all that, though it is truly one of drafting. I have been trying to find words which will meet his point, but I am not able to do it at the moment. I will undertake that words shall be put in which will make it clear that there will be no roving commission into the whole of a man's business.
    Mr. HENDERSON: I should like to add a word to what my right bon. Friend (Mr. Runciman) has said about the very big firm. If they are still in the position they were in, they will have to get a licence, because they have a large measure of control of nickel in America. That shows what you are coming up against. They are not a limited company, but a private firm, and I suppose you cannot see their share register, and that is one of the cases in which there will be a very great deal of difficulty in finding whether there is enemy interest or not.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. STRAUSS: The Government has eliminated the most objectionable part of the Clause, and I do not move its rejection.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 3.—(offences.)
    (1) If any person carries on the business of extracting, smelting, dressing, refining, or dealing in any metal or metallic ore in contravention of this Act without a licence, he shall on an information

    345
    being laid by or with the consent of the Board of Trade be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding two years, or on summary conviction to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months, or to a fine of one hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine:
    Provided that the provision as to informations being laid by or with the consent of the Board of Trade shall not apply to Scotland.
    (2) If any person refuses or neglects to furnish any information which under this Act is required to be furnished within the time within which it is to be furnished, or knowingly furnishes any information required to be furnished under this Act which is false in any material particular, or having custody of any book or document which a person is authorised to inspect under this Act, refuses or wilfully neglects to produce the book or document for inspection, or forges or fraudulently alters or uses or permits to be fraudulently used any licence issued under this Act, he shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "of" ["the business of extracting"], insert the word "winning." —[Mr. Brunner.]
    Leave out the words "with the consent" ["with the consent of the Board of Trade be liable"], and insert instead thereof the words "on behalf."—[Mr. Hemmerde.]
    Mr. HOLT: I beg to move to leave out the words "on conviction or indictment to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding two years or."
    The object of the Amendment is to get rid of the penalty of two years' hard labour and leave it at either a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months or a fine of £100, or both.
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I should like to ask whether the fine of £100 is an obligatory sum? I rather think it is, but surely in the case of a large firm which is out to defeat justice it is too little, and in
    346
    the case of a firm which makes an accidental slip it is too much! Had you not better say a fine not exceeding £100 or not exceeding £1,000, but, at all events, give the Court the right to fix the sum?
    Mr. CLYDE: I am quite willing to consider that point later on. The words might be altered to "a fine not exceeding £100 per day."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: Leave out the words "with the consent" ["with the consent of the Board of Trade shall not apply"], and insert instead thereof the words "on behalf."—[Mr. Hemmerde.]
    Mr. BRUNNER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "person" ["If any person refuses"], to insert the words "able to give information."
    I should like to ask the Lord Advocate whether these words are not necessary here I copied them out of Clause 2. It they are not necessary, I shall not press it.
    Mr. CLYDE: I do not think they are necessary. After all, the Clause relates to a person who refuses or neglects to furnish information. If he has not any information, he cannot refuse to give it. I think it is quite safe as it stands.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the hon. Member's proposed new Sub-section (4), he will observe that the Government has a new Clause on that same question, I think, very much in the same form. I find, on looking at the form of other Bills, that it has been usual to put this in as a new Clause by itself It is not really in essence part of the Clause. I think it. had better come up in the form of a new Clause.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Rules.)
    The Board of Trade may make rules (subject in respect of fees to the approval of the Treasury), for prescribing anything which, under this Act, is to be prescribed, and generally for carrying this Act into effect.
    Sir A. STANLEY: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words,
    "And such rules may provide for excluding from dealings by way of

    347
    wholesale trade within the meaning of this Act dealings in quantities below such limits as may be prescribed generally or as respects any particular metal or metallic ore."
    I promised yesterday that I would move some such Amendment as this to-day. This is to give the Board of Trade power under their rules to define the limits within which wholesale trading shall fall. I think this is really a better way of dealing with it. We could not fix a weight and apply it to all metals. The weight must vary according to the metals which are being dealt with. We propose to deal with it in this form. It will be remembered that I also promised yesterday to give consideration, and to see if it would be possible at this stage to make a statement indicating the form in which these rules should be set up. I am sorry we are not able to do that now, but, if possible, before we reach the Report stage, I will try to do it, so that hon. Members may have some indication as to how these rules will be framed.
    Mr. BRUNNER: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the question of marine store dealers who are now licensed to deal in metals? Will they be obliged to take out a fresh licence under this Act?
    Mr, J. HENDERSON: I would suggest that the word "shall" should be substituted for the word "may," so that it would be mandatory.
    Sir A. STANLEY: I will accept that.
    Mr. HENDERSON: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "may" ["such rules may"], and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to
    Mr. WARDLE: With respect to the point raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Brunner), an Amendment will be moved later, on behalf of the Board of Trade, which will put the marine store dealers outside the Bill.
    Mr. BRUNNER: I do not know whether my question has been quite understood. Marine store dealers have to be licensed now. They cannot deal in metals of more than a certain weight at a time, and it
    348
    ought to be considered by the Board of Trade whether the marine store dealer is to be licensed again under this Bill.
    Mr, WARDLE: That is the point which I was trying to explain. It has been considered, and we are. under the impression that the Amendment which is to be moved will have the effect of leaving out the marine store dealers, so that they will not need to take out any further licence, under this Bill.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Mr. HEMMERDE: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words,
    "and any regulations so made shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and if either House within the next forty days after such regulations have been laid before that House resolve that such regulations ought to be annulled they shall be of no effect without prejudice to the making of any new regulations."
    Sir A. STANLEY: I will accept it in the form of the next Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. HEMMERDE: I understand that the Government will accept my proposal in. the form of the, Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Commander Wedgwood). Therefore I beg to move that Amendment, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words,
    "Provided that all such rules shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next forty days on which that House has sat next after any such rule is laid before it, praying that the rule may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may, if it seems fit, annul the rule, and it shall thenceforth he void."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 5.—.(Metals or Ores to which Act Applies.)
    The metals and ores to which this Act applies are zinc, copper, tin, lead, nickel, aluminium, and any other non-ferrous metals and ores to which this Act may be applied by order of the Board of

    349
    Trade, and the expression "ore" shall include concentrates, mattes, precipitates and other intermediate products.
    Mr. HOLT: I beg to move, to leave out the word "copper."
    When we had the discussion on the Second Reading of this Bill we were told a great deal about the danger to the State incurred through the machinations of the Germans in zinc ores and zinc metals and the way we had become dependent upon foreign sources for our supply of spelter. To a certain extent we have had the same story told about lead, but I have not, during the whole discussion, heard any allegations that any other non-ferrous metals were being improperly handled by our enemies, therefore I have put down Amendments to leave out some of these different nonferrous metals, in order to ascertain, if I can, what is the precise danger we have been running from the machinations of the German companies. I should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade to tell us in what sense we have been -deprived of our supplies of copper by the machinations of Germany? I understand that it does not come from Germany, but that it comes mainly from the New World. So far as I have any dealings in copper, it comes from Japan. I want to know what evidence the Board of Trade have that at any time and under any circumstances we have been prevented from getting copper by the machinations of the -German companies, and what reason the right hon. Gentleman has to think that the passing of this Bill will affect the supply of copper by a single half-pound per annum?
    Sir A. STANLEY: It is quite true that in the Second Reading Debate particular reference was made to zinc ores and zinc metals. I did also say at that time that these German combinations were extending their activities, and that there was no doubt that they were getting control of other non-ferrous metals. I do not think there can be any doubt that it is possible for such a combination as the Metallgesellschaft Company in Germany to secure by various ways a very considerable control over most of the non-ferrous metals of the world. Their control was an extremely complicated one, and an extremely valuable and able one. It would be impossible to define that control in a few words. In some instances they secured complete control of the output of raw material.
    Mr. HENDERSON: Not all!
    Sir A. STANLEY: In some instances, I said, they secured control of practically the entire output of the raw material. That would be true of the zinc concentrates of Australia. It is quite true that since the War began that control has been broken. We have secured for the use of this country a very large part of the output of the zinc concentrates of Australia, and I am very hopeful that that German control will never under any circumstances be resumed. It would not be true to say that they had that same control or that same form of control with respect to copper. But it would be true to say that the Metallgesellschaft had through their connections with other companies established a certain control of the output of copper. Their control with regard to copper and zinc took this form: They had a control, either directly or indirectly, of the smelting plants, and they were able to determine the price that those plants paid for their raw material. They made every effort through their associations with these companies to establish those plants not in the country where the product was required, but to establish them in Germany and in places where the material could he used for the particular benefit of those countries. In this country they had a certain control over certain smelting plants, and it would be quite true to say that as a result of this extraordinary complicated form of control the Metallgesellschaft had all these various undertakings in various parts of the world whether with mining companies, refining companies, smelting companies or trading companies, and there was a common interest established by this great German combination which made all these subsidiary undertakings form some sort of alliance, either direct or indirect, with them.
    I have never said and I do not profess that this great German combination had secured at the time the War broke out their ultimate goal. To secure that, they would have constantly extended their activities. They had gone a very long way towards establishing that control, and I say with confidence to the members of this Committee that if the War had not come, that control would have eventually been made absolutely complete. I say this further, that immediately before the outbreak of war, through the operations of this gigantic undertaking, this country was at that time labouring under a great

    351
    disadvantage. It can be argued quite correctly that the foundation upon which this great combination was secured was the obtaining of control of raw materials. How did they obtain control of raw materials? Simply by their power and by their vast resources. They could make it worth while for anybody to enter into an arrangement with them and to make a very long time contract whereby the whole output of raw materials would be bought either by the Metallgesellschaft or through one of their subsidiary undertakings. It was a beneficial arrangement both for the Metallgesellschaft and the particular company concerned.
    Mr. HEMMERDE: Why could not we do it?
    Sir A. STANLEY: As I have said, the success of this great undertaking was really due to the fact that by their great resources, their financial strength and the great ability of those connected with it they were able to secure control of raw materials, and to control raw material even within the British Empire. As to why we did not do it, I can make no answer to that. I do not profess to give an answer. The fact remains that we did not do it. The Germans had the opportunity and they took advantage of that opportunity and have benefited by it. That scheme, I think, and in that I am fortified by the advice of the Committee which my predecessor set up; I am fortified in it by many investigations I have carried on myself; I am fortified in it by the facts known to everybody—must be a great menace to this country and the Empire. That being so, are we to leave the situation as it is? Are we to let the matter rest until the War comes to an end? Are we to allow this great German combination to go on, extending its control Already before the War it had done some things prejudicial to the interests of this country and beneficial to the interests of Germany. That being so, what is the position of the Board of Trade with that information before it? Are we to say to our people, "You should have taken advantage of the opportunity to have done for your country what the Germans have done for theirs"? I do not agree that that is the policy we should have pursued. We must recognise the facts and do all we can, realising the seriousness of the situation, not only to prevent German control from being con-
    352
    tinued and extended after the War, but to take steps which will give our people at least an opportunity of recognising the mistakes made in the past and of establishing themselves in a sufficiently strong position to deal with these particular metals which are so vital to our industries on just as wise and sound principles as those practised by this great German combination. That seems to me to be a right and proper business way of looking at this problem, and I feel I should be neglecting my duty as President of the Board of Trade if I did not recognise the situation and if I did not take an early opportunity of bringing the attention of this House to it by means of a measure which, I believe, will afford us the best way of working under the circumstances, and which, while it will defeat that great German combination and prevent German control after the War, will, en the other hand, encourage British traders to continue in these enterprises and establish them on a secure and satisfactory foundation.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think on this point I must have an understanding with the Committee. May we take this discussion as covering all the other metals mentioned in this series of Amendments?
    Mr. HOLT: No. As I have put the Amendments on the Paper may I state quite frankly my object in patting them down was to show that the case for the different metals is wholly different, and that though there may be a case for the Bill with regard to some of them, there is none as regards others? I do not, therefore, want them mixed up.
    Mr. L. JONES: And for that particular purpose it is clear that the discussion on each particular metal must disclose facts in relation to that metal. The whole case for the Government Bill rests on the particular position in this country in regard to the supply of the metals before, during, and after the War. The case for each metal is different, and the discussion of the facts will give rise to different considerations, each of which must be dealt with— and dealt with, I think, at some length. I do not, consequently, see any possibility of discussing them together.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Committee is quite entitled to take that view, and that is the reason why I intervened. I wanted to find out what was the view of the Committee. But we must not on each of the

    353
    successive metals have a fresh Second Reading Debate on the Bill. We will now keep to copper.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I propose to address the Committee purely on the subject of copper, and I am sure my night hon. Friend will agree that it is not out of any disrespect to him that I do not refer to the general principles he has raised. I abstain from doing so because of the ruling that has just been given from the Chair. It is clear, as we take each one of these individual metals, that the difficulty in which the House was placed on the Second Reading is accentuated at the Committee stage. The Committee will remember that the Minister for Reconstruction stated in a rather emotional passage that, owing to the absence of a measure like this before the War, tens of thousands of lives had been sacrificed. I need hardly say that an exaggeration of that kind did not help the case for the Bill. I doubt very much whether it impressed anybody who heard it. But the assertion was made, and it was repeated in newspapers all over the country. I had to speak after my right hon. Friend the Minister for Reconstruction, and I made particular reference to this metal—copper—and I remember that, in doing so, I excited some impatience on the part of the Leader of the House, who was good enough to speak with such clearness that it was possible for us on this side of the House to hear him remark, "What has that to do with it?" Now we find on the Committee stage what it has to do with it.
    During that discussion and in the present one we have found ourselves in a very difficult position. My right hon. Friend says that the facts which have been disclosed to the Committee make out a good case for this method of dealing with the situation. But we do not know anything about the facts which were disclosed to the Committee. I venture to say that out of those who were invited to come and discuss this Bill in the House there are not more than four men who had read the Report of the Committee. Of course, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade had done so; I take it for granted the Parliamentary Secretary has done so, and, in view of the active part he has taken in this discussion, no doubt the Lord Advocate had done so. Then, again, I have no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock had read the Report, but
    354
    I do venture to say there was not a single Member in the House other than these I have mentioned who had seen this Report and read it from cover to cover. We have been asked to deal with this Bill on its merits in respect of each individual metal, but we have nothing to go upon except the assurance given by my right hon. Friend that lie is ·apprehensive particularly as to the future. What is the case in regard to copper? The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Metallgesellsehaft, of Frankfort, had not world control of copper before the War. The control, on the contrary, was in England and America. The production of copper in Spain was controlled by two great English companies; the production of copper in America was under the control of two or three great groups. The smelting of copper required in this country was conducted in this country, concerns which were British firms and not under the control of the Metallgesellschaft. It was conducted in America by a great combination, not under German control, and although I agree that many of the names associated with the copper trade were German names, I am only sorry that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wellington (Sir C. Henry) is not here this afternoon, because the firm, Charles S. Henry and Company, Limited, of which he has an intimate knowledge, is associated with the firm of Messrs. Guggenheim, of the United States, and he could assure the House that Guggenheims', although a German name, although a firm probably of German origin, are not under the control of the Metallgesellschaft, but are far more under the influence of the hon. Member for Wellington, whose nationality no one has ever doubted. if that is the case with regard to the main supplies of copper, how can the right hon. Gentleman say that before the War the Metallgesellschaft had control of our copper supply—that they had control either at the outbreak of war or after the War broke out?
    I have drawn attention more than once to the fact that it could not have bad that control, and I am not going to be rebuffed by the fact that it bores the Leader of the House. When the War broke out we made it our business to get as much electrolithic copper in America as we required, and I am assured by the great firm which represented us in the United States that in the early years of the War—in the first twelve months at any rate—we succeeded in getting con-

    355
    trol of the whole of the electrolithic copper that was being used in the United States. That does not look as if the Metallgesellschaft had been very successful. What is more, a Government Department here, inexperienced in these matters, which had never attempted to do such a thing before, was enabled to get control of copper supplies here; therefore the idea that the Metallgesellschaft had obtained control either before or after the War is, I venture to suggest, contrary to fact. No doubt it did finance a good deal of the metal required for the Central Empires, but I see nothing pernicious in that. I see nothing pernicious in the fact of the copper in this country being financed by firms on the market here. My right hon. Friend suggested that in future, as regards copper, there might be an intention on the part of the Metallgesellschaft to influence the market. If a case had been made out as regards copper—and I think my right hon. Friend will admit it has not been made out—I wish to ask is this Bill going to give us any greater command of copper than we have had in the past? Will it give us a single ounce more of copper than we had before? Will it give us copper at a single shilling per ton less? Whatever may be the charges made in some quarters of the House that our business men have not successfully competed with the Metall gesellschaft in regard to copper, at all events we have no reason to be ashamed of our business procedure. The Metallgesellschaft was, perhaps, successful in controlling some of the other metals, and it is quite true they did it without Government assistance. They had not a Bill like this to help them. But I can only say, with regard to copper, the Metallgesellschaft had not contnol, and we have justified our business methods by securing a fair share of the copper of the world and by getting it in this country as cheap, if not cheaper, than it can be bought in any other country in the world, and we have been able to control the sources of supply. This method of dealing with copper by preventing certain firms from having any transactions in copper in this market will be detrimental rather than beneficial. One reason why we get cheap copper is to be found in the simple fact that this is an open copper market. Practically the price for Europe was made in the City of London. It was made there simply because there were
    356
    transactions by letter and by cable, and anybody could deal in copper. The price was made with the greatest facility, because there were dealings by all sorts of individuals, and this freedom in the market has proved of the greatest benefit to this country. Now for the first time this measure is going to interpose obstacles on that freedom. It is for that reason that I say that not only has the Government made out no case for the inclusion of copper in this Bill, but that by their actual proposals they will do that which is detrimental to the supplies of copper; and we shall be thoroughly justified in taking a Division on the inclusion in the Bill of this metal.
    5.0 P.M.
    Sir J. D. REES: Such mining connections as I have are little affected by a Bill dealing with base metals, but as is incumbent on anyone in my position in close connection with those who have an intimate connection with mining, as regards base metals as well as others, I do venture to remind the Committee that the Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, which is an extremely representative body, including representatives of firms dealing in metals, base and others, engaged in that great market, to which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Runciman) has referred, in the City of London, entirely adopts the view taken to-day by the President of the Board of Trade—
    Mr. J.HENDERSON: No.
    Sir J. D. REES: I submit it is so—and not that taken by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. He made a most extraordinarily persuasive and able speech, so much so that anyone listening to him who was inclined to differ is very much inclined to feel doubts as to whether he is really right in the attitude he himself takes up. Nevertheless, it is quite a fallacy, I venture to submit, to suggest that a consuming country can. obtain control of a producing country. It is not necessary for you to produce largely yourself in order largely to affect prices in the producing country. For instance, Germany, it is true, only produces a fraction of the copper produced in the world, but though Germany may have only a fraction of the copper she has nine-tenths of all the cunning in the world, and her great association, the Metallgesellschaft, is perfectly capable of making arrangements which though not on the surface do in a subterraneous manner affect that which

    357
    this Bill is designed to destroy. I should not really venture to address the Committee on this subject except that I do think the Committee is rightly reminded that a body of Englishmen, particularly capable and especially well-equipped to express a judgment on this subject, do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that you must necessarily produce a large amount of any metal in order to be able to make arrangements affecting its price. The effect of his speech on the Committee ought therefore, as far as possible, to be discounted by those circumstances.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Will the hon. Gentleman answer this one question? I understand he has spoken the view of the Metal Exchange. In expressing the approval of this Bill, have the Metal Exchange, either as individuals or as a body, suggested that this Bill in its application to copper will provide this country with copper any cheaper than in the past?
    Sir J. D. REES: They have expressed their approval of this Bill. I am satisfied with that.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Only with Amendments.
    Sir J. D. REES: I am not prepared to be cross-examined in detail as to what they think. I do assert that they approve of this Bill.
    Sir F. BANBURY: With Amendments.
    Sir J. D. REES: If you knock off the copper, you knock off the copper bottom of this Bill.
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I want to add one word to what was said by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Runciman). I think he showed that there was no pre-war danger to the copper consumer in this country, and I think he also established the fact that the bulk of the copper trade of the world was either in British hands or under British control. The object of this Bill, as I have always feared—always regarding it, as I have done, from the consumer's and not from the producer's point of view—is to throw the control not merely of copper but of all these other metal trades into the hands of a few individuals who, disregarding the needs, necessities, and requirements of the consumer, will fix their attention wholly and solely on the producer, and will put up, by reason of the
    358
    system of restricted trade imposed by this Bill, the price of this metal to the consumer. From that point of view this Bill is a most dangerous proposal, and I oppose it principally on that ground. There may be other Members of this House who are themselves interested in the trade or have a greater knowledge a the manufacturing trade or the merchant trade in copper and who may deal with it from their point of view. From my point of view, however, it is the consumer who is in danger, and there is nothing in the speech of the President of the Board of Trade that seems to me to take into consideation, to give a moment's consideration, to the requirements of the consumer. The whole of his attention was directed, perhaps properly—I do not deal with that aspect of the case now—to the needs of the manufacturer or the merchant. He did not pretend with regard to copper that there was any national danger; he only talked about trade in general. I am here to protest in the name of the consumer against any proposal which unnecessarily restricts trade when the right hon. Gentleman is unable to show—as, indeed, he has not attempted to show—that there is any real danger to the national trade in this matter. For that reason I oppose this provision.
    Mr. CLYDE: I assure the Committee that, as far as I am concerned, my acquaintance with the topic of copper gains nothing from any connection with its production, and, differing from the right lion. Gentleman who spoke last, I am equally innocent of any experience of it in the capacity of consumer. What does strike me as being worth while to which to draw the attention of the Committee for a moment or so is the value of the argument that has been presented, particularly by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman), on its own merits. By that, of course, I do not mean as to whether he is right in asserting that copper was under no control at all by Germany, or whether my right hon.' Friend the President of the Board of Trade, with his information, opportunities, and knowledge, is right in saying that there was already certain control in copper before the War. I propose, being a lawyer, and finding laymen differing, to leave that question aside. I want the Committee to consider—while they will congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the ingenuity of the position he succeeded in taking up—

    359
    the argument he presented, on its merits. The argument is not to dispute—because he. knows it would be out of order now so to dispute that the Bill should apply to non-ferrous metals. It is not that, because that is already past praying for. The argument is not—and the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) is desirous of preserving it, and also deserves the Committee's congratulations on his contribution to the ingenuity of the manœuvre—that it shall not apply to any metal, but that it shall not apply to copper, so that it shall be made not to apply to nickel in the next case, and so on, with the single exception of zinc.
    We start with copper, and are to limit the argument to copper. I followed the right hon. Gentleman's argument with great interest, and let me say, as far as I can, what it is. Here is a measure with regard to which it is not possible to ask this Committee to say that there is no ground for it in the case of ferrous metals generally. But consider copper. "You ought not to apply it to copper." Why? Because—and here I am assuming the groundwork of the argument; I am not going to enter on the controversy, of which I know nothing, as to whether copper was under control or not—because, the right hon. Gentleman would say, copper was substantially, at any rate, not under German control before the War. Therefore, I think he would say if he could, "Do not touch any of the nonferrous metals at all." He says, "I quite see that some of these may quite properly come under the Bill, but not copper." Let us get that argument right down to its plain terms. You have been contesting with your antagonist. You have found yourself face-to-face with the Metallgesellschaft. The trade of this country has had to fight its way against this vast and powerful combination, and admittedly that combination has by its combined powers and unified methods which we did not have, or did not adopt, inflicted many wounds; on some metals, admittedly for the purpose of this discussion, serious wounds.
    Mr. HEMMERDE: Who admitted it?
    Mr. CLYDE: I am dealing strictly with the argument addressed to the House, deliberately and ingeniously selected—and I congratulated the right hon. Gentleman upon it—not because there is no
    360
    non-ferrous metal in which control has been established, but because copper was not one of them. I am taking the right hon. Gentleman on his own ground. The hon. Member for Hexham will tell the hon. Gentleman that zinc was one in which control was very nearly complete. This powerful antagonist has inflicted a considerable number of wounds. It has, let us say, blacked one eye; and the right hon. Gentleman says, "Whatever you do, do not put on this kind of knuckleduster that has blacked your right eye in order to protect your left." That is, in substance, a plain reproduction of the merits of the argument. "Do not touch this Metallgesellschaft with regard to copper, because before the War copper had not fallen substantially under German control. Admittedly you can apply it to metals of which control has been established, but for goodness' sake do not take time by the forelock and arm yourself in advance." Why not? I can quite understand the. right hon. Gentleman's position as an out-and-out opponent of the whole proposal. That is intelligible. But it is not legitimate in Committee. If we are in Committee, and the question is, "Was control established of one of these metals as completely as it had been of another?"—there may be, for all I know, another in which there was no control at all—what is the value, after all, of that as an argument against making it apply to the general class? It would be a first-class argument if there were some reason—
    Mr. HOLTrose—
    Mr. CLYDE: One moment. I do not want to take up an undue length of time. It would be an excellent argument if there wore some peculiarity about copper not lending itself to the control of the Metallgesellschaft, and the hon. Member for Hexham is going to try and persuade me on that point. That argument I can understand, but it is not the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. His argument is, "Do not touch copper, because you have not yet been hit. You are crying out before you arc hurt." If the Committee considers that, I think it will be very wary before it is led into that very ingenious argument.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The right hon. Gentleman naturally presents the matter in the form which suits him, but he has not put the case as I put it. The case, as I

    361
    put it, was with the object of preserving the free market. As I pointed out, this Bill will interfere with the free market in London, and it is owing to the free market, I maintain, that we have copper in this country as cheap as, if not cheaper than, in any other country in the world. That is the point which my right hon. and learned Friend has not met.
    Mr. CLYDE: I am not consciously misrepresenting the right hon. Gentleman, but he did say that, in. the case of copper, before the War there was substantially no German control, and therefore we should leave it alone. I quite admit that he says that he thinks that a free market would be better preserved without control. That is a general argument which is not specially applicable to copper, and we are dealing with copper. What is there peculiar about copper on that point? Nothing. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's argument, which was an argument about copper, was based on this. that the control of the Metallgesellschaft was not complete or was not established at all. What argument can be weaker than to say with regard to a huge combination, which aimed at world-wide domination of the metal market, that, because it had not been successful with one of the metals, therefore we should not deal with that metal? That argument leaves me cold, hut I admire the ingenuity with which my Friends on the other side, having no opportunity of a frontal attack, are now attacking the Bill piecemeal.
    Mr. HOLT: I would not like to say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not appreciated the arguments brought against him, but, at any rate, he appears not to do so. The point is that the circumstances of the different metals are different. They differ entirely in their place of origin, and the circumstances in which they are controlled. You may be able to make a case to show that the provisions of this Bill will do something to secure control of these metals, but, having regard to the particular circumstances of copper, with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not deal, it is impossible that the provisions of this Bill can do anything whatever to increase the supply of copper in this country. Copper originates mainly in the United States of America. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what part of this Bill can possibly increase the
    362
    supply in this country of any article which is produced in the United States of America? There is nothing in this Bill to prevent the Metallgesellschaft from acquiring every ounce of copper in America. The. only thing that this Bill will do will be to secure that, if they were to acquire all the copper in America, they will not be permitted to sell any of it in this country.
    Mr. L. JONES: The right hon, and learned Gentleman was good enough to say that he admired the ingenuity of the argument addressed by the former President of the Board of Trade. I admire greatly the ingenuity with which he endeavoured to answer the almost unanswerable arguments when the facts of the case are all against him. It is absolutely evident, from the speech of the President of the Board of Trade and the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that there in no case whatever for the inclusion of copper in this Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not appreciated the case put forward on behalf of the Bill. Why is it a nonferrous metal Bill? There is a clear distinction drawn between ferrous and nonferrous metals. The reason is that there are certain peculiar incidents affecting these metals with which the Government are endeavouring to deal in this Bill. The reason given was that there was danger of the enemy getting control of these metals. Before any particular metal is included in this Bill a case should be made out for inclusion. We do not admit that any case for this Bill has been made, but he says it is admitted that you have had a black eye, say, in regard to zinc, and why get the other eye blacked in regard to copper? We have not admitted that the eye was blacked. But that is the case for the Bill as put forward by the Government. Therefore, if they are going to include another metal, such as copper, because they argue that in the case of zinc we have suffered injury, it is for them to show that copper is in the same position as zinc. No attempt has been made to show that, for a very good reason, that it cannot be done. The facts are all against it. Not even the most ingenious of Scottish lawyers can make a case where there is no fact or principle upon which to justify it. We say that, other things being equal, it is better that trade should not be interfered with than that it should

    363
    be interfered with. That is the second proposition on which we are fighting certain parts of the Bill. Unless you can show that advantage will follow, that an evil has been suffered from which your Bill is going to deliver us, you ought not to include the metal in the Bill. The case which we make in favour of the Amendment is that no such proof has been offered. It is not even alleged. The most that is alleged, as justifying a departure from the old-established system of this country in regard to a metal in which we have been successful, is that this might be possible. The President of the Board of Trade said, but for this War, the German company might have secured control of copper. He hardly went so far as that, but he said that they bought some copper for use in Germany, and they actually, by means of foresight and cash, were buying copper where copper could be obtained. Is that control?
    Mr. CLYDE: My right hon. Friend said that the Metallgesellschaft had already a certain control of copper, and that after the War he believed that that control would be extended.
    Mr. JONES: My right hon. and learned Friend quoted the President of the Board of Trade, and I think that the quotation was verbally accurate, but if there was any control claimed it was at any rate a very small amount of control, and the method of obtaining that control was to buy the copper and to exercise foresight in regard to it. The President of the Board of Trade based himself upon the Report, but he was careful not to say that the Report contained anything alleging that a case was made out for copper. We are labouring under the very great disadvantage that we have not seen this Report. It is a very unusual thing in Parliamentary Debates, I am not sure that it is not even a disorderly thing, that Reports should be referred to and used as a basis for arguments in the House when hon. Members have not had an opportunity of seeing the Report. The right hon. Gentleman does not quote from the Report to justify his action. I could call for it if he quoted for it. He tells us the substance of what it says, but he was careful not to tell us that the Report recommended the Board of Trade to deal with copper in the same way as with the other metals. The President of
    364
    the Board of Trade said he feared that, if the War had not come on, the Metallgesellschaft might have obtained control of copper. I do not think that he went so far as to say that they would have obtained control of copper. He knows full well how difficult it would be for anyone to get control of copper if it was not the people of this country—we were the people who had the most control of copper—but, on the other hand, he suggested that one of the causes producing this War was the failure of Germany to obtain control of certain things of which she would have liked to obtain control. I enter my protest against the continual references which are made in this Debate to German trade and German methods to the disparagement of British trade and methods. If you are going to compare the two I say that, before the War, our trade was stronger, healthier, and more wealth-producing than German trade. It is perfectly true that Germany, by special attention to certain departments of trade, had acquired a special hold in these departments. If we had tried we could have rivalled her in these any time we chose to do so. We sometimes gave them a start.
    The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): The hon. Member is going rather far.
    Mr. JONES: I think that I am justified in pointing out this, that we have asked specific questions in regard to copper and we receive nothing but general answers dealing with all metals. We are in the position of pleading for special information. We claim that the control of the copper situation is in this country and not in Germany, and that the effect of your action will be to transfer to America the control of copper from this country. What I am afraid you are going to do, and that is why I am so strongly opposing this Bill in some of its parts, is to transfer the copper market from London to New York. I believe that the fetter which is put on is unnecessary and will injure trade. I ask the President of the Board of Trade whether there is no danger of driving the copper market from London and setting it up in another part of the world. I apologise if I have wandered into the general question, but we have received only a general answer. On their own showing the Government asked for this Bill because they say that injury has been suffered in regard to metals dealt with in

    365
    this Bill. Therefore we are indebted to my right hon. Friend for putting down Amendments in regard to each of these metals. We have asked for the case in regard to copper and we get no answer. I hope that my hon. Friend will divide in order that copper at least may be saved from the tender mercies of the Board of Trade and left to the ingenuity and resourcefulness of the British trader.
    Sir C. CORY: It has been said in the course of this Debate that the Metal Exchange is in favour of this Bill, but Members of this House have heard that argument put before—when it was stated that the Mining Association represented the mine-owners of this country, though they did. nothing of the sort. I dare say in the same way the Metal Exchange does not to any further extent than in that case represent the metal interest of this country. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Leif Jones) said— and I agree—that damage was being done by interference to the trade of this country, and I cannot for the life of me see how this Bill is likely to bring a larger quantity of metal to this country. It seems to me that it will have exactly the reverse effect. If, in the future, the Germans were to come to this country to buy copper, would it not be infinitely better that they should do so, for, in that case, this country would derive a benefit from it that they would not obtain should they go to America to make their purchases of copper. If it were undesirable that Germans should buy copper in this country, it would be still more undesirable that they should go to America, and that the Metal Exchange should be removed from this country to the United States. I cannot see how this Bill is going to do anything to prevent the Germans from buying copper. All they have to do is to go to the producing countries. As has been pointed out, this Bill cannot stop their buying in producing countries, and, what I do know is, that these proposals will cause considerable inconvenience to copper producers in my own Constituency, for they will have to get a licence, their books will have to be overhauled, and all their business looked into, and all this for an object which, it seems to me, will not be accomplished by this Bill, because it will not prevent the Germans buying as much copper as they want, and because, as has been said in Debate, they have enormous cash reserves with which they could certainly go to the producing countries and offer very much
    366
    higher prices than could this country. I shall certainly support the Amendment if it goes to a Division, because I think the proposals of the Bill are against the interests of my Constituents.
    Mr. SHAW: The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe dealt with matters which, I think, really belonged to the. Second. Reading Debate on the Bill. But, in the course of his observations, he made an appeal for information which I may say has been tendered ad nauseam, and a similar appeal for information was made at an earlier stage by the ex-President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Runciman). It is in some respects a commentary upon that desire for information that, at the beginning of this War, the situation with regard to copper in this country was so serious, and the risk of the Germans getting hold of the copper available in the world was so serious, that the ex-President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Runciman) himself had to take very complete and stringent measures to see that this country got sufficient copper, in order to support the War properly. For those measures which he took with such promptness the country is under a great debt of gratitude both to the Board of Trade and the right hon. Gentleman. But I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should tell the President, in bringing forward and asking the House of Commons to give its assent to this Bill, which deals with all these nonferrous metals that are vital to this country in time of war as a means of defence, that he may safely leave out of account the most vital of all, namely, copper itself. The right hon. Gentleman told us that copper was safe, and we, therefore, need not be anxious to include it. The right hon. Gentleman knows that no metal, in time of war, is so important as copper, and to say that copper is safe is, I would say, to do less than justice to the right hon. Gentleman's own views that he held at the beginning of the War, when, as President of the Board of Trade, he took those stringent measures which he described.
    The right hon. Gentleman has already himself assented to the principle of this Bill, and has said to the enemy that he is willing to pass a measure which, in principle, would shut Germany out of dealing in Great Britain in tin, in antimony, in spelter, lead, and zinc. He admits the strength of the case for zinc, but he says he will leave the door open for copper.

    367
    Virtually he said that what we are doing is locking the stable door, yet he comes and tells us, "Oh, do not lock the door on copper, for that horse has not yet been stolen." If a Bill like this is required at all, it is required for the purpose of national defence, and it should run through all the gamut of these metals, which are open to the threats and machinations of the German Metallgesellschaft. As the President of the Board of Trade has repeatedly explained, copper is one of these metals. We were told by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Leif Jones) that we are inflicting fetters on the dealers in this country. An hon. Member of this House who knows more about copper than any other, and who himself is concerned in the copper trade, welcomes these fetters, and he is ready to go through the process of taking out a licence. All that this Bill asks is that the Government should be empowered to take measures to inquire into the character and antecedents of those who wish to engage in this business. That is all. There are no fetters about it. I respectfully submit to the House that one of the most vital metals in the interests of national defence would be excluded, and this Bill, so far as it looks, not at the past, but at the future, at the plans and ramifications of the German Metallgesellschaft, would be emasculated and rendered useless if this wrecking Amendment were passed by the Committee.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has made a creditable attempt to grapple with the real issue, and he paid a tribute to the ingenuity displayed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury, though certainly he was not less ingenious himself in defending the Government's position in regard to this question. But our attitude towards him ought, I think, to be one of compassion, for he does not profess to know anything about copper, and all he could do was to apply the forensic method of argument, a method which has become almost an abuse in some instances. The case put to him was a very simple one. The President of the Board of Trade has repeatedly stated that this Bill is necessitated by the fact of the constant encroachment of a certain German control of non-ferrous metals, but he never explained why this Bill is necessary from that point of view. In regard to the par-
    368
    titular metal—copper—which we are now upon, he went so far as to say that the Germans would have obtained control of the copper if the War had not intervened. Perhaps he did not mean to say that, but I understood him to say that it certainly would. He has given us absolutely no evidence in support of that proposition, and I may say, in regard to the use of the word "control," that he has never given any clear information of what he means by the word "control." Unless the word "control" is to be understood in regard to the power to divert or prevent a metal going to a given place and making it go to another, then there is no proposition before us at all.
    The right hon. Gentleman never attempted to show at any moment whatever that such control as is alleged existed on the part of the enemy and prevented copper coming here. It is absolutely impossible forhim to make that argument, because a Member on that side of the House, who is an expert, assured us, the other day, that London was the great centre of the non-ferrous metal market, and especially for copper, in which he was specially interested; yet with these statements made behind him, the President of the Board of Trade says the Germans were getting control everywhere. The right hon. Member for Dewsbury gave an absolute negation of that, and pointed out that control had not been obtained, and in the nature of the case there Was no shadow of ground for believing that control could be obtained in future any more than in the past. That is a specific negation of the President's statement. Then my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate comes forward with the argument that we on this side had singled out copper because it was a strong point. My right hon. Friend is making an assumption he has no right to make. It was remarked that we on this side had admitted having received a black-eye in regard to another metal. I never made any such admission, nor did my right hon. Friend. My hon. Friend did make attempts to meet the case of capper. He said that the ex-President of the Board of Trade had taken measures at the beginning of the War for getting copper, and the danger was that the Germans would get control of it. That holds good in regard to every kind of commodity of which you like to speak. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury did not merely buy copper; he bought wheat, sugar, wood—
    Mr. SHAW: I stated that the right hon. Member for Dewsbury said he had taken measures in regard to copper because there was great risk of the Germans getting control of the available copper.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I do not remember him putting it in that way. There are no special facilities in regard to copper. The Germans had no more power of buying copper in America than we had, unless we e are to be told that the Germans had acquired some mysterious power partaking of the nature of sorcery or witchcraft, which business men cannot compete with—unless you introduce a Bill of this kind to knock out of the ring more or less competent men they are afraid to compete with in business. My right hon. Friend was able to get his copper. If the Germans have this extraordinary power of forestalling us with regard to copper, which, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, is a matter of extraordinary importance and one of the primary necessities in war, and if they could not get that copper and did not get it, what becomes of all this case? My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate says, "Oh, you have not had a black-eye on this, but you might have!" That form of argument is decent only as backing up a Bill that will give you special control over copper in the future. You may say, "It is true we had copper, in spite of the Germans, for this War, but we do not know what will happen in another war, and we are really bringing in this Bill," as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock put it, "for the purposes of national defence." What pretence has there been to show that this Bill will give you an ounce of copper more than you had before? Surely it is the duty of the President of the Board of Trade to give us reasons for believing that it will give us more copper. I remember on the Second Reading he was challenged as to whether a particular firm of the kind they want to exclude prevented copper coming to this country. No, it was their business to bring it here, and the argument of my right hon. Friend the ex-President is that all these fetters you are imposing on trade, and all these difficulties you are placing in the way of legitimate trade, will simply place obstacles in the way of ordinary trade, while you are throwing open the door to foreign speculation by the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Wellington (Sir C. Henry), and giving every facility to the foreign speculator.
    370
    How is that going to bring in more copper? We are entitled to a rational answer to that question. It is no use for the President to mention the word "control" a hundred times. He used that vague formula again and again of "there can be no doubt," where there is the greatest doubt. To show that there is confidence in the report, we had a quotation from the Society of Metallurgy in favour of the Bill, and we were also told that the hon. Baronet the Member for Wellington was in favour of it. It is perfectly natural that the hon. Baronet should be in favour of a measure that will give him facilities and take them away from other people. I am not accusing him of any unworthy motive; I am sure he has none; but he ought not to be cited as if his mere approval of a Bill under such conditions were a justification for it. The Lord Advocate said that we are trying to whittle down the case for this Bill by taking one metal at a time. But that is the only way in which we can get anything like an argued case for the Bill. The case for the Bill has been a case of rhetoric and declamation and appeal to feeling and passion.
    Mr. PRINGLE: For a General Election.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: If the kind of argument used about copper here 'had been used in a discussion before chemists or scientific men, anyone who looked on would, I am sure, have been filled with absolute astonishment at such a discussion, and it would have been branded, I am afraid, as claptrap by any serious thinking man. It is not very respectful to the House of Commons that in such a case as this they should be supplied with arguments which no serious man would dare to bring before a board of business men discussing this question. The President of the Board, if he were putting his case as a business man before business men, would nut attempt to fob them off with the kind of generalities that have been employed here. He would know that they would be aware at least of some of the facts, and that they would want some reasoned justification. The right hon. Gentleman thinks the House of Commons can be got to back up a Bill of the kind on a case that would never be accepted in business by business men for whose judgment he had the slightest respect, and I am bound to say it can be got When we earnestly appealed to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to give us a detailed case, I think we are entitled

    371
    to something more than the forensic methods of the Lord Advocate. I think we are entitled to a reasoned case. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock did attempt to make out such a case, but in the allusion he made to the position taken up by the ex-President he totally failed to do so. Let me remind hon. Gentlemen that every shadow or argument used by the Lord Advocate or the hon. Member for Kilmarnock with regard to this Bill in justification of copper amounts to a very strong case for a ferrous metals Bill. There is no argument they have used that applies to copper that does not apply tenfold more powerfully to steel.
    Mr. HEMMERDE: It is an amazing thing that the Lord Advocate should seriously suggest that an Amendment like this is merely an Amendment of a wrecking nature. From the beginning of these discussions until now we have endeavoured to get from the President some sort of justification for putting copper into the Bill. I quite understand why he gives no detailed justification. He cannot give us a detailed justification because there is none. There was no German control of copper before the War, and nobody knows it better than the President. There was no control of copper during the War by Germany, and there was not the remotest danger of Germany obtaining that control. Why I personally attach great importance to this Amendment is for quite another reason. I would ask the attention of the President while I call certain facts to his notice which have not previously been mentioned. We are told that certain people are delighted with this Bill, although they are concerned with copper. If you look at the conditions in this Bill it is perfectly obvious to anyone, and it has been stated again and again in this House, that the conditions of the Bill are drafted exactly so as to fit one of the biggest copper dealers in the City of London, H. R. Merton and Company, Limited. [An Hon. MEMBER: "A German firm!"] Just after the War began the head of that firm, Mr. Henry Gardiner, was sent by His Majesty's Government to America. He is not a German, but is a, Scotsman. He was, as I say, sent to America at the beginning of the War, and authorised by the Government to proceed to New York and to buy all the copper that he possibly could. As a matter of fact, at that time the Americans had actually decreased their production,
    372
    and as a result of that he went there with the intention of getting for the Government all the copper available. But he was not successful at that time in his mission. But while there, and this is a point I would have the Committee notice, acting for the Government, he proposed to the American producers that they should appoint his firm the sole selling agents for the duration of the War, so that the Government could get control of the whole of the copper. He thereupon by that action brought himself into collision with the other cooper agents, because, acting for the British Government, ho proposed that his firm should undertake the whole of the copper-purchasing. He thereupon by that action, going out for the British Government, made himself the object for attack by the other copper agents, although he was safeguarding their interests that might be temporarily displaced.
    From that moment to this that firm has been attacked, and resolutely attacked, and these, the largest copper dealers almost in the City of London, if copper is kept in this Bill, and the conditions are kept as they are, will be thrown out of dealing in copper, although they are the people who were chosen by the British Government to go out on their behalf at the beginning of the War. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is a German firm!"] I shall listen to my hon. Friend with the greatest courtesy if he endeavours to answer my arguments, but may I say the firm was not a German firm, and it was not controlled by Germans, and no amount of assertion of the kind will make it anything of the sort. It would not be relevant for me now to pursue this matter, and I am not going to be drawn away from my argument into irrelevancies. No case has been made out for bringing in copper on the ground that we were ever short of copper through any machinations of the Germans, or that they were likely to control copper. Copper is brought in now apparently. I cannot see any other reason for copper being brought in now, but a reason that I wanted not to believe through the whole of these Debates, namely, because the Bill is directed simply and solely at this one firm. We shall hear more of it as the Debate goes on, but it is the fact, and I challenge anyone to deny it, that it was the going out for the Government of a member of the firm of Merton and Company that aroused the antagonism of the other interests in this country. We now find

    373
    Select Committees largely composed of their trade rivals bringing in a Report which we are not allowed to see, wherein probably the Government show great discretion, and the result of which is that this firm, which was the first firm to which the Government went to deal with this question, if the Bill remains as it is, will inevitably be driven out of business and their business will go to their competitors. I say it is a most sinister thing and it is a thing that has not happened in this country for years and years. I do not know whether it is the beginning of the new era. It certainly seems to me that the House ought to divide against keeping copper in the Bill, because I think copper has been put in not for national reasons, but for reasons which I hesitate to describe in this House.
    Mr. HENDERSON: I should like to emphasise this fact, that at no time in the history of copper has the Metallgesellschaft or any other German firm had control of copper. If it is the fact that you are basing this Bill apparently on copper, and that there was some sort of control which you want to prevent in future, will my right hon. Friend tell me how he explains that the Germans have been trying to obtain copper from private utensils all over their country and that they have pulled up the conduits in the tramways and gone wherever they could to obtain copper? They could not get it outside, and does that state of things coincide with the suggestions made here?
    Captain S. WILSON: The Navy stopped them.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. HENDERSON: You know more about the British Navy than you ought, but you do not know much about this subject. There is the fact that this is an enormous priced metal. A point has been made, and made a great deal of, that the metal market agrees with the Bill. I have inquired into that, and I find that a member of the Munitions Department, who had been a member of the Metal Exchange at one time, came down to them and told them it was a good Bill, and was intended to benefit them, and so forth, and actually it was passed by one of the very men who is going to be knocked out here. If he had understood the Bill, do you suppose he would have passed it? They did not understand the Bill. I have something more to say. I am speaking now for the consumers.
    374
    There was a meeting of the smelters in London the other day. They did not approve of the Bill, and said that the effect of it would be to render their operations more difficult, and to put the trade into fewer hands, and that they would, not be able to get such a free market for the copper to smelt. My right hon. Friend suggested there was somebody influenced by the Metallgesellschaft.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question is copper.
    Mr. HENDERSON: Is there a single copper smelter under the influence of the Metallgesellschaft? There never was. I challenge anyone to prove they ever had any control of the copper. He said, "Ah, you do not know what their ramifications may be! They have places here and places there." What is to hinder them getting the control of copper now? This Bill does not stop them. Do you mean to say that, because you are not to give any licence to a man who is a German,. you are thereby going to stop their controlling any metal—copper, at all events? Where does the copper come from? Sixty-six per cent. comes from America, 15, per cent. from Japan, and the rest is scattered about Spain, and so forth. The controllers of the copper have always been in America, and there is nothing to hinder them from going to America and buying up mines. This Bill does not stop them coming into the market here and buying the metal. There are only two ways of controlling metal. You may control it at the source, or you may buy the stuff in the market. This Bill does not stop the Metallgesellschaft or any other company from doing both. They can go into the market and buy up the whole of the market.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is quite a Second Reading point.
    Mr. HENDERSON: You know, of course, the President of the Board of Trade was allowed to make a long speech on the subject.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not know what happened; I was not in the Chair. I am only concerned with the remarks made at present by the hon. Member. I have heard him make that speech, if he will forgive me, twice already.
    Mr. HENDERSON: I shall be very sorry to contradict you, but I think you are

    375
    entirely wrong—in fact, I know you are. The question is, qua copper, Is the mere fact that you are going to grant licences, and that you are going only to grant licences to a certain few, and not to a certain smaller few, going to prevent anybody having control of copper, or is it going to give you control of copper? If it does not give you control of copper, which it does not, if it does not stop other people getting control of copper, then there is no ground for including copper in this Bill. If there is any danger in the future—there has been none in the past—merely restricting a few firms that are not going to get the licence is not going to be any remedy against any other body of men getting control of this particular metal either in the market here or in the markets in America—nothing of the kind!
    Mr. D. MASON: The speech of the right hon. Member for Tyneside (Mr. Robertson) was of so convincing a character and so admirably put, that nothing can be added to it, and I only wish to make a few observations on one -point which I do not. think has been referred to. A great deal has been said of the support of the Metal Exchange. I hope I shall not be deemed uncharitable if I offer this explanation as a reason for the support of the Metal Exchange: I think it will be admitted that if this Bill becomes law, and this very gigantic monopoly is conferred upon the large dealers in copper and other metals, the price naturally will tend to rise. You will have a narrow market; you will have given the control to a limited number, and the price will tend to rise and be controlled by those who have this licence. You will have a gigantic trust created, and the natural tendency will be in the interests of those to raise prices. I assume that the profits and commission of the members of the Metal Exchange will depend on the price, and the higher the price the larger the commission, so that I think it can be easily understood, without assuming any uncharitable motive for their support, that it is to their interest to narrow the market and force up prices, and therefore they support this Bill or anything that tends to create a monopoly.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Those are general remarks, which the hon. Member is not entitled to make on this Amendment.
    Mr. MASON: It has been mentioned two or three times in the Debate, and I
    376
    do say, with all respect, it is relevant to the inclusion of copper, because the object of the Amendment is to exclude copper, and it is felt that if the freedom of copper in the market is interfered with by this Bill, it will very directly affect trade and trade relations. I only cite that as showing the reason why the Metal Exchange supports it. Therefore we are brought back to judge this case on its merits, and it was shown by the right hon. Member for Tyneside and the Mover of the Amendment that to include copper in this Bill is riot likely to increase by a single ounce the supply of copper. We who represent our constituents are large consumers of copper, and therefore we are directly interested in having as plentiful a supply of copper as possible. Copper enters into nearly every trade connected with engineering, and I ask Members if they think they are acting in the interests of their constituents by supporting this, and that they will weigh well their vote when they go into the Division Lobby? It seems to me that no case has been made out in favour of including copper, and the only argument of a really convincing character has been for the exclusion of this metal from the Bill.
    Mr. A. STRAUSS: The general argument of the President of the Board of Trade is always directed to the Metallgesellschaft. He speaks of no other concern. But this Bill not only touches the Metallgesellschaft. It touches a good many other people, and therefore his argument does not deal fairly with all the other firms, individuals, and companies who are largely concerned in this copper business. So far as I understood the argument of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he says you must include copper, not that the past has shown that this Metallgesellschaft or any other enemy concern had control over copper, but must take the precaution, so that in future they shall not get control of copper, because they may some day try to control some metal, and particularly copper. If that argument holds good, surely steel is far more important, and we ought to have the same kind of thing for cotton, wool, and everything which might possibly be used in war. We have had some experience of this control of copper. I have been in this business for fifty years, and I have seen copper controlled. At that time copper was easier to control than now, because now the annual production of copper is worth something like £150,000,000, and it

    377
    requires a pretty strong concern to control that production. But when production was not quite so large we had concerns controlling copper. The first and well-known attempt was that of the Société des Métaux, in Paris, the manager of which was Mr. Secretan. He tried to control copper, and the result was he failed and ended his days in prison. There were two more attempts to control copper. Those came from the United States. I cannot go so far as to say they w ere "corners," but they tried to control copper, and both of them ended, I will not say in disaster, but in loss to those who attempted it.
    If you accept the Amendment, and exclude copper, at any time, when you think there is a real attempt to control by enemies or by enemy interests, you have the power to insert copper, because the Bill gives you the power to insert any metal you like. Therefore, surely there is no danger at all in excluding copper, which, by your own admission, is not controlled, and leave it to sonic future time when there is any trace of enemy control of copper. You have always the option of putting it in the Bill. Surely it is far fairer to follow that course than to include metals now which have never been included before.
    Sir C. HENRY: I understand that my name has been mentioned in connection with the discussion. I should like to say one word. If copper is left out of this Bill, great criticism will come from every quarter of the House. It will be quite justified. Take my firm under this Bill. If they engage to buy large quantities of copper, or to corner copper, under the licence held from the Board of Trade that Department would come down and stop our operations.
    Mr. STRAUSS: Not at all!
    Sir C. HENRY: Oh, yes The firm holds the licence until it is revoked. If the firm enters into transactions which are inimical to the national interest the Board of Trade will come down—
    Mr. STRAUSS: The Bill does not say so.
    Sir C. HENRY: I have read this Bill. In Clause 1, Sub-section (4), I read that
    "the Board of Trade … may revoke or suspend the licence."
    Mr. BRUNNER: On what ground?
    Sir C. HENRY: On the ground that the Board of Trade think it desirable that if anyone operates—
    HON. MEMBERS: No, no!
    Mr. BRUNNERRead the Clause! The point is dealt with in the Schedule of the Bill.
    Sir C. HENRY: I read—
    "(4) The Board of Trade, if satisfied by evidence not before them at the time. when the licence was granted that such company, firm, or individual is, or has become, subject to any of the conditions set forth in the Schedule to this. Act—"
    HON. MEMBERS: The Schedule, the Schedule!
    Mr. S. SAMUEL: Is the evidence sent by the public or is private evidence to be given?
    Sir C. HENRY: That point, I think, the Board of Trade has already dealt with My point is this: under a system of licence there is much less likelihood of the manipulation of any metal than without a system of licence.
    Mr. HENDERSON: There cannot be.
    Sir C. HENRY: That is my opinion. I can see no reason why copper should not be included in this Bill. If copper and tin are left out, it will be stated that it has been so decided in the interests of certain associations. I hope the Board of Trade will adhere to this Bill as drafted and allow copper to be included.
    Mr. BRUNNER: We have had the most extraordinary statements made by the hon. Member opposite. He says, if his firm buys large quantities of copper and tries to corner copper, that the Board of Trade can revoke his licence. That is absolutely incorrect. There is nothing whatever in this Bill which enables the Board of Trade to revoke a licence because anyone endeavours to corner copper. It has been very frequently asked, and we really would like an answer from the Board of Trade to this very simple question, Which Clause in this Bill will increase the national supplies of copper? That simple question has not been answered yet. There is another. What administrative action does the Board of Trade intend to take under this Bill which will increase our supplies of copper? There has been no answer to that question. Both of these

    379
    questions are absolutely unanswerable. There is no reason whatever, therefore, why copper should not be taken out of the Bill. Moreover, there is no reason whatever why any metal whatever should be in the Bill.
    Captain S. WILSON: In fact there is no reason for the Bill!
    Question, "That the word 'copper' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 160; Noes, 54.

    Division No. 141.]

    AYES.

    [6.20 p.m.

    Addison, Rt. H on. Dr. Christopher

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L. (Hallam)

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes (Fulham)

    Pratt, J. W.

    Archdale, Lieut. Edward M.

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. M.

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Astor, Major Hon. Waldorf

    Greig, Col. J. W.

    Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arlon)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gretton, Col. John

    Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)

    Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, South)

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Hanson, Charles Augustin

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Bathurst, Capt. Sir C. (Wilts, Wilton)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Lancs., Darwen)

    Bellairs. Commander C. W.

    Haslam, Lewis

    Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Shaw, Hon. A.

    Bentham. George Jackson

    Henry, Denis S.

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir R. T.

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

    Bird, Alfred

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Stanley,Rt.Hon.Sir A.H. (Ashton-u-Lyre)

    Blair, Reginald

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Stanton, Charles Butt

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

    Higham, John Sharp

    Stewart, Gershom

    Bowden, Major G. R. Harland

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Sutton, John E.

    Boyton, Sir James

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Swift, Rigby

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Horne, E.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Brassey, H. L. C.

    Hudson, Walter

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Butcher, John George

    Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

    Tickler, T. G.

    Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Tootill, Robert

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Cator, John

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Cautley, H. S.

    Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Wardle, George J.

    Clyde. J. Avon

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Clynes, John R.

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Watson, Hon. W.

    Coates, Major Sir E. F. (Lewisham)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Watson, John Bertrand (Stockton)

    Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

    McCalmont, Brig.-Gen. Robert C. A.

    Watson, Hon. W. (Lanark, S.)

    Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    White, Col. G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

    Coote, William

    Mackinder, Haltord J.

    Whiteley, Sir H. J.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Cory, James Herbert (Cardiff)

    Marriott, J. A. R.

    Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

    Cowan, Sir W. H.

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, E.)

    Meux, Adml. Hon. Sir Hedworth

    Wills, Major Sir Gilbert

    Craik. Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.)

    Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Wilson-Fox, Henry (Tamworth)

    Currie, George W.

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Winfrey. Sir Richard

    Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    Wood, Sir John (Stalybridge)

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Yate, Col. Charles Edward

    Dixon, C. H.

    Parker, James (Hallfax)

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Younger, Sir George

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Du Pre, Major W. Baring

    Peto, Basil Edward

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Capt.

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Phillpps, Sir Owen (Chester)

    F. Guest and Lord E. Talbot.

    Folio, Sir Bertram Godfray

    NOES.

    Ainsworth, Sir John Stirling

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

    King, Joseph

    Anderson W. C.

    Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

    Lambert. Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Arnold. Sydney

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Hemmerde, E. G.

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham),

    Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Falk,B'ghs)

    Black, Sir Arthur W.

    Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Maden, Sir John Henry

    Bliss, Joseph

    Hinds, John

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Buxton, Noel

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. H.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Chapple, Major William Allen

    Hogge, James Myles

    Morrell, Philip

    Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)

    Needham. Christopher T.

    Davies, Timothy (Lints, Louth)

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Notts, Rusheliffe)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M.

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dewsbury)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Priestley, Sir W.E. B. (Bradlord, E.)

    Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Wood, Rt Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow.)

    Rattan, Peter Wilson

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    White, J. Dundas (Glos., Tradeston)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Brunner and Mr. Holt.

    Mr. HOLT: I beg to move to leave out the word "tin" ["zinc, copper, tin, lead, nickel, aluminium"].
    The principal supplies of tin to this country, as I understand, come from Cornwall and from the. Straits Settlements, with a certain amount from South America. The supply of tin which comes from Cornwall is certainly entirely under the control of the Government of this country. No commercial machinations of any Germans can prevent the nation getting the full use of the tin from Cornwall. Again, the supplies from the Straits Settlements are entirely under the control of the Government of this country. I would remind the Committee that, as a matter of fact, there is a most powerful monopoly there, an entirely British corporation, solely under the control of the Government of the Straits Settlements. That being so, I am absolutely at a loss to see what effect this Bill is going to have upon the supplies of tin to this country. No one, so far as I know, has ever alleged that German firms have been dabbling in tin. So far as I know, under no conceivable possibility could any German firm obtain control of tin to the detriment of the people of this country. Any control of tin obtained in order to injure the interests of this country must be physical control. So long, therefore, as this metal is in the hands of the Government of the country, in a time of war national interests can and must be fully protected; in this case all the great sources of this particular article are entirely under the control of the Government. There can, therefore, be no need whatever for any interference in the control of the supplies of tin. I would like to point out to the Committee, also, that dealings in tin, so far, at any rate, as the Straits Settlements are concerned, are carried on by general merchants, who deal in very few other articles except tin, because tin is almost the, only metal of any importance which comes from that part of the world. It would be a very great hardship that the importers of tin from the Straits Settlements should be required to take out a licence for their transactions in tin. The government have given us no explanation
    382
    of their reasons for including tin in the Bill, and I respectfully suggest that we should cut it out and allow it to remain in the category of other non-ferrous metals.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): The hon. Gentleman who has moved this Amendment has gone over to some extent the same ground as was covered in regard to copper.
    Mr. PRINGLE: And we shall get the same answer.
    Mr. WARDLE: I should like to have an opportunity of addressing the Committee without being interrupted. The hon. Member is not correct in his statement that there is no way of controlling the output except that of being in possession physically of the ground where it is to be found. The object of this Bill is not control of the article itself, except so far as that control has previously been exercised through some financial arrangement. Even during this War an attempt has been made to buy up by a foreign company the tin mines in Cornwall, but that was stopped under the Defence of the Realm Act, and under those circumstances they were not able to proceed.
    Mr. HOLT: Was that an enemy company?
    Mr. WARDLE: I said a foreign company.
    Mr. HEMMERDE: If it is not an enemy company, this Bill would not stop it.
    Mr. WARDLE: The question is whether it would come under enemy control, and, if it did, this Bill would stop it.
    Mr. HEMMERDE: If it is a case of a company under enemy control or association, it might; but if it is simply a foreign company, this Bill would not affect it.
    Mr. WARDLE: That does not alter my argument. My hon. and learned Friend will see that if that company, whether it was foreign or not, came under enemy association or enemy control, it would be affected by this Bill. The question of whether the Metallgesellschaft could or could not control a company which controlled

    383
    the production of this metal is the point where this Bill comes in. This Bill cannot create copper or tin, but the operation of these particular companies can and may control the output through their financial association. As this Bill is aimed at keeping the financial control of these companies within the British Isles it therefore becomes necessary to deal with the question in this way, and this will operate to the advantage of this country. We do not suppose for a moment that we can create an extra ounce of tin, or bring an extra ounce to this country merely by this Bill, but we do say that financial control by British people of these tin mines is necessary, and if you have control of the people who have control of the men you can in a national emergency secure that the interests of this country shall be provided for. Really, I am astonished that there should be any doubt that those who obtain financial control of the companies which control the output of metal can divert those metals into other channels, and can use them either for anti-national or other purposes which they may desire. Under some conditions the physical part does play some part in the transaction. The fact that tin mines are within your own country does give you some possibility of getting control.
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: My hon. Friend opposite has, I am sure, endeavoured to present as lucid and courteous a reply as any hon. Member would desire, but I am sure he will forgive me for saying that the reasons which lie advanced for including tin within the purview of this Bill are hardly adequate. The case for the Bill was that there was a positive danger to the British Empire arising from the interference of foreign firms, and enemy firms in particular, which was considered to be a danger to the stability of the United Kingdom in peace and in war by gaining control of various non-ferrous metals which are essential for the conduct of commerce and industry. That was the case made out by the Board of Trade. My hon. Friend opposite gets up in relation to tin and says that at some period recently a foreign company—not one which had any enemy association or enemy control; it might possibly be a friendly foreign country and not an enemy country—tried to obtain control of the tin mines in Cornwall. We do not know whether that transaction was completed or not, but for that reason it
    384
    is argued that it is necessary to include tin in this Bill as one of the metals to be licensed by the Board of Trade. Seriously speaking, I do not think that that was quite a satisfactory explanation of the necessity for including tin which was worthy of the subject or of my hon. Friend. If it was necessary to put tin into the Bill, there are a great number of other non-ferrous metals which ought to have been included for the same reason.
    Sir C. HENRY: The Bill says, "Any other non-ferrous metals." They are all included.
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: Yes; it may be applied to those metals by an Order. The same argument might be applied to iron and steel. Are they not going to be controlled? Are we going to have another Bill for ferrous metals, because a much greater danger arises in regard to the control of iron and steel by foreign countries than in regard to tin? It is acknowledged that nearly all the sources of our tin supply are within the control of the United Kingdom, because the Federated Malay States, where tin comes from, are actually under the control of the Colonial Office, and they can control the exports from the Malay States. You could not have pitched upon a metal of any sort or kind to which the arguments which have been used are less relevant than in the case of tin. I hope before the Debate closes we may have some more detailed explanation from the Board of Trade than has been afforded by my hon. Friend for the case of including tin within the purview of this Bill.
    Mr. STRAUSS: I know something about the article with which we are now concerned, and I know something about the company which has been attempting to buy those Cornish mines. If the company referred to was an enemy company, why was it not prosecuted? Surely there must be something amiss. If it was a friendly company, then I should like my hon. Friend to go down to Cornwall in order to hear what Cornishmen have to say to those who refuse to allow capital to go into Cornwall to work the mines. May I point out that the whole output of the Cornish mines amounts to about 4,000 tons a year in regard to an article of which the total production is about 120,000 tons? The Straits Settlements produce about 60,000 tons a year, and this is produced by a large number of

    385
    small mines which you could not possibly get hold of. There are only two smelting companies in the Straits, and one of them belongs to a gentleman who is a member of the Non-Ferrous Metals Committee. On no account could an enemy company get hold of that tin, because the Colonial Office can commandeer the output of the States Metal Company, and all that tin can be reserved for us. There is, however, one kind of tin which the enemy can get hold of, and it is Bolivian tin, a fraction of about 1,000 tons per month. Bolivian tin or the great bulk of it is at present smelted in England. There are only about three or four tin smelters in this country, and they smelt about 4,000 tons of Cornish tin and 15,000 or 16,000 tons of Bolivian tin. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell you that it is a very productive business for his revenue, and the only effect of this Bill will be that the Germans, unable to get tin here in the way that they want, will bay those ores themselves and smelt them in Hamburg or Essen, where there are smelting works, and we poor tin smelters here will be deprived of the opportunity of getting the ore. I do not know whether that is what the Board of Trade are driving at. but that would certainly be the result. The Metallgesellschaft have not touched a ton of tin for the last ten years. If they had, it would have come to my knowledge. They did deal in tin fifteen or twenty years ago, but for reasons of their own they have given it up. The Bill therefore is not directed against that particular company, and I cannot conceive of any reason why you should include tin within its provisions. You have got the power the moment you see that any of these metals may be controlled by the enemy or the moment that there is the slightest attempt on their part to control them to add that metal to the Bill. Surely, therefore, it would be more reasonable to exclude tin now, and to let the business go on, waiting until there is the slightest danger of enemy control and then adding it, instead of adding it now and disturbing a business of which the centre market was in London, but which already is shifting to New York, and which will shift there altogether if you do not exclude tin from the Bill.
    Mr. PRINGLE: The very able and detailed speech made by the hon. Gentleman opposite deserves some reply from the Board of Trade. After all, he has told us something of the conditions of the tin trade. The hon. Gentleman who spoke on
    386
    behalf of the Board of Trade (Mr. Wardle) said nothing about the existing conditions of the trade. He based his case entirely upon the hypothesis that there was the possibility in the future of the Germans obtaining some control of tin, and he endeavoured to bolster that up by an allegation that a foreign company had attempted to purchase mines in Cornwall. It is very important, when a case of this kind is cited, that the Committee should be told the name of the company and to what country it belongs, so that we may know whether it is under any enemy influence, because the relevance of the argument entirely depends upon the fact as to its enemy association. I happen to know a company which did endeavour to buy mines in Cornwall, and I know that it was prevented under the Defence of the Realm Act, but the gentlemen mainly interested in that company were not foreigners; they were British Colonials—Australians. Is the hon. Gentleman, in order to get assent to the application of this Bill to tin, endeavouring to frighten the Committee by bringing forward a case in which the people concerned were not enemies and were not associated with Germans, but were actually our own Colonial subjects?
    Mr. L. JONES: Is that so?
    Mr. PRINGLE: I know that there was a case of that kind, and I want to know if that is the case an which the hon. Gentleman depends. It is very important that we should know that, because it was the sole argument which he brought forward against the Amendment. There were a good many other sentence's about the probabilities of the future, but that was the only substantial point in his speech. We have been told in regard to this Bill that we must deal with this German combine. The hon. Gentleman who last spoke has told us that this German combine have not touched a ton of tin for many years. Consequently, there can be no fear of the German combine in regard to tin. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade says that there has been a foreign company after the Cornish mines. Had this foreign company anything to do with Germany, or was it a perfectly innocent transaction, as I claim that it was? I believe that one of the men mainly interested is now a senator of the Commonwealth of Australia. He was here on patriotic work, and addressed a large number of meetings in munition centres,

    387
    doing all he could to help this country's effort in the War. Apparently, because this company was not interested in this country, it was a foreign company, and it was prevented from speculating in these Cornish mines. Was it this company which the hon. Gentleman had in his mind when he endeavoured to frighten the Committee by the possibility of foreigners getting hold of our Cornish tin? The Committee is entitled to an answer on that point before we come to a decision on this Amendment.
    Mr. HEMMERDE: I want to ask the President of the Board of Trade one question, it being quite clear that the Metallgesellschaft does not deal in tin, Who is it that comes within the provisions of this Bill and that the Bill is designed to hit and control? We were asked to support the Bill to prevent Germans getting control. We are now told by someone who perhaps knows more about tin than any of us are ever likely to know that the Metallgesellschaft have never attempted to deal in tin.
    Sir C. HENRY: He said the Metallgesellschaft, not the other firms.
    Mr. HEMMERDE: Nothing could be easier, if there were other well-known German firms, for the Committee to be informed of them, but as a matter of fact we have not been informed, though it is information to which we are entitled when we are asked to support the inclusion of tin in the Bill. There have been suggestions made in this House again and again that the object of the Bill really is not so much to deal with German control in tin as to hit one definite firm that does deal in tin, and deal largely in it. The Metallgesellschaft does not deal in tin, but no one will deny that the firm of Mertons deals largely in tin. I want to know whether it is a matter of controlling Germans or whether it is another attempt to throw a British firm out of business.
    Mr. HENDERSON: The hon. Member (Mr. Wardle) cited a case which so far as the Front Bench was concerned was the only argument put forward in favour of the inclusion of tin. I will assume that it was an enemy company that tried to do this.
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: We are told that it was not.
    Mr. PRINGLE: It was a senator of Australia.
    Mr. HENDERSON: This Bill does not come into operation until after the War. Supposing the first year after the War an association comes forward and makes an offer for a tin mine in Cornwall, there is not a word in this Bill to stop them doing so. Yet this Bill is supposed to control and keep out enemy firms. It cannot possibly stop anybody coming and buying a tin mine if the Cornish mine-owner is prepared to sell it, and so far as tin is concerned the Bill is ridiculous.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: There have been some differences of view as to how far dealings in tin have been conducted by German firms. The statement made by my hon. Friend below the Gangway (Mr. Strauss) was that the Metallgesellschaft has not dealt in tin, but I understand that the firm of Mertons has. If the dealings of the firm of Mertons afforded sufficient ground for this Bill, I should like to know why the Committee thought so. This is another example of the lack of information on the subject on which we are asked to legislatc. The Report of this Committee has been deliberately withheld from the House, and the only persons in the House who can say whether the Committee did find that there was any German control or that there was likely to be any German control over tin are some three or four gentlemen who have given us no information. We have had to depend entirely upon unofficial information. Apparently, the Metallgesellschaft have had no dealings in tin for some ten or fifteen years. Why not? I imagine it is because of the peculiar nature of the sources from which tin comes, and I emphasise this point in order that I may once more bring home to those who are responsible for this Bill and the President of the Board of Trade and my old friends in the Board of Trade the fact that the only way in which you can have effective control of the metal is to have control of the source of supply. I do not know the mind of the Metallgesellschaft and I have no means of knowing, but I can imagine that one reason why they did not attempt to conduct dealings in tin as they did in some other metals was that tin was produced mainly in the Straits Settlements and in Cornwall. It is with the object of pressing the point that if they wish to control this metal they must start at the root and not attempt merely to tinker with the subject as they are doing now that I intervene at this point.
    Sir A. STANLEY: There was one statement of the right hon. Gentleman which I cannot leave unchallenged, because it would leave a wrong impression if I did. I had better take this opportunity of making the position quite clear. If I understood him rightly, he said that the Report of the Committee which investigated this matter on behalf of the Board of Trade and which he himself appointed had been deliberately withheld. It had been deliberately withheld, as I understood him, and he will correct me if I am wrong, with the object of keeping back from this Committee information having to do with this particular Bill.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No; I did not say so. I did not say what the object was. I said that it had been deliberately withheld, and that we were having to legislate in the absence of information which had been collected by the Committee. I did not say that it had been done with any object at all.
    Sir A. STANLEY: I will, of course, accept what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I did infer from his remark that, knowing that we were going to introduce this Bill, the information had been withheld with the object of prevening information, relevant information, being given to the members of this Committee. Let me say at once that nothing of the kind took place, and that nothing was further from our minds in withholding the publication of that Report. It is one of a group of Reports furnished by Committees, nearly all of which were appointed by my right hon. Friend, I believe quite rightly. It was a very wise selection of men and of subjects for discussion and investigation. Those Reports will, I am sure, form a very -valuable source of information at a later stage.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: 'To whom?
    7.0 P.M.
    Sir A. STANLEY: To those who are interested in the trades of this country and the men who conduct them, and I hope to all the Members of this House, because every one of those Reports is going to be published. It must be obvious to him, with all the experience that he has had at the Board of Trade, as it must be to other Members, that this is one of a group of Reports. Every one of these Reports has been referred to Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Committee. That Committee reviewed all these Reports, and to a
    390
    certain extent the Report of Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Committee was based upon the Reports of these Board of Trade Committees. Apart from any other consideration, I may say frankly to hon. Members now that I was against the publication of those Reports because I believed, in some instances at least, that they did give information which would be of value to the enemy. I was not in favour of publishing them. I believe now that when Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Committee's Report is published that these other Reports will also be published as soon as it can be done. At the right moment it will be done. I only wanted, if I could, to remove from the minds of any hon. Members of this Committee the thought that we had deliberately withheld the publication of this particular Report, thinking that that publication would have an adverse effect upon this particular Bill.
    Mr. L. JONES: I do not know whether we shall be in order in discussing the President's statement, but one is entitled to make a short reply. The right hon. Gentleman entirely misunderstands the complaint made from this side if he thinks we are complaining because he has withheld the Report on grounds of public interest. All we are complaining of, and I think with justice, is the treatment of the House of Commons, which, in the course of many years, I do not remember to have met with before, namely, the bringing in of a Bill and the justification of that Bill by a Report which is not presented to the House. If it was necessary to withhold the Report, then some other justification should have been found for the Bill, or the Bill should have been withheld until it was possible in the public interest to publish the Report. We do not complain that the Report is withheld in the public interest; we do complain that the Bill is introduced and is justified by reference to the Report and practically nothing else. All this afternoon we have been asking for particulars and for the justification of the inclusion of one metal after another, and we are told in reply that it is desirable that it should be included and that the Report justifies its inclusion.
    Mr. WARDLE: I did not say that.
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: He did not say it in regard to tin.
    Mr. JONES: Then the Report does not justify the Bill in regard to tin.
    Mr. WARDLE: I said we had not included one or other of these metals with reference to this Report.
    Mr. JONES: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. He has not been here during a great deal of the Debate. The whole argument has been that the Report justified the Bill. That was the argument on the Second Reading, and the President has frequently referred to it and has done so to-day. While I accept to the full what he has said, that the Report was not suppressed with the object of getting this Bill while we were ignorant of what it contains, I say it has been suppressed, with the result that we are ignorant of what case is presented by the Report. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a series of Reports. There are a great many different Reports, not all concerned with matters dealt with in this Bill. Is it too late before the Report stage to get a copy of the case which is made in regard to the particular metals dealt with in this Bill? Why should not that be presented confidentially to the House? I do not remember any such proceeding in regard to any Bill during the time I have been in the House of Commons, and the President must not complain if he meets with strong criticism from the House of Commons, which has not been accustomed to this treatment by a Minister.
    The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. L. Jones) was quite justified in replying shortly to what was said from the Government Bench, but I must now recall the Committee to the fact that we have passed four Clauses of the Bill dealing with non-ferrous metals, and the only question now before us is whether tin should or should not be mentioned in the definition Clause.
    Mr. HOLT: I should like to ask the President a perfectly simple question. Seeing that the Government have made no attempt whatever to show that there is any necessity at present to apply the provisions of this Bill to tin, and seeing that the effect of including tin in the Bill will be to cause annoyance to the tin miners of Cornwall, some of them very small persons, will he accept a proposal to leave tin to be included among the other nonferrous metals to which the Board of Trade may by Order apply this Bill?
    Mr. HEMMERDE: May I ask a question of the President, which I hope will come within your ruling, Sir? We are not
    392
    told at what time these Reports upon each of these metals will be published. Can we have any assurance from the President that the facts in those Reports will be brought to the knowledge of the people who are going to be affected by this Bill before licences are refused to them, so that they will have an opportunity, before tribunals appointed by the Board of Trade, to answer and dispute the charges in many cases made by their trade rivals?
    Mr. HOLT: May I ask for a reply?
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I think the Committee is being treated not very courteously by the President of the Board of Trade. Just see what the position is. I have had the advantage, or disadvantage, of sometimes sitting upon a tongue-tied Front Bench, but I do not think I ever sat upon it in such uncomfortable circumstances as the right hon. Gentleman would appear to be doing at the present moment. The only reason given why tin should be included in this Clause is because at one period some months ago a company, which has been described as having a Colonial origin—I do not know whether correctly or not—tried to buy and failed to buy a tin mine in Cornwall. Surely that is not the only reason. Surely there must be some other reason, and, if there is, cannot the right hon. Gentleman give that reason to the Committee? Failing that. we must assume that the hypothetical danger, which was removed in a moment. by the operation of an Order under the Defence of the Realm Act, was quite sufficient to disperse that danger. That is the only reason which exists for putting this metal into the Bill. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to disperse what I believe to be a cloud of unhappy error.
    Sir A. STANLEY: I hope the Committee will not accuse me of any real intention to be discourteous. I rather refrained from speaking too often lest it might appear that I gave them too much information unnecessarily. On the question of tin, it must be quite obvious to all hon. Members that we have never pretended that this great German combination had complete control of tin. We have never said it. But we do say that undertakings associated with it have dealt in tin.
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: Recently?
    Sir A. STANLEY: After all, what is the point with which we are trying to deal? I am not for a moment suggesting

    393
    that any hon. Member who is opposing this Bill does it simply with the object of deliberately wrecking it. I try to feel, and I am entitled to feel, that they want to help to improve industry in this country. There may be a difference of opinion as to methods, but at least I am inclined to assume that the object of any criticism is a desire to help industry in this country. What is the point here? It is simply this: I think we have proved that it is possible, in some instances at least, for a foreign undertaking to secure the control of a non-ferrous metal. What we are proposing to do, recognising the serious danger which is involved in the control of non-ferrous metals, each and every one of them, by a great foreign undertaking, is to prevent that control extending and to prevent it entirely if we can. It is quite reasonable to assume that if this great German combination can secure the control of one non-ferrous metal, they can secure the control of others. I cannot conceive myself of any reason for assuming that it is absolutely impossible for this great German undertaking to secure the control of any nonferrous metal. I have every reason to believe that in time they would do it. That is exactly what I am trying to prevent. Surely nobody in this Committee can dispute that if it has been proved that it is possible, if in at least one instance it has taken place, there is every reason to believe that that control can be extended, and therefore that we should take steps to try to prevent it: It seems to be perfectly reasonable. I cannot help feeling that in a business proposition of this kind we ought to have more encouragement from hon. Members of this Committee than we have received. I do not want to say that disrespectfully.
    Upon the particular point of the tin mine in Cornwall, certainly the company to which the hon. Member (Mr. Pringle) referred was not the one to which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made reference. It was an absolutely foreign undertaking. I do not know whether that foreign undertaking was or was not under German control. But it was quite possible for that company to be brought under German control, and if this Bill had been an Act of Parliament at that time the purchase, if by a company under enemy control, could have been prevented. It is only by the accident of war that that control was prevented. I do not want to take it too far.
    394
    I do not suggest that tin should or should not be included because of this one experience in Cornwall. Far from it. I only desire to point out that it is possible for control to pass to a foreign interest. That interest may be German or something else, but whatever it may be we have lost the control, and I am anxious, so far as I possibly can, to set up an adequate organisation and to establish machinery which would prevent that control passing to foreign hands.
    Mr. STRAUSS: I should like to ask one question. Supposing this foreign combination wants to get control of tin, what single line is there in the Bill to prevent them from buying every mine in the Federated Malay States, in Cornwall, and in Bolivia?
    An HON MEMBER: They would not get a licence.
    Sir C. CORY: The President of the Board of Trade has told us he intends to publish these Reports. I do not know whether he means during the War, but if he does, it is difficult to understand why he cannot publish them now when the Committee could have the benefit of them in the Debates on this Bill. He has also told us that there was an attempt on the part of some company or another to buy some tin mines in Cornwall. In the interests of this country it is a very great pity that the foreign company was not allowed to buy them. The tin mines in Cornwall have been anything but prosperous and it is very difficult to induce capital to go into Cornwall in order to open them up. If we had had foreign money developing these tin mines we should have had a certain amount of tin produced in this country, which we have riot got now, and, in addition, in war-time we could have prevented the foreigner shipping from this country. The effect of the Bill will be disastrous to the interests of the trade of the country.
    Mr. D. MASON: The President of the Board of Trade complained of not getting more support. The reason is that Members of the Committee do not believe that the objects which he set out to attain will be attained in this Bill. He talks of German influence. An enemy State, as defined in the Schedule, is a Power that has been at war now or after the passing of the Act.
    The CHAIRMAN: This is a general observation on the Bill as a whole. Really

    395
    I must remind the Committee that we had a Debate which ran for two hours on the subject of copper, and that was allowed by the Chair to take a rather unusually wide scope, certainly with the distinct understanding on the part of the Chair, that we were not on the subsequent Amendments to revert in a full measure to those broader questions. Otherwise this series of Amendments would be ruled out of order under the well-known rule that it is not possible to try to defeat the Bill by a series of diminishing proposals.
    Mr. MASON: I quite appreciate that, and I only want to put one concrete ease to the right hon. Gentleman. Supposing Germany operates through Italy for the purpose of getting control. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent it.
    The CHAIRMAN: Really, that is just as applicable to all the metals. It cannot arise here.
    Mr. HEMMERDE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question I put, whether we can have an assurance that before anyone's licence is refused any reports dealing with that person would be brought to his notice, so that he might have a chance of challenging reports made, in many cases inadvertently, by people who are his rivals in trade?
    Sir A. STANLEY: Nothing contained in the report would influence us in respect of the issue of these licences. Every possible opportunity will be given to the applicant to state his case before the licence is refused.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: On the point of procedure I should like to make a suggestion to the Committee. We have had a very full discussion of the topics which have been before us this afternoon. An arrangement was made last night that we were to bring the Committee stage to an end to-day. On the new Clauses there are some important matters to deal with, and we have still the extremely important matter of naturalisation in the Schedule. I appeal to my hon. Friend and to the Committee as a whole that we may get on to these very large topics.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move to leave out the word "nickel"
    I raised the whole question of nickel on the Second Reading, and I referred to the
    396
    fact that the Government itself was one of the dealers in the metal, and that it entered into a deal to the extent of £600,000 with an absolutely derelict undertaking in Canada for the purpose of preventing nickel getting to Germany. I want to know what is the relation of the British Government to the new syndicate which is going to control nickel in the interests of Great Britain after the War, or is the Government to be a member of the syndicate, and is the syndicate to compete with any existing British company? My right hon. Friend (Sir A. Mond) has unfortunately recently been directing his attention to the British Museum instead of to the nickel industry, with which he is far more competent to deal. It would be well if he could state whether in his view it is in the interests of the British nickel industry that nickel should be brought within the purview of this Bill. Does he think it is necessary to have this system of licensing the nickel industry in order to defeat the machinations of any German competitor or does he not think, with his knowledge, that the existing British nickel industry is able, without any assistance and without any of these prohibitions at all, to fight on level terms with any German competitor? That is the point. If they can do so, if they could have provided during the course of the War, as I believe they could, all the nickel that this country required without this useless speculation in the British-America Nickel Syndicate, if our firms, relying upon their resources and their own knowledge could do that, why should we have this needless interference? I invite the Government to give a reply to these points. Is this syndicate, which the Government has subsidised to the extent of £600,000, to squeeze out everyone else? Is it going to use the special powers which it now has to see that it gets a return for its money out of the British-America Nickel Corporation? There is no doubt that the £600,000 has gone there. It has been admitted in reply to questions. The facts have been stated publicly in the newspapers. In fact the Canadian newspapers have no doubt whatever that the British Government has made a great fool of itself in throwing away its money on this bogus company. We want to know the case for bringing nickel within the Bill at all. Does any existing British nickel firm want it or is it not the case that the main companies engaged in the nickel industry in the United Kingdom are perfectly satisfied with their capacity to compete

    397
    with any German rival? If that is so there is no case for nickel in this Clause, and unless the Government can give some very good answer on the subject I shall proceed to a Division.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not quite think the Canadian question can be debated.
    Mr. PRINGLE: There is the point whether the Canadian question is not the real reason for bringing nickel into this Bill.
    The CHAIRMAN: That question can be argued, but not the question of policy.
    Sir A. STANLEY: I can answer the hon. Member's question very briefly. The British-America Nickel Corporation has no connection of any kind or description with the Bill.
    Mr. PRINGLE: That is only one point. I did not ask whether it had any connection with the Bill: I asked whether one motive for the Bill was not the necessity of making good the £600,000 which otherwise would be thrown away; and the other point I asked was whether anyone engaged in the nickel industry in this country wanted to have this Bill applied to the industry?
    Sir A. STANLEY: The motive attributed by the hon. Member has not the remotest connection with the Bill. As regards the other point, it has been denied so frequently that I will not take up the time of the Committee in dealing with it.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I think I have put a question which can be answered by a single Yes or No. Has anyone in the nickel industry in this country asked that nickel should be included in this Bill? The right hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Mond) can answer it if the President of the Board of Trade cannot.
    Mr. HENDERSON: I think the right hon. Gentleman might give us an answer. What is troubling me greatly is this: It is rumoured, and I believe there is a good deal of substance in it, and I think the hon. Baronet (Sir C. Cory) was inclined to admit it—the did not deny it—when he said no one would put up money if they were to be subject to the machinations of the Metallgesellschaft in this country. It has been suggested that this nickel company, or some syndicate, is proposing to start nickel and other smelting near Bristol, and that this Bill is really intended, so far as
    398
    nickel is concerned, to get them a considerable amount of protection, so that they may get hold of the market. That is one question; and the other is, Have the Government undertaken to buy great quantities of nickel from the BritishAmerica Nickel Corporation or any other mines in America?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I know nothing whatever about either of the points raised by the hon. Member.
    Mr. PRINGLE: We have had a surfeit of ignorance on this In my recollection, and I have listened to the Committee stage of many Bills, I have never seen a case presented by the Government in which the. profession of ignorance of the real reasons for the Bill has been so pronounced. The House has been treated with contempt—probably with the contempt it deserves. The fact, however, must be remembered to the credit of the House that, apart from the hundred paid members of the Government, the Government would have been sometimes in a minority on this Bill. As we have so many paid Members—I mean paid by the Government, whose tenure depends upon the existence of the present corrupt and inefficient Government—there are so many ready to bolster them up. The Tory party is prepared to save this Government as long as it can, in order to get Protection. These are the considerations whereby this Bill is being carried through. Hence we have so much ignorance displayed on this question, while important British interests are being needlessly and ruthlessly sacrificed.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. WARDLE: I beg to move, after the word "Trade," to insert the words "The expression 'metal' shall not include metal which has been subjected to any manufacturing process except such as may be prescribed."
    The object of this Amendment is to put outside the Bill these manufactured metals and to deal with the case of the marine store dealer, to which the hon. Member for Northwich has referred.
    Mr. STRAUSS: I am sorry to have to come into conflict again with the hon. Member, but in this case I want to strengthen the Bill and not to weaken it. The proposal is that this Bill shall not include any mixture of metals nor any manufactured metal. The conse-

    399
    quence will be that on the Metal Exchange we shall deal in future not in raw copper, not in raw tin, but in manufactured metal, or in the alloys of various metals that are mentioned in this Bill. I well remember the time when we dealt not in copper ingots, not in tin ingots, but the great speculative article on the London Metal Exchange was copper sheets. More business was done on the Metal Exchange in metal sheets than in any other article. The quotations were not in raw copper, but in manufactured copper, in metal sheets, and other alloys. If this Amendment passes, the tendency is sure to be that those firms who will not be allowed to deal in raw copper or raw tin will go back to their speculative connection in manufactured copper, in metal sheets, in brass, and other articles which can be bought just as easily as raw copper and raw tin, and the purposes of this Bill will be defeated. There are many members of the Metal Exchange who are almost as clever as the Board of Trade, and they will soon be able to find a door if they want to do so. If this Amendment passes, a certain number of members of the Metal Exchange will be excluded by this Bill and they will endeavour and will succeed in getting all the business done in copper sheets and in various other metals, and by that means the hon. Member's Amendment will defeat its own ends. If this Bill is to pass I want a good Bill and not a bad Bill. My objection is that the Bill will not attain the object it has in view. I would urge the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment.
    Mr. HENDERSON: I should like something a little more definite. I am entirely in favour of this Amendment, but I would like to know what is meant by the words "except such as may be prescribed."
    Mr. WARDLE: It is proposed that they will be prescribed in the rules which are to be formulated by the Board of Trade. Those rules will be laid on the Table of the House and every opportunity will be given to hon. Members to study them.
    Mr. HENDERSON: We would like to have them in the Bill. We know that process too well. Cannot we get them in the Schedule?
    Mr. WARDLE: No.
    Mr. HENDERSON: Why not?
    Mr. WARDLE: They are not ready.
    Mr. HENDERSON: They must be prescribed in the Schedule.
    The CHAIRMAN: Has the hon. Member a Schedule ready?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I would like to move, as an Amendment, to insert the words "as hereinafter set out."
    The CHAIRMAN: Has the hon. Member got a Schedule?
    Mr. HENDERSON: We must get a Schedule. It is not for me to prepare a Schedule.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Short Title and Duration.)
    (1) This Act may be cited as the Non-Ferrous Metal Industry Act, 1917.

    (2) This Act shall continue in force only during the continuance of the present War and for a period of five years after the termination thereof.

    Mr. HENDERSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "during the continuance of the present War and."
    I do not know why this Bill should come into operation during the present War, because the control of these metals is now in the hands of the Government. Perhaps there is some reason too for bringing the Bill into operation during the War, but it seems to me that it is meant to operate after the War and that it should not commence until after the War.
    The. CHAIRMAN: I do not see how this Amendment would read. The Act must come into operation when it receives the Royal Assent unless it is deferred to some other period. I do not think that as it stands this Amendment can be accepted.
    Mr. L. JONES: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the words "five years," and to insert instead thereof the words "one year."
    I think the greater part of the objections to this Bill is due to the long period which the Government has elected to continue the powers of the Bill after the War. Speaking for myself, and I think for others who have taken an interest in the Bill, there has been no desire in our opposition to grudge the Government any

    401
    powers they require during the War, for the purposes of the War, but we have the very greatest distrust and fear of Government interference with these trade matters after the War. We do not stand alone in that. The right hon. Gentleman knows well that however strongly he may hold the views which he has been putting forward in regard to this Bill there is a strong school of opinion in this country which deprecates the interference which this Bill sets up in peace time. We feel some grievance that a Bill of this kind should be forced through by the weight of opinion which is behind the Government in the matter of the War not for the period of the War, but for a period of five years after the War. We do not at all grudge the Government any power that may be required to make special arrangements in regard to these metals during the War, or for a length of time sufficient after the War to wind up what arrangements they have found it necessary to enter into. What we do object to is so long a period as five years in which these essentially war powers should continue to be exercised by a Government Department with all the dangers which we fear from Government interference, such as the growth of trusts and interests under the Bill, the injury to trade through prolonged interference on the part of the Government, and the driving away of certain trades and certain metals from the City of London—a tendency which the War alone set in motion without these interferences with trade.
    The greatest danger which this country has run since the beginnig of the War is that these great trades which have centred in the City of London should find their centre not on this side of the Atlantic but in New York, owing to the tremendous driving influence of the War, and that is accentuated by the Government placing fetters upon trade in this country. If these powers are for the purposes of the War, and for the period of the War, and for a necessary period after the War, to enable the Government to wind up matters we raise no great objection, but we do enter a protest against a measure which is called a war measure being forced through this House by the use of a war majority in support of a war Government, and which affects questions which are essentially peace questions. The methods of war which are appropriate to war time are not suitable to trade in peace time. I appeal very strongly to the
    402
    right hon. Gentleman not to press us for so long a period as five years. He has put certain Amendments before this Committee, and for many of those Amendments I should like to thank him, for I believe he has greatly improved this measure thereby, still I think the period is far too long, and he would remove much of the feeling which the Bill has created if he will accept a shorter period after the War. I can assure him that, in putting forward the objections to prolonged Government interference after the War we are really voicing the opinions of a very large body of traders in this country. The right hon. Gentleman may not know how strong that feeling is, but we have an immense amount of correspondence telling us of the difficulties and troubles and losses inflicted on the trader by Government interference, and naturally it is desired to bring such interference to an end as soon as possible after the War. I do not stand out for a reduction of the period to six months. Possibly that would be hardly enough time to enable the Government to do all it requires to do. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Mr. A. Williams) has an Amendment down giving us a somewhat longer period, and I shall be quite content to alter my Amendment accordingly. I therefore move to leave out "five years" and insert instead thereof "one year."
    Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: I am very much obliged to my right hon. Friend for putting his Amendment in the form he has done. I have not myself taken any part in the opposition to this Bill for one reason. Much as I dislike the measure I cannot but feel peat hesitation in resisting it when the Government come and declare that it is necessary for war purposes, especially when they say, as I understand they have said in this case, that they are not prepared at the present moment to put all their reasons before us. Such a statement imposes a duty upon private Members, but I would earnestly impress upon the Government that it imposes a correspondingly heavy responsibility on them, and in view of that responsibility I think they ought to accept this Amendment, and not press for the full period of five years. But if they do so press for that period I am afraid it will give colour to the feeling which many of us entertain that under this Bill there lies a desire to make an attack upon our present system of trading, and on the freedom of

    403
    commerce which is so deeply held in the hearts of the people, and which has been the foundation upon which the prosperity and the efficiency of the business of this country, and the prosperity of the people of this country, has been based. We shall also feel there is a desire to substitute official control, and the consequent protection of one industry against another. There is a further point. If this Bill is to be effective for five years after the War, during that time vested interests of a most serious character will have grown up, and when changes come to be proposed we shall he met with the cry that we are bringing disaster upon people who have invested their capital and labour on the invitation of Parliament in particular industries. Surely twelve months will give the Government all the time they want! It will enable them to do all that is necessary, and then they can again come to the House and lay all their cards on the Table, giving such information to the commercial and industrial community as will enable them to judge on the facts before them. For my part I do not want to prejudge the question as to what will have to be done after the War. Everything will depend upon what the after-war conditions are If we get simply a form of armed peace, with the opposing nations standing in defiance one of the other, waiting their time, then legislation, of which this is only a small example, will be necessary after the War. But if we get, as I hope we may, a system which is now familiarly spoken of as the League of Nations, then I do-not think that commercial regulations of this character will be necessary. At any rate, after the twelve months have expired, the Government will be able to come to us and state all the facts; they can tell us exactly what their reasons are and what they propose, and I am sure the commercial and labour community will then be able to judge whether it is in the national interest to accept their proposal. I hope the Government will agree to this Amendment. It will give them all they have need of, and at the same time it will remove what I consider to be a most disastrous feeling, that the reasons put forward for promoting this Bill are not the real reasons which have led to its production.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I have sat here for a long time, hoping we may at some reasonable period get to the end
    404
    of the discussions on this Bill, and I would not have spoken now except for the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has referred to this as a war measure necessary for war purposes. My own view of this Bill is that it is a matter of peaceful penetration—the peaceful penetration of English trade into trades formerly controlled by Germans. I would like to give one example to show how necessary it is that we should keep this Bill in operation for a sufficiently long period—for a period of five years at least. Everyone knows that spelter is not produced in this country; that the Australian concentrates have been dealt with elsewhere. They come, it is true, from our Colonies, but they have not been dealt with here, except it may be to a very small extent. Negotiations are in progress—I wish they had been concluded—for dealing here with these Australian concentrates for the production of spelter. But in order to do that capital must be raised, works will have to be erected; and unless some measure of this description is passed, is it likely that it will be possible to induce anyone to find the cash necessary for the building of the immense works which will enable us to compete with the Germans? We must have some protection of this sort. A period of twelve months will not be sufficient. By that time we cannot have completed the buildings. There will only be so much bricks and mortar in existence, and the Germans who have hitherto dealt with the Australian concentrates will come back into the trade, and I am sorry to know that there are numbers of people in this House and elsewhere who will be only too ready to buy of them.
    Mr. L. JONES: This Bill will not stop that.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: It will stop it extending to any serious extent, and once our works are established on the basis of this Bill we shall be sufficiently strong to compete with the Germans. If we do not do this thing, what use is it of our talking about trade after the War? Are we going to let our trade go back to Germany? This is not a war measure, I repeat. It is a desire for peaceful penetration in the interests of British industry, and unless we have the period of five years suggested by the Government we cannot possibly expect capitalists or labour to make those efforts which ought to be made to encourage this particular trade.
    Mr. WARDLE: During the earlier part of these Debates one of the arguments most strongly advanced was directed against annual licences. We were told that they ought not to exist. This particular proposal does away with that difficulty, and the licences will go on until the period for which the Bill is to operate comes to an end. There will consequently be no interference whatever with the trade. It is impossible for us to accept this Amendment. A period of one year would be altogether inadequate for the carrying out of the purposes of this Act and for giving an opportunity for the establishment of businesses free from German control. In the opinion of the Government five years is the shortest possible period during which the operation of this Act should continue. I should like to say in reference to the observations which have been made about the interference with trade that they are altogether exaggerated. All that this Bill attempts to do is to keep out companies of enemy associations in the matter of dealing with non-ferrous metals. There is no general interference with the trade of the country, and there will be no constant attempts on the, part of the Board of Trade to control the operations. Anyone who has got his licence will continue to hold it unless he becomes subject to the Schedule. Under these crcumstances we feel that there is really no ground whatever for the idea that this Bill is likely to hamper British trade.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. BRUNNER: We have had a very interesting speech from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool (Sir J. Harmood-Banner), who tolls us that negotiations are now going on to deal with the Australian concentrates. We have heard something about this already, though nothing definite. Cannot we have something definite from the Board of Trade as to what really is going on? I understand now that the reason for this Bill is that the concentrates are going to be used by somebody, and that this Bill is necessary in order to enable them to get that business going. That is what the hon. Gentleman says, and cannot we have some information about it? Really this House ought not to he kept in the dark on these matters. I do not see, personally, how this Bill is going to help these people who are going to work the Australian concentrates in this country. It will not prevent spelter being sent in here
    406
    from Germany or any other country Where it is produced. If the Bill is going to help them, some other Bills will be required in addition. We may have to have an import duty in addition to this Bill if the people who are to work these Australian concentrates are to be protected against the Metallgesellschaft. I fully endorse what has been said by my hon. Friend who seconded this Amendment as to our wanting to have one year instead of five years, because if there is anything worse in the conditions under which we are living at the moment it is Government interference. It is intolerable, the way in which we are interfered with in all matters; finance, transport, export, import; and it is only tolerable because we are at war. We wish to get rid of all this kind of thing at the very earliest possible moment after the War ceases.
    Sir C. CORY: I agree that the daily burden of the complaint of traders is the interference with business that is going on as a result of Government control. They suffer it, as the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken said, because it is war time, although they think a great deal of it is unnecessary even in war time; but to continue it for an undue period after the War is over is absolutely intolerable. This attitude is not confined, though that is suggested in some quarters here, to free traders. It is held equally as an objection whether men are Free Traders or Protectionists, because they feel that business is made almost impossible. To say that it is necessary to carry this on for five years after the War is absolutely absurd. If after the year has elapsed at the end of the War it is considered that this Bill should be extended, it is very easy to bring in another Bill. Presumably you will have as patriotic a Government in power as you have now, and if it is thought to be in the interests of the country—
    General CROFT: I hope we shall have a more patriotic House of Commons.
    Sir C. CORY: I hope so, too, and if it is a more patriotic House of Commons it probably will not extend this unless it thinks it necessary in the interests of the country. If we had a more patriotic House of Commons than we have now this Bill would probably never have been brought forward. If then it is shown that it is necessary in the interests of the

    407
    country that this Bill should be extended, it will be extended. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Sir J. Harmood-Banner), as to the finding of capital for spelter works in this country, if that is necessary I do not see why it cannot be done in the same way as is being adopted in other directions, by allowing firms to wipe it off by depreciation, up to as much as 50 per cent., out of their excess profits. I would much rather have a subsidy, or any mode of that kind, rather than this extension to five years, which will be to the general detriment of the trade of the country.
    Sir JOHN AINSWORTH: I should like to make an earnest appeal to the right hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bill that they should not ask for so much as they have been doing. Really five years is going to tie you up a long time, and why should not this country and the not inconsiderable trade and business that exists in the City of London and elsewhere have a free hand to do the best they can in the future as soon as the War is over and a reasonable time has elapsed for people to find out what the new circumstances are. I think this is particularly hard as coming from the Gentlemen who are on the Front Bench now. We all know—it was an open secret—that those Gentlemen took office and were welcomed into office because they undertook to finish the War, and I would ask them whether this Act is going to contribute to the finishing of the War. I am afraid other Acts of the same kind have been brought forward and may be brought forward. Just let them think for half a moment whether we are going to help or hinder this country by handicapping its future by Acts of Parliament passed now applying to a period of years that may require quite other considerations! I should like to remind the House of the fact, and I should like to ask them to think of higher things than little peddling measures of this kind, and to ask themselves the question—this may mean something or it may not—how are they going to help to finish the War? I should like to remind the House of one thing that will happen at the end of the War—in fact, the War will go on until that does happen and we are masters of the situation, until the British Empire is a much larger and bigger thing than it has been in the past.
    408
    The British Empire is going, so we all trust and hope—it is what we are all putting our lives and money, and the lives of our children, into—to have a greater and more glorious future—
    The CHAIRMAN: This is too spacious for the Amendment.
    Sir J. AINSWORTH: I beg your pardon, Mr. Whitley, and I will confine myself to quoting the words of someone who knew a great deal of these matters. On a question of this kind I would remind the Committee of the saying that the British are always a nation of shopkeepers. That was said by the Emperor Napoleon.
    The CHAIRMAN: There is nothing about Napoleon here. I think the hon. Member has not been in the Committee all the time. We are still in Committee, and are dealing with an Amendment.
    Sir J. AINSWORTH: My only object in rising was to say that I should he most happy, and I hope all hon. Members here will be, to give my support to an Amendment which will cause the Act to remain in force for one year after the termination of the War, and that it shall not be for five years. I hope I can show the importance of that. Surely it is far better at the end of the War and for one year more that all the ability of the country—and, as I say, the ability of the country will be more after the War than it is now, because certain facts that we have to deal with will be greater, and therefore the opening for capital and industry in every part of the world will be greater—should be freely exercised, and that the trammels of this proposed Act should be got free of as soon as possible. Remembering the enormous interests it will have to deal with, the sooner that is clone the better it will be for all of us. I can quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill is anxious to carry it as soon as he can. I would strongly remind him that the policy with which he and his Friends came into power was to finish the War—
    The CHAIRMANrose—
    Sir J. AINSWORTH: I will not proceed, Mr. Whitley.
    Colonel Sir F. HALL: I have only just risen to say that I am rather surprised at what I have heard from both sides of the House. It really makes one begin to

    409
    believe that certain Members of the House do not want this Bill at all. That seems perfectly plain to me, because I heard on Clause 6 an Amendment moved providing that, at all events, this Bill should not come into operation until after the War. Now, practically from the same people, we hear, "We do not want this to continue for more than six months or twelve months after the War." It seems perfectly plain to me that they do not want any Bill at all that is going to protect the industry and trade of this country. So far as I am concerned, I shall do anything I can to strengthen the Bill, and I congratulate the President of the Board of Trade on having had the confidence to come to this House and say, "I want this Bill for five years after the cessation of hostilities." I was rather surprised that such a well-known business man as the hon. Baronet the Member for St. Ives (Sir C. Cory) should make a speech in which he stated that he did not agree that if the money was wanted in the manner referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Sir J. Harmood-Banner) it should be obtained. Certainly it can be obtained as long as people have confidence in the country. But labour and capital must work handin-hand, and if you are going to erect these factories, which I hope will be erected, and erected with British money, to enable you to do so you must have the confidence of the country; and to gain the confidence of the country you must be able to say to the people, "You shall have this trade in your hands for a certain given period." I wonder whether some of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have spoken would have sufficient confidence to place their money at the disposal of the capitalists for the laying down of plant and factories for the trade here represented?
    Mr. L. JONES: Has not the British trader done it for seventy years?
    Sir F. HALL: Of course, I do not believe in carrying on business as it was carried on seventy years ago. What may have been good for seventy years past is not good for to-day, and I say you are not going to get money without something of this kind, and if you do not do so you are not going to build up industry. Unless you can get the Government to come forward, as this Government has taken its courage in both hands and come along with this policy—you may
    410
    call it Protection or what you like; I do not mind what you call it as long as I am able to cultivate the trade of my own country,. and to employ the labour of my own country also. I shall, therefore, be delighted to support this measure, and if' there are some of these people so frightened of what is going to take place and so very desirous of showing to the country that they do not want any measure of protection, but that they want the, Germans, Austrians, and all those foreign competitors that we have had before to, come in, and that they want to throw their markets open free and unfettered to them as they have done, then I hope in those circumstances we shall have a Division, so that we may show the people outside who are those who are prepared to back up and stand by their country, and who, on the other hand, are those who are prepared, unfortunately, to lend them-selves—in many cases unintentionally, perhaps—to the interests of our foreign enemies.
    Mr. HENDERSON: The cat is out of the hag. The two speeches to which we have listened show definitely what is at the bottom of this Bill. It is Protection,. and is the poorest sort of protection you, could have arrived at.
    Sir F. HALL: It is not strong enough.
    Mr. HENDERSON: Whether it lasts for one year or a thousand years, it will never do any good. It has been said that there is a syndicate who are going to put down the money and going to compete in this business after the model of the Metallgesellschaft. The Metallgesellschaft sold the goods to their own people dear and gripped their own people. The hon. Member for Christchurch is a great Tariff Reformer and a great Protectionist: is he satisfied with this kind of protection?
    Brigadier-General CROFT: I am satisfied to keep German trade down after the' War.
    Mr. HENDERSON: This Bill does not affect German trade after the War. What is going to happen after the War does not lie with this House or with the hon. Member. It lies with the Conference. The Noble Lord whose name is on the back of this Bill (Lord Robert Cecil) said that he would not remain an hour in the Government if the economic boycott was to be part of the settlement after the War. You are not going to grant the licences to an

    411
    enemy or any man who has been an enemy, but to anybody else. Are you satisfied with that protection? If I were a Protectionist I should not be satisfied. You are causing a great deal of trouble and depriving of their business a few men, all to give encouragement to put down money in spelters, and so forth, and get your concentrates from Australia, which you can get any time by paying for them. But you must have protection for five years to start with. What it boils itself down to is striking off about half a dozen German firms who cannot get licences. That is the protection on which you are going to rely. I wish you joy of it This is a Coalition Government, and we are here to support the Government on the understanding that these contentious measures are not to be brought up, and this is an attempt to sneak a little bit through.
    General CROFT: Like the Franchise Bill.
    Mr. HENDERSON: There was a meeting of the Federation of British Industries. When they came away after reading this Bill they said, "At last this is a piece of Protection!" But you are relying on a broken reed. It is no protection to you; it simply carries out the policy which my lion. and gallant Friend opposite has preached in season and out of season. He is one of these German hunters who have,been after the spies. Every man of 'German name, however old he is, or whatever the matter with him, is a scoundrel, a spy, and a rascal. You should lock him up, and I do not know that you would not go the length of shooting him. You have
    a few of these to whom you are going to deny a licence, but you are going to give free licences and free markets to anybody else; but you are going to have a little bit of Protection. However, you are relying on a broken reed, unless you rely upon some Government coining in who will go the whole way with you and give you all the Protection that you want.
    Sir NORVAL HELME: The traders of this country are most anxious that the trade of Great Britain should be allowed to develop in the future as it has developed in the past. They rely upon its intrinsic vigour to carry it on successfully throughout the world. I would like to remind the Government that there is such a thing as the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, under which we have been accustomed to give authority to the Government to continue the laws that would otherwise have expired, and if it was found that there was need for this measure to be prolonged, then, by all means, let the Government ask for it, and the House of that day will readily grant its consent to continuing the measure which has proved itself to be efficacious. But we must see to it that the executive Government allow the trade of this country as rapidly as possible to pass from under its parental care into the hands of the traders, who in the past have succeeded in making the business of this country the admiration of the world. I beg to support the Amendment.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 104; Noes, 57.

    Division No. 142.]

    AYES.

    [8.24 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynts

    Croft, Brigadier-General Henry Page

    Horne, Edgar

    Archdale, Lt. Edward M.

    Currie, George W.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

    Hunter-Weston. Lieut-Gen. Sir A. G.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Jardine. Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Barlow, Sir Montague (Salted, Smith)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Jones, Sir Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Barnett, Captain R. W.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L. (Hallam)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Bonn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Jones William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Geddes, Sir A. C. (Hants, N.)

    Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

    Boyton, Sir James

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Boner (Bootle)

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Lewis, Rt. H on. John Herbert

    Brassey, Major H. Leonard Campbell

    Gretton, John

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hall, Lt.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)

    Locker-Lampoon, G. (Salisbury)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    McCalmont, Brig.-Gen. Robert C. A.

    Carew, C. R. S.

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Mackinder, H. J.

    Cator, John

    Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S.

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Cautley, H. S.

    Harris, Sir Henry (Paddington, S.)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

    Haslam, Lewis

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Henry, Denis S.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Colvin, Col. Richard Beale

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Pease, Rt. Hon. H. Pike (Darlington)

    Conte, William

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Pennetather, De Fonblanque

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hibbert, Sir Henry

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, E.)

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Craik, Rt. Han. Sir Henry

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Pratt, J. W.

    Swift, Rigby

    Whiteley, Sir H. J.

    Pretyman, Rt Hon. Ernest George

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

    Rees, G. C. (Carnarvon, Arfon)

    Tickler, T. G.

    Wills, Major Sir Gilbert

    Rutherford, Sir W. (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Tootill, Robert

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Tryon, Captain Geerge Clement

    Wood, Sir John (Stalybridge)

    Shaw, Hon. A.

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Worthington Evans, Major Sir L.

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Incs)

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Stanley,Rt.Hon.Sir A.H.(Asht'n-u-Lyne)

    Wardle, George J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord

    Stewart, Gershom

    Weston, J. W.

    Edmund Talbot and Capt. F. Guest.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    White, Col. G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

    NOES.

    Ainsworth, Sir John Stirling

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Anderson, W. C.

    Hinds, John

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Arnold, Sydney

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Robinson, Sidney

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Rowlands, James

    Black, Sir Arthur W.

    Keating, Matthew

    Sherwell, Arthur lames

    Bliss, Joseph

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    King, Joseph

    Sutton, John E.

    Buxton, Noel

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Chapple, Major William Allen

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

    Madan, Sir John Henry

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eiflon)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Dickinson. Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Nuttall, Harry

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

    Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leak)

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Helms, Sir Norval Watson

    Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—M

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham,

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Leif Jones and Mr. A. Williams

    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision as to Warrants to Bearer.)
    (1) A company carrying on any business to which Section one of the Act applies which has issued share warrants to bearer may give notice requiring the holders of the share warrants to surrender their warrants for cancellation and to have their names entered as members in the register of members.

    (2) The notice shall be given by advertisement in the London, Edinburgh, or Dublin "Gazette," as the case may be, and by any other method by which notices to, or for the information of, holders of share warrants to bearer are required to be given by the regulations of the company or the conditions of issue of the warrants.

    (3) Where such a notice has been given no person shall, as holder of a share warrant, be entitled to attend or vote at any meeting of the company, and any dividends or interest which may become payable in respect of any shares represented, by share warrants shall be retained by the company until the share warrants have been surrendered for cancellation.—[Sir. A. Stanley.]

    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Sir A. STANLEY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    This Clause is for the purpose of dealing with share warrants to bearers. If I remember rightly, I promised at a later stage a scheme in regard to this matter. The Clause provides that a company may give notice to the holders of share warrants to bearer to bring them forward for cancellation, and to receive in exchange registered shares. It provides, when the notice has been given, that no dividends shall be paid to the holders of share warrants, and that holders of these share warrants shall not be allowed to vote at any meetings of the company. It is quite clear, I think, that if we are to determine where the control of any particular company lies, it will be necessary that we should know who are the holders of these bearer warrants. It is proposed that the company shall be empowered to give notice whereby these bearer warrants shall be cancelled and registered shares substituted, if necessary. I think it will be necessary at a, later stage that I should give notice of an Amendment in the Schedule to bring within the Schedule a company which has not given notice. Hon. Members will quite understand that in the case of a company that has given notice there is no reason why it should come within the Schedule, because those who hold the share warrants to bearer

    415
    cannot exercise any rights. Therefore, a company which does not give any notice clearly must be brought within the Schedule, so that the Board of Trade may make proper investigation, and determine whether or not bearer warrants are under enemy control or otherwise.
    Mr. D. MASON: The right hon. Gentleman says that later on he proposes to move an Amendment to the Schedule to make mandatory the notice to the company, but the wording of this Clause now before us rather suggests that it is desired that the company should give notice. May I point out that there is this great disadvantage in the proposal: Supposing a banker is making a loan against shares, he infinitely prefers to make the advance upon bearer warrants to making it on share certificates. There is this further fact, that if he only makes advances on share certificates, the shares would have to come into the name of the banker, and, in that case, would the banker have to apply for a licence? I do not wish to go over the whole ground which has been gone over so often, but I do wish to point out that the object which the right hon. Gentleman has in view, of trying to trace the holders of these share warrants, and who owns the shares, will not, I believe, be attained, and that the Bill will again fail to effect what he intends to do. I think that all these interferences with the free operation, in both shares and certificates, of bankers and others, are going to cripple, interfere with and contract this trade in metals in this country. I offer these observations only in the faint hope that they may make some impression on the right hon. Gentleman. I would like to ask whether he desires to do away with bearer warrants altogether?
    Mr. HOLT: So far as I known, bearer warrants in this country are almost unknown, and it is a most unusual circumstance to have share warrants to bearer. It is, on the other hand, in certain Continental countries the usual practice. The fact of issuing share warrants to bearer is one which, as far as my personal knowledge of business goes, has been almost entirely used as a means of peaceful penetration of foreign countries. The right hon. Gentleman in order to remedy an evil, if it be an evil, which is practically negligible, proposes to stop share warrants to bearer, and is thereby setting an example to foreign countries which may lead them to
    416
    do the same thing. It seems to me highly probable that what is being done in this Amendment will simply lead to the destruction of British businesses in foreign countries. That is far the most probable result, and it is what inevitably happens when you adopt measures trying to prevent foreigners from carrying on business. There are infinitely more cases of British subjects carrying on business in foreign countries than of foreigners carrying on business in British countries. Therefore, we gain on the balance by any system which enables persons who wish to carry on business in a country which is not their own to disguise their nationality. That is entirely an advantage to British traders and a disadvantage to foreign traders. But the fact is that the Government do not know anything about trade. All that they want to do is, for the benefit of certain traders, to prevent another section of English traders engaging in trade. Therefore, they have introduced in this Amendment a policy which can on balance do nothing but harm to British traders.
    Mr. BRUNNER: The President of the Board of Trade said that it would be necessary to put something into the Schedule in addition to this Clause, and I notice that there is a proposed Amendment to the Schedule making one of the conditions that the company has issued share warrants to bearer and has not given notice requiring the holders to surrender those for cancellation. That would mean that a purely British company, if it were suspected that some of its share warrants. were held abroad, might be required by the Board of Trade to call them in and have them registered unless they wished. to run the risk of having no licence. Can anybody maintain that that is not interfering with British trade and industry which may be perfectly innocent? We are assured constantly from the Front Bench that this Bill in no way interferes with genuine trade. But here is genuine trade at all points, and if a company in this country finds it is for its convenience or profit to have share warrants to bearer, why on earth should they not be allowed to do so? I say that it is a gross interference with the liberty of the subject to require them to call in these warrants.
    Mr. MASON: May I ask the Solicitor-General to answer the point as to whether this Amendment is to be a mandatory one?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): I am not sure that I fully understand what my hon. Friend means when he asks whether the Amendment is to be mandatory. In order that effective control may be exercised it is necessary that the list of shareholders of a company should be accessible for identification. It there are warrants to bearer representing shares, it is impossible to ascertain who the shareholders are. Therefore, it is proposed by this Clause to provide an easy and simple method whereby warrants to bearer are to be exchanged for certificates, duly registered, of shares. It is proposed further, when we come to the Schedule, to add a condition which provides that where a company is a company of that kind and does not obtain the bearer warrants that fact of itself might, I do not say must, be a ground for refusing a licence.
    Mr. MASON: While I welcome the statement that it might only prevent a licence, I endorse the statement of my hon. Friends that if this is persisted in it may, and in fact will unquestionably, cripple many companies which issue warrants so that they may obtain bank advances.
    Sir WILLIAM BEALE: I am no particular friend of this Bill or of share warrants to bearer. I think there is an answer to the difficulty that has been raised. It is not lawful for a company hereafter to carry on this business without the licence of the Board of Trade. Then you provide that the Board of Trade shall not grant a licence to the company to which particular conditions apply. The burden of proof will be on the company to show that they do not fall within the conditions. That being so, this difficulty would not arise, because in every case the company, if it issued warrants to bearer, would have to show that it did not fall within those conditions. If some of the shareholders, sufficient in number, were some enemy interests, that would be sufficient reason for refusing a licence. The whole thing is of very little importance, because you cannot prevent the beneficial interest belonging to a particular person. You cannot go into the question of a trust while whoever is registered is the person who has control of the company. The thing will have very little operation, but I think that all the safeguards that can be taken have been
    418
    taken under the Schedule, though I must point out that I think they are very inefficient.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to Secrecy.)
    No information as to any person or any business obtained under this Act shall without lawful authority be published or disclosed except for the purposes of legal proceedings under this Act, and if any person knowingly publishes or discloses any information in contravention of this provision he shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds or to both such imprisonment and fine.—[Sir G. Hewart.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Sir C. HEWART: I beg to move. "That the Clause be read a second time." I do not think I need say anything in commendation of it.
    Mr. HOLT: Is the penalty in this Clause the same as the penalty under the Official Secrets Act?
    Sir G. HEWART: From memory, I cannot say.
    Mr. HOLT: Could the hon. and learned Gentleman not make certain?
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Proceedings of the Board of Trade.)
    All documents purporting to be documents made by the Board of Trade under this Act, and to be sealed with the seal of the Board, or to be signed by the Secretary or an Assistant Secretary of the Board, or by any person authorised in that behalf by the President of the Board, shall be received in evidence, and shall be deemed to be such documents without further proof unless the contrary is shown. —[Sir A. Stanley.]
    Brought up, read the first and second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Declarations.)
    (1) A company carrying on any business to which Section one of the Act applies may give notice requiring a shareholder

    419
    or debenture holder to make a declaration under the Statutory Declarations Act, 1835, as to the beneficial ownership of the shares or debentures standing in his name, and as to the nationality of such beneficial owner.

    (2) The notice shall be given by any method by which notices to or for the information of holders of shares or debentures are required to be given by the regulations of the company or the conditions of issue of the debentures.

    (3) Where such a notice has been given no person shall as holder of a share be entitled to attend or vote at any meeting of the company, and any dividends or interest which may become payable in respect of any shares or debentures shall be retained by the company until the shareholder or debenture holder shall have made such delaration as aforesaid.—[Mr. G. Terrell.]

    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    This Clause has been recommended, and I have been asked to move it, on behalf of various employers' organisations. It is thought very desirable that the directors of companies should have some means of protection as to their shareholders. They may have enemy shareholders and not know it. They may thereby incur very great difficulties and penalties. By this Clause they can call upon any shareholder to make a declaration as to his nationality, and so ascertain their own position. I hope the learned Solicitor-General will see his way to accept it.
    Sir G. HEWART: I entirely agree with what has been said, and the Government will be prepared to accept this new Clause.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
    The following new Clause stood on the Paper, in the name of General CROFT:
    "No person shall without the consent of the Board of Trade be qualified to be a director or alternate director of any company carrying on the business of extracting, smelting, dressing, refining, or dealing by way of wholesale trade in metal or metallic ore to which this Act applies unless he is a British subject not of enemy origin, and has made a declaration and, if required, produced satisfactory evidence to the directors that he is a British subject
    420
    and not subject to the influence of a foreign State, body, person, or corporation under foreign control."
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: With regard to this Clause, I have had some doubts as to whether it comes within the scope of the Bill at all, and, if it does, whether it should not come under the Schedule; but, on the whole, I think the hon. and gallant Member is entitled to move it here.
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    General CROFT:I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    This Clause does not require any explanation except this: that if we are to. effect the objects of this Bill it is quite evident we must also protect businesses from having directors who are of enemy origin, otherwise it seems you will simply be preserving these businesses for future trouble when your five years are over. The hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. J. M. Henderson), in referring to me just now with regard to this subject, said something to which I take no exception,. and it really applies to this.
    Mr. HOLT: May I ask whether this Clause is in any way an addition to the Bill? Does it really carry us any further than the Schedule?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That was: the difficulty in my mind, but the distinction I have been able to draw is that the conditions in the Schedule are optional with the Board of Trade as to whether they grant a licence or not. This is of a different character, being mandatory, and: because of that distinction I have allowed the hon. and gallant Member to move the Clause.
    General CROFT: I was saying that it really is imperative, if we are going to get free from German influence, that we should get free from German individuals who might be able to exercise this influence.
    Sir G. HEWART: This new Clause I fear is one which cannot be accepted. So far as it relates only to persons of enemy origin, it is already dealt with by the Bill, and dealt with, as I submit, in a way which. is to be preferred. But the scope of this Clause in one respect goes, if I follow it rightly, somewhat beyond the Bill because it will apply not merely to persons of

    421
    enemy origin, but also to all aliens whatsoever. Now the object of this Bill is to prevent enemy influence in the non-ferrous metal industry, but it is not a part of the object of the Bill to prevent aliens from carrying on their business in this country. For those two reasons I cannot see my way to accept this new Clause.
    Question put, and negatived.
    The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: With regard to the next new Clause [Re-election of Directors], that is clearly outside the scope of the Bill, and should be an Amendment to the Company Law.

SCHEDULE.

  Conditions.
  1. That any director of the company or any partner of the firm, or the individual, or any manager or other principal officer employed by the company, firm, or individual, is a person who is or has been an enemy, or who was at any time before the fourth day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen the subject of a State which subsequently became an enemy State.

  2. That in the case of a company, any capital of the company is or was at any time after the twelfth day of November nineteen hundred and seventeen held by or on behalf of an enemy.

  3. That the company, firm, or individual is or was at any time after the twelfth day of November nineteen hundred and seventeen party to any agreement, arrangement or understanding, which enables or enabled an enemy to influence the policy or conduct of the business.

  4. That the company, firm, or individual is or was at any time after the twelfth day of November nineteen hundred and seventeen interested, directly or indirectly, to the extent of one-fifth or more of the capital in any undertaking whether or not in the United Kingdom, engaged in business of a kind to which this Act applies, in which enemies are also interested, directly or indirectly, to the extent of one-fifth or more of the capital.

  5. That the company, firm, or individual, is by any means whatever subject, directly or indirectly, to enemy influence or association.

  For the purposes of this Schedule—
  The expression "enemy" means a subject of an enemy State and an enemy controlled corporation.
  The expression "enemy State" means any State with which His Majesty is at the passing of this Act, or has after the passing of this Act, become at war.
  The expression "enemy controlled corporation" means any corporation—

  (a) where the majority of the directors or the persons occupying the position of directors by whatever name called, are subjects of such a State as aforesaid; or

  (b) where the majority of the voting power is in the hands of persons who are subjects of such a State as aforesaid, or who exercise their voting powers directly or indirectly on behalf of persons who are subjects of such a State as aforesaid; or

  (c) where the control is by any means whatever in the hands of:persons who are subjects of such a:State as aforesaid; or

  (d) where the executive is an enemy controlled company or where the majority of the executive are appointed by an enemy controlled company.

  The expression "capital" in relation to a company means any shares or other securities issued by the company which carry any voting power with respect to the management of the company.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: I beg to move, in paragraph (1), after the word "any" ["or any manager or other principal officer"], to insert the word "principal."
  This Amendment and the following Amendment on the Paper will make the paragraph read:
  "That any director of the company or any partner of the firm, or the individual, or any principal manager employed by the company."
  It is easy to know who is the principal manager, but the words "principal officer," I suggest, raise very considerable confusion, and the Government might well accept the form of words I propose.
  Sir G. HEWART: I agree, if I may say so, with the substance of what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend. The object of his pair of Amendments is clearly to confine the operation of the Act to the principal officers. This seems to be a proper thing to be done, but I doubt whether it might not be done in some better form. I would suggest to my hon.

  423
  and learned Friend that the whole of his object would best be attained if, instead of pursuing the Amendments of which he has given notice, he would propose to omit the words "manager or," making the paragraph read "or any principal officer employed."
  Mr. HEMMERDE: That would substitute the word "officer" for "manager." I am not sure whether there is not some difference in the terms.
  Mr. STRAUSS: May I ask whether an engineer or a chemist would be a principal officer? The word "manager" is a simple word which we all understand.
  Sir G. HEWART: I cannot help thinking that this difficulty is more a difficulty about words than anything else. Others might or might not properly be called principal officers, but that could not be said of the manager. "Manager" is included in the words "principal officer."
  Mr. HEMMERDE: Is an "officer" a "manager"?
  Sir G. HEWART: It does not matter whether he is or not. There are officers who are principal officers without being managers, but there can be no manager who is not a principal officer. The end of the hon. and learned Gentleman would be attained, I think, if the words "manager or other" were left out, so that the sentence would read "or any principal officer employed." The question as to who was a principal officer of a company might depend upon the particular circumstances of the case. Certainly the manager always is a principal officer. My suggestion, I think, would give effect to what I understood to be the real meaning of the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman, to limit the operation of the Statute so far as this matter is concerned to the case of the principal officers
  Mr. HEMMERDE: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the Committee exactly what is in his mind in dealing with the principal officers? The word "officer" in relation to business does not convey anything clearly to my mind. Supposing one has a business divided into half a dozen different departments, which have each a manager, would these, in the opinion of the Solicitor-General, be within the scope of the term "principal officer"? What I rather aimed at was getting the people who were in the position of
  424
  managing directors, and who really were in the same sort of position that a partner would be; where they are partners or in a commanding position, and not merely managers of departments under some other head. There is, I believe, considerable doubt about this matter and people would like to know the scope of the enactment.
  Mr. STRAUSS: Is the chief engineer or the chief chemist an officer or is he not?
  Sir G. HEWART: I am certainly not prepared to accept the insidious invitation to attempt a definition of the term "principal officer." It is quite obvious that a principal officer means something other than the director of a company or the partner in a firm, because a director or a partner is named in the Schedule. Who might or might not be held to be a principal officer is, I think, a question of fact depending upon the circumstances of each case. To go back to the point from which I started, the omission of the word "manager" is something quite acceptable, because whoever else could be excluded from the term "principal officer" the manager certainly could not.
  Mr. BRUNNER: It is an extraordinary thing that the Solicitor-General really does not know the intention and meaning of the words we are discussing. Really it would be very much better to do away with all this, and to say that no enemy is to be employed at all; then we shall know where we are.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: Is not the question this: The Solicitor-General will not answer my insidious questions when we ask to know what he means by the term "principal officer"? The company, therefore, is in this position: They may go on trading without a licence under the impression that their principal officer does not come within this condition. For not knowing what the Solicitor-General is not prepared to tell us they will be liable to prosecution and a term of imprisonment. It seems to me to be a novel method of making offences. I should have thought that the term "principal officer" was one that should be most carefully defined in the Bill. That we should be in this happy-go-lucky position of the Solicitor-General not being prepared to accept the insidious invitation, with the result that unfortunate traders may find themselves prosecuted, seems to me to be very undesirable.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. HOLT: I beg to move, in paragraph 1, after the word "person" ["is a person who is"], to insert the words "not being a British subject."
  This Amendment is intended to exclude from the operations of the first paragraph of this Schedule all persons who, though they were enemies at one time, have since become British subjects. I cannot help thinking that there will be a great consensus of opinion in the country that it is not right to deny to any person who has become naturalised according to our laws the full benefit of British citizenship. There has never been a time when we have recognised in this country, so far as I know, two classes of citizens—one class with less civil rights than another class. Yet that is what the Government propose to enact by this Bill. The Government propose under this Bill that there shall be persons who are entitled to vote and to sit in this House, and yet, nevertheless, are not to be entitled to carry on trade in non-ferrous metals. Such a proposal is as inimical to common sense as it is to any sense of justice. You propose to deprive of the right of dealing in non-ferrous metals persons who may very easily have been in this country since infancy, have been brought over here when of tender age, who have lived in this country all their lives; married women, it may be, of undoubted British origin, who have children fighting in the Army—in one case that I personally know the son has lost his life on the battlefield. You propose to put upon such a man a stigma. under the law so that he may not carry on his legitimate trade in the same manner as other people. It seems to me that this is a very unworthy attack upon naturalised British subjects, and it is very much like treating your letters of naturalisation as a scrap of paper. It is a transaction which as a nation we ought to be ashamed of. The proposal that after you have admitted a man to citizenship, without any actual proof against him whatever or any suggestion that there is anything wrong, you should take from him one of the clearest and simplest rights of citizenship—that of carrying on trade in the country with which he has linked his fortunes—is too monstrously unjust to be defended.
  There is another aspect of the case. What about the man who has British citizenship forced upon him? I suppose that even on the Treasury Bench there are still people who hope as a result of this War that some of the German colonies
  426
  will be brought within the ambit of the British Empire. I hope that South-West Africa, New Guinea, and Samoa will remain part of the British Empire. Are we to understand that if that does occur the inhabitants of those places are to be deprived of, or are not to receive, the full rights of British citizenship? It seems to me that if we contemplate the possible acquisition not only of some of the German colonies, but perhaps the addition of Mesopotamia to the British Empire, we cannot contemplate that the inhabitants of those countries are to be deprived of rights which appertain to British citizenship.
  Let me draw the attention of the Government to what has taken place in respect to the most recent annexations made to the Empire, namely, the two Dutch republics in South Africa. Does anybody believe that it would have been wise to exclude the inhabitants of the Dutch republics of South Africa from the right of dealing in metals with the British Empire? Can anybody who looks at what has happened in South Africa believe that it would have been wise to say to General Botha and General Smuts, "You are not to deal in non-ferrous metals"? Do General Smuts' colleagues in the War Cabinet believe that it would have been statesmanship to say to him, "You are not to deal in non-ferrous metals"? The proposition is too absurd. You cannot expect to incorporate territories in your Empire and then expect the inhabitants of those territories to easily fall in with your Imperial system if you are going to place them at a disadvantage as compared with the inhabitants of your original dominions. That is what this Bill proposes to do. I think that whatever may be said in favour of this Bill—and I have not heard anybody say anything in favour of it so far that has had any logical force in it—nothing is a greater blot than the proposal that all persons who are British subjects should not enjoy an equal right to trade.
  Mr. HEMMERDEOf the many objectionable features in this Bill I think this is the most detestable. I cannot understand the amazing lack of all sense of humour and proportion displayed by the Government in this particular case, as though it mattered twopence whether we managed to get within our net a few people who happened not to be loyal British subjects, compared with the loss of dignity this country is bound to sustain

  427
  when they for the first time absolutely break their undertaking that men who have given up citizenship in their own country on the understanding that the word of the British Government was a thing that could be relied upon. Formerly it was, and only recently under the guidance of the Home Secretary we understood that the Government were not prepared to reconsider any question of taking away generally naturalisation certificates but that the matter must be done after full examination on good cause shown. That is how I always understood the attitude of the Home Secretary.
  We cannot deal with this question better than by taking a specific instance. I do not in the least apologise for taking instances in regard to a firm which has figured rather largely in the discussion. I do not say that the Board of Trade might not he able to show some good ground for interfering with the rights of British citizens who do not become denationalised in their own country, but until 1913, the year before the War, I think I am right in saying that ten years after one became naturalised in a foreign country one ceased to have any rights at all as a citizen in Germany. They made some alteration afterwards allowing such people to recover their rights, but that was the law. We have heard a great deal of talk about the Mertons' Company in regard to which there has been more ignorant nonsense talked in the newspapers than any other subject during the War, and as there are certain Members who always read certain newspapers, they have read these accounts which are absolutely without foundation. This firm has amongst six directors, two who are naturalised, and they come for that reason within this Clause. Those directors came to this country in the "'eighties," and I could just like to give to the House a picture of one of these men whose presence in this firm is going to entitle the Board of Trade to take away that firm's licence to trade. Mind you, it does not make any difference whether they get rid of him, because the Board of Trade has provided in this Bill that if there is a director after November last, although that firm might say, "We will get rid of these people," they are not under this Act at liberty to do so.
  Take the case of one of these people whose enemy association is to be the ground for taking away the privilege of
  428
  trading of this firm. This man was born at Frankfort in 1869. Three years previously his father, as a member of the Frankfort Militia, had actually shouldered arms to go out and fight the Prussians when they were marching on Frankfort. So incensed was he against the Prussians and all their ways that he had his two sons, one naturalised in Switzerland and the ·other leave Frankfort as a mere boy to come to this country. His whole life has been lived in an anti-Prussian atmosphere, and he has been in England for thirty years. He has been in that firm for the entire time. During that time two heads of the firm have died, one recently, and each of them has signalised his disappearance from the world by leaving his entire fortune to British charities. That is the sort of firm that is being brutally attacked by all sorts of innuendoes and suggestions of treachery. That partner was naturalised in 1897, and he was denationalised in 1899. After being denationalised, and ceasing to have any connection with Germany, lie married an English woman, who has two sons fighting in the Army, a third in the Indian Civil Service, and a fourth in an English public school. An English woman, believing that the word of the British Government was to be trusted, and that she and her husband were going to have the rights of British subjects, suddenly finds that she has married a man who, although loyal, is to be treacherously thrown over by these new brooms who are going to sweep clean, and who after a brief political education are going to tell us that the things upon which the welfare of this country depends can be torn up just as if we were so many Germans wanting to invade Belgium. It is a fit thing for the men who organised the raid on Belgium to do, but it is not a fit thing, not merely for English Ministers to do, but for English gentlemen to do.
  Let me take the other partner, who lives in daily terror for his only son, whom he loves, and who is now fighting in our Army. I know him, and I know perfectly well that his sympathies are absolutely English as well as those of the people who are attacking him. They know it also perfectly well. That man, at the bidding of our new brooms, is to be treated as absolutely tainted, and unworthy of that British citizenship in virtue of which his son, a British citizen, daily risks his life. This wretched Bill, which Ministers themselves have been unable to defend, as we saw

  429
  this afternoon—I am not talking of the President of the Board of Trade—without making a melancholy exhibition of ineptitude and ignorance, is drawn absolutely to hit that great firm, and the head of which in the early days of the War was taken by the Government to go out and try to deal with the copper situation, and the members of which have again and again told the people at the War Office, who do not know the first elements of their business, of smelters in large amounts, which these superior persons have always said were unnecessary. These men, who all through have been doing this work, have been the butt of all the malignancy and ignorance of the Press; and the Government, instead of saying, "We know all about these men; they have come into the War Office and have given us their advice; we trust them," have not had one word to say in their defence; on the contrary, they bring in a' Bill drafted absolutely in every particular to hit their firm.
  Is it suggested that men who are naturalised and who have been mixed up with the Metallgesellschaft cannot he trusted? The President of the Metallgesellschaft, the President of the Metal Exchange, and a member of the right hon. Gentleman's own Advisory Committee (Mr. Cecil L. Budd) learned their business in the Metallgesellschaft with Mr. Merton. Mr. Budd spent years in the firm of Merton's, and left to set up in opposition to them. He is the man who is to sit in judgment upon men who are considered to be tainted because they have learned their business with the Metallgesellschaft, and are also in business with them! We have heard a good deal about the way in which Merton's were interested with the Metallgesellschaft in Australian zinc concentrates. Mr. Cecil L. Budd was also a partner in that deal. He was then -a member of a firm on the Black List. He is now one of the advisers of the Board of Trade, sitting in judgment on men like these, and advising that a Bill should be drafted to hit this particular firm. That gentleman, having got rid of his German partner since the War began, has now gone into business with another member of the Committee, the firm being known as Messrs. Cookson and Budd. These people, having learned their business with the Metallgesellschaft, first of all partners in trade with Merton's and afterwards their rivals, are the people upon whose advice the Board of Trade are acting in
  430
  this amazing infringement of the rights of British citizens, I quote that case because the suggestion that a man is more likely to trade with Germany because he happens to have been born in Germany will not bear one moment's examination. Nobody knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that before the War trade did not go by nationalities at all. He, I, or anyone: else in this House at that time, would willingly have done a deal with a German firm just as we would have done with au American firm or any other firm. We know perfectly well that trade is not determined by matters of prejudice.
  This Bill is based upon the idea that there is something suspicious in the fact that a man was trading on close and intimate terms with Germany at the beginning of the War. There are men on the Advisory Committee who were in closer touch with Germans at the beginning of the War than some of the men attacked at the present time. These men really are not attacked because they have been in close touch with Germans, but because of their amazing and brilliant efficiency. We might, through this War, have learned not to break our word and copy Germans in that particular, but to educate our people and copy Germans in that particular. Here we are spending day after clay and night after night on this Bill, which has practically had no defender in the House except the members of the Government and the Member for the Wellington Division (Sir C. Henry), and the real fact below the whole of it is that you are attacking these men because they are naturalised British subjects who have brought with them some of the thoroughness of their race and have given us some sort of example how big businesses ought to be carried on. That is the reason they are the butt of everybody who is not particularly successful. Some of these men whom you have called in to advise you are not only the rivals of these men in trade; but they are their unsuccessful rivals. I ask the Government, Is it necessary for the purposes of this Bill to make any sort of infringement of the rights of these citizens? The President of the Board of Trade may say that he cannot take a date and say anyone naturalised after that, because there are certain cases before that case. That is a perfectly reasonable line to take, but is it not more reasonable to deal with all cases of suspicion under some sort of Act, as suggested by the Home Secretary, rather than

  431
  to take the whole of these naturalised subjects and to say that the mere presence of one of them in any firm in anything like the capacity of a director makes it impossible for the Board of Trade, using their discretion, to give them a licence?
  You are throwing your net far too wide. There has been a general idea throughout this Debate—I think the Government is very largely responsible for it—they do not contradict it, and I do not know whether it can be contradicted, but we have from the start been told by certain hon. Members that the idea is that this Bill is to be followed by the creation of a syndicate to control all these metals, and that the people who want to control these metals have said, "We cannot do this unless you eliminate this particular firm," in which these two particular naturalised directors are. If the President will say to me, "I think this is a case where a big national syndicate might be a thing the Government should favour, but as regards the Board of Trade having made up their mind in any way at all whether or not Messrs. Merton should be members of that syndicate, I can assure you that the Board of Trade have not made up their mind at all and are entirely unprejudiced in the matter," I, for one, should feel very differently in regard to the question from what I do now. But there has not been any such suggestion. I say in all seriousness, looking at this Schedule—we shall have to go through the Conditions one by one—that with the exception of Condition 5, I cannot see any other explanation than that they are deliberately drafted under the instructions of men who are aiming at one firm, and one firm only. I do not want to anticipate what will be said on other Amendments, but you will find that Conditions 2 and 4 are inexplicable except on these grounds. Therefore, there is this reasonable suspicion. I would ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it-is not possible, if he cannot now accept. this full Amendment, for him to say that he will, at any rate, accept such a date as would give time for all these people to be denationalised. I have an Amendment down upon the subject of the date, but the date I would suggest, if it is possible, would be ten years before the War, because everybody must, after that date, have become denationalised. As regards one man to whom I have alluded, he has been denationalised from Germany for twenty years.
  432
  First of all, is it necessary to make this infringement of the rights of citizens at all? In the second place, is it necessary to make it as drastic as it is? I notice one Amendment down on the Paper to make the date the 1st January, 1888. As. a matter of fact, both partners in Merton's came over before that year. That Amendment is in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Wellington Division (Sir C. Henry). It is because things like that are done that this Bill does bear possibly a sinister construction that we are not just in giving to it. If you take that date you will find that. the only person who would escape would be my hon. Friend (Mr. A. Strauss), who never deals in copper but only in tin, and that all the other members of the Metal Exchange and everyone who deals in copper comes after that date. I ask the President of the Board of Trade, is it decent that the Committee should be legislating in that way when people, with the utmost effrontery, are putting on the Paper Amendments, the only object of which seems to be to further, whether justly or unjustly, the interests of their own trade? I say it perfectly frankly—I would say it if the hon. Member were here—that the people who will be hit by this provision are men who are big dealers in copper. They were chosen to go to, America by the Government for that reason. They are also big dealers in tin,. and for that reason he and other people think it is a most excellent thing to have this Bill dealing with copper and tin, although there is no apparent reason,. apart from that, for bringing these people in at all. I would ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is not possible for him, by concentrating his attention on Condition 5, taking the Committee into his confidence, trying to get control, and to deal with businesses that are really enemy controlled or with enemy association of any sort, to get rid of these other Conditions altogether? I urge him. strongly, if not to accept the whole of the Amendment, which personally I hope he will do, at any rate to let us have some modification that will make it impossible that men whose sons are actually fighting in the British Army should be put on terms like this, and make it perfectly impossible that men who have been in this country, who have been denationalised for twenty years, and who

  433
  since then have married British women, should be put under any penalties whatsoever.
  Sir A. STANLEY: I listened with very great care and attention to the speech that has just. been made by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Hemmerde). If I gathered aright, the whole of his speech was directed towards the defence of a particular firm. Why he should take that particular line I am quite at a loss to understand. Certainly neither he nor any other member of the Committee can say that either I myself or anybody else speaking for the Government has at any time during the conduct of this Bill said one word in any way whatever affecting the interests of the firm to which he refers or anybody else affected by this Bill.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Many private Members have.
  Sir A. STANLEY: That may be. I am not responsible for what they have said. They certainly were not inspired by anybody connected with the Government, and they were not authorised to make any such statements.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Has the Government repudiated them?
  Sir A. STANLEY: This provision was drafted only after the most careful consideration. It was not, as was suggested by the hon. and learned Member, inspired by any member of the Committee to which he referred, but only because I myself and my advisers connected with the Board of Trade feel that it is imperatively necessary, if this Bill is to be any success, that a provision like this should be inserted in it. I should like to take this opportunity of removing from the mind of the lion. and learned Member who has just spoken and from the mind of every other member of the Committee, the idea that this provision was drafted with the object of definitely excluding from the right to trade in non-ferrous metals in this country either the firm to which he has referred or anybody else. This provision is vitally necessary. I am quite sure that I should have no difficulty in convincing this Committee that there are at least some naturalised enemy aliens who would not, by virtue of their conduct, be entitled to receive a licence to trade in non-ferrous metals if they should make an application. I could give the Committee an instance of a naturalised enemy alien who, since the
  434
  War, has made attempts, at least we are satisfied that the firm have made attempts,. to trade with the enemy since the Warbegan. I say without any hesitancy that if that individual or the, firm with which lie is connected made an application for a. licence, I should refuse it. It happens that the individual connected. with this firm is not engaged in the metal industry. I am only using it for the purpose of illustration. We had no ground on. which to prosecute. I will give another illustration of a naturalised enemy alien. It was necessary for us to carry on a certain investigation in connection with the affairs of this particular undertaking, and certain books which were needful in order that we might arrive at a right conclusion and might have all the knowledge necessary in coming to a decision were destroyed. I should say there again that the presumption was against the applicant and that lie had found it necessary to destroy certain evidence which was: essential, and therefore his conduct was open to suspicion, and I should again in that instance refuse to give a licence if application was made for it, unless, of course, later on he were able to prove that the documents which were destroyed were really not relevant to the point at issue.
  Let me give you a reason why we think it is necessary that this Clause should remain as it is. It is quite clear, I think,. that if the Metallgesellschaft is going to make every possible attempt to reestablish itself in this country after the War it would form an association with some persons of its own nationality, who, however, might be naturalised British. subjects. These persons might not at any time previously have engaged in the nonferrous metal trade. Without this Clause, if they came to us and made application for a licence we could not refuse it. I do not want you to understand for a moment that the mere fact that they are naturalised enemy aliens, Germans or Austrians, or. whatever they may be, is in itself a bar to a licence. Nothing of the sort. There Are, as far as my knowledge goes, naturalised aliens who, by their conduct since they became naturalised, would be just as much entitled to a licence to trade in these, metals as natural-born British subjects; but, on the other hand—we have had experience of them—there are some who would continue to take advantage of their rights as naturalised subjects to conduct themselves in a. manner which the privileges of naturalisation are not

  435
  supposed to confer upon them. I think we must have a Clause in this Bill which gives us a right to scrutinise with the greatest care the conduct and the actions of naturalised aliens so that as far as we can we may be satisfied that they are not using naturalisation as a cloak in carrying on an enterprise which is prejudicial to the interests of this country. There are naturalised Germans who have resided in this country and have had associations with this industry with credit not only to themselves, but to the country of their adoption. There can be no question of that. The mere accident of birth cannot be taken as a bar and as a ground upon which a licence would be refused. That is not the object of the Clause. The Clause is not directed against any particular firm or individual. It will bring into the net those who, we have a right to assume—not in all cases, but in some—would not act as honourable citizens, who have secured from this country the privilege of naturalisation. It does not go beyond that. It only establishes the right of a very careful review and investigation. We shall take notice of their conduct, and if we are satisfied that they are going to allow themselves in the operation of this business to be controlled by Germans we shall have the right to refuse a licence.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: The Committee, I am sure, will have welcomed my right hon. Friend's repudiation in very dignified and explicit language of the suggestion that this Bill was aimed at any one particular firm. I never myself made that suggestion, and I do not think I ever entertained it, but I am not at all surprised that my hon. Friend behind me, to whom the suggestion is a very real and living one, should have spoken with the warmth and the zeal that lie did in defence of matters of which he has full acquaintance. I hope any remarks I may make upon this subject will be couched in the same moderation of argument which has distinguished the address which has just been made by my right hon. Friend. I entirely sympathise with the object which he has in view, and so far as I am at present informed I should be inclined to take the same action that he proposes to take in the kind of case that he has described to us. Let us see whether the language of this Bill, as it is at present drawn, does in fact do that which he desires and hopes the Bill will do. As I understand the position, the suggestion is that where you
  436
  have the case of a person who is assisting enemy trade, either during the War or for a period after the War, the Board of Trade should be in a position to step in and curtail and ultimately destroy that enemy influence which is impinging on the industry of British subjects. I think that is a statement of the case which cannot be controverted, and he says for the purpose of doing that he must have the power of saying that in the case of any person who, in the language of the Bill, is of enemy origin or enemy descent, he must have the power, indeed he must be obliged by law to say to that company, "You shall no longer trade in that particular article." I think that is the position as the Bill stands. What about the enemy alien? Not the naturalised British subject resident here, not indeed an enemy subject resident here, but the enemy alien who is resident abroad and conducting his business abroad. We aye not able to control the operations of such a firm by this Bill. An enemy influence abroad by trading through different people and under different names over which the right hon. Gentleman has no check at all, will be able to carry out that series of operations which he dislikes and which we all dislike, and should like to stop, but over whose operations the right hon. Gentleman has no control and no destructive power. Therefore, it seems to me that this Bill as it is at present drawn does not carry out the object for which the Bill was instituted, and it fails in the object for which it is set out. My right hon. Friend said that the Board of Trade in cases where there is suspicion must be able to investigate hooks, and must be able to put a stop to what may be wrongful trading. I would remind my right hon. Friend of a case which had a great deal of notoriety much earlier in the War in which a gentleman who bears an honoured name was accused and thought to be guilty of trading with the enemy. I have no doubt the Board of Trade if they had had the power in that particular case would have acted very quickly and very decisively, and would have stopped the trading of that firm by refusing its licence; but the Board of Trade having no such power, the case had to be carried to the Courts, and when it was brought to Court it was found that there was not sufficient evidence against the firm to convict it of trading with the enemy, with the result that the firm was exonerated. I need not repeat the name because it is well known to hon. Members.

  437
  One of the parties was convicted but another person who was supposed to be guilty was found not to be. in that case under this Regulation the Board of Trade would have stepped in and would have stopped the firm from trading, although subsequently the other partners in the firm were found to be entirely guiltless of the offence charged against them.
  I want to come back to the specific subject-matter of the Amendment. The Amendment asks that in the case of any British subject this Section shall not apply. If I recollect rightly, there has been a great deal of consideration of the subject of what the naturalisation certificates should be in future. In the past it has been tolerably easy to get a certificate of naturalisation. Perhaps there has been undue leniency in the matter. At events, all those persons who are naturalised at present are well known to the police, so that there is no difficulty in tracing their comings and their goings. In future any person to be naturalised is to have all his connections very closely examined before a certificate of naturalisation is granted. It will, therefore, he perfectly easy in future to put a stop to any person gaining access to the markets of this country under the conditions of this Bill if that person is of hostile intent and influence either in commerce or anything else. Therefore, we do not need to deal with the people who are to be naturalised hereafter. We must deal with the people who are naturalised now. I lay great stress upon the fact that the Board of Trade have no option in refusing to give them a licence. If a man is of enemy origin and a director of a company, unless there is some special reason, the Board of Trade must refuse to allow him a licence.
  Mr. HOLT: They may do it at their discretion without a special reason.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I am reminded that they may do it without a special reason. I was going to make a suggestion that it should not be for a special reason, but that there should be a discretionary power.
  Sir A. STANLEY: We have got that.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: That removes a great deal of my objection in the matter. Take the case quoted by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Hemmerde) of a man who has a son actually fighting for us. There are eases of people who are risking
  438
  their lives and laying down their lives and losing their health and strength in defence of our safety here, and it is intolerable that cases of the sort quoted by my hon. and learned Friend should arise under this BR There is another case, and that is of a man exiled from his own country, who detests and loathes the tyranny and brutality which exists there, and who flies for refuge to this country and establishes himself in commerce, or his family in commerce, here. Yet that man or his children are disfranchised by the operations of this Bill. I have in mind the case of an eminent person. There is a gentleman in this country—I believe he is a member of the Austrian Reichsrath—named Professor Masaryk. If ever there was a man who deserved well of this country it is that man. I only know him by reputation. Unless we had received this concession, unless it is in the power of the President of the Board of Trade to make his officials exercise that discretion—cases are not always brought by Departments to the Minister—and unless discretion is exercised in a case of that sort, a man fleeing from the tyranny of another country and taking refuge in this country, in what we believe is a free country, is actually handicapped by his transference from tyranny to liberty. That is what is possible under this Bill. I hope that under the administration of my right hon. Friend that that is not likely to occur, but it is possible, and it is to remove that possibility that this Amendment has been moved. I trust that the discretion which I understand the Board of Trade now possess will be freely used. I welcome the repudiation which the right hon. Gentleman has given that this Bill is aimed at any particular individual or any particular firm. That is, perhaps, the most important statement made during the discussion to-day. I hope discretion will be freely used, because the Board of Trade have got the power of the most searching investigation into all the transactions of any firm which applies for a licence and have really got such firm in their grip. Therefore, this discretion ought to be exercised mast freely, and if it is there can be no harm in accepting this Amendment.
  Mr. STRAUSS: The reply of the right hon. Gentleman is all that could possibly be desired. It will have given satisfaction to many hon. Members. It corresponds with the spirit of the speech which the right hon. Gentleman made on the

  439
  Second Reading, but, as has been pointed out before, it is unfortunately the fact that the right hon. Gentleman will not be President of the Board of Trade for another thirty years, and we must, therefore, contemplate the risk of the Bill being administered by somebody not animated by the spirit which animates him now, and who will act on the exact wording of the measure. Unfortunately, the wording of the Bill is not in harmony with the right hon. Gentleman's speech, although, if he had accepted the Amendment that licences should not be given if it were inexpedient to grant them, it would have corresponded more with the spirit which he held out in his observations. But the wording of the Bill and the speeches of his colleagues are not, I repeat, in harmony with the answers he has given us, and I should like to utter a few words of warning as to what the effect of this Bill may be. Let us take a period two or three years after the War. It may happen that other countries—more particularly the United States —where the commercial class is generally animated by great commercial jealousy, Bills may be proposed assisting one particular set of traders to the detriment of another set. Assume that in a few years' time a Bill may be before the United States Legislature providing that all subjects not of American birth shall be excluded from doing a certain kind of business; or, if you like, assume that a Bill is passed in France or Germany to the same effect. How would we take it In the United States there are millions of Britishers who would be affected. Would they not complain to this country, and ask the Government to protest against the injustice that was being done to them? Then, again, take the case of companies in the United States in which there are many British shareholders. Those British shareholders would have to be excluded, and they would probably have to sell their shares. If the British Government protested, the United States Government would naturally answer, "We are only following your example." What possible rejoinder could we make to that? I invite the Government to contemplate that particular danger because once we start this sort of thing we cannot tell where it will end. I ask the right lion. Gentleman to consider whether the advantages to be derived from this Bill and from this particular Clause are not far outweighed by
  440
  the disadvantages to which we may be subjected when other countries adopt similar measures against ourselves.
  10 P.M.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Undoubtedly this Bill does create a certain disability on the part of British citizens who have been unwise enough to be born to parents belonging to enemy countries. It breaks the agreement into which we entered with them when they became British citizens. We promised that they should be placed on an equality with other British citizens, and now we are withdrawing from that. May I point out one thing which has apparently escaped the attention of the President of the Board of Trade. Under this Clause as it stands, if General Botha or General Smuts desired to enter into this business they would have to go to the Board of Trade and obtain permission to do it. As I read it, the Clause will apply to any person who is or has been an enemy.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: No. It applies to those born in States with which we are now at war.
  Mr. HOLT: I am very disappointed indeed at the tone of the speech of the President of the Board of Trade. He does not seem to have the smallest conception of the real issue raised by this Clause. How did he defend it? He defended it solely on the ground that there were a certain number of cases in which the Board of Trade suspected persons— naturalised British subjects of enemy origin—of having been guilty of trading with the enemy. But we know perfectly well there has been more than one case in which British-born subjects have not only been suspected but have been convicted of dealing with the enemy, and the same kind of argument which the right. hon. Gentleman has used must be equally as good an argument for making the provision apply to everybody. Indeed, the whole of his argument. was strong enough to justify the application of this measure to British-born subjects. A foreigner before he can become naturalised has to have his character investigated. In regard to the British-born subject there is no such investigation of character, and therefore primâ facie, one can say that the naturalised subject is more likely to be a respectable man than the natural born subject.
  The President of the Board of Trade never attempted to deal with what I venture to believe is the most serious part

  441
  of this proposal, namely, the suggestion that you are to establish two categories of British citizens. The idea that you should have one class of citizens with complete rights and another class, who have a right to vote for a Member of Parliament and even to sit in this or the other House but not to be allowed to trade in non-ferrous metals without a special certificate from the Board of Trade appears to me to be monstrous. Neither did the right hon. Gentleman deal with the statement that this is a breach of faith. Surely he must see that a proposal to limit the rights of men to whom you have already accorded full citizenship is in effect a breach of faith. It cannot be, I imagine, that he attaches no importance to the matter, and I do suggest that that is an argument worthy of some apology from him. Again the right hon. Gentleman did not deal with that portion of my speech in which I pointed out the effect which this would have upon the natives of German and possibly Turkish territory which we may perhaps annex as a result of this War. As I understand it, it is by no means improbable that a considerable amount of the German colonies and of Turkish territory may be annexed to this Empire. I only hope that that will be the case, and if it does then you will get a position precisely analogous to that occupied by General Smuts and General Botha. Is it the intention of the Government to give notice now to the inhabitants of any part of the enemy's dominions which may, as the result of this War, conic into the British Empire, that they are not to receive the same equal treatment as other British citizens? Is that part of your war aims? If it is so, please tell us. At any rate, when we are dealing with a very important subject like this I think we are entitled to expect from the Treasury Bench a full statement of their policy and the reasons for adopting it.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I put one other? In his last speech he spoke of the kind of commercial transaction that by implication after the War we should consider as injurious to the interests of this country, and justifying him in either withholding or cancelling a licence. He has been very sparing of definitions, but will he indicate the kind of commercial transaction which after the War he would regard as so injurious to the national interests as to justify him in withholding or cancelling a licence?
  Mr. BRUNNER: I can hardly find language strong enough to criticise this proposed transaction which the Board of Trade wishes to carry through. We have granted certificates of naturalisation for a long series of years, even during the War, and also, I am informed, we have naturalised enemy subjects in the Colonies. That naturalisation certificate is a promise to accord to the naturalised citizen the full rights of Englishmen, the full rights of subjects of the British Empire. The President of the Board of Trade proposes to take that promise back. It used to be said that an Englishman's word is as good as his bond. We shall have to alter that, and we shall have to say that an Englishman's bond is worth no more than a Prussian's. We know well that the Prussian Government promised to protect Belgium, and on the plea that the President of the Board of Trades makes to-night—that it is a vital necessity—they invaded Belgium in defiance. of their pledges. The President of the Board of Trade, in violation of the pledges we have given to these men, says it is of vital necessity that we should reduce their status of naturalisation. I cannot conceive of anything more dishonouring to the British Empire than a thing of this sort. The President of the Board of Trade gave us an instance of men who have been naturalised and who have endeavoured to trade with the enemy. He said the Board of Trade had a good case against them for having attempted to trade with the enemy. Then they ought to have been prosecuted and they ought to be in gaol.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: The right hon. Gentleman said they had no case, but that they suspected them.
  Mr. BRUNNER: If there was a case against them the Board of Trade ought to have prosecuted them and put them in gaol but they ought to do that with Englishmen who trade with the enemy, just as they would with a naturalised German. There is, therefore, no case on those facts for taking away part of the naturalisation promises which we have given these men on naturalising them. I think we must divide the House against this proposal to take away part of the citizenship Which we have given in times past to men against whom there is nothing whatever in their record as British citizens. If there is anything against their record and it is desired to take further

  443
  powers to take away the naturalisation privileges it should be done by a general Act of Parliament. It should not be done by a side-wind like this. We should get the reasons for taking away naturalisation papers fully set out in an Act of Parliament which can be discussed, and then we should not be doing anything that is to my mind dishonourable. But having given naturalisation papers, and having men against whom there is not a breath of suspicion and not a word against their characters or records, we ought not to take away their privileges as British citizens because they wish to trade in non-ferrous metals.
  Mr. D. MASON: I hope the hon. Gentleman who moved this. Amendment will go to a Division. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is a question that affects the position of this country in making good its honourable obligations, having granted naturalisation to anyone who comes within the requisite qualifications to receive it. To go against what we have already done in the way of granting naturalisation seems to me to bring our own good name into disrepute, and to cast dishonour on the name of Britain and on this House. As the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has well said, if a man has been granted naturalisation he is entitled to the rights of naturalisation, and if he is not qualified to receive them he ought not to get the naturalisation. To give a man naturalisation first, to make him a British subject, and then to penalise him is to bring into disrepute the name of Britain, and to cast a slur on our own conduct. It is a thing which every Member of this House, whatever his opinion may be, should resent. If you say you should not grant naturalisation to men of enemy birth that is logical, but having granted naturalisation—
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is repeating in different words speeches that have already been delivered more than once; and that is not necessary.
  Mr. MASON: I am sorry I was not present, though I have attended the Debate up to a late hour, and did riot hear those speeches. I am sorry if I am repeating them, and all I wish to say is that I will strongly support the hon. Member if he goes to a Division, which I hope he will do on account of the facts to which I have referred.
  Colonel Sir R. WILLIAMS: May I make a remark on the last speech? The hon. Gentleman said he did not hear the arguments he was repeating. They were said not two minutes ago by an hon. Member sitting behind him. May I further make a protest on behalf of some Members of this House who do remember that a War is going on? If hon. Members only remembered that this Non-Ferrous Metals Bill is to portect British from alien influence this Bill ought to have gone through the House in about half-an-hour to an hour. I have been in three or four times in the last two days, and I have found the same hon. Members making the same sort of speeches on the same thing over and over again. There are three or four members of the Government on the Treasury Bench who have pressing international things wafting for them, who have things waiting that are very important for the War, and yet they are kept here, and we have had to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule. Then somebody says, "We have. promised very kindly to let them have the Bill to-night." That is what they call patriotism, and there is a war on ! [An. HON. MEMBER: Order!"] I am perfectly in order, and hon. Members ought to know perfectly well that Ministers have these things waiting for them, and that nevertheless we are keeping them here discussing the same things over and over again. It is not patriotism, and it is not common sense.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: Any honourable arrangement made will be kept so far as we are concerned, but I do think that the remarks which have just been made would not have been made if the hon. and gallant Gentleman had attended these Debates. I regard it as perfectly outrageous that people should come in and make pseudo-patriotic denunciations of this sort about things which they have not studied and have not taken the trouble to understand. Throughout this War many of us have done just as hard and patriotic work as the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself, but simply because we think that the Government could be better employed on other matters than on this Bill, we are not going to be lectured by him; and I can tell many others who want to indulge in tactics of this sort with us that if they want to get Bills through on the basis of a Coalition Government at all events they will be civil to us, who are doing our best in the interest of our constituents.

  445
  We have got one of the Law Officers here now, and I would like to ask him a question. Some very strong statements have been made here, and I say on my word of honour that I can see no distinction between what we are doing and what Bethmann-Hollweg did. By what possible justification are the Government now, by a mere administrative Act, going
  Mr. A. STRAUSS: I beg to move, in paragraph 1, to leave out the words "before the fourth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen."
  I move this Amendment in the absence of the hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Henry), and I do so without offering any arguments, but simply to give the Government an opportunity of saying whether they accept it or not.
  446
  to override certificates of naturalisation without any sort of charge being made against these people and heard in public?
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 36; Noes, 106.

  Division No. 143.]

  AYES.

  [10.18 p.m.

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Jowett. Frederick William

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dewsbury)

  Bliss, Joseph

  King, Joseph

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dewsbury)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

  Nuttail, Harry

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborngh)

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham)

  Hinds, John

  Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. H.

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Roch, Walter F.

  Holt and Mr. Brunner.

  NOES

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

  Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Greig, Col. James William

  Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest George

  Archdale. Lieut. Edward M.

  Gretton, John

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Rees, G. C. (Carnarvon, Arfon)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Hall, Lt.-Cal. Sir Fred (Dulw ch)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, South)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Barnett, Capt. R. W.

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton).

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S.

  Shaw, Hon. A.

  Bentham, G. J.

  Harris, Sir Henry (Paddington, S.)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Bigiand, Alfred

  Henry, Denis S. (Londonderer, S.)

  Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

  Black, Sir Arthur W.

  Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Stanley,Rt.Hon.Sir A.H.(Asht'n-u-Lyne)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Hewins, William Albert Samiel

  Stewart, Gershom

  Boyton, Sir James

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Brace, Rt. Hon. William

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

  Swift, Rigby

  Brassey, H. L. C.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord Edmund

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.

  Terrell, G. (Wilts, N W.)

  Burn. Colonel C. R.

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Thomas-Stanford, Charles

  Carew, C. R. S.

  Janes, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Tickler, T. G.

  Cater, John

  Jenes, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Tootill, Robert

  Cautley, H. S.

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

  Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bottle)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Wardle, George J.

  Colvin, Col. Richard Beale

  Lecker-Lampson, G. (Salisbu'y)

  Whiteley, Sir H. J.

  Coote, William

  M'Calmont, Brig.-Gen. Reber: C. A.

  Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.).

  Cornwall. Sir Edwin A.

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Wills, Major Sir Gilbert

  Currie, George W.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Wilson-Fox, Henry

  Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

  O'Neill, Capt. Hon. H. (Antrim, Mid)

  Worthington Evans, Major Sir L.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes (Fulham)

  Pease, Rt.hon.Herbt. Pike (Darlington)

  Flannery, Sir J. Fartescue

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Peto. Basil Edward

  J. Hope and Mr. Pratt.

  Sir A. STANLEY: We cannot accept the Amendment, and I think it would be wasting the time of the Committee if I were to repeat the arguments which have been already advanced.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: I beg to move, after paragraph 1, to insert the following new paragraph:
  "2. That the company, firm, or individual; has at any time since the

  447
  twelfth day of November, nineteen hundred and seventeen, sold to or purchased for the use or benefit of an enemy or is or was on or after the twelfth day of November, nineteen hundred and seventeen, under contract so to sell or purchase any unmanufactured metals or ores to which this Act applies."
  The object of this Amendment is to fill up a gap in the first paragraph of the Schedule, and deals with the cases of firms which, though otherwise desirable firms, yet have dealings with enemies. I certainly think that that is a case which ought to be met. I do not think it is necessary for me to speak at any length upon the matter, as the object of the Amendment is clear upon the face of it. I trust my right hon. Friend will see his way to accept it. It is one of the Amendments which have been carefully considered by the manufacturers' organisations, and they have asked me to move it.
  Mr. WARDLE: We could not possibly accept this Amendment. Persons who now trade with the enemy would be responsible under the Trading With the Enemy Act, and could be dealt with under that Act, so that this is not necessary.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. HOLT: I beg to move, in paragraph 2, after the word "any" ["any capital"], to insert the words "one-half or more of."
  Unless one-half or more of the capital is held by an enemy the company cannot be said to be an enemy controlled firm, and the fact that one or two shares were so held would not make it an enemy-controlled firm.
  Sir A. STANLEY: We cannot accept this Amendment. I have endeavoured to make it quite clear that it does not at all follow that any company, firm, or individual who comes within the terms of the Schedule could not receive a licence. It is only that this Schedule must be made as wide as possible, so that we shall have an opportunity of reviewing these cases, and the Board of Trade may be able to exercise their discretion in determining whether a licence shall be given. I am sorry we cannot accept the Amendment.
  Mr. L. JONES: I hope the President will realise that this is a case in which
  448
  he will have to exercise very careful discretion, because particularly in these metal concerns there are trading firms in this country which are essentially British firms, but in which there have been enemy holdings, sometimes, it is true, very small, but still enemy holdings, and there is no way of getting rid of them at present. The firms are helpless in the matter, and therefore I think it is a case in which discretion will have to be very carefully exercised.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: Could not the President be satisfied with a somewhat different figure? Why does the Board of Trade want to examine into the matter if there is a quite small fraction? There are cases, I believe, in which about one share is held in a large undertaking, but according to what the President said, even that case has got to be examined. I cannot see what is the good of multiplying the labours in the Board of Trade, and if the right. hon. Gentleman could accept the Amendment later on the Paper of one-fifth, it would save a lot of trouble to the Board of Trade and do no harm to anybody.
  Sir A. STANLEY: May I point out that the control of an undertaking does not necessarily follow from the amount of capital held? It may frequently happen that one share can carry the control of the whole undertaking. It sometimes happens that the whole of the voting is vested in a single share, and very often a small proportion of the capital carries the whole of the profits of the company. Therefore I think it is necessary to have these wide powers, and the Committee may be satisfied that we shall exercise our discretion properly.
  Mr. HENDERSON: Where there is an enemy shareholder in any company at the present time there have been investigations right and left, and the Public Trustee and Board of Trade have sold those shares, and the Public Trustee has got the money. Presumably all these are cleared out, and it would be very hard that any company, which happened to have a few shares they did not know were under the name of somebody who was a nominee of somebody else, should be brought into this.
  Mr. HOLT: I must confess that, for the first time, I think, the Treasury

  449
  Bench have produced an argument against accepting an Amendment. I admit that the case of the founder's share is a sufficient argument against the Amendment in the form in which it is drafted, but is not a sufficient argument against its principle. On the Report stage I will bring forward an Amendment, because it does seem unreasonable that a company in which there was an absolutely trivial voting power of this sort should be subject to this. In almost any company which has been established for a considerable period it may be that a small share has passed to a foreigner by inheritance, and it is unreasonable that for that reason that company should be put under a special disability. Therefore I do hope, if I withdraw the Amendment now, the President will keep his mind open until the Report stage and see if he cannot then accept an Amendment which will have the effect of limiting this to companies, at any rate, where a substantial amount of voting power remains in the hands of enemies.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: May I express my disagreement with what the right hon. Gentleman has said from the Treasury Bench? If he notices condition 5 he will see to what I refer.
  Mr. D. MASON: May I suggest, in view of the hon. Member opposite being willing to withdraw his Amendment, that the right hon. Gentleman the President, if he cannot accept this Amendment, might accept one somewhat similar in terms?
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: I beg to move, in paragraph 2, to leave out the words "the twelfth day of November, nineteen hundred and seventeen," and to insert instead thereof the words "six months from the passing of this Act."
  I do not want to Waste time over this matter, but I should like to know from the President of the Board of Trade why the date 12th November is taken? Would it not be better to put in the words I suggest? What is the point of dating the thing back? Supposing the people chose in the meantime to get rid of this capital? They possessed capital in November, and got rid of it, and you are still going to put them under the difficulty in regard to a licence.
  Mr. WARDLE: The real reason why this date is taken is—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak
  450
  up!"]—that under the circumstances it was felt expedient that it should be so taken.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: My point is that it is rather unusual to take a date in this way, and it is likely to have an absurd effect. If a company puts its house in order by a certain date it is still to have the trouble that I have suggested.
  Sir A. STANLEY: A company, firm, or individual who were under enemy control when this Bill was introduced is given the opportunity of purging themselves of that enemy control, and so of excluding themselves from the Schedule. It does not follow that by that one act alone it has completely purged itself. It may be that their conduct prior to the time that this Bill was introduced was such that nobody would be really justified in assuming that they would carry on their business hereafter is the interests of this country and not in the interests of the foreign control they were subject to at the time the Bill was introduced. This is not any real disability, but an instance where the Board of Trade must exercise its discretion. The Board of Trade will not attempt. to interfere with any undertaking winch is trying to purge itself of any enemy control. On the contrary, we shall be glad to assist them in doing it, but that need not take them outside the Schedule. There may be instances where it would be really wrong to allow a company, firm, or individual to remove themselves from the provisions of this Schedule.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I hope the President w ill reconsider this matter between now and the Report stage. He has spoken of a test, and that is the possession of a certain amount of capital under enemy influence or control. When that test, which is the only one he requires, is removed, when the offence no longer exists, when the test he has provided is no longer applicable, then there is no reason for them to fear examination by the Board of Trade. I think if the right hon. Gentleman looks back upon his earlier career, when he sat upon the other side of the counter, and had to send to the Board of Trade and admit them to his offices for the purpose of conducting his business, I do not think he formed that opinion of their flexibility and easiness. For these reasons I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this point between now and the Report stage.
  Mr. HOLT: I think the President would be well advised if he consented to wipe out this date altogether. If they are really such bad people, all they need to do is to wind up the company and start an absolutely new one, in which none but bonâ-fide British shareholders shall be members.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment made: At the end of paragraph 2, insert the words "including any stock or shares of the company vested in the custodian by virtue of any Order made under the Trading With the Enemy Acts, 1914 to 1916."—[Sir A. Stanley.]
  Mr. STRAUSS: I beg to move, in paragraph 3, to leave out the word "influence," and to insert instead thereof the word "control."
  It seems to me that the word "influence" is far too vague and wide. After all, what does "influence" mean? Supposing a man gets an order from someone in Germany or Austria to buy copper and that on that tip or information he buys some for himself, he would be clearly influenced by the order that he got. Again, he might have a correspondent in Germany or Austria advise him to buy or to sell tin, or give him information that it would be a good operation. That would come under the word "influence." I do not think that is necessarily what is meant; I suppose what is meant is that there should be no control exercised.
  Sir A. STANLEY: The word "influence" is really the better word under the circumstances. It has a wider meaning, and we prefer it. I trust, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. HOLT: I beg to move to leave out paragraph 4.
  This is really one of the most extraordinary paragraphs in the Schedule. It means, if a British firm has a fifth or more shares in a foreign company or if it subsequently or at any time transpires that a foreign company has a fifth of its shares, that it is to be debarred from carrying on trade in this country without a licence. Take the common case of bearer shares. How are you to know who holds bearer shares? A man knows what proportion of bearer shares he holds himself, but how can he possibly know the bearer shares of anybody else? An enemy may
  452
  one day buy up a fifth of the bearer shares of a company. Are we to understand directly that happens, if it can be found out, that the British firm is to be deprived of the full right to deal in non-ferrous metals? Is it part of the policy of the British Government to say that after the War a British subject is not to he interested with a German in business in America or in a neutral country? That apparently is what this Clause means, if it means anything. I should hope, after the War is over and after peace, which, with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith), I trust will be a clean peace, is concluded, that British citizens will co-operate with German citizens in neutral countries. After all, it is only a question of time. It has got to come sooner or later, and it is very regrettable that the Government should put in a Bill something which indicates that there is something improper and wrong in co-operation in commercial enterprises between British and German citizens.
  Sir A. STANLEY: We cannot accept this Amendment, and I can make it clear to the hon. Member why we cannot do so. Let me say, first of all, that it is not the policy of the Government and it is not our intention to try to prevent, after the War, British subjects from associating with foreigners in any new enterprise in a foreign country. It is not intended by this condition that any prohibition will be put upon an association with a foreign undertaking of British and German subjects. What the condition is intended to do is to bring under review any company, firm, -or individual which has formed an association with an undertaking in a foreign country which has associated with it German connections. If an English company had an interest to the extent of one-fifth in, shall we say, a company in America and Germans also had an interest to the extent of one-fifth in that company, the presumption would be that there is a common interest. Between them they practically control that company, because two-fifths is a very substantial part of any undertaking. That in itself is not harmful, but it would be harmful if, through that association, metals in which the foreign undertaking was operating were transferred unfairly to Germany rather than to this country. It is that sort of association we desire to prevent, if we can. Therefore we are assuming that this double connection will in itself be right.

  453
  I say at once that there is no desire on our part to interfere with or impede it in any way. All that we ask is that through that connection there should not be exercised any German control which in itself would be to the advantage of Germany and to the disadvantage of this country. I think that is a fair statement to make. In the circumstances, as I have said, where so large a control of a foreign company is held by Germans and by British subjects, we should have the right of investigation. So long as that control is not exercised unfairly to the disadvantage of this country and to the advantage of Germany, it will not be interfered with; but if the control is exercised to the disadvantage of this country and to the advantage of Germany, all we can do is to prevent the English company associated with that foreign undertaking from trading in this country. We can at least attach that penalty. We cannot prevent them having control of the company, but we can put that penalty upon them, and I think we should have that right.
  Mr. L. JONES: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman sees in what a curious position the Government is being landed by this provision. I had thought it was part of the policy of the Government definitely to encourage traders in this country to try to capture trade from the Germans, to go where the Germans have gone, and to rival and beat them, if they can, at their own business. That has been definitely the policy which the Government has set out as a desirable thing for British traders, and I thought British traders had rivalled Germans all over the world and beaten them, and in most parts of the world, and I think they will continue to do so if the Government will not put obstacles in their way. Has the right hon. Gentleman never heard of endeavouring to get shares in a company in order to acquire influence in it and control it? Yet if a British firm has the enterprise to seek an opportunity of getting into a company whore Germans have had a fifth influence, and the Britisher has had an opportunity of getting a fifth influence, he is viewed with suspicion instead of admiration by the Board of Trade. The whole attitude of the Bill—certainly the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman—was to regard with suspicion any British firm which was going to meddle in a sphere which at present is controlled by Germans. Take the case of Bolivia, where tin is bought by Germans and by British. If the
  454
  British go into a firm in which Germans are already engaged, and if they have the wit, the foresight, the insight, and the willingness to try to get this trade from the Germans, from that moment they are discouraged by the Board of Trade. My right hon. Friend says, "We would not discourage them in such a case. We would commend that enterprise. They have only to confide in us and we shall help them in every possible way." I say again, British traders like to go their own way to work without being meddled with unnecessarily by the Government, and by spreading his net so wide in this Schedule the right hon. Gentleman is discouraging enterprise which the Government professes to wish to encourage.
  Mr. HENDERSON: Let me put this case to my right hon. Friend. In America there are associations controlling a number of mines, and there are so many British, so many Germans, and so many American. I know a case where a third of the capital is held 'ay Germans, a third by Americans, and a third by British. What is going to happen? A taint is to be put upon the British holder. The Britisher must sell his holding. And who buys it? The German. and the American. Why does he acquire the third? To get control of ore for his smelting. You talk about patriotism. I am more patriotic than you. I want to let him have his ore, whereas you are going to put him under the control of the Germans and Americans. That is what this does. It is all very well to say, "We do not mean to do that. We want the power. Give us the power to do everything and anything and trust to our good nature and discretion." That is not good enough. You have no right to put a clog upon British enterprise.
  There is this other difficulty. You Will have very great difficulty in finding out who are the owners of shares in this country. You have tried to meet that by an Amendment giving the company power to call in its shares and have them registered. I do not think it is going to be very operative, but never mind. You have no such power in America, and a British firm may be perfectly innocently the holder of two-fifths of the shares which it has bought for the purpose of giving itself a regular supply of ore, perhaps of a special quality, with more or less sulphur in it, or something of that kind. The Board of Trade regards that firm with suspicion.

  455
  That is not encouraging to British trade. The Board of Trade ought to help British traders to trade in competition with the Germans or the Americans and others, but it is doing the very opposite. I hope that between now and the Report stage the right hon. Gentleman will see the folly of this. He has plenty of other powers in the Bill. This one is absurd and calculated to do more harm than good.
  Amendment negatived.
  11.0 P.M.
  Sir F. HALL: I beg to move to leave out the words, "to the extent of one-fifth or more of the capital."
  I want to clear out all those people who have been holding these enemy shares. We have admitted, by the introduction of this Bill, that we are not satisfied, and we are not prepared for a period of five years, at all events, to recognise Germany or any enemy countries, and yet you turn round and allow shares up to one-fifth of the capital. There has been a great deal of repetition in the discussion on this Bill—the same story told in a different way. On the Second Reading we were told by the right hon. Member for Tyneside (Mr. Robertson) that this was a punitive measure, and we were told yesterday by the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. D. Mason) that it was a futile measure. Let us do away with this futility and these punitive measures and say perfectly plainly that it is not a question of one-fifth of the shares being held by enemies, but that we are not going to allow anything of the sort. We say that it is to be British capital and British industry. So far as I am concerned, I am a British trader, interested in British commerce, and I want to see that at all events for five years we shall be free from this enemy business, and that what you give with one hand in the Bill you shall not take away with the other.
  Mr. WARDLE: We cannot possibly accept this Amendment.
  Sir F. HALL: Why not?
  Mr. WARDLE: The effect of the Amendment would be to prevent the trading of any firm in the non-ferrous metals industry in which enemy interests were concerned, however slight.
  Sir F. HALL: Hear, hear!
  Mr. WARDLE: Experience has shown that so long as that influence is not an
  456
  effective influence there is really no necessity for the Amendment. We have an Amendment on the Paper which, I think, will really meet the hon. Member's point, and that is an Amendment affecting profits or voting power. Our next Amendment on the Paper will cover the point, and will remove all suspicion as to whether the holding will be of such a nature as to carry real control.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: An enemy under the Amendment has only to get one share in a large company to prevent a licence being granted to it. If that is the contribution of a British trader after two days' Debate my withers are unwrung by the charge of having been guilty of a certain amount. of repetition.
  Sir F. HALL: As far as I am concerned I stick to my guns. I had hoped, on the introduction of this Bill, that it was going to be made fairly plain, but I am disappointed as to what fell from the last speaker; we certainly look at this question from different aspects, but I will say this, that an Amendment brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade dealing with hearer shares has simplified matters. Surely it would be perfectly simple for this. House to say, after what we have passed through during three and a-half years of war, we will not join hands with German finance in the introduction of German business, but will fight them off our own bat. I still hope my Amendment may be accepted.
  Amendment. negatived.
  Amendment made: In paragraph 4, after the word "capital," insert the words "profits or voting power."—[Sir A. Stanley.]
  Mr. G. TERRELL: I beg to move, in paragraph 4, to leave out the words "in which enemies are also interested, directly or indirectly, to the extent of one-fifth or more of the capital," and to insert instead thereof the words "which is an enemy controlled corporation."
  We have a definition in the Schedule of what is an enemy controlled corporation. and I venture to think that would be a more workable arrangement than the words of the Bill.
  Mr. WARDLE: I am very sorry I cannot accept this Amendment. It is a limiting

  457
  one. May I acid that in the case of a company in the United States it would not be considered to be enemy controlled.
  Amendment negatived.
  Further Amendment made: At the end of paragraph 4, insert the words "profits or voting power."—[Sir A. Stanley.]
  Mr. HOLT: I beg to move, in paragraph 5, to leave out the words "That the company, firm, or individual is by any means whatever subject directly or indirectly to enemy influence or association."
  I should like a little Inure information on this point. I want to know what is the position of an individual subject to enemy influence? Suppose he has a German mother-in-law, would he be subject to enemy influence or association? Take the case of a company. I happen to know one of the most eminent companies in the town in which I live, of which the principal individual not only has a foreign mother but has a foreign wife. They do not happen to be enemies, but they might have been. Is that a person to be described as subject to enemy influence or association, assuming they had been Germans? In this connection I want to draw attention to what the definition of an enemy State is—
  "An enemy State means any State with which His Majesty is at the passing of this Act, or has after the passing of this Act, become at war."
  So, if within five years after this War is over we are at war with some other country—France or America—all those people who have French or American relatives will discover they are under enemy influence or association. The truth is that this Clause is so absurd and vague that it had better be left out. I defy anyone to say that it has any proper legal meaning. No one can say what enemy influence or association mean. It is a pure matter of opinion as to which I should think even the Courts would find great difficulty in coming to a decision.
  Mr. WARDLE: Really this would be a question of fact in each case.
  Mr. HOLT: How could it be?
  Mr. WARDLE: The hon. Gentleman seems to think there is great difficulty about it, but as a matter of fact these are the words under which the Trading With the Enemy Act has been administered for the last three years, and I do
  458
  not see there should be the slightest difficulty in interpreting them in the proper way in regard to this particular Clause.
  Mr. STRAUSS: We have the learned Solicitor-General here, and I am sure some of us would be very pleased if he would explain to us what the word "association" means. Moreover, it seems to me that if we include paragraph 5 there would he no occasion to have paragraphs 3 and 4 at all, because paragraph 5 is so wide as to include all that is in paragraphs 3 and 4.
  Mr. L. JONES: I think we ought to have some instances given of what the Government really do mean by these words. It is all very well for those who are familiar with the Act referred to by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wardle), but some of us are not so accustomed to that Act and to what is meant by enemy influence and association.
  Sir G. HEWART: I rise reluctantly, because I think it is really unnecessary that I should reply at all. I should be content for my own part to say that I cordially agree with what has been said by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. But I would suggest further that it might be possible for an individual to get round the provisions of paragraph 4 and influence a particular company or individual. I am not going to conjecture instances or possibilities of what might be done, but if I am asked what is meant by "association" I find it difficult to substitute better words. What it means is a protection against businesses being directly or indirectly subject to enemy influence or association. The persons who administer the Act and the Courts which in the last resort would have to interpret it must be expected to act reasonably, and this phrase supplies the general words for those occasions on which by ingenuity the other more express conditions may be successfully evaded. What particular form that may take I shall not attempt to forecast, but I do submit that it is necessary to have general words of the kind, which arc not unknown to the law, as it stands now.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: I beg to move, "in paragraph 5, after the word" to insert the words "in the conduct of their or his business."
  Sir G. HEWART: I agree that those words are unobjectionable and useful.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. D. MASON: I beg to move, in paragraph 5, to leave out the words "influence or association," and to insert instead thereof the word "control."
  There would be interminable discussion caused as to what really constitutes influence or association. If you were to cut out those words it would be perfectly clear, it would avoid friction, and tend to make the Bill popular.
  Sir G. HEWART: This Amendment cannot be accepted. It is precisely because there may be influence or association of a. mischievous character falling short of control that these words are desirable.
  Amendment negatived.
  Sir A. STANLEY: I beg to move, after paragraph 5, to insert the following new paragraph:
  "6. That, in the case of a company, the company has issued share warrants to bearer and has not given notice under this Act requiring the holders of the share warrants to surrender their warrants for cancellation."
  Mr. BRUNNER: This is the string at the tail of the new Clause which the President of the Board of Trade moved earlier in the evening. The original Clause read that you may give notice requiring the share warrants to be surrendered. Now we have come to a new position as fixed in the Schedule, that if you do not call for share warrants you may have the licence withheld. Why not, instead of doing that, put in the Clause simply saying that the company shall give notice of surrender of share warrants? It would be a much less clumsy way of carrying out the operation.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. BRUNNER: I beg to move, after the word "corporation" ["and an enemy controlled corporation"], to insert the words, "Provided that the expression, 'enemy,' shall not mean a person who, or a person whose son, has served in the present War in the Navy, Army, Reserve Forces, or Air Service."
  I think this Amendment really ought to be carried. Surely when a man has fought the enemy, or when his son has fought against the enemy of this country,
  460
  we should not bring him under this Bill as a tainted person. He has proved in a way which a man can best do that he is loyal to this country. It is not only sons who do this. I know some cases where persons of German origin have fought against the country of their origin on account of their loyalty to this country. I think I may press upon the President the acceptance of this Amendment.
  Mr. WARDLE: I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment, because compulsory service might alter the circumstances with regard to some persons who would come within the scope of this measure. But there will be no disposition on the part of the Board of Trade to act arbitrarily, and they will take into consideration the fact of a person having acted loyally and patriotically. In the case of those persons they would certainly give all the circumstances the fullest consideration. This Bill simply provides for a review of the circumstances, and the fact of a review does not mean that a man would not receive the utmost consideration.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. HOLT: I beg to move to. leave out the words, "any State with which His Majesty is at the passing of this Act, or has after the passing of this Act, become at war," and to insert instead thereof the words, "Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey."
  If the Government look at the paragraph, I think they will see that it might cause some trouble. It says, "the expression 'enemy State' means any State with which His Majesty is at the passing of this Act, or has after the passing of this Act, become at war."
  Sir G. HEWART: It will perhaps save the hon. Member the trouble of making further remarks if I say that we are willing to accept this Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MMr. BRUNNER:I beg to move to leave out the word "other" ["other securities"]. I am sure the Solicitor-General knows that shares are in the securities, and therefore the word ought not to be in the Bill.
  Sir G. HEWART: We accept the Amendment, but I must not be taken to agree with the lion. Gentleman's observation.
  Mr. BRUNNER: It is correct all the same.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: After the word "carry" ["which carry any"], insert the words "or would if the necessary formalities were complied with carry."—[Sir A. Stanley.]
  Mr. G. TERRELL: I beg to move, at the end, to add the words "and shall also include debentures and debenture stock and money lent to the company."
  This is intended to fill up what is a loophole in the Bill, because it is obvious that share capital is not the only form of capital which an enemy might have in a company. It would be equally controlled if they held debentures or had a loan.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW SCHEDULE.

  Form of Licence.
  Name of company, firm, or individual…………is hereby licensed under the Non-Ferrous Metal Industry Act of 1918 to carry on the business of winning. extract-
  462
  ing, smelting, dressing, refining, or dealing by way of wholesale trade in metal or the metallic ores to which said Act applies.
  By order of the Board of Trade.
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. HENDERSON: I beg to move, "That the Schedule be read a second time."
  This is the form of licence which has been agreed upon.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Schedule read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twenty-eight minutes before I Twelve o'clock.