Commons Sitting of 23 January 1918

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
HONG KONG WAR RATE.
Copy presented of Treasury Minute relative thereto [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW.
Copy presented of Annual Statistical Report the University Court of the University for the year 1916–17 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
SOANE'S MUSEUM.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House: Copy of Statement of the Funds of the Museum of the late Sir John Soane on the 5th January, 1918 [by Act].
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether it will now he possible to give Indian soldiers who have served for three years in East Africa leave to return to their homes in India?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): It is hoped that under present military arrangements effect will be given to the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member.
    33. Mr. BYRNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware or the growing dissatisfaction amongst the families of Irish soldiers caused by the failure of the War Office to grant leave according to service in the field; if he is aware that hundreds of cases have been brought to the notice of the Member for
    954
    the Harbour Division where Irish soldiers have been at the front since the outbreak of the War without one day's leave; and if he will see that the cause for dissatisfaction is removed?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I am not aware that Irish soldiers are treated differently from their comrades from other parts of the United Kingdom. As I have already explained, all leave that is possible is being given, but facilities are, unfortunately, limited in the more distant theatres of war.
    Brigadier-General M`CALMONT: Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to deny the statement made in the question to the effect that there are hundreds of cases of Irish soldiers who have been at the front since the beginning of the War without leave? Is that statement true?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My information is that it is not.

    RUSSIA.
    Mr. KINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that when M. Trotsky, the present Foreign Minister of Russia, was returning to Russia after the Revolution of March, 1916, his ship was stopped by a British war vessel and M. Trotsky was taken prisoner and charged with being a German agent; on whose instruction was this action taken; and whether he will arrange to remove any possibility of ill-will by requesting the officer in command of this British war vessel to offer his regrets to M. Trotsky?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The vessel in which M. Trotsky left the United States called at Halifax, where M. Trotsky and others were detained, pending inquiries as to wishes of the Russian Government, which were immediately met. The remainder of the question does not arise.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is it not a fact that M. Trotsky was sentenced by a Russian Court to six months' imprisonment for revolutionary action, and had to leave Russia on that account? Is he likely to have any sympathy with Germany?
    Mr. LYNCH: By having M. Trotsky arrested, were you not merely making yourself the cat's-paw of the Czar?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No!
    Mr. LYNCH: Yes, you were!
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question, that it is very desirable to be agreeable and polite to those who have high authority and great power in the world?
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in order to dispel suspicions created by various acts of the Government that it is less favourable to the Republican regime now established in Russia than to the old autocratic government of the Czar, he will take steps to cultivate sympathetic relations with the de facto rulers representing the Republic from stage to stage, and discourage attempts on the part of British institutions to afford help or to honour by distinctions the enemies of the Russian Republic?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): There is not, and never has been, any ground whatever for the suspicions which the hon. Gentleman supposes to exist. I have not the slightest idea to what the suggestion contained in the last clause refers.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the report issued yesterday that the Government are making representations to the Revolutionary Government on behalf of British mining syndicates whose land has been confiscated, and would they do that in respect to any other Government than a revolutionary one?
    Mr. BALFOUR: Certainly ! I do not know the facts, and I have not seen the report; but if British property is confiscated in any country it would be within the sphere of the Foreign Office to make representations.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is only carrying out the policy of the conscription of capital, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has advocated, in the form of the land policy of the Prime Minister?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I do not see the relevancy of that suggestion.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the attacks made upon the Russian revolutionary government at the meetings of Anglo-Russian syndicates as
    956
    a result of the abolition of private property in land; and will he take steps to assure the Russian people that these attacks do not reflect public opinion in this country?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I have no knowledge of these attacks, but in any case, I do not see why at the present moment I should express an opinion on any of the Russian schemes of land legislation.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was reported Yesterday in the Press that the British Government has made representations n Petrograd as regards the expropriation of land and capital? If the Government has taken action, cannot the right hon. Gentleman make a statement?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I did not see the statement referred to.
    Mr. KINGasked whether Colonel Poole and the members of the Russian military mission are still in Russia; and, if so, whether they will be recalled?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: There is no present intention of removing the Mission.
    Mr. KING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what service they can now perform in view of the military position in Russia and our attitude in not supplying them with any more munitions?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I hardly think it would be useful to make a statement.
    Mr. KING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether they are doing useful work at present?

    ROYAL NAVAL AND VOLUNTEER RESERVE.

      TEMPORARY COMMISSIONS.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the number of commissions as assistant paymaster, Royal Naval Reserve and Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, granted during hostilities to civilians with no previous naval experience, and the number of long-service writer ranks and ratings to whom commissioned officer rank has been granted during the same period; the number and description of ratings of the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Naval

      957
      Volunteer Reserve who have received commissions as assistant paymasters, Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve; and the reason for the transfer of these men from duties in which they have been trained to commissioned rank in the accountant branch of the Navy, where further training is essential, and in which capacity they become of higher rank than all the long-service commissioned warrant writers, warrant writers, and writers, Royal Navy?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: Seven hundred and eighty-two temporary commissions as assistant paymaster, Royal Naval Reserve, and 238 as assistant paymaster, Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, have been granted during hostilities to civilians with no previous naval experience. The former number does not include commissions granted to the pursers in vessels taken up as fleet auxiliaries, etc., in the early stages of the War. My hon. Friend must not infer that these direct entries have no qualifications for the work they have to do in our Service. They were selected from bank clerks, chartered accountants, actuaries, and so on.
      The number of long service writer ranks and ratings promoted to commissioned rank up to the present is six, but my hon. Friend will no doubt remember that the possibility of commissioned rank for the writer class dates only from the 14th April last. I ought to add that the rank of paymaster has been instituted for the writer branch, ten being allowed; and, further, the number of warrant writers has been increased from fifteen to fifty-one.
      As regards the second part of the question, about ninety temporary commissions as assistant paymasters have been granted to ratings of the Royal Naval Reserve and Royal Naval Volunter Reserve class, including deckhands, Royal Naval Reserve; chief petty officers, petty officers, leading seamen, able seamen, ordinary seamen, signalmen, and writers of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. These temporary commissions are granted to ratings in the Royal Naval Reserve and Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve only when it is considered likely, from their previous experience in civil life, that they would be able to carry out the duties satisfactorily.
      Mr. HOGGE: Does my right hon. Friend not see that there is a very potential ground of discontent when thousands of civilians from the outside get commis-
      958
      sions and only six of the men who have served and had experience inside get promoted?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: It is six in a short time.
      Mr. HOGGE: It is one thousand in a shorn, time.
      Dr. MACNAMARA: No; rather longer.
      Mr. HOGGE: Is it not the case that a great many people now holding commissions will be reverted back after the War 7 Many men during the War would be willing to accept those conditions, and why should not the men who have had experience in service not get a preference over those who have had no service
      Mr. BUTLER LLOYDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention. has been called to the fact that a temporary lieutenant, Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, upon being promoted to temporary lieutenant-commander gets no increase in his pay until he has served eight years; is he aware that these officers,. upon promotion, are likely to be put into, more difficult positions, with more men under them, and are put to expense as regards uniform, etc., and that many of them have given up lucrative positions to join the Service; and will he take the necessary steps to obtain an immediate increase of pay to these officers upon promotion?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: A lieutenant in the Royal Navy has to serve eight years as lieutenant before he can be given the rank of lieutenant-commander. A temporary lieutenant R.N.V.R., however, has already this advantage that he is eligible for promotion to temporary lieutenant-commander, R.N.V.R., at an earlier date. Further, he receives an increase of pay after four years. It is probably true that many of them have given up lucrative positions to join the Service, but it is not considered necessary to increase the pay of these officers immediately upon promotion. I would remind my hon. Friend' that, as from the 1st October last, the pay of the lieutenant, R.N.V.R., on entry has, been raised from 1ls. to 12s. a day; after four years' combined service as lieutenant, R.N.V.R., and lieutenant-commander, R.N.V.R., from 12s. to 13s. 6d. a day; and: after eight years' combined service from, 13s. to 16s. a day.

      SHIPPING LOSSES.
      Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can explain the discrepancies between the official Return published on 17th January of British vessels sunk during the week ending midnight 12th January, namely, six vessels of 1,600 tons gross register or over, including one vessel sunk during the week ending 22nd December and one during the weak ending 5th January, and the much larger number of vessels sunk reported to underwriters during the week ending midnight 12th January?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: The official Weekly Return is made up on Wednesday morning, and includes reports received up to that time of ships actually sunk during the week ending midnight on the previous Saturday. It is understood that reports are entered in Lloyd's Loss Book under the date of their receipt and not under the actual date of loss.
      During the week ending midnight 12th January twelve ships over 1,600 gross tons were reported to Lloyd's by the Admiralty as sunk by submarine or mine, and these would appear on the Loss Book at Lloyd's during that week. Six of these ships were actually sunk during the week ending midnight 5th January, and were included in that week's official Return. The remaining six were included in the Return for the week ending midnight 12th January.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that sixteen and not twelve ships were reported; and, in this connection, may I ask whether it is the Admiralty who has inspired or is responsible for the attempt by certain authorities to suppress the sources of my information?
      Sir CHARLES HENRY: Would my right hon. Friend make arrangements so that the reports issued on Thursday morning and those issued by Lloyd's may be in agreement?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I will have the last-mentioned point looked into. If my hon. Friend will give me the facts concerning his last statement, I will investigate the matter. As regards the hon. Gentleman's former statement, he says the number is not twelve but sixteen. That may very well be the case, and this may be the explanation. Lloyd's is closed, I understand, from midday on Saturday to 10 a.m. on Monday, so that additional ships reported to Lloyd's on the afternoon of Saturday,
      960
      5th January, would not appear in the list until Monday, 7th January, but those ships would be in the current return of the Admiralty. My hon. Friend, seeing them in the Monday list of Lloyd's, would expect to find them in the list, but they had already appeared.
      Mr. HOUSTON: My right hon. Friend is quite aware that I cannot at this time discuss the modus operandi in connection with his invitation, but as regards the other part of my question I propose to deal directly with the Prime Minister.
      Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly.
      Mr. HOGGE: Will my right hon. Friend not deal with the public directly instead of with people who have special information? If it is true that sixteen vessels were sunk in that week why were we told officially that there were only six?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: No, no. With great respect I submit that my hon. Friend is quite wrong. I explained that sixteen may have appeared in Lloyd's List, but if we sent them down on Saturday they would not get them till the following Monday, and my hon. Friend would not be aware that they had been in our Return for the previous week.
      Mr. HOGGE: Will the ten be in this next week's Return?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: If they have not already been in they will be, but a number of those of which my hon. Friend speaks have been in the week before, and my hon. Friend is dealing with those which have been in the week before, and he is not aware of it.
      Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a refrigerated steamer was torpedoed in the early morning of the 20th instant at about the same place and about the same hour as a steamer belonging to the same owner was torpedoed on Christmas Day; whether the first of these steamers was under escort or Admiralty protection at the time she was torpedoed; and, if so, what was the nature or description of the protection?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes." The vessel was not under escort.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Seeing that during the last month a large number of ships have been sunk at this spot will the Admiralty consider the alteration of their policy of

      961
      instructing shipmasters from various ports to converge on this spot and thus fall right into the submarine, and can the right hon. Gentleman explain why that submarine has not been dealt with during the last few weeks?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot explain why a submarine has not been dealt with. As regards the former point, I have already invited my hon. Friend, if he has information about the convoys or any views on that question, to be so good as to place it before the Admiralty.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that I have complied with that invitation in a communication in which I filled about ten pages of letter paper?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I am very glad to hear it and to know that my hon. Friend did accept my invitation.
      Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any information as to the loss of a steamer which sailed from Liverpool on or about 15th December for Waterford and the loss of a steamer which sailed from Waterford on or about 17th December for Liverpool, together with the loss of all lives on board both ships; whether these vessels were escorted or in any way protected by the Admiralty; if so, what was the nature and description of the protection; and will he state the total number of lives lost on both vessels?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: We have no information respecting the loss of these ships, except this, that one of the boats and part of another of the boats of one of the ships in question have been washed ashore. My hon. Friend is probably aware that the weather about that time off that coast was very bad. The vessels were not under escort. We have no information as to the numbers forming the crews of these vessels.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Do not you know the number of lives lost? Cannot you communicate with the owners and make inquiries?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: No; I can make inquiries, as my hon. Friend can.
      Mr. HOUSTON: I know them.
      Mr. HOGGE: May I ask whether it is a fact that a large number of children were lost by the sinking of these vessels?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: No; I cannot say. I should require notice of that question.
      Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the official lists giving the sinkings by the enemy of British vessels of 1,600 tons gross register and over, regularly published by the Press Bureau weekly, after readjustment or correction, show a total number of sinkings for the twenty weeks ending 12th January substantially less than those reported sunk in the underwriters' room during the same period; and whether he is prepared to make any statement on the subject?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: If in this question my hon. Friend refers to submarine sinkings, he will see that I have already answered it in anticipation in the reply I gave to his question No. 5.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman account for the discrepancy?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I have tried to explain that, looking at Lloyd's List for a particular week and comparing it with our Return, proves nothing at all, because some of the ships in the list have already been in our Return.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman grasp the question? Does he recognise that it refers to the total for twenty weeks?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: What is true of one week would probably be true of twenty weeks.. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]
      Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now make any statement regarding the sinking by enemy operation of a steamship in the mouth of the Mersey on the morning of 28th December, with the loss of forty-two lives out of the forty-three on hoard, including some nineteen pilots and a number of apprentices?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: This vessel, I regret to say, struck a mine which, no doubt, was laid on the same night a few hours prior to the loss. Our record shows that two were saved out of forty-three, which included sixteen pilots.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the evidence of men who were in a vessel close alongside is that it was torpedoed and not mined; and, in this connection, may I ask him whether it is not a fact that one of these pilots,

      963
      Mr. Alfred Davies, was rescued and died in hospital and had a military funeral accorded to him so as to suppress—
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.
      Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the three large steamers, the names of which have been given to him, have been included in the official list of sinkings; and, if so, on what date?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, Sir. The vessels were included in the Return for the week in which these ships were sunk, the week ending 5th January, 1918.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Has not the hon. Gentleman already informed us in this House that this class of vessel is not included in the sinkings?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: These vessels were sunk.
      Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the total number of lives lost on the two steamers sunk by enemy operation in the Mediterranean on or about 31st December last?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I greatly regret to say that in one case the losses are approximately 484; in the other case, approximately 224. I should explain to my hon. Friend that the public notification of the losses of these vessels is being delayed until all the relatives have been notified. This course has been adopted because we found that notification in the Press immediately upon the loss gave rise to the greatest anxiety amongst members of the community who, from the area in which their relatives were serving, were left in doubt as to whether members of their family circle might not be amongst those lost.

      BOMBARDMENT OF YARMOUTH.
      Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number and class of German war vessels which bombarded Yarmouth on or about the night of 15th January?
      Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the species of hostile craft that attacked Yarmouth on the 15th January last?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: A report. received from one of our patrol vessels off Yarmouth indicates that the vessels which attacked that town were torpedo-boat destroyers. The number of vessels is unknown.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is reported that the enemy destroyers numbered four; and, seeing the repeated attacks on the East Coast and North-East Coast by enemy raiders, who invariably escape, will he say, who is in command of the East and North-East Coast, and who is responsible?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not aware of the statement that. the enemy destroyers numbered four. I have not seen that statement. I have given the statement from the responsible officer, of whom I inquired. With regard to the latter part of the hon. Member's question, if the suggestion that I should give the name of the responsible officer implies a. dereliction of duty on his part, I think that is particularly ungracious and ungrateful of the hon. Member.
      Mr. HOUSTON: I protest against these remarks. I was asking who is responsible for this, and we are entitled to know.
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give himself the trouble of putting down some of these extra questions. If he has these questions in his mind and wants to ask them, he can always put them on the Paper.
      Mr. HOUSTON: On a point of Order. You ruled on Monday that. the object of questions is to enable facts to be elicited. I had not anything in mind until I heard what the right hon. Gentleman said about it.
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman asked who was in command, and that is a question which he can put on the Paper, if he wishes to know it.
      Mr. LYNCH: May I ask why private Members are to be debarred during questions from any displays of emotion, while they may be indulged in so freely on the: Front Bench?

      PORTBURY (CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT).
      Mr. KINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether many skilled men, boilermakers, riveters, caulkers, drillers,

      965
      and fitters, have been now for about three months at Portbury, and, having only done navvy labour and being without prospect of the real work for which they went there, many as volunteers, they are discontented; that there are no bathing facilities and yet men are punished for being dirty; that there are complaints as to food and harsh discipline; and what action will be taken to remedy these conditions?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: This work is being carried out by personnel of the Inland Waterways and Docks, Royal Engineers. The majority of the men of the trades mentioned are employed at their trades or have been transferred. Owing to shortage of labour, it is possible that a few of the less skilled may have been employed temporarily at other work. I am not aware of complaints as to baths, food, or discipline. Most of the men are in billets. Baths are arranged in their billets; and the bath-house was the first building to be erected at the camp and is now nearing completion. Special attention is given to food, which is under the supervision of an experienced messing officer.
      Mr. KING: Are further inquiries being made?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Not so far as I know, but, in view of my answer, I do not think that it is necessary

    PRIVATE SHIPYARDS.

      CLASSES OF LABOUR REQUIRED.
      Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of extra, men employed by the private shipyards in Great Britain each week for the three weeks ending 19th January last?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot now provide my right hon. Friend with the figures for each of the three weeks ended 19th January. I can tell him, however, that there was a net increase during the two months ended 30th November of about 4,000. I can tell him further that during the two weeks ended the 4th and 11th January the additional entries were 1,378 and 848 respectively. I ought to say, however, that these last figures do not represent net additions, but include transfers from one yard to another.
      Shipbuilders have been asked to render weekly demands of the classes of labour they require, with a statement showing
      966
      how the demands of the previous week have been met, and if my right hon. Friend will at any time put a question down sufficiently in advance of the day of answering, I will gladly give him the figures he requires for the weeks covered by his question.
      Mr. LAMBERT: Did the right hon. Gentleman include in his answer the month of December, or was it only for November?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I believe that the figure I gave of about 4,000 was for the two months ending 30th November. Then I gave two weeks ending 4th and 11th January.
      Mr. LAMBERT: Why not give December?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid I have not got those figures. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put down a question.
      Sir C. HENRY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the net figures?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: As regards the weeks ending 4th and 11th January? No, I have not got those figures.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Did not the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller say that building during December was less than during November?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say.

      NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
      Mr. B. LLOYDasked the First. Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been called to the fact that under the new Regulations for children's allowances of naval officers a lieutenant will receive £2 per month per child, subject to a maximum of £8 a month, but upon promotion to lieutenant-commander, although he would get no increase of pay except after eight years' service, the children's allowance would drop to £1 per month per child, with a maximum of £4 a month; and will he take steps to remove this grievance?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: The officers referred to are temporary lieutenant-commanders of the R.N.R. and R..N.V.R., and, as they receive pay on the scale for lieutenants, they will be eligible for full children's allowances.

    FOREIGN OFFICE AND DIPLOMATIC SERVICE.

      SELECTION OF CANDIDATES.
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will seize the occasion caused by totally new conditions in foreign affairs to reorganise his Department completely, destroying the tradition that it is the appanage of a favoured section of the community, and open the way to young men of ability, energy, and character, inclined to sympathy with forward movements of civilisation?
      Mr. BALFOUR: There seems to be much general misconception on this subject. The examination for entry into the Foreign Office and Diplomatic Services is, and has for many years been, competitive, and (with certain exceptions due to the necessity of a special knowledge of foreign languages) similar to that for the rest of the Civil Service. Candidates are nominated by the Secretary of State, on the recommendation of a Board of Selection, whose duty it is to advise whether the candidates possess the necessary qualities for these services. The whole matter was very carefully examined in 1913 and 1914 by a Royal Commission.
      I hope that an improvement in the present very inadequate scale of pay of the Diplomatic Service will shortly remove the necessity for requiring of candidates for that service a small private income, and will thus enlarge the field of selection. I know no method of securing the services of young men "inclined" (in the hon. Gentleman's words) "to sympathy with the forward movement of civilisation" by the machinery of competitive examination.
      Mr. LYNCHWill the right hon. Gentleman remove at once, not in the future which may not exist, this bar of requiring a small private income?

      EX-KING CONSTANTINE.
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the payment of a pension of £20,000 a year to ex-King Constantine through the Greek Government is still authorised; whether he will associate this payment with the facts that ex-King Constantine is the centre of a group of pro-German propagandists in Switzerland, and that to this
      968
      propaganda in part has been attributed by British and French authorities the weakening of the Italian lines on the Isonzo and the military defection in Russia; and whether, in view of these circumstances, he will now consider the advisability of bringing this matter before the Greek Government?
      Mr. BALFOUR: This question is a domestic concern of the Hellenic Government, and I do not consider that it would be desirable for His Majesty's Government to advise them in the matter.
      Mr. LYNCH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government of France have intervened to prevent any part of their funds being devoted to subsidising this enemy of the Allies, and that, in spite of that, this Government persists in subsidising him? Is not that Boloism in its worst form?
      Mr. BALFOUR: I do not know to what transaction of the French Government the hon. Member's remarks refer. I do not believe that any of the money with which we endeavour to assist our Allies in the prosecution of the War goes to the ex-King of the Hellenes.
      Mr. LYNCH: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, if not entirely by himself, by other representatives of the Foreign Office, it has been admitted that this Government has control over that money which the Government of Greece supplies to this arch-enemy and agent of the Kaiser?
      Mr. BALFOUR: No, I am not.
      Mr. LYNCH: It is so.

      DOWAGER DUCHESS OF COBURG.
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will place in the Library of the House a copy of the contract whereby the Dowager Duchess of Coburg is paid a large annual pension; whether he will state the exact amount; whether he will make it clear whether this contract was made with the Russian Government or with the lady herself; whether, if made with the Russian Government, it is still valid in spite of the disappearance of that Government; whether, if made with the lady personally, he will indicate the consideration, as, for instance, the services rendered by her to this country; whether since that date he

      969
      has been made aware that she is herself an active agent of the enemies of this country, and that her son is lending troops against this country; and whether, in view of the effect on the public mind of such subsidies granted to alien enemies, he will take steps to stop the payments?
      Mr. BALFOUR: The hon. Member will find a copy of the treaty on which the question turns in the Library, No. C. 901 of 1874. I think this will supply him with all the relevant facts of the case. As regards policy, I must refer him to the reply returned by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the lion. Member for Roxburgh on 18th November, 1914.
      Mr. LYNCH: Is it also a fact that this lady is a conspicuous enemy of the Allies, and that she also is being subsidised by the British Government?
      Mr. BALFOUR: I am not going to argue the question. We have a treaty obligation, and we keep it. The reasons for keeping it were stated by the Prime Minister. I have no more to say in answer to the question.

      ENEMY TERRITORY.
      Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) the acreage of colonial possessions of France and Germany, respectively, at the outbreak of hostilities; (2) the acreage of the territory in Europe which belonged to Germany at the outbreak of war and which is now claimed by France, and the acreage of what Austrian territory is claimed by Italy?
      Mr. BALFOUR: With regard to these questions, I have no other means of information than those at the disposal of the hon. Member.

      AUSTRALIAN SOLDIERS (CONSCRIPTION REFERENDUM).
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give to the House the figures showing how Australian soldiers in the field voted en the question of Conscription?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Hewins): I have no information beyond what has appeared in the Press.
      Mr. LYNCH: Will you obtain that information?

      INFANTRY UNITS (TRANSFERS).
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in transferring men from the Army Service Corps, Mechanical Transport, to Infantry units, any regard is had to the distinction between men who volunteered for' this service in the early days of the War and conscripts?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The considerations governing transfers arc the necessity of placing the younger and fitter men in the Infantry, and the question of volunteer or conscript does not arise.

      BADGES AND MEDALS.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any distinctive mark, apart from the silver badge, is to be devised to protect men who are no longer fit for service from invidious treatment in public?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not know why my hon. Friend considers that anything is necessary beyond the silver badge. I would remind him that there are also wound stripes and chevrons for service overseas.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can make any announcement regarding any distinction to many officers and men who were called up at the beginning of the War and have served since but who were prevented from going abroad owing to other duties being allocated to them in connection with the Expeditionary Force?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The question of the award of medals for the present War is receiving careful consideration. The claims of those officers and soldiers who have served since the commencement of the War, but who have been prevented from going abroad, have not been lost sight of.

      LABOUR COMPANIES (COMMANDS).
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) what justification there is for employing so many majors in command of Labour Companies in view of the Army Council Instruction which gives authority for the acting rank

      971
      of captain to be given to officers who hold lower ranks but are appointed to such commands; (2) whether more suitable employment than commanding Labour Companies could be given to field officers?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The reason for the employment of field officers is that there are a large number of suitable majors available whose services can be made use of in this way.

      LABOUR DIRECTORATE (FRANCE).
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many officers are now employed on the Labour Directorate; and what number, if any, had any special experience of controlling labour before their appointment?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The total of the Staff appointments to the Directorate of Labour in France is approximately forty-nine. In regard to the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given yesterday to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Mont-gomeryshire.

      EAST AFRICAN OPERATIONS.
      Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether colonels commanding columns in the late operations in East Africa have been or are to be given the rank of brigadier-general while they were so employed?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not know precisely what columns my hon. and gallant Friend refers to in his question, but I understand that the main portions into which the force is divided are commanded by brigadiers-general.
      Colonel YATE: If a colonel was commanding an independent column equivalent to a brigade, is it not fair that he should be given the temporary rank of brigadier-general while doing so?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: That is a question entirely within the discretion of the local General Officer Commanding-in-Chief.

      SOLDIERS (BODY PROTECTION).
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the question has been adequately considered of providing the soldiers in the trenches with
      972
      suitable body protection against rifle bullets; and, if so, whether anything will be done in the matter?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Suitable provision has been made.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      CONSTRUCTIONAL ENGINEERS.
      Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether constructional engineers engaged before the War in erecting iron work, and who are not in Class A 1, but doing only clerical work in the Army, are being allowed to return to their employment, in view of the necessity for such class of man for the erecting of aerodromes, huts, and other such buildings at the present time?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The policy is to place such men at their trades in the Army, and I should be glad of any details which my hon. Friend can give me where this is not being done.

      REVIEW OF EXCEPTIONS ACT.
      Colonel LESLIE WILSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a non-commissioned officer or man who has been re-examined under Army Council Instruction No. 643, of 1917, issued in connection with the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act, and who is given a discharge paper endorsed with the statement that he is discharged in consequence of being reexamined and found permanently and totally unfit for service, is, under any Regulations, liable to be recalled for further examination; and, if so, under what conditions can a man consider himself totally and finally exempted from further service?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): My hon. Friend has asked me to reply. An officer, noncommissioned officer, or man given a discharge certificate after medical examination under the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act, 1917, showing that he is permanently and totally unfit for military service, is not liable under any Statute or Regulations to be recalled for medical examination or for military service.

    MILITARY DENTAL SERVICE.

      REOMMENDATIONS OF COMMITTEE.
      Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he has received a copy of the Report which a non-party Parliamentary Committee on the relation of military dental service to man-power propose to publish; and, if so, what steps the War Office propose to take in regard to the recommendations contained therein?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend will realise that in an answer to a question I cannot do more than indicate in general terms the views of the War Office on the recommendations of the Committee over which he presided:

      (1) The importance of conservative treatment of soldiers' teeth in this country is fully recognised, and frequent instructions have been issued.

      (2) Qualified dental surgeons and lorries are supplied as they are demanded by the Commanders in the field, and I have no reason to suppose that they have asked for less than they thought necessary.

      (3) Specially qualified dental surgeons are already associated with surgeons in the treatment of jaw cases. There are several centres specially staffed for this work, and if the local medical authorities wanted more the War Office would supply them.

      (4) Dentists and dental mechanics are already being withdrawn from combatant units as this becomes necessary.

      (5) There is already an inspecting dental surgeon in each command, who supervises the dental work and advises the Deputy Director of Medical Services.

      Mr. PENNEFATHER: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that there is an inspecting dental surgeon in each command in this country or abroad?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot say offhand. If the hon. Member will put a. question down I will inquire, but my impression is that it refers to this country.
      Mr. TENNANT: Have all the demands for dental surgeons been able to be complied with?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I am informed that is so.
      Colonel YATE: Is there now a dental surgeon to each division?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot at the moment say. I think that in the answer I have given I have fully stated all the steps which have been taken. if the hon. Member would like further information. I will gladly give it.

      ANTI-AIRCRAFT CORPS.
      Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if it is the intention of the War Office to dispense with the services of the half-time men of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve of the Anti-Aircraft Corps who for the past three and a half years have manned the searchlights in London, and to replace them with whole-time men; if he is aware that most of these are business men above military age whose experience and efficiency have repeatedly received official commendation, who are desirous of continuing their service to the end of the War, and whose supersession will make an unnecessary additional demand on our man-power; and if he will have the matter reconsidered before taking action?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: These men do not give half-time, but a third of their time. Recent developments in searchlight training have necessitated a higher degree of training and efficiency, which can only be achieved by whole-time men. A sufficient number of half-time men will be re-engaged from the present personnel for duties which can be efficiently performed by men who can only give that amount of time.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: Are they all being invited to volunteer for half-time?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not aware of that, but I will inquire.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: What is to become of these men who have been giving their services all these years, and are quite willing to go on, but are business men who must give sonic of their time to their business?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I will inquire into all that, but the hon. Member must realise that the Army is concerned in the main with whole-time service.

      INJURED AND DISEASED SOLDIERS (UNREGISTERED PRACTITIONERS).
      Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether an officer or man who is entitled to or in

      975
      receipt of a pension or gratuity as a result of injury or disease which the Army doctor has failed to cure, arid who, after obtaining permission in accordance with Army Council Instruction No. 1,802 of 1917, at his own cost consults an unregistered practitioner, will suffer reduction or loss of such pension or gratuity in case the unqualified practitioner succeeds no better than the Army doctor?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): No, Sir.

      ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
      Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, considering that many officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps have been detained on garrison duty in India beyond the regulation term of five years, he can now state by what date arrangements will be made to relieve those officers and give them a chance of service in France or elsewhere?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given on 3rd December last to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York. Steps are being taken to relieve as ninny as possible of the medical officers who have been a lung time in India, but in view of the transport and otter difficulties, such as the loss of time and services involved in carrying out reliefs. I regret it is quite impossible to give a date in connection with this, or even to promise that all such officers will be relieved.

      1914 STAR.
      Sir C. HENRYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the members of the Expeditionary Force, including a battalion of the South Wales Borderers and other units, who took part in the capture of Tsingtau, are entitled to receive the ribbon and medal that is being awarded to those men who were in service in France between August. and November, 1914; and, if not, will he state the reasons why those who were instrumental in the victory in the East should not receive similar recognition to those engaged in the campaign in France?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer to the first part of this question is in the negative. With regard to the latter part of the
      976
      question, the 1914 Star is granted for certain service which is specified in Army Order 350, of 1917. Unless the conditions for the award of this decoration are fulfilled, it cannot be awarded. However, the claims of all who have taken part in any military operations against the enemy will in due course receive suitable recognition.
      Sir C. HENRY: Does that refer to the period of the operations between August and November, 1914, or to the present period?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Certainly. The 1914 Star was given for special service in France. The other point the hon. Member raised will be looked into.

      BRIGADIER-GENERAL ELLIOT.
      Mr. TICKLERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if the War Office have yet decided to reinstate Brigadier-General Elliot, as they promised to do?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: T am afraid that there has so far been no opportunity.
      Mr. TICKLER: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is over three months since he made the statement in this House that the War Office was considering the reinstatement of this officer?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: That is quite true, and, as far as I know, of the three officers, I think two have been re-employed, but it is correspondingly difficult to get an appointment for a brigadier-general
      Mr. HOUSTON: Seeing that Major Grimshaw has been reinstated, what reason is there, beyond what the hon. Gentleman said, for not reinstating General Elliot'? Was it because of the evidence he gave before the Dardanelles Commission?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: No; there was no, ulterior motive, so far as the Army Council is concerned, for keeping him back from getting a brigade. The Army Council recognises that he is a very gallant officer, but it is very difficult to appoint a brigadier straight to a brigade.
      Mr. HOUSTON: In the meantime is he receiving brigadier-general's pay?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot say he is. I have no doubt after the decision of the Army Council he would be placed immediately upon half-pay.

    CAMBRAI.

      IMPERIAL GENERAL STAFF.
      Mr. WALTER ROCHasked the Prime Minister if he can, consistently with the public interest, say who constituted the Court of Inquiry which inquired into the recent operations at Cambrai?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The inquiry into the Cambrai operations assumed the form of taking the evidence of all concerned. This evidence was submitted to Sir Douglas Haig and by him forwarded to the War Office, by whom it was submitted in its entirety to the War Cabinet.
      Mr. WALTER ROCHasked the Prime Minister whether he can, consistently with the public interest, state what. changes have been made in the Headquarters Staff in France?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The following changes have been made:
      Lieutenant-General Sir H. Lawrence to be Chief of the General Staff.
      Colonel E. W. Cox to be Brigadier-General, General Staff (Intelligence).
      Lieutenant-General Travers-Clark to be Quartermaster-General.
      Major DAVIES: Are these changes made in consequence of the inquiry into the operations at Cambrai?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I am answering a question later.
      Mr. WALTER ROCHasked whether the changes in the Headquarters Staff in France, which have been announced in the Press, were made in consequence of the Report to the War Cabinet on the recent operations at Cambrai?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: No, Sir.

      SOLDIERS' RATIONS.
      Sir C. HENRYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether there have been any alterations in the rations of the forces in the United Kingdom as compared with the end of June last; and, if so, will he give the modifications that may have been made?
      Mr. FORSTER: There have been no alterations since the date mentioned.
      Sir C. HENRY: Is it proposed to make any alteration?
      Mr. FORSTER: That is under consideration.
      Sir C. HENRYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will give the protein value of the present rations to. the forces in the United Kingdom as compared with that of the Expeditionary Force?
      Mr. FORSTER: The protein value of the present rations as issued to the troops in the United Kingdom is 126.6 grammes daily; that of the normal field ration as issued to the Expeditionary Force, France, is 140 grammes of protein daily; and that. of the lines of communication ration as. issued is 126.6 grammes of protein daily.
      Sir C. HENRY: Does the right lion. Gentleman consider that the forces in this country and on lines of communication require the same as those in France?
      Mr. FORSTER: Many of them are doing,. practically, precisely the same work.

      CONSCRIPTION OF WEALTH.
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether, in order to respond to the demand for equality of sacrifice, he will take immediate steps to prepare a scheme for the conscription of wealth and of all capitalistic plant in the country?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.

      EX-TSAR.
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact of the deposition of the Emperor of the Russias and the setting up of a Republic in that country, he will take steps to have the name of the ex-Tsar removed from the list of honorary officers of the British Army?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The reply is the same.
      Mr. LYNCH: Has the Government sufficiently weighed the gravity of that. reply? They are giving 1,000,000 bayonets for a dynasty.

      IRISH CONVENTION.
      Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minis whether a Defence of the Realm Regulation which forbids any person in

      979
      any newspaper to purport to describe or to refer to any proceeding of the Convention assembled on the invitation of His Majesty's Government for the purpose of preparing a Constitution for the future government of Ireland has been withdrawn; and, if not, will he say if the owners of newspapers published in England who have been able to accurately describe, and also to comment on, the proceedings of the Convention will be held liable to the penalties prescribed for a breach of the Regulation?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The Regulation is still in force, and it is of the utmost importance at the present time, when the Convention has reached a critical stage, that the Regulation should be carefully observed. The Irish papers have loyally adhered to it, and the Press Bureau has issued a special warning on the subject to the English Press. If there should he any serious contravention of the Regulation, steps will be taken to enforce it.
      Major NEWMAN: Has my right hon. Friend read last week's "Nation" and the remarks by "Wayfarer," which are a perfectly accurate description of the deadlock?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Perhaps I am not so well informed as to what has taken place. I have not read the paper in question.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      BEER.
      Major DAVIESasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the statements made by Mr. Hoover, the Food Controller of the United States, that grain exported from America is being used for the manufacture of alcoholic liquor in this country; and whether, having regard to the patriotic efforts which are being made by the people of the United States to provide the Allies with supplies of food and the feeling which exists against the manufacture of liquor in time of war, he will give an assurance to the Government of the:United States that all grain fit for human and animal consumption will be utilised in this country for the purposes of food?
      Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury):I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first, part of the question is in the nega-
      980
      tive. As I have already stated, in view of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Industrial Unrest, the Government cannot regard the restricted quantity of beer now allowed to he brewed as involving an avoidable waste of foodstuffs.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: Then why did the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor speak of the large waste of foodstuffs?
      Mr. PARKER: I cannot answer for my predecessor.
      Mr. CHANCELLORasked (1) the Prime Minister if he is aware of the resentment at the effect of the Food Controller's Regulation, which allows brewers to pay 5s. 3d. per quarter more than millers for barley, in diverting the best quality from use, in bread, -thus deteriorating its quality and accentuating shortage; and whether, now that brewers have bought nearly half the entire crop, he will cancel that Regulation, and put bread consumers on an equality with beer drinkers, and bakers with brewers, by allowing the same maximum prices to all buyers; and (2) the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he will stop discouraging the use of the best foodstuffs for food by discontinuing the preference of 5s. 3d. per quarter hitherto allowed to brewers and putting all purchasers of barley on an equality in regard to maximum prices?
      Mr. PARKER: I have been asked to reply. The point raised by the hon. Member is at the moment under consideration, and it is hoped to make an announcement shortly.

      ARMY RATIONS (UNITED KINGDOM).
      Sir C. HENRYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether it is being considered to reduce the rations of the Forces in the United Kingdom?
      Mr. FORSTER: The matter is at the moment under consideration.

      STORE CATTLE.
      Mr. DIXONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he is aware that during the next three months farmers and graziers will be buying in store cattle for feeding; if he can give some definite assurance that he will not alter his present fixed prices, at any rate before next Christmas, so that buyers of stores may know what to be at; and if he intends to regulate in any way the price or sale of store cattle?
      Mr. PARKER: The question of the regulation of the sale of store cattle is at present receiving the consideration of the Food Controller. It is hoped that it may shortly be possible to make a definite announcement with regard to the future maximum prices for fat cattle.
      Mr. G. LAMBERT: When will that announcement be made
      Mr. PARKER: I am sorry that I cannot give the exact date, but it Neill be shortly.

      MEAT.
      Mr. E. WASONasked what is the position of a householder in London whose butcher refuses to serve him as a customer owing to his name not being on his books for the month of October last, the customer being out of town for that month?
      Sir R. COOPERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if, by the recent Order to butchers to reduce their present supplies of meat to 50 per cent. of their October sales, it is his intention that those householders who were living strictly within their meat rations last October should now he reduced to a ration of 2 2–7 oz. of meat per person, whilst those who were not living within their rations will automatically obtain a much higher allowance than those who have acted patriotically?
      Mr. PARKER: The present Regulations merely limit the amount of the butcher's purchases of cattle and meat, and leave room for adjustment in sales to individual customers pending the introduction of definite schemes for controlling distribution. It is hoped that such temporary adjustment will be effected on the basis not of a customer's past purchases in any given month, but of his reasonable and proper requirements at the present time. I may add that Lord Rhondda has under consideration a definite scheme for rationing meat.
      Sir R. COOPER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of the local food committees are interpreting the Order in the manner suggested in question No. 78?
      General M`CALMONT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is so in Marylebone?
      Mr. PARKER: I will convey what has been said to the Food Controller. His scheme with regard to the rationing of meat is well advanced and will probably be produced before long.
      Mr. GULLAND: is the hon. Gentleman aware that some butchers are approaching customers and telling them that; this is all the meat they will get?
      Mr. PARKER: The butcher gets half, but it is assumed that he shall have regard to the necessities of the families which he is supplying.

      FOOD CONTROL COMMITTEES.
      Major CHAPPLEasked whether a town council, in securing representatives to serve on a food control committee, is within its rights if it stipulates that a cooperative society must limit its nominees to ratepayers of the burgh, while no such limitation is placed on other bodies?
      Mr. PARKER: The appointment of members of a food control committee is vested by the Food Control Committees (Constitution) Order, 1917, in the local authority- for the area concerned. The stipulation referred to does not appear to be outside the discretionary powers of the appointing authority.

      REFERENDUM, IRELAND.
      Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a referendum is at present being taken in Ireland for the purpose of ascertaining the views of the Irish people as to the future government of that; country, and with a view to having these views represented at the Peace Conference; and whether Civil servants are free to record their opinions on the questions involved through this referendum?
      The CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. Duke): I understand that a memorial is being circulated of which the text is in these words:
      "We appeal to the Peace Congress to secure the establishment of Ireland as an independent State."
      It is obvious that such a document could not be signed by any loyal servant of the Crown

      INCOME TAX (SMALL INVESTORS).
      Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the inconvenience to small investors entitled to claim abatement of Income Tax which arises from the facet that certain dividends, notably those of insurance companies, are paid at a considerable interval after they are earned; and

      983
      whether he will, either by legislation or instructions to surveyors of Income Tax, place such small taxpayers in the same position as Section 66 (2) (d) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, specially accords to Super-tax payers?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware that any general inconvenience is caused to small investors from the circumstances stated by the lion. Member. Any exceptional case of the nature indicated is specially dealt with.

      NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
      Mr. ARNOLDasked the average daily amount of the national expenditure during the seven weeks ended 19th January last?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Taking the figures of Exchequer issues, the daily average expenditure during the seven weeks in question was £7,517,000, of which the average daily expenditure from the Vote of Credit was £6,368,000.
      Mr. G. LAMBERT: Will any of that be recoverable in the shape of purchases of food and such like?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no doubt it will; but the right. hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the daily average from the Vote of Credit was £6,368,000.

      PREMIUM BONDS.
      Mr. PETOasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the passage in the Select Committee's Report on Premium Bonds, which states that the Committee were satisfied that, so far as the general public and the small investor are concerned, the present Government issues fail to enlist all the financial support that might. be obtained, and to the estimate in the Report that. £100,000,000 a year new money may be expected from sources at present untouched; whether, in view of the fact that in so far as the Report is adverse to the immediate issue of premium bonds, the decision is based on the consideration that legislation to sanction it would be difficult to obtain; and whether it is the intention of the Government, to overcome this diffi-
      984
      culty and introduce the necessary legislation or in what way is it intended to render available money which is not now forthcoming for Government securities?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for North Somerset.
      Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question—in what way is it intended to render available money riot now forthcoming for Government securities. since they have turned down Premium Bonds?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I am using all the ingenuity of which I can make use, in order to find the best methods, and I think with considerable success.
      Mr. PETO: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer think that the methods of ingenuity he is using are more likely to be successful than the issue of Premium Bonds?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: That is a different question. As I told the House, I had a perfectly open mind, and for that reason a Select Committee was appointed, and it has come to quite definite recommendations. The Government are not prepared to reopen the subject.
      Mr. FABER: Will the Government conform their view to that expressed by the Committee, namely, that it is not advisable at present?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that would be a wise course for the Government. to take. I think the question ought to be settled in so far as you can look ahead one way or another.
      Sir J. SPEAR: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of increasing the interest on Post Office Savings Bank deposits?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The lion. Member must put that question down.

      LOAN ISSUES (ALLIES).
      Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total of the loan issues of the Governments of the Allies in this country to assume liability for which is a moral obligation of the. British taxpayer, as in the case of the Russian bonds on which default has been made?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: Are we to under-stand that this precedent will land us in an unlimited liability which the Government cannot state, and will this action of the Government require Parliamentary sanction?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir. I think it will not land us in unlimited liability. The question was one in regard to which there was a certain amount of moral responsibility, and every such question must be treated on its merits.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: Why should not this House deal with a question of moral obligations and not the Government, when they arc to be met by the taxpayer?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The House has always the power of judging. If it disapproves of a decision of the Government it can be reversed.
      Mr. D. MASON: What authority had the Government for undertaking this liability?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I have made inquiries and there is no need for special authority. It is done in the ordinary way.

      AGRICULTURAL LAND (SALE OF CHESHIRE ESTATE).
      Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the high price now ruling for agricultural land, and, in particular, to the sale of a Cheshire estate of 4,000 acres for £170,000; and will he reconsider his opinion that there is nothing to be got out of a tax on land values?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: My attention had not previously been drawn to the particular case referred to; but I see no reason for departing from the opinion I previously expressed on the subject of obtaining revenue from land values.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that since the passage of the Corn Production Bill the price of agricultural land has been going up by leaps and bounds, because you are giving advantages to the privileged classes and do not tax them?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is making a statement.

      PETROLEUM SUPPLIES.
      Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, under the new Defence of the Realm Regulation 2 AAA, which relates to the getting of petroleum in the United Kingdom and was published in the "London Gazette" of 18th January, any and, if so, what arrangements have been made with persons having interests in the land or persons desirous of boring for the oil; and whether the payment of royalties is a feature of any of these arrangements?
      Sir WORTHINGTON EVANS (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions): Negotiations are in progress. I am not in a position to make any statement in the matter.
      Mr. WHITE: Is the question of the compensation of landlords to be left to the general discretion of the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission as in other cases where lands are entered upon under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, or are there to be special rules of compensation in petroleum cases?
      Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member kindly hand that in?
      Mr. H. SAMUEL: Can the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that this House will have an opportunity of discussing the matter before any binding arrangements are entered into which will involve the payment of royalties?
      Sir W. EVANS: I think there is not any intention to pay royalties. If there is a responsibility, it will come before the. Defence of the Realm Losses Commission.

      ARMY CHAPLAINS (PAY).
      Mr. KINGasked whether Army chaplains are to receive the increased Army pay for officers; and, if not, for what reason are they excluded from the recent Order?
      Mr. FORSTER: I will ask the hon. Member to await the appearance of the Royal Warrant now about to be issued.

      TERRITORIAL FORCE (TRANSFER TO ROYAL FLYING CORPS).
      Colonel SANDERSasked why the rank of an officer of the Territorial Force

      987
      who was gazetted captain on 1st August, 1914, and subsequently seconded for service with the Royal Flying Corps. should be now dated 2nd January, 1915?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: If my hon. and gallant Friend will give me the name of the officer and details of the case, I will endeavour to give him an answer.

      FREIGHTS (IRELAND).
      Mr. BYRNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the profiteering going on in shipping centres; if he is aware that the increase in freights in many cases has been increased over 500 per cent. and that the increase particularly applies to coal going to Ireland; and if he will state the Government's proposal in the matter?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. So far as ocean-going ships are concerned there is certainly nothing in the nature of profiteering under the conditions of Government control as now exercised. Control is gradually being extended over the coasting and cross-Channel services, and as from the 1st of February all voyages in Home waters will be subject to the licence of the Ministry of Shipping. It is anticipated that the operation of the new licensing scheme will afford an effective means of dealing with any cases of excessive freights.

      METROPOLITAN RAILWAYS (OVERCROWDED TRAINS).
      Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the overcrowding of trains on the Underground, District, and Metropolitan Railways during certain hours of the day; can he arrange with the railways concerned to provide more accommodation on their services; is he aware that inspectors travel on these trains who charge passengers first-class fares even if they are standing in first-class carriages or their approaches; and whether lie can arrange, for the general convenience of the travelling public on these railways, that only one class of
      988
      carriage shall be used, the same as on London tube railways, and so save the extra labour and work now caused by issuing, checking, and inspecting first-class tickets?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): I am afraid that it is scarcely practicable under present conditions for any substantial increase in accommodation to be provided during busy hours on the Metropolitan and District Railways. I understand that the companies have already examined the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman in the last part of his question, but I will call their attention to it again.

      SURVIVORS OF LOST SHIP (COMPENSATION).
      Mr. BYRNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will cause inquiries to be made into the treatment of the survivors of the ship which was sunk on the morning of the 14th December, 1917; if he is aware that these men only received the sum of £7 10s. for the loss of their outfits and bedding and arc at present only receiving 25s. per week compensation, although their wages were £3 17s. 6d. per week; if he is aware that these men cannot replace their outfits for less than £30 to £40; if he will say when proper compensation will be paid to seamen; and if he will take steps to insure every seaman's life for not less than £1,000?
      Mr. WARDLE: Claims for compensation for loss of effects on this vessel referred to have been received and have been dealt with in accordance with the scheme described in the circular which I am sending to the hon. Member; £7 10s. is the maximum amount of compensation for loss of outfits for the ratings of seamen and firemen, and I am not aware that such ratings cannot replace their outfits for less than £30 to £40. I have no information regarding the payment of 25s. per week to the survivors, but if the lion. Member will furnish me with the names of the men to whom this amount is being paid, I will make inquiries in the matter. Each of these men, in accordance with arrangements made by the Board of Trade, would receive three weeks' wages from the date the. vessel was sunk. With regard to the final part of the question, I am sending the hon. Member a pamphlet describing the

      989
      Government Compensation Scheme for loss of life or injury which came into Operation early in 1915.

      FOOD, COAL, AND RENT PRICES.
      Mr. G. TERRELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can furnish a statement of the present predominant prices for food, coal, and rent in Birmingham, Leeds, Swansea, and Glasgow comparable with the prices for the same which were published in 1908 in the Board of Trade Report on working-class rents and retail prices?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Bridgeman): I have been asked to reply to this question. The most recent town inquiry on lines of the Report published in 1908 relates to the year 1912, and I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the Report thereon. During the War no town inquiry has been made which would yield the desired comparisons.
      Mr. TERRELL: In view of the irresponsible statements made, can the hon. Gentleman have some definite inquiry made as to the food values in some of these centres?
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Food values appear in the "Labour Gazette," and the lion. Member will be able to get. the figures. If he will state exactly the comparison he wishes to have made, I will see if it is possible to give it.

      MATCHES.
      Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the continued shortage of matches in London and the inability of shopkeepers to obtain necessary supplies for their customers; and can he take any steps in order to improve delivery of this article to retail dealers in London?
      Mr. WARDLE: There is no doubt a shortage of matches in London, as well as in other districts, compared with the supply a year ago, owing to the prohibition of the import. of foreign matches, which amounted to over 50 per cent. of the normal supplies, and the exhaustion of the stocks which existed when the pro-
      990
      hibition was imposed. Every effort is being made to increase the output, but there are great difficulties, owing to scarcity of labour, difficulty in obtaining new machinery and the raw material;. and, in addition, lately there has been a strike in the match manufactory at Liverpool, which seriously interfered with the supply. The Tobacco and Matches Control Board, through their Administrative Committee of Match Manufacturers, are doing their utmost to ensure an equitable. distribution of the available supplies, which they consider should be sufficient, provided the public will only realise the position and reduce their consumption as far as possible.
      Mr. GILBERT: Has the lion. Gentleman considered the advisability, in view of the public necessity for these goods, of removing the prohibition for a short time, in order that Swedish matches may be imported?
      Mr. WARDLE: I am afraid that there would be very great difficulty in complying with that suggestion.
      Colonel YATE: Has the export of matches been stopped?
      Mr. WARDLE: I do not believe that. there is any export of matches.

      OLD AGE PENSIONS.
      Mr. WINGasked the Minister of Reconstruction if he will consider the advisability of appointing a representative Committee to revise the terms on which. old age pensions are granted, in accordance with the universal demand of friendly and trade societies throughout Great Britain and Ireland, namely, increasing the maximum income from 13s. a week to £1 a week; if so, when this will be done; and, it not, will he state the reason?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: It has been the policy of successive Governments to meet. the difficulties of old age pensioners due to the War by administrative concessions, and I do not think that it would serve any useful purpose for a Committee to be appointed to consider the desirability of revising the Old Age Pension Acts whilst conditions are still abnormal.
      Mr. WING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while the change made was received with great gratitude in the

      991
      country, the Special Committee referred to could consider the whole question in accordance with the unanimous demand of the trades and friendly societies of the country, namely, that the income should not be limited to the 13s. a week, to which it. is limited at present, but that it should—
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is making a debating speech.

      RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEES.
      Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of Reconstruction when the list of Committees set up by his Department, with the names of members and the references to such Committees, will be published and circulated?
      Mr. PRATT (Lord of the Treasury): The list will be issued to-morrow (Thursday).

    BILL PRESENTED.
      REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS (IRELAND) BILL,
      "to provide for the Redistribution of Seats at Parliamentary Elections in Ireland, and for purposes in connection therewith," presented by Sir GEORGE CAVE; supported by Mr. Duke, Mr. Hayes Fisher, and the Solicitor-General for Ireland; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 125.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. McKENNA: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the House is to sit on Friday, and, if so, what will be the business?
  Mr. SONAR LAW: We think it necessary that the House should sit on Friday, when we will take the National Registration Bill, in its final stages, Report, and Third Reading. I may say that to-morrow, if there is time, it is proposed to take also the Second Reading of the new Bill in regard to the redistribution of seats in Ireland.
  Sir C. HENRY: Is it intended to take the Third Reading of the National Registration Bill on Friday?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes; I hope that this may be done.
  Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentle-man put down shortly the promised new Standing Order with regard to Secret Sessions? Last Monday we should have had plenty of time to take it. If it were put down now it might be taken on some day when the House was about to rise early.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That seems quite a reasonable suggestion and I will consider it.
  Mr. G. LAMBERT: Is it part of the agreement with reference to the Representation of Ireland Bill that there should be two additional members?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot discuss that in answer to questions. That is a question which can be debated.
  Mr. J. O'CONNOR: Is it not rather short notice to give us, to take the Second Reading to-morrow?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think so. We only propose to take it to-morrow because the House regards it as an agreed measure.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: Will the Bill be M the hands of Members to-day?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes; it has already been introduced and will he available to-day.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: As the Bill is likely to contain a new provision increasing the number of members by adding two for the new universities, this would necessarily raise an important question.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have taken that into account. I do not see that that should in any way affect the Second Reading. That is a point which will come on later.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Will a day be granted for the Motion standing in the names of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnard Castle and other leaders of the Labour party concerning the Russian Constituent Assembly?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I had not noticed it, but I certainly think that it would be un-desirable that the House should discuss that subject.
  Mr. J. O'CONNOR: I must enter my protest against the course which has been suggested with regard to the Irish Bill.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: Is it proposed to take the Trade Marks Bill this Session?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That is quite impossible.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: Am I not entitled, Sir, to ask whether it is in order to bring forward an important measure of this kind without any notice whatever to the officials of the party most concerned in the matter, and who have pledged their word with regard to it?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think this must be due to a misunderstanding. I recognise that both the hon. Member's Friends and my hon. Friends above the Gangway are specially interested in the principle of the measure, but I certainly understood that the principle of the measure. was agreed to. As it is only the Second Reading which is to be taken, details could be discussed in the Committee stage. I should be greatly surprised if the hon. Member for Waterford objected.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: What objection is there to letting it stand over till Monday'
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The only objection is the very obvious one that we have very little time to get through a great deal of business that must be done.
  Mr. MOONEY: Is it fair to put down on the Order Paper to-day notice of the introduction of this Bill, which solely relates

  1013
  to Ireland, and to give no notice to the officials of the Irish party of the Second Reading to be taken to-morrow, as he must know that Members now in Ireland cannot possibly be here to-morrow. Is that in accordance with the usual custom?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have tried to make it quite clear that the object of the Government, if there is no objection by the Chairman of the Ulster party or the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, is to get through a Bill which they thought was without opposition.
  Mr. MOONEY: The right hon. Gentleman is hardly fair to himself and the House, for he must know very well that the members of the Irish party are engaged in Dublin, and it has not been communicated to the officials of that party that the Second Reading is to be taken to-morrow.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not going to have a dispute about the matter. My Noble Friend (Lord E. Talbot) thought it was an agreed Bill, and lie would not have put it down but for the fact that it is an agreed Bill. If there is any real feeling about this matter, we are not so pressed for time that we will insist on the Second Reading being taken to-morrow, and we will take that stage on the first available opportunity.
  An HON. MEMBER: What will you take to-morrow?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: We have other Bills.
  Ordered, "That the Proceedings on the Non-Ferrous Metal Industry Bill, if under discussion at Eleven of the clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

NON-FERROUS METAL INDUSTRY BILL.
As amended, considered.
NON-FERROUS METAL INDUSTRY BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Prohibition against Dealing in Certain Metals and Ores without a Licence.)
  (1) It shall not be lawful for any company, firm, or individual after the expiration of six months from the passing of this Act, or such longer periods as the Board of Trade may in any particular case allow, to carry on the business of extracting, smelting, dressing, refining, or dealing by way
  1014
  of wholesale trade in metal or metallic ore to which this Act applies, unless licensed to do so by the Board of Trade:
  Provided that the purchase of metal by persons for the purposes of use in their trade shall not be deemed to be dealing in such metal by way of wholesale trade where the trade carried on by the purchaser is not primarily the trade of dealing in metals.

  (2) In the case of a company, firm, or individual with respect to which any of the conditions set forth in the Schedule to this Act apply, no licence shall be granted unless the Board of Trade are of opinion that for any special reason the grant of a licence is expedient, but save as aforesaid any company, firm, or individual carrying on or proposing to carry on such business as aforesaid shall, on making application in the prescribed manner, and on furnishing such information and allowing inspection of such books and documents as may be reasonably required, and on payment of the prescribed fee, be entitled to a licence under this Act.

  (3)A licence under this Act, unless suspended or revoked, shall remain in force until the first day of January following the date of issue of the licence, but shall be renewable annually, and the same provisions shall apply to the renewal of the licence as apply to the grant of a licence.

  (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, may revoke or suspend the licence.

  (5)If any question arises between the Board of Trade and any company, firm, or individual, as to whether or not any of the conditions set forth in the Schedule to this Act apply in respect of the company, firm, or individual, the question shall, subject to rules of Court, be referred by the Board of Trade to the High Court for determination, and on any such reference it shall rest with the company, firm, or individual to show that none of such conditions as aforesaid apply, and the decision of the High Court on any such reference shall be final, and no appeal there from shall lie to any other Court.

  (6)Where at the expiration of the said six months or longer period allowed by the Board of Trade, or at any time when a licence expires, proceedings on any such application are pending in the High Court,

  1015
  the Court may, on application being made for the purpose, extend the said period of six months or longer period as respects that company, firm, or individual, or as the case may be, the duration of the licence, for such period as may be necessary to allow the question to be determined by the Court.

  (7) References in this Section to the High Court shall in relation to Scotland be construed as references to the Court of Session.

  Mr. A. STRAUSS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "extracting, smelting'' ["winning, extracting, smelting, dressing"]
  There was a meeting of various smelters, of copper, tin, spelter, and lead, to consider this Bill, and how it affects their industry. It represented all sections of those engaged in the industry, and arguments for and against the Bill were advanced. Nevertheless they passed the following resolution, which I will read:
  That this meeting, while approving of the avowed objects of the Non-Ferrous Metal Industry Bill. is of opinion that these objects are in no way attained by the Rill as it now stands. and deprecates any interference with the present means of obtaining supplies of raw materials until it is clearly shown that other satisfactory means will he substituted for them."
  It must not be forgotten that these smelters are interested in getting the ores they require, and unless there had not been some slight disadvantage to their business under this Bill I do not think they would have passed this resolution. I was present at the meeting and heard the arguments put forward, and I consider that they are really unanswerable. So far as the bulk of the ores are concerned they have mostly been contracted before they were shipped from the mines, but large quantities of ores could be brought, over which the enemy would have no control. But in addition to that, there were very large quantities of ores, particularly copper and tin ores, which were sent to this country unconsigned, to he sold to the highest bidder. When they arrived here of course nobody could bid for them, except some foreigners and the English smelters. That was the chief source of this industry from which the English smelters obtained their supply of ores, because the foreigners could not compete with the English, having to pay freight, insurance, and various charges; so that the ores which came to this country unconsigned were really the
  1016
  best market with the English smelters. What we are doing by the Bill would affect this supply of ores which we have been in the habit of receiving in this country, cause those who sent the supplies knew that they would find the greatest competition in this country to obtain them, and that they would get the highest prices. Under this Bill they would discontinue to send the ores here, because there would be no competition here, except a restricted competition, the English smelters being few and far between, and the ores, instead of being sent to Liverpool or Swansea, will be sent to Hamburg and elsewhere. We would thus find a great scarcity of ore, which would be a disadvantage to us, and the enemy would buy those ores in Hamburg. It would be an absolute advantage to British industry and British smelters that smelting and extracting should be done here, and that the supply of ores should not be interfered with. Under these circumstances, I submit that there can be no objection to leaving out these two words. The object of the Bill, as we understand the Government, is that· enemy control should cease in the future. I admit that if these two words are omitted the enemy may be able to smelt tin or copper here, but where is the harm? They could not buy the ores here, nor would any man influenced by the enemy be in a position to do so, and they would only be able to smelt imported ores and export them again. Though a certain amount of labour might be employed they would be absolutely unable to take any advantage of their process, or in any way to obtain control of the metals. They would only be able to smelt as much metal as they would be able to buy abroad and to again export it. The object which the Government have in view of putting an end to enemy control cannot possibly be affected by leaving out. smelting and extracting.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: I beg to second the Amendment.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Albert Stanley): I am sorry we cannot accept this Amendment. It is quite clear that the object of the Amendment is to remove from the purview of the Act the process of extracting and smelting non-ferrous metals in the United Kingdom. On the Second Reading, and certainly at the later stages, it was made clear that one of the means adopted by Germany for securing control

  1017
  of non-ferrous metals was either to secure by ownership the control of the smelting and extracting plant or by agreement to secure that control. I pointed wit that it was really essential in the interests of this country that we should establish smelting and extracting plant. One of the objects of this Bill is to encourage the industry, so that these particular plants will be established in the United Kingdom and established absolutely free from German control. Our control in this direction was allowed to pass into the hands of Germany, and because of our neglect in this respect we placed this country under grave disability, and we are trying to secure that that shall not occur again. With regard to the meeting of the Smelters' Association to which the hon. Gentleman referred, my information is to the effect that that meeting was not really representative. Whether it be representative or not, and I have grave doubts on that point, I am quite clear that to accept this Amendment would mean that the real object of the Bill would be destroyed.
  Amendment negatived.
  Sir A. STANLEY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words within the United Kingdom."
  If hon. Members will carefully read the Clause, they will see that these particular words relate only to dealings in the United Kingdom, and not to the business of winning, extracting, smelting, dressing or refining. These words become unnecessary in view of the second proviso to this Clause, which was moved at a later stage in Committee, and which not only covered dealings, but also covered winning, extracting, smelting, dressing, and refining. So that the words are really redundant.
  Sir ARCHIBALD WILLIAMSON: As the proposer of these words, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the second proviso seems to achieve the object I had in view, and therefore I hope that the House will agree to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "where" ["where the trade"], to insert the words "such purchase or sale is incidental only to".
  1018
  This is to be followed by another Amendment, and the proviso will then read, "Provided that the purchase or sale of metal shall not be deemed to be dealing in such metal where such purchase or sale is incidental only to the trade carried on by the purchaser or seller." It will be remembered by Members of the House that in the course of the various discussions on this matter questions of importance were raised as to what was the meaning of "primarily" and under what circumstances a transaction might be called isolated. I have in mind more than one speech by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) on this subject. We undertook to endeavour to find a form of words which would put at rest all these doubts and controversies, and I venture to submit that these words carry out that object.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I congratulate the Government on having found this form of words, which I think will dispense with the necessity of the taking out of a licence in the case of people affected.
  Mr. PETO: I should like to be quite sure that this does not do a great deal more than put us back into the position we were in before the Debates in Committee. The original proviso was intended to cover only the question of purchasing metal for use in a person's trade. It was pointed out by several members that in those cases you must have power to sell surplus metal. The chemical industry was instanced, and other speeches were made on similar lines. Subsequently it became quite clear that those who advocated the proviso in the form in which it now appears unamended in the Bill had wholly other purposes in mind. For instance, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire West (Mr. J. M. Henderson) made a speech of four lines, in which he said:
  "I have no objection to this Amendment. and for this reason, the more you go on the more futile and absurd the Bill will turn out to be."
  At the end of the Debate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman) made it quite clear also what was his view about these Amendments to the proviso. He said:
  "I am glad to think that the Government is accepting it. It strongly justifies the strong opposition shown to the Bill in the early stages and illustrates the futility of attempting to conduct national trade on a licensed basis."
  That may or may not be so, but those in favour of the purposes of the Bill always understood that the Government should

  1019
  have the power of controlling this trade in metals, and particularly the sort of trade that has been conducted in the past and which has given practically complete control of the metal industry of the Empire to persons of alien origin and who are not British subjects. We thought that in drawing the teeth of the Bill, so to speak, this proviso was regarded as the crux of the whole matter. In Committee the proviso so altered was universally accepted by the opponents of the Bill. It was only opposed by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Bigland) and by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury), and one or two other Members. Although the right hon. Baronet is not in favour of the Bill, yet. he alone among those who used to be considered Unionist Members saw what the purpose was of these wrecking Amendments. I want to be quite satisfied that by these words, which are now accepted as satisfactory by the opponents of the Bill, we have not still left it open to any foreigner to have executed for him any order of any magnitude whatever for purchase or sale or entry into a contract for the entire output of a group of British mines for a series of years, provided only that it can be said that it was incidental to his trade. It seems to me that these words cover a great deal more than the purchase of metal for the purpose of the chemical industry or for the purchase of lead for covering roofs and the sale by people in essential industries of the surplus metal afterwards. That was the original intention of the Government, and I should like to know how far they have gone away from their original intention and left it open to people to engage in transactions of any magnitude as long as they are alleged to be isolated transactions.
  Sir CHARLES HENRY: My lion. Friend objects to this Amendment as a wrecking Amendment?
  Mr. PETO: Not this Amendment, but the altered proviso as it appears un-amended and which was moved in the Committee stage.
  Sir C. HENRY: I am the Member who proposed this Amendment, and I think I should be the last person to be accused of desiring to wreck this Bill. One of the arguments, indeed, used against this Bill has been that it has received to some extent my support. I do not know if the hon.
  1020
  Member was here when I first introduced this Amendment, but I then stated particularly what my object was, and that was not to hamper the trade of individuals in this country unnecessarily. My hon. Friend said that under this provision at present anyone in Germany could send orders to this country for any quantity and of any magnitude. This Amendment does not affect that point one iota. As the Bill was originally introduced, anyone in France or the United States, or Germany, or any other country, could send an order to a broker in this country and have that executed without any violation of the provisions of this Bill. This Amendment has the effect of placing the Britisher at no greater disadvantage than the foreigner.
  Mr. J. HENDERSON: I very much approve of this Amendment. As I understand, the President of the Board of Trade is anxious to encourage smelting in this country. What happens to smelters? A smelter of copper, whose business it is to buy the ore, smelt it, and convert the copper into all kinds of things, is constantly compelled from time to time to make up his quantities, or to have an excess quantity to dispose of. My right hon. Friend will quite understand that when you buy 1,000 tons of ore you can never tell what the exact quantity of copper will be produced in ingots when smelted. You may have got your orders in advance for so many tons to come out of that. It falls short of the quantity. Therefore to fulfil your orders, you must go into the market to make up the deficiency. On the other hand, the ores may work out more copper than you anticipate. In that case you have a surplus which you must also dispose of in the market. It would be a very stupid thing and very hard on traders, who are conducting business on these lines, who have no concern with Germany or any other country, to compel them to take out licences for the purpose of carrying on their own legitimate business which they have been carrying on for many years. When you buy ores you can never tell exactly the amount of copper you will get. When the ore is worked up a great deal falls into the bottom of the furnace, and is not recovered sometimes until a year or two years afterwards, so that you can never quite tell the exact amount of copper a 1,000 tons of ore will produce, and if it does not produce the amount you estimated you have to buy copper. If, on

  1021
  the other hand, it turns out more you have to sell your surplus. Therefore, I quite approve of this Amendment.
  Mr. STRAUSS: The wording of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman is certainly a great improvement on the word "primarily," which leaves the door open to a great deal of fraud. All that a smelter metal merchant would have to do would be to join a big timber or sugar merchant or any other merchant whose business would be primaily in timber or sugar, and of course that firm would not have to obtain any licence under the Bill if the word "primarily" were retained. I think the words now proposed are better calculated to stop any fraud of that kind.
  Mr. BIGLAND: I would like to ask the meaning of the words in the proposed Amendment "incidental only to." If I read it aright, a man who wishes to speculate in copper, if this Amendment is passed, will have to take out a licence, and I do not see any reason why those operating on the smelter markets in London should not be asked to take out a licence. The actual application for a licence from any British well-known firm must be a very simple matter, and I cannot see why it should not be done in order that the President of the Board of Trade may really know who are operating on the market. One speaker has just said that anybody from any part of the world may telegraph to a licensed broker on the London metal market to exercise an order for him. That is perfectly right, and every London metal broker will be very careful, if I understand this Bill, to see that he does not act under any foreign influence in such a way as would jeopardise the reissue of his licence, and the reason we supported the acceptance of the previous Amendment that was moved in Committee was this fear that speculators in England would not require any licence whatever. To my mind, after peace is declared, for the five years this Bill contemplates, those of us who are in the trade will have to recognise that we shall not be allowed to run our business quite as easily and smoothly as before, and that it is essential, in order to safeguard labour and industries, that we must put it in the power of the Government to see that such necessary restrictions are carried out. I approve of the proposal if I can be assured that the ordinary gambler and speculator on the metal market will have to take out a licence.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I think the House will be well advised to pass this Amendment, because it is directed surely to simplifying the ordinary matters of trade, and would not have the effect at all, in my judgment, of touching the case of the smelter who makes a miscalculation in 1,000 tons as to how much copper he is going to get out, because that man must obviously be engaged in the trade and must take out a licence. But it is surely unnecessary for builders, who might collect from old houses a little lead which they might dispose of in the ordinary way of business, to take out a licence. Then there is the case of firms. who have an international trade, and who might in the course of that trade receive a small lot of ores from some client in payment, and which they release when imported. It is purely an incident in their business, and not at all the ordinary run of their affairs, and it is. unnecessary surely in such a ease for them to have to take out a licence and go, through the whole of the formula of having their books and accounts examined, and so forth. This seems exactly to meet the need the House foresaw.
  Sir G. HEWART: Perhaps I may, by leave, make two observations in reply to the remarks which have been made, first,. by my hon. Friend Mr. Peto, and, secondly, by my hon. Friend Mr. Big-land. With regard to my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Peto), I should like to. observe that this Bill deals only with wholesale trade, as is made plain in Sub-section (1) of Clause 1, and these words, "such purchase or sale is incidental only to," have been, I assure him, most carefully considered with a view to meeting the reasonable objection which came from, more than one quarter of the House. The arguments which my hon. Friend put forward did too little justice to the word "only." It is not enough for the purpose of this provision that the purchase or sale should be incidental to the trade. It must be "incidental only to the trade carried on by the purchaser or seller," and that in another form is the answer I venture to offer to my hon. Friend Mr. Big-land. There can be no real apprehension that under these words the gambler or speculator in these metals goes free. How can such a person be heard to say that a transaction of that kind in which he is engaged is a transaction "incidental only to" his trade? I hope the

  1023
  House will accept this Amendment, which represents on the part of those who are concerned with this Bill a real desire to meet what appeared to be a real objection.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In Subsection (1), leave out the words "is not primarily the trade of dealing in metals."—[Sir A. Stanley.]
  Mr. HOLT: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "on" ["is carried on wholly"], to insert the words "in respect of metal or metallic ore which is."
  When we had a discussion in Committee on these particular words, there was evidently a good deal of difficulty as to the proper interpretation of the words, "dealing is carried on wholly outside the United Kingdom." I remember the Lord Advocate, who dealt with the question with his accustomed courtesy and urbanity, himself found considerable -difficulty in exactly defining dealings in metals inside the United Kingdom and outside the United Kingdom. The case originally put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Elgin and Nairn (Sir A. Williamson) was that of a firm which bought concentrates in Bolivia and shipped them to California. The exact amount of interest the English house has to take in the transaction, in order to make it dealing inside the United Kingdom, as opposed to dealing outside the United Kingdom, appears to be a very fine point. Apparently the English branch get some share of the profits, and certainly, as I understand from the Lord Advocate, if an English firm gives any instructions and exercises any brains in the matter, it is not a case of dealing out side the United Kingdom. What we want to do is to establish the fact that f the metal itself does not come inside the United Kingdom, then that is a transaction which does not require a licence. Take the case of an industry in this country which owns mines in Australia, South America, China, or wherever it may be. As I understand, if that company is going to negotiate a sale of property, or even give instructions from the head office in this country, it will require to take out a licence. Now I understood that the object in moving this proviso was that where the whole of the transaction took place entirely outside the United Kingdom, a firm resident in the United
  1024
  Kingdom would have the same liberty as a firm resident outside. I do not think the words now in the Bill give that liberty. I think they put a firm resident in the United Kingdom at a disadvantage in completely external transactions as compared with a firm outside the United Kingdom. If that is so, you run the risk of causing such a firm to transfer its head office. We all know quite well that the effect of taxation on similar trade has caused firms to remove their head office, and I am quite certain that where you have a trade which mainly or largely consists of transactions outside the United Kingdom, it will give a stimulus to the removal of head offices outside the United Kingdom, and so get out of the restrictions of the Board of Trade which firms will be able to do without injuring their business.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: In seconding this Amendment, I would like to say it seems to me that not only would there be a tendency on the part of firms to remove their head office, but also a tendency in certain cases to remove branch offices, and so bring them out of the purview of the taxation of this country, which seems to be altogether undesirable in the interests of this country.
  Sir A. STANLEY: I do not think that the hon. Member who has moved this Amendment quite appreciates what the effect will be. Perhaps he will allow me to give him some explanation of how we understand the Amendment will operate, and I hope he will then withdraw the Amendment. The effect of it, as I understand it, is that a German company or firm, established in this country, which was really under German control, could carry on transactions in these nonferrous metals or ores in a foreign country. They could, through these transactions, secure clients in this country, and they could carry on these transactions without requiring any licence whatever. It is a common practice in businesses of this kind for a firm to make a purchase of metals abroad, and for them to arrange for the transfer, the shipping, of this purchase direct to their clients. These metals, this purchase of this firm, which, as I have said, might be a German-controlled firm, need never really come into the possession of this firm at all. For this purchase might be transferred to that client, who may require this particular metal. As I read

  1025
  the Amendment, it would really mean that a German-controlled firm, company or individual can carry on business just exactly as before the War, and no licence would be required. I am quite sure that that really is not what the hon. Member intends. That, however, is what we understand as the effect of this Amendment.
  It will be remembered by the hon. Member that, during the Committee stage, when this question arose as to what was really meant by the words "carried on wholly outside the United Kingdom," we promised to do our best to find words to meet the particular objections raised at that time to these words. We have given most careful consideration to the matter, and we have not been able to find any words which would really be any improvement upon those in the Bill. I think I made it quite clear in the discussion that in the particular instance which, I think, was mentioned by one hon. Member, where some company or firm had their headquarters in this country, and had branch houses abroad, where those transactions in metal were carried on by one of these branch houses, where those transactions were not direct, or where the contract was not made by the principal office in this country, transactions carried on wholly by the branch house, where, as the result of such a transaction no metal was brought to or taken from this country, no licence was required. That is our view of the situation. That is how we interpret this Clause. I would remind the hon. Member that the Board of Trade is the Government Department responsible for the administration of this Act, and after the explanation. I have given as to the manner in which we interpret this Clause, I trust he will not press this particular Amendment, or for any alteration of the words in the Clause.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The discussion as to the effect of these words was one to which, to some extent, I contributed. The interpretation of the words, "carrying on business" is a difficulty which originates very largely in respect of the interpretation of Income Tax law, and is one which has made it very difficult to provide words to carry out what the Government say is their desire, and certainly was my desire, in moving this proviso in Committee. What the President of the Board of Trade has just said
  1026
  covers the case I had in mind—that is the case where the branches of a British house had a local or entirely foreign trade in metals, which is not directed from here and which the Home Office may even be ignorant about. If the President says that the Board of Trade are themselves to be the authority which decides on the case of prosecution, or rather whether the case is such that it requires a licence or not; if, I say, the Board of Trade is the authority, and if it is on record in the annals of the House that the President of the Board of Trade, speaking to the subject, has declared that such cases that I have in mind are thoroughly provided for in the proviso, probably we may be satisfied. I myself thought of other words that might be possible, but I have not been able to find words that I think would be better. For my own part, therefore, I shall be content to accept the proviso as it stands. It agrees with the explanation given by the President as to the intention of the Board of Trade, and, I think, really it meets the case.
  Mr. J. HENDERSON: The President of the Board of Trade speaks of a German firm establishing an agency here, and requiring a licence. Quite true. But what is to prevent a German firm, say the Metallgesellschaft, having an agency in Bolivia, buying up ore there, and sending it direct to Germany? Nothing! How does this proviso help you to bring these metals to this country? I do not know. It is an inexplicable thing. Every Amendment we make seems to drive further away from the object of the Bill. I do not understand it.
  Amendment negatived.
  Further Amendment made: In Subsection (2), after the word "the" ["the Schedule"], insert the word "First"—[Sir A. Stanley.]
  Mr. HEMMERDE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "unless" ["granted unless the Board of Trade"]. and insert instead thereof the word "if."
  In a very few words I think I can show that the word I suggest is very much more desirable than the one that is in the Clause. We had the same question discussed in Committee. After the discussion the Government accepted the addition of several words, "for any special reason," which, of course, made a very considerable difference. But I ask the

  1027
  President whether he will lose anything at all by acquiescing in this suggested form of words which, he will remember, was desired by a very considerable section of the House, and I think has obvious advantages. In this particular case I would ask the Government to remember that they are imposing certain disabilities. They are saying to people who formerly had rights of trading in certain trades that they are not to trade in that way in the future. Therefore, I would suggest, the proper thing is that the burden of proof, such as it is, should remain upon the Board of Trade, and that no licence should be granted if the Board of Trade think the grant of a licence is inexpedient. Surely it is a very much better way to do it than to say that no licence shall be granted unless the Board of Trade say that the granting of a licence is expedient. Where, in a case like this, you are imposing some disability you ought not to put the burden of proof upon the individual. Is it not far better to put it upon the Board of Trade? Something was said in Committee on the last occasion about this Amendment, taking away the whole effect of the Bill. I think it will have very little effect in that way. As the Bill is drafted there is no appeal from what the Board of Trade may think inexpedient or expedient. It is not one of those questions where you can force an appeal to the Courts upon the question of a thing being done reasonably or otherwise. It does seem to me it would be far better in a case like this that the Board of Trade should have in mind the fact that it is putting upon a trade or a trader certain disabilities which were not there before, and say where burden of proof should be, if only for the purpose of instructing the mind of the Board of Trade officials to see that a case has been made out. I do not want to move this Amendment under any misapprehension at all. I subsequently do wish to see inserted, and I have an Amendment to that effect, some appeal from the discretion of the Board of Trade. Whether, however, we put that in or not, it still seems to me to be undesirable that we should have the Bill in this particular form. This particular wording in no way depends upon whether the Board of Trade do or do not accept subsequently the appeal I suggest.
  Mr. STRAUSS: I beg to second the Amendment.
  By the acceptance of this Amendment the interpretation extends to paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Schedule. The only question is in regard to paragraph 1. Here the word "expedient" would rather help them than otherwise, for the Board of Trade must not forget that these conditions can be easily evaded. A person who has been in business and has been naturalised can transfer his business to his son or nephew, or anybody he pleases, and can still derive benefit by the interest he has in the profits of the business, although he may have given it up. The benefit is not going to the enemy; therefore such an evasion would be very easily carried out.
  Sir G. HEWART: This proposal appears now by no means for the first time. More than once it was indicated in the Debate on the Second Reading, and it has appeared, substantially, in various forms in Amendments during the Committee stage. May I just point out how and why the change proposed is quite unacceptable, and, I submit to the House, quite objectionable? The scheme of the Bill is that the Board of Trade are to have control of the particular industry which comes within the scope of the Bill. They are to have that control in order that they may exclude from these industries persons who satisfy certain tests or criteria of disqualification. If persons are going to be disqualified from carrying on their business, it is right that they should know what is the ground of disqualification, and, therefore, the Bill sets out in clear language the grounds upon which a person may be disqualified. To summarise them roughly, they are enemy character, enemy influence, enemy association, and enemy control. Having laid down those tests, the Bill provides that all persons who are or who seek to be engaged in this industry are to be divided into two classes—those who come within the disqualifying criteria of the Schedule and those who do not. But we have introduced into the Bill a further provision, that persons who would automatically be disqualified may have their particular circumstances laid before the Board of Trade, and, although the mark of disqualification is there, the licence may, nevertheless, be conceded. That, I submit, is a reasonable and proper qualification in the interests of the

  1029
  applicant for the licence. What would be the effect of the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend? It would substitute for the criteria set out in the Bill a vague, undefined, criterion resident in the mind of the Board of Trade. The really operative element in the decision of the Board of Trade, if this Amendment were adopted, would not be something which is contained in the Schedule of the Bill, but it would be some super-added reason which is not in the Schedule. I submit that that is fundamentally wrong. The reason why these tests are in the Schedule is that they represent the policy agreed upon by this House.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman arguing as though the words were that the licence shall be granted? Here I keep the words "no licence shall be granted if the Board of Trade are of opinion that the grant of the licence is inexpedient." I suggest what must govern the Board of Trade are the conditions in the Schedule and no other.
  Sir G. HEWART: If that is really the meaning of my hon. and learned Friend, then I submit that the Bill, as it stands, manifestly meets its purpose, because what happens is, if the applicant comes within the disqualifying tests of the Schedule, he is not going to have a licence unless for particular reasons the Board of Trade have any special reason for granting it.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is actually going back to the old argument. He says "if the Board of Trade have any special reason," and those words were in Committee considered to be objectionable. I assume the Board of Trade would grant a licence unless they regarded it as inexpedient. Is that what the right hon. and learned Gentleman means?
  Sir G. HEWART: That was not in my mind. The submission I am making is that under the Clause, as it stands, it is clear that, if the applicant comes within the Schedule, he is disqualified unless the Board of Trade think in that particular case a licence should be granted. If the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend were adopted the effect would be to turn it the other way about. It would not matter that the applicant came within the Schedule. He could not be disqualified unless for some additional reason not
  1030
  stated, or described, or set out, or communicated to him, the Board of Trade thought it was inexpedient to grant him the licence. I think it is right that the burden of proof should be left as it is, and the real disqualification should be that stated in the Bill, and not something else which is concealed from the applicant. It is quite a different thing, if the applicant does come within the disqualification stated in the Bill, that the Board of Trade should, nevertheless, in that particular case, concede the licence. My hon. and learned Friend said that if the Amendment were carried it would have very little effect. If that is, indeed, the case, it constitutes a very good reason for not pressing the Amendment.
  Mr. BRUNNER: I think the Board of Trade will find, when they come to examine into the case of companies that are carrying on the non-ferrous metal industry, nearly all of them come within the Schedule. Is he, therefore, only going to make a few exceptions in the case of companies? I think the course the Board of Trade ought to adopt is to grant the licence except in a few cases, but, on the contrary, they propose to grant no licence except where there are special circumstances which make it expedient to do so. It ought to be a general rule for the licence to be granted unless there is some serious fault to find with the company. It should, in fact, be granted as a matter of course. May I refer to one company in which I am interested, a company engaged in the manufacture of non-ferrous metals? One half of 1 per cent. of its capital is held by alien enemies, and therefore its licence is entirely under the control of the Board of Trade, which can, if it thinks fit, withhold it. Now nearly the whole of that one-half of 1 per cent. is held at the present time by two ladies who, until their marriage, were British subjects, and who, by reason of their marriage, became Austrian subjects. But the fact remains there is alien enemy capital in the company because these ladies are alien enemies. In this particular case I think the licence should be granted because there is absolutely nothing the company has done in the past or is likely to do in the future which would render its dealing in non-ferrous metals a danger to this country.
  Mr. D. MASON: I quite agree with the Solicitor-General that there is little new

  1031
  in this Debate. But there is a great deal in another sense. There is the question of creating an atmosphere—of creating the idea that the Board of Trade should grant these licences freely and not adopt the attitude of only granting them as a great favour. I take it the object of my hon. and learned Friend in moving this Amendment was that we should assume that the bulk of the traders here are not tainted with this enemy connection. I gather that the difference between the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the supporters of the Amendment is but small—
  Sir G. HEWART: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? The difference between us is this: The intentions of the Bill are set forth in the Schedule, but my hon. and learned Friend proposes to put the test elsewhere.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: I do not accept that.
  Sir G. HEWART: The assumption of the Bill is that the trader will not be within the Schedule, but, if he is, then he will be disqualified. That I take it is what my hon. and learned Friend objects to.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: With the greatest possible respect, I would suggest that my right hon. Friend totally misconceives the object of this Amendment. What we want is that it should be a simple matter for the Board of Trade to say, as a matter of course, that the licence should be granted to a company in such a case as that mentioned by my hon. Friend, where but one half of 1 per cent. of the capital is held by two Austrian ladies.
  Mr. MASON: I hope the Solicitor-General will in the interests of his own Bill try and make it popular, and not unduly create friction. If he desires to avoid creating friction, and is wishful to create a favourable atmosphere, then let him accept the Amendment and thus show that the Board of Trade are anxious to facilitate the trade and only withdraw licences where it is inexpedient they should be granted. Let him assume that people are innocent until they are proved to be guilty.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: As I do not want to exclude other Amendments from discussion, I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "unless the Board of Trade are of opinion that the grant of a licence is expedient."
  The effect of my Amendment is to ensure that where persons do come under the Schedule no licence is to be granted. I attach very great importance to this Amendment because the form in which the Bill is now drafted gives to the Board of Trade power to say to one man, "You may earn your living," and to another many "You may not," although both of these people are in exactly the same position under the First Schedule of the Bill. No such power has ever before been given to any Government Department. Take the case of the liquor licences. Who grants them? Not a Department of the Government, but the magistrates, and, in certain cases, the London County Council. They are granted by the Courts of Law. In the first instance they are granted by the licensing committee of the justices, with an appeal from their decision to a higher Court. But the whole of these matters are in the hands of the legal authorities in this country. Now we come down and say in. this Bill that a Government Department. shall have the power of declaring that one particular person shall not carry on a business by means of which he earns his livelihood, while another person may do so. See what a temptation that puts before a Government Department. Think how easily such a provision may lead to, corruption.
  5.0 P.M.
  In the first place, this Bill lasts for five years after the War. We do not in the least know who is going to occupy the position of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, not in three or four years' time but in three or four months' time. We do not in the least know, under the provisions of the New Reform Bill, what sort of House will be returned here at the next General Election, and we do not in the least know who are going to form the Government of this country. In all those circumstances, is it wise to give to a single Department this enormous power? One of the great failings of democracies has always been that they have often—in fact, nearly always—led more or less to corruption. The power of Government of facials to interfere in the life and in the business and trade of the country naturally gives opportunities to favouritism. I think myself it is quite possible that if this does become law, at any rate, bribes will be offered to

  1033
  the Department to admit certain people. I do not think there is the slightest doubt about that. I am not at all sure that under certain circumstances that would 'not be so among—I do not say the heads—the minor officials of the Department. We have had something of this sort in the Clothing Department, and I am not talking at random. We have had minor officials—I think, in the Clothing Department at Chelsea—convicted of taking bribes in order to pass certain goods. What is to prevent a similar course occurring among the minor officials of the Board of Trade in order to put favourably before their superiors the case of a person who has applied for a licence? Surely, if we are going to say that it is in the interests of the country that certain people who are alien enemies, or that certain companies who have alien enemy money in their capital, are not to do certain things it is Parliament who ought to say whether those people are at liberty to do it or whether they are not.
  If the object of the Bill is, as has been stated, to stop this, why do we want to give power to the Board of Trade to permit it? If it is right that these people should not deal, if it is in the interests of the country that they should not do so, if it is going to save life in the future, as we have been told is the case by the late Minister of Munitions, if all these things are agreed, surely there can be no doubt that none of these people ought to have this power of dealing. If, on the ether hand, the Bill is brought forward with an object which has been concealed and which has not been frankly stated to the House, then I can understand that it may mean that certain people will be granted licences and that other people will have those licences withheld. I say that is a procedure to 'which this House ought not to lend itself, and that if the Bill is honestly designed to prevent alien enemies having dealings in these metals, this House should say there is to be no exception, or if there is to be an exception there must be a new Bill brought in modifying the old Bill. One of the chief reasons why I objected to this Bill and why I fought against it on the Second Reading was this very provision. If this Bill is passed and this provision is put in, is it going to stop there? Will not other Departments come forward and ask for the same power, the same privileges, and the same control over the trade of the country
  1034
  which we are going to give by this Bill to the President of the Board of Trade? If that is so, shall not we be met by the argument that we have already created a precedent, that we have done it under this Bill, and that, therefore, there is nothing unusual in doing it under another? It is because I feel that the future of this country, so far as regards trade, is really at stake at the present moment, and that if we now—as we shall do if we pass this Bill with this provision in it—permit for the future a Government Department to have the right to say, "You may do your business, and you may not," we shall be entering upon a course which is bound to lead to failure and corruption, that I move this Amendment.
  Mr. MASON: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Sir A. STANLEY: The object of this Amendment, as I understand it, is to remove entirely any discretion the Board of Trade might exercise with respect to the issue of these licences. I will say at once that we cannot accept this Amendment. The effect of it would be that all of the companies, firms, and individuals who came within the First Schedule of the Hill would not be entitled to, and would not receive, a licence. Some company, firm, or individual which had prior to this been engaged in the metal trade of this country, but which by a mere accident found itself within the Schedule, would not be entitled to a licence to continue to trade in these metals. Surely that is not a fair way of dealing with the trade. I would remind the right hon. Baronet that it would not be possible for any company, firm, or individual, which, as I have said, found itself by accident coming within the provisions of the Schedule, to bring itself by its own act outside the Schedule. That could not be done, and there it must remain a permanent disability. Throughout the whole time this Act is in force they could not continue to trade in these metals. Take the instance given by the hon. Member opposite of a company, with which he sass he is associated, and which by some accident of some few shareholders, by virtue of their marriage I believe, being enemy subjects, is brought within the Schedule. Is it going to be argued that simply because of that disability alone you are going to bar that company from even being considered as really entitled to a licence? Surely it cannot be suggested that this

  1035
  House would approve an Amendment of that kind. It must be borne in mind that we are living under new conditions. We are living in a new world, and are faced with entirely new circumstances. Things that were possible before the War are impossible in the interests of our trade to-day. I at once accept the statement of the Mover of the. Amendment that the trade of this country is really at stake. I accept that at once, and it is because we do accept that situation that we have brought in this particular Bill to try to put at least this industry on a secure foundation. I wish to make it quite clear that there are undoubtedly instances where a company, firm, or individual would come within the Schedule, but the mere fact that they do come within the Schedule should not in itself mean that they should not be entitled to a licence, and it is desirable to give to the Board of Trade the power of discretion. I cannot agree with the right hon. Baronet that even the subordinate officials of the Board of Trade would be subject to the bribes which he suggested. I would remind him that in a matter of this kind in such a Department as the Board of Trade—and I am sure this would be true of any other Government Department—the administration of such an important measure as this would not be left to subordinate officials to determine, and he may be assured that the administration of the power conferred on the Board of Trade by this Act will be exercised fairly, honestly, and with due discretion.
  Mr. BRUNNER: I am very glad that the President of the Board of Trade does not see his way to accept this Amendment. If he did he would certainly have to modify a great many of the stipulations of the Schedule, but I want to disabuse his mind of the opinion that there is any very large class in this country which wants to see the Board of Trade controlling commerce after the War. The sooner we get rid of Government control the better for everybody concerned. We absolutely deny that the non-ferrous metal industry is in any need of assistance of the Board of Trade. There was never any time when this country had to pay more for its metal than any other country in the world, when freights were considered, and therefore, if the President of the Board of Trade drops this Bill, he may be quite certain that the trade of Great Britain will not come to any harm whatever.
  Mr. J. HENDERSON: I should be, very much inclined to support the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), because, as a matter of fact, I, with him, strongly object to any Department having such a. power as that of giving licences according to their discretion, but if he will look at Sub-section (5) he will find that any question arising between the Board of Trade and any company, firm, or individual as to whether any of the conditions set forth in the Schedule apply, it can be referred to the High Court, and there you get a judicial decision as to whether the Board of Trade are entitled to act or not. Of course, there may be a great many cases on the border-line where people and companies who were at one time enemy, and even up to the date of November, but I take it that if those companies and firms purge themselves of all enemy association the Board of Trade will either grant a licence or an appeal to the High Court, who will obtain that licence for them. I think, therefore, the words could be left as they are, and that the right hon. Baronet might be satisfied with Subsection (5).
  Amendment negatived.
  Further Amendments made: In Subsection (3), after the word "unless" ["unless suspended or revoked"], insert the words "shall remain in force unless and until it is."
  Leave out the words "shall remain in. force."—[Mr. Wardle.]
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: On a point of Order. May I move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. G. Terrell), at the end of Sub-section (3), to add the words "for the period of this Act"?
  Sir A. STANLEY: We have dealt with that.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: If that is so, I do not wish to move. It was only in order to get an explanation that I proposed to do so.
  Further Amendments made: In Subsection (4), after the word "the" ["set forth in the Schedule"], insert the word "First."
  After the word "Act" ["Schedule to this Act"], insert the words "or in the case of a company, firm, or individual, to which a licence has been granted not withstanding that it was subject to any

  1037
  such condition as aforesaid, that it is expedient that the licence should be revoked or suspended."—[Sir G. Hewart.]
  Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, in Subsection (5), to leave out the words "as to whether or not any of the conditions set forth in the Schedule to this Act apply in respect of the company, firm, or individual, or as to whether or not the company is controlled by a company, firm, or individual in respect of which any such conditions apply, the," and to insert instead thereof—

  "(a) as to whether or not the business carried on by the company, firm, or individual, is such as to require a licence under this Act; or

  (b) as to whether or not any of the conditions set forth in the First Schedule of this Act apply in respect of the company, firm, or individual; or

  (c) as to whether or not the company, firm, or individual is controlled by a company, firm, or individual in respect of which any such conditions apply; or

  (d) as to the requirements of the Board of Trade for the production of books or documents for inspection."

  My Amendment consists of four paragraphs. The effect of the new elements introduced in this Amendment is to give a reference to the High Court as to whether or not the business carried on by the company, firm or individual is such as to require a licence, and, secondly, as to the requirement of the Board of Trade for the inspection of books or documents. These proposals are brought forward in response to pledges which have been given to the Committee. One question raised was in regard to wholesale trading and other trading, and another point was with regard to the documents, it being argued that it might be vexatious to call upon traders to produce their books. The words in the Bill are "such inspection as may be reasonably required" and this Amendment gives an appeal as to whether that requirement is reasonable or not.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: At the end of Sub-section (6) insert the words "and where the application is made with reference to the suspension or revocation of a licence the licence shall not be suspended or revoked until the question has been determined by the Court."
  1038
  In Sub-section (7), leave out the words "but in the latter case such publication shall not take place, pending the final decision of the Court."
  At the end of Sub-section (8), add the words "and the reference to a Divisional Court of the King's Bench shall be construed as a reference to a division of the Court of Session."—[Sir G. Hewart.]

  CLAUSE 2.—(Power to Require Information and Inspection of Documents.)
  The Board of Trade shall have power at any time to require any person who, being a director, partner, manager, or officer of, or the holder of, or person interested in, shares or securities 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, 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, 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.
  Amendments made: After the word "require" insert the words "the applicant for a licence, or a licensee, or."
  Leave out the words "firm, or individual" ["shares or securities of any company, firm, or individual"], and insert instead thereof the words "or firm."
  After the word "Act," insert the words "or by which the applicant or licensee is controlled, or being the manager of the business carried on by an individual, applicant, or licensee."
  At the end of the Clause, add the words "the inspection of which may reasonably be required for the purpose aforesaid."— [Sir A. Stanley.]

  CLAUSE 3.—(Offences.)
  (1) If any person carries on the business of winning, 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 being laid by or on behalf of the Board of Trade be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three

  1039
  months, or to a fine of one hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine:
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (1) leave out the word "of" ["a fine of 2100 "], and insert instead thereof the words "not exceeding."—[Sir A. Stanley.]
  Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "pounds," to insert the words "for each day during which the offence continues."
  Mr. PRINGLE: This is a very large change in regard to penalties provided by the Bill. Originally the penalty was £100, and by the Amendment now proposed it is provided that the penalty shall be "not exceeding £100 for each day during which the offence continues." This may involve a very large sum of money, and if the Board of Trade is convinced that £100 is insufficient as a maximum pecuniary penalty, instead of making it an indefinite penalty, I think it would be much better to increase the amount of the maximum. In these circumstances I think we should have a reply from the Government on this point.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE:I should like to say a word in support of what has just been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire. During the Committee stage I pointed out the difficulty with regard to this penalty, and I suggested that if the fine had to be £100 there would certainly be cases in which that sum was in excess of the penalty which ought to be inflicted. Whereupon my right hon. Friend in a jocular way said, "By all means we will make it £100 a day." I did not raise the matter at the time again, and I decided to wait to see what would be put down on the Paper. I think this amount ought to have been increased from £100 to a sum not exceeding £1,000. Under this proposal for what might be almost a technical offence the Court might inflict a penalty out of all proportion to the offence committed. My hon. Friend's suggestion is almost identical with what I put forward on Monday last, when I suggested that the penalty might he increased to £1,000.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: I think it might be better to keep the fine at £100 with a maximum not exceeding £1,000. Like my right hon. Friend who has just spoken, I thought the President of the Board of Trade's suggestion was a jocular remark.
  1040
  It would be very unusual in a Statute fixing the term of imprisonment at not exceeding three months to have a fine of £1,000, which would certainly be rather disproportionate as far as it compares with other Statutes. A sum of £1,000 is very high as compared with the amount of imprisonment, and I should have thought that £500 would have been nearer the mark.
  Mr. J. HENDERSON: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has considered this matter very carefully. When you look at the Schedule you find there disqualifications which might not be disclosed for months. There is the disqualification with regard to hearer shares. Certain Amendments which have been embodied in the Bill enabled companies to call in bearer shares and issue certificates. All this might take time, and it might even fake twelve months or 300 days, and imagine in such a case a fine of £230,000! I know there are fines in some cases of £50 a day for not filling up certain papers, but that provision is a dead letter, and the only time in which maximum penalties are inflicted applies to hon. Members who come here and vote when they are not entitled to do so. The offences provided for here are not those that a man will do deliberately, and he may be disqualified for something of which he was quite unaware, but which is provided for in the Schedule. It might take weeks to find this out, and a man might go on quite innocently for five or six months. I suggest that the penalty should be £100 a day and not exceeding in all £500. I do not like the proposal for each day, because there may be a great many days in which a man may not know that he is doing wrong
  Sir G. HEWART: I think this Amendment ought to be accepted. I would ask the House to put itself in imagination in the position of a Court which has to deal with an offence of this kind. There are two possible penalties. One is the penalty of imprisonment, and the other is the penalty of a fine. No doubt in a proper case there might be both imprisonment and fine. The fine which is stated in the Bill is the maximum fine. There is nothing to prevent a Court in a proper case from imposing a penalty of 40s. It appeared in the course of the discussions in Committee that it was desired and was desirable that in the case of a continuing offence there should be a money penalty calculated per day. It follows from that,

  1041
  if the House is so far with the Government, that there ought to be as an alternative to imprisonment in the case of a continuous offence a fine which is increased per day as the offence continues; but it is said that there ought to be a maximum of £1,000, or, as I think my hon. Friend said, £500. I would ask the House to consider the effect of inserting that maximum. It would simply be this: If there were a gross and a long-continued offence upon the part of a rich company, firm, or individual, unless the Court were satisfied that a money penalty of £500 would meet the case, there would be no further punishment except the punishment of imprisonment. I submit that it is not desirable that the hands of the Court should be fettered in that way. The House is not saying what penalty should be imposed. It is only prescribing the limits within which the penalty may be imposed. No exception is taken to the figure of £100 in the first place, and, if that is right, I submit that there is no reason why it should not also be the cumulative daily penalty. The objections to the insertion of a maximum are very strong, and I submit that this Amendment should be accepted.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I do not profess to be a lawyer, and perhaps my reading of this Section is quite incorrect. The penalty is to be imposed after summary conviction has taken place, and there is to be a penalty for each day during which the offence continues. I imagine that any offence previous to that conviction would be purged by the conviction, and that any offence which took place after conviction would become a new offence for which the person might be brought to book. Would not that be so?
  Sir G. HEWART: It does not follow that the offence is purged if there is a conviction subsequent to it. It would depend on whether the offence was charged in the information leading to the conviction.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: The original offence would be purged by the conviction, and a fresh offence would take place, for which there might be, and probably would be, a fresh conviction. Supposing you have an obstinate person who, at the end of ten days, had not discharged his offence by obtaining or trying to obtain a licence. He could be brought to book for a fresh offence and he could be fined a fresh £1,000. Therefore, if you put a limit of £1,000 to this penalty, it would really im-
  1042
  pose upon him a heavy and maximum penalty for every fresh offence that he commits. At the same time, I think you ought to limit the sum to £1,000.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 4.—(Provision as to Warrants to Bearer.)
  Sir A. STANLEY: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the following new Sub-section:
  "(4) For the purposes of this Act the expression share warrants to bearer includes any bearer securities which confer on the holder thereof any voting power with respect to the management of the company."
  Mr. BRUNNER: I would like to ask what is the necessity for including in the expression "share warrants to bearer" any bearer securities which confer voting power"? Surely it is not necessary to say that. It surely cannot mean if the holder of a debenture is entirely unable to control the management of a company, that the debenture, so to speak, would come in. If the right hon. Gentleman could meet us on this point, I think we should be able to accept this Amendment.
  Sir A. STANLEY: The object of this Amendment is to make it quite clear that it would not be possible by a mere technicality to evade this question of the issue of bearer shares. It would be possible for a company to issue a bearer debenture and not a bearer share. They might call it by some other name. It is only to make it quite clear that we have a wide enough definition that these words are added.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 5.—(Evidence of Documents.)
  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 C. HOBHOUSE: I beg to move, to leave out the words "without lawful authority."

  1043
  I cannot quite understand for what purpose information which has been acquired by the Board of Trade from the books of various traders, to which they are to have access, and which, of course, they will very thoroughly examine and investigate, outside that of a Law Court which is provided for, should be published or disclosed to anybody at any time. There must be some reason, but it does not appear on the face of the Bill, and for the purpose of ascertaining the reason, I move to leave out these words. I am told that the words "without lawful authority" are common form in matters of this sort, and therefore, although there is nothing in the Bill to show whether the President of the Board of Trade or the Treasury or the High Court is the lawful authority, I do not propose to ask what the words mean. It seems to me, if the lawful authority is the Board of Trade or some non-judicial body or person, then under these words the whole of the transactions of the trader might be made known and very considerable harm might be done to him.
  Sir G. HEWART: There will be no difficulty in accepting this Amendment provided that a consequential Amendment is made. My right lion. Friend is quite right in thinking that the words "without lawful authority" are in such a context common form. What they mean, and the whole of what they mean, is that the person who obtains the information on behalf of the Board of Trade is not to publish it to the world without lawful authority. If he disclosed it to the Board of Trade that would be a disclosure with lawful authority. If he published it to third persons, that would be without lawful authority, and he is not authorised to do it. I propose, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, to omit the words "without lawful authority" and then to go on to omit the words "or disclosed," and later on the. words "or discloses." The effect would be that the communication of the information to the Board of Trade would be permissible, but that any publication to third persons would be prohibited.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: That exactly satisfies me, and I accept the suggestion.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Sir. G. HEWART: I beg to move to leave out the words "or disclosed."
  Mr. BRUNNER: What is the exact meaning of this word "published"? Does it mean by word of mouth?
  Sir G. HEWARTindicated assent.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: After the word "publishes," leave out the words "or discloses."—[Sir G. Hewart.]

  CLAUSE 8.—(Declarations.)
  Amendment made: At the end of the Clause add the following new Sub-section:
  "(4) For the purposes of this Section the expressions 'shares' and 'debentures' include stock and debenture stock and 'shareholder' and 'debenture holder' have corresponding meanings." —[Sir G. Hewart.]

  CLAUSE 9.—(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 Trade. The expression "metal" shall not include metal which has been subjected to any manufacturing process except such as may be prescribed; and the expression "ore" shall include concentrates, mattes, precipitates and other intermediate products.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move to leave out the word "nickel."
  The subject of nickel has been very inadequately dealt with in the course of these Debates by the Government. It was dealt with at some length by myself on the Second Reading, on which occasion I received no reply. I raised the matter again on the Committee stage, and I said then that whatever might be said of some of the other metals, certainly no case had been made out in regard to nickel. It had not been proved that this country or the Government had been embarrassed in regard to the supply of nickel. It had not been proved that the German metal combine had obtained the control of nickel. It had not been shown that British companies dealing in the metal were not able to look after themselves without any protection such as is offered by action of this kind. These things have not received an answer, though I think they demand an answer, but I have another matter to raise. which I think is equally important. I have information in my possession which

  1045
  indicates that the British Government itself is now a shareholder in a company which would not be entitled to a licence under this Bill. It has now been proved, by answers to questions in this House, that the British Government has an interest in a company known as the British-America Nickel Corporation. I maintain that this is a company with enemy association. Large shareholders in it are also shareholders in a company known as the Christiania Nickel Refining Works, as well as other mines and smelting works in Norway. Though these are operated by a company which is ostensibly a Norwegian company, they are nevertheless controlled by a German company in Frankfort. If that is so, and I have reason to believe that there is foundation for these statements—certainly statements to this effect have been published in newspapers in Canada without any contradiction on behalf of the Government or on behalf of the British-America Nickel Corporation—you have this curious situation, that the Government is now passing a Bill laying down certain conditions in relation to the trade in nickel which would prevent a company in which it is itself interested from carrying on business in this country. That is a very good reason for not including nickel in the Bill. I would draw the attention of the House to the third paragraph of the First Schedule, which lays down the condition,
  "That the company, firm, or individual is or was at, any time after the twelfth day of November, one thousand nine 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."
  As I understand it, the business of these Norwegian shareholders, who are really holding for the Norwegian company, is being controlled or influenced by an enemy company. Here you have, therefore, the British Government, a large shareholder—indeed, some people say guaranteeing dividends on the shares of a company in which another company, influenced by the enemy, are large shareholders. I have given two solid grounds for excluding nickel from this Bill—first, that no case has been made out in respect of nickel as one of the metals which should be included either on the ground that the Government was embarrassed in relation to the stocks of nickel early in the War or on the ground of German
  1046
  control of nickel during or before the War and the second consideration which I have now been enabled for the first time, after great diligence and research, to discover—
  sir J. D. REES: It is not new matter.
  Mr. PRINGLE: It is new matter to most Members of this House, if not to my hon. Friend, that the British Government is a shareholder in this corporation which- cannot carry on business in this country under this Bill. If that is the situation we are bound to insist that nickel should be excluded, so that the Government should not incur the penalties laid down by the Bill, namely, a fine of £100 or imprisonment for three months. The President of the Board of Trade cannot be allowed to go to gaol if this Bill were passed. We wish to save him from imprisonment, although prison may be one of the safest places in which to be later on and it might be a fate for which. many of his colleagues might envy him. We do not desire to see him made a victim of this protective and punitive legislation: therefore, I move this Amendment.
  Mr. J. HENDERSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
  We are coming a little nearer to the real foundation of this Bill. The British-America Nickel Corporation is somehow or other at the root of this Bill. If what my hon. Friend says is right—and I believe be is quite correct—in saying that the British Government has lent a large sum of money to this British-America Nickel Corporation, and if that corporation is under German influence, director indirect, this Bill is a peculiar parody upon That fact. It seems that this company and its ramifications have got into. the Board of Trade somehow or other, and they are trying to get out of it. I believe there is no genuine foundation for this Bill in the idea of metal control. You have never suffered from enemy control of nickel. France has the nickel mines of New Caledonia; Canada has nickel mines; and these two between them control the whole of the nickel trade. In fact, the great firm of Rothschild for many years—I do not know: whether they do it now—controlled the whole of the nickel trade, and if anybody tried to smelt nickel in this country he did it at his own peril, because the Rothschild's came in and undersold him in such a way that he could not possibly go on. The control of nickel, so far as there has been any control at all, has been

  1047
  with that great firm and has been in this country, Canada, and France. There is no pretence for saying that Germany controlled the nickel trade in the slightest degree.
  Sir A. STANLEY: I am sorry I am not possessed of the necessary information upon which to give a complete reply to the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle), who has moved this Amendment. If the British Government is interested in, or has any control over, any nickel corporation, that transaction, whatever it was, has not been carried out during the time that I have been in office, therefore that transaction was not within my particular knowledge. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of what he has said—I have no knowledge—in regard to certain statements contained in Canadian papers on this particular point, but I would remind the hon. Member, even if it is true, and assuming that it is true, that the British Government has an interest in some nickel corporation, it would point to two things—one is that during the War the Government found it necessary to take some interest in a corporation in order to secure a supply of nickel to this country.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that his Department has answered a question to the effect that this corporation cannot supply any nickel to this country within two years?
  Sir A. STANLEY: That may be true. I do not know. What I have said was that if the British Government did find it necessary to interest itself in a nickel corporation, it probably did 89 with the idea that if might secure a supply of nickel for this country. It may not have succeeded in achieving its desire, but I should have thought that was one of the reasons that would have prompted a scheme of that kind, assuming that it was done. I would also remind the hon. Member that, even assuming that the British Government is interested in a corporation which has some enemy connection, that might bring this particular company within the Schedule, it does not necessarily follow that that company would be debarred from trading in nickel in this country. While I Personally am deeply appreciative of the effort which my hon. Friend has made to keep me out of prison, I would remind him 'hat the President of the Board of Trade
  1048
  can adopt the very simple expedient of licensing that particular company, and therefore relieve himself of that burden.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: He will licence himself.
  Sir A. STANLEY: That is not the particular point I desire to make. If the British Government has any connection with this company, and although it may come within the Schedule, it does not follow that that particular company would not receive a licence if, in the discretion of the Board of Trade, it was deemed desirable that a licence should be granted.
  Mr. BRUNNER: The exhibition of ignorance on this matter by the President of the Board of Trade is deplorable. I will further enlighten him upon the matter. I will read to him some of the evidence which was given before the Royal Ontario Nickel Commission, published by the Ontario Government early in 1917. It says in the course of this evidence that
  "Fourteen millions and a half dollars of the twenty millions of common stock of this company—"
  that is the British-America Nickel Corporation—
  "is in the name of a British subject resident in London. Allan Anderson is the holder"
  Has the right hon. Gentleman ever heard of Allan Anderson? Has he ever come into contact with him in the course of his Presidency of the Board of Trade. He told me some time ago, when this Bill was last before the House, that the investment in the British-America Nickel Corporation was merely a Treasury matter. Surely this is not the whole truth. If Sir Allan Anderson is the holder, and is an official of the Board of Trade—
  Mr. PRINGLE: He is the Comptroller of the Admiralty now.
  Mr. BRUNNER: If he is an official of the Government, holding this stock, it really ought to be a matter about which the President should know something. I hope that before allowing this Bill to pass we shall really get to the bottom of which Department is responsible for investing British money in the. British-America Nickel Corporation, and that we may get some real answer as to the necessity for this investment.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I really do not see how this arises on the Bill. The matters referred to may be right or wrong, but are not a matter for legisla-

  1049
  tion. The question is whether A is right in this legislation to include nickel in this list of metals?
  Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order. Is it not relevant to point out that by including nickel in this Bill you will be excluding from trading this company in which the Government has actually taken an interest?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think that is the effect of the Bill. The point is whether it should operate with a licence or not. That is the only point.
  Amendment negatived.

  CLAUSE 10.—(Short Title and Duration.)
  (1) This Act may be cited as the Non-Ferrous Metal Industry Act, 1917.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), leave out "1917" and insert instead thereof "1918."—[Sir A.. Stanley.]

  FIRST 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, 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.

  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 profits or voting power in any undertaking whether or not in the United Kingdom, engaged in business of a kind to which this Act applies, in which
  1050
  enemies are also interested, directly or in directly to the extent of one-fifth or more of the capital profits or voting power.

  5. That the company, firm, or individual, is by any means whatever subject, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of their or his business to enemy influence or association.

  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.

  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 Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey.
  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 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 securities issued by the company which carry, or would, if the necessary formalities were complied with. carry any voting power with respect to the management of the company and shall also include debentures and debenture stock and money lent to the company.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: I beg to move, in paragraph 1, to leave out the words "any manager or."

  1051
  I was under the impression that the Solicitor - General had accepted this Amendment on the Committee stage. At any rate, the Solicitor-General will see by referring to the OFFICIAL REPORT that he expressed willingness to accept it. I was under the impression that it was actually accepted and when I found the words in the Bill again I was very surprised. Without these words the condition will read
  "or the individual, or other principal officer employed by the company, firm, or individual."
  I do not know whether I am wrong in saying that the Solicitor-General said he would accept those words.
  6.0 P.M.
  Sir G. HEWART: My hon. and learned Friend's recollection is not quite correct. Friend's recollection is not quite correct. committee was so to amend Condition I as to make it read, "That any director of the company or any partner of the firm, or the individual, or any principal officer employed by," and so -on. It is quite true that in the course of the discussion upon that Amendment I said, on the spur of the moment, having regard to the particular phraseology of this condition, that the simpler thing would be to omit the words "manager or other," so as to make it read "any principal officer employed by"—because upon the phraseology of this condition it is assumed that the manager is a principal officer, hence the word "other" before "principal officer"—and I said that the manager was regarded as being a principal officer, whoever else might or might not be a principal officer. But if my hon. and learned Friend will refresh his memory by looking at what took place, he refused to accept that Amendment. I will not conjecture the reason, but the useful effect of his refusing to accept it was that we have had a little further opportunity for consideration, and although the word "other" in this condition may be somewhat incorrect, because it assumes that the manager is a principal officer, I am not any longer prepared to accept this Amendment, because it has been held in some cases that the manager is not a principal officer, and although no doubt the words in this Bill assume that he is, it is quite useful that the word "manager" should remain. My hon. and learned Friend probably remembers the little couplet,
  1052
  "Those who will not when they may, When they would they shall have nay."
  There was a moment, no doubt, when an offer was made to put in these words, but the offer was not accepted. I am glad it was not accepted, because I think the word "other" is wrong and the word "manager" should remain.
  Mr. HOLT: I think the Solicitor-General is in a less satisfactory frame of mind than he was on the Committee stage. I think he was right then and wrong now. I do not think a manager is necessarily in fact a principal officer. After all, the word "manager" has no statutory meaning itself. It is a mere title which may be given to one man of a trifling character and withheld from another who is doing much more important work. Surely the words "principal officer" are sufficient to cover any case. The only case in which a manager would not be held to be a principal officer would be when he was in fact not a principal officer, and seeing that what you want to get at is a person who is in fact a principal officer, and not merely a person who may be called by the name of manager, I should have thought it was very much better to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. HOLT: I beg to move, after the word "person" "["is a person who is or has been"], to insert the words "not being a British subject."
  I am sorry to take up time in discussing a matter which was fully discussed in Committee, but this Amendment raises a question not of administrative convenience, but of principle. I want again to raise the question on treating one class of British citizen in a different manner from that in which all other classes of British citizens are treated. It appears to me that there is a very great objection to introducing a thing which I believe is unknown at present in the law of this country—two classes of citizens, one of which has not got precisely the same civil rights as the other. A naturalised citizen, whether of enemy origin or not, is entitled to all the rights of any other citizen. He is allowed to have a vote for Members of Parliament, and he is entitled, if chosen by a body of electors, himself to sit in Parliament. He may even be a member of the Government or of the War Cabinet. But under this Bill it is proposed that a person so situated is not to be allowed to deal in non-ferrous metals unless he has some

  1053
  rather special licence or favour from the Board of Trade. That is really an intolerable state of things. It is a gross breach of faith on the part of the Government towards the citizen to whom naturalisation papers have been issued. If it is proper to make a distinction between citizens who become citizens by naturalisation and those who become citizens by birth, it ought to be made in the naturalisation laws, and it ought to be explained to the new citizen, when he accepts citizenship, that he is to have it on less favourable terms than those on which citizens by birth hold their citizenship. You have no moral right, having granted to anyone full citizenship, to take it away from him without the clearest evidence that he himself has committed some wrongful action. It is a very cruel case as regards many of these men. There are men who will have a stigma fixed upon them by this Bill, who have spent nearly the whole of their lives in this country, who have lived here as honoured citizens, and whose sons have fought and fallen on the battlefield for us, and they are to have this stigma fixed upon them without a particle of evidence adduced by anyone that they have been doing something wrong. This is also a very unsatisfactory proposal when you come to consider the case of any persons who may become British citizens by force. If we are to annex, as I hope we may, some of the German colonies and possibly some of the Turkish dominions, persons who have British citizenship forced upon them will be made to realise that they are not admitted into the British Empire on the same terms as other citizens. That is not a policy which is likely to be conducive to a satisfactory settlement of boundary questions which will arise in the Peace settlement. It is a policy which, if it had been adopted towards the last enemy with whom we were in conflict, would have prevented one of the most distinguished members of the War Cabinet from dealing in non-ferrous metals. This is a proposal for which there can be no defence, and, indeed, no defence has ever been offered. It has never been suggested that any public advantage is going to be derived from this proposal. It is unworthy of the greatness of the British Empire and ought to be rejected.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: I beg to second the Amendment.
  In my opinion this is by far the most objectionable Clause in the Bill, and it
  1054
  is made all the more objectionable by the attitude the Government has displayed towards the House. There have been many ways in which the Government might have eased the passage of the Bill and made this Clause less offensive, but on each occasion when they had an opportunity they always took the other line. There is a later Amendment on the Paper to-day which exemplifies the same spirit. The Government actually reaches this point now, that not only is it going practically to refuse the right to trade to anyone who has ever been a subject of any of these enemy States—that surely would have been enough even in this House of Commons acting under war influence—but it is actually telling the House that it is going to put the burden of proof upon these people to show that it is expedient that they should trade, and that is one of the reasons which made me move an Amendment earlier to-day. It seems to me to be as objectionable as anything can be that you are going to claim that the Board of Trade shall interfere in any way with the full rights of citizens without any case being proved against them, and it does not seem to me to be made very much better by what we were told on an earlier occasion by the President of the Board of Trade, that there were certain people whom the Board had reason to suspect and apparently could not convict. There is not an oligarchal Government in the world that does not say, where it cannot convict a man on evidence, "let us do it without." Not only does the Board of Trade now claim to convict people without evidence, but it has also been most industrious throughout the Bill to prevent there being any single appeal to anyone with any judicial experience from the exercise of their discretion in which they decide that these people, whom they cannot convict on any evidence, are yet to be held guilty without evidence, and from that conviction there is to be no appeal whatsoever.
  I know perfectly well that it is merely beating the air to repeat the protest that one has already made. I am perfectly aware of the fact that they intend to treat naturalised subjects in this way, for the first time in modern English history, without giving any reason to the House, and then—because their case on every one of these metals, as far as I am able to understand, has been absolutely riddled—merely because they desire to have this power, as they say, in the public interest,

  1055
  they give no reason for it, and they proceed to treat these people just as though they were enemies, and further than that, they treat them infinitely worse than if they were foreign subjects who were now in hearty sympathy with the Germans. You have this position, that the Government says a man who was naturalised thirty or forty years ago, and has every way done his duty as a British citizen, may not trade in non-ferrous metals unless the Board of Trade thinks it expedient. Take the case of a Dutchman whose sympathies are and have been entirely pro-German throughout the War. He can trade in non-ferrous metals whether the Board of Trade think it expedient or not. What we are actually going to do is to put penalties upon loyal naturalised subjects which you have never dreamed of putting upon others who are flagrantly and openly and confessedly hostile to this country. That is certainly a new method of administration of the law in this country. What on earth we think we are going to gain by bringing such principles into our law I cannot imagine. You are going to describe these people in these terms, as
  "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."
  I understand that it is the intention of the Government that the words shall stop there. In other words you are going to say boldly that any person who has ever been or is a subject of one of these States is a person who is or has been an enemy.
  Sir G. HEWART: The fact that this matter was argued at great length in Committee is, I know, not a reason why it should not be argued now. But that fact is a reason why what was said in Committee should not be restated in full on Report. My hon. and learned Friend was made aware in Committee, if he was not aware before, that the object of the words in the Bill is not to disqualify a naturalised British subject, who was formerly a German, but it is to bring the case of such a person under review. In the remarks made by the President of the Board of Trade it was, I think, made abundantly clear that, in the case of such a person as has been described by my hon. and learned Friend, who is a
  1056
  naturalised subject, who has lived in this country for a long time, and whose behaviour has been not only free from suspicion, but positively and actually good, the effect of the review would be that, notwithstanding that he had been a German subject, he would be granted a licence. What is of importance is that the person occupying that position should be a person whose case shall be reviewed. No doubt, as my hon. and learned Friend has observed, the policy of this country in relation to naturalisation has been an. extremely liberal policy, and nobody desires to detract or subtract from it. But we are dealing here with a special emergency, and with a particular and, single matter. The object of the Bill is to secure, if we can secure, and as far as legislation can secure, that these particular industries shall be free from enemy association, influence and control. I quite agree that the Bill is not perfect. It does not go the whole length, but within its limits, is it not idle to suggest that where legislation of that kind is introduced you can close your eyes to the fact that there are in this country a large number of naturalised British subjects. who formerly were Germans. I am not going to say a word against them, and I desire to make no imputation upon them, but there are plain facts of origin and of race which no certificate of naturalisation can obliterate. Where the object is to bring persons of a certain type under review and give the Board of Trade, in a proper case, the power of preventing those persons from carrying on a particular business, I submit that it is idle to say that at some earlier date, under circumstances quite different. they were naturalised as British subjects. My hon. and learned Friend will remember as well' as I do the assurance given by the President of the Board of Trade as to the mode of treatment which might confidently be expected in the case of naturalised British subjects whose conduct had been such as it should be.
  My hon. and learned Friend argued, for the purpose, I suppose, of reductio ad absurdum, that, although the Bill brought in a loyal British subject who had been a German, there were many other persons omitted. He said that it omitted a Dutchman. Does he propose to bring in a Dutchman? The fact that a Dutchman is omitted is no reason why former Germans should not, in a proper case, be included. I cannot understand

  1057
  the arguments against the Bill, so far as it contains what it should contain, based upon the ground that there are other things which it omits. Finally, my hon. and learned Friend committed himself to the argument that the omission of certain words in the Schedule had qualified the meaning of the words "enemy State," and that it was intended to be, and would lave the effect of being offensive.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: I did not say it intended to be offensive.
  Sir G. HEWART: Well, that it would have the effect of being offensive. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the Clause, he will see that in consequence of an Amendment, which was accepted in Committee, the definition of "enemy State," in paragraph 6 of the Schedule has been altered. The expression, "enemy State," is no longer defined in general terms. It is defined as particular countries—Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey. That change having been made, it became totally unnecessary to continue the, general words in proviso 1. It is for that reason and for no other reason that the words have been omitted. If the policy of this Bill is right, if the object at which the Government is aiming is an object which we ought to aim at, it is essential not only that we should disqualify former Germans from carrying on this trade in proper cases, but that we should bring the cases individually before the Board of Trade for review.
  Mr. L. JONES: The Solicitor-General has said that this matter was dealt with at length in Committee, and that it was not necessary to repeat the arguments now. As I did not take part in the Debate on this particular Amendment in Committee, I must allow myself to say a few words now, because in many ways I regard this as the most important part of the Bill. I think it involves a departure from the agreement made with these men and women when they were admitted as citizens of this country. The arguments which the Solicitor-General has used might be directed against the naturalisation of Germans or of foreigners generally. There would be a great deal of force in what he said if it is true that all foreigners retain sympathy with the country of their birth, and cannot adopt the feelings and habits of the people with whom they are naturalised. That is a
  1058
  very strong argument against naturalising them, but it is no argument. for breaking your agreement with them when you have naturalised them. These things should have been foreseen. The right hon. Gentleman argued that circumstances have changed. Is not that the argument invariably used by every man when he wants to break a bargain into which he has entered? Was not that the very argument used by the German Chancellor, that a country in danger of its existence could not be bound by agreements? You made these agreements with these foreigners, and you have no right to disregard the agreement because it is inconvenient for you and it is difficult for you to carry out your intention if you do not disregard the agreement. You should have thought of that at the time you admitted them. No argument that I have heard has given the slightest justification for this Clause.
  Party is dead in the country, but I cannot forget that it is a Liberal Minister who has addressed the House. May I remind him of another Liberal Minister who spoke many years go in this House in regard to the treatment of a naturalised alien? Lord Palmerston spoke in House for five hours on his famous Civis Romanus Sum, and he interpreted that as "I am an English citizen." The person in question was Dom Pacifico. I do not know how he became to be naturalised, but he was a naturalised British citizen. That was good enough for Lord Palmerston, and he spoke here for justification and for reparation in regard to the attack upon Dom Pacifico. That is how Liberal statesmen in the past felt in regard to naturalised British subjects, and I do protest that the President of the Board of Trade should profess that this is a small matter. It is very regrettable that they should have so little regard for the traditions of this country, and for the pledged word of this country, in regard to these naturalised aliens that they should try to draw a distinction between one kind of British citizen and another. It has been, and it ought to have been, the proud boast of this country that a man was a British citizen and that that gave him all the rights of his British citizenship. That will be so no longer after this Bill. I do not envy the. Government the part they are playing in this great breach with the traditions of the past, and I think we

  1059
  shall all live to be thoroughly ashamed of having been party to such an attack upon a people because we are at war with them. It is quite true we are at war with the Germans, the Austrians, the Bulgarians, and the Turks to-day. We have Allies to-day. With our present Allies we have been at war in the past. With our present enemies we have been alliance in the past. Thank goodness the world does not always maintain its enmities! Unfortunately it does not always retain its friendships. It is deeply regrettable that you should betray the honourable traditions of this country because you are in a particular difficulty. I regret what the Government. are doing, I protest against it, I have no share in it. and I say that they will be ashamed of it.
  Mr. HENDERSON: The Solicitor-General said that we are not disqualifying these men, but only making them come under review. Is not that disqualification?
  Mr. HEMMERDE: And putting the burden of proof upon them.
  Mr. HENDERSON: You are not bringing other people under review. Why bring them under review'? The fact is that it is a very cowardly trick. Our men at the front are not afraid to meet the Germans, but there is a feeling amongst our commercial and industrial men that they are frightened to death of the Germans in competition. and this is an attempt to tie up the intelligence of these people and grip it so that it shall not come in competition with them in the future. Why are you doing it now? You have complete control of all these metals, and this Bill is going to be for after the War—for five years. Most likely the terms of peace will be against anything of the kind, and you will have to tear up your Act. In the meantime you will have appeared to the world, and to those who take the trouble to make themselves acquainted with facts, as having cast this slur upon the great integrity of your own country. Naturalisation was not easy thirty or forty years ago. The conduct of a person and his life are to be inquired into very strictly. He took the oath of allegiance. It is not suggested for a moment that he has ever broken that oath. Why should you come down on him? We are all angry with the Germans, and, naturally, I am as angry as
  1060
  anyone else, and then it is said, "We cannot get at the Germans over there to punish them. We will get at you here, whom we have admitted to citizenship, perhaps thirty or forty years ago, and we will penalise and disqualify you." We cannot get at the real offenders, the Metallgesellschaft, and these men are to be punished instead.
  The object is that these metals shall be free from all enemy association and control, but the metals are impersonal things. They are under control wherever they are. found. It is where they come out of the ground that you can control them. You. will never control them in any other way, by saying that you will only licence certain men. It is a most stupid thing. The very stupidity of it is abysmal. To do that you are going to put a stain on the honour of Great Britain, whose word is its bond.. I know some officers who have come from internment in Germany. They have told me that the Germans hate us more than they hate either the French or the Russians, but the Germans will take an English officer's word where they would not take the word of the others. That is the standard of character that we have had in the past, and even if you are going to lose a little control of a little wretched spelter, is that going to compensate you for breaking your word? I would rather lose control of the whole thing. But we have never lost any control through the Germans, but only by our own folly in not securing it when we could do so. But we have got it now. There is something else which may be said on the Third Reading,. but which I need not say now, but I regret that even for all that you think you are going to get out of this you should lay this. stain upon the escutcheon of the British Empire.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Before saying one or two words with regard to this Amendment, I should like to correct a mistake which I made in the Committee stage of the Bill when referring to the difficulty of getting rid of enemy associations and influence. I illustrated what I had to say in the case of copper by a reference to some of the great controllers of copper in America. I referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellington (Sir C. Henry), whose firm is probably the greatest in the world in this business of copper, as representing Messrs. Guggenheim in this country. My hon. Friend has since corrected my information on

  1061
  that subject. He tells me that this is not correct. I feel that it is due to him to make it clear that in the illustration which I gave, which was not at all to his detriment, I introduced the name of Messrs. Guggenheim under a misapprehension. I join with my hon. Friends in their protest against the form of the Schedule. It is a matter of general agreement that naturalisation is one of the obligations which in this country have always been held to be sacred. The accident of birth gives to a man who is British born privileges which are enjoyed by probably no other citizen in the world, and, although we have been liberal and even generous in extending naturalisation to men who have been born outside the British Empire, we have up to the present, until this Bill was introduced, bound ourselves honourably by the obligations into which we entered. The supposition which is apparently in the minds of the promoters of this Bill, is that a man who has been naturalised is more likely to be in close association with the metal brokers and metal financiers of Frankfort than a man who has been born here and obtains his citizenship by natural right.
  There has been no evidence in the whole course of the Debate of that being based on any one fact or on any group of facts. I am sure that if there had been either my right lion. Friend the President of the Board of Trade or my right hon. and learned Friend the learned Solicitor-General would have adduced it. They have done all they could to support their arguments by statements of fact. There has not been given a single case of the kind. They have omitted to give any instance of naturalised British subjects behaving, or having been under suspicion of behaving, as though they were in close association with enemy controllers or financiers of metal. But even if they had. surely that would not have justified any amendment of the naturalisation law, as provided for in the first Clause of this Schedule ! The question of national obligation is much too serious to be dealt with merely in a single Clause in the Schedule of a comparatively trivial measure. If the Government are not satisfied with the patriotism of those who have been naturalised, let them come to the House and straightforwardly amend the naturalisation law. Let them do it as covering the case of all naturalised British citizens. and riot merely those who have been in the metal trade. I have listened carefully,
  1062
  both in the Committee stage and to-day, to the case made by the Government for dishonouring a national obligation, and, as far as I can gather, the only reason for that is that now or during the next five years those who have been naturalised will behave dishonourably or unpatriotically.
  I do not hold a brief for any naturalised British subject. I have received communications from those who claim to be patriotic British subjects, and many of them state their case with great dignity. To some extent their case was met in Committee. It is not their point of view I am thinking of, but at the same time I think it would be well if you would have enough imagination to realise what must be the feelings of a man who accepted British citizenship on the undertaking, given in a most solemn State paper, that lie was to be regarded for all future time as though he were a natural - born Britisher, if he is to be under suspicion which is cast. on no other citizen, and also is cast on no other foreigner except those who are citizens of Germany, Austria, Turkey, or Bulgaria! A very large number of these men have proved their patriotism in a hundred ways. Most of them have given the most complete pledges of their devotion to this country. Many of them are now mourning sons who have been lost in our cause, and to cast a stigma on these people, without any notice and in direct breach of the obligation into which we entered, appears to me to be such a mean. and dishonourable transaction that I can scarcely understand that the Ministers who are responsible for it can have realised how profound is the disgust—I can use no weaker word—with which some of us, who believe that the obligations entered into by a nation ought to be observed, a thing for which mainly we are fighting now, at the way in which in this Bill an effort is made to amend the naturalisation laws. The phraseology which I have used is much stronger than any which I would think of indulging in in reference to any other part of the Bill, because I think that the Bill is a very weak and feeble way of dealing with the control of metals. I believe that the proper way is to control the metals and not to bother about the nationality of those who are in business in these commodities. This amendment of our naturalisation laws is a thing which no member of the Government can be proud of being a supporter.
  Mr. PETO: It is to be regretted that certain Members representing, no doubt, as they do, a group in this House and a certain body of opinion are the only persons to speak here in a Debate of this kind, as they are, I believe, entirely out of touch and out of sympathy with 99 per cent. of the people of this country. What mountains have been made out of a molehill! The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rushcliffe, in an almost impassioned oration which preceded the speech to which we have just listened, in which the right hon. Gentleman admitted that he was speaking very strongly on this question, dealt with it from the point of view of a breach of faith or a breach of contract. This condition is only one of six conditions. The Bill deals with companies who are trading under all these conditions and brings them within the purview of the Board of Trade in a particular matter. I am convinced that people generally in the country would think it a perfectly proper thing that persons who are of alien enemy origin, no matter whether they are naturalised or not, should come within the purview of the Board of Trade before they are given a licence and should only be given a licence if the Board of Trade think it expedient. That is what the public understand as being one of the main objects of this Bill. They do not share the views of those who draw this exaggerated picture in order to throw discredit on the whole of this Bill, and the whole effort of the Government to deal with this question, and make these accusations of breach of faith.
  There is no analogy between what is proposed in this Bill and the historic pronouncement to which reference has been made, as if the Board of Trade and its representative did not make it perfectly plain that in the case of these oft-quoted naturalised persons, who have been many years in this country, and whose sons have been fighting for us and all the rest of it, that in all such cases where the Board of Trade are satisfied they would be treated as British subjects, and not placed under any disadvantage. But right hon. and hon. Members are blinding our eyes to the facts of the case. It would be perfect folly on the part of the Government to assume that all persons who were naturalised even within a few months of the outbreak of the War are such whole-hearted British subjects, without the slightest connection or sympathy with the country of their origin, and that it would be perfectly safe
  1064
  in a Bill which purports to try to remove from alien control the metal resources of the Empire and the metal trade of this great city, if in such cases as that we were to say, "We have given to these people. under wholly different conditions, full citizenship, and, therefore, we shall go so far as to say that we shall not even look into the question whether they are persons who are wholly British in sentiment, or whether they are persons who are largely, if not entirely, enemy and alien in sentiment." There is no question of the Government coming here to alter the whole naturalisation law, and, as I said, the whole thing is a most absurd mountain made out of a most ridiculous molehill.
  Amendment negatived.
  Sir A. STANLEY: I beg to move, in paragraph 1, to leave out the words "or who was at any time before the 4th day of August, 1914, a subject of the State which subsequently became an enemy State."
  Mr. HEMMERDE: I just want to draw attention to one point in connection with this Amendment. It may appear a small point, but it seems to me one of some importance. The paragraph will now read with these words left out, "is a person who is or has been an enemy." I suggested that it would be much better that the Clause should read, "is a person who is or has been a subject of Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, or Turkey." Anyone looking at the Clause would see that the words "is or has been an enemy" might be regarded as a somewhat offensive phrase, and if the words I suggest were adopted the Clause would have precisely the same effect and would achieve the object in a less offensive way.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): It might be that there would be some advantage in the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but by the form in which the Bill stands at present it will be seen that the provision is explained by the definitions given in a later paragraph.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: I am not asking that the principle of the provision should be altered, but merely to make the paragraph read, "where the person is a subject of Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, or Turkey," which is a less offensive form

  1065
  than that contained in the Bill and would do no harm in any way to the measure. It is a mere drafting point.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. HOLT: I beg to move, in paragraph 2, to leave out the word "any" ["any capital of the company"].
  I move this Amendment, in connection with another which follows, to insert the words "carrying in the aggregate one-fifth of the voting power," so that the paragraph would read, "that in the case of a company, capital of the company carrying in the aggregate one-fifth of the voting power." I made a similar proposal in the Committee stage of the Bill, and the Government objected to it because the holder of one share might have control of the voting power. I am endeavouring now to meet that objection by proposing the Amendment in a different form, and so get rid of the objection. I have put it at one-fifth, but I do not care if it is a tenth, or a twentieth, if that would satisfy the Board of Trade. I want to deal with the case where a very small portion of the shares pass through enemy hands. There was a case in the Law Courts the other day, and I saw by the report of it that several trustees, one of them a member of this House, asked permission to pay money in connection with the settlement of a daughter of a Peer who had married an Austrian. They were successful in their application in regard to a part of the shares from which the settlement was derived. If the company in which these shares were held was trading in nonferrous metals then the company would be obliged to get a licence. I know the case of a lady, a widow, who was married to a German, her second husband. So far as I can make out, when a lady under those circumstances marries a German the automatic effect of that is that any company dealing in non-ferrous metals in which she has shares would have to get a special licence from the Board of Trade. I do not think anybody contemplates that. That is not the sort of case the Board of Trade wants to make a special inquiry about. I therefore submit that if the Government accept my Amendment it will remove from the Schedule all cases in which the enemy ownership is negligible.
  Sir A. STANLEY: I am sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment. There is a good deal more in this provision than the hon. Member seems to think is in-
  1066
  volved. Even less than a fifth might give control, but possibly one share might practically carry the whole of the voting, or control the management of the company. A mere fraction might carry with it, not necessarily the whole of the voting power, but a majority of the voting power, and carry with it, through the property, control of the management. We have given careful consideration to this paragraph, since the Committee stage, and if we could have found words to meet this particular Amendment, where only a mere fraction of the capital is involved, we should have met it. I think the hon. Member may rest assured that the Board of Trade will deal fairly with these cases to which he refers, but where a part of the share capital is under enemy control, that in itself is a disability.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. PETO: I beg to move, in paragraph 3, after the word "agreement" ["any agreement, arrangement"], to insert the words "or contract for delivery."
  I have always said that one of the main reasons for this Bill is that we do not want contracts for delivery far ahead to be made for the produce of mines within the British Empire, and such contracts practically take the whole of the products of certain of these. mines for use in what are enemy countries. If the Lord Advocate tells me that any agreement would certainly include contracts for delivery, and that the Amendment I am moving is unnecessary from that point of view, that will satisfy people outside this House, who have been looking into the whole of this Bill and who do attach a certain amount of importance to having the matter specially emphasised by the words "or contract for delivery."
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Clyde): I think I can without hesitation give the hon. Gentleman the assurance which he asks for. There is really no doubt at all that in the conditions covered by any agreement would be included contracts for delivery.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. J. HENDERSON: I beg to move to leave out paragraph 4.
  I say with the greatest confidence that I shall offer a very sound reason, and one which I think is unanswerable, why this paragraph should be omitted. It puts upon everyone who wishes to have a

  1067
  licence, or is licensed, a constant watching that he may not be tripped up by something which even the most careful watching may not prevent. On the Second Reading I pointed out to my right hon. Friend that in English companies the bulk of the shares would be 90 per cent. registered shares, and 10 per cent. bearer shares. My right hon. Friend saw the effect of bearer shares; he saw that you could not tell who might be the owners of that form of shares, and he has accordingly put a provision in the Bill by which the company is entitled to give notice in the "Gazette" or otherwise, to call in bearer shares and grant certificates of registration. In so far as that method is adopted, it may be enough, but the fact is, in regard to British companies, that you cannot tell from the register who are the owners of the shares. Possibly shares might be bought and put in the banker's name, that being a very common practice, for the obvious reason that the owner may borrow and pay off on the security of those shares. That method of nominating bankers to hold the shares enables the owner to avoid certain formalities in obtaining loans on the security and in paying them off. A very large proportion of the shares held in public companies stand in the names of bankers, so that it is impossible to find out who the real owners are. My right hon. Friend has put in a provision that any company carrying on business to which this measure applies can give notice requiring the shareholder or debenture holder to make a statutory declaration as to the beneficial ownership of the shares. That does not get over the difficulty. I may want to take shares in a company, and I find a great many names, but if I call upon the company to obtain a declaration as to the beneficial ownership of the shares in some names, they may tell me to go about my business, and how am I to compel them? Therefore, it is impossible for me to take such precautions as will prevent me incurring penalties. or perhaps have the licence revoked. Take the case of foreign companies. In America the practice is the reverse of that which obtains here, and the bulk of the shares are bearer shares, and it is impossible for me to find out who those shareholders are. I cannot ask the company then to call in the shares and issue certificates, because that is not the law there. Suppose I want to get control of a supply of ores for smelting in
  1068
  this country, and take a certain number of shares in an American company, how am I to find out before I do so that I am not putting my foot in a trap, or whether those bearer shares are held by a German company, which may also require certain ores? Yet the obligation is put on me that if I am to retain my licence or not have it revoked, I am not to take shares in an American company unless I am satisfied that the Germans have not two-fifths of the capital of that company. How does the right hon. Gentleman propose that I am to protect myself in that case? I do not think it is possible in the instance I have mentioned to do so, and as for ordinary shares, I do not see how anybody can compel a company to obtain these declarations before he takes an interest in that company. I think the Government would be very well advised to strike out this proposal altogether.
  Mr. BRUNNER: It seems to me not to be a Clause which does our enemy any harm, but one which directly injures us. I cannot conceive how the holding of shares in a company in South America in which Germans also hold shares can possibly do this country any harm. If a man wishes to acquire a company in South America, or anywhere outside the Empire. in which Germans are registered, I should think that is a good thing to do. But under this proposal you cannot do that, as you may lose your licence and the whole of your business. I think it is a monstrous and stupid Clause to put in the Bill. It seems to me that the Board of Trade have not thoroughly considered this matter. I would ask them to reconsider it, and in another place perhaps they may come to a different decision and take the Clause out. It is not only that it is quite unworkable, but in the sense in which it does work it injures British trade.
  Mr. CLYDE: I am afraid, notwithstanding the very strong expression of opinion to which the hon. Gentleman has just given vent, that we could not accept this Amendment without serious risk of impairing the efficiency of the Bill. The hon. Member took the view that this could be of no use and would be productive of harm. The purpose of it is to prevent arrangements by which influence is effected not directly by a German concern taking an interest in a British trade concern, but indirectly by establishing effective control in the form of a third company in which both Germans and British

  1069
  are interested. If those who have knowledge about the way in which these things are done, think that that experience is inaccurate or exaggerated then they may say that a proposal of this kind would do no good. But, after all, one can only proceed on the advice which the Department supplies, and with the information on which no doubt that advice was based, and the fact, therefore, I am afraid must be taken, certainly so far as I am concerned, that German influence on British trading concerns for German purposes was by no means effected only by direct and immediate participation either in profits or in voting power in British concerns on the part of Germans, but not infrequently was by means of a third concern in which both were interested and the affairs of which were so managed as practically to be in the interests of the German influence. That being so, those who hold those strong views will at least see why it is, T am bound to tell them, that the Board of Trade could not do without this Clause. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire (Mr. J. M. Henderson) tells us not only that he does not think this proposal is necessary, but he asks, "How are you to make it operate?" He put the complaint not of a company, but of somebody who desires to take shares in a company. I am not sure that that has very much to do with the question before the House. I quite see that somebody who wants to take a share in a company of the constitution or association of which he is not cognisant. may find himself in difficulty, but that is always so. A person may be desirous, for instance of taking shares in a company which turns out to he in German hands and association. It may be very hard for the shareholder to find out, hut I do not think it is the business of Parliament to help that shareholder in that respect. But it is the business of Parliament to help such a company, because the company may lose its licence.
  Mr. HENDERSON: A licence holder may desire to get shares in a similar company.
  Mr. CLYDE: I quite apprehend he is quite at liberty to get shares in any company he likes, but no doubt like any other person he must take his chance of what kind of company that is, and must, like every other person, make up his mind whether it is wise or not to do so. But there is 'no difficulty, as far as the com-
  1070
  pans is concerned, because by Clause 8 all the company has got to do is to give notice requiring shareholders or debenture holders to make a declaration as to the beneficial ownership. If the ownership is innocent there is no difficulty or trouble; if the ownership in point of fact involves German influences or association, or is of such a kind as to bring the company within one of the other conditions, then no doubt the company will either have to alter that state of affairs, or it may lose its licence. So far as the shareholder is concerned who wants to satisfy himself beforehand whether a particular concern runs any risk of being refused a licence, I do not think that is any business of Parliament, and we certainly would not be prepared to put anything into this Bill as to that. Where the hon. Member speaks as to the necessity to enable the company to find out where it stands, then under Clause 8 the company has complete power to discover who holds anything, be it bearer share or otherwise. Unless the power of limiting and excluding German control of British concerns is to he made illusory you must retain power enough to enable you, if necessary, to make inquiry. It is true that there is preserved and must be preserved to the Board of Trade a wide field of discretion.
  It is true, and always will be true, that that discretion can only be exercised where the facts are placed before the Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade can only reasonably be asked to exercise discretion where the facts are properly disclosed by the person who wants the licence. After all, if there is no harm connected with a concern, there will be no difficulty in that; under the Bill they are absolutely entitled to have their licence. For these reasons, therefore, I think we could not do without paragraph (4), and I am afraid, therefore, we could not accept the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. HENDERSON: I beg to move, in paragraph (4), to leave out the words "whether or not" ["in any undertaking whether or not in the United Kingdom"].
  Suppose a person wants, for some object or other, to get some interest in a company in America which has issued bearer shares. He buys a certain number of bearer shares, but before he does that, if he is going to run no risk, he must find out whether the Germans have a one-fifth interest in the American company. He

  1071
  cannot find that out, because the shares are bearer shares, and he has no power to compel that information. Therefore, he must either take that risk or abandon his enterprise. Let me give a simple case. There is an amalgamated company in America who have three sets of shareholders. The Germans hold one-third, the Americans one-third, and the British one-third, and each hold that one-third for the express purpose of getting a certain quantity of ore to smelt. Those shares are all bearer, and may change and chop about at any moment. If I want to get one-third, how can I be sure that in doing so T am not destroying my licence in this country? If I take an interest in any company in America which issues bearer shares, how am I to protect myself against being disqualified from a licence? That is the sole point.
  Mr. D. MASON: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. CLYDE: I think I have already said, but, at all events, I will try to make it plainer, that the question whether or not anybody should put his money into an American or any other concern outside this country is, and necessarily is, a question for him to determine before he does so whether it is safe or wise for him to do it. If the hon. Member proposes, as I think he does, that this Bill should give a proposing investor in a certain concern some means of assuring himself of its real character, I can only say I do not conceive it would be possible to secure that.
  Amendment. negatived.
  Mr. STRAUSS: I beg to move, in paragraph (5), to leave out the words "or association."
  In Committee I had an Amendment down to change the word "influence" to "control." The President of the Board of Trade assured me that the word "control" did not go far enough, and insisted on the word "influence." Another hon. Member moved to leave out the word "association." I then took the liberty of asking the Solicitor-General for an explanation of the word "association" and what was the legal meaning of it. This was the answer given by the learned Solicitor-General:
  "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."—[OFFICIAT, REPORT. 16th January, 1918, col. 458.]
  1072
  Of course, that does not carry us any further. We all knew that association meant association, but we wanted to have something better than that. If this word remains in the Bill, I think it will be very unfair to any metal merchant or metal broker, because he ought to know what he may or may not do at the risk of having his licence revoked and losing his livelihood. We have never yet been told plainly whether any merchant, after this Bill becomes an Act, and after the War, of course, will be allowed to deal with German merchants or not—whether he will be allowed to buy for Germans or to sell for them or not. We have never had a plain statement as regards that question. As far as I can read the Bill, he will be allowed to do so. There is nothing in the Bill which can stop him, but we ought to have a clear explanation. Then let us carry our minds to what is likely to happen three or four years after the War. Are we to be allowed to associate with Germans and Austrians, to receive them and to meet them? All this, I suppose, is association. If we associate with them, it will clearly come under association. Is that forbidden three or four years after the War? Are we allowed to take an interest in any Austrian or Turkish mine, and, if so, is that association? Do we lose our licence if we do so? Surely we ought to come to a clear understanding as to what a metal merchant or a metal broker is or is not allowed to do, and as to what the Board of Trade may think comes under the definition of association. As we have had no such explanation, and as the word "association," in my mind, may mean anything and everything three or four years after the War, I think it is far safer that this word should be omitted, especially as the previous paragraph really embodies everything which is necessary for the object in view. The word "association" is far too wide and far too indefinite, and, in my opinion, ought. not to appear in this Bill without. anyhow. further explanation being given.
  Sir C. CORY: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that this is much too indefinite a term. It is impossible for anybody to know what it really means, as it might mean anything, and a man might be deprived of his licence if he happened to associate with a German, if he happened to marry a German lady, or if he happened to have one share, I take it, in

  1073
  a concern with which Germans were interested, as it might be considered to be association with Germans. It is certainly not to the interests of British trade that this sort of thing should be carried too far, because we know companies exist in which English money has been invested with a view, not of helping Germans, but of helping British trade, and bringing raw material to this country. Are you going to prevent those things, which have been done with a view to helping British trade? It is a suicidal policy, surely It would have been well if the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill had studied it before he submitted it to this House, rather than submitted things which are disastrous to the interests of British trade. In the case of the Coal Bill he gave an undertaking on the floor of this House which was absolutely broken.
  Mr. WARDLE: I think it is a great pity the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has made an attack on my right hon. Friend in regard to another Bill. There is no substance whatever in the attack. With regard to the particular Amendment now before the House, it cannot possibly be accepted. The word "association," one is bound to admit, presents some difficulty, but it is a word which is quite well known. It has its meanings, and those meanings, of course, will have to be interpreted, but it has been interpreted now, because it is taken from the Trading With the Enemy Act, and we have found no difficulty in defining and applying it. The idea has been put forward that speaking to or marrying a German would come within the meaning of association under the Bill. The mere association of marriage would not constitute a ground under this Bill. There might be a ring with another enemy company. There might be a ring or a body with financial associations established. But it is the ordinary sense in which the word is used. I do not think there is any necessity to argue the question. We must have some word, because it is necessary to have the association of such a character as to bring it. within the Schedule.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: I cannot associate myself with this particular Amendment. I have listened practically to every word of these Debates, and these are the only three lines of the Bill which have met my cordial approval. If they had been the only condition in the Schedule the Government
  1074
  might have made quite a good Bill. I hope there will be nothing done to destroy this one little blossom in an arid wilderness.
  Mr. HENDERSON: Arrangements are made by certain firms in Germany and certain firms in England who have their agencies in each country as to the regulation of their products, and as to what they shall sell and what they shall not sell in the way of certain goods. if the Germans were to sell their goods in England, would not that be association
  Amendment negatived.
  The following Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. PETO:
  At end of paragraph 5, to insert the words:
  "That a person is, without the consent of the Board of Trade, a director or alternate director of any company to which. this Act applies who is not a British subject not of enemy origin and who has not made a declaration, and if required produced satisfactory evidence to the directors that he is a British subject and not subject to the influence of a foreign State, body, person, or corporation under foreign control.
  "That every director of any company to which this Act applies who is not a British subject or who is of enemy origin shall present himself for re-election at each annual general meeting of shareholders and be re-elected by a resolution to that effect passed by a majority of not less than three-fourths of such members entitled to vote as are present in person or by proxy at the general meeting at. which the resolution is proposed before he is entitled to continue to act as a director."
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment of the hon. Member for Devizes is, as to the first paragraph incapable of being construed; and, as to the second paragraph, is wrongly drafted.
  Motion made, and Question proposed; "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Mr. HEMMERDE: I am not going to inflict a long speech at this moment, but there are just two or three things I do wish to draw attention to in making this, my final protest against a Bill which, in my opinion, has been introduced without any justification and for which no justification has been put for ward in the course of these Debates

  1075
  This Non-Ferrous Metal Industry Bill deals with certain non-ferrous metals. I will just say, shortly, dealing with those metals, that no case has been made out for any one of them. As regards zinc we know perfectly well that the Government have already got over the difficulties raised by the Australian situation. As regards copper no one has suggested any possibility of the Germans, or any of our enemies, cornering that. As regards tin no one would be foolish enough to suggest any danger. As regards lead, no one has made any suggestion in the direction indicated. As regards nickel and aluminium I have never heard any serious objection made. There is one metal, wolfram, I do not notice in the Bill. I am rather surprised at that not being in the Bill. I need not say anything at the moment. I do not want to go into any detail as to these metals, but there are two or three points in the Bill to which I desire to draw attention.
  In the first place, I hoped to have had the opportunity to-day to move an Amendment to give some sort of appeal from the Board of Trade on matters of discretion. Unfortunately at the moment it came on I was out of the House for a short while, and I did not have the opportunity I desired. I do, however, wish to say that I regard the whole of this question, giving the Board of Trade uncontrolled discretion, as being most dangerous. I admit that the President has given us a good many assurances and reassurances on the subject. That makes the Bill, certainly during his tenure of office, probably much less dangerous than otherwise it would be; but I would ask him—and I wish the Law Officers were present, so that we might have their opinion—how it is that an appeal is given to the High Court of Justice only as to whether a company comes within a certain Section, as to whether a company comes within paragraph 5 of the First Schedule or not. That paragraph says
  "That the company, firm, or individual is by any means whatever subject, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of their or his business to any influence or association."
  Upon that question, as to whether a company comes under that condition, there is an appeal, and the discretion of the Board of Trade on this subject, apparently, is controlled by the High Court. Upon all ether questions there is no appeal what-
  1076
  ever from the decision of the Board of Trade. I think it is made doubly objectionable in that the Board of Trade has resisted every attempt to put the burden of proof in this case upon themselves. I think the Bill would have emerged far less offensive at the present time if the Board of Trade had accepted my very simple Amendment to the effect that no licence should be granted if the Board of Trade are of opinion that the issue of a licence is inexpedient. We end this Bill as we began it. The position is this: no charge is made. against certain people of having enemy influence—no charge whatever is made—but the President of the Board of Trade says—and we are told the same by the Solicitor-General—"Well, we want to spread our net wide." Minister after Minister has got up and said this—and with one or two exceptions Ministers are the only people who defend this Bill—and one is not surprised they get up and say, "We are not going to deal harshly in this matter, but we want to bring everyone under review." If the Board of Trade really only wanted to bring everyone under review, why could they not have drafted the Bill in such a form as to bring people under review by saying to the people, "If you come under all these conditions, we shall not grant you a licence if we think it inexpedient"? The Government have put it upon the person claiming a licence to show that it is expedient to grant it. The position at the present time is that the Board of Trade in ordinary cases has to grant a licence, while in cases that come within the conditions they will not grant a licence unless they think it expedient. We do not know what ground they will take. It is not whether they think it expedient or otherwise on national grounds! Upon what ground will they say, "We find it inexpedient that this man should have a licence? If the only inexpediency is that he is an honest trader, there is no particular reason why he should not be trading. I am quite sure that the President thinks that if a man can come forward and say that he is not in any way subject to enemy influence, in spite of coming within these conditions, that the licence will be granted. I do not feel any such confidence. It may be so. so long as the present President occupies his position. It seems to me that putting the burden of proof on the claimant undermines all the assurances that are being given to us on this subject.

  1077
  I would ask the President of the Board of Trade, even at this late stage of the proceedings, to see whether he cannot, in consultation with his legal advisers, have such small change made in the Bill before it emerges as an Act, which, I do suggest, will make such a vast difference! It is most unfair to say that people who have not committed any offence, and whom you simply want to bring under review—that because of some accident—some accident of birth, it may be—they happen to come within your net, "You have got to prove your case to us." I say that the Govern-ought to be prepared to say, "We will grant you a licence unless we think it inexpedient; if there is any ground which we think inexpedient we will refuse it." I think that would be a most excellent thing. Consider, you are dealing here with the case after the War as well as the case during the War I would suggest the alternative I have put forward, that you should allow an appeal to a judicial Court, such as you give in Sub-section (5) of Clause 1, on the question of this wide discretion now taken by the Board of Trade.
  Some members of the Government, and one or two other Members who have spoken, take altogether too low a view of this great invasion of the trading rights or the country. I have listened most patiently to all the Debates on this question, and I can only say that at the end I have the most profound mistrust of what has been come to. Let me give one case. Let me draw the attention of the President to the grave danger of giving officials uncontrolled discretion in matters such as taking away the right to trade. In the course of the last month a case came to my notice from which I think I can show the grave danger to which we are subjected at the present time by the giving of this wide discretion to public Departments. The case I allude to is a case which has been brought before the President, and he will recognise it, though I do not want to go into particulars. Some time ago very violent attacks were made in this House upon a certain firm of diamond merchants. Subsequently they were actually refused a licence, and their business wound up on the ground of some technical trading with the enemy. I do not want to go into the merits of the case at all. Only to-day, however, I heard that the Belgian Minister had actually stated it as his opinion—the President will correct me if I am wrong—that
  1078
  the whole ground upon which these people had been attacked was an attempt by the citizens of another country to torpedo the trade of these Antwerp merchants and to get control of the diamond industry after the War. I want just to draw the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to the grave danger that you have got of conditions arising where, under the guise of patriotism, you are going to get rival traders suggesting all sorts of accusations, openly or covertly, against different firms. You are going to get that in all directions. I think that the Board of Trade are acting most injudiciously in their own interests to take under their control matters that they are not in the least competent to deal with They think that because people get up in the House of Commons and ask questions that they have got some ground for those questions. They are not the people who are in the position to weigh the niceties of evidence and to weigh questions as to whether evidence is tainted or not. I am not making any suggestion about this Bill or against any single person, but I do say you are going to put the Board of Trade in a most invidious position in connection with this Bill—as to when the Bill is to be enforced and when there is the question of granting or not granting a licence. We shall have all sorts of suggestions from all quarters against this firm and that firm, suggestions that will never be weighed by men who are competent to deal with evidence, suggestions that will never court publicity of a Court of Law, and that, without the publicity of a. Court of Law, in view of the questions dealt with—the liberty of the subject to trade and so on—will never be really fairly treated at all. This is the whole idea of having a sort of pseudo law in the proviso of the Board of Trade, for whomever they may appoint to deal with these questions of fact or right, affecting the rights, almost the liberties, and the whole fortunes of individuals, without any appeal whatever to the High Court. I think it is an absolute outrage. We ought not to permit it.
  I make the most emphatic protest against this, that at a time when the most skilled lawyers would find it difficult to disentangle motives, because certain information to be brought before certain people, the Board of Trade officials, I admit, are probably the most competent lot of officials there are in any Government Department, they should take upon themselves the burden of doing what skilled

  1079
  lawyers in the country would very much hesitate to do. I ask the President whether he cannot before this Bill ultimately passes into law do something to reassure the public that ultimately before great firms and important individuals or small firms and small individuals lose their rights of trading, that they should have some appeal to the Law Courts even on the question of discretion. This question of discretion, being left to Government Departments, is a grave danger. You are going to find that under the guise of patriotism all sorts of injustices are going to be done, and the good will and the honest intention of the Board of Trade officials to do justice under this Bill is going to be put to a very serious strain. I do not suggest for one moment that they are not going to do their very best, but I am sure it will be a very great relief to the trading public if they find that there is going to be some sort of judicial control over all this tremendous discretion that is given by the Bill. The President of the Board of Trade very much softened the opposition in the later stages of the Bill by saying that, although the conditions were stringent, it was only because he wanted to bring everyone within his net for review. To that I raise no objection, but I do think there is the strongest objection to that part of Clause 1 which affects naturalisation rights. We might have run the slight risk involved in abandoning that particular proposal. There are, possibly, a few people the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind when he moved this Clause, but I think he could have got them all under Condition 5. I cannot allow this Bill to go on without making one protest more on that point. I do not want to go exhaustively into the matter, but I will ask, is it too late still to abandon this first condition?
  People talk about it as if it were a slight matter. They do not realise the tremendous strength of the feeling there is in all quarters of this House, and I believe right through the country, against any attack on the laws of naturalisation. It is not true to say it is merely a case of naturalised citizens being brought under review. You go beyond that, you say that not only shall cases be brought under review, but that these people shall have to establish their right to have a certificate to trade. It would not be half so objectionable if the Board of Trade
  1080
  simply reserved the right to review, and it is for that reason that I am pressing this question very strongly on the Government. That we should, for the first time in the history of the country, have tampered with rights we have given in a most solemn form under our naturalisation laws is a most deplorable instance of the way in which Parliament is being defrauded of its right to be regarded as the champion of the liberties of the individual. For a man to suddenly find some detraction from his rights of citizenship because other people have behaved badly seems to be an absolute innovation, and I cannot understand why the Government have proposed it. Surely, when we give letters of naturalisation we make a contract under which if we win we win and if we lose we lose? But, under this new system, while we have made a contract, while we have given these people the benefits of citizenship, we now wish to vary the contract, and that seems to me to be absolutely contrary to every idea of British fair play. I therefore cannot allow this Bill to go without making this final protest against any tampering whatever with the rights of naturalisation. The only condition under which such a thing would be justifiable would be if the naturalised person had himself or herself departed from his or her allegiance, for then you could say, "You have broken faith, and we take away your rights." It is all very well to say you are merely bringing the cases under review: you are doing more, you are putting these people in a different category, and you are throwing a slur upon them. I do not think the Government have ever given us a satisfactory answer on this point. Condition 5 is the one we really want, but these other conditions are merely aggravating ways of interfering with British trade. I ask the Government to see if they cannot do anything to alleviate the very strong feeling which has arisen on this naturalisation question. 1 entirely dispute what was said by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) about our not representing the opinion of the country upon matters like this. I do not believe that the Government represents the opinion of this country when it proposes to tear up any document in which the honour of the British nation is concerned. Although it seems impossible now to interest this House of Commons in any question affecting the liberty of the subject, or in national

  1081
  obligations, because there seem so many other matters to distract them, I claim that we do speak for the vast majority of the people in this case. I ask the Government to reconsider their attitude. I ask them also, as a matter of elementary fair play, not only to the country, but to the Board of Trade, to see that matters that no layman can possibly fairly deal with without appeal shall be dealt with in future with some sort of appeal to the High Court. If the Government can, at this eleventh hour, when the Bill gets to another place, make some concession on this point, although it may not remove our complaint that the Bill is an irritating and improper interference with trade, it will have done a great deal to moderate much of the resentment which it has given rise to.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I wish first to acknowledge the patience and reasonableness of the President of the Board of Trade, and to frankly admit that, so far as I am concerned, the Bill has been immensely improved by the concessions he has made to the views which have been put forward from this quarter of the House. When I have said that, and when I have admitted, further, that he has removed, to a certain extent, the atmosphere of suspicion which has surrounded the initiation of this Bill, and when I remember that he has repudiated quite frankly the idea that the Bill was proposed in any vindictive spirit against any particular firm, I am afraid I have said as much as I can in commendation of the measure as it now stands, because while he has told us quite frankly that the Bill is not aimed at any particular person or firm, the right hon. Gentleman has not told us that the result of this Bill will not, and is not perhaps intended to, have for one of its objects the creation of syndicates in this country, which would have just as harmful and crippling an effect upon internal trade, owing to the advance of prices and the restriction of competition, as would the action of any German firm on the external trade of this country. The right hon. Gentleman has shown a remarkable and satisfactory ignorance of some of the allegations which have been advanced inside and outside this House as to the existence of these suspicions—remarkable because of the rumours so r generally current—and satisfactory because I hope it is an indication that there
  1082
  is no foundation for those rumours. should, however, like a frank and full repudiation of the idea that behind this Bill there is the creation of these syndicates as the right hon. Gentleman gave us of the intention to strike at one particular firm. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Hemmerde) has dealt with the atmosphere of suspicion which this Bib creates, and I think he was fully justified in every word he said upon that head. Undoubtedly hereafter persons may be condemned upon suspicion and not upon proof, upon belief and not upon certainty, and the result of that upon firms may be just as disastrous as in the ease to which my hon. Friend referred, a case of which a good many of us in this House have some knowledge.
  But these are minor points. There really are two objectionable principles in regard to this Bill, and I suppose they animated the President of the Board of Trade when he formulated the measure, so that he was therefore unable to make any concessions upon them. The first is that it does interfere for the first time in a new fashion and to a considerable extent with the internal trade of this country. It obliges people to take out a licence for the carrying on of a perfectly innocent and harmless trade. It affects small operations as well as big; it interferes in minute matters; it requires a trader to produce his books, to throw them open to inspection and investigation, and perhaps hostile investigation, on the part of the Board of Trade. That is a circumstance which must cripple and harass trade, however kindly the investigation or the inquest may be conducted. There is undoubtedly the risk which the Government is now going to take that this Bill may result in the formation of syndicates which are favoured by the operation of the measure, however unintentionally, and then prices to consumers in this country must be raised. I have always regarded this Bill, not from the point of view of one engaged in manufacture, but from that of one interested in consumption—one who has to buy and is not going to sell. I am afraid that the result of this Bill will be that to consumers the prices of articles in this country are going to be raised without any compensating advantage. This may be merely an isolated Bill affecting only one group or set of trades, but even if it be only that its effect will be spread over a very wide area, and it will get so many people into

  1083
  its net with such a result in regard to certain manufacturers, that I am afraid it may be only the precursor of similar Bills affecting other industries—it may be the forerunner of a whole series of Bills based on the same objectionable principles. It encourages the speculator and the occasional dealer in the market in non-ferrous metals, while it regulates and hampers the regular merchant engaged in the business. It operates adversely, it interferes to the extent that it hinders the transactions of the home manufacturer and merchant, but it has no control over and places no restrictions upon the business conducted by the foreigner or the hostile trader and merchant.
  Over and over again in the course of these Debates the President of the Board of Trade has had to admit that he has no control over the German or Austrian firm operating outside this country, and that this Bill only extends to the British merchant. I say the measure will only accentuate hostility all over the country to the continued control by the Government of and its continued interference with British trade. That is a sentiment which is spreading widely. I am sure the President of the Board of Trade is not ignorant to the growth of that feeling. While the opposition to this Bill has been confined to a comparatively small number of Members, and while the House has assented to proposals on the part of the Government repugnant to the whole spirit of our previous legislation, I am pretty certain, when the trading and commercial community become aware of the great interference with their trading transactions which this Bill permits, there will be very strong feelings which may adversely affect other Government proposals which are really required, and which, if they are rejected, will have serious influence upon measures which are badly wanted in consequence of the opposition which has been raised by proposals that are not really necessary for the national advantage.
  8.0 P.M
  General CROFT: I do not intend to detain the House for more than one minute, but I do desire to make a personal explanation with regard to a statement I made on the Second Reading of this Bill. I then was referring to certain exports of zinc ore from this country, and I quoted a case of which I had been informed of a certain firm in this country exporting zinc
  1084
  ore. The firm I referred to was the Societe Anonyme des Mines de la Vieille Montagne, of Nenthead, in Cumberland, now known as the Vieille Montagne Zinc Company, and I am very glad to say that I have heard from them that my informant was entirely wrong, and that they have not exported any zinc ore from this country during the War, and, further, that they are free from all enemy influence. I simply desire to place that on record, and I regret extremely that I received this inaccurate information from someone who, I considered, had authority to speak. I desire to make that perfectly clear. With regard to the Bill, I heartily congratulate the Government on bringing in this measure. I think that right through the length and breadth of the country they will receive the congratulations of everyone who desires to see, at least for a short time after the War, German influence eliminated from our trade. I can only say with regard to what the right hon. Gentleman (Sir C. Hobhouse) has just said that it is true that traders are having to suffer great. inconvenience, and I believe traders will be only too ready, for this short period, to undergo this small inconvenience in order to see that we give an opportunity to British trade in these nonferrous metals to establish itself firmly without German penetration at the conclusion of hostilities.
  Mr. J. HENDERSON: I do not intend to waste the time of the House by saying very much on the Third Reading of this Bill, but I do wish before it goes through to record my strong protest against the whole principle and details of the measure. The apparent object of the Bill, as we were told, was to obtain control of certain metals, and to put an end to the alleged control of these various metals by the Germans. There was riot a single one of these metals that was shown to be in any way under German influence. There was. some talk about spelter, and the Minister of Reconstruction made a statement which he afterwards reconstructed. He said that there was an absence of spelter that we found ourselves without any spelter when the War began, and that thousands of our young soldiers were shot, and so forth, in consequence. He. amended that afterwards because he found that spelter was offered in large quantities. after the War broke out, in September and October, to the War Office and the Navy, and was turned down because it was not required. It was only, of course, after

  1085
  wards, when every nation began to see the necessity of enormous armaments, that the great demand for all of these metals began. There is not the slightest justification for the assertion that any of these metals were at the beginning of the War refused to Great Britain because they were under German control. So much for that. I have said my say with regard to the injustice to naturalised subjects, and I need not. repeat my views on that point.
  What is the effect of this Bill which, of course, does not begin until after the War? The Government at the present time, and until after the War, have full control of all these metals. None of us can buy any of these metals without going to the Government and getting them, and so this Bill only comes in for five years after the War. I think it is a very great pity that all this trouble has been taken, and all this bad faith shown to our naturalised British subjects. I think it is very unfortunate, because I am very certain in my own mind—at least., I shall be very much surprised if it is not so—that when the War is over this Bill will be torn up. The Prime Minister has said, the President of the United States has said, the Noble Lord at the head of the Ministry of Blockade whose name is on the back of this Bill has said—they have all said—and lastly, the Labour party have said—the right hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Henderson) wily the other day—that there is to be no economic boycott after the War. Then what is the meaning of this Bill? If there is to be no economic boycott after the War this Bill is futile. The real genesis of this Bill has not been told to this House. I hinted at it on the Second Reading, and it has been practically admitted that the Government have entered into heavy financial obligations and have lent large sums of money to a company in Canada, the British-America Nickel Company. I am told also that they have entered into huge obligations for large supplies of nickel.
  The House will remember what happened with regard to the British Trading Corporation, or whatever the Board of Trade called it. They appointed Lord Balfour's Committee; then there was a Report which advised that a certain company should be formed, and the extraordinary thing was that the directors of this company were mostly the members of the Committee which advised its formation. Hon. Members know how the House dealt with that; but a similar thing is on
  1086
  the tapir for this very thing. A Report was obtained from a certain Committee, and they advised—we do not know what they advised; we have never seen the Report; that is kept back; but, let the House mark my words, the same operation will be repeated in another way. The board of directors of this syndicate will be very largely composed of the members of this Committee who advised It is suggested that. they should get up a large sum of money to start a smelter. This American company is building a large smeller in the town of Sudbury, Ontario. This syndicate is going to start a new smelter here. That is the proposal. Some of them say, "We will not put up a penny-piece until you protect us in this country from the operations of all these naturalised Germans." That is the understanding, and it is the genesis of this Bill.
  The protection in this Bill, I am very glad to say, when you come to look at it, is of the poorest kind, and I should not trouble myself to say any more about it, because it is quite futile. I believe it will never come into operation or give them an atom of control. Those who care to go for licences will be able to get licences, and in the case of those who do not get them the want of those licences will not give the British Government or any smelter any more control of the metal than they had before. Do what you can, you cannot stop Germany having control of metals if she cares to go abroad, pay the money, and get the mines. The way to get control of metals is to get control of them at the fountain head; but if you cannot get them at the mines, you may be able to get them in the market. This Bill does not stop them going into the market. It does.. not stop Germany or any German agent going into the market and buying up all. the lead in the market and creating a scarcity. It is open to anybody to speculate. The licence in an open licence, and I drew from the right hon. Gentleman that. he did not propose to prevent the licensee selling to or buying from Germany. The idea is absolutely ridiculous on these lines. The whole genesis of it is outside. It is not an Imperial measure, and it is not a Governmental measure, except in so far as they are passing it; it is for the benefit of a particular syndicate, and there is no doubt about it. Whether it will benefit them, I very much doubt. in fact, I do not believe it will benefit them in the least, because in operation the grant or refusal of a licence to A, B, or C

  1087
  can never affect the trade of this country if the British people choose to get control of these metals at the fountain head. They have, though. Zinc concentrates come from Australia; nickel is French and Canadian; copper is American and Japanese. Germany has no means of controlling them except by buying them up. There is only one way in which you can -hold out the German—education. Education and improving your banking facilities. Improve your banking facilities and have your technical education so high and advanced that the manufacturer can start on his business knowing that he cannot be beaten anywhere. If you are going to face the future, all this increase of licences is -poor stuff. You have to go higher and better than that. Our soldiers are not afraid to meet German soldiers in the field, and let our commercial and industrial men so educate themselves and those who support them that they will not he afraid to meet the Germans anywhere in the field of commerce and industry. That is the only way. I do not propose to take or support a Division, because I know there is a large body of Members who will go into the Lobby and out-vote a great number of those who have taken a great interest in this Bill. Generally, I am sorry to say, they do not understand about it; but the one comfort I have in uttering my protest is that I am perfectly certain that when peace comes the Bill will be dead.
  Mr. STRAUSS: I think the Leader of the House on the Second Reading of this Bill told us that this measure for the first time introduced a very big question. I do not remember any Bill attracting such a small House as this during the Committee stage and Report stage. It went forth that this Bill was introduced for the purpose of doing away with enemy influence and enemy control in nonferrous metals, and that was quite sufficient to secure support for it outside and of most hon. Members here. If, however, hon. Members had only taken the trouble to read the Bill or if only they had listened to the Debates upon it they would have known that this Bill was nothing of the kind and that the statement that it was going to do away with enemy control was simply a sham. There is not a single line in the Bill which really destroys enemy control, and if people had only known that I think we should have had a much larger audience and more discussion
  1088
  upon this measure than we have had. The Bill will go forth under the same pretence, and it may turn out to be an example to the Government when they want to bring in an obnoxious Bill just to give it a show of excellent motives, no matter what it contains, in the hope that the public and the House will not object to it.
  I take this opportunity of giving sonic information to the President of the hoard of Trade. I am fully convinced that the right hon. Gentleman in bringing in this Bill is animated by the very best motives, but he has not the slightest idea of helping any particular individual or acting vindictively towards any firm. There are, however, certain things that perhaps he does not know, and I hope he will not take it amiss if I give hint a little information. We were told by the Leader of the House that this Bill was recommended by the Non-Ferrous Metals Committee. That Committee consisted of a certain number of gentlemen, including sonic metal merchants. It was not appointed for this particular purpose, but they thought fit to commend the Bill and the Government took their advice. There is a suspicion that this Bill has possibly been brought forward to assist the various members of that Committee in bringing forward a syndicate to control the metal trades under the name of the British Metals Company. We were told by one of the Ministers distinctly that the object of this Bill was to assist such a syndicate as was in contemplation without any names being given. We have had a similar history in Australia, where a Bill was passed not quite as drastic as this Bill but on similar lines, and, strange to say, the people who recommended that Bill in Australia were the very people who are mixed up in the control of the Metallgesellschaft. One of them owned the concentrates sold to the Metallgesellschaft. When the Australian Legislature passed that Bill, which prevented all enemies from having any interest in the mine, the very men whose advice the Government have taken over those mines, formed a company called the Broken Hill Company with £1,000,000 capital, and they are now doing the business which the Australian Legislature has more or less confiscated.
  It is strange that the very gentleman who formed that company in Australia with £1,000,000 was called in as a member of this Non-Ferrous Metals Committee, and he was one of those who recommended

  1089
  that the Government should bring forward this Bill. He is the very gentleman who is supposed to have established that syndicate, and he is supposed to have already collected £5,000,000 sterling to bring out this British Metals Syndicate. That is the gentleman who has been advising the Government, and he said that he could not establish that syndicate unless he was rid of all this competition, and he is trying to act here exactly as he acted in Australia. I do not know whether the President is aware of all these facts. I do not suppose he can be, because his mind is occupied with too many branches of trade. I mention these things because the Board of Trade will have some difficulty in exercising their discretion when the Bill becomes an Act, and they may probably be advised by some members or the Non-Ferrous Metals Committee, who have a personal interest in getting rid of any competition. I would strongly urge upon the right hon. Gentleman, in exercising his discretion, that he should not take the advice of any members of the Non-Ferrous Metals Committee, because that advice. might possibly be tainted and animated by selfish motives.
  There is one more warning I would like to give, and it is that this Bill is a double-edged sword. It may be found to suit the United States, or Germany or Austria to exclude all British-born subjects from a certain trade. More than that, I think it is very likely that such a Bill may be introduced in the United States at some future time, and, if so, there would not be ten or twenty thousand suffer, but there would be millions of British-born subjects now in the United States who would suffer. The right hon. Gentleman ought to give some consideration to the question whether this Bill does not provide a very dangerous precedent which may be directed against ourselves to a far worse degree than we can possibly direct it against any other nation. I hope that he will not think that I have attacked any individual in the information which I have given him, though I do not know that he has listened to my speech, and I hope, anyhow, as regards any advice which he may get from any member on the Non-Ferrous Committee, that he will look upon it with the greatest suspicion, and that if he takes any opinion at all he will take it from some independent outside source and not from anybody who may possibly have the slightest interest in the trade.
  Sir C. CORY: I feel it is my bounden duty to state my strong objection to this Bill. I object to it, among other reasons, because it seriously affects the interests of my Constituents. I further think that it is very detrimental to the general interests of the trade of this country. The hon. Member for the Devizes Division (Mr. Peto) on the Committee stage said that there was a small group of Members who were opposing the Bill, and he thought that in taking up the time of the Board of Trade on the matter they showed a want of patriotism. I take exactly the opposite view. It may be lamentable that the time of the Board of Trade should be occupied in discussing this Bill here, but the blame is on their shoulders and not on the shoulders of those who oppose the Bill. A lot of the legislation which has been brought in lately by the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presides is of such a very undesirable character that it will be most disastrous to the trade of this country, and I feel in the interests of this country—after all, we have to look at the interest of this country, not only during the War, but after the War as well—that those Members who have a knowledge of the trade and commerce of the country must point out to the Government that Bills of this kind will be most disastrous after the War is over, and must oppose there in every way that they can. I yield to no one in my claim to patriotism in doing what I think is best for my countrymen, and it is from that point of view that I have opposed this and other measures. The Bill, as it has been said, does not come into force until after the War. The Government have full control during the War, and I do not believe that it is going to accomplish what is is designed and is desired to accomplish. Quite the contrary: I think it is interfering with the liberty of the subject.
  This and other Bills introduced since the right hon. Gentleman has been President of the Board of Trade have met with great opposition on the part of the commercial classes of this country. Perhaps, without any egotism, I may say that I mix among the commercial classes of this country as much as any Member of this House, and the right hon. Gentleman may be surprised to hear, from the expressions of opinion that have been made to me, that it is considered that the legislation that has been introduced here will be disastrous to the

  1091
  interests of the country. It is said that those who are opposing this Bill are Free Traders. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that such remarks as I have heard do not come front Free Traders generally, but, if possible, more from those who are in favour of Protection. There is a strong and growing feeling against such interference with the trade of this country. Men are embarrassed in trying to do their work. The interference is growing and growing, and there appear to be some people who have quite a desire to interfere with trade not only during the War, but after the War. There is that very strong feeling amongst the commercial classes of this country to which this kind of legislation lends colour. As the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. J. M. Henderson) said, it is folly to pass this kind of legislation which is to take effect after the War, because, after all, it may be that it will have to be torn up. If by any chance I happened to be on the Peace Committee negotiating terms of peace, I should endeavour to make as good terms of peace for this country as anybody in this House. I feel, however, that it is wasting time to pass legislation for the period after the War, because it all depends how far the country is victorious and what terms of peace we are able to enforce. It may be that this sort of legislation may be contrary to the spirit of the terms of peace and may have to be torn up. It is a greet waste of time discussing what we shall do after the War. The thing to do is to win the War and to make the best terms we can for the benefit of the country after the War. I would really press upon the right hon. Gentleman that the commercial classes do not desire this sort of legislation. There is other legislation coming on about which there is a strong feeling in the country. I am sorry that this Bill is going to be passed.
  Question put, and agreed to
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  CLAUSE 1.—(Alteration of Limit on Sum to be Raised for Police Expenses.)
  Section one of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1912, which alters the limit of the
  1092
  sums to be raised by rates for the expenses of the Metropolitan Police shall have effect as if for "eleven pence" there were substituted thirteen pence and for "ten pence" there were substituted twelve pence.
  Sir HENRY HARRIS: I beg to move, to leave out the word "twelve," and to insert instead thereof the word "eleven."
  I have been asked by the London County Council to move this Amendment, and also to make an appeal to the Home Secretary. I find myself in some difficulty, because at present I know that my right hon. Friend is not able to be here, though I understand that he will be here presently. I dare say that my Noble Friend below me (Lord E. Talbot) will kindly take note of what I say, and at any rate it will be recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am rather sorry to trouble so busy a man as the Home Secretary with this Amendment, but it raises a question which is of great importance. to the London ratepayers and which has been frequently discussed in this House. The Bill deals with that question in a way which certainly cannot. be regarded as satisfactory to London, and it is not possible to allow it to pass without a few observations. The Amendment I move is not one of great importance, but it will serve to enforce the point I desire to make.
  The object of the Bill is to provide money for a war bonus to the Metropolitan Police. I say at once that the London County Council is in complete sympathy with that object, as everyone must be who realises the dangers and responsibilities to which the Metropolitan Police are exposed at the present time. Briefly, the position is this. The Bill makes the maximum rate which can be levied for Metropolitan Police purposes 13d. instead of 11d. as fixed under the Act of 1912. My Amendment does not interfere with that proposal. But the Bill varies the Act of 1912 in another particular. The Act of 1912 provides that the Home Secretary shall lay before Parliament a Minute of the reasons for increasing the rate if he increases it above 10d. in the £. This Bill proposes to raise that limit to 12d. My Amendment suggests that 11d. should be fixed instead of the 12d. fixed by the Bill and the led. which now stands in the Act. The effect of my Amendment would be that a. Minute would have to be laid before Parliament if the Home Secretary exceeds. what is now the maximum rate fixed by

  1093
  the existing Act. I will briefly state the grounds on which I think it is reasonable to ask for that. I feel bound to point out that the whole cost of this war bonus is to be thrown on the rates. The Exchequer contribution remains at 4d., although the rate is to be raised from 11d. to 13d. Sevenpence was raised out of the rates this year, the Exchequer contribution being 4d., and it is expected that 8d. will be raised out of the rates next year, the Exchequer contribution remaining the same. The Government are really indulging,in vicarious generosity. My right hon. Friend reminds me of the man of whom it was recorded that. out of his bounty he built a bridge at the expense of a county. My right hon. Friend out of his bounty is going to give this war bonus at the expense of the county, in spite of the fact that all the authorities have found that the Government ought to make a much larger contribution towards the expense of this service, quite apart from the question of a war bonus.
  I would remind my right hon. Friend that the Departmental Committee on Local Taxation, which reported in 1914, recommended that one-half the cost of the police service should be borne by the Exchequer. This proposal was adopted by the Government and embodied in the Finance Bill of 1914. It was subsequently withdrawn, for various reasons. The amount drawn from the rates has increased in ten years by 3¼d., which represents an increased annual charge of £830,000. On the other hand, the amount drawn from the Exchequer has increased practically not at all. One hundred thousand pounds is voted annually in respect of special, Imperial, and National services, but that does not represent any contribution to the increased expenditure incurred during recent years. During the current year the net charge for this police service will be over £3,000,000. The proportion which the Exchequer will contribute is about 35 per cent. It is unreasonable that the cost of a service which is administered entirely by the Government should be borne by the local rates to the extent of two-thirds. I urge that the Government should make some temporary Grant out of the Exchequer. It is not possible for me to move any Amendment to do that, because it would throw a charge upon the Exchequer, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will give consideration to the request which has been made to him by the London County Council.
  1094
  I do not think the Home Secretary ought to object to laying a Minute before Parliament if he raises the rate above the maximum fixed by the Act of 1912, especially as he is not bearing any proportion of the increased charge. No case is really made out for the increase of two-pence. The Memorandum by which the Bill is prefaced does not show the extent to which the increased revenue is necessitated by the increase in the war bonus granted to the police. The general bonus was increased from 8s. to 12s. a week, and the special allowance for a child from 1s. 6d. to 2s. 6d. It may be argued, therefore, that these increases involve a charge at the rate of rather less than £200,000 per annum. This sum is equal to a rate of about four-fifths of a penny, therefore no case is made out for raising it by 2d. in the £. There are other questions, such as the cost of special services. I should like to know whether that cost has not increased, and, if so, whether a larger Grant ought not to be made under the Act of 1909. For all these reasons I hope my right hon. Friend will not object to laying the Minute before Parliament in order that those who have to make this increased contribution should at any rate be able to see that what they are asked to contribute is fairly and properly demanded of them.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): The scheme of the Bill is to increase the limit on the Metropolitan Police rate from eleven pence to thirteen pence. Under the Bill, as drawn, we shall be enabled at once to increase the rate by a penny and raise it to twelve pence, but if we desire to raise it by the further penny, that is, to thirteen pence, we shall be compelled to lay a Minute upon the Table of the House, showing how the increase is made up. My lion. Fri end has suggested that we should at once lay a Minute even to raise the rate by the original ld. That is quite unnecessary. We are laying our Minute to-day, so far as the first 1d. goes. We are spending to-day up to the statutory limit that is allowed by law, but the raising of the bonus from 8s. to 12s. will cost as nearly as possible a rate of Id. in the £. My hon. Friend says it is less than £200.000, but it is rather more, and it will leave a deficiency not of four-fifths of 1d., but as nearly as possible 1d. in the £. It would be waste of time and trouble to lay a Minute. as he suggests. for the first 1d.

  1095
  We make our case to-day. I am sure the House appreciates the services rendered by the police and the difficulty they have in living on the present allowance, and will agree to give us the funds for paying the bonus which has been already announced.
  My hon. Friend asks whether the special services have not increased in cost. He refers, I have no doubt, to the fact that a sum is paid out of the Exchequer to the 'police for special services rendered to the nation, such as attendance at special functions, and things of that kind. That cost has not increased, but has a little decreased, and no case, I think, can be made out by him or by the London County Council for increasing the Grant for special purposes. The other point he made was that we are granting a bonus at the expense of the county. That is quite true, but throughout the Kingdom similar bonuses are being given at the cost of the local authorities. A case might be made for revising the whole system of police payment and throwing, as the Commission recommended, a larger proportion on the Exchequer, but that would have to be a measure applying to the Kingdom as a whole. If that were done we should ask that some control should be given to the Exchequer over the payments made to the police forces throughout the country. We should ask to have some voice in settling the increase of police pay or bonuses, so that you should not have the difference which you now have between the pay of the police in adjoining counties. That would have to be a carefully considered measure, and provided these matters were gone into I for one should not be at all disinclined to consider the question of increasing the share which the Exchequer would be called upon to pay towards the cost of the police. But you cannot do that in this Bill. This Bill applies to one county only, or rather to one Metropolitan Police district, and you could not possibly make a change here alone. For that reason I hope my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment. I could not accept it to-day, because it would interfere with the first object of the Bill, namely, to enable us to increase the bonus.
  Mr. KING: If this Amendment be pressed to a Division, I shall certainly support it. The only remark I wish to make beyond that is with regard to the special services performed by the Metro-
  1096
  politan Police. I was pleased, though rather surprised, to find that the cost had decreased. Surely it includes all the air raids The cost of public functions and matters of that kind may be less than in time of peace, but in connection with the Criminal Investigation Department of Scotland Yard I should imagine it was very greatly increased. There have been twenty-four raids in London within a very short time, and I should be glad to know whether all the work which was thrown upon the police in connection with them was done at comparatively small cost.
  Sir H. HARRIS: I will not press my Amendment after what my right hon. Friend has said, but I should like to point out that the case of London differs entirely from that of other cities, because the administration of the police is in the hands of the Home Office, which is not the case elsewhere.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 2 (Short Title and Construction)
  ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Duration of Act.)
  "This Act shall cease to have effect at the expiration of the financial year next after that in which the present War terminated."—[Sir Henry Harris.]
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Sir H. HARRIS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time.''
  The object of this Clause is merely to secure that the question how the cost of these services is to be met after the War shall not be prejudiced by anything that is done now.
  Sir G. CAVE: This is a reasonable Clause, and I am prepared to accept it.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Lord E. TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announced at Question Time to-day that there would be a Friday sitting he was under the impression that the Franchise Bill which we are waiting for from another place would come sooner than we now have reason to believe it will. We have every hope that we shall have it in this House to begin business with on Wednesday of next week. That being so, we do not find it necessary now to sit on Friday. Therefore I have to state, for the convenience of the House, that there will be no Friday sitting this week.
CAMBRAI.

  IMPERIAL GENERAL STAFF.
  Major DAVID DAVIES: I desire to call attention to the inquiry into the military operations at Cambrai. I approach this question with some diffidence, because we have been told by the Leader of the House that it is not in the public interest that it should be discussed, and naturally one hesitates to embark upon a discussion with regard to this very important and vital matter, but, having regard to the statements which have appeared in the Press during the last few weeks and the vigorous Press campaign which is going on, I think it is only the right and the duty of a Member of the House to raise the matter here in order to endeavour to elicit from the Government some statement which will reassure the country that the right course has been taken in regard to this inquiry. We know perfectly well that there are most disquieting and disturbing rumours. Stories have been told by officers and men who have returned, who took part in these operations, which have caused a certain amount of misapprehension in the country and in the Army. I think nothing is to be gained by the Government adopting a policy of secrecy and hiding the truth in the long run, and that they should frankly and clearly tell the House what. they propose to do to do away with all this misapprehension which has been aroused. It will be remembered that the Leader of the House informed us that a great victory had been won at Cambrai. He afterwards told us that he regretted that he did not tell the House that they should not be too
  1098
  optimistic as to the result. It will be remembered that after this great initial success, which we all hoped would lead to a decisive victory, there was a counterattack on the southern sector of our front in France, and that this counter-attack was fraught with the most disastrous consequences. We lost the larger part of the ground which we had won, and we suffered the loss of many thousands of prisoners and guns. Here we have two distinct operations. First of all, we had the initial success which we had every hope might develop into a decisive defeat of the enemy at Cambrai, and we had this counter-attack, which turned the whole operation into a serious disaster. The, Leader of the House promised us an inquiry into the whole of the circumstances surrounding this operation. Then we were told that an inquiry had been instituted by the Commander-in-Chief in France on his own accord and that afterwards the documents were placed before the Chief of the Imperial General Staff and communicated to the War Cabinet through General Smuts, who is usually turned on to do these unpleasant tasks Here is a case in which a general whose conduct was coming under review institutes an inquiry on his own account. Therefore, the element of impartiality, at any rate, would appear to be lacking. We also find from the Report of the War Cabinet, and in the communications which they have deigned to give to this House, that the Higher Command had not been surprised and that the Higher Command had made the proper dispositions in case of attack. We can only judge whether proper dispositions are made by the results. That is the only criterion which we as ordinary citizens can apply to the operation, and when we find that the results were almost disastrous we can only ask ourselves whether the plans of operations and the dispositions were the best that could he made. We were told that General Cadorna made most excellent disposition, but when the third Italian Army failed him at the critical moment he was compelled to retire from the Command of the Italian Army.
  9.0 P.M.
  Reports of all kinds have filtered through from the Front, and I would like the Under-Secretary for War, who, I understand, will reply on behalf of the Government, to tell us quite definitely whether these statements are true or false, in order to dissipate the feelings of

  1099
  misapprehension which undoubtedly exist both in the country and in this House. In the first place, it has been said—I cannot say whether it is true or not—that this sector of our front was very thinly held at the time of this counter-attack, and, in the second place, we had been told that the sector was manned by entire Divisions, who had come from the North, where they had been engaged in attacks at Ypres, and that those Divisions were told off to hold the line in this sector where the attack took place. We are also told that repeated warnings were sent to the Higher Command from the units who were holding the front that the activities of the enemy were being noted and that these repeated warnings were disregarded by the Higher Command and no proper arrangements were made. We are also told—I have heard it—that the French near at hand had reinforcements, which they would probably have placed at our disposal if they had been asked, which would have helped to prevent the disaster which occurred. These are the sort of things that are being said, and it is high time the Government made some clearer and fuller statement in order that these misapprehensions, if they are misapprehensions, may be dissipated, and that the country may again breathe freely. The naked facts which arise out of all this business is that there were the elements of great victory at the beginning, that that victory unfortunately at the end turned into a great disaster and that in spite of that we have been told by the Under-Secretary for War that no officer has been retired as a result of these operations, or at any rate that no superior officer has been retired as a result of these operations. We find, on the other hand, that there is a process of change going on in the Higher Command, because we read in the "Times" of some of these changes. The "Times" goes on to tell us why they are being made. It has nothing to do with the operations at Cambrai, because we are told that the official reticence, it may be supposed, was due to a desire which goes back to deeper causes than the Cambrai set-back, and would be justified if that had never occurred. So, apparently, the changes that are taking place now are due to some other and very deep causes. We are not told what they are. The question arises why, if these causes were operating some time ago, these officers were still in command when the Cambrai operations
  1100
  took place? That is a point which we have a right to make the Government explain.
  We gather from an article which appeared some weeks ago the real reason why these officers had been kept on so long. After eulogising the Commander-in-Chief, it goes on to say that Sir Douglas Haig's position depends in a large measure on his choice of subordinates, and that his weakness, if it be weakness, is a devotion to those who have served him longest—perhaps too long, or too long without any rest. I do not think that any paper could possibly have published a more damaging statement about any Commander-in-Chief than to say that he was not capable—for that is what it amounts to—of appointing the higher officers in his command, and I am shocked to think that the changes now going on may be due to some sort of newspaper pressure on the Commander-in-Chief by the powerful Press which exists in this country to carry out certain changes which possibly he might not wish to carry out of his own accord. Judging from the Press campaigns which have gone on for the last week or fortnight, that is not a very wrong conclusion. 1, personally, was entirely opposed to any inquiry of this kind, because I think, so far as the Cabinet are concerned—and the Cabinet represent this House and the country in this matter— there is only one man whom they can hold responsible for any great. military disaster which may take place in France—that is. the Commander-in-Chief himself. I cannot understand why it was necessary to appoint any inquiry, because it is perfectly obvious that it is not a matter into which civilians can inquire. An inqury instituted by the Commander-in-Chief himself and afterwards supplemented by a sort of editing committee appointed by the War Office—I do not think anybody with experience of the War Office in this War has any great confidence in inquiries which they institute—is wrong. It is a very dangerous thing, as weakening the discipline of the Army in France, to interfere with the powers of the Commander-in-Chief. He is responsible for that Army and its doings. The Government should give us a little more information and take the House of Commons more fully into its confidence and say to it at this time, when they are calling upon the country to supply more men for the Army, that they will see to

  1101
  it that there is no in competency and no inefficiency in the Higher Command, however highly placed it may be.
  Mr. KING: We are greatly indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for bringing this subject. to our notice. It is a matter which has been weighing on the minds of many of us. I hope that the reply which we shall receive from the Under-Secretary for War will do something to reassure the public in this connection. I have never for a long time past failed to make clear my view as to our Higher Command in France ever since, eleven months ago, General Haig told us that during the campaign of 1917 he would break through the Germans at many points, that the campaign of 1917 would be decisive of the War and would be decisive on the Western Front, and that he would pursue the policy of striking against the German Army until they were utterly broken. When, in defiance of Army Orders, he gave an interview and made these statements, I felt hopeless about him. It is not to the credit of the Government that they allowed General Haig to talk as he did, and possibly instigated him to talk as he did. When at last we had a great military operation which, on General Haig's authority, is presented as such an overwhelming victory that all the London bells are set ringing, and then we find it stigmatised in this House not as a great victory, but as a great disaster, what confidence can we have left in General Haig? When we see the War Cabinet allowing the Commander-in-Chief to set up an inquiry himself on the spot into his own deficiencies and then find the War Cabinet accepting his judgment upon his own deficiencies, and taking no action whatever on the matter, we are entitled to ask, and we do ask, how long is this going on? We have an Army which for morale and discipline is magnificent. Everybody, even our enemies, admits that. We have an Army which is admittedly in numbers superior to our enemy.
  Mr. KENNEDY JONESdissented.
  Mr. KING: The hon. Member was not 'here the other night, when we had given in Secret Session the actual numbers by which we are superior.
  Mr. JONES: If the hon. Member refers to the speech of the Minister for National Service he will find that he stated that the armies were equal on the Western Front.
  Mr. KING: I will not be led away from my point, even if it is not a good one. That does not invalidate my argument. My argument is that on the Western Front we are, at least in numbers, equal to our enemy. We are, in the moral and courage of our men, I believe, superior. According to the Prime Minister, in munitions and equipment we are more than equal to our enemies, and yet what do we find? The boasting of a Commander-in-Chief who does not make good his boasts. That is our humiliating experience on the Western Front. How much longer are we going on in this way? The only thing to do is to find some other Commander-in-Chief, and until the War Cabinet has the courage, in the face of what might be popular difficulties—because they -have allowed the Press to idolisc a man and endow him with characteristics which practically he would not originally have obtained for himself, even in his moments of greatest pride and self-consciousness—until the War Cabinet has the courage to act, then the only way for them to act in regard to the whole extent and power of our magnificent Army on the Western Front, is to get a new Commander-in-Chief. I do appeal, as every sensible man must appeal who looks at the matter fairly and squarely, to the Government to see whether they cannot get a man with more brains—with less reputation, less bombast, less Press puffings, but more brains and more ability, to represent our magnificent Army.
  Mr. JONES: I had no intention at all of intervening in this discussion on the Higher Command until I heard the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire, and it seems to me that the one point that ought to be met in the discussion concerning the military situation at the front and the Higher Command, is this—that the time has arrived when we ought to have a clear and definite statement from the representative of the Government, the Under-Secretary of State for War, as to whether the War Cabinet and the Government are satisfied with Sir Douglas Haig as the best Commander-in-Chief. That is the whole point. If they are satisfied that he is, if they come to this House and make a public statement that they are satisfied, upon examination of the whole record of the 1916 campaign and the 1917 campaign, that the present General Staff and the Commander-in-

  1103
  Chief are the best possible men, then I think the House and the country will be satisfied. That is the whole point. But everyone knows, or I think most people know, that after the Somme campaign in 1916 there was the gravest dissatisfaction with the Commander-in-Chief. He had not obtained the objectives which he said he would obtain, and he sacrificed a great many more men than he said would be necessary to achieve this one objective. That was before the present Coalition Government came. into power. It is a perfectly well-known fact, and it was known in every newspaper in London, that a Cabinet of responsible men were entirely dissatisfied with Sir Douglas Haig. At the beginning of 1917, this present Coalition Government came into power. They had it in contemplation to dispense with the Commander-in-Chief, but the reason why they did not do so was because they were afraid it was going to involve great newspaper opposition. I say that frankly and freely, and it is perfectly well known that Sir Douglas Haig said that if he were left alone, that if he received so many men, and if he were permitted to pursue the campaign he had devised, he could. guarantee certain results by October, 1917. He told that. to nearly every person who went over to France to see him.
  Then you have the great peace-at-Christmas promise, and that has not materialised. More than that, you had the promise as to sweeping the Belgian coast, and that promise did not come off. Therefore, the only point is this: After the experience of 1917, after the balance of gains and losses, is the Government still satisfied with the General Staff and the Commander-in-Chief? Are they the best that can be had? Are the Government satisfied? Are they prepared to take the responsibility of going on with them during the campaign of 1918? I am not a strategist; I have no military knowledge—I do not profess to have it. I do not know whether Sir Douglas is the greatest Commander-in-Chief the world has ever seen or whether he is not; but I do ask the Government, in view of the uneasiness which at present exists, not only in this House, but all over the country, and among the soldiers, to give a definite reply to the question, Are they satisfied with what has been done in 1917,
  1104
  and are they prepared to risk the responsibility of going on with the same man during 1918?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): Three speeches have been delivered to-night, and in each of them there was a charge, either definitely expressed or implied, against the Field-Marshal the Commander-in-Chief in France. I should be false to my own position and my own belief if I did not in the very opening of my speech take the opportunity of saying that nothing could be more cruel than that an attack of that sort should be made upon probably one of the most distinguished generals at the present time in the world, when he has no opportunity of defending himself, and when he is at the present moment at the head an Army—one of the greatest. Armies in the world, coping with the greatest difficulties in the world—which implicitly trusts him.
  Major DAVIES: May I ask the Government why they allowed the attack in the Press against the Commander-in-Chief during the last two or three weeks, while we are to keep silence?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend himself used the Press quite frequently on many occasions, I will not say in attacks on the Field-Marshal, but on various others connected with military matters. It is not for me to say anything as to those attacks. I have no authority to express any view on any of the articles attacking the Field-Marshal the Commander-in-Chief. That surely ought to be the duty of the War Cabinet as a whole. If they did not take that action, it is not for me to say why they did not. It is my duty to impress upon the House how cruelly unfair it is on the part of the House of Commons. After all, what is said in the House of Commons has a far greater power and influence in the country than what is said in the Press. I am perfectly satisfied to reply to the question of my hon. Friend who asked me, "Is the Government or is it not satisfied with the Field-Marshal the Commander-in-Chief?" I say that it is, and I say that deliberately, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said so the other day.
  Mr. WATT: Do you deny that it was in contemplation by the Government at one time to dismiss Sir Douglas Haig?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I know nothing about what has been in contemplation. I am in the War Office, and so far as I am concerned, I know this, and I speak from the Army Council point of view who have, if possible, a greater knowledge of the military position of the time and of the military powers of certain Generals than any other body, and I say that at no time since Sir Douglas Haig became Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief has he ever lost the confidence of the Army Council or those in authority at the War Office. Of course my hon. Friends who have spoken may know far more of what the inner working of individual members of the -War Cabinet may he than I do. I am not associated with any subterranean current of thought. I do not know what may be at any given moment in the minds of certain Ministers of power in the country, but what I do know', and what I think T ought to know, is that so far as we are concerned, and I make bold to say, so far as the Army as a whole are concerned, Sir Douglas Haig from the beginning up to the present has commanded the entire respect of the troops in the field.
  Mr. JONES: Would the right hon. Gentleman mind explaining what he means by "we"; is it the Army Council or the War Cabinet?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: As I have already said, I am not speaking on behalf of the War Cabinet. I cannot do so. I am speaking on behalf of the body with whom I am intimately connected and of which I am a member. I repeat again that at no time, and not at this moment, has Sir Douglas Haig ever lost the confidence of that body. The hon. and gallant Member for Montgomery attacked the War Cabinet indirectly, because he said it had sought to criticise the military strategy of the last breakdown at Cambrai, but, nevertheless, he never hesitated to criticise that strategy himself. He told us very properly that the Cambrai incident was divided into two distinct divisions. He would, I am sure, be the last to deny that the first part of the attack at Cambrai on the Hindenburg Line was a gigantic success. It is true that joy bells were rung, and. I am not sorry in many ways that they were. People have different ways of expressing their joy, and at that time the feelings of the nation were particularly pent no, and, like all of us, people were delighted that their own brothers and their own fathers and their
  1106
  own sons should have been participating in what undoubtedly was a great victory at that time. I have, I hope, humane sympathy with those people who unfortunately might be wrong in the last analysis, but who were perfectly right at the time in taking every opportunity of any kind to show the feelings of thankfulness that they had.
  Major DAVIES: May I ask whether they were invited to do so by the War Office?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The hon. and gallant Member admits now by his assent, and the House admits by its cheers, that the first part of that Cambrai affair is regarded even now by him as a victory. He speaks with authority on military affairs. If he now admits to me in answer to a direct question in the House that he regards it even now as a victory, does he regard it as preposterous or insane that the people of the country, with far less military knowledge than he has got, should at that time have given public expression to feelings of thankfulness for a victory which they regarded as having been obtained by our troops? As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the last part of the action at Cambrai was not so successful. In fact, to use the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and I do not intend to go outside the limits of the answers given to various questions of this point—it was a breakdown. It has been suggested tonight and I see it stated in the Press—that we had no knowledge that any such attack was to take place or intended. I can say this quite frankly and with responsibility, and I know with accuracy, that our General Staff did know on the 28th November that such an attack was coming on November 30th. I cannot, of course, whatever my own inclinations may be, go beyond the statement given by the War Cabinet. That statement was given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the War Cabinet having been placed in full possession of the facts by the Army authorities and the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief. To my mind, it is a most extraordinary accusation to make and it really showed the poverty of the argument for the attack on the War Cabinet by my hon. and gallant Friend, who said that the information came through Sir Douglas Haig, and that it was he who initiated the inquiry, and that therefore it was not impartial. Supposing he had taken no steps

  1107
  at all and supposing he had said nothing after the result of the breakdown of the 30th of November, would not my hon. and gallant Friend be the very first man to cavil at his inaction?
  Major DAVIES: The Leader of the House, in answer to a question at that time, said that there would be an inquiry which it was understood was to be by the War Cabinet. An inquiry by the War Cabinet is very different from one by the Commander-in-Chief.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. and gallant Friend really condemned the inquiry, because the order was given by the Commander-in-Chief. As a matter of fact, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out—and I think I am stating this with accuracy—the War Cabinet had decided that an inquiry should take place, and the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief had, on his own responsibility, initiated the inquiry. He was collecting all the information and all the documents and all the maps and all the facts. Those were sent over. They were not kept in France, they were sent over to be considered by the War Cabinet. They were first of all considered by a very distinguished Committee of the War Cabinet, presided over by the Chief of the Imperial General Staff. Afterwards the whole of the papers and documents were carefully considered by the War Cabinet themselves and by General Smuts, and those two distinguished bodies came to the conclusion that though an unfortunate breakdown did take place, it was through no fault of the General Staff; that the disposition of the troops were, I will not say perfect, because nothing can be perfect in war, that they were as good as could possibly be expected. They came to this conclusion which I feel bound to say they must inevitably have come to, having regard to all the circumstances.
  Mr. JONES: Does my hon. Friend really mean to suggest that no blame is going to be attached, or does attach itself, to the Higher Command if it leaves in that position a dangerous salient, which either cannot be held, or is likely to lead to disaster? Does he consider that in such a circumstance as that, which was the circumstance at Cambrai, no blame has to he attached to the Higher Command?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not accept for a single moment the statement of fact
  1108
  of my hon. Friend. It is one of those statements, of which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire gave a selection, which come over here and have never been sifted. They are circulated about the clubs and streets.
  Mr. JONES: What about what happened?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: My bon. Friend is putting a specific point which he would lead the House to believe is a definite and ascertained fact. My information is—and I will not discuss it any further—that that is not so. One can only describe it as a break-down at a particular part of the line, but there was no salient in the sense that my hon. Friend would persuade the House there was. There was an equality of forces at a particular part.
  Mr. JONES: They ought to have been strengthened.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not think so at all. If my information is correct, this was a proper number of troops to place against the only possible number of troops that could come at that particular point, and the General Staff took all the necessary precaution, and, I believe, the night before the attack, instead of being appealed to for aid, the officers of the Higher Command were on the alert and were as ready as they possibly could be. The House will realise that if at any given moment there is a break in the line, it may not necessarily be due to the fact that the Higher Command have made a mistake. There are various factors. This House is apt on all occasions—I do not know whether through prejudice or for what reason—but the moment a breakdown takes place it is always described as due to the Higher Command. There never was a greater mistake.
  Mr. JONES: Could you ascribe it to anyone?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not going to ascribe it to anyone.
  Mr. ROCH: To the soldiers?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: There never was a more gallant lot in this world than our soldiers, but I can only say that, I for one, with the information I have got will never ascribe that breakdown to the Higher Command. 1 can say no more.
  Mr. ROCH: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether anyone at all then was to blame in any quarter?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: It is impossible to say in dealing with two or three Divisions who was responsible. My hon. and gallant Friend made one further point. He asked why reinforcements were not ready at that particular place. As a matter of fact, reinforcements were ready, and when the history of the War comes to be written it will be seen that those reserves whose dispositions were, I understand, perfect, were splendid troops whose names will always command the greatest credit in this country for all time. Those reserves were ready behind the lines in perfect disposition, and if it had not been for those reserves I will not say what that breakdown would have been, but to say there was no care on the part of the General Staff to have reinforcements there is not true, and nobody knows better than my lion. Friend the Member for Hornsey. I do not know that any other serious point was raised in the Debate. I can only say once again what was stated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that there is no intention of publishing this inquiry, and that there has not been any withdrawal from the front of any people of the Higher Command, because, as I have endeavoured to suggest, the real blame for the unfortunate breakdown was not due to the Higher Command. I think that the War Cabinet has shown, and so has the Army Council, that when it is necessary to withdraw men from France we have not. hesitated to do it, and if in this case the War Cabinet had been assured that the Higher Command was to blame, I make bold to say, in view of the fact that quite recently we have altered the Higher Command at General Headquarters, we should unhesitatingly alter the Higher Command in the field.
  Mr. ROCH: I cannot help thinking that those Members who have heard this Debate, despite the very excellent speech made by the representative of the War Office, are left more mystified than before. I myself am in entire agreement with what the hon. Gentleman said, that it is most undesirable to have attacks made on individuals who cannot answer in this House, but all that really has been asked for in this House is, first, that you should publish this Report, so that the public may form their own judgment. To a request of that kind there could be, I think, only one effective answer which the Government could give for not publishing it, and that is that it would give
  1110
  information to the enemy. Now, it has never been suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the hon. Gentleman that the publication of a statement of these facts would give any information whatever to the enemy, and, indeed, I am told by those who are students of the German Press that the orders of a division were captured and published in the German Press. Therefore, I think I am justified in saying that the Government cannot say, and has not attempted to say, that publication of the statement of what really happened would give the slightest information to the enemy. That being so, why cannot the War Office or the Government tell us frankly what is the reason for not publishing this? Let them tell us quite frankly what is the reason. The House of Commons is a reasonable body, and I do think that that answer should be given.
  Can the hon. Gentleman really think, in view of the speeches which have been made which, I presume, will be published, unless they are censored, that really the matter can rest here? After all, the hon. Gentleman spoke very guardedly. He is not, of course, a member of the War Cabinet. He said he spoke for the Army Council, and he spoke with great emphasis when he said he spoke only for them, and he made a reference to the fact that he did riot know of any subterranean currents of thought. On an occasion like this, when it was well known that this question was going to be raised, without any disrespect to the hon. Gentleman, could not some member of the War Cabinet have been present? Some grave remarks were made by the hon. Member for Hornsey, who, if I may say so, moves in the best political circles, and has information, as he has shown to-night, which is denied to the mere ordinary Member. He said definitely that the Coalition Government, when it came into power, contemplated the withdrawal of Sir Douglas Haig. Now a remark like that should really be contradicted, if it can be contradicted; and I hope the hon. Gentleman will represent to those in higher places what has taken place to-night I do venture to hope that some definite statement will be made to clear up public anxiety and public confidence, which has been sapped by this. After all, everyone dislikes these attacks, but once they have been made in the Press, once they have been put on record, the sooner they are contradicted publicly and with

  1111
  authority the better, and I do hope an early opportunity will be taken by some member of the War Cabinet to speak positively, and put an end to what, I think, will be an unfortunate controversy if it is allowed to continue for a single day longer.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I was unable to listen to the whole of the discussion which has taken place, but I wish to join with my hon. Friend who has just spoken in protesting against the treatment just meted out to the House of Commons. I think that on an occasion of this kind, when a large question of policy was being raised on the Adjournment, a question affecting vitally our Higher Command in France, and the whole of the higher direction of the War, we should have had at least a member of the War Cabinet here to state the view of that body. Up to the present time there has only been a single statement made in this House as to the Cambrai incident, and on the inquiry made into that incident on behalf of the War Cabinet. It was made by the Leader of the House in reply to a question put by me about a week ago, when, I think, the answer given to the second question was simply a reference to the reply given to me. The main point was this: that an inquiry had been held, though we were not told who constituted the inquiry. We have been told, in answer to a question by my lion. Friend yesterday, that evidence was taken. We have not been told who took that evidence. We have not been told what form that evidence took—whether it was simply the written statements of officers summoned, whether it was taken as oral evidence, or whether there was any cross-examination of the witnesses in relation to the facts. In other words, we have no knowledge whether this was a bona fide searching investigation with the view to revealing the facts of the situation.
  On this inquiry, so-called, we are told by the Leader of the House two things. These were the only two substantial statements which have been made. First of all, we were told that there was no surprise. Secondly, we were told that every adequate precaution was taken. I say that in view of what has been stated in the Press, in view of what has been told to individuals here and elsewhere by people who were there, it is making too great demand upon human credulity to ask us to accept these statements. The
  1112
  matter cannot rest here. This is a serious issue. It deals with the lives of men. We here are responsible. as the Prime Minister reminded us in Secret Session, we share the responsibility of this War. We see, however, to-night how much importance is attached to the responsibility of the House of Commons. When a question is asked on a vital matter of this kind no responsible Minister comes to take us into his confidence. We are invited to be content with a reply from the Under-Secretary for War. I do not speak in any disparaging way of my hon. Friend; far be that from me. We have been too long associated in many things in the past, and I hope we shall be so in the future; but we must assess the relative importance of the position he occupies. My point is this: That in one of the great actions of the campaign of 1917, in respect of a reverse greater than any reverse sustained by British arms since the Battle of the Marne, when the House of Commons asks for information, no responsible Minister comes to that body which the Prime Minister has said shares the responsibility for the conduct of the War. How can we share any responsibility if we are not informed? The Government expects the House of Commons to take a share in responsibility. The House of Commons can only do it on information, which up to the present has been denied to it.
  It is not only in respect of the past that this is an important matter alike for the House of Commons and for the country, If there is one incident more than another in the War which has affected public confidence outside it has been this one. We remember when the first glad tidings were announced, with what joy they were received! We remember how the joy bells were rung! We remember how that we believed that for the first time there was going to be a definite penetration of what the Prime Minister called the "impenetrable barrier of the West." After all these high hopes, there came the tidings which depressed us all. Not full tidings; not the truth—
  It being one hour after the conclusion of Government business.—Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February.
  Adjourned at Eight minutes before Ten o'clock