CLAUSE 1.—(Powers of the Board of Trade to Investigate Complaints and Take Proceedings).

HC Deb 13 August 1919 vol 119 cc1343-503

Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Board of Trade shall have power in respect of any article to which this Act applies—

1. (a)to investigate prices, costs, and profit, and for that purpose by order to require any person to appear before them, and to furnish such information and produce such documents as they may require; and
2. (b) to receive and investigate complaints that a profit is being or has been made or sought on the sale of the article (whether wholesale or retail) which is, in view of all the circumstances, unreasonable, and on any such complaint they may by order, after hearing the parties,—
   1. (i) declare the price which would yield a reasonable profit; and
   2. (ii) require the seller to repay to the complainant any amount paid by the complainant in excess of such price; or
   3. (iii) require the complainant to purchase the article at such price;
   or may, in lieu of making such order, where they think the circumstances of the case so require, take proceedings against the seller before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and if in such proceedings it is found that the price charged or demanded by the seller is such as to yield to him a profit which is, in view of all the circumstances, unreasonable, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months.

(3) If any person fails to comply with an Order of the board of Trade under this Section, the shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine nut exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month.

(4) Where a person convicted under this Section is a company every director and officer of the company shall be guilty of the like offence, unless lie proves that the act which constituted the offence took place without his knowledge and consent.

(5) This Act applies to any article or class of articles to which it is applied by Order of the Board of Trade, being an article or class of articles declared by the Order to be one or one of a kind in common use by the majority of the population, but this Act does not apply to any articles which are from time to time declared to be controlled articles.

(6) In this Act the expressions "sale" and "seller" include respectively any offer for sale and any person offering to sell.

Mr. G. THORNE

I beg to move, to leave out the words "the Board of Trade shall have power," and to insert instead thereof the words "it shall be the duty of tribunals established under this Act."

I should like, if I may, to explain the object I have in view in moving this Amendment. As I said on the Second Heading, I want to assist in securing the objects which the right hon. Gentleman has in view, but I submitted then, and I submit now, that this Bill will be ineffective for that purpose—that in reality it is a sham, and that I want to take some part, as for as is possible, in helping to make it a reality. I am not wedded in any way to the terms of the Amendment, and if another Amendment will achieve better the end in view I will certainly withdraw my Amendment. What I submit is that if this Bill is to be effective the tribunal or committee, or whatever body it is which is called upon to make these investigations in the first instance, must be a committee which is independent on the one hand, and must conduct its investigations in public on the other hand, and that only by such means can we possibly secure satisfaction to the country. If this committee is not an impartial committee, if it is not conducted on lines that the public understand, it can never give that satisfaction to the country which I want to assist the right hon. Gentleman in securing. That is why I have moved this Amendment. I recognise the difficulty of carrying out what is suggested, but the point before us is to secure the confidence of the country in any bodies or tribunals we set up, and I submit that any tribunal of that kind should be independent of, and superior to, not only all interests, great or small, or combinations of interests, but should be such as to bring out all the facts, no matter whom they affect, so that the public may know that the committee is acting impartially. The terms of the Preamble are very significant. They relate to any articles the prices of which are enhanced by charges yielding an unreasonable profit.

I will ask my right hon. Friend opposite whether, if n complaint is subsequently made, it will come within the terms of the Act? I base that upon a statement contained in an article recently published by Lord Emmott. He is a well-known and highly respected man, who took part in a very important Committee set up by the Board of Trade—I believe by the right hon. Gentleman himself. The proceedings of that Committee were private. We know nothing of them except by the casual reports we have gleaned in various ways. We do not know what the effect produced has been; we have them disclosed to a slight extent by this state- ment, and I am going to venture, by leave of the Committee, to quote one short passage. Lord Emmott says: I was a member of that Committee. One day this Committee decided that all restrictions on imports of paper and paper material should be removed on the ground that the people who benefited by cheaper paper were more numerous and important than the few thousand who were represented in the manufacture of paper. The moment steps were taken to give effect to this decision the manufacturers were up in arms, and the Board of Trade quailed, and with Sir Auckland Geddes acquiesced. That is why— and this is the point of my question— all things made of paper are unnecessarily dear to-day. 4.0.P.M.

The condition of things is such that we want to inquire into all the circumstances attending the cost of the articles of ordinary consumption. Here is one rather important item where, by reason of the course adopted, prices are unnecessarily high to-day. In the investigations that are going to be made will we have it disclosed to the public what the effect of those restrictions have been, and how much the cost of paper—using that as an illustration—has been enhanced by reason of the restrictions; and will the inquiry be such that everything will be taken into consideration so that the people may regard it as impartial, and so that confidence can be placed in its findings? I do not desire to labour the point which I have indicated. I have a sincere desire to make this Bill effective, if it is possible, and I do not think it will be effective unless we have impartial tribunals, and it is in that spirit that I beg to move.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Auckland Geddes)

I should like first to acknowledge my full appreciation of what the hon. Gentleman has said, that it is his desire to make this Bill as effective and as useful as it is possible to make it. I have been much interested by this Amendment, and by nine other Amendments which follow in the name of the hon. Gentleman, and which seem to form a continuous whole. This Amendment is designed to remove any responsibility from the Board of Trade. If one might speak purely from a personal point of view, I would not be slow to welcome it, but I do not know that it is quite possible, from an administrative point of view. Let us see what follows. There are three subsequent Amendments which reduce the function of the Board of Trade to the appointment of tribunals, and there are further Amendments the effect of which would be—and I hope the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I misunderstood him—that the Government, as such, should wash its hands of all interest in the tribunals it is proposed to establish, and that there should be no Minister responsible to Parliament in any way for the action of those tribunals. That, so far as I can understand, is the meaning of the series of Amendments. There would be no Minister of the Crown responsible, and there- would not be, in the ordinary sense, any direct control by Parliament. There are some further Amendments to Clause 6standing in the name of the same hon. Gentleman which have the effect, as I understand them, of allowing the expenses of establishing tribunals to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament and the expenses of local tribunals. That would lead to this position—that the expenses neither of the central tribunal nor of the appeal tribunal could be paid out of those funds. The effect of all the Amendments would be that there would be no Minister responsible for the administration of this Act, and that the tribunals would not owe allegiance, after the moment of birth, to any Government Department, and they would be entirely independent and under no direct control, and that the central and other tribunals should receive financial assistance from public funds. I do not think myself such a proposition would be administratively possible or could be accepted by the House. Therefore, I feel that I may have misunderstood the effect of the sequence of the ten Amendments. There is no doubt whatever that, if they wore adopted as they stand, there would be no Minister responsible except for the appointment of the tribunals.

With regard to the further point raised by the hon. Gentleman, and which I understood to be that the tribunals should be free to publish all information obtained, that is obviously a very difficult point which we must consider more fully a little later. I am quite clear in my own mind that there must be some investigation, which can only be made effective if there is no publicity, unless the result of the investigation shows such a state of affairs to exist as to make prosecution necessary. It is quite clear such investigations as we require into the whole process of manufacture and production of goods cannot take the form really of tribunal investigation if such investigations are to satisfactorily get at the facts. Much more, what is wanted in those cases is a purely and absolutely confidential investigation, so that the real position may be explored, and become known in a confidential manner to the authority, whatever it may be. With regard to the question of publicity, where there is a prosecution, that, of course, would be absolute, and where a complaint was made and a decision arrived at there would be publicity, and I would be prepared to see how I could meet my hon. Friend in giving greater publicity on such points. That lies beyond the scope of the present Amendment, so far as I have been able to understand it.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN

On a point of Order. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has just said that the point which he was reaching would be outside the scope of this Amendment. Would it not be in order, and I suggest for the convenience of the Committee, if the right hon. Gentleman stated now to the Committee what his plans were for working these bodies. It would be a great convenience to the Committee to know at the outset what his intentions were, and then the subsequent Amendments could be disposed of either by way of agreement or disagreement.

The CHAIRMAN

A suggestion of that kind might lead to a complete Second Reading Debate on the Bill. This Amendment, in terms, merely places the duty on local tribunals instead of on the Board of Trade. I think the right hon. Gentleman might assist the Committee by referring generally to the functions of those tribunals.

Sir A. GEDDES

In view of what you, Sir, have said, I shall be very pleased to give a short and brief statement of what I conceive to be the administration of this Bill, if it becomes law, without attempting to go into the whole question completely, because that would take too long. My conception of the machinery which would be set up under this Bill is this. The Board of Trade should appoint a large central tribunal, which I described when I appeared before the Select Committee in words which have been repeated almost exactly in the new Clause (Operations of Trusts), which stands in the name of one of the Whips of the Labour party— There shall be established a tribunal consisting of a person of legal qualifications as permanent chairman, and not less than two or more than seven other members selected by him from time to time from a panel appointed for the purpose by the President of the Board of Trade, after considering nominations made by representative trade organisations, including the co-operative movement and trade unions. That central panel should contain on it persons of expert knowledge in manufacturing processes and in the wholesale and distributing branches of business. That tribunal should have entrusted to it the confidential central investigation with regard to the larger questions, and those investigations should not be carried out in the way that a tribunal sitting to judge a case carries out its work. That investigation should be carried out in co-operation with people whose business was being investigated. We are assured by many people that we would get great help in carrying out such investigations so long as they were confidential. Those investigations would be extremely valuable, and would form a central body of information which would be, through the Board of Trade, at the disposal of the State, if not in detail, in general. In addition, and quite separate from that, we should have local bodies, a committee or tribunal to which individuals who feel themselves aggrieved by prices charged, may appeal, and have the case investigated, and that both these local bodies and the appeal bodies, and the central body, should, if they find any glaring, obvious case of persistent and pernicious profiteering, have the power of prosecuting. That is the conception.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES

Would the local bodies have the power of prosecution?

Sir A. GEDDES

Yes, they would have the power of prosecuting, but not, of course, of judging—that is to say, they would have the power of taking a case to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction in order that it might be dealt with there. If there was an appeal and the Appeal Tribunal believed that the case was one of pernicious profiteering, then it would become the prosecuting authority.

Sir W. PEARCE

Would the prosecution be on their own initiative, without reference to the Board of Trade, and who would pay for the prosecution?

Sir A. GEDDES

The prosecution would be under the authority of the Board of Trade. It would be, in fact and in form, on the responsibility of the President of the Board of Trade that the prosecution would be carried out.

Sir W. PEARCE

There would be the authorisation of the Board of Trade behind them?

Sir A. GEDDES

Yes, that is the position in. the Bill as it stands, but in the case of the small local cases the Board of Trade itself, as such, of course, would be relying upon the investigations made locally.

Mr. JONES

I take it that the local authority would not institute the prosecution until it had the authorisation of the Board of Trade?

Sir A. GEDDES

Oh, no! My hon. Friend has not followed what I have said. I must try and be clearer. The Board of Trade, under the Bill as drafted, has the power of delegating its authority; it may delegate all its authority or. as the Bill stands, it may delegate a part of its authority.

Mr. JONES

What if it delegates all?

Sir A. GEDDES

Then it is quite obvious what is the answer to my hon. Friend—it has delegated all, and the person to whom it is delegated may prosecute.

Mr. JONES

Without consulting the Board of Trade?

Sir A. GEDDES

Yea; on the hypothesis which the hon. Gentleman has put forward.

Sir W. PEARCE

I am sorry, but I do not think it is quite clear now. Suppose the local tribunal, on the evidence, wish to prosecute a particular person, can they do that on their own initiative without reference to the Board of Trade, or must they first refer it to the Board of Trade?

Sir A. GEDDES

If the Board of Trade have delegated their powers, certainly they can prosecute. I hope that is clear. If the Board of Trade have not delegated their powers, they cannot prosecute, and I hope that also is clear. Now the object of the Board of Trade will be to give discretion to these authorities within reasonable limits. It would become perfectly impossible if small cases from all over the country were to be referred to the Board of Trade every time. The administration of such a thing would lead to the creation of what we all want to avoid, namely, a great central bureaucratic staff. My right hon. Friend opposite who spoke last night feared the creation of a great staff, and I would, too, if everything had to be referred back to the Board of Trade, and, there- fore, it is intended, it is contemplated, and as I picture the working of the Bill we should delegate, within limits, the Board's powers or prosecuting. I hope that that is plain. I think it would be obvious to the Committee that there must be some central authority which will act as the shepherd of the flock of sheep—the tribunals which this Bill, if it becomes law, will establish—and it is because of that and because the Amendments standing in the names of my hon. Friends opposite remove and obliterate that, and leave these tribunals independent and without a shepherd, that I think the Committee would not be well advised in accepting them.

Sir D. MACLEAN

We might, I think, have a very useful discussion if it was limited to this simple question of the tribunals, which my right hon. Friend has sketched out with clearness. Would it be in order to discuss that on the Amendment now before the Committee?

The CHAIRMAN

No. It is raised in several Amendments later on, and this Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Thorne)proposes that instead of the Board of Trade all the various local tribunals set up under this Act should carry on the investigations detailed in Clause 1. That is the point before us.

Mr. G. THORNE

I meant by subsequent Amendments that there should be a central tribunal with subordinate tribunals, but I want them to be independent. I think the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman is an improvement on the Bill itself, because in this Clause we have no indication at all of the appointment of this great central Committee, but, while I do not think his explanation is quite satisfactory, I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, as he cannot give me any assistance on the lines I propose.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. HOLMES

I beg to move, to leave out the words "Board of Trade" ["Board of Trade shall have power"], and to insert instead thereof the words "Ministry of Food."

The object of the Amendment is to- substitute the Ministry of Food for the Board of Trade,. and I move it on three grounds, namely, speed, efficiency, and economy. For four years the Ministry of Food have been fixing prices and studying trade, and they have a Costings Department in full working order and an experienced staff which by this time must thoroughly know the intricacies and difficulties of trade. The Board of Trade will have to set up an entirely new Department, entailing a new staff, and there must of necessity, if we have both the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Food doing costings work and the work of fixing prices, be overlapping and duplicating. It was my privilege last year to serve on the Staff Investigation Committee of the Ministry of Munitions, and there one found, despite everything which had been done—and may I say that the findings of that Committee so far as they went were that the Ministry of Munitions was exceedingly well organized—that the costings there were duplicated in many cases, and that there were departments in the same building where a large number of clerks were doing exactly the same kind of work. If you have two Departments, the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Food, both responsible for the same sort of thing, there will be duplication of costings and a large increase of unnecessary staffs. My first point, as I said, is that of speed. The time to check the profiteer is now. There has been far too much time wasted already in getting on his track, and if the Board of Trade have got to set up a Department, to get together a staff, and then begin to consider this matter, it will be months before anything can be done.

I hope I shall not be lacking in modesty when I say that five months ago from these benches I pointed out that, whereas fortunes had been made during the War by profiteers, they were as nothing to the fortunes that were being made then and that would be made during the next few months if nothing was done. Five months have gone past since then, and more months will go past before the Board of Trade can get to work, and the profiteers will still go on, especially those in the wholesale manufacturing trade, rather than the retail trade, for after all it is the merchant and the manufacturer who profiteer in thousands and the retailer who profiteers in sixpences. It is the big man we want to get hold of, but it would be months before the Board of Trade could get on the track of the big man. Therefore, so far as speed is concerned, I suggest that the Ministry of Food can tackle this matter much more quickly. From the efficiency point of view they can also do it, because they are experienced. They have had enormous experience, and they would know what to look for and what to go after in the other articles of consumption in the same way as they have done in regard to the food which is already controlled. The third reason I submit to-the House is the point of view of economy. If the Board of Trade set up this new Department, it must be far more expensive to start a staff than if the Ministry of Food enlarged theirs to whatever extent might be necessary. The Food Controller greatly impressed the Select Committee with the grasp he had of the details of the Department, and the House heard the speech which his assistant, the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. McCurdy) made on the Second Reading of this Bill. An hon. Member behind me says it was the best speech on the Bill. At any rate, I think the House generally felt that he-made for such a Bill an exceedingly able defence. I venture to suggest that in the hands of those two men, who evidently understand their own Department, this work will be well and quickly taken up. The President of the Board of Trade has himself said he has no desire to take this over. He has probably far more work to do than he cares for; and, therefore, I beg to move that the Ministry of Food be substituted for the Board of Trade.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart)

I cannot help thinking that my hon. Friend has moved this Amendment under some misapprehension. Matters which come specially within the province of the Ministry of Food are matters which will be carefully considered under this Bill. Undoubtedly, it is very often in relation to foods-tails and food materials that, in the language of the Preamble, prices are charged which yield "an unreasonable profit to the persona engaged in the production, handling or distribtion" of the articles. But, after all, the Ministry of Food is but a part of a very much larger whole. The Ministry, as such, takes no account, for example of clothing and boots.

Mr. HOLMES

My contention is that the Ministry of Food should, besides food, deal with other things, such as clothing and furniture.

Sir G. HEWART

The hon. Gentleman sees exactly the difficulty which is in the-way of his Amendment, because he is pro- posing to give to an existing Department, with an important but limited sphere of action, a very much larger sphere of action, in order to put it in some such position as that now occupied by the Board of Trade. It is not the Ministry of Food, but the Board of Trade which, at present, has to deal with matters such as boots, furniture, and all the things in common use by great numbers of the population, and, therefore, primâ facie, one would say it is for the more comprehensive Department, unless good reasons are shown to the contrary, to have charge of this particular matter. What are the, reasons that are suggested for substituting the Ministry of Food? It is said that there is in the Ministry of Food a Costings Department. True; and so there is in the Board of Trade, and I do not know if my hon. Friend is aware it has been decided by the Government that there should be one Costings Department bringing to bear at one point the experience of all Departments—one central Costings Department—and, that being so, so far as duplication of offices is concerned, it matters not whether it be the Board of Trade or the Ministry of Food. With regard to speed, there is no difficulty. Once this Bill becomes law, any transaction of the kind which the Bill aims at preventing comes within its scope, and, on complaint being made, investigation—and in a proper case prosecution—will follow. There is no reason to anticipate that there will be any lack of energy in proceeding, and I, entirely fail to see whether, upon the ground of economy, or upon the ground of speech, or upon any of the other grounds my hon. Friend mentioned, there is any sound reason for transferring responsibility under this Bill to the Ministry of Food as against the Board of Trade. On the other hand, the Board of Trade, as members of the Committee are well aware, has a far ampler scope, far more comprehensive subject-matter to deal with than has the Ministry of Food. Whatever information the Ministry of Food has which is of use for this purpose will be at the disposal of the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade, on the other hand, will bring to bear much larger, much more comprehensive, experience than the Ministry of Food can have at command. In these circumstances, this is an Amendment I fear cannot be accepted.

Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS

I hope the Committee will not accept this Amendment, because I think it will be most unfair to a very zealous and an efficient Minister. The Minister appeared before the Committee as late as last Tuesday, and he made it as clear as anyone could do that, in any measures which ought to be introduced against profiteering, these particular methods should not, in his opinion, be adopted. The proposals he made were entirely different from those in this Bill, and, presumably, as this was only two days before the Bill was introduced, and in view of the fact that the President of the Board of Trade says that these proposals had been under long consideration, the possibility of dealing with the matter in this way must have been in the mind of the Minister of Food when he came before the Committee and deliberately abstained from making proposals on these lines. His name is not on the Bill, and there is every evidence that he would not like to be made responsible for administering such a fantastic measure, which introduces into jurisprudence an entirely new method for the twentieth century—a method which really recalls the methods of the Star Chamber. I do not want to make odious comparisons between one Department and another, and I think, if this Bill is to pass, the best thing would be to let this ill-favoured infant be nursed by its own fond parent.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I sympathise very much with everything my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel W. Guinness) said, except when he expressed the hope that the Committee would not accept the Amendment, and I will give an additional reason why it is most desirable at once to put this Bill under the Ministry of Food. The Ministry of Food has done very good work in protecting the consumer. The Board of Trade has done very good, and very necessary, work in protecting the producer. Its activities in the past few months have been principally directed, as the right hon. Gentleman himself said, in nursing the baby, in fostering the production of the very articles as to the high prices of which people are now complaining, and for that reason alone I hope the Amendment will be accepted, and that my hon. Friend will divide upon it if necessary. The Ministry of Food represents the consumer and this is a consumers' protection Bill, bad as it is. Therefore, I wish to support the Amendment.

Dr. D. MURRAY

I rise to support the Amendment. I was interested in the somewhat subtle attempt of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness) co create dissension in the Government he is supposed to support, by setting one Department against another. I quite agree in what he said about the Ministry of Food, which he seemed to think has more administrative wisdom than the Board of Trade. That would be a reason, though it is not one of my reasons, for transferring this work to the Ministry of Food. The Board of Trade have had a chance during the past few years, and they have done very little to protect the public from profiteering, whereas the Ministry of Food have done something in that way, and have acquired a great deal of experience in this sort of work. I think it would be a great pity if that experience should be lost in the new Department. The Food Controller's work has always been above board; he does not keep his policy in a box. That is another reason why, I think, the Food Controller should have this work, instead of the Board of Trade. Criticism has been directed chiefly to the central Department, but I think when we look at the local aspect, the machinery there is also already in being. You have food control committees in almost every locality in the United Kingdom, and you have food executive officers, and why should not the men and women on these committees, who have had great experience in this work, and the executive officers under the Food Ministry, be employed to do this work? It would simply be an extension of their work. Instead of that, this Government not only seems to have a mania for multiplying offices at the centre, but the local authorities are jostling one another at the street corners in running to attend various committees. Why should another tribunal be added to the existing tribunals? I believe in direct action to a certain extent, and here is direct action. We simply go direct to the Food Control Committees and ask them to do this work, and I believe they will do it far more efficiently than any brand new Committee the Board of Trade will set up. I was not at all convinced—I say so with respect—by the arguments of the Attorney-General. They were the conventional arguments. It ought to be obvious to anyone that we have already machinery in existence for dealing with this sort of problem.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES

I hope the Government will not accept this Amend- ment. I am entirely against handing over the work of the Bill to a Minister who disagrees with it, but I am in agreement with the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment in that I do not think it ought to be done by the Board of Trade. I am not so very sure, from all that took place on Second Heading, and from the explanation we heard to-day from the President of the Board of Trade, that he would not be glad to get rid of the whole business. He has said he is already overworked and overburdened. I see he shakes his head, but the suggestion was that he had quite enough to do without the worries and troubles which this Bill will bring. The purpose of the Mover of the Amendment was to find some other machinery for carrying out the duties under this Bill. Other machinery does exist. It is neither the machinery of the Food Ministry nor that of the Board of Trade. The proper machinery for this Bill is the Ministry of Supply. You are going to fix prices and to declare profits, and, unless you can control supplies, you are going to risk the dangers of disaster in all branches of trade. You cannot control prices unless you control supply, and, therefore, I suggest that the proper authority to carry out the provisions of this Bill is the new Ministry which, I think, is in process of creation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

Major E. WOOD

I hope the Government will not yield to the Amendment, for different reasons from those which have been put forward by my hon. Friend (Mr. K. Jones) and my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness). With, regard to the last suggestion, my hon. Friend, I trunk, is sanguine ii he makes the suggestion at all seriously, because the Bill, as he knows, only lasts six months, and it is a pious hope of anyone to believe that the Ministry of Supply will be born before that. I cannot support this Amendment, although I shall be found supporting many Amendments moved from the benches opposite in the course of the Bill. I am bound to say I do not think the Bill is a very good one, and I shall be surprised if it can be improved. The Amendment was moved on grounds of economy and efficiency. I do not believe there is very much in the ground of economy, because only a very few days ago we were assured by the Minister of Food that he reduced the staff so quickly that he found himself very much under-staffed after de-control. There is another ground which, I think, is important. It is quite true, as my hon. Friend (Mr. K. Jones) said, that the whole question will be bound up with the question of supplies. I suppose the Board of Trade, and my right hon. Friend, will be concerned very much with the question of supplies from the point of view of the imports and exports, trusts, trade policy, and all the rest that is bound up with it. On that ground alone I do suggest seriously to the Committee that we will be making a great mistake if at this point we divorce the administration which is only one part of the Ministry of Supply and which naturally falls under the hand of my right hon. Friend.

Colonel GREIG

May I draw attention to one matter which must have escaped every one of these critics of the proposed Amendment? If hon. Members will turn to Clause 5 of the Bill, they will find the following: The powers of the Board of Trade under this Act shall in relation to articles of food to which the Act applies be exercised jointly or in agreement with the Food Controller. So that in the sphere in which the Board acts—

Dr. MURRAY

It does not touch it.

Colonel GREIG

They will be brought in in regard to matters in which the Board of Trade are already controlling. May I just mention to hon. Members that during the War—and I should have thought they would have realised it—one of the most essential things that we had to have control over, and without control of which we might have lost the War, was leather. That control was exercised entirely by the Board of Trade.

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN

I hope the Committee will not accept this Amendment. I think we all agree that profiteering is merely a by-product of the War, and that it would not be caused except, for Government interference, trust manipulations, or labour limitations. If these things were out of the way, profiteering would cease of its own accord. It has got to be put down. I believe the Board of Trade certainly to be the best party to do it. I was very much interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Hull said when he suggested that the Food Ministry should have charge of the matter, because, he said, they represented the interests of the consumers. My opinion is that the Food Ministry represents the interests of the country, and that they have done what is best for the country. I think they have acted in a very businesslike way at the expense of the consumers, because their Report says that they made £13,500,000 last year for the country. I trust the Board of Trade will control this matter.

Mr. NEWBOULD

I hope the hon. Member will press this to a Division. I have one reason, and one reason only, for speaking. I maintain the Board of Trade has not the competence that we require for this matter, whereas, on the other hand, the Ministry of Food, in my opinion, has the entire confidence of the country. I shall hope to improve the measure in Committee. It may be a forlorn hope. It is a very bad measure indeed, and I think this Amendment will be an improvement. If we can improve the measure it will be better administered by the Ministry of Food; if we cannot improve it, then, by all means, leave it to its parents, so that odium of its failure shall react on its author.

Sir H. NIELD

In this Debate one thing has been lost sight of by hon. Members opposite, and that is that this is a question purely of impartiality. We are now putting forward proposals which will set up bodies, and result ultimately in proceedings under the Criminal Law. Under those circumstances you want to be perfectly impartial. What would have been said in this House if, when the Military Service Acts were passing through Committee, it had been proposed to set up a tribunal composed of people from the War Office and Admiralty to deal with the matter, instead of doing what was done, putting the matter under the purview of the Local Government Board, as a perfectly independent Department of State? The Food Controller may have done his work excellently. I am not here to say anything on that point—

Dr. MURRAY

Is he not impartial?

Sir H. NIELD

I am not so sure! When a man makes £13,500,000 can he be said to be impartial? Whoever administers this matter, I submit, ought to have the confidence of the whole country. It is all very well to condemn this Bill as a bad one. Something is necessary. Even if the Bill only results in the setting up of these tribunals, those concerned may be frightened into some more righteous courses, and make it unnecessary to pro- ceed still further. The Bill, as it is, is the best that can be done at this moment, and I for one hope it will go into every ramification of trade—wholesale, retail, and every conceivable avenue. I think the persons who administer it ought to be above reproach, and not be connected with the Food Ministry, or to be carrying on business of a similar sort.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. WARREN

I would express my profound surprise that much of what has been said was not said on Second Reading. "It is a bad Bill," say some; "It is a good Bill," say others; "Nothing could be done better," say some; whilst other raise their hands and say the whole thing is past praying for. We all know full well there will be "snags" in this Bill which is dealing with an acute situation, which is causing a great deal of unrest, and has forced upon this House—

Major LLOYD GREAME

Ought not this speech to have been made, Mr. Whitley, on the Second Reading?

The CHAIRMAN

That quite expresses my view.

Sir A. WARREN

I wanted to say that a large number of us will support the Government in the proposal that this Department shall be dealt with by the Board of Trade. We believe it to be a right and proper thing. The Department has regard to the trade of the whole country in every particular, as had been pointed out by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who referred to leather. The Department has to touch everything. [An HON. MEMBER: "The leather?"] I have yet to learn that leather comes under the purview of the Food Controller! [Laughter.] It is very delightful on this warm afternoon to find the House in such a humourous mood, and it can only augur very well for the speedy passing of this measure. I want the Department that has to do with the trade of the entire country to have within its keeping this question of profiteering. Implicit confidence as we have in the Food Controller—many of us have worked in helping in our local areas—yet we feel that the right and proper thing to do is to put this under the control of the Board of Trade. I use this argument for one reason. I am very hopeful that the Board of Trade, when charged with this responsibility, will take steps to call the attention of the country to the fact that this question of profiteering is very largely in the hands of the people themselves, and that if they were only wise and reasonable and—

The CHAIRMAN

I am afraid the hon. Member is going into a general argument.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. A. SHORT

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "article" ["in respect of any article "], to insert the words "or the rent of any shop."

I desire to extend the sphere of activity of the authority in this matter, in view of the fact that I believe I have amplecases to prove that there is an extraordinary amount of profiteering going on in connection with the rents of shops and business premises.

Mr. JONES

On a point of Order. Does this Amendment come within the scope of the Bill, having regard to the Preamble? Is not this Amendment quite out of order? The Preamble, of the Bill deals with articles produced and the handling and distribution of such articles. Surely, the rent of a shop is not an article?

The CHAIRMAN

The Preamble of a Bill is governed by the Bill, and not the Bill by the Preamble. I looked carefully at this Amendment, but I did not feel able to say that it was outside the scope of the word "profiteering." The Committee must decide.

Mr. JONES

Does not the whole principle of the Bill relate to articles?

Sir F. LOWE

May I suggest, Mr. Whitley, that the question of the rent of shops and other premises is already settled and profiteering prevented by the various Rent Acts which have been passed?

The CHAIRMAN

That really is a question that the Committee must deal with, not myself. I find no warrant for saying that this Amendment is outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. JONES

Surely—on another point of Order—under Sub-section (5) of Clause 1, the articles are clearly defined to which this Bill applies? This Amendment cannot possibly come under that Sub-section 1

The CHAIRMAN

The Committee is not bound by that Sub-section till it is passed. The title of the Bill is a very wide one—"to check profiteering."

Mr. JONES

I was only wishing to save the time of the House.

Mr. SHORT

I was saying before I was interrupted so unnecessarily that there is indeed an enormous amount of profiteering going on in connection with the fixing of rents of shops and business premises. The rapacity of the landlords is well-known to the House in view of the fact that the House has had to deal, by various pieces of legislation, with the activities of this class of the community. It appears to me there is great hardship being created for the tenants on the one hand, and, obviously, the tenants pass, or attempt to pass, on in some way their increased rent: consequently the increase of rent, in my opinion, adds to the prices, and also to profiteering. I am assured on very good evidence that in the East End of London, where most shops are let on weekly tenancies, the increase of rent has been enormous. All these traders, I am assured, are beyond the limits of the Rent Act which this House has passed. I also have here a communication from one of the biggest manufacturing firms in this country which has in the provinces a number of retail shops, and they tell me that they have received a communication from one of the landlords to this effect: I have received a definite offer of a considerably increased rent from a firm for the shop now occupied by you. And the letter goes on to ask what this firm is prepared to pay for the retention of possession of the shop in view of this offer. If these facts are correct, and I have no reason to doubt them, it is essential and desirable that the inquiry should go far beyond the provisions laid down in this Bill.

5.0 P.M.

Sir G. HEWART

Undoubtedly, the provisions of the Bill do not govern the Preamble, and the terms of the Preamble do not govern the provisions of the Bill. My hon. Friend is aware that the change he is proposing is one of a very fundamental character. Whether one looks at the Preamble or the provisions of the Bill it is obvious that what is being dealt with is profiteering in articles being produced, handled, and distributed. The words of this Amendment would have the effect of making Clause I read: Subject to the provisions of this Act the Board of Trade shall have power in respect of any article or the rent of any shop to which this Act applies. The Act does not apply to the rent of any shop, and we should have a series of consequential Amendments dealing with the kind of shops and the amount of rents to which it is proposed to apply the Act. I submit that this Bill has already got a sufficiently difficult subject matter, and the Committee ought not at this stage to introduce the question as to the proper rents for business premises, and to introduce that subject into this measure would only complicate matters and delay the passage of the Bill.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

I do not think the Attorney-General has quite appreciated the effect of Sub-section (5) of Clause 1, which says: This Act applies to any article or class of articles to which it is applied by Order of the Board of Trade. If this Amendment wore carried, it would not unduly widen the scope of the Bill, nor would the difficulty about the class of shops come in, because the Board of Trade would be able to select the rentals and the class of shops to which it applies. It is extremely important that no form of profiteering should escape from the provisions of this measure. You already have a number of people complaining that they are being singled out for penalties, and it would create a very bad impression if landlords were allowed to escape. I can imagine the feeling of the country against the deliberate action of the House of Commons in exempting that class, and it will not redound to the credit of the Committee or the Government if such an exemption is allowed. Surely a Bill intended to deal with profiteering in articles must include a shop which is produced by labour, which is capable of having its price forced up owing to the increased cost of production, with the result that the occupier of a shop paying £25 a year finds his rent being pushed up to £50 or £75 a year. You are getting every day gross cases where men are not only being penalised in business, but actually being driven out of their shops, which are being handed over to somebody else, solely by profiteering in shop property. If there is one class of profiteering worse than another, it is that which is enforced against the small shopkeeper, because it tends to fall upon the shoulders of the community or else it drives the shopkeeper out of the business. Therefore, I hope that the Government will include profiteering in shops and thus convey to the country some form of uni- formity and justice instead of exempting a particular class. I hope my hon. Friend will press his Amendment to a Division, and if he does I shall support him in the Lobby, for I am sure it will be extremely unpopular to vote against this Amendment.

Colonel GREIG

It is not so much the shop owner and the small shopkeeper who are suffering from profiteering, but the middle classes. We have relieved a particular class by the restrictions already in force, and in the case of small dwellings the House of Commons imposed proper restrictions. While I agree that this is not the proper Bill to move such an Amendment as this, I am decidedly of opinion that the time is coming when the Government should consider the question of raising the limit under the Rent Restrictions Act or else of establishing a Land Court or Rent Court to which people can go who think they are being unduly taken advantage of and exploited in this way. It has come within my own knowledge during the last few weeks that cases have occurred where men have received notices to quit in regard to their shops, and the same applies to their private residences held on short leases. The thing is becoming widespread, and in these cases 50 per cent. was added to the rent. It is time this kind of thing should come to an end, and I think the middle classes ought to have a say in this matter. Food and everything else has gone up in price, and although rents are quite safe they are being increased 50 and even 100 per cent. I agree, however, that this is not the right place to deal with the matter, and as a lawyer I realise that it must be done under the Rents Restriction Act or by the constitution of a Rent Court.

Mr. N. MACLEAN

When the hon. and gallant Member says that a Land Court is the best way out of the difficulty, may I remind him that the provisions of this Bill are equal to the powers of a Land Court? The rents of shops, particularly in the poorer parts of large towns, add considerably to the cost of the articles sold by the individual who owns that shop, because they have to be taken into account in calculating the expenses, and in fixing the price at which he or she intends to sell commodities in that shop. It all has to come out of the cost of the articles on sale, and any increase of rent that is put forward by a landlord undoubtedly affects the price of the commodities sold, and consequently to strike at that is also to strike at the profiteering that is going on.

Mr. T. THOMSON

I want to ask whether my Amendment fixing maximum wholesale and retail prices will be out of order if this Amendment is rejected?

The CHAIRMAN

I think so.

Mr. THOMSON

I take it that my Amendment covers a much wider field, and this Amendment refers only to the lent of shops. The Amendment specifies, first, that costs shall include a rent—that i3 to say, rent not merely of a shop but rent on royalties. I think the whole question of costs should be included in, that way. I think you are narrowing very much indeed the interpretation of the term "profiteering" as understood in the country, and I think it would be most unfortunate if this Bill at the outset does not command the confidence of the country as a whole. Although we are including the cost of wages and other things, we are refusing to include the cost of land, which really is at the root of reduced production, and which surely is also at the root of high costs and profiteering. We have been told repeatedly that the real cure is increased production, and how can you get that unless you are going to prevent profiteering in land as well as in other things? It seems to me that in a measure of this sort you want to have wider powers in order that the whole question of profiteering shall be taken into consideration, and in order that no section of the community shall be penalised at the expense of the other. I regret that the question of rents will not be included in profiteering under this Bill.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

Surely this Amendment will not rule out my Amendment to include land, minerals, etc.? I understood that this Amendment was dealing with the question of the rent of shops.

The CHAIRMAN

That will depend upon what the present decision may be. If the Committee decides this point in the negative I cannot go on taking similar Amendments, although they may vary in magnitude.

Major BARNES

The Committee is really up against an important point, and on this Amendment it has to decide whether rent, as part of the cost of an article shall be excluded from this Bill. If that is not so, I do not quite see why a decision on this Amendment should rule out the wider Amendment of my hon. Friend who wishes the question of rent, interest, and insurance to be explicitly mentioned in the Bill as part of the cost of an article. They are implicitly there, but the object of that. Amendment is to have them explicitly named, and that is rather important, because this is an inquiry of extraordinary magnitude set up under extraordinary conditions. I observe that there is an Amendment down to insert after the word "cost" the word "wages,'' and that appears to be a right tiling to do.

The CHAIRMAN

It appears to me that both, those cases of wages and of rent and insurance are necessarily covered by the word "costs," and that it would be only superfluous to move the Amendments. In fact, they might possibly defeat the object on view by leaving out something.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

Does not that really mean that these questions have to be considered when a case of profiteering in an article came up? We seek by this-and other Amendments to provide that profiteering in land, rent, or shops shall also be a subject which may be brought before die tribunal. The statement from the Chair merely means that these- things will be considered when profiteering in an article occurs, but we want profiteering in Land itself to be punishable.

The CHAIRMAN

That is a point on which the present Amendment differs from the one to which reference has been made.

Major BARNES

We arc very anxious that it should be quite clear that this question of rent is not excluded. Some of us thought that the decision to be taken on this Amendment would exclude the question of rent, but we have now got information of some value on the point.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

I am not quite happy about this matter yet. If this Amendment is negatived, I understand that it will negative the question as to whether profiteering in land is to be included in the Bill. If the Committee vote against this Amendment and turn it down, it will mean that landlords can profiteer as much as they like and can selltheir land at 400 and 500 years' purchase and yet be exempt from the; Bill. They cannot be brought before the tribunal or dealt with in any way under this Bill, if this Amendment is turned down. In that ease, there-is all the more need why everybody who has the slightest belief in the fairness and justice of this House should support this Amendment. I cannot imagine a Bill being passed dealing with everybody else and leaving out the landlord, who, notoriously, has made the most profit out of the land. It seems to me perfectly monstrous to exempt the landlord, although we do not exempt the brewer. Every other profession and every other form of occupation is roped in under this Bill, and the only person excluded is the landlord. If that is the sort of legislation which this House likes, I think the country will give them a rude awakening.

Question put: "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 66; Noes, 198.

Division No. 95.]	AYES.	[5.20 p.m.
Darnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)	Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)	Ross, Frank H.
Beauchamp, Sir Edward	Hartshorn, V.	Rowlands, James
Bell, James (Ormskirk)	Hirst, G. H.	Royce, William Stapleton
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Holmes, J. S.	Sexton, James
Brace, Rt. Hon. William	Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)	Shaw, Tom (Preston)
Briant, F.	Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander	Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)
Bromfield, W.	Kenyon, Barnet	Spencer, George A.
Cairns, John	Kiley, James Daniel	Swan, J. E. C.
Cape, Tom	Lunn, William	Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)
Carter, W. (Mansfield)	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)	Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothlan)	Thorne,G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Crooks, Rt. Hon. William	Mallalieu, Frederick William	Thorn, Colonel W. (Plaistow)
Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)	Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)	Walsh, S. (Ince, Lancs.)
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)	Newbould, A. E.	Wedgwood, Col. Josiah C.
Dawes, J. A.	Onions, Alfred	Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)
Edwards, C. (Bedwelty)	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Williams, J (Gower, Glam.)
Entwistle, Major C. F.	Pearce, Sir William	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Gardiner, J. (Perth)	Rae, H. Norman	Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)
Gilbert, James Daniel	Raffan, Peter Wilson	Yeo, Sir Alfred William
Gould, J. C.	Rees, Captain J. Tudor (Barnstaple)	Young, William (Perth and Kinross)
Graham, W. (Edinburgh)	Rendall, Atheistan
Grundy, T. W.	Richardson, R. (Houghton)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr
Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York)	Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)	A, Short and Mr. T. Griffiths.
NOES.
Adair, Rear-Admiral	Fraser, Major Sir Keith	Nicholl, Com. Sir Edward
Agg.-Gardner, Sir James Tynte	Gardner, E. (Berks, Windsor)	Nlcholson, W. (Petersfield)
Ainsworth, Captain C.	Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)	Nield, Sir Herbert
Baird, John Lawrence	Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham	Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Baldwin, Stanley	Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John	Palmer, Brig.-General G. (Westbury)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir E. A.	Parker, James
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.	Grant, James Augustus	Parry, Lt.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, S.)	Gray, Major E.	Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Barnett, Major Richard W.	Greame, Major P. Lloyd	Perkins, Walter Frank
Barnston, Major Harry	Green, J. F. (Leicester)	Perring, William George
Barrand, A. R.	Greig, Colonel James William	Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray
Beck, Arthur Cecil	Griggs, Sir Peter	Pratt, John William
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)	Gritten, W. G. Howard	Prescott, Major W. H.
Bellairs, Cam. Carlyon W.	Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E. (B. St. E.)	Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)	Hacking, Captain D. H.	Pulley, Charles Thornton
Betterton, H. B.	Hailwood, A.	Purchase, H. G.
Birchall, Major J. D.	Hallas, E.	Raeburn, Sir William
Bird, Alfred	Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)	Ratcliffe, Henry Butler
Blades, Sir George R.	Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon	Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr.
Blair, Major Reginald	Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.	Remnant, Colonel Sir James
Borwick, Major G. O.	Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)	Renwick, G.
Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.	Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.	Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)
Brackenbury, Captain H. L.	Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)	Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Bridgeman, William Clive	Howard, Major S. G.	Rogers, Sir Hallewell
Briggs, Harold	Hughes, Spencer Leigh	Roundell, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.
Britton, G. B.	Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)	Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)
Broad, Thomas Tucker	Hurd, P. A.	Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur
Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)	Hurst, Major G. B.	Seager, Sir William
Brown, T. W. (Down, N.)	Inskip, T. W. H.	Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)
Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.	Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)	Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.	Jameson, Major J. G.	Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James	Jodrell, N. P.	Simm, Colonel M. T
Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Alan Hughes	Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)	Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Butcher, Sir J. G.	Kellaway, Frederick George	Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Campbell, J. G. D.	Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr	Stephenson, Colonel H. K.
Campion, Colonel W. R.	Kidd, James	Stevens, Marshall
Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)	King, Commander Douglas	Stewart, Gershom
Casey, T. W.	Knights, Captain H.	Sutherland, Sir William
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)	Larmor, Sir J.	Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)
Chadwick, R. Burton	Law, A. J, (Rochdale)	Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)
Clough, R.	Law. Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)	Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (M'yhl)
Clyde, James Avon	Lindsay, William Arthur	Tickler, Thomas George
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Lister, Sir R. Ashton	Townley, Maximilan G.
Cockerill, Brig.-General G. K.	Lloyd, George Butler	Tryon Major George Clement
Colvin, Brig-Gen. R. B.	Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)	Waddington, R.
Conway, Sir W. Martin	Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)	Wallace, J.
Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter	Walton, J. (York, Don Valley)
Cory, Sir James Herbert (Cardiff)	Lort-Williams, J.	Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Univ.)	Loseby, Captain C. E.	Ward. Colonel L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Cozens-Hardy, Hon. W. H.	Lowe, Sir F. W.	Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.
Cralk, Right Hon. Sir Henry	M'Curdy, Charles Albert	Warren, Sir Alfred H.
Curzon, Commander Viscount	M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)	Weston, Colonel John W.
Dalziel, Sir Davison (Brixton)	Maemaster, Donald	Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.
Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.	McMicking, Major Gilbert	Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Davison, T. (Cirencester)	Macquisten, F. A.	Wild, Sir Ernest Edward
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)	Maddocks, Henry	Winfrey, Sir Richard
Dennis, J. W.	Malone, Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)	Wolmer, Viscount
Dewhurst, Lieut-Com. H.	Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)	Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)
Doyle, N. Grattan	Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.	Woolcock, W. J. U.
Du Pre, Colonel W. B.	Mitchell, William Lane-	Worsfold, T. Cato
Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)	Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz	Yate, Col. Charles Edward
Eyres-Monsell, Commander	Moreing, Captain Algernon H.	Young. Sir F. W. (Swindon)
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray	Murchison, C. K.	Younger, Sir George
Farquharson, Major A. C.	Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)
Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue	Murray, William (Dumfries)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E.
Forestier-Walker, L.	Nail, Major Joseph	Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.
Fexcroft, Captain C.	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)

Mr. G. THORNE

I beg to move, in Subsection (1, a), after the word "investigate," to insert the word "publicly."

I anticipated this Amendment in moving my first Amendment, when I indicated that it was vitally necessary to make this Bill in any way a success that there should be an inquiry, and that the proceedings should, as far as possible, be in public. I did not get any satisfaction with regard to the first part, but as to the second, the hon. Gentleman was good enough to say he thought I was right. I should only be wasting the time of the House if I were to speak further until I know more of the right hon. Gentleman's intentions.

Sir A. GEDDES

I do not think, and I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, that this is the proper place to bring in any Amendment with regard to reporting the proceedings before the tribunals. The proper place would be on Clause 4, where I shall be prepared to consider whether it is possible, should the House think fit, to move an Amendment which would have the effect of making it possible for cases that are raised on complaint, but not cases raised on the initiative of the Board itself, to be dealt with in public should the tribunal deem it expedient. But where the actual investigation is by the Board of Trade itself then I do not think such a provision should apply.

Mr. HOLMES

The proposal of the President of the Board of Trade is that the people who come before the local tribunals, and in the main it will be the small shop-keeping class, should have their cases heard in public, whereas the Board of Trade's complaints against the merchant and the wholesaler will be dealt with in private.

Sir A. GEDDES

I am sure my hon. Friend does not desire to speak under a misapprehension. That is not what I propose, nor did I say it. I said that at the stage where there was an investigation proceeding on the initiative of the Board there could be no publicity until the evidence was complete, as otherwise serious injury might result, but where the complaint is made, whether it be against the smallest profiteer or the largest then there should be an arrangement for publicity if the tribunal investigating the case thinks fit. I also said that at the end of the investigation, as provided in the Bill, where there is a prosecution there shall be full publicity and also when the decision is given.

Mr. HOLMES

I think that, in effect, what I stated was correct. No investigations can be made until a complaint is forthcoming either from the Board of Trade or from an individual. With all due respect to the Attorney-General—

Sir G. HEWART

There are two ways in which an investigation may be started, one is by complaint, the other is by the initiative by the Board of Trade, which initiative does not necessarily take the form of complaint.

Mr. HOLMES

Of course, I accept what my right hon. and learned Friend says, that these cases can be tried either on the complaint of the individual or on the initiative of the Board of Trade. But in how many cases are we going to have complaints made against the merchant or the manufacturer? The manufacturer or the retailer is not going to lodge a complaint against the merchant, and the retailer is not going to lodge a complaint against the manufacturer if he can make a reasonable profit for himself however exorbitant the charges of the manufacturer or merchant may be. More than that, it the retailer made a complaint against the manufacturer or the merchant he would be a marked man, and he would have against him, not only that particular merchant or manufacturer but every other manufacturer and every other merchant in the same trade or in the same market, and they would all refuse to supply him. In these days -when the supply is leas than the demand the retailer, except in the case of the goods which are rationed, depends for his supplies on the favour of the manufacturers or the merchant. Should he lodge a complaint against either of them he might very easily ruin himself in the process. Few will care to take the risk, and the result will be that the Board of Trade will have itself to initiate proceedings, and under those circumstances, as I understand it, the President suggests that these cases shall be heard privately and that only when complaint is made should they be heard publicly. [Sir A. GEDDES dissented.] What it comes down to is this, that when the complaint is made against the retailer it will be heard in public, but when the Board of Trade initiates proceedings against either a merchant or a, manufacturer they will be heard" in private.

Lord R. CECIL

I think the hon. Member who last spoke is under a misapprehension. In my opinion the Government are right in the line they have taken, that is supposing I accurately understand their policy, although I admit it is very difficult to be quite sure about it as the Bill is drafted. It is, I am afraid, rather obscure. But if I understand the Bill rightly, it has two quite separate objects—one is to make an investigation all over the country into the costs, and so on, of particular articles with a view of ascertaining in a general way what is the reason for the rise in prices. That inquiry may furnish material for any further legislation or further measures that ought to be taken. My right hon. Friend said, and I think quite fairly, that with respect to that investigation there ought at any rate to be a presumption that it is going to be private, because undoubtedly you are going to investigate the private trading affairs of the whole trading community in. this country. It may be a very laborious and it may be a. very harassing inquiry, but it would be impossible to make any investigation into prices if it were known it is going to be public. Then there is a quite separate object, and as far as I can see, in the case where a complaint is made, that complaint can be made either by a private individual or by the Board of Trade. I think, however, you will not be able to hit the large trader, the rings and the trusts who are the worst offenders in this respect, unless you have publicity. You will only hit the miserable little profiteering village shopkeeper. You will not hit those big trusts which are causing such great injury to the public at this moment.

There may, I understand, in regard to this be something in the nature of a trial, and if I may be permitted to say so I thought it was a great blot on this Bill as originally drawn that that which amounts practically to a trial should be held in private. It is quite true, if you are going to have proceedings as a result of these inquiries then those proceedings will be in public, but I do not think my right hon. Friend has quite appreciated—and at any rate nothing he has said has shown his appreciation of the point—that the whole mischief may be done before you get to the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. If hon. Members will read paragraph 2 of Sub-section (b) of Clause I it will be found, for instance, that the seller may be required to repay to the complainant any amount paid by the complainant in excess of a price which would yield a reasonable profit. That may be, as I understand, part of the original inquiry. In fact, that particular transaction may end in an order requiring the repayment of certain moneys by the seller. That really is a very serious matter. It may be some of these small people will be brought up and charged with having sold at excessive prices. They have to defend it. They fail to make good their defence. But the only question which will be left for trial will merely be whether the retailer has complied with the Order made by the Board of Trade. The defendant will not be allowed to go into the question before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction whether or not the price is a fair price, because that will have been decided by the inquiry before the local tribunal. There will be no revision at all of that decision. I think that all the pro- ceedings should be in public absolutely unless there is some specific reason for holding them in private. There, may be the grossest hardship to the trader unless you have that publicity for the protection of everybody concerned. I hope my right hon. Friend will give full satisfaction on that point. I would like to point out how the confusion arises. There are, I repeat, two entirely separate objects. One is to make an investigation into the general rise of prices, and the second is to provide a means of hitting individual profiteers. These are two entirely different kinds of procedure. They will have nothing whatever to do with each other. One is in the nature of a trial and the other in the nature of an inquiry, and I hope my right hon. Friend will agree that proceedings which are in the nature of a trial shall have the utmost publicity. The inquiry into prices ought to be, generally speaking, a private inquiry like, for instance, the Census of Production. I venture to think my hon. Friends opposite are wrong in the view they have taken, and that it would be well for them to accept the offer of the Government, providing, of course, it can be made clear.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I find myself very reluctantly in disagreement with the Noble Lord who has just spoken, and I base that disagreement solely on the Report of the Committee on Trusts made to the Home Secretary, and produced in April last, although unfortunately no steps whatever appear to have been taken in the matter until clamour produced this hasty, ill-framed, and, as we believe, ineffectual Bill. This Report lays it down as desirable that every means should be provided whereby the fullest information as to the activities of trade associations may be made available to the public so that they may be thoroughly and promptly investigated, so as to get rid of all doubts and suspicions, and secure the true facts as to the evils for which a remedy is required. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Food Ministry himself, in a very admirable speech made on the Second Reading, insisted on publicity for all proceedings against either rings or combines. I shall be very glad to hear how we are to get this publicity if the trial of these big rings is to take place in private. I do not believe the man in the street will accept any such proposal.

Sir. YOUNG

think the Bill is pretty clear as drawn, and if hon. Members will look at the Amendment tabled by the President of the Board of Trade later on, in which he gives himself power to initiate proceedings following upon an investigation started by the Board of Trade, I think they will see that the two objects are clearly distinguished. As the Bill is drawn, under paragraph (a) the Board of Trade limit themselves simply to an investigation, and the matter more or less stops there as regards the powers under this Bill. But under the Amendment which will be proposed they will be able to follow with a prosecution, just as they or the local tribunals can, following upon an investigation in regard to a. complaint under paragraph (b). I find it difficult to contend against the argument that has been adduced against publicity, but at the same time I feel that publicity is of enormous importance in connection with this Bill, not only for the purpose of checking profiteering, but for the purposes of education. It would be an immense advantage to our people as a whole, and the best possible lesson in economics, if they could be made to appreciate, on evidence obtained in the most public manner, the real factors which arc producing the increased costs which we have to bear to-day. Hon. Members will notice that under Clause 4 the information obtained at the Board of Trade inquiry is to be entirely confidential, although there is a proviso which enables them to publish findings.

I am afraid that official findings will have comparatively little weight with the people we want to educate. They approach official opinions and findings with some amount of suspicion, which we do not want. I would risk the possible damage which a public inquiry might do to the complex trade of this country for the greater advantage, at this particular juncture, of educating our people in what are the factors in the cost of articles today. The idea is not at all new. Price-fixing measures, very similar to this, have been in existence in Australia for two or three years. I do not know that they have been satisfactory in all respects, but I know that they have yielded results, and the publicity aspect of the question in regard to those Acts has been beneficial. May I give the Committee a single instance? It is not an uncommon factor in a, new country to say that you sell an article—boots, for instance—under the title that it is produced in another country. An English boot or an American boot commands support. The consequence is that one sees the shops filled with boots made in America or boots made in England at very enhanced prices. There was a public inquiry in Australia under a Bill very similar to this, and it soon transpired, under a vigorous cross-examination, that practically none of those boots were made in England or in the United States. Very shortly after the fact became known, there was a universal writing down in prices throughout the boot shops in that country. That is an instance where publicity was immediately beneficial in curing profiteering. I look at the investigation under paragraph (a) as being not so much a means of checking profiteering, but as a means of informing the public, in the first place, of what the trusts are doing, so that public opinion may have very effective weight in that direction, and also of informing the public, especially a certain section of the public, how much they themselves individually contribute to high costs, so that they may realise that they cannot continually ask for increased wages and shorter hours and ignore the question of production, and at the same time ask Parliament to keep down the price of commodities which they wish to buy.

Sir F. LOWE

We shall all agree with the remarks of the hon. Member as to the desirability of making the proceedings public, but the point is at what stage should they be made public? There is a good deal of confusion of thought as to the effect of this Amendment. I would call the attention of the Committee to the fact that it only asks that the proceedings in the preliminary investigation—that is the proceedings referred to in paragraph (a)—should be made public. To that the answer of the President of the Board of Trade is conclusive. He says that these investigations are of a general nature into the general trade of the country to see whether there is anything in the nature of genera] profiteering. It stands to reason that those investigations should be of a confidential character. If they result in a complaint being lodged or a trial being held, that is a very different matter. I quite agree that those proceedings should be held in public, but for the present we are not considering that at all; we are only dealing with paragraph (a). There should be no two opinions about the fact of these preliminary investigations being of a confidential character.

Sir G. HEWART

May I add one word upon the scheme of the Bill as it will be with the Amendment hereafter to be proposed by my right hon. Friend? There are three distinct things which are contemplated. The first is the general investigation of prices, costs, and profits; the second is the investigation of complaints, leading, it may be, to some or other of the consequences mentioned in the Bill; and the third is the taking of proceedings before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, arising out of either an investigation under paragraph (a) or an investigation of a complaint under paragraph (b). So far as publicity is concerned, what we propose to do by way of meeting the representations that have been made is to give publicity to the investigation of complaints under paragraph (b) and publicity to proceedings under the new Sub-section (2) where those proceedings arise either from the general investigation under paragraph (a) or from the investigation of complaints under paragraph (b). I should have thought that that suggestion would have met all the reasonable requirements of publicity.

Mr. G. THORNE

As I did not say anything in moving the Amendment, perhaps

I may say a word in regard to the position. I do not agree that what the Attorney-General has said meets the case I have in mind. I am a member of the High Prices Committee, and, as we have decided to carry on our deliberations in public, it seems that very much of what is comprised in the inevstigation under paragraph (a) ought also to be public. I quite concede that there might be certain special delicate cases which should be relieved of publicity, but, taking the matter generally, if the public are to have confidence in these tribunals or Committees, and are to trust to their findings, the general survey and investigation will have to be in public. Therefore, this Amendment is one that ought to be accepted. I do not wish to labour it or to obstruct in the slightest degree, but I submit that in the public interest it is the only safe course to follow, except in individual cases where there might be danger resulting to-an individual, that the whole investigation should be made in public.

Question put, "That the word 'publicly ' be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 51; Noes, 212.

Division No. 96]	AYES.	[5.56 p. m.
Bell, James (Ormskirk)	Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)	Rose, Frank H.
Benn, Capt. W. (Leith)	Hirst, G. H.	Royce, William Stapleton
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W	Hogge, J. M.	Sexton, James
Briant, F.	Holmes, J. S.	Shaw, Tom (Preston)
Bromfield, W.	Jones, J. (Silvertown)	Short, A. (Wednesbury)
Cairns, John	Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)	Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)
Cape, Tom	Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander	Smith, W. (Wellingborough)
Carter, W. (Mansfield)	Kenyon, Barnet	Spencer, George A.
Crooks, Rt. Hon. William	Lunn, William	Swan, J. E. C.
Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan.)	Thorne, Col. W. (Plaistow)
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)	Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)	Walsh, S. (Ince, Lancs.)
Dawes, J. A.	Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)	Wignall, James
Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)	Newbould, A. E.	Williams, J. (Gower, Glam.)
Entwistle, Major C. F.	Onions, Alfred	Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)
Finney, Samuel	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)
Graham, W. (Edinburgh)	Raffan, Peter Wilson
Grundy, T. W.	Richardson, R. (Houghton)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York)	Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)	G. Thorne and Mr. T. Wilson.
NOES.
Adair, Rear-Admiral	Blair, Major Reginald	Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte	Borwick, Major G. O.	Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Ainsworth, Captain C.	Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.	Clough, R.
Baird, John Lawrence	Brackenbury, Captain H. L.	Cobb, Sir Cyril
Baldwin, Stanley	Bridgeman, William Clive	Cockerill, Brig-General G. K.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Briggs, Harold	Colvin, Brig -Gen. R. B.
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.	Britton, G. B.	Conway, Sir W. Martin
Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, S.)	Broad, Thomas Tucker	Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)
Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)	Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)	Cory, Sir James Herbert (Cardiff)
Barnett, Major Richard W.	Brown, T. W. (Down, N.)	Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Univ.)
Barnston, Major Harry	Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.	Cozens-Hardy, Hon. W. H.
Barrand, A. R.	Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.	Craik, Right Hon, Sir Henry
Beauchamp, Sir Edward	Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James	Croft, Brig.-General Henry Page
Back, Arthur Cecil	Butcher, Sir J. G.	Curzon, Commander Viscount
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)	Campbell, J. G. D.	Dalziel, Sir Davison (Brixton)
Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)	Campion, Col. W. R.	Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.
Betterton, H. B.	Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)	Davies, T. (Cirencester)
Birchall, Major J. D.	Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)	Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)
Bird, Alfred	Casey, T. W.	Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)
Denison-Pender, John C.	King, Commander Douglas	Raper, A. Baldwin
Dennis, J. W.	Knights, Captain H.	Ratcliffe, Henry Butler
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H.	Larmor, Sir J.	Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr.
Doyle, N. Grattan	Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)	Rees, Captain J. Tudor (Barnstaple)
Du Pre, Colonel W. B.	Lindsay, William Arthur	Remer, J. B.
Edge, Captain William	Lister, Sir R. Ashton	Rendall, Atheistan
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)	Lloyd, George Butler	Renwick, G.
Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)	Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)	Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)
Eyres-Monsell, Commander	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter	Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray	Lorden, John William	Rogers, Sir Hallewell
Farquharson, Major A. C.	Lort-Williams, J.	Roundell, Lieut.-Colonel R, F.
FitzRoy, Capt. Han. Edward A.	Loseby, Captain C. E.	Rowlands, James
Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue	Lowe, Sir F. W.	Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)
Foxcroft, Captain C.	M'Curdy, Charles Albert	Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur
Fraser, Major Sir Keith	M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)	Seager, Sir William
Gardiner, J. (Perth)	McMicking, Major Gilbert	Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Gardner, E. (Berks, Windsor)	Macquisten, F. A.	Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N' castle-on-T., W)
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C (Basingstoke)	Maddocks, Henry	Simm, Colonel M. T
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham	Mallalieu, Frederick William	Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Gilbert, James Daniel	Malone, Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)	Stanier, Captain Sir Beville
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John	Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)	Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Glyn, Major R.	Marks, Sir George Croydon	Stephenson, Colonel H. K.
Grant, James Augustus	Matthews, David	Stevens, Marshall
Gray Major E.	Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.	Stewart, Gershom
Greame, Major P. Lloyd	Mitchell, William Lane-	Sugden, W. H.
Green, J. F. (Leicester)	Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz	Sutherland, Sir William
Greig, Col. James William	Morden, Col. H. Grant	Talbot, G. A. (Hamel Hempstead)
Griggs, Sir Peter	Moreing, Captain Algernon H.	Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)
Gritten, W. G. Howard	Morison, T. B. (Inverness)	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)
Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W.E. (B. St. E.)	Murchison, C. K.	Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (M'yhl)
Hacking, Captain D. H.	Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)	Tickler, Thomas George
Hailwood, A.	Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)	Townley, Maximilan G.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)	Murray, William (Dumfries)	Tryon, Major George Clement
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon	Nail, Major Joseph	Ward-Jackson, Major O. L.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel F.	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)	Ward, Colonel L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)	Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)	Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.	Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.	Warren, Sir Alfred H.
Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)	Oman, C. W. C.	Weston, Colonel John W.
Howard, Major S. G.	Palmer, Brig-General G. (Westbury)	Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.
Hughes, Spencer Leigh	Parker, James	Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Hunter. General Sir A. (Lancaster)	Pearce, Sir William	Wild, Sir Ernest Edward
Hurd, P. A.	Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike	Winfrey, Sir Richard
Hurst, Major G. B.	Pennefather, De Fonblanque	Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)
Inskip, T. W. H.	Perkins, Walter Frank	Woolcock, W. J. U.
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)	Perring, William George	Worsfold, T. Cato
Jameson, Major J. G.	Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray	Yate, Colonel Charles Edward
Jodrell, N. P.	Pratt, John William	Yeo, Sir Alfred William
Johnstone, J.	Prescott, Major W. H.	Young, William (Perth and Kinross)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)	Pretyman, Rt- Hon. Ernest G.	Younger, Sir George
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)	Pulley, Charles Thornton
Kellaway, Frederick George	Purchase, H. G.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E.
Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr	Rae, H. Norman	Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.
Kidd, James	Raeburn, Sir William

Sir A. YEO

I beg to move, in paragraph (a), after the word "investigate ["to investigate prices, costs, and profit"], to insert the words "from the source"

We all desire to remove suspicion from the trader with regard to profiteering. I think the only way that can be done satisfactorily is to trace this thing to the source straight away. The Minister of Labour, speaking on this Bill, said they intended to probe the matter to the source. Since the Bill has been before the House I have deliberately gone to two traders and purchased the same article from one at 2s. 9d. and from the other at 3s. 6d. It might be said that the man who charged3s. 6d, is profiteering. It might also be said that the man who charged 2s. 9d. is profiteering. As a matter of fact neither of them is profiteering at all. The goods have come from one firm, and in that one road the firm has made two distinct charges in delivering the goods. Hence the people cannot afford to sell them at the first price. Therefore when you are making inquiries it will not be fair to say that the trader who charges 3s. 6d. is a profiteer, because he has had to pay at least another 4½d. to 6d. for the same article. You will get no satisfaction in this Bill; you will not remove suspicion from the people; you will not put an end to the unrest unless you tackle the thing at the source of supply. In my opinion the profiteers to day are the great combines, the rings, and the trusts. [An HON. MEMBER: "Landowners!"]They have always been in that cart. You never need worry about them. They can always take care of themselves. I mentioned the case of dried fruit a few days ago and said that if it had been left alone it could have been put on the market £12 to £14 per ton cheaper than it was being sold. Since I asked the question the Government has controlled dried fruit, and it can now be purchased at 7d. or 8d. a lb. cheaper than before I opened my mouth in this House. You have to go back to the source of supply. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept these words, which will give confidence to the outside public and make them believe the Government is anxious not to cripple the small trader, and to go straight for the large man who is responsible for making these excessive prices.

Sir A. GEDDES

I quite realise the importance which attaches to this Amendment and sympathise very much with the hon. Member's motive, but I suggest that we should achieve the same result more clearly if we accepted the Amendment which stands next but one on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. K. Jones), which avoids the ambiguous phrase "from the source"

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES

I beg to move, after the word "profit" ["to investigate prices, costs and profit"], to insert the words "at all stages"

The only desire I had in putting this down was that the Government in its investigation should be obliged to go back to the primary source and take it at all stages—manufacturing, distribution, and that sort of thing.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. JONES

I beg to move, after the word "appear" ["require any person to appear"], to insert the words "or be represented"

I move this because of this fact, which might very well arise. You are going to have this central investigation by the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade may delegate the whole of its powers to local tribunals all over the country. You might find these tribunals might take an article which was manufactured at one central source, and go into the whole question of its composition, its cost, and the price at which it ought to be sold, and you might find very many of these committees asking the proprietor of the article to come and appear before them. Take the case of a friend of mine—I hope I may call him a friend, because he has cost me more money than any other man I have known—Lord Leverhulme, who is the manufacturer of Sunlight soap and many other articles. There might be set up an investigation by a local committee as to whether the prices at which Sunlight soap or any of these other commodities were sold were fair prices or showed an unreasonable profit. Under the Clause as it stands, they might ask him to appear before them. It would be a very onerous thing if Lord Leverhulme had to go from one local committee to another all over the country. My Amendment would permit of the unfortunate manufacturer being represented and not being compelled to travel from Plymouth to Bristol, from Bristol to Glasgow, from Glasgow to Edinburgh, and so on, all over the country.

Sir G. HEWART

The effect of this Amendment, if adopted, would not, I think, be what the hon. Member means. As the Clause stands, it does not require a person to appear before the persons who are conducting the investigation. It simply gives power to the Board of Trade to require the attendance of a particular person. The power is given to the Board of Trade to investigate prices, costs, and profit, and, for that purpose, by Order, they may require any person to appear before them. It is quite true that in a later part of the Bill, if those powers are delegated to a local committee, the local committee will have the power which the Board of Trade would otherwise have. The power in the Bill is the power to require the attendance of a particular person. Neither the Board of Trade nor the committee is bound to require the attendance of a particular person. It is merely the power in a proper case to require attendance. If the Amendment were carried it would have this effect, that in no case would the Board of Trade or the committee have power to require a particular person to attend. It would always be open to that particular person to say, "No; I am not going to attend; I am going to send someone to represent me" We must assume that the Board of Trade in this matter and the committee will act reasonably. It would be a great mistake if this Amendment were to be carried so as to deprive the Board of Trade or the committee of any power to require the attendance of a particular person. Hardships can be imagined. A very busy and very prominent manufacturer might be dragged from one part of the country to another at the caprice of some committee in order to give evidence which other persons might equally well give. That is an imagination which I hope the Committee will not take seriously. The mischief of this Amendment is that, if it were adopted, it would place the Board of Trade and the Committee in a condition of powerless-ness when it was essential in the public interest that a particular person should attend to give evidence.

Mr. INSKIP

The explanation given by the Attorney-General appears to me to considerably cut down the intention of this phrase. When I read it I understood that it would give the Board of Trade power to require a company or a syndicate to appear before them by their proper officer, and I was encouraged to believe that that was the meaning by the curious drafting of Sub-section (4), in which it says where a person convicted under this Section is a company— such-and-such an event may follow. Presumably the word "person," in Subsection (a), includes a company. But the explanation now appears to limit it to an individual person. [SIR G. HEWART indicated dissent.] The Attorney-General shakes his head, but I understood that that was what he meant.

Sir G. HEWART

Not at all. The illustration I took was the illustration of an individual. A company is an artificial person.

Mr. INSKIP

If the Attorney-General agrees that a person in this Sub-section also includes a company, I do not quite understand the drift of his argument that a company may not be represented. I should have thought it was essential that a company should be represented, otherwise it appears to me, quite apart from any general Statute, which I do not remember at the moment, that a company can hardly appear by any person but the secretary, who in many of these great rings or trusts is a person who has no knowledge of the matter he may be called upon to disclose. He has not the custody of books or documents. The real person to be got at is the board of directors. It would be much more beneficial that the company should be entitled to be represented by some person who can produce, as the representative of the directors or the syndicate, the real information that the Board of Trade desires to get. I should have thought it would enlarge the scope of the Sub-section if power was given to a person, when he was a company, to be represented instead of appearing possibly through a quite ignorant and useless secretary.

Mr. HOLMES

Surely the Board of Trade, having the right to call any person, if they desire to go into the affairs of a company, will send for that person connected with the company—the chairman or the managing director—whose attendance they may desire, and not the secretary?

Sir F. BANBURY

If it is impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment, would they insert some words which would carry out the intention of the Attorney-General? He said it must be assumed that the Board of Trade will not act unreasonably. I am not sure that that is not a strong assumption. As there is a good deal in the Bill about reasonableness, why not apply it to the Board of Trade and put in words that such powers shall not be exercised unreasonably? That would give the Board of Trade power to call any person, and it would to some extent meet my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment by preventing that power being exercised unreasonably.

Sir D. MACLEAN

The discussion which has preceded this Amendment shows how extraordinarily difficult a Bill this is to amend in order to meet the wishes of the Committee. I make this suggestion for the consideration of my right hon. Friend. It is quite apparent that this Bill can only be made reasonably workable by the Regulations which the Government are bound to issue. Those Regulations we shall not see. They will not have time to issue them before the House rises. Will my right hon. Friend give this undertaking, that in the Regulations which he proposes to issue, and which he must issue, he will cover the point now made, which is of very considerable substance, so that it will not be in the power of any official or body operating under this Bill through Regulations to act unreasonably, as many of them have done in the past, and may do again?

Mr. A. SHAW

Are we not to have the courtesy of a reply? I think the only point taken by the Attorney-General on this matter was a pure technicality, and speaking as a humble lawyer to a very great lawyer, I say that it is a technicality of questionable validity. The option he puts forward is the option to the person who is to be summoned to appear either by himself or by his representative. The option which my hon. Friend suggests is the option of the Board of Trade to summon a person or, if they think fit, to summon his representative. I fail to see why the ingenuity of the Attorney-General cannot rise to the occasion and frame some comparatively simple words which will meet the very serious point which has been raised without in the least tying the hands of the Board of Trade, and making it clear that they will have the option and not the person summoned. If the House continues to be treated on an important Bill in the manner it is being treated now, and if the Leader of the Opposition, who, whatever may be its sins, commands the esteem of the whole House, is not to be vouchsafed the courtesy of a reply on a matter of substance, we shall have to seriously consider our attitude on this Bill, which so far has received kindly treatment.

Sir F. LOWE

I hope the Attorney-General will not give any such undertaking as that asked for by the Leader of the Opposition. This investigation involves very delicate procedure, and if the President of the Board of Trade is to deal with it effectively he must be allowed to call such persons as he wants. It does not effect the same purpose at all when you do not get the man you want but you only get his representative. He may be represented by his solicitor or counsel. The right hon. Gentleman must be entrusted with sufficient discretion to enable him to judge who is the proper person to give him the best evidence on any particular point connected with profiteering. I hope, therefore, that the undertaking asked for will not be given, and that the Government will stick to the Clause as it stands.

Sir G. HEWART

I am sorry not to agree with my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Shaw), who says that the point I raised was a technicality. I am not going to reargue the matter. My right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) is well aware that it was from no lack of courtesy that I did not rise at once to answer him. What we did was to nod and to acquiesce. We shall be most happy in the Regulations which have to be framed to make it quite clear that persons may be represented by counsel or by solicitor, but not to deprive either the Board of Trade or the local committees of the power to require the-attendance of any particular person. As-to the suggestion that there should be some regulation that local committees are not to act unreasonably, a regulation of that kind is out of the question, and I do not think my right hon. Friend did suggest-that.

Mr. SHAW

The House always follows with interest the speeches and gestures of the Attorney-General, but I must con-fess that I did not notice the nod, and in the general interests of the Committee I. think it would have been better if he had put the nod into language.

Amendment negatived.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS

I beg to move, in paragraph (a), to leave out the word "and" ["before them, and"], and to insert instead thereof the word "or"

As the first paragraph of this Clause, stands there will apparently be no power to the Board of Trade to obtain information for the purpose of its investigations except by calling people in person. There is no power for them to get, for instance, a census of production bearing on cost of production, and they would never be able to carry out exactly the procedure laid down in Sub-section (a). The simplest way to put that right would be to enable them to write letters to people for information and to save people the inconvenience of an interview, or perhaps with the object of appealing to a wider circle of producers for information than can possibly be done by a personal interview, the simplest thing to do is to put in the words "and/or" I understand, however, that it is not considered good drafting in an Act of Parliament to use the expression "and/or" Therefore, I ask the Attorney-General whether he could not deal with this matter in some other way. Of course, the Bill is not particularly well drafted, and it is very difficult for us to put it straight. If my Amendment is carried, then they could call people to appear before them, but there would not be any specific power to ask them for information after they had appeared. Therefore, I would prefer to deal with it in some way equivalent.

The CHAIRMAN

I think always in Acts of Parliament the word "and" includes the word "or," not necessarily that they must do both, but that they may do-one or the other or both.

Sir G. HEWART

I think that that is Undoubtedly so. If the hon. and gallant Member would read the words of the Clause he would see that what is provided is that the Board of Trade shall have power to investigate prices and so on, and for that purpose to require any person to appear before them and to furnish such information and produce such documents as they may require. But that does not mean that this is a condition precedent to obtaining information. They may require, the person to appear or they may require him to furnish or to do both.

Lieut-Colonel GUINNESS

On the assurance of the Attorney-General I will withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Mr. T. THOMSON

I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (a), to insert the words on any such hearing they may by Order (i) declare the price which would yield a reasonable profit; or (ii) fix maximum wholesale and retail prices and As the Bill' stands it is only when and after complaint has been made that the Board can declare prices. That is in (i) ct paragraph (b). The Amendment proposes instead of having the invidious distinction of an individual making a complaint, the Board itself, after investigation on its own account, shall be able to fix prices. The second point of the Amendment, and the larger one, is that, after the investigations have been made by the Board, something is to result from them, and I would suggest that one of those results would be that they should have the power of fixing maximum wholesale and retail prices, though we all know that in some cases when you fix a maximum price it becomes the minimum.

Sir A. GEDDES

So far as the sense and desire of the Amendment are concerned I am perfectly prepared to accept it if it is pressed. The actual wording which would be required, however, would not be "on any such hearing, "but" on any such investigation, "because it may be an investigation of chartered accountants, or something of that sort. I am not quite clear as to what is the advantage of (i) as distinct from (ii). It seems to me to be an alternative given without resulting in benefit from the point of view of anybody, and it adds to the complexity of the measure. But as to the general principle involved I am quite prepared to agree, if my hon. Friend would find words to amend this later.

Sir E. WILD

I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he accepts the spirit of this Amendment. This seems to me to be the most important consideration that has come before the Committee this afternoon. As the Bill stands at present there are two investigations. Under (a) the investigation is a perfectly barren, investigation All sorts of facts and figures will be accumulated by the Board, and they have no power to do anything in consequence. But now I understand the President of the Board of Trade to say that he is prepared to accept words which will make it at all events possible for—and I should like to make it incumbent upon—the Board of Trade, having accumulated those facts and figures, to give some guidance to the trading community upon which they may act, because this seems to me to be at the basis of the objections to the Bill. The Board may, according to this Clause, on the second investigation—that is, an investigation of complaints—do a number of things, but on the first investigation it can do nothing. It is most important that the principle of this Amendment should be accepted, because then the shopkeepers of this country, who are very perturbed at the proposed operation of this Bill, will have something to go on. As the Bill stands, without the fixing of maximum and minimum, prices, or some fixing of the reasonable) prices, every single shopkeeper is gambling on a prosecution upon some complaint which may be made on every sale that he makes.

The real object of this Amendment is simply to amend the worst-drafted Bill which it has ever been my misfortune to read, and to fix some price so that the shopkeeper may know what standard he has got to live up to or live down to. If he does not know this, it simply means that the shopkeeper is liable to be prosecuted and to have to come before a tribunal, very likely a tribunal consisting largely of his trade rivals, and to take his chance of being convicted on a standard which will vary in every locality. It will, perhaps, be more in order to discuss that matter when the particular words of the penal Clause are reached, and I only draw attention to it now so that if the Board of Trade will do what I know they are anxious to do—co-operate with the shopkeepers of this country—and after making this investigation from top to bottom, not only of the little retail shopkeeper but of all trusts and combines, big and little, they; will then fix a standard. I know the objection to fixing maximum prices—that they become minimum prices—but it is a great deal better to have some price, even if it is a little too high, so that both purchaser and seller may know what price may not be exceeded. Under the Bill as it stands any shopkeeper can be haled up on the complaint or any customer, perhaps a customer who is annoyed at not getting credit, or is an emissary of a rival shopkeeper, or is a non-successful trade rival, and may be brought before the local committee, consisting very largely of his trade rivals perhaps, or a bench of magistrates also consisting very largely of his trade rivals, and consequently shopkeepers—I have had numberless letters from them—are genuinely afraid, unless the Amendment of my hon. Friend is accepted, in which case the Board of Trade can give guidance not only to the public but to the shopkeepers, and then the shopkeepers will know the sort or standard to which they are expected to conform.

Lord R. CECIL

I must confess that I am absolutely at sea now as to what is the policy of the Government. If my right hon. Friend gets up to say that he accepts the principle of this Amendment, then it appears to me that the whole basis and structure of this Bill absolutely disappears. Just consider what this Amendment is going to do! You are going to have an investigation at large. It is to be an investigation in secret, which will be carried on not only by the Board of Trade but by every committee' all over the country. They are to be charged with the power of secret investigation into the whole trade of the country, at any rate with respect to a large number of articles of a most important-character. As the result of that they are to be allowed to make orders—every committee all over the country—after a secret Star Chamber inquiry, not only fixing the maximum price, which is a terrific power to give, but to say with reference to every article—every single article—what is a reasonable price, and if any one refuses to obey the Order or neglects to obey the Order he may be haled before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and the only question that would be tried will be whether in fact he has obeyed the Order, and he may be sentenced to six months' imprisonment. I cannot conceive a Government committing itself to such a proposition as that. I am sure that my right hon. Friend must have accepted the Amendment by in- advertence If he does, I can only say that no House of Commons that respects itself can possibly accept this Amendment that revolutionises the position and puts the whole trade of the country under the absolute autocratic domination of a number of committees extending all over the country, consisting of I do not know whom, with power to regulate the whole trade of the country in all these important matters. And this is the Government which requires an increase of production! Why, there cannot be a more fatal step. I really hope that my right hon. Friend was not in earnest when he said that he would accept the Amendment. As far as I am concerned I shall certainly vote against it.

Mr. HOLMES

There are one or two other points on the question of prices. Everyone is aware that the fixing of prices in the past has been followed immediately by a shortage of goods. I will tell the Committee why this occurs in many cases. Let us assume that a commodity can be brought from abroad for £ 45 a ton, and that a Government Department fix the price at £ 50 a ton for a merchant to sell to a manufacturer. Suddenly, as a result of world demand, the price of that commodity abroad goes up to £ 50 a ton. That is entirely beyond our control, because we have to buy in the world markets against every other nation. The merchant here ceases to buy at £50, because he has to "sell at the same price. The Government Department concerned then has to fix a new and higher price, which after payment of expenses would be a loss to him. In practice it has taken the Ministry of Food six weeks to make a new Statutory Order. During that period of six weeks the commodity does not come into the country and there is a shortage. If we are to have local committees all over the country doing this sort of thing, and we have to wait for them to alter prices, we shall have shortages of different articles all over the country. The arguments I have used are equally important in regard to a falling price Let us remember that prices are going to fall as world's production increases. I will take the same example of a commodity bought abroad for £ 45 a ton, with a fixed price here of £ 50. If the world's price fell to £40 it would take six weeks to alter the statutory price to the merchant, and during those six weeks he would be making enormous and unnecessary profits. Another difficulty about fixing prices is this, that some manufacturers. can work much more economically than others. Those with up-to-date methods and large businesses can do much better than those with less modern methods. The Food Controller gave a most striking example last week to the Select Committee concerning a most important necessary of life. He said that some bakers could turn a sack of flour into bread for less than 10s, and that others required 30s to 35s. The Ministry of Food fixed the price at 23s per sack. Suppose you fix prices, and a man can manufacture cheaply. Surely he will still be making an unreasonably large profit? Therefore you are not really getting any further forward by fixing prices. I hope we shall have some further explanation from the Government before the House goes to a Vote.

Major GREAME

I think that the Committee have become somewhat involved over this matter, and that we have not been really helped by the contribution of the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil).I do not think it is a material argument to say that the acceptance of this Amendment is changing the form which the Bill took originally. The Bill has left much either to the imagination or to regulation. If the Bill, as originally drafted, had set out what are the articles to which the Bill is, to apply, what are the powers which it is intended to devolve upon the local committees., what is the constitution of the local committees, and what are the principles upon which those local committees are to act, then I think we should all be in a much easier position in discussing the Amendments, because the general vagueness of the Bill lands us in this position, that on practically every Amendment that is moved one is driven into a Second Reading Debate on the merits and demerits of the Bill. I shall try to be as brief as I can, but I want to bring the Committee back to the Amendment which has been moved and the Section upon which it is moved. The first Section deals with powers which are to be given to the Board of Trade. Let us eliminate for the moment the question of the devolution of those powers to local committees or local authorities. As I understand this Amendment, it is proposed to add to those powers the alternative of fixing maximum wholesale or reail prices. I am perfectly certain, for the reasons given on Second Reading, that if you were to have this control at all, the control at the centre has to go on concurrently, and that it is only from tile centre that you will be able to control the price in the earlier stages, from the importation to this country to the selling to the retailer, or from the first stages of manufacture, to the time when the goods reach the retailer. Assume that some of these powers are going to be devolved upon local authorities. I have an Amendment later which asks the Board of Trade to specify what the powers are which are to be devolved upon local authorities. The one power which, without question, is going to be devolved upon local committees is to decide what is or what is not a reasonable price for a retailer to charge If a local committee has a case brought before it, what, as a matter of fact, is it going to do? It is going to decide what is a reasonable price, and it will not decide it in each case on the circumstances of each particular case because, if it did that, you would have a million committees sitting for a million days. I do not believe any committee would accept that responsibility even if you gave them that responsibility in name.

What they will do is this: The first case will be brought before the local committee, and we will say it is a case relating to a pair of boots. What the local committee will, in fact, do will be to give a general decision as to what is a fair price for a pair of boots; and I am perfectly certain that the average local committee, when the next case of the kind comes up, will say, "We had boots up only yesterday. This is exactly the same kind of boot, and a fair price is so much" If that is the way in which local committees arc going to work, is it not much better to give them a general power of fixing the general retail price of any articles with which they have to deal? I hope that we shall not become unnecessarily tangled in this, and that in the desire to make the Bill as perfectas possible we shall not make it so perfect that no local authority will be able to work it.

Sir W. PEARCE

I want to join in pointing out the real danger which may arise if we attempt to settle maximum prices. We must rely on foreign supplies for a large portion of our food. It is an international market. If we fix prices here which cannot be altered quickly, and other nations are willing to pay a considerably higher rate than our fixed price, it will end in our getting no goods at all. I am not connected with food importation, but I remember the case being mentioned to the House some time back of the article cocoa. It was very necessary then to get a large quantity into the country, but the Food Controller had to fix such a maximum price for this country that for the time being no cocoa came here at all; every importer could get a very much higher price in Marseilles or elsewhere on the Continent than in London. If we are not careful, that is the sort of danger we are now going to run.

7.0 P.M.

Sir D. MACLEAN

I am beginning to think that it does not make much difference what you put into this Bill, because, as has been said, we are getting thoroughly mixed up as to the intentions of the promoters and the meaning of Amendments. What is the meaning of the proposed Amendment and the acceptance of its principle by the Government 2 This is rank Socialism, and is a most muddled kind of Socialism. If we are going to have Socialism, let us have it on a basis which we can understand. I understand the theory of it; I have had it explained to me; but if we are going to have this kind of muddled Socialism for six months, and if we are going to have all sorts of things spatch-cocked into this Bill, then, I think the Committee should protest. It certainly lowers what little moral authority the Government have still left to them for dealing with these matters. What does the Department mean by suggesting that they are prepared to accept the principle of fixing maximum wholesale and retail prices? I do not know where the trading community will be, either wholesale or retail. "Wherever we go, whether in the City or in the parish, and wherever business and the ex change of commodities is carried on, we find everybody hampered already by a thousand and one regulations which are choking business, and here the Government comes along and accepts a proposal whereby a sub-committee may decide matters and may summon persons secretly before it, and if it so chooses delegate its powers to those who can also sit in secret in the little parishes and small places, for the areas are necessarily bound to be small. I give it up.

Sir A. GEDDES

I have listened with great interest to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil), and also to the remarks we have just heard. I would really ask the Committee to look at the facts and not in any way to enter into strange matters, such as Star Chambers sitting in every parish to settle wholesale prices. The thing is grotesque. We are dealing here with powers which the Board of Trade may have conferred upon it. We did not include it in the Bill, because, although we recognised that it might be useful yet for a short period of six months, it would probably not count very much. Let us see what this means. The Board of Trade, after careful scientific investigation held in secret, discovers that there is reason to believe that there is a combination in restraint of trade, either intra-national or international. They see that there is evidently some big increase in the price of a particular article and that there is more investigation required. In the meantime, the community is being bled. In that case such a power of investigation, could not be delegated to anybody by the Board of Trade. You cannot start fixing prices until the facts from all sides are brought in. We are quite prepared to accept the principle of this Amendment, believing that there is an outside chance that the powers, even within the six months, might be useful. I did not accept the wording of the Amendment, that was quite clear; I said that if we were pressed we would accept the Amendment in a qualified form, because I do know there is a very considerable section of opinion in the House which believes that the possession of this power by the Board of Trade would be useful. I agree it might be useful once or twice in the course of the six months, but it does not form any main scheme in the general structure of the Bill. We cut it out before the Bill was introduced, but if the Committee desire to press it and see the usefulness of it and think it is desirable, we are not going to resist it.

Mr. N. MACLEAN

Most of the criticism has been directed against this particular Amendment The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir J). Maclean) has referred to it as "muddle-headed Socialism," but I see on the Order Paper, in the name of one of his colleagues, an Amendment which asks for the insertion, after the word "profit," of the words "to fix wholesale and retail prices." It has come out in the Debate that there are certain firms in the country which can manufacture, owing to the efficiency of their organisation, at a very much lower rate than other firms which are not so efficiently organised. Behind all this there is the fact that the price is going to be ruled by the man who is incompetently organised, and in that way you are placing upon this country and the consumers a tax which they have to pay over the counter, not for efficient but for inefficient organisation. I submit that that is one of the worst kinds of profiteering which you could have. In some parts of the country you have efficient organisation and up-to-date machinery which cheapens production, while other manufacturers are not so up-to-date or alive to the circumstances of the times and refuse to put in efficient plant which would enable them to produce in greater quantity, and because of those men you are going to tax all the consumers.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES

Is not that the ca' canny principle in trade unionism?

Mr. MACLEAN

It is not. The ca' canny of which you accuse trade unionists is forced upon them by the very fact that you have that class of manufacturer who tries to get all he can out of the trade unionist and pay him the lowest wages for his work. That, however, is not in this Bill, although I would be quite prepared to discuss it with the hon. Member at any other time on a suitable Bill. "The fixing of a maximum price was foreshadowed by one of the Ministers during the Debate two days ago, when he said that they would have power to fix the standard of prices. I do not see, therefore, why the Government should be attacked because they accept this Amendment. If a standard price is going to be fixed, surely it is going to be a maximum unless you are going to graduate the price according to the methods of organisation of particular firms! If a business man in this House had two departments in his business, one of which was highly organised and capable of producing relatively very much greater quantities of au article than the other department, he would very soon as a business man eliminate the badly organised part and endeavour to bring it up to date. The Board of Trade, with the central control of fixing maximum prices, can say that those prices are going to be ruled, not by the inefficiently organised manufacturer, but by the up-to-date, well-organised manufacturer.

Lord R. CECIL

Eliminate all the others!

Mr. MACLEAN

Now we are coming to it, protection for the men who are not well organised. Is not the rule of competition the survival of the fittest? [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the small men?"]

Lord R. CECIL

Supposing the man lives far away from a railway?

Mr. MACLEAN

Those are of the same order as the old women we hear so much about in other matters. If you have a, well-organised country, you are going to have production increased. You cannot have it increased by bad methods of organisation and if the fixing of prices is regulated by the inefficiently organised. There is no man more willing or prepared than I am to go out to the people and advocate increased production on the part of the working men, but I want to see the working man get his share of the increased production before I do so. I want to suggest that as a nation we should conduct our affairs in the same way that a business man, and an up-to-date business man, would conduct his business. The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchinshakes his head. Does he disagree?

Lord R. CECIL

Yes, I do.

Mr. MACLEAN

He thinks that this nation should not be conducted on business lines?

Lord R. CECIL

I want to humanlselabour and industry, and not to throw it back on to a mere cash basis.

Mr. MACLEAN

But the best business is that which is organised on the humane basis. We want to organise the nation so that the best and most up-to-date methods of production will be used, the most efficient methods, and those can and will be used by the Board of Trade or the Government taking control of industry in this country and fixing the maximum prices.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS

I am sure the House has listened with great interest, as will no doubt the country, to the views which have been expressed by the hon. Member as to the fixing of standards of price according to what is possible to the large trusts, involving, as it would, the snuffing out of the small businesses and the small shop people. That is a matter, however, which is hardly raised on this Amendment, and I propose to devote myself to the particular question before the Committee. The last speech of the President of the Board of Trade shows that he is rather running away from his previous readiness to accept the fixation of prices. I would appeal to him to leave this matter to the House, to go further than this particular Amendment is apparently designed to go, to put his whole trust in the fixation of prices, to fix prices where there is speculation, and to throw aside altogether the Star Chamber methods which are proposed under paragraph (b) of this Clause. The particular form of words which my hon. Friends opposite have moved is not apparently acceptable to the Government, so I would venture to draw their attention to the words of which I have given notice in substitution of paragraph (b), with a slight modification, namely, to publish Orders specifying maximum prices, chargeable at all stages of production, distribution, and sale, for food, clothing, boots, and household necessities in those cases where they have reason to believe that speculation is being carried on I think it is necessary to define the commodities where these provisions will apply, because as the Bill is drawn it would only apply to-non-controlled articles, under Clause 1. Sub-section (5). Of course, if we are going to control prices, that makes that system no longer work, and therefore we must specify the articles to which this control of prices would apply. To my mind, the object of fixing these maximum prices is that then you could punish people for definite crimes, and you would not, as is now proposed under the Bill, punish them for what is merely a matter of opinion on the part of a local committee or of a bench of magistrates. The objection to maximum prices, I think, applies equally to the whole procedure of the Bill. We were told to-day that maximum prices tend to become fixed. Surely any authorised price, to some extent, tends to become fixed, and the difference is that, if you fix the prices for the whole country, they are a maximum, whereas, if a price comes before a local tribunal and is considered reasonable, that price is going to become a minimum, and it is going equally to operate as a flat price, if not throughout the whole country, anyhow through a large district. Therefore, it is fair to say that, in view of this power of hearing cases and fixing prices which are reasonable in certain conditions, the whole principle of fixing prices is inherent in the Bill as it is drafted. I feel that, as this principle cannot be escaped, it is much better to deal with it systematically instead of piecemeal. The hon. Member for Derbyshire (Mr. Holmes) told us on this Amendment that the objection to fixing prices was that you would decrease production. That same objection was urged to-day in a communiqué by Mr. Hoover, the American Food Controller, who points out that unless control is limited to cases of speculation it undoubtedly will decrease supply. Therefore, I think we should in our form of words limit the Board of Trade to those cases where primâ facie evidence has been brought forward that speculation is going on. Speculation can only take place where there is a shortage of supply, and those are the cases that we want to get at. I am afraid under the machinery of the Bill the speculator will not be touched at all, because he is not the retailer; he is a man much further back, and he will cover up his tracks in such a way that he will not be reached at all. You cannot get him by these Star Chamber methods. The only person you will hit, and him you will hit with great hardship and injustice, is the small shopkeeper, and I therefore ask the Government to take their courage in both hands, to accept the principle of fixing maximum prices, and to drop the objectionable Star Chamber methods which are proposed in paragraph (b)

Sir G. HEWART

I think it would be the general feeling of this Committee that this-subject, interesting as it is, has been sufficiently discussed, and I rise for the purpose of making clear the words which, if they are pressed by the Committee, but not otherwise, the Government are prepared to accept. Those words are, at the-end of paragraph (a), to insert "on any such investigation they may by Order fix maximum prices, and" But it will be for the Committee to determine entirely whether or not it is desirable that those words should be added.

Sir D. MACLEAN

May I ask whether the intention of the Government is to limit that power to the central authority?

Sir G. HEWART

Certainly!

Sir D. MACLEAN

If that is so, it considerably minimises the power.

Sir G. HEWART

We should have to deal with that matter, if the House desires these words to be inserted, when we come to deal with Clause 2, Sub-clause (1).

Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the price fixed is to apply to the whole of the City; for instance, in London, to Bond Street and to Hammersmith, or in Leeds to Boar Lane and to Armley? Is it to apply equally to the whole district?

Major HILLS

I welcome the announcement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. One of the reasons why I was not able to vote for the Second Reading of the Hill was because it did not contain power authorising the Board of Trade to fix maximum prices, and now I want to submit to my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin, the hon. Member for East Derbyshire, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles, that really they have got to accept the fixation of prices, and for this reason. The Bill is one to stop profiteering. Profiteering is selling goods at too high a price, and you stop that by saying they must sell them at a lower price. Therefore, the basis of the Bill is the fixation of prices, and you cannot get out of it. If you want to stop profiteering, you must fix prices. How do you fix them? One alternative is for the local committees to fix the prices in their own area, and by that method you get a certain amount of flexibility, but you will get enormous varieties, and you will get the grossest inequalities, which will not correspond to the facts in a particular district. There is this further point. After the prices are fixed by the local tribunals, in many cases appeals will be carried to the Appeal Tribunals, and therefore you will get set up in a haphazard, piecemeal, and very inefficient way the fixation of prices. Surely it is far better to take the bull by the horns! We have got to fix prices or we cannot put down profiteering. Then; is one point on which I do not agree with the President of the Board of Trade, who said that the only body to exercise this power was the Board itself. I think you must have rather more flexibility than that, for, after all, the evils of fixed prices are great, and the greatest of those is that you have to fix a price at such a figure as will allow the inefficient to live. I think you can meet that by a certain amount of delegation. I do not think all the localities ought to have power to fix prices, but I think that bodies like the Appeal Tribunals, who will not be many in number, and who will be appointed for large areas, might very well be given the power to fix prices, for they, after all, will have heard appeals from all the different localities in their areas. I welcome what my right hon., and learned Friend has just done. I think, with great respect, a good deal of the opposition with regard to the fixing of prices is due to a misunderstanding, and I do hope the Committee will sup port the Government.

Mr. STEVENS

I think a great deal of misunderstanding is due to the fact that an attempt is being made to fix prices-for articles produced on a large scale. There is a great deal to be said, I think, for the fixing of prices retail, but when it comes to the production of the great commodities in which we are interested, I have only to appeal, I am sure, to the common sense of any importer or any merchant to show how practically impossible it becomes. Take any commodity like cotton, wheat, oil, timber or pig-iron. How is it possible for the Board of Trade to fix a price for pig-iron to-day when it would not be the slightest possible use tomorrow? That is at the root of the difficulty. If the provision offered by the learned Attorney-General is limited to the distribution of articles retail, there should be no difficulty in the Committee accepting that. But once you get to the larger question, where our own larger markets are interested, it would be found impracticable.

Brigadier-General CROFT

I only want to utter one word of caution, if I may, with regard to this general question of fixing prices. I think the speech from the representative of the Labour party was sufficient to convince the Committee of the extreme danger. Here you are going to have pressure for a maximum which is only going to be regarded as satisfactory for the most efficient industries. That means that three-fourths of your industries are to be wiped out if you follow the advice of the hon. Gentleman. Would it not be possible for the Government, after investigation, to consider the possibility of fixing these prices in order to refer them to the local tribunals, and let the local tribunals give good reasons why they do not consider such a price is suitable for the locality; in other words, the fixed prices could be a guidance to the tribunals, and you could have that variation. I throw out that suggestion. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman could introduce it on Report, but the fact remains that if there is any general policy of fixing prices, as we have seen it during the last few years of control, it is going to have the opposite effect to that desired. We in this country are in the most convenient position of any country in Europe. Do not let us do anything by further control to limit our output and production at the moment it is required.

Major E. WOOD

With all respect to my hon. and gallant Friend, I do not think the question is as between fixing prices on the one hand and the proposals of the Bill on the other. I want to emphasise the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend beside me, that whether you call it fixing prices in the Bill or not, the fact that you have investigation and all the machinery of the Bill, whether it works through the Board of Trade or tribunals, brings you to the same result, that in order to determine unreasonable profit you must decide what is reasonable profit, and, therefore, you must fix your prices. I hope the Government will stick to their determination to accept the Amendment, though I think it is a strange procedure to accept an Amendment which will entirely recast their Bill. While saying that, I hope that they will stick to their determination, and I am bound to say that I think the whole machinery of the Bill would have been much simplified by a one-Clause Bill which said that the Board of Trade should have power to fix maximum prices at all stages on whatever articles they thought necessary. That would have been a very much simpler method of procedure, and would have secured the real object we have at heart. As I say, I am quite in favour of the present position that the Government have taken. I am not clear, however—and I think the obscurity will become intensified—as to what the effect of accepting the Amendment, or the new form of words the learned Attorney-General suggests, will be upon the remaining structure of the Bill. That will have to be exploited later on.

Sir F. LOWE

I am bound to say I listened with some astonishment to the turn this Debate has taken. On the early stages we were told that the process of investigation was really to be confined to the Board of Trade and, after making a general investigation, certain other proceedings might be taken in consequence of what they found in the course of their confidential investigation, and that profiteers, if found out, might be brought to justice, and, if found guilty, punished, and made to disgorge their profits. That was the scheme as it originally stood. Since then it has developed into an entirely different Bill. It is now a Bill to enable the Board of Trade to investigate, and, if they find it necessary, to fix prices. I do not say whether that is good or ill, but it is not the Bill as it first came before this House, and I must say I rather agree with my Noble Friend that it is a rather dangerous experiment. We have had the fixing of prices before by the Food Controller, and stocks were he13 up, and people could not get the things they wanted at any price. If you are to try this on a larger scale in regard to all commodities, you will get yourself, in my opinion, into a hopeless tangle, and it seems to me all trades will be strangled. We shall not be able to get food or any other commodities we want, and I do not know where it is going to lead. I look upon it with the gravest doubt and suspicion, and I do prefer the Bill as it originally stood. If this Amendment is adopted by the Government, and they persevere in the course, which I think most unwise, the best thing is to abandon the rest of the Bill. There is no reason to go any further. I say that it is the logical thins to do. I think they have got themselves into a hopeless tangle, and the sooner they get out of it the better.

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House)

I do not agree that the Government have got themselves into a hopeless tangle, but, in so far as it exists, I think it is due to a general misapprehension as to the proposal my right hon. Friend made. In the first place, if the House is ready, I say now, on behalf of the Government, we will gladly accept the proposal of my hon. Friend to have a one-clause Bill to enable the Board of Trade to do what it likes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"]—but I am afraid the House would hardly be prepared to agree to that. Let me try, if I can, to show exactly what the Government mean by the suggestion of my right hon. Friend. It was discussed by us whether or not we should put these powers in the Bill originally, but there was never any question whatever in the mind of the Government as to whether we should aim at getting the object we desire by fixing the maximum prices. We came to the conclusion, whether right or wrong—and this is the foundation of it all—that the attempt to fix general maxi- mum prices would fail, and the result would be all over the country that you would simply stop supplies. That, therefore, is not the proposal of the Government, and if, as I hope, the House will now be ready to go to a Division on it, it must be clearly understood by those who vote for the Amendment in the form my right hon. Friend has put it—and, remember, the House only agreed to accept the principle of free voting if it were adopted in words which satisfied us—if this Amendment is adopted by the House, it does not mean that there will be any widespread attempt at all to fix maximum prices.

Sir F. LOWE

They have the power to do it.

Mr. BONAR LAW

They have not even the power. It precisely excludes the power to fix prices by anyone except the Board of Trade, and the only object, I agree, is that given by my right hon. Friend. It should be clearly understood that the Board of Trade is not bound to exercise these powers. I think it is, perhaps, worth putting in, and for this reason. We all know there are certain commodities which are in the hands of so few people that they do regulate not only the wholesale price but they fix the price at which retailers are entitled to sell. It is only with those and analogous conditions that the Board of Trade will exercise these powers, if they are given to them by the House. The real fact is, we do not attach much importance to them, but we think they may be of some little value, and if the Committee is willing, we are ready to leave it to the decision of the Committee, having heard the arguments on both sides. But do not let there be any mistake. The adoption of this Amendment docs not in the least mean that this Bill is an attempt to fix maximum prices all over the country.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL

Is that an assurance?

Mr. BONAR LAW

Absolutely; and we will make it plain in subsequent Clauses of the Bill. It would be going against the whole principle on which we have adopted this Bill.

The CHAIRMAN

I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to know whether the Mover of the Amendment would be willing to withdraw it, and substitute the words suggested by the Government.

Mr. THOMSON

I should be very glad to do that.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS

If this Amendment is carried, I propose to move words to limit it to those cases where speculation is proved.

Mr. BONAR LAW

To save misunderstanding, I will say the Government must resist that Amendment.

Sir H. COWAN

May I ask whether the adoption of the Amendment is not actually-giving the Board of Trade power to fix prices—the same power as would be given, under the one-Clause Bill, of which the right Eon. Gentleman himself has approved?

Mr. BONAR LAW

That really is not so. It is obvious that if an attempt were made to do this on any wide scale, more than the six months would have elapsed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. THOMSON

I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (a), to insert the words "on any such investigation they may, by Order, fix maximum prices, and"

Sir C. WARNER

I hope this Amendment will not be carried. It is quite true that the Leader of the House said the Government did not intend to use it in the way suggested, but it does give the power to fix prices. It would be a very dangerous thing, and I do hope we are not going to hamper the production of the country by such a suggestion as the possibility of this. The great trouble of trade and agriculture in the country at the present time is Government interference and Government Regulations. We want as little as possible of that, and anything that tended to increase Government rule and Government Regulations on the production of this country would be a most distinct and dangerous evil. It is true this Amendment is only the small end of the wedge. At the same time, it is not the original principle of the Bill, and, as the Government do not think it important, I hope their supporters will reject the Amendment.

Mr. SPENCER

The Committee can either accept an Amendment of this character or prepare itself for a continual demand on the part of labour for increased wages. Because, as has already been hinted to-night, there are in this country, as in all other countries, speculators, and the speculator is the chief sinner. But, whenever the speculator has taken advantage of the state of the market to raise his prices, then those prices are followed by the men, firms, companies, and combines! who probably would not have proceeded on this line if they had not been led along it; and so prices go on soaring. It has been said by the last speaker that by the method suggested you are going to limit production. It has been said by another speaker that if you attempt to do anything of the kind suggested in the Bill that stocks will be held up, production will be limited, and men will not attempt to sell. A more serious indictment against the manufacturers of this country could not be made. What would hon. Members think if the miners came down next week and said, "Because we cannot get exactly the prices and the conditions that we are demanding we will hold things up?"

HON. MEMBERS

They have said so!

Mr. SPENCER

Precisely. But when that was being done they met with the unstinted and wholesale condemnation and anathemas of hon. Members on the opposite side of the House. The people who constantly condemn the miner and anathematise him now propose themselves to turn and practice the same offences which they have been condemning in the miner. I say again, a more serious indictment has never been levelled against—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"]—against yourselves! An hon. Gentleman on my left said that stocks would be withheld. I was sorry to hear even the Leader of the House concur in that statement.

Mr. BONAR LAW

I never said so.

Mr. SPENCER

That stocks would be withheld!

Mr. BONAR LAW

No.

Mr. SPENCER

If the right hon Gentleman will examine the report of his speech in the morning, he will see what he said. [Laughter.] I do not think there is any innuendo in what I have said in my reference to the Leader of the House. It has often been heard from the opposite side that one of the necessities of the moment is cheap production, that international trade is being killed owing to high prices, and that we will be absolutely swept out of the neutral markets because of the alarming cost of production at the present moment. If that is true, and if wages have to rise proportionate- to the cost of living, then you must either stop the soaring of prices or wages will follow, and the cost of production will continue to increase. you, therefore, get that alternative.

So far as we are concerned, we think the wiser of the two alternatives presented is to make some honest attempt to fix prices. We are quite cognisant of this fact, that it will be impossible to fix all prices. I do not know—replying to the lion. Member near me—why I should be concerned about a maximum price for pig-iron [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]

An HON. MEMBER

Some of us are very much concerned.

Mr. SPENCER

You may be. I do not understand it, and I am not going to speak about that which I do not under stand. I would argue for the fixing of maximum prices for those commodities which I do understand something of, and which the working classes of this country have to purchase from day to day and from week to week. These are things which undoubtedly are causing serious un rest. Of the two alternatives the better is the fixing of these prices, as I have already stated. The Noble Lord opposite is a man who when he speaks undoubtedly gains attention and the warm appreciation of hon. Members on these benches. But I listened to him to-night with some degree of apprehension, and I may say dissatisfaction. Why? I can understand the Noble Lord's position, and I can understand that of any other hon. Member who says, "I am totally opposed to any such fixing of prices" But I cannot understand any hon. Member saying, "I only object"—and this is the implication of the objection of the Noble Lord—I only object to fixing maximum prices when you are seeking to deal with the wholesaler—

Lord R. CECIL

No, no!

Mr. SPENCER

Very well. Then this Bill—

Lord R. CECIL

I am sorry to interrupt, but may I say that the only thing that attracts me to this Amendment is the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who explained very carefully that he only agreed with the Amendment because he disagreed with the arguments of those who opposed it, and on the ground that it hit the rings, and trusts, and the big people. If I was quite sure that that really was the useful effect of this Amendment, or even the possible;effect of it, I myself should be rather disposed to support it. But that is just my I whole criticism of this Bill—though I am I glad to support it as better than nothing—it does hit the small man and does not j hit the big one.

Mr. SPENCER

I understood the Noble Lord in speaking to be alarmed by this fact: that right throughout the country we are going to set up committees—in quisitions—to investigate documents and ' the whole of the facts of the case, and then we are going to invest them with the right to fix maximum prices. The Noble Lord objects?

Lord R. CECIL

Oh, yes!

Mr. SPENCER

If the Noble Lord does, lie must of necessity object in Committee to the fixing of maximum prices at any stage, whether in relation to the retailer or the wholesaler. He cannot have it both ways. If he objects to the investigation and examination of the whole of the case and then to the fixing of maximum prices, if he is going to be logical he must object so far as the retailer and everyone else is concerned. I can assure the Noble Lord if he only objects when it comes to the wholesaler—

Lord R. CECILdissented.

Mr. SPENCER

What is the use of attempting to fix maximum prices in relation to the small retailer and to invest certain committees with certain powers? I understand there are two kinds of committees to be set up. There is the local committee which is going to investigate the facts in relation to complaints that may have been lodged. They are to have the right to do two or three things. They

are to have the right of investigating complaints, of fixing maximum prices, and to make the man who has made an exorbitant profit disgorge his ill-gotten gains, or take him before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. The other committee is going to investigate the larger cases, but is absolutely destitute of any power to deal with those who have been making the larger profits. What is the use of a committee of investigation unless they are to be invested with the same power to deal with those whom they believe guilty of extraordinary profiteering? For these various reasons I am going to support the Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN

May I suggest to the Committee that this has now been very well discussed, and that we might come to a decision?

Sir H. COWAN

I hope the House will not give the Board of Trade these autocratic powers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] If they are exercised with a view to fixing prices in such a way as to yield sufficient profit to the larger trader and the larger producer, they will crush out of existence hundreds of thousands of small traders, which I think cannot be the object of the Government. On the other hand, if prices are to be put at such a figure as will give an adequate profit to the small trader, then the large trader will continue to profiteer, and to profiteer under the sanction of the Bill. That cannot possibly be the intention of the Government or of the House. The Government have left the vote to the free decision of the House, and I hope the House will reject this Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted"

The Committee divided: Ayes, 132; Noes, 95.

Division No. 97.]	AYES	[7.57 p.m.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke	Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)	Farquharson, Major A. C.
Agg-Gardner, sir James Tynte	Carter, W. (Mansfield)	Finney, Samuel
Astor, Major Hon. Waldorf	Casey, T. W.	Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Baird, John Lawrence	Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)	FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.
Barnett, Major Richard W.	Child, Brig.-Gen. Sir Hill	Gardiner, J. (Perth)
Bell, James (Ormskirk)	Conway, Sir W. Martin	Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Birchall, Major J. D.	Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Univ.)	Gray, Major E.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Dalziel, Fir Davison (Brixton)	Greame, Major P. Lloyd-
Briant, F.	Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.	Green, J F. (Leicester)
Bridgeman, William Clive	Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)	Greenwood, Col. Sir Hamar
Britton, G. B.	Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewel)	Gregory, Holman
Broad, Thomas Tucker	Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)	Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)
Bromfield, W.	Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H.	Grundy, T. W.
Cairns, John	Doyle, N. Grattan	Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York)
Campbell, J. G. D.	Edge, Captain William	Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E. (B. St. E)
Cape, Tom	Edwards, C. (Bedwelty)	Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)
Carew, Charles R S. (Tiverton)	Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds.)
Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.	Murray, William (Dumfries)	Spencer, George A.
Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)	Nail, Major Joseph	Stanier, Captain Sir Beville
Hirst, G. H.	Norris, Sir Henry G.	Stanley, Col. Hon. C. F. (Preston)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.	Onions, Alfred	Stevens, Marshall
Holmes, J. S.	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Strauss, Edward Anthony
Howard, Major S. G.	Perkins, Walter Frank	Sugden, W. H.
Jesson, C.	Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray	Swan, J. E. C.
Jourell, N. P.	Pratt, John William	Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)
Johnson, L. S.	Prescott, Major W. H.	Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)
Johnstone, J.	Pulley, Charles Thornton	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)
Jones, J. (Silvertown)	Raeburn, Sir William	Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (M'yhl)
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)	Raffan, Peter Wilson	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E)
Kellaway, Frederick George	Raper, A. Baldwin	Thorne, Col. W. (Plaistow)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander	Rees, Captain J. Tudor (Barnstaple)	Tickler, Thomas George
Kenyon, Barnet	Richardson, Ft. (Houghton)	Vickers, D.
Kidd, James	Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)	Waish, S. (Ince, Lanes.)
King, Commander Douglas	Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)	Ward-Jackson, major C. L.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)	Roundell, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.	Wignall, James
Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)	Royce, William Stapleton	Wild, Sir Ernest Edward
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)	Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)	Wilkie, Alexander
Loseby, Captain C. E.	Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur	Williams. A. (Consett, Durham)
Lunn, William	Sexton, James	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	Shaw, Tom (Preston)	Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)
McMicking, Major Gilbert	Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)	Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C)
Mallalieu, Frederick William	Short, A. (Wednesbury)	Woolcock, W. J. U.
Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.	Simm, Colonel M. T
Morgan, Major D. Watts	Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)	Smith, W. (Wellingborough)	G. Barnes and Mr. T. Thomson.
NOES
Adair, Rear-Admiral	Du Pre, Colonel W. B.	Nield, Sir Herbert
Ainsworth, Captain C.	Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue	Oman, C. W. C.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Forestier-Walker, L.	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. N. (Gorbals)	Foxcroft, Captain C.	Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Barnston, Major Harry	Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham	Perring, William George
Beauchamp, Sir Edward	Gilbert, James Daniel	Purchase, H. G.
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)	Grant, James Augustus	Raw, H. Norman
Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)	Griggs, Sir Peter	Ratcliffe, Henry Butler
Blair, Major Reginald	Gritten, W. G. Howard	Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr.
Bowyer, Capt. G. W. E.	Hailwood, A.	Remer, J. B.
Briggs, Harold	Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)	Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)
Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)	Herbert. Denniss (Hertford)	Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Brown, T. W. (Down, N.)	Hinds, John	Rogers, Sir Hallewell
Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.	Hurd, P. A.	Rowlands, James
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James	Hurst, Major G. B.	Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)
Butcher, Sir J. G.	Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)	Seddon, J. A.
Campion, Col. W. R.	Jones, Wm. Kennedy (Hornsey)	Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)
Carr, W. T.	Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)	Sprot. Colonel Sir Alexander
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)	Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr	Stephenson, Colonel H. K.
Chadwick, R. Burton	Kiley, James Daniel	Stewart, Gershom
Clough, R.	Larmor, Sir J.	Talbot. Rt. Han. Lord E. (Chichester)
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Lister, Sir R. Ashton	Townley, Maximilan G.
Cockerill, Brig -General G. K.	Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)	Tryon, Major George Clement
Colvin, Brig-Gen. R. B.	Lorden, John William	Ward, Colonel L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)	Lort-Williams, J.	Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.
Cozens-Hardy, Hon. W. H.	M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)	Weston, Colonel John W.
Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)	Macquisten, F. A.	Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.
Craig, Lt.-Com. N. (Isle of Thanet)	Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)	Yeo Sir Alfred William
Craik, Right Hon. Sir Henry	Marks, Sir George Croydon	Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)
Davies, T. (Cirencester)	Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)	Morden, Col. H. Grant	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir
Denison-Pender, John C.	Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)	F. Lowe and Sir Henry Cowan.
Dennis, J. W.	Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS

I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words "in those cases where there is evidence of the existence of speculation"

8.0 P.M.

We have heard from the Government that it is impracticable to fix prices in all cases, and we have had strong warning from Mr. Hoover in the newspapers to-day that attempts to control prices, otherwise than in the sense of controlling vicious speculation, can only result in a further curtail- ment of the commodities available. la view of that warning we shall be wise to limit controlled prices to bad cases, and to only the dangerous cases where speculation is going on.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I hope the Government will not accept these words, as this Amendment will vitiate the verdict of the House. The word "speculation" is a very vague term, and I regret that the hon. and gallant Member did not follow his prophet, Mr. Hoover, further and include the words "used in regard to restraint of trade" You leave out the man who holds back goods or corners them by this suggestion.

Sir A. GEDDES

I think it is really undesirable to limit the powers which the Committee has just agreed to by such a term as ''speculation," and for once I agree with my hon. Friend opposite (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). There, are things quite different to speculation which might have to be dealt with, and I can see no advantage to be gained from putting in these words, which I trust will not be pressed.

Lord R. CECIL

I hope the President of the Board of Trade will not shut his eyes altogether to this Amendment. The Government have stated that they do not propose to employ these powers except where there is something like a ring, or holding back, or speculation. I think it is very important not to give these vague and general powers to the Government. I am not speaking of this Government particularly, and let us hope that it will last for six months. It may be that the President, whose talents we all admire, may be sent off to something, quite different, and possibly he may be the First Lord of the Admiralty or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in that case we may have quite a different President, who may adopt the ruthless policy of the Labour party and fix prices so as to destroy all competition with the larger trusts. If these words are mot accepted, will my right hon. Friend assure us that on report he will consider whether some words cannot be inserted to limit these general powers I can assure my "right hon Friend that there is nothing the country is so sick and tired of as the policy of control. This is a Bill, with these powers in it, really to open the door, as far as this particular branch of the subject is concerned, to the full extent of the powers of the Defence of the Realm Act. It gives power to fix maximum prices and to control the whole trade of the country in these matters. I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to give us some undertaking that between this and the Report stage he will try and devise words which will assuage the anxiety we feel about possibilities of this kind and about precedents being established in such a light-hearted way by the present Government.

Major E. WOOD

I think it would facilitate business very much if the right hon Gentleman would give some indication that he would endeavour to follow the course suggested by my Noble Friend (Lord R. Cecil). I think there is a little misunderstanding on the point. I am quite conscious, and I think everybody who voted for the last Amendment, except those who went into the Lobby by mistake, is quite aware that there is an objection to a general fixing of prices. There is no difference of opinion between the Committee and members of the Government on that point. All that we want to provide is that these powers should only apply where there is a primâ facie case of speculation, All I want to do is to make sure of doing what was the view of the Committee when it supported the last Amendment.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON

As far as the miners are concerned they did, at the beginning of the War, make an offer to the Government that if you keep prices where they are, we will never ask you for another penny. Immediately the War broke out the prices of things soared up, and, if this Amendment is carried, it will moan that there are certain firms making huge profits with whom the Government would have no power whatever to deal. I can give one case in point. A certain colliery company in my own county have declared a dividend of 35 percent., and out of the undivided profits have allotted two shares for every one held by the shareholders That is the sort of thing that is going on, and yet the general public are asked to pay to that company another 6s. per ton, though those dividends were realised without the additional price. Does not that call for some control, so that the poor may have a chance to live? These people are charging very enhanced prices, and no one can control them in any way. I trust that the Government will accept the Amendment as proposed.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made

After the words last inserted, add the word "and"—[Sir A. Geddes.]

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS

I beg to move, to leave out paragraph (b).

The effect of this Amendment would be to leave out the very arbitrary powers which this Bill proposes to give to the local committees and to the local benches of magistrates, and it would cause the Government to rely on the checking of profiteering by the fixing of maximum prices. I believe that the effective way of getting rid of profiteering is to fix maximum prices right through, from the raw material down to the finished article and the retailer. I do not think that we shall solve these questions by calling up the small shopkeeper and accusing him of making inordinate profits. The tendency, in some cases, will be to increase the prices charged by people in a large way. They will see the small shopkeeper called up and convince the local tribunal that to enable him to carry on his business at all it is necessary, owing to the smallness of his business, that he should make a considerable profit, measured in percentages, on the single bargain. la it not very likely, when that becomes known, that there will be argued there from a justification for the same prices being charged by the big business with a large turnover? This piecemeal fixing of prices inferentially by the dismissal of cases by the local tribunals on the ground of reasonableness is about the worst form that you could possibly have, and, when coupled with it you have the arbitrary decisions which will have to be arrived at by benches of magistrates as to what is reasonable or unreasonable in the way of profit, I think the whole of the paragraph becomes so objectionable that the Government would be well advised to drop it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I wish to support the Amendment largely on the same ground, strange as that may appear to some of my hon. Friends. This Bill is neither one thing nor the other. It is a hopeless compromise and a thoroughly bad one. The Government, in view of the world conditions, had before them two courses. One was the complete taking over and controlling of all sources of supply, production, distribution, and exchange—complete Socialism, if you like—and the other was the leaving of everything clear and free and allowing people to get into their stride again—the removal of all embargoes and allowing trade to flow freely. They are going to do neither. They are simply going to set one half of the country against the other half. They are going to have all this persecution, espionage, and conspiracy. They are not going to lower prices at all. They are simply going to harass the decent trader and make it difficult for young men coming back from the War to set up again in business. It is a big problem, and this Bill has been introduced with a parochial mind. It is devised to get at the small retailer and haberdasher. Those are not the people who are to blame at all. At the last minute, as the result of speeches in this House and Press agitation, the Government are pretending that they are going to get at the trusts. That was not the original intention. They are going to injure the country irretrievably by this Bill. That is why I voted against it on the Second Heading, and why I shall vote against it on the Third Reading, and for the same reason I shall support this Amendment.

Major HILLS

I rise to support the Amendment, and I wish in all seriousness to bring the Committee back to the suggestion which was made by the Leader of the House. I sincerely believe, if we had a one-Clause Bill for the fixing of prices and left out all the rest, that the country would be much better off, prices would come down, and incidentally we should get to bed early. I do not think the Government realise the full effect of the Amendment which they have just accepted. You either fix prices by the decisions of local tribunals or by the decrees of the Board of Trade, and the Committee have approved of the second course. All the machinery for fixing prices exists. The Costings Department of the Ministry of Food has worked out fixed prices, and it would not be very difficult. It would be a great thing if we could sweep away all these tribunals which are bound to be extremely expensive and unpopular and which will not get the facts upon which the Board of Trade can act. The Board of Trade can get all their facts centrally. If they like to delegate the power, they can delegate it, but in that case it ought to be to large areas and not to small areas. I do ask the right hon. Gentleman, in all seriousness, to consider whether he cannot lighten the ship. I want to stop profiteering as much as any Member of this House, but I voted against the Second Reading of this Bill because, among other things, I was quite convinced that it would hit the small man and let the big man off. This in my conviction, but still the right hon. Gentleman met us so fairly on the last Amendment that I hope he will now go a step further and see the true indication of the Amendment just proposed. If he does that I believe we may get a good Bill, while proving that those of us who went into the Lobby against this measure will be shown to be in the right.

Sir A. GEDDES

This Amendment, if it were carried, would entirely alter the whole procedure of the Bill, and, in my opinion, it would alter it very much for the worse. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken does not even yet understand what the Bill is about.

Lieut.-Commander KEN WORTHY

Does anyone understand?

Sir A. GEDDES

I admit it is not easy to understand a Bill like this. The Bill originally drafted, which absolutely set out all the details, was a far bigger measure than the one now before the Committee. This Bill is an effort to get drafted in as short a space as possible a statement which will confer the powers necessary on the Board of Trade and on the Government. This particular Clause is absolutely vital to our conception of the machinery which it is necessary to use in order to cope with the evil of profiteering. We have at the present time operations which look like vast profiteering run on a wholesale scale, and this Bill is not merely intended to deal with the small man as has been suggested by the hon. Member for Hull, who, if he will do me the honour of looking at the evidence I gave before the Committee upstairs—

Lieut.-Commander KEN WORTHY

We have had no opportunity of looking at it.

Sir E. GEDDES

—the hon. Member will see that in a statement I made there I said that the Bill was based on the Report of the Committee on Trusts—

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I have looked through the papers most carefully. I find no trace of any official document. All I can get is the "Times" report of the right lion Gentleman's evidence.

Sir A. GEDDES

There is an Official Report of all evidence given before Select Committees.

Mr. HURD

But it is not available to Members of the House.

Sir A. GEDDES

I am not responsible for that.

Mr. HURD

The order for publication has not been made. It has been withheld.

Sir A. GEDDES

The facts are quite plain. If this Bill had been designed as suggested, to deal solely with the small trader, it would not have been drafted in this way. But, in addition to dealing with big men, we do want to deal with small ones. There is very often in quite mean streets a great deal of profiteering. That is undoubted. There is no good m saying that a central Department sitting in London is going to deal with small cases of profiteering in things for which you cannot fix a price—small things in bulk individually, but serious in the aggregate. You might take villages and towns in all parts of the country. It is absolutely necessary, I feel sure, if the people of this country are going to be convinced that they are not being robbed by their shopkeepers, that we should have some legislation such as this. What we have to provide for these people is some place to which they can go and at which they can lodge a complaint, and, that having been done, we set up an investigation; and I hope we shall be able to satisfy them that they are not really defenceless before the operations of greedy people. That is an absolutely vital weapon for the Government of this country to possess during the time Parliament is not sitting, and that power is created and confirmed by this Clause here. This Sub-section, therefore, is an absolutely vital part of the procedure which, rightly or wrongly, the Government has come to believe is the right and proper procedure to deal with this evil, and I would, therefore, urge the Committee to let us have this Sub-section and to pass on to the consideration of other proposals in the Bill.

Mr. WIGNALL

This is indeed a House of surprises, and one surprise to me has been the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Hull. I certainly never expected to hear a speech such as he has delivered to-night denouncing this Clause, because to my mind to eliminate the Clause would be to destroy all the value of the Bill. We must realise that if we are to attempt to deal with profiteering we have to begin somewhere. If I were convinced, as I am not, that this Bill vas intended and designed only to deal with the small shopkeeper in the mean streets, in the by-ways, or in the larger streets, I would be the first to deliver my vote against it, and to express with the utmost vehemence my protest against the injustice of the whole thing. But I am not convinced that that is the real object of it, because during the past year one has been able to gain some sort of experience and knowledge of the value of fixing prices and controlling them. Unless, you fix the price, and unless you investigate and inquire into the unfair prices that are being charged, there is no possible way of dealing with this evil. I had a wicked case of profiteering brought to my notice during the last week-end. A retailer in a, general way told me that he had a big sale of controlled boots issued at certain fixed prices, a good article, well made and suitable to the district, and retailed at the j price of 29s. The boots were made of controlled leather, purchased at prices fixed, and sold to the retailer at a figure which enabled him to retail them at 29s. He told me his firm had sold many hundreds of pairs, and had placed orders for many more hundreds of pairs of the same quality. But then the controlled price was taken off, and his order, as a result, was not supplied. When he did get some more boots of the same quality they had to be retailed at 32s. They were exactly the same boots, made of the same leather, and it was the taking off of the controlled I price which gave the profiteer his chance to compel the retailer to sell at an increased price, which, of course, the working classes had to pay. Under the powers of a Clause such as this you may, in the first place, have to deal with the retailer, but then you can trace the matter back until you get to the wholesaler or the manufacturer. During the War period, when controlled prices were put on and it was illegal to sell above those prices, I sat on the bench dealing with hundreds of cases. Many a time a small shopkeeper was brought up because he was selling above the fixed price, and by inquiring into the case we were able to find out where the shopkeeper bought his goods and at what prices they were supplied. In that way, what was a trivial case at the beginning assumed larger proportions, and we were able to get hold of the real villain of the play. I trust the Committee will not accept this Amendment, because to strike out this part of the Clause would be taking the very soul out of the Bill.

Sir S. HOARE

I agree fully with what has been said by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down about the effect of taking off controlled prices. Immediately the price leaps up. It is because of that that several hon. Members sitting around me and myself voted for the last Amendment. We think a much more effective and simpler method of dealing with this problem would be the fixation of prices rather than the very complicated machinery set up in this paragraph. I am inclined to think that this part of the Clause will be in every case onerous and in many cases most unjust to tin; small men. Because of that I support the Amendment. The President of the Board of Trade turned to one of my hon. Friends and said, "You do not understand the Bill, even if you have read it" He then proceeded to say, "No doubt it is a difficult Bill to understand. This is only a short Bill. Originally the Government had a very long Bill, with all sorts of details in it," giving us to understand that if we had those details we should probably understand this Bill better. That is not the way to deal with this Committee. If in that Bill there are details which would enable us to understand a Sub-section of this kind, we ought to have that Bill. On a point of Order. I should like to ask your ruling, Sir, whether the President of the Board of Trade having alluded to another Bill, this Committed would not be justified in demanding that that Paper should be laid on the Table of the House?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E, Cornwall)

I would ask the hon. Member to repeat his point.

Sir S. HOARE

The President of the Board of Trade said to nay hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Durham (Major Hills) that the original idea of the Government was to introduce a long Bill, and that that Bill was in existence with a number of details, without which it is practically impossible for many hon. Members, like myself, to understand what really is the Government machinery.

Sir G. HEWART

Do I understand the hon. Member was saying what the President of the Board of Trade said? Is it suggested that the President of the Board of Trade said that? [HON. MEMBERS. "Yes!"] And is it suggested that my right hon. Friend said that without that Bill this Bill could not be understood?

Major HILLS

He said it would be very difficult to understand it.

Sir S. HOARE

The President of the Board of Trade said that there was a long Bill with a great many details in it, and the only conclusion we could reasonably take upon that is that if we had the longer Bill we could understand this Bill better. I think this Committee ought to-have that Bill.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

It is a matter of opinion, not a matter of order.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS

Is it not a Rule of the House that if Ministers refer to a document it is incumbent upon them to lay that document on the Table?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

it is a question of interpretation of what the President of the Board of Trade said.

Mr. T. SHAW

I am going to vote for this paragraph as it stands. The assumption held below the Gangway opposite is that the Board of Trade is likely to conduct a vigorous campaign against the small shopkeeper and leave the big man alone. My fear is that the Board of Trade will not; be half active enough, either against the large man or the small man. Certainly my fears do not run in the direction that either class of profiteers will be unduly harassed by the. Board of Trade. I shall vote for the paragraph because I see nothing in it which is at all unreasonable. We have first the statement that complaints are to be received and investigated, both as to wholesale and retail prices. I cannot see anything unreasonable in that. I do not see anything unreasonable in the statement that a price should be declared which would yield a reasonable profit. I do not see anything unreasonable in requiring a seller to repay to the complainant any amount which has been paid in excess of such price. Nor can I see anything unreasonable in the prevision that follows. This is the very soul of the Bill. You cannot fix prices, retail and wholesale, for everything—surely no man in this Committee claims that that is possible—but you can make provision that where complaints are made they shall be heard, whether on a large or small scale, and this part of the Clause gives that power. We have heard a great deal about the small trader being harassed. May I suggest that the worst of all profiteers can be found among the smallest traders, and that in the poorest localities there are small traders who are profiteers beside whom even shipping rings and the rest fade into insignificance? It is essential that power should be held by the Board of Trade to deal with men who trade on the very poorest of the poor. As I read the Clause, it gives power to the Board of Trade to deal with the big and small men alike; it gives no power that is unreasonable, and consequently I shall vote for it as it appears in the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Sir A. YEO

I beg to move, in paragraph (b), after the word "complaints" ["to receive and investigate complaints"], to insert tins words "on oath."

Having had some experience in dealing with these cases in local Courts, one is bound to say that very often a good deal of perjury is committed, wilfully and deliberately, in order to deceive the Court and prevent it coming to a right decision. In order to deal with that matter, I move tins Amendment.

Sir G. HEWART

I hope my hon. Friend's view is a little pessimistic. I quite recognise that there may be cases in which it is desirable to have the protection of an oath, and I hope I shall be meeting what he really desires it at the end of Sub-section (5) I should be willing to move to insert some such words as these: "The Board of Trade shall have power to require any person appearing before them under this Act to give evidence on oath, and shall have power to authorise any person to administer an oath for that purpose."

Sir A. YEO

I accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES

I do not, think that quite meets the point which is contained in the Amendment. As I take it the hon. Member (Sir A. Yeo) means that the complaint is a genuine, a proper, and a fully authenticated complaint and a thing that ought to be taken notice of by the tribunal. What we want the Board of Trade to do under this Sub-section is to receive and investigate properly authenticated complaints about which there can be no dubiety, not malicious, blackmailing, frivolous complaints, but complaints which arc in substance and in fact such as to receive investigation at the hands of the central tribunal, and therefore I lo not think what has been proposed by the Attorney-General quite meets what was in the hon. Gentleman's mind.

Sir A. YEO

if a person brings a case before the tribunal or the local magistracy we put him on his oath and it is up to him to prove it. You cannot investigate until you have the case before the Court.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. PENNEFATHER

I beg to move, to leave out the words a profit is being or has been made or sought on the sale of the article (whether wholesale or retail) which is, in view of all the circumstances, unreasonable, and on any such complaint they may by Order, after hearing the parties,—

1. (i) declare the price which would yield a reasonable profit; and
2. (ii) require the seller to repay to the complainant any amount paid by the complainant in excess of such price; or
3. (iii) require the complainant to purchase the article at such price,"

and to insert instead thereof the words prices are being charged either wholesale or retail which are, in view of all the circumstances, unreasonable, and after hearing the parties and considering the evidence the Board may either dismiss the complaint or reduce the price to one yielding a fair and reasonable profit, in which case, it payment has already been made, the Board may either order the seller to refund the difference to the buyer. The Bill has been very hastily drafted, and does not in many of its Clauses make its meaning clear. Tile object of the Amendment is not to alter any principle of the Bill, but to try to make more clear its intentions and to put the options of the Board of Trade in their proper sequence. The Board of Trade is presented with three options and an alternative. May I point out how very confusing it is and how indefinite the wording is? To give one example, it is, I believe, impossible to say from the Bill as printed whether it is retrospective or not—whether its operation commences from the date of the passing of the Act or goes back a number of years. The wording is that the Board of Trade is to receive and investigate complaints that a profit is being or has been made or sought. I do not think anyone could say whether that is retrospective or not. I do not suppose for a moment that the Bill is intended to go back, but the Government should tell us frankly whether it is or whether it is intended to be for a future period. In my Amendment I have used the words "Prices are being charged which are, in view of all the circumstances, unreasonable" That makes it quite clear that it applies to the present time, and does not go back retrospectively an unlimited number of years. There are a good many other points covered by the Amendment. I do not want to repeat criticisms ad nauseam, but I would ask the Attorney-General if he thinks the words in the Bill, as printed, are so much better than mine that he intends to oppose my Amendment? If he has any valid argument to show that the words of the Bill are better than mine. I may be allowed to explain why I press it.

Sir G. HEW ART

The lion. Member has thought fit to make a criticism on the drafting of the Bill. No criticism is more easy to make and it has this advantage, that the gentleman whose skill is being pronounced upon is not able to answer for himself.

Mr. PENNEFATHER

I endeavoured not to make that criticism. I said I did not intend to repeat the many criticisms which have been delivered ad nauseam.

Sir G. HEWART

One way of saying one does not intend to repeat, is to repeat by saying those words. Whatever may be the point, and there may have been none, of that observation, I have no fault to find at all with the drafting of the Bill. I saw it for the first time when it had been completely drafted. I had no part or lot in it and therefore can speak with great impartiality. The subject matter with which the Bill deals is undoubtedly difficult and the only modes of handling the subject are modes which involve great difficulty. If I may say a word for the gentleman who cannot speak for himself I think that the draftsman of this Bill has performed his task with singular care and skill. What is proposed in this Amendment I It is not to alter any point of substance but it really is a proposal to substitute different and better words to accomplish the very purpose which is sought to be accomplished by the provision in the Bill. What are the words which the Bill contains? The Board of Trade is to receive and investigate complaints that a profit is being or has been made. It is suggested that a doubt arises there whether this Bill is to be retrospective. Of course, no Statute which is a penal Statute could possibly be retrospective unless it contains the clearest possible words to that effect. If there is any doubt upon that matter we shall be quite ready to insert words to put it beyond the region of doubt.

Mr. HURD

That is done in the next Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Geddes) to insert "since the passing of this Act."

Sir G. HEWART

That is the next Amendment. The Amendment is quite superfluous. It is inconceivable, it is beyond parallel that a penal Statute can make something an offence which was not an offence before the Bill was passed unless it contains specific provision to that effect. The next words in the Bill are "has been made or sought." What are the words which my hon. Friend suggests? He suggests the word "charged." "Charged" is an ambiguous term. The payment may have been made or may not have been made. I think the draftsman was right when he used the words "has been made or sought." The charge has been successfully made or the bargain has been sought to be made. I should have thought the words of the Bill were perfectly plain and free from ambiguity. The Bill proceeds" on the sale of the article (whether wholesale or retail)" That is substantially what the hon. Member says. He uses the words "either wholesale or retail" The Bill goes on "which is, in view of all the circumstances, unreasonable." The Amendment says, "Which are, in view of all the circumstances, unreasonable." There is no variation.

Mr. PENNEFATHER

I have endeavoured to follow the wording of the Bill.

Sir G. HEWART

Quite so! I am trying to see what is the improvement Now I come to the alternative. The wording of the Bill continues and on any such complaint they may by Order, after hearing the parties, do certain things. In the first place, they may declare the price which would yield a reasonable profit and

1. (ii) require the seller to repay to the complainant any amount paid by the complainant in excess of such price; or
2. (iii) require the complainant to purchase the article at such price."

How does the Amendment deal with that? It passes all these three alternatives, or, rather, so far as it deals with, them, it does so in one undivided sentence, which says after hearing the parties and considering the evidence the Board may either dismiss the complaint or reduce the price to one yielding a. fair and reasonable profit, in which case, if payment has already been made, the Board may either order the seller to refund the difference to the buyer. The Amendment leaves out the third alternative— require the complainant to purchase the article at such price I seriously submit that when one compares the words of the Amendment with the words of the draft it is evident that the words of the draft are the best.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. PENNEFATHER

A Back Bench Member is at great disadvantage in arguing points of this sort with the Attorney-General. I do not think the Attorney-General was as conciliatory as he might have been. He crititicises the fact that I had thought it necessary to make it clear that this Act should not be retrospective, and yet he pointed out that the President of the Board of Trade had in the very next Amendment done exactly what I was seeking to do. If it was unnecessary for me, without knowing that the President of the Board of Trade was going to put in that Amendment, it is, surely, unnecessary for the President of the Board of Trade to put it in. Therefore, I think the Attorney-General's criticism is really upon his own colleague. There are certain points of my Amendment which are similar to those in the Bill. As far as possible I have followed the wording of the Bill, and I do not think that should be made a matter for opprobrium. If, as the Attorney-General has said, the draftsman has done his work very well, surely that is a justification for following that part of the Bill as closely as possible, which I did. Then we come to the point in the Bill which says that the Board of Trade is to hear the parties. A few lines higher up it points out that the Board of Trade may call for and take documentary and other evidence. Therefore, in paragraph (b), where it says "after hearing the parties," I submit the words "and after considering the evidence" ought to be inserted. It is quite clear from the preceding paragraph that it is intended to call evidence. The next point is that in the Bill the first alternative put before the Board of Trade is to "declare the price which would yield a reasonable profit." What I say, first, is that the Board of Trade should consider the evidence, and after considering the evidence should decide whether to dismiss the complaint or whether to go forward with the case. If they dismiss the complaint that would be the end of the matter; the machinery would come to an end. But if they considered that there was substance in the complaint they would come to the next point, which would be to reduce the price. The next paragraph requires the seller to repay to the complainant any amount paid by the complainant in excess of such price. As the Attorney-General has pointed out, it is quite possible that the goods may or may not have been paid for. If they had not been paid for there would be no excess of payment. In view of that, I have put in what I consider a very businesslike and almost legal definition: "If payment has already been made, the Board may either order the seller to refund the difference to the buyer." Then it could follow the words of the Bill, "or may in lieu of maintaining such order, etc." There is a difference between verbiage which is difficult to understand by the people and verbiage which is perfectly clear and straight forward, and which can be understood. We have been reminded that 24,000,000 people in this country are fed by the small shopkeeper. That means that there are 24,000,000 people who need to understand this Bill. For that reason I think it most important that this Bill should not be confused, and my sole object has been to make it as plain as possible in ordinary English language.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES

I hope that my hon. Friend is going to press his Amendment. Sub-section (b) says, "a profit is being or has been made or sought." What is the meaning of the word "sought"? If a man puts a ticket on a suit of clothes in a shop window, does that come under the word "sought"?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I may remind the Committee that there is an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the words "or sought." The Amendment before the Committee at the present moment is as to the best form of wording to carry out an agreed object, and it would be better for the Committee to keep as far as possible to that point and not to go into a question which may be raised by subsequent Amendments.

Mr. JONES

I bow to your knowledge of the Rules of the House of Commons, but this Amendment is to leave out the words from "that" to the end of (iii). If these words are left out, the word to which I am objecting, "sought," goes. Therefore, I suggest that I am entitled to discuss this point.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The question which I am about to put from the Chair is that the words down to "been" stand part.

Mr. JONES

The proposal is to leave out all these words.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

It is not a ruling which I could not perhaps enforce, but I think that the Committee would do well to act on my suggestion. The question put from the Chair will safeguard the other portions of the Clause.

Amendment negatived.

Sir G. HEWART

I beg to move, after the word "been," to insert the words "since the passing of this Act."

The object of this Amendment is to remove any doubt in the mind of the popular reader of the Bill, and not because there is any necessity, so that it will be clear that it is not intended to refer to transactions which took place before the passing of the Act.

Mr. T. SHAW

On a point of Order. I handed in a manuscript Amendment to the Clause. If this Amendment is carried, will my manuscript Amendment be ruled out of order?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The Amendment handed in by the hon. Member has nothing to do with this Amendment, and when it comes on I will decide whether it is in order.

Major GREAME

My whole object in criticising this Bill is to get it into a condition in which its scope and effect will be quite clear on the face of it. I do not know whether I am going to be successful in that or not, but I must assume for present purposes that the Bill is going through in its present form, under which practically the whole scope of the Bill will be dealt with by Regulations of the President of the Board. of Trade and the Food Controller. If that is so, the unfortunate public are going to be left in the position that though they know that they will not be guilty of an offence for anything done before the Bill passes, they will not know what is the offence with which they are to be charged until Regulations arc made by the President of the Board of Trade and the Food Controller. It is only reasonable in the interests of those who are to come under the Bill (if the Bill itself is not to be made clear, as it should be made clear, and as I hope before the early hours of the morning it will be made clear), that the Attorney-General should give us some assurance, which I would accept at once, that no Regulations will be retrospective, if the scope of the offence is fixed by Regulation the person who may be charged should know that the Regulation is not to be made retrospective.

Sir G. HEWART

I am not quite sure that I appreciate fully the meaning of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has pub forward. As I understand it is this, that an assurance is desired that there is nothing in the Regulations which' can be made which tends to make that an offence which was not an offence before the passing of the Act,

Major GREAME

No, the point is this. I feel perfectly convinced that, in the regulations which the Board of Trade issue, they will have to give some dear indication to the tribunal as to what is going to be the line in deciding what is an unreasonable profit. In order that the man who is being charged may know what he is charged with, that definition has got to be stated, and therefore I sub-suit that any offence that is defined by regulation ought to date from the date on which the regulations are published.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I am going to oppose the Amendment of the Attorney-General. There is little in this Bill that commends itself to this House or to the country, as I think the Government will have an opportunity of learning very shortly. But there was a chance under it of getting at the big trusts and combines and making them disgorge. Now, to my horror and amazement, I find that there is to be no such chance at all, and that they are to be left to enjoy the enormous profits which they have made, especially since the Armistice. It is the international combinations that I hope we shall be able to get at under a better Bill presently, perhaps under a different Government. They have made inordinate profits, and we have no means of making them disgorge. I think that this Amendment vitiates one of the few promises that the Bill held out.

Mr. T. SHAW

I want to oppose the Amendment because it will inevitably rule out an Amendment I put down for the deliberate purpose of making the Act retrospective in certain respects. I heard what the Attorney-General said about the law, and no doubt his version of what the law has always been is perfectly correct. But this Bill is dealing with an abnormal state of affairs, and it is perfectly reasonable to expect that if you can produce the case of an abnormal state of affairs you ought to have a chance of inserting a Clause dealing with that state of affairs. I desire to have an addition made to the Clause which will make; it the duty of the Comptroller and Auditor-General to bring before the Board of Trade for the purposes of this Act all cases which have come to the notice of the Department of prices which he considers unreasonable—prices which have been charged to Government Departments by contractors and others during the War. I want, in a word, to make those people disgorge who robbed the Government, and, through the Government, robbed the country. I think robbery is not too strong a word in view of the evidence given before the National Expenditure and Public Accounts Select Committees. I am inclined to think that I shall have the House with me when I say that there have been cases in which it has been plain that the country has been unmercifully bled by contractors and others during the War. I say nothing of things that I am afraid took place as the result of that robbery. I merely say that in this abnormal state of affairs I believe that the ordinary custom of English law may well be altered, that the War profiteer should finally be brought to book, and that the country should enter as far as it can into its own. I know that claims may be made by those who profiteered during the War that they were ignorant of the conditions and of what they were doing. That, to me, is no excuse whatever. I do not want to labour matters. The Report of the Committees are there. What went on is common knowledge. I hope that this Amendment will be defeated, because if it is carried we shall have absolutely no chance under this Bill of getting at the people I want to reach—people who should pay back to the country the money which they took in the day of the country's emergency.

Mr. A. SHAW

I think the hon. Member fell into a cardinal error. If this Amendment is rejected it will make no difference whatever to the legal effect of the Bill. As the Attorney-General so well and clearly said, the effect of the Bill is that no individual under this or any other Act can be prosecuted for an act which was. not a crime at the time it was committed. I think that is also an answer to my hon. Friend behind me (Major Lloyd Greame).

Mr. T. SHAW

If the Clause is carried it will mean the ruling out of my Amendment, which would put into the Bill the powers I seek.

Mr. A. SHAW

I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman's Amendment will be very excellent, but he has to consider on its merits the particular Amendment now before the House, and he is the unfortunate victim of a system by which excellent; Amendments may possibly never be discussed at all and the decision is given to others. With regard to what the hon. and gallant Member for Hendon said, I think he is rather too optimistic, because he apparently looks forward to the time when Regulations will be issued by the Board of Trade which will contain, among other things, a definition of profiteering. I am told that some promise bearing that interpretation was given by the President of the Board of Trade on the Committee stage.

Major GREAME

Before the Select Committee.

Mr. A. SHAW

If that is so, it is necessary for the House to be absolutely certain at this stage that the crime which would then be denned by the Government in a Departmental Order should not involve the antedating of an Act as a crime, when under the ordinary law it would not be a crime at all. I think, therefore, that my hon. Friend is somewhat too optimistic. if the President of the Board of Trade was correct when he told the Select Committee that he had in his mind a scheme for such Regulations, then I think the Government owe it to the House to say at this stage what is their definition of the crime of profiteering. If they have not in their mind now, after a considerable number of days of thought, any concise definition which they can give to the country and to the tribunals, then I think the House is certainly justified in exercising the greatest possible care in dealing with the Amendment. It certainly does appear to me, and I think to many hon. Members, that one of the cardinal flaws of the Act is that we really do not know from begining to end what we are dealing with. The ground gives way under our feet at every step. What is profiteering, and frank profiteering, in one circumstance, may not be profiteering in another, may be really selling at a loss? In this condition of affairs the Government come to the House and they ask the House to give them power to prosecute for crimes which they cannot define, which after weeks of thought they are unable to define, and about which they cannot give the House the least measure of guidance. Therefore, although I do not agree with my hon. Friend (Major Lloyd Greame) on the merits of this particular Amendment, I agree with him in the gist of what he has said, and I would, with him, appeal to the Government to give us some further guidance as to what really is the crime with which this Bill deals, and to tell us whether, under the Regulations on which all seems to hang, a definition of profiteering will be given and definite guidance given to the tribunals all over the country. If this goes to a Division, I shall certainly support the Government; but I would suggest to my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. T. Shaw) that the position is adequately safeguarded by the general character of the law, to which the Attorney-General has referred, and I would ask hon. Members not to press their opposition. My hon. Friend said he does not want the Clause. I dare say he does not. Nobody wants it except the Attorney-General, and he wants the Clause simply because the ordinary person outside, who is presumed to be an exceedingly ignorant person, incapable of understanding the law—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is getting rather wide of the Amendment.

Mr. A. SHAW

I was dealing with the specific evidence of the Attorney-General that it was necessary to insert these words, not to alter the scope of the character of the Clause, but simply to prevent misunderstanding by people outside as to what is the actual effect of the Bill.

Mr. HOLMES

As a member of the Select Committee, may I say that the President of the Board of Trade gave us to understand that something was to be done with regard to profiteering in the past. He said, speaking from recollection, that a plan had been considered which could not be mentioned at the moment, but that something was going to be done. No-doubt people who have been profiteering have been very uncomfortable, but now that the Attorney-General moves that the Bill shall only apply after its passing he practically says to those people, "Do not worry. You have got your money, and we have taken some of it in Excess Profits Taxes, but nothing more will be said about it, and be careful for the future."

Sir G. HEWART

I am sorry my hon. Friend does not wish to make a false point. This Amendment does not say that, or say anything at all, and does not alter the Bill.

Mr. HOLMES

What is the object of the Government suggesting an Amendment if it does not alter the Bill?

Sir G. HEWART

As I explained previously, in order to make it clear to that nebulous person the man in the street.

Mr. HOLMES

I am afraid the effect will be, as I have suggested, that people will come to the conclusion that the profiteer is not going to be punished, because this Bill is only to apply after its passing.

Mr. BRIANT

I understand that the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. T. Shaw) will be ruled out of order if this Amendment is carried. That is a sufficient reason for me to vote against this Amendment, because there is no doubt that the country has had to pay many millions of money when it was at a time of stress and strain, and that was a crime against the country for which those who committed it ought to be punished. Whatever may be the merits of this Amendment, there should be an opportunity of considering the action of those people who took those millions, and for that reason I shall vote against this Amendment.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

One fundamental principle of our legislation is that only in very rare cases is anything ever made retrospective. The Attorney-General's view is that the Bill is not so now. I suggested, and I was the first to do so, in the columns of the London Press, a totally different method of dealing with the people who have been profiteering, and that was by way of a levy for the purpose of paying the cost of the War on those people who had amassed large fortunes during the war period. Such a levy would go to the State, whereas if this Bill were made retrospective the money would only go from A to B, and it would be retrospectively making a man a criminal.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

It would require an investigation into the past.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

Let us get on with the present and the future, or we will get back into the Garden of Eden and the apple before we finish. When I saw this Bill and heard the arguments I thought at first I had drifted into some place where everybody was not in the full possession of his senses. It is the most extraordinary Bill ever put up, but let us try not to make it unreasonable. I have advocated the principle of lightening the burden of taxation on the rest of the community by a levy on those gentlemen who managed owing to war circumstances to amass large fortunes. Some of them have become great landowners, in the hope that they may become English country gentlemen. It takes three generations, as a rule, to do so, and I think in the case of the war profiteer it will take at least five. My proposal would be fair, and merely a matter of taxation. If this Amendment were not carried, and if the Bill were made retrospective, it would lead to endless trouble and endless inquiry and investigation. The business of the country has got to goon, and we cannot be all continuously employed in going into the colossal series of small investigations which would result. We have heard a great deal about profiteering in food and other comestibles, but there is one kind of profiteering which has not been mentioned, and that is that which went on in milliners' and drapers' shops. When they raised their prices they were always gladly paid, and it was there that a large portion of the munition worker's-wages went. I think it would have been more important and more for the good of the community if the Government had appointed a clothing controller instead of a drink controller. I am perfectly serious in. making that statement. There were many women who spent their husbands' earnings on personal adornment, and many women suffered through the lure of dress as men suffered through the lure of drink. If Lord D' Abernon's efforts had been directed to this question, he could probably have saved atremendous amount of money to the community. I protest against any idea of making a thing like this restrospective. It will be a troublesome enough Bill and a dangerous enough Bill to work as it is. You have got to make sure that you do not cut off your source of supply and discourage the small producer. I believe that a great deal of the profiteering results from the fact that the trading is carried on in shops instead of in markets, where the producer and consumer could meet. Once you solved that problem you would solve almost wholly the social problem, since you would eliminate the middleman. The average corporation or town council is composed of shop keepers who discourage markets because they compete with the shops. If you could once get back to marketing direct between producer and consumer you would have solved a great part of the question of profiteering, at all events in provisions. We should do all we can to induce

The CHAIRMAN

(Mr. Whitley): The ion. Member is becoming much too general in his remarks.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

I protest against this attempt to make the Bill retrospective, because it is a fundamental principle of our law that you cannot convict a man of a crime that was not a crime at the tune it was committed. If you do so you are tearing up the -whole Constitution, and rights for which this country has fought for about a thousand years.

Question put: "That those words be; there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 176; Noes, 53.

Division No. 98.]	AYES.	[9.35 p.m.
Adair, Rear-Admiral	Greenwood, Col. Sir Hamar	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte	Gregory, Horman	Parker, James
Ainswortin, Captain C.	Grecton, Colonel John	Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Astor, Major Hon. Waldorf	Griggs, Sir Peter	Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Baird, John Lawrence	Guinness, Capt. Hon. R. (Southend)	Perkins, Walter Frank
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W.E. (B. St. E.)	Perring, William George
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick	Hailwood, A.	Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray
Barnett, Major Richard W. :	Hamilton, Major C. G. C. (Altrincham)	Pran, John William
Barnston, Major Harry	Henry, Denis s. (Londonderry, S.)	Prescott, Major W. H.
Beauchamp, Sir Edward	Herbert, Denniss (Hertford)	Pulley, Charles Thornton
Beck, Arthur Cecil	Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon	Purchase, H. G.
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes);	Higham, C. F. (Islington, S.)	Rae, H. Norman
Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)	Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.	Raeourn, Sir William
Birchall, Major J. D.	Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)	Raper, A. Baldwin
Blades, Sir George R.	Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.	Ratcliffe, Henry Butler
Blair, Major Reginald:	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr.
Brackenbury, Captain H. L.	Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)	Remer, J. B.
Bridgeman, William Clive	Hughes, Spencer Leigh	Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend
Briggs, Harold	Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)	Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Broad, Thomas Tucker	Hurst, Major G. B.	Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radner)
Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)	Inskip, T. W. H.	Rogers, Sir Hallewell
Brown, T. W. (Down, N.)	Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)	Roundell, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.
Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.	Jesson, C.	Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)
Butcher, Sir J. G.	Jodrell, N. P.	Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)
Campbell, J. G. D.	Johnson, L. S.	Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur
Campion, Col. W. R.	Johnstone, J.	Seddon, J. A.
Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)	Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)	Seely, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. John
Carr, W. T.	Jones, Wm. Kennedy (Hornsey)	Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)
Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)	Kellaway, Frederick George	Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Casey, T. W.	Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr	Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Kidd, James	Simm, Colonel M. T.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)	Knights, Captain H.	Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Child, Brig.-Gen. Sir Hill	Larmor, Sir J.	Stanier, Captain Sir Beville
Clough, R.	Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)	Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)	Stephenson, Colonel H. K.
Conway, Sir W. Martin	Lister, Sir R. Ashton	Stevens, Marshall
Cory, Sir James Herbert (Cardiff)	Lloyd, George Butler	Stewart, Gershom
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)	Locker-Lampion, Com. O (Hunt'don)	Strauss. Edward Anthony
Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter	Sugden, W. H.
Craig, Lt.-Com. N. (Isle of Thanet)	Lorden, John William	Sutherland, Sir William
Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.	Lort-Williams, J.	Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead
Davies, Major David (Montgomery Co.)	Loseby, Captain C. E.	Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)
Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)	Lowe, Sip F. W.	Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (M'yhl)
Davies, T. (Cirencester)	M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)	Townley, Maximilan G.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)	McMicklng, Major Gilbert	Tryon, Major George Clement
Dawes, J. A.	Macquisten, F. A.	Vickers, D.
Dennis, J. W.	Mallalieu, Frederick William	Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H.	Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)	Ward, Colonel L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Du Pre. Colonel W. B.	Mitchell, William Lane-	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)	Morden, Col. H. Grant	Wild, Sir Ernest Edward
Eyres-Monsell, Commander	Moreing, Captain Algernon H.	Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)
FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.	Morison, T. B. (Inverness)	Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)
Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue	Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)	Woolcock, W. J. U.
Forestier-Walker, L,	Murray, Major C.D. (Edinburgh, S.)	Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Gardiner, J. (Perth)	Murray, William (Dumfries)	Yeo, Sir Alfred William
Geddes, Rt Hen. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)	Nall, Major Joseph	Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham	Newman, Sir R. H. S.D. (Exeter)
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John	Nield, Sir Herbert	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain
Greame, Major P. Lloyd	Norris, Sir Henry G.	F. Guest and Lord E. Talbot.
Green, J. F. (Leicester)	Oman, C. W. C.
NOES
Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke	Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York)	Royce, William Stapleton
Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)	Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)	Sexton, James
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Hinds, John	Shaw, Tom (Preston)
Bowyer, Capt. G. W. E.	Hirst, G. H.	Short, A. (Wednesbury)
Briant, F.	Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)	Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)
Bromfield, W.	Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)	Smith, W. (Wellingborough)
Cairns, John	Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander	Spencer, George A.
Cape, Tom	Kenyon, Barnet	Spcor, B. G.
Carter, W. (Mansfield)	Kiley, James Daniel	Swan, J. E. C.
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)
Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)	Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)	Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)	Marks, Sir George Croydon	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E)
Doyle, N. Grattan	Murray, Dr. D. (Western isles)	Wignall, James
Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)	Onions, Alfred	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C)
Edwards, J. H. (Glam., Neath)	Richardson, R. (Houghton)
Finney, Samuel	Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)	Grundy, T. W.	Holmes and Mr. Limn.
Gritten, W. G. Howard	Rowlands, James

Question put, and agreed to

The CHAIRMAN

The next Amend ment is that of the lion, and gallant Member for Hull—to leave out paragraph (iii).

Lieut.- Commander KEN WORTHY

I have an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the words or sought" in paragraph (b).

The CHAIRMAN

The Amendment I call is that to leave out paragraph (iii). Under the Standing Order I have power to select: in that way.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

Shall I not be able to move the first one?

The CHAIRMAN

No.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I beg to move, to leave out paragraph (iii) This is the first time the "Kangaroo" has been exercised on me. Under this paragraph you "require the complainant to purchase the article at such price." How can you make a man buy something he does not want to buy? It is altogether vague, and quite in line with this extra ordinary Bill. New offences are brought in. It is an offence now to make a profit on a transaction, and now a new crime is created, and if you do not buy something you will be punished. Really I do not know what we have fought the War for, if the only result is that we do not know what we may do in business, and what crimes we are committing until we are, called before some tribunal and found guilty.;

Sir G. HEWART

Of course, the meaning of this decision is perfectly clear to anyone who desires to understand it. The complaint may be that profit has been I made, or profit has been sought, but it is important that the complaint should be sincere. It therefore provides that the tribunal, Board of Trade, or whoever looks into the matter, shall say whether a reasonable price is asked. In the one alternative the man has paid too much. In that case, the seller has to repay him the difference. In the other alternative he has not bought, and he has to buy at a reasonable price,

Mr. HOLMES

The point I would like to pat-to the Attorney-General is this: The Bill says a complaint may be made that the price sought is too much. Let us assume that a woman goes into a, shop and wants to buy a dress. The price asked appears to her to be exorbitant, and, instead of buying the dress, she lodges a complaint. It will take a long time probably before that complaint is heard. In the meantime, she has bought a dress somewhere else, and yet the Bill says that this woman who, on public grounds, brings a complaint against the shopkeeper for asking an excessive price, may be compelled two or three months afterwards to buy a dress she no longer wants, at a price settled by the tribunal. Surely that is absurd.

Mr. INSKIP

I want to ask another question. Supposing a man goes to a corn, merchant at one of the Exchanges, and asks the price of wheat or barley, and, according to the price quoted, he is prepared to buy a large or small parcel, and an excessive price is asked, how much wheat or barley is comprehended in the expression "the article"? What sort of an Order may be made upon a man who has not made up his mind how much he is going to buy, but wants to know what the price is going to be? I do not see how in such a case an Order could be made.

Sir G. HEWART

I am quite sure it needs little ingenuity to imagine any number of possible cases under this Bill or any Bill. I call attention to one word. It is "may," not "shall." In the case supposed it would be impossible to make the Order.

Sir D. MACLEAN

I think the power sought here is certainly one we ought not to grant. I quite agree that where a complaint has been improperly made, the person making the complaint ought to be made to pay the costs. But to give the power to enforce completion of contract in this way is quite a different matter. The man may have merely asked the price. It may be very much against the interests or the desire of the would-be seller to deliver these goods, but the Board of Trade official, or, in this case, one of the enthusiastic members of the tribunal, may insist that the complainant purchases the article. To require the complainant to purchase the article at such a price is an absolutely new thing. The justice of the whole case would be fully met, I suggest, by making the complainant who is found to be wrong pay the costs. If it cannot be done here, I suggest it can be done on Report.

Sir G. HEWART

I am very anxious to meet the reasonable wishes of the Committee. The horrible case has been suggested to me that a lady might buy a hat, the investigation might take three months, in which time the lady's hat would be hopelessly out of fashion. The case is irresistible. The Government will with draw the paragraph, and consider before Report as to making suitable provision to provide for unnecessary or unsuccessful complaints.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir G. HEWART

I beg to move, in paragraph (b), to leave out the words or may, in lieu of making such Order, where they think the circumstances of the case so require, take proceedings against the seller before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and if in such proceedings it is found that the price charged or demanded by the seller is such as to yield to him a profit which is, in view of all the" circumstances, unreasonable, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, and to insert instead thereof (3) If, as a result of any investigation undertaken on their own initiative or on complaint made to them, it appears to the Board of Trade that the circumstances so require, the Board shall take proceedings against the seller before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and if in such proceedings it is found that the price charged or demanded about which the complaint was made or the price discovered at the investigation to have been charged or demanded was such as to yield a profit which is, in view of all the circumstances, unreasonable, the seller shall be liable on summary conviction to a. fine not exceeding two hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both such imprisonment and fine. What is proposed in the Amendment is to leave out the words at the end of paragraph (b), and to insert as a substantive Sub-clause the provision which I have moved. The point of substance which differentiates this proposal from that in the Bill is that, instead of making these proceedings an alternative, they make it possible for the Board of Trade to commence such proceedings, if, on investigation, the first or second time, the circumstances seem to require it. It has been said more than once in the course of discussion that there was in this Bill no definition of the offence which the Bill in intended to meet. It is further suggested that, in the Regulations to be made under this Act, it would be proper to define the offence. The speakers themselves showed the impossibility of making a precise definition. It was allowed that what in some circumstances would be profiteering might not be in other circumstances. It is precisely for that reason, amongst others, that a definition is impossible. What does this provision profess to do? To prevent that which, in all the circumstances of the case, is an unusual profit. Profit may vary from time to time and from place to place. It is a question of fact in each case and in all the circumstances of the case. I suggest that in this new Sub-clause the Committee gets as near a definition as the circumstances permit: I am not saying it is a definition, but that it is as near as you can get in such a case. The provision reads: where it is found that the price charged or demanded about which the complaint is made or the price discovered at the investigation to have been charged or demanded, was such as to yield a profit which is in all the circumstances unreasonable. I do not say that is a definition, but if a person, not for controversial purposes, but with a desire to arrive at the truth of the matter seeks a description of what is or could be made an offence, these words, I think, are sufficient to satisfy his curiosity.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES

I have no objection at all to the substitution of this new Sub-section for that which appears in the Bill, but I want to make this one point. In paragraph (b)of the Clause we have passed the words that a profit is being, or has been, made or 'sought' on the sale of an article. In this Sub-clause, as it is now proposed, we are asked to accept the words, to have been charged or demanded. Has the word "demanded" the same significance as "sought" or has it a different meaning? I suggest to the Attorney-General it is desirable to have the same wording right throughout this measure in order to save any misapprehension.

Sir G. HEWART

I will later propose in Amendment to substitute the word "sought" for the word "demanded" which will meet the case of the hon. Gentleman.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

How. will this affect my Amendment, Mr. Whitley, to leave out the words "or demanded?" I offered the word "sought," and now for exactly tine same reason I wish to offer the words "or demanded."

The CHAIRMAN

We had better deal with the question before the Committee, and wait till we come to that.

Mr. WIGNALL

I would like to ask the Attorney-General why it is that six months imprisonment in the original proposal has been altered to three month imprisonment in the present Amendment? Is it because the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that six months is too much, or is it an oversight on the part of the printer because six months has been carried throughout the whole of the War?

Sir G. HEWART

It is not an oversight on the part of the printer, but if my hon. Friend will kindly look at the Bill he will see that the penalties contemplated are a fine of £200 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both imprisonment and fine. We felt that three months was sufficient, but that the latter alternative should be given.

Sir D. MACLEAN

May I as whether it is not a correct reading of the position in which the Committee finds itself that if we once agree to leave out the words proposed then we shall have before us the words the Government propose to substitute to as they now appear on the Paper? If the Committee comes to the conclusion that on the whole this general proposition might be well substituted for the one in the Bill, we should then be able to deal with the new Government proposal as amended. I observe the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member later would come, as indicated, in this new proposal quite as readily as in the original words. I was going to suggest that this might be a little more businesslike way of dealing with the matter. It would assist us.

Sir E. WILD

Before you rule, Mr. Whitley, on that point, I should like to begin my few observations by asking your ruling on another matter. I want to oppose this penal Clause altogether. I do not want it, whether in the new or the old form. Docs it matter whether we oppose it on the old or the new form

The CHAIRMAN

If the Committee will permit me to get rid of the words in the Bill, then I shall propose the subsequent words which are capable of Amendment.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Mr. HOLMES

It appears to mo that the procedure will be that anyone can lodge a complaint which will be heard by a local committee. If it is a bad ease the local committee will declare the price and require the seller to repay a certain amount, but if it is a really bad case the local committee may send it on to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and the seller may be punished with a fine or imprisonment, but the purchaser will get nothing back in that case. I wish to ask whether that is so. Am I correct in saying that if a man is only slightly swindled he will get his money back, but if he is badly swindled ho will get nothing back?

Sir A. GEDDES

This Amendment was prepared to meet the objection which has just been put by the hon. Member. Unless the local committee say they do not propose to do anything but send the case they are not restricted, and they can do that.

Mr. JONES

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "demanded" ["or demanded about the complaint was made"], and to insert instead thereof the word "sought."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

This proposal is in line with the Amendment I intended to move originally. My reason for moving the omission of these words was not that the word "sought" should be substituted for "demanded," but in order to leave out this hypothetical case of a crime that was not committed. The Bill is going to lead to enough heartburning and ruin without having any hypothetical cases. It is quite enough to prove that a man has overcharged, and I think we shall be extremely ill-advised if we are going to start persecuting the man who simply asks a price. The whole thing is panic legislation, and this is a panic demand made without understanding the circumstances. It is bad enough to leave the Bill as it is without adding this hypothetical and almost imaginary crime.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment to the proposed Amendment made: Leave out the word "demanded" ["demanded was such as to yield a profit"], and insert instead thereof the word "sought."—[Mr. Kennedy Jones.]

Mr. INSKIP

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "a" ["yield a profit"], to insert the words "rate of."

This is an honest attempt to improve the Bill by providing some sort of fixed idea as to the offence instead of leaving it in the vague form which the Attorney-General says it must be left in. We had a considerable argument on the Second Reading, and the Minister of Labour made considerable play about this point, and he said if it was a gross offence hon. Members must have a pretty shrewd idea what it was, and that anybody could give a definition of it by the exercise of a little common-sense. The same question arose when this House was tasked to pass a measure taxing luxuries. We all think we know what a luxury is, but when we come to define it we find it impossible. We charged the Government with extravagance, find we all know, and the Government know, what is meant by extravagance, although it is difficult to define. But I defy anybody to convict a man, with due regard to liberty, of being extravagant. It depends upon the standards you adopt. Burke once said: A large and liberal construction in ascertaining offences and a discretionary power in punishing them is a monster in jurisprudence and the liberty of the subject will be subverted by it. I think those words are apposite to the proposal of the Government. The Minister for Labour gave two illustrations as to the use of the word "reasonable" in criminal and civil law. There is an. exceedingly accurate standard by which you can form an estimate of what is reasonable. Take the words "reasonable care in civil-law." Everybody knows what an ordinary man is expected to do under such circumstances. Reasonable is used with reference to what is familiar as the ordinary care which an ordinary person uses. Similarly in the case of criminal law. The Minister for Labour said the Licensing Act of 1910 made it an offence to give a person more than a reasonable amount of refreshment. The standard by which you judge reasonable refreshment is the amount of refreshment which will not make a person drunk. You have the canon of drunkenness by which to judge the amount of reasonableness. The next illustration which was given was the driving of a motor car at an unreasonable speed. The canon by which you judge the reasonableness or the unreasonableness is whether or not the motor car or vehicle was driven in a manner so as to create a danger. What is the canon by which these tribunals will judge the reasonableness in the case of this Bill? There is no canon at all. Quot homines tot sententice. There is no criterion by which you can fix this reasonableness.

I have made an honest attempt, and I suggest that it is a vast improvement upon the Government's attempt. My suggestion is that if a man is making a profit in excess of the fair average rate earned by persons in the same way of business as himself upon the sale of similar articles under pre-war conditions, then he is committing an offence. You there have a definite standard and everybody in a particular trade can judge for himself. Take, for instance, the case of boots. A pair of boots which the retailer could buy for 7s. 6d. was sold for 9s. 6d., a profit of 2s. He now buys them for 17s. 6d. and he puts on 4s., double the profit which he made before. It is, however, the same rate of profit, and, having regard to the increased cost of running his business, it is not unreasonable that he should make double the profit, although the rate is the same. Supposing that he added 10s. or 15s., we should all say that lie was committing a crime, and he would know that he was committing a crime, because he would be seeking to make a rate of profit in excess of that which he expected to get before the War when conditions were normal. There would not be any difficulty in any tribunal composed of persons with a fair representation of trading interests saying what was a fair rate of profit in that particular business which was under consideration. Get together a number of persons, some of them in business and some out of business, and ask them to say whether a man has been making a reasonable profit and they may be locked up for days and nights before they ever arrive at any decision, except under compulsion, possibly, of weariness or starvation. Take my words, and you will have a standard to apply.

There is one other argument which I will use in favour of my proposal. The Attorney-General has sought to introduce some sort of equity into this proposal by putting in the words "in view of all the circumstances." I am unfortunate enough to be a lawyer, and I can imagine that no lawyer would have an easier task to perform than to go before these tribunals and urge circumstance after cirsumstance—the number of the man's family, the rent of his house, the amount of his turnover, the loss he was making on other goods; and Heaven knows what might be introduced by a tradesman, let alone a clever lawyer! Really, the tribunal at the end would be so befogged by the circumstances which had been laid before it as to whether or not, in view of all the circumstances, the profit was areasonable one or not, that the very purpose of this Clause would be defeated by the complexity of the considerations which would be laid before them. I earnestly hope that the Committee will see their way to accept some such proposal as I have ventured to make. You will not then have the circumstances brought forward; you will have a simple inquiry as to how much the boot maker and the milliner, or the furniture dealer, made upon the sale of similar articles under pre war conditions. "Was it 20 per cent., 30 per cent., or 35 per cent.? How much more is he now making] Fifty per cent.? One hundred per cent? Convict him out of hand." It will be a simple matter, and will leave the tradesman adequately protected. He had the same standard by [which to judge his conduct. The opera- tion of these tribunals will be to facilitate the discovery of profiteering, which we are all so anxious to prevent.

Sir A. GEDDES

I know, of course, the hon. and learned Gentleman did not see the first draft of this Bill, but if he had he would have found in it words very similar to those he has now moved. The reason why we cut them out was that they seemed so grossly unfair in certain cases. You have to remember that these are days of restricted supply These are days when most of our difficulties come from restricted supply. There is, therefore, a shortage in the number of articles dealt in by the vast majority of traders, both wholesale and retail, in this country. If you base your definition of profiteering on a rate of profit which refers to pre war turnover you may be doing a. gross injustice to men or firms who are serving a very useful social purpose. For that reason we discarded a definition on these lines. We think more fair the definition which we have adopted throughout this Bill. There is not the slightest doubt that if the hon. Member's definition were adopted it would possibly draw the net tighter; many, I believe, who will escape under the Bill as it stands would be caught if this definition were in. If we were merely out to secure a punitive measure there would be no objection, but we are not out for that. We want to catch people who are being unreasonable and unfair. If the Committee will study what this Amendment really means they will see that it has in it not only the possibility, but the certainty in these days of restricted supply, of gross injustice, or even of the restriction of necessary supplies. I hope, therefore, the Amendment will not be passed.

Sir D. MACLEAN

That sounds all right. But we have to look at the human problem, and see what is actually working amongst the people. One of the real factors we arc seeking is something approaching uniformity of decision in these. matters I will put to my right hon. Friend, by way of illustration, what happened the other day under the Military Service Act. It was quite impossible there, I know, to fix your standard, and that was one of the things which was constantly worrying the authorities. There was such a diversity of decision all over the place and that fact alone gave rise to a great sense of injustice, because in one place at one end of the county you got decisions completely different from those delivered at the other end of the same county. You never arrived at anything approaching a really normal standard. What is going to happen under the words "in view of all the circumstances of the case"? My hon. and learned Friend, in a speech for which the Committee are indebted to him, did not put the case as a lawyer at all. It was not a piece of special pleading, but dealt with the facts of human life as he knows them in the Courts and as I know them. We know exactly how these things will work. That is why his words carry such weight and conviction. He is speaking from actual knowledge of how the existing machine works in the Courts and how this thing must follow the inevitable channels there. You leave the smaller local tribunals on one side dealing with the words "in view of all the circumstances of the case." Let me put this instance: A tradesman has one customer who has neglected to pay his bill for a long time. When he comes into the shop or office again, the tradesman is going to charge a much higher price to him than he would charge the normal customer who comes in. In that case he is going to get off under these words. But the general public do not follow these things at all. It is only a six months' job under the Bill. It is intended to meet what we hope is only a passing difficulty. I suggest that you must take the risks. The best way to deal with this matter is to lay down some such standard as my hon and learned Friend and his colleagues have done and take the risks of it. You will then get something approaching a standard to which these tribunals will work, and I have no doubt they will do their best to meet it fairly. To leave it with these vague words will lead to gross injustices. Where there has not been injustice but a fair decision, you will, by reason of this, evoke unrest and dissatisfaction and deprive the tribunals of that moral authority without which they cannot carry out their work.

Sir E. WILD

It is not often I find myself in complete agreement with the right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean), but I consider his speech was a useful contribution to the Debate. We are, on the eve of our own Recess, in the midst of what is nothing but panic legislation. We are proposing to do what I respectfully con- sider to be an act of the grossest injustice to the whole of the shopkeepers of this country. We are doing it in a perfectly light way, not by means of an Act of Parliament, because no lawyer, not even a human being, can call this thing a Bill—it is simply a manifesto. We are faced with this situation: Here we have come to the crucial point of the whole matter, which is, are we or are we not going to condemn the shopkeepers of this country to the constant harassment of their customers, of tribunals, of the Board of Trade, and of officials? I am one of the very ordinary Members of Parliament, although I happen to be a lawyer. I have received, and we all have received, the most heartrending appeals from the shopkeepers in our Constituencies. May I read just one line as an, illustration, because we have now arrived at the penal part of the matter, and the House of Commons has always been meticulously anxious about the liberties of the subject. This is what he says: The worst part of the Bill is the indignity to which it subjects the shopkeeper. Shopkeepers have dignity just the same as other folks. The Bill places them at the mercy of every discontented or maliciously inclined person who may care to advertise himself by trying to trap them. Take the case of a small back-street trader who has insulted the neighbourhood by refusing to give them goods on credit. What a chance to get their own back, and what a life for the poor shopkeeper, perhaps a widow struggling along as best she can! That is an ilustration of what we are doing, and I hope the House of Commons will pause once, twice, and thrice, before it gives its sanction to this Clause in whatever form—and I think the form proposed by my hon. Friend would be preferable to the nebulous form of the Government. If the Government are going to do it, let them do it. They can carry anything by the weight of those who have not listened to the Debate but come in to vote. One realises that Debates are perfectly useless. Here we are dealing wholesale with the liberty of the subject, the thing for which this House has fought. The whole tradition of Parliament is the liberty of the subject. During the War people were contented to put up with all these restrictions, but even under the Defence of the Realm Act you put it in black and white. You may have put it in regulations, but you put it so that a man could know what he was doing. Here you do not even do that. The President of the Board of Trade, in the most unconvincing speech I have ever heard delivered, in introducing the Bill in a perfunctory manner, said the definition was implicit in the Bill. That is a nice way of dealing with the liberty of the subject. The Attorney-General says you gather the definition because you say "such as to yield a profit which is, in view of all the circumstances, unreasonable." That is the thing for which you are going to try a man, and for which you can give him three months' imprisonment on the very first offence, in addition, if you like, to a fine of £200. I shall certainly advise the shopkeepers of my Constituency to go out of trade for six months and lake a holiday, because it simply means every time you sell an article over the counter—it is worse than Monte Carlo you are gambling against a prosecution. You will have your competitors coining round. You are opening the door to all sorts of conspiracies. We know what the tribunals are in some eases. We know the log-rolling there is. The President of the Board of Trade tells us he is going to delegate the power of prosecution to these petty local tribunals. You will have A, B, and C in Little Puddlington. One man has been rather more successful than another, and the unsuccessful one, perhaps, gets on the tribunal. Perhaps he is a great friend of the local magistrates. I know something about these local benches. It is all very well to speak about them with this air of reverence, but when you come to deal with them what my right lion. Friend says is the truth. Did they not try to get before the tribunal of origin rather than the tribunal of business, because they knew perfectly well that in one they would get fairer treatment than in the other?

Sir D. MACLEAN

It was constantly done.

Sir E. WILD

Take a motor case. In some benches you have never got a chance before the little Jacks-in-office who administer justice. Perhaps a tradesman who is not very friendly—his wife does not call on someone else's wife—you get him on the complaint of someone put up by a local rival. He will go to the shop, ask the price of the goods, will be discontended, and make a complaint to the local tribunal. Then they will go before the tribunal. What does that mean? My right hon. Friends, under the Olympian security of the Treasury Bench, talk about being haled before a bench of magistrates as if it was a mere common, every-day occurrence. Respectable citizens—and shopkeepers are as respectable as the right hon. Gentleman—are not at all pleased at being dragged into Courts of law, and being subject to the attentions of Mr. A.B. or Mr. C.D., the local magistrates, appointed through some local influence and not because they have any knowledge of the law. That is what we are doing. We are coming here and for the sake of a manifesto, for the sake of letting it be said that we are doing something, for the sake of going away on holiday and letting it be said, "This Coalition Government has dealt with profiteering," we are passing this Bill. Heaven forbid that I should say a word in favour of profiteering! Profiteering is a wicked thing; but, on the other hand, is not the remedy worse than the disease? I only hope that this wretched Bill will die; that it will be discussed with such particularity that the Government will think it wiser to cut the whole business. Is it not perfectly ridiculous, as my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) has said, to have a different standard in one part of the Kingdom and another in another part?

Sir D. MACLEAN

Or in another part of a county.

Sir E. WILD

One standard in one part of a county and another in another part of a county A standard of an undefined offence for which a man can get three months' imprisonment and a £200 fine for a first offence. And that standard is made dependable upon the words "in view of all the circumstances, unreasonable." That depends upon the idiosyncrasies of a particular stipendiary magistrate, who is equally idiosyncratic. The Government can do it if they choose. I did not vote against a Second Reading of the Bill because I did not vote at all. I thought we should be able to make the Bill into something like common sense and common justice to these people. We are not able to do it. I asked the right hon. Gentleman to fix maximum prices, and lie said, "We will do it." I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is quite at home in commerce. He seems to think that commerce is-like a proposition in Euclid or some piece of scientific analysis. You want a business man to manage these sort of things. You cannot play with the arteries and structure of trade in "the same way in which you dissect at a post-mortem examination. I voted upon the Amendment in favour of a maximum price—although I loathe maximum prices—because I want the wretched tradesman to know where he is, It does not matter whether you convict him or not. Drag him before his fellow townsmen, and he is a ruined man; he is done for. He is a suspected person. The maximum price is no good to us now. You do this to your tradesmen—the backbone of your country, very largely—because they arc people without a trade union. When I use the words "trade union" I do not mean them in any offensive sense. I invite the Committee, in the interests of freedom of the subject, to carry this Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend, and then, when this Clause comes to be put as part of the Bill, to vote unanimously against it, and kill the most malicious and iniquitous Bill that was ever brought forward in a moment of panic.

Sir F. LOWE

On a point of Order. I understand that an Amendment has been moved by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Geddes) in charge of the Bill to insert certain words in substitution for words in the Bill. Since then an Amendment has been moved to the proposed new words. Now we appear to be discussing the whole Clause and not the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Inskip). It seems to me that the only point to be discussed now is whether "unreasonable prices" should be considered to be something different from pre-war prices, or something unreasonable from the present point of view in regard to altered conditions. I submit that we should confine ourselves to this point and dispose of it before deciding on these words which my right hon. Friend proposes to insert in the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. and learned Member for Bristol (Mr. Inskip) raises a point of great magnitude, namely, whether conviction and imprisonment ought to follow on this specified offence or some offence which was in the discretion of some other people, magistrates or others. That is the reason why I have not been attempting to confine the Debate too closely, because it does raise the whole matter.

Sir F. LOWE

It is only a question as to whether a person should be convicted of charging more than what would be a pre-war profit, which is a different question from that which is raised in the proposed new Sub-section. It is a comparatively narrow point, whether it should depend on pre-war prices or profits or on what was thought unreasonable now.

The CHAIRMAN

That is the point before the Committee. I trust that there will not be a second discussion on the Question, "these words be there inserted."

Major GREAME

The sole object of the lion, and learned Member for Bristol and myself was to get a definite declaration from the Government as to the policy which was going to govern the local authorities in their action, and I submit that it would be convenient if we can discuss that point now.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is raising a point of Order. I have his manuscript Amendment, which is, in other words, almost the same tiling, though not quite, as that which has been proposed by the hon. Member for Bristol.

Major GREAME

It raises a different point.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is entitled to put his view on the present occasion.

Sir G. HEWART

It gave me great pleasure to hear the amusing speech of my hon. and learned Friend.[HON. MEMBERS: "Not amusing; serious!"] It gave me great pleasure, then, to hear the amusing and serious speech of my hon. and learned Friend. In approaching this very difficult question, I assume two things. The first is that the Committee sincerely desires to deal, and to deal fairly, with the evil of profiteering. [HON. MEMBERS: "This Bill will not do it!] I shall come to that in a moment. The second assumption I venture to make is that the Committee, for that purpose, desires in proper cases to inflict a suitable punishment on the profiteer. I do not see how that is going to be done under any scheme without invoking the aid of Courts of Summary Jurisdiction. It is surely not going to be suggested that the only fair way in which you can deal with the profiteer is by presenting an indictment before a jury at Assizes or at the Old Bailey? I think my hon. and learned Friend takes too gloomy a view of the impartiality and the capacity of magistrates, whether they arc stipendiary or lay. I hope he takes too gloomy a view of the competence of the magistrates' clerk. So far as those criticisms really have point, they have point in any case in which this House by a Statute proposes to remit a matter to the adjudication of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. Taking these two assumptions—first, that we have got to deal with profiteering, and, secondly, that in a proper case we have to punish the profiteer—what comes next? What is the thing that it is desired to discover and to punish, and by punishment to prevent? It is the obtaining, not at some past time, but in the present and in the future, of a profit which is an unreasonable profit. How are you going to define it? Take a simple illustration. A. man goes to a fashionable hotel in order to dine. I do not know what may be the appropriate addition which is made to the price at which the meat enters the kitchen before you came to the price at which it is put upon the dining table. It might be, in the case of a fashionable restaurant with big premises and a large staff, a very large addition, and yet it might be, in the circumstances, a very reasonable addition. Take the sale: of a mutton chop or beefsteak in some totally different place. The addition of that amount of profit would be utterly unreasonable. Exactly the same kind of consideration applies to every article, and it is, therefore, profoundly difficult to express in clear and precise terms something which is really a definition of this ingredient of unreasonableness in profit. Are we, therefore, to abandon the effort? My hon. and learned Friend came to the conclusion that the remedy was worse than the disease. Does that mean that the disease is to go on—that you are to do nothing? I trust not.

Sir E. WILD

I think it is better to abandon the Bill altogether.

Sir G. HEWART

So I understood. If we are to deal with the matter, and if that with which we are to deal is the unreasonable quantity of profit, what is the fairest way of ascertaining it? The method of the Bill is to place the matter before a tribunal, and a tribunal which has been unjustly aspersed, and to direct that tribunal to have regard to all the circumstances of the case and come to the conclusion aye or no whether under those circumstances the profit is unreasonable. My suggestion is, with all the criticism to which it has been subjected, that that is a fair and proper way. In everyone of these cases there would be if the defendant desired an appeal to Quarter Sessions. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is the same thing!"] Arc we to be told that neither a Court of Quarter Sessions nor a Court of Summary Jurisdiction is fitted to deal with cases of the kind? There might in a proper case be a case stated for the opinion of the High Court. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Bill only lasts for six months!"] If the suggestion is that injustice is going to be done I am pointing out the correctives in order to prevent injustice. If that be so, I suggest that the scheme of the Bill is the best practical way of dealing with an uncommonly difficult subject-matter. It is the difficulty of the subject-matter with which we are confronted. Let me turn to the precise alternative suggested. It is said—and I gather that in more than one quarter there are those who favour it—that a better plan, and a more practical and fairer plan, would be to adopt the Amendment which has been proposed. Let us see what that Amendment would involve. II would involve this, that in every case a man would be liable to conviction if it were proved that the price which he obtained was a price in excess of the fair average—

Mr. INSKIP

It is the rate of profit, which is an entirely different thing from the price of the article. You take the rate of profit on the largely increased value of the article which the tradesman is selling.

Sir G. HEWART

If the rate of profit is in excess of the fair average rate earned by persons in the same way of business as a seller upon the sale of similar articles under pre-war conditions. That is seriously put forward as an Amendment which will get rid of some element of unfairness in the Bill. Is it not perfectly obvious that upon any inquiry as to whether in a particular transaction the profit actually obtained or sought to be obtained was unreasonable, it would be most relevant for the defendant to show, if he could, that it was not in excess of the fair average rate earned by persons in the same way of business as the seller upon the sale of similar articles under pre-war conditions? I should be-very far from saying that a man was necessarily guilty of the offence with which this Bill has to do if that was all. It might well be in a particular case he was entitled to get a profit in excess of that, early figure. The point in which this Amendment differs from the proposal of the Bill is not in the sense that it is more lenient to the defendant but that it is more harsh Every arguments that could be adduced, every fact that could be given in evidence, on behalf of the defendant, if this Amendment were carried, can be adduced or given in evidence under the Bill, but he can go further, and he can say, "Notwithstanding that this rate of profit is in excess of the pre-war rate, I adduce circumstances upon which I ask the Court of profit. "So far from our being more harsh to the shopkeeper than this Amendment proposes, we are more lenient and more tender towards him. If we are going to consider the real problem, which is, What is unreasonable profit? all relevant circumstances must be capable of being given in evidence. Nobody proposes to exclude this, but let us hesitate long before we make this the sole, the conclusive, criterion.

11.0 P.M.

Mr. ACLAND

I would like to argue that, even accepting the argument that we have just heard, there is very much to be said For having a definition which is more definite instead of the vague definition in the Bill. I think it may possibly be that j in certain cases this Amendment, if in inserted, might be taken to be more harsh to the seller than the words which are proposed to be left out, but at any rate under; the words proposed to be put in a man would know where he is, and the fact that the man does not know where he is is the main defect of what we are asked to set up under the Bill. I happen to be a tradesman. I sell cucumbers mainly, and the man who sells my cucumbers for me is very much alarmed as to his position under that Bill. I sell timber also, and I try to make up by profits on my cucumbers what I lose j on my timber. I sell cucumbers at about Id. an inch, and they pay me. My gardener has asked me what his position will be under this Bill, because he can sell cucumbers at that rate as fast as they are produced on account of the very brisk demand of the working men living in the neighbourhood, but he says it is not considered reasonable there that I should make any profit at all. It is considered rather an ungentle manly thing for a landowner to do and he is afraid it will not be considered reasonable that we should make any profit out of our cucumbers, and he does not know, like so many thousands of other people, where he will be if this Bill becomes law. But under the words proposed to be pat in,' at any rate,, we shall know where we are. We have got to find out what is regarded as the pre-war rate' of profit in the cucumber and tomato trade, which is not a difficult thing to find out. These trades have certain risks, and certain profits are regarded as! reasonable in consideration of all those risks, and if we know that we are simply obtaining the same rate of profit as other I people in the same business earned before I the War, we shall be safe, instead of I having these utterly vague Regulations, which it is so difficult to interpret. The right hon. Gentleman's point about the two men who sold beefsteaks really does not apply. The Amendment, if inserted, would not say that you shall judge everybody the same, and that you shall not make allowance for the fact that a very big man, having a very big hotel, will make a very different rate of profit from the small man having a small business. The Amendment guards against that by referring to a man in the same way of business. Let us take it from another point of view—that of members of Courts of Summary Jurisdiction. I happen to be one of them. I was asked to sit on my Petty Sessional Bench the other day, and the invitation was accompanied by a form asking me if I were prepared to give full time to the discharge of the duties. Think what the duties of members of Petty Sessional and other Courts are going to be in interpreting these words about unreasonable profits! It raises up avista of one's time being taken up, and difficulties of carrying out one's duties, which will be quite terrific, and will add a very great strain to the work of the county magistrates, who are already very fully occupied with ordinary county business. Under the Amendment the task would be very much easier. We would have to find out what was a fair rate of profit in that business before the War. The whole thing is turned by the Amendment from being vague, difficult, uncertain, liable to abuse, into a thing which is capable of some certainty and some definition, and I for one am not willing to allow all these Courts to have the task of interpreting the amazingly difficult words the Government ask us to accept. I think it would be much better to adopt the hon. Member's Amendment, and therefore I shall support it if it goes to a Division.

Mr. PERRING

Perhaps, as one who has been in the wholesale and retail trade for many years, I may speak from a few facts j and not mere assumptions. From a choice of evils, if we are to have this Bill, I think the Amendment is the most equitable and most fair, and, speaking as president of a chamber of commerce in West London, and having an intimate knowledge of a large body of some of the largest traders in London, I say they would much prefer to have the Amendment and be allowed to earn the average rate of profit which they earned before the War. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill ventured the remark that it would inflict a great injustice on the trader, and for that reason opposed it. Much of the charge of profiteering is purely a misconception in this sense. While the trader is making larger profits to-day, and the returns of most of the large retail and wholesale business houses show an enormous increase in turnover, and, of course, in net profit, that is not due to a higher rate of profit but to the larger turnover In the sense I interpret it, that is not profiteering. It is due to the fact that, owing to the increased prices of commodities, the turnover has become higher. The most respectable traders invariably work upon a percentage of profit—what they conceive to be an honest trading profit. The honest trader is as anxious to satisfy his clients as he possibly can be. He has a goodwill which he is determined to preserve to the utmost. I know of many traders who, if their assistants overcharge a customer by some small trick, compel the salesman to return the money to the customer. I am speaking of high-minded men with large businesses, who have built them up because they have worked on sound lines.

I suggest to the Committee, if they are wise—and I am sure they want to do justice—they will accept the Amendment, because whatever may be the shortcomings of the tribunals—and I myself was for the whole period on one, and also on the borough food control committee—I know their shortcomings, weaknesses, and qualities—and I say advisedly—that with those committees as constituted it is practically impossible to do even-handed justice. What would be a reasonable profit in one case would be an unreasonable one in another. It would be, all very well if the goods were standardised. We should then know where we were with certain classes of goods. Prices vary, and if you settle the price of one, the others would be out of propor- tion. Therefore, if you give an average rate of profit and the trader has to produce his trading accounts for the year before the War, and you put it at 20 or 25 per cent. and whatever the turnover is he will be satisfied, and the public will receive fair justice. That is all they want. On the whole, I put it to the Committee that it is all very well for the Government and those on the Front Bench to argue as they do—in a academic and philosophical way. But the average trader knows more about the wholesale and retail trade than does the Front Bench. You can talk academically if you like, but I could take lion, and right hon. Gentlemen into my factories or shops or to different businesses and show them how it is possible to drive a coach and horses through this Bill.

All that a multiple shopkeeper with 10, 20, or 100 shops has to do to got out of this Bill is to open a wholesale department. The goods he buys pours through it, and he re-invoices them, and makes two profits. He will tell the tribunal these are warehouse charges or, it may be, office charges. The Wholesale Co-operative are doing the same thing to-day and every day. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I invoice goods every week to the Wholesale and Retail Co-operative, and I know what I am talking about. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will be delighted to know what the co-operative societies do? They have no extra discount. They never see the goods. These were put through their warehouses. They go North or South. All they do is that they pay weekly or monthly, and they get a discount. The co-operative societies put out huge figures of their turnover, and say to the British public, "Look at the small percentage we work upon!" I do not know whether those who represent the co-operative societies opposite—

The CHAIRMAN

I think the hon. Gentleman is raising a controversial matter; perhaps it would be as well to keep to the point.

Mr. PERRING

I wish to tell the Committee how easy it will be to get through this Bill. In the case of many large traders the goods do not go through the wholesale at all. Perhaps half of them do, but they have a percentage out of the whole, and they say, "Look what a small percentage we work upon!" Supposing a trader in the North had to deal with a case from a trader in Newcastle, Manchester, or London, and they have a cooperative society before them. If they take the basis of the wholesale profit as a sound guide for other people, the effect will be that the ordinary wholesaler, who has to keep travellers, carries enormous stocks and delivers the goods a second time. In the case of other traders, they invoice the goods through a wholesale department, and it is purely bookkeeping, and they are getting two profits. If the two profits be 7½ per cent. and 17½per cent., it would be 25 per cent. altogether. If the ordinary trader charged 25 per cent. it must be said that the retail shopkeeper had gone beyond the margin of a reasonable profit, while the co-operative society at 17½ per cent. would have been held to have done fairly. There is a distinction here without a difference. All multiple shopkeepers will, in all probability, open wholesale departments, and by deducting 7½ per cent. off the retail profit they will get 7½ per cent. from the wholesale and it will be difficult for any tribunal to prove that they have not handled the goods, and the result would be that inequalities would creep in. If the Amendment is accepted the average rate of profit in all grades will be equitable and in the result justice will be done.

Sir A. GEDDES

We have had a great deal of interesting information from the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, but we are dealing here with a much narrower point. I would suggest that it might be possible for the Government to meet this Amendment by inserting in the Clause we propose the words, Provided that a profit which does not exceed the fair average rate earned by persons in the same way of business as a seller upon the sale of similar articles under pre-war conditions shall not be deemed unreasonable. That is not quite the same thing.

Mr. INSKIP

So far as I am concerned I accept those words, and I think it is a better proposal than my own.

The CHAIRMAN

Those words are practically the same as are contained in a manuscript Amendment handed in by the hon. Member for Hendon (Major Greame).

Major GREAME

My Amendment is not quite the same, because this proposal is directed to the average rate of profit earned by the seller during the three years before the War. In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I do not wish to move my Amendment. I am exceedingly glad that this concession has been given, because, had it not been so, it would have been found perfectly impossible to get people to sit upon these tribunals.

Mr. HOLMES

It would be only fair to allow the seller to take his own pre-war rate of profit. It may be that he had a higher pre-war rate of profit than the average profit, and, if so surely it is not unreasonable that ho should be allowed to take the pre-war rate of profit. The President of the "Board of Trade referred to a restricted turnover. If a man could take his own pre-war rate of profit, he would get something to meet it.

Sir A. GEDDES

I really think the point is met, and I hope that the Committee will let us have the Amendment now.

Mr. HINDS

There are a large quantity of goods which are sold at a certain price all round. Some of those goods are sold under cost, and others at a large profit in order to recoup the loss and make a profit on the whole.

Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Sir A. GEDDES

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to add the words, Provided that a rate of profit which does not exceed the fair average rate earned by persons in the same way of business as the seller upon the sale of similar articles under pre-war conditions shall not be deemed unreasonable.

Sir D. MACLEAN

There is some question about a manuscript Amendment, and, if these words be added, it will shut out the Amendment, will it not?

The CHAIRMAN

I am afraid that I have already put the Question.

Mr. SWAN

Are we to understand, where the pre-war profits amounted to 50 per cent., and were converted every two or three years into bonuses, that they would be considered reasonable?

Sir G. HEWART

I am not certain I quite follow my hon. Friend's suggestion as to cases where the profit has been 50 per cent.

Mr. SWAN

On what is it to be based when the profits have varied from year to year and bonus shares have been given?

Sir G. HEWART

It would not depend on the amount of a particular firm's transactions; it would have to be the usual rate of profit in the trade or industry.

Mr. N. MACLEAN

Take the case of a large firm of margarine manufacturers, which makes large profits, pays a dividend of 100 per cent., and also bonus shares. On what will the calculation be based in that case? Say the profits for three successive years are respectively75, 100 and 125 per cent. That gives a three years' average of 100 per cent. What in that case will be deemed a reasonable rate of profit? Would it be 100 per cent?

Sir G. HEWART

Not at all. The hon. Member entirely overlooks the words in the proviso 'in excess of the fair average rate made by persons in the same way of business." The experience of one particular firm is not enough.

Mr. MACLEAN

Then it is to be the average of the particular trade or industry?

Mr. HOLMES

The hon. Member is labouring under the impression we are to calculate the profit made on the capital of the company.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

Suppose one firm of margarine makers has been making large profits although selling at the same rate as another firm which makes little or no profit, the difference being due to their superior organisation. Is the better organised firm only to have its profits on the same basis as the badly organised firm?

Sir G. HEWART

Now my lion. Friend is putting the matter the other way. But there is a saving proviso which does not deprive the well-organised firm of the profits due to its better organisation.

Mr. WATERSON

Docs not the right lion. Gentleman think it would be wise now for the Government to drop this Bill entirely?

Sir G. HEWART

No, I do not.

The CHAIRMAN

The Question is "That those words be added to the proposed Amendment,"

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

On a point of Order. I put in just now a manuscript Amendment on the question of the penalties. I want to know where I stand in regard to that: is it not ruled out by thus putting the Question?

The CHAIRMAN

I am afraid I have already put the Amendment "That those words be there added." We cannot go back on that.

Proposed words, as amended, there inserted.

Mr. STEVENS

I beg to move, at end of paragraph(b), to add the words (iv) in case any complaint shall on investigation be proved, to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade, to be vexatious, the Board of Trade shall have power to award the seller such compensation, to be payable out of the fund or rate mentioned in Section six of this Act, as the Board of Trade shall deem reasonable. I agree that the greatest profiteers are the people who deal in produce of different kinds in large quantities. Although that is generally admitted in Committee, the case we have come down to on every Amendment proposed is that of the shopkeeper. This Amendment meets the question of the large man of business and also covers that of the shopkeeper. It is an Amendment saving the seller from the result of vexatious proceedings. It is left entirely in the hands of the Hoard of Trade to pay such compensation, but lion. Members should bear in mind that it is the Board of Trade who will be responsible for bringing forward a complaint. The complaint may be made not vexatiously at all. It may be made with good facts behind it, yet the prosecution may be a vexatious one. I hoped that the Amendment, which is most reasonable in the interests of the honest seller, would have been accepted by the Government, but I understand it will not be, not because some such provision is unnecessary, but because it is thought that an Amendment in the name of the President of the Board of Trade at the bottom of page 2311 of the Amendment Paper somewhat covers the point. That is not the case. This Amendment is a saving to the honest seller, while the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman is to give summary conviction to the dishonest informer—two very different matters.

The CHAIRMAN

I may remind the hon. Member that at an earlier stage in the proceedings we were promised an Amendment by the Government on these lines, so there is no need for him to labour the point.

Sir G. HEWART

An undertaking was given at an earlier stage that the Regulations should contain a provision about costs That will be done in the Regulations. The matter does not only depend upon the penal Clause about to be removed, but we shall provide for the matter of costs in the case of a complaint which failed. The words the Amendment employs are "shall on investigation prove to be vexatious." A complaint which is found to be true could hardly be said to be vexatious. If it is unsuccessful he may be penalised in costs under the Regulations.

Mr. STEVENS

My point is not that the complaint may not be vexatious because it is a good complaint. It may be a good complaint and yet a vexatious prosecution. The point I want to make, dealing with larger traders, is this. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Wild) suggested that the shopkeeper should go out of business for six months. Shopkeepers unfortunately are not in that position, but the big merchants are. You have accepted 1 definition of profiteering by the last Amendment. Go on this a little further distance and assure the big merchant that he is not going to have a vexatious prosecution brought against him during the next six months, and he will go on with his business. On the other hand, if he fails to go on it is a very small matter for him to wait for six months, tout it is a very big matter for this country if the big merchants and exporters, more particularly the exporters, as well as the importers, can say, "We are not going to be troubled with this vexatious legislation and we will go out of business for six months." That is the point I want to cover. I am most anxious that the big merchants shall be able to go on without any feeling of vexation.

Sir J. BUTCHER

It would help the Committee if the Attorney-General would tell us in some short outline what kind of provisions he is going to make for costs by the Regulations, because it would seem only right that if the action of a shopkeeper is improperly challenged and the complaint absolutely fails, the shopkeeper should have some proper provision for his costs being paid.

Sir G. HEWART

In Clause 1, Sub-section (3), paragraph (b), which provides that the Board of Trade may require the complainant to purchase the article at such price, we undertook to insert in the Regulations a provision that in a proper case the complainant should pay the costs of a person against whom the complaint was made. I should have thought that was far more likely to deter a complaint than the provision contemplated by this Amendment that the costs in such cases should be paid out of some fund.

Sir J. BUTCHER

What about the costs of an unsuccessful prosecution? Will they be reimbursed?

Sir G. HEWART

I suppose in that as in other cases costs will follow the event.

Sir J. BUTCHER

Supposing the prosecution is undertaken by the Board of Trade?

Sir G. HEWART

It must be.

Sir J. BUTCHER

Would the Board of Trade be obliged to pay the costs, because we know there is a little difficulty about getting the Government to pay costs. I think their practice has become more humane, at any rate more reasonable, in, modern times. I should be glad of the assurance of the Attorney-General that if there is an unsuccessful prosecution the Board of Trade will compensate shopkeepers.

Mr. STEVENS

In these cases, except in the case of big traders and trusts, the complainant is almost certain to be a man of straw from whom no costs can be obtained. In these circumstances will the Government be responsible for costs?

Mr. NEAL

Is there not great danger of confusion here? Clause 1 deals with the Board of Trade receiving and investigating complaints. The Amendment speaks of "complaint." Is not the complaint, which would be interpreted as being the one covered by the Amendment, the complaint of the Board of Trade? There are two possible complainants and two possible complaints, and it needs to be made quite clear that they are on the same point. This is not a question of costs. The hon. Member has moved an Amendment which I do not understand. He suggests that if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade that any complaint is vexatious, the Board of Trade is to have power to award compensation—on what principle 2 do not know—to the person" who had been summoned to the Board of Trade or its delegated tribunal to answer that complaint—that is a step anterior to proaecu- tion If it is a question of prosecution the ordinary law of the land would protect the person against an improper complaint by giving costs

Sir G. HEWART

It is necessary to distinguish two things. One is the case of a complaint under Clause 1, paragraph (b), and the other is the case of a. prosecution under what will now be Clause 1, Sub-clause (2). As regards the complaint which is really the only subject-matter of the Amendment now before the Committee, costs would be provided for in the Regulations. It is said, and it may be true, that in certain cases which have been specified the complainant would not be able to pay the costs. It would be right, and we should provide that in such a case the Board of Trade should pay the costs. I do not imagine that any other compensation beyond the costs is contemplated by this Amendment. In regard to the second matter which arises out of the Amendment, namely, the costs of a prosecution which fails, my hon. and learned. Friend (Sir J. Butcher) will remember a very long and very dull argument in the King's Bench Division shortly before the vacation upon the difficult question of costs against the Crown. I hope that before long that will be put upon a proper footing. My own view is that the Crown ought to be in the same position as any other litigant: it ought to pay where it fails, and to receive the costs where it succeeds. Let it not be imagined that it will be in any way disadvantageous to the Crown, because the Crown is so well advised—[Laughter]—yes—that the Crown usually succeeds. I hope it will be recognised that so far as this Bill is concerned, the question of costs can be provided for in the Regulations.

Lord R. CECIL

How are you going to get costs in respect of a complaint under paragraph (b)? There will be some difficulty about the procedure, for there you will not have ordinary legal procedure.

Sir G. HEWART

There will be no difficulty if the Regulation provides that the costs in cases that are unsuccessful shall be paid by the Board of Trade.

Sir J. BUTCHER

Would it be possible to put into those Regulations some provision that a complainant must put up some sum for costs, so that if he is unsuccessful there will be some fund other than public funds to pay the cost, because personally I would be very sorry to think that a malicious complainant could put a shopkeeper to this expense, and then have his costs paid for out of public taxation? Perhaps my right hon. Friend would consider that point in framing Regulations as to costs, so as to protect not merely the shopkeeper, but the public.

Sir G. HEWARTassented.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. MACLEAN

I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out the words "fails to comply with," and to insert instead thereof the word "infringes."

Sir A. GEDDES

I will accept this if it is limited to the insertion of the words "or infringes."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. MACLEAN

I beg to move, in Subsection (3), after the word "with" ["comply with,"], to insert the words "or infringes."

Lord R. CECIL

Under (b) (ii.) the Board of Trade may by order require the seller to repay to the complainant the excess price. Suppose that the order is made unfairly he will not be able to challenge it before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and if he docs not pay he will be subject to fine or imprisonment or both, with, out his ever being able to bring before the Court the justice or the injustice of the original order. I cannot think that that is fair.

Sir A. GEDDES

At the end of Clause 2 there is a proviso for appeal from the orders of local committees.

Lord R. CECIL

That does not meet the point. In this case there is an order by the Board of Trade. It may be that that order is unreasonable. It is an administrative order made by an administrative body, yet once it is made the unhappy seller must go to prison or pay a fine without any power of bringing before the Court that is to enforce that fine or imprisonment the justice of the original order. The point is that it is not fair to expose anybody to fine or imprisonment without giving him an opportunity of questioning before the Court which is to impose the fine or imprisonment the justice of the original order, under which he is being prosecuted. The point is that once the order is made if it is not complied with the offence is complete, however unjust or improper it has been. There ought to be some provision inserted giving him the power to bring before the Court of summary jurisdiction the question whether the order ought ever to have been made at all or not.

Sir A. GEDDES

I think there is a point of substance raised. I would suggest that we might meet it by some such words as these, in Sub-section (3) If any person fails to comply with, or infringes an order of the Board of Trade under this Sub-section he shall, on proof of failure to comply or of infringement, be liable on summary conviction to a fine. That does not quite meet the point, but it goes some way towards it.

Lord R. CECIL

It still leaves the point that he cannot challenge the justice of the original order. I really do not think it is fair at this time of day to enforce what really is a debt by fine or imprisonment. There may be every kind of gradation with the wickedness of the offence of overcharging. An order is made to repay, and thereupon that is to be enforced by fine or imprisonment. It is altogether a retrograde measure according to the course of legislation during the past fifty years.

Sir G. HEWART

I think it ought to be made very clear what is the point of substance which the. Noble Lord has raised. As matters stand, the investigation which is provided for by Clause 1 may be made either by the Board of Trade itself, or, if it delegates its power, by a committee. In the case of a committee the magistrate makes an order and there is an appeal against the order. But it is said that where the order is made by the Board of Trade itself, then, if the order is not complied with, or it is infringed, the mere fact that the order has been infringed and not complied with is to render the person liable to fine or imprisonment. Is not that quite reasonable? The order in that case will have to be made by the Board of Trade itself—that is to say, the Board of Trade will have conducted an investigation and will have found, as a fact, that the profit, in view of all the circumstances, was unreasonable, and, having found that, will have ordered the seller to repay the complainant the sum in excess. The question of fact will have teen decided. The fact that the order had been made would also have been determined. The order would speak for itself. I submit that we have made sufficient provision by way of appeal.

Mr. INSKIP

I cannot help feeling a little surprised that this Sub-section (3) is intended to apply to orders that come under Section 1 (b). I have a fairly distinct recollection that in his speech on the Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman was interrupted by some hon. Members, I think by the Noble Lord himself, as to these orders under Sub-section (3), and the right hoi). Gentleman assured the House that it referred only to orders which were made under Sub-section (a). which required persons to appear before them and furnish information or produce documents. The infringement of that would be a proper thing to punish by a fine not exceeding £ 50 or by imprisonment—that is to say, if a man proved contumacious or refused to produce documents. It is different to apply that punishment to a mere refusal to pay money, or to do other things under paragraph (b). in view of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman in his speech on Second Reading, T hope words will be inserted to make it clear that Sub-section (3) only applies to orders under Subsection (1) (a).

Sir A. GEDDES

I admit my remarks were open to that interpretation. The point, so far as my memory carries me, was in connection with penalties as to the first nine or ten lines on page 2 of the Bill, Sub-section (2). I quite agree that unintentionally I misled the House. That was the only point that was raised at the moment, and T apologise if I appeared to exclude what is, I think, a quite obvious fact, that this Sub-section also refers to orders which may be made under paragraph (b).

Mr. INSKIP

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will change that.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MACLEAN

I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out tin; word "fifty," and to insert instead thereof the words "two hundred."

Sir G. HEWART

This is a penalty for failure to appear or furnish information, or for failing to repay where repayment is required. In such cases the penalty is £ 00 or imprisonment, or both, and I should have thought that was quite adequate.

Amendment negatived.

Sir A. GEDDES

I beg to move, at end of Sub-section (3), to insert the words "or to both such imprisonment and fine."

Lord R. CECIL

I trust that the right lion. Gentleman will not press this Amendment. This is really fantastic. Why should you subject a man for refusing to give information to both imprisonment and fine? There is no sense in making these things really ridiculous. This is not a question of punishing profiteering, but some contumacy in giving information. Surely you can trust the tribunals to impose either a fine or imprisonment!

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I would respectfully point out to the Noble Lord that it may be necessary to bring great pressure to bear on the members or possibly the servants of the big trade combines and trusts, who, I am afraid, are the only people—and I hope they will be—whom we shall be able to get hold of by this Bill. I understand these penalties are for people who do not come forward before the investigation committees and give information when required to do so, and it is most necessary for us to be able to deal drastically with such cases. There might be a great conspiracy among the great trusts and trade combinations to hamper the work of investigation, on which lines alone we can deal with this problem, and therefore it is necessary to have drastic punishment, and I do not think any money fine alone would be sufficient at all. I hope the Government will press their Amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES

I hope the Government are not going to press this Amendment, because it amounts to this, that if a complaint is made against a tailor that he has overcharged for a suit of clothes and an investigation is conducted by the Board of Trade, they can require the tailor to repay to the complainant the amount which is in excess of the price that ought to have been charged, and if he fails to comply with that order, ho is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50 or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding one month, or to both. I suggest that that is an attempt to penalise traders beyond anything which ought to be considered by the Government.

Sir G. HEWART

I am sure the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin perceives that what is provided for here is not the penalty which shall be imposed, but the maximum penalty which in a proper case may be imposed. These are the extreme limits of the punishment which, in the worst case, can be awarded. Let me see what the worst case might be. There might be a failure to appear, or there might be a refusal to furnish information, or to produce documents, but there might also be this, that in a particular transaction a very large illegitimate profit had been made, and it is conceivable that payment of a fine of £50 or imprisonment for a term of one month might not be enough. Why should not the Court or the stipendiary, in a proper case, be empowered to say, "In this case we will send this man, to prison and impose a fine as well"?

Lord R. CECIL

It is difficult to say or see how you are going to arrive at any limit under the scheme proposed. You would appear ultimately to arrive at the position of Draco, when all crimes were made punishable by death. I can only reply to the question of the Attorney-General by saying that I do not think that this is the kind of offence that under our general code of law should be punishable by the sort of penalty he proposes. It is quite easy to bend to popular prejudice in a matter of this sort, and to proceed vigorously against profiteers, to obtain a certain amount of popular applause by taking anyone to Court under Statute, and to propose and inflict severe penalties; but it is scarcely in accordance with the principles of good legislation or of our code of law. The Attorney-General, I imagine, would find it very difficult to produce any precedent thereto for making an offence of this kind punishable both by imprisonment and fine. I doubt whether he will find a single precedent.

Sir G. HEWART

I do not know about precedents—

An HON. MEMBER

The Police Bill!

Sir G. HEWART

But I am sure the Noble Lord sees that the main object of this Bill is not to punish, but to deter. We know what the poet says— What's done you partly may compute, But can't tell what's resisted! The penalties in the Bill are primarily to deter persons from doing what is illegal.

Lord R. CECIL

Why, then, do not you make every offence capital?

Mr. NEAL

The Noble Lord does not realise that imprisonment might be absolutely necessary. But the Noble Lord cannot call attention to any part of the Bill where the amount referred to is recoverable as a civil debt, and punishable! What the Bill does say is that the Board of Trade may order the repayment of the excess. It might very well be that no fine would be added to punishment, but it must be remembered that the amount of the repayment might not be very much, and the person might say that he would very cheerfully pay £50 and retire on the profit of the transaction.

Sir J. BUTCHER

The point made by the hon. Member (Mr. Neal) is a good one. At present the Board of Trade may order a profiteer to repay some grossly exorbitant sum that he had overcharged. He may refuse. You cannot proceed by the ordinary methods of execution as you could if it were an ordinary defendant, because it is tinder the ægis of the Board of Trade. I would suggest to my fight hon. Friend that he might between now and the Report Stage make some special provision for enforcing this by the Board of Trade in the same way as by an order of the Court—in other words by seizing the man's property. The best way is to get the money; that is better than imprisoning him. Some people prefer imprisonment to refunding money. I am afraid I cannot agree that these penalties are too severe. Personally, I do not think they are severe enough. Suppose a man, knowing that he has committed the worst offence of profiteering, deliberately refuses to appear before the Board of Trade, or to produce his books, or to give the necessary information to bring him to justice. A £50 fine is perfectly ridiculous. My hon. Friend spoke of analogies. Take the analogy of a Court of law. A Court makes an order upon a man to appear and to produce his books, and the man does not do it. He goes to prison for contempt of Court. It is worth considering whether a man who refuses to obey an order of the Board of Trade should not go to prison and remain there until he complies with the legitimate order of the Board of Trade.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS

The point of substance made here is that a man might make a considerable profit and prefer any fine rather than disgorge. If that be so, surely it can be got over by the insertion of some such words as "in addition to proceedings for debt"! Perhaps the Attorney-General would tell us whether this debt, arising out of the order of the Board of Trade, is or is not recover- able, and if there is no existing legal powers he would promote some form of words before the Report stage to deal with the omission?

Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY

My hon. Friend asks for a precedent. I can furnish one—that of the Income Tax Commissioners. The result of changes in the law has been, according to the statements of the Income Tax Commissioners, extremely beneficial, because many people would willingly attempt to cheat the Revenue by false returns or wrong information if the only risk they ran was that of having to pay the money. But they hesitate to do so when they have before their eyes the possibility of imprisonment. That is a very apposite precedent for legislation of this kind. As the Attorney-General pointed out, the object of this legislation is to deter rather than inflict punishment. A provision of this kind will have a deterrent effect, not so much upon small traders, who are not aimed at, so much as the great trader and the representative trusts.

Sir G. HEWART

In answer to the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness), the Board of Trade may sue for the full amount of the excess profit as a civil debt. The Statute also provides that where there is failure to comply with the order of the Board of Trade, the person who so fails to comply shall be liable on summary conviction to certain penalties. I rather think that it would be held by any Court that the remedy provided by the Act is the only remedy, and that in such cases there would not be found, unless expressly provided, to recognise the amount as a civil debt. The suggestion is a good one. I will consider between now and Report whether we cannot insert in the appropriate place in the Bill a provision to the effect that if the seller fails to repay the amount which he is required to repay, he may be sued for it by civil process.

Amendment negatived.

Sir A. GEDDES

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3), to insert (4) If any person at or for the purpose of any such investigation or in any such complaint furnishes any information or makes any representation which is false in any material particular, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both such imprisonment and fine.

Earl WINTERTON

While there may be something to be said for the Amendment which has just been agreed to, it does not seem to me necessary, in the ease of such an offence as is aimed at by this Amendment, to impose both a fine and imprisonment. I should like to ask the Attorney-General what is the exact meaning of "false in any material particular. It seems to me that that is a very ambiguous phrase. Either a statement is false or it is true. What is meant by "false in any material particular"? I suggest that it is unnecessary to impose both a fine and imprisonment in such circumstances. I do not remember any case within the last fifteen years in which punishment by both fine and imprisonment has been put in any Bill. It would be used as a precedent for inserting it in all sorts of future legislation, and I beg the Committee to consider whether it is really necessary.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

It is not entirely clear whether such a false statement as is contemplated is a statement that is false in the sense that it is untrue in point of fact, or in the sense that the party making the complaint knows it to be false. If the former sense is to be taken, then a person might be convicted if he lodged a complaint which he believed to be true but which turned out afterwards to be wrong, although he did not know it at the time; and that would have such an effect on the minds of persons who might consider that they had a grievance that they would be afraid to report it. It would knock the bottom out of the chance of any complaint at all being made. I think some such word as "knowingly" ought to be inserted, in order to show that the punishment would be in respect of a maliciously made complaint.

Sir G. HEWART

Two points have been raised here. My Noble Friend objected to the words "in any material particular." Those, however, are words which are used in several Acts of Parliament.

Earl WINTERTON

I asked what they meant. I do not object to them.

Sir G. HEWART

They are inserted for the benefit of the defendant. A statement might be false in some trivial way—say an error as to date—which was not material. Falseness which is to be the subject of a conviction is falseness in any material particular. With regard to the other words, I cannot imagine that any Court would convict a man under this Section for making a statement proved afterwards to be false when he was not aware of it; but I agree that some words ought to be inserted to make that clear. Accordingly, I should be willing to insert, before the word "false," the words "to his knowledgs."

Mr. JAMESON

I think that some such word as "recklessly" should be further added. One is familiar with the case of a man lodging an information at random, which, although it is not false within his knowledge, yet is actually false, and for its falsity he is responsible, because he has not made due investigation. I think this is a very valuable part of the Clause, because it is a deterrent upon people lodging frivolous and malicious complaints, which arc either false to their knowledge, or, which is just as bad in law, recklessly false, in that proper care has not been taken to investigate them. Accordingly I would suggest some such wording as "maliciously false"; or perhaps the Attorney-General can suggest a better wording.

Sir G. HEWART

I feel sure that it would be held that "false" would include recklessness, but I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend, and will accordingly amend the wording so that it reads "which is reckless or to his knowledge false."

Mr. INSKIP

Surely it is not intended to prosecute merely if an information is reckless, even though it may be true! The wording should surely be "recklessly or to his knowledge false."

Sir G. HEWART

Yes. I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "is" ["makes any representation which is false"], to insert the words "recklessly or to his knowledge."

The CHAIRMAN

The Question is, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS

On a point or Order. As you put the question, Mr. Whitley, the adverb "recklessly" is applied to the adjective "false," but I thought the intention of the Government was to use the adjective "reckless."

Earl WINTERTON

Before we come to a decision, would the Government explain what they mean?

Sir G. HEWART

Nobody would say that a man should be convicted merely because lie made a statement which was reckless. It must be a, statement which is false to his knowledge, or a statement which is false and which he makes recklessly, not caring whether it be true or false. I think the adverb and not the adjective is right.

Words, as amended, there inserted.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), after the word "company" ["Where a person convicted under this Section is a company" to insert the words "or trade combination."

It is a peculiar thing that this wonderful Bill does, not once mention the words "trade combination," "trust," or "monopoly." In, later speeches answering criticisms, the Government have said, of course, that it is meant to hit the big trusts, but a little fine of £200 and the wording of the Bill show that they have no intention whatever of doing so. My last word is to read a line and a half from the forgotten Report of the Committee on Trusts, which was part of the working of the Ministry of Reconstruction, so many of whose good works have been put on the shelf in the interest of vested interests. This is the Report of that Committee: Conclusions and recommendations. We are unanimously of opinion that it would be desirable to institute in the United Kingdom machinery for the investigation of the operations of monopolies, trusts and combines. I respectfully submit to the Committee that paragraph (a) of Clause 1 does provide that machinery, though I am not sanguine that it is going to be used properly as things are at present in the country.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON

Would it not be possible for the Government to give us some indication of how far they want to pet to-night on this Bill'?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

May I associate myself with that question? Many of us are keenly interested in the Ways and Communications Bill, to which there are some very important Amendments from the Lords. I understand it is the desire, and in fact that it is necessary, that we should deal with the matter to-night in order that the Amendments may be reconsidered, if necessary, by the Lords to-morrow. I understood it was hoped that the Profiteering Bill would have finished early to-night, but it is quite obvious that it cannot be finished to-night. It would be for the convenience of those interested in the Ways and Communications Bill if the Leader of the House would give some indication of how far he wants to go with the Profiteering Bill.

Mr. BONAR LAW

In the form in which the question is put it is easily answered—it is how far we wish to go. We wish to end the Committee stage of the Bill. I express the hope that it may be possible to do that with good will. After all, the House has passed this Bill by a very large majority, and we must assume that it desired it to go through. The Session is very far advanced, and unless we finish it to-night I do not know how long we may take on account of the Bill in another place. I would ask the Committee to proceed as quickly as they can, with due regard to the importance of the Bill. As regards the Ways and Communications Bill, it must be obvious to my hon. Friend that the quicker we get through this Bill the quicker we shall get to that Bill.

Lord R. CECIL

Does my right hon. Friend intend to take the Ways and Communications Bill at, any hour to-night'? Legislation, after all, is not a mere joke. We must, at any rate, pretend to do-things reasonably.

Mr. BONAR LAW

I quite admit that this is being rushed, but the whole justification for this Bill is the same justification that enabled us to carry through many important measures during the War without the proper lime that would be given in ordinary times. The conditions are so exceptional as to justify exceptional treatment. That is the justification for this Bill. I must ask the Committee to help us in this matter and try to get it through.

Mr. ACLAND

We should like to have one word from the Government about the Amendment.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

I wish to ask the Government what meaning they attach to the words "trade combination"? We have in Scotland such a thing as a firm which has a separate persona from the individual partners in it. So far as I can see, this provision would not touch a firm at all. A firm carrying on business as John Smith and Co., which may not be composed of any gentleman of that name, may be guilty of an offence in this connection, and there will be nobody you can get at under the Bill. This Sub-section speaks of "a company" and the Amendment refers to a "trade combination," but I doubt whether that covers a firm. A further definition should be put in, because the term "trade combination" is not sufficiently up-to-date.

Amendment negatived.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS

I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), to leave out the words "every director and officer of the company," and to insert instead thereof the words "the chairman and managing director."

The object of the Amendment is to limit the responsibility for an infringement of the Bill to those men who are really running the business of which complaint is made. It is absurd to say that every director of a limited liability company is to be held guilty of profiteering in the matter of retail prices unless he proves himself to be innocent. Everybody knows that the directors generally settle large questions of policy and, perhaps, the general percentage on turnover, but they are not generally seised of the details of particular articles and the prices and percentages thereof. If this Clause goes through as proposed by the Government, the life of a director of a limited liability company will be a very thorny one indeed. The term "officer of the company" is very ambiguous. I take it that an officer is anyone capable of giving orders. Any clerk is an officer of a company. Is every clerk in a large business to be held responsible unless he proves himself to be innocent? That is absolutely impossible. In the interests of making the Bill workable, I hope the Government will accept this Amendment to limit the responsibility to the chairman and managing director.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

I support the Amendment and concur in what my hon. and gallant Friend has said. The Clause as it stands is quite unworkable. It would probably include the auditor of a company, who might be Sir William Peat, who is often employed by the Government. It will not work at all. The chairman and the managing director are the people who take most of the fees, and probably they would be the right people to be dealt with. There arc very large boards of directors in some com- panies, and if they are all to be included the Government will have to consider very seriously what amount of accommodation there is in His Majesty's gaols !

Mr. T. WILSON

The hon. and learned Gentleman is assuming that a very large proportion of these companies will be prosecuted. This Bill, bad as it is, is intended to put a stop, as far as possible, to profiteering, but the honest trader will not be benefited by it at all.

Mr. ACLAND

This is the second Amendment upon which the Government, apparently, is going to give no reply.

Earl WINTERTON

I think this Amendment is of some substance, and I think it is not for the good of any Bill that the Government should not reply to an Amendment. It would seem that that is their intention.

Sir G. HEWART

I am 'sorry I did not reply before, but I really did not think any reply was needed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I will give the reason. The words "every director and officer of the company" are taken from the Companies' Act. Officers of a company do not include every clerk, as has been suggested. Subject to the articles of association, the officers of a company are such persons as are nominated by the Companies Act, and what is said is that, where you are dealing with that artificial person called a "company," every director and officer of the company—that is to say, the persons with whom the governing responsibility rests—shall be guilty of the offence, unless—Unless what unless he as an individual can prove that the act which constitutes the offence took place without his knowledge or consent. Where is the hardship? It is said that the gaols will be full of these persons. Is it contemplated that so many companies will have committed offence and that so many directors and officers will be unable to prove that they did not know of them?

Mr. MACQUISTEN

It is very hard to put it upon these company directors—bad as we may know them to be—to have to prove their innocence.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE

It seems to be a contravention of the ordinary procedure in this country that a man should have to prove himself innocent. I always supposed that in this country a man was regarded as innocent until he was proved to be guilty.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), after the word "company" ["every director and officer of the company"], to insert the words "or, in the case of a trade combination, every member of such combination"

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 150; Noes, 24.

Division No. 99.]	AYES.	[12.34 a.m.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke	Forestier-Walker, L.	Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Adair, Rear-Admiral	Foxcroft, Captain C. J	Pratt, John William
Ainsworth, Captain C.	Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)	Pulley, Charles Thornton
Atkey, A. R.	Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Cambridge)	Purchase, H. G.
Baird, John Lawrence	Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham	Raeburn, Sir William
Baldwin, Stanley	Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John.;	Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr.
Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)	Glyn, Major R. J	Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Barnett, Major Richard W.	Green, J. F. (Leicester)	Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Barnston, Major Harry	Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)	Rogers, Sir Hallewell
Beck, Arthur Cecil	Grundy, T. W. I	Roundel), Lieut.-Colonel R. F.
Bell, James (Ormskirk)	Hailwood, A.	Royce, William Stapleton
Blades, Sir George R.	Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)	Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Hambro, Angus Valdemar	Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)
Brackenbury, Captain H. L.	Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)	Seddon, J. A.
Briant, F	Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon	Seely, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. John
Bridgeman, William Clive	Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.	Sexton, James
Briggs, Harold	Hirst, G. H.	Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)
Britton, G. B.	Holmes, J. S.	Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Bread, Thomas Tucker	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Short, A. (Wednesbury)
Bromfield, W.	Hughes, Spencer Leigh	Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)
Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)	Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)	Simm, Col. M. T.
Brown, T. W. (Down, N.)	Jodrell, N. P.	Smith, W. (Wellingborough)
Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.	Johnson, L. S.	Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Buckley, Lieutenant-Colonel A.	Johnstone, J.	Stanier, Captain Sir Beville
Campion, Col. W. R.	Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen) J	Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Cape, Tom	Joynson-Hicks, Sir William	Stephenson, Colonel H. K.
Carr, W. T.	Kellaway, Frederick George	Strauss, Edward Anthony
Carter, W. (Mansfield)	Kenworthy, Lieut-Commander, J. M.	Sugden, W. H.
Casey, T. W.	Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr	Sutherland, Sir William
Child, Brig.-Gen. Sir Hill	Kidd, James	Talbot, G. A. (Kernel Hempstead)
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender	King, Commander Douglas	Thomas, Brig-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)
Clough, R.	Knights, Captain H	Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Cockerill, Brig.-General G. K.	Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E-)
Cohen, Major J. B. B.	Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)	Townley, Maximilan G.
Colvin, Brig.-General R. B.	Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)	Tryon. Major George Clement
Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter	Vickers, D.
Cozens-Hardy, Hon. W. H.	Lunn-William.	Waddington, R.
Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)	Loseby, Captain C. E.	Wallace, J.
Davidson, Major-General sir John H.	Lunn, William	Walters, Sir John Tudor
Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)	M'Curdy, Charles Albert	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	Weston, Colonel John W.
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H.	Mitchell, W. Lane	Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.
Doyle, N. Grattan	Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)	Williams. Lt.-Col. Sir Rhys (Banbury)
Edge, Captain William	Nail, Major Joseph	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)	Neal, Arthur	Woolcock, w. J. U.
Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)	Newbould, A. E.	Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Entwistle Major C. F.	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)	Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)
Eyres-Monsell, Commander	Norris, sir Henry G.	Younger, Sir George
Farquharson, Major A. C.	Parker, James
Fitzroy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E.
Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue	Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike	Talbot and Captain Guest.

NOES.
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte	Kiley, James Daniel	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Lindsay, William Arthur	Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)	Macquisten, F. A.	Wild, Sir Ernest Edward
Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)	Morden, Col. H. Grant	Winterton, Major Earl
Blair, Major Reginald	Murray, William (Dumfries)	Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)
Conway, Sir W. Martin	Perring, William George
Fraser, Major Sir Keith	Remer, J. B.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Greame, Major p. Lloyd-	Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)	Kennedy Jones and Lieut.-Col. W. Guinness.
Hinds, John	Stevens, Marshall
Jameson, J. G.

I am not to going repeat the arguments I used before, but I would ask the Attorney-General or the President of the Board of Trade if they would honour me by giving some reply or arguments as to why this present Amendment of mine should not be accepted. If they cannot, I will appeal to the Leader of the House and tell him that I intend to press this to a Division if I do not get an explanation. I think that even private Members should be given some explanation of the Government's attitude towards this Amendment.

Sir G. HEWART

The answer to the hon. and gallant Member is quite simple. There are two kinds of persons known to the law. One is a human being, and the other is the artificial person called a company. The human being may be a member of a firm, a partner; or the association may be one constituted under the Companies' Acts, and then it is a company. This Bill provides for both and any person, whether he be an individual or whether he be a director or an officer of a company, is liable under this Bill. It is not necessary to go further.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I must say that I do not consider that the explanation given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman is adequate. "Company," surely, does not include a trade combination. You may have a number of firms who have an agreement among themselves to keep up prices, and that is the very worst and most malicious form of what is known loosely as profiteering. Suppose that a firm is found on investigation to be one of a combine selling some article of use, and is proceeded against; the heads of all the other firms who have entered in the agreement to conspire against the State get off scot free.

Sir G. HEWART

Every one of them is liable, whether he be a person, a firm, or a company.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

Or combination of companies?

Sir G. HEWART

Whether the combination of companies, persons, or firms.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

With that very valuable explanation, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord R. CECIL

I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

I do this in order to extract from the Government some indication of their intentions. With this extremely important Bill, which raises matters of the greatest possible importance, we have made what in normal circumstances would be regarded as pretty good progress. The greater part of the most important Clause has been passed, and I should have thought that we had done enough. But that is not the only point. Many of us, including myself, are very much interested in the Lords Amendments to the Ministry of Transport Bill. I do not know to what hour we are to go on, but it is not reasonable to ask us to consider those Amendments at four or five in the morning. I respectfully urge the Government to treat this House reasonably. There has been a great deal of talk about the desire to restore the respect of the country for this House, and it is of vast importance to the country at the present moment, but the first thing that the Government have to learn, and must be taught by the House of Commons if necessary, is that they must treat this House with respect. This House is treated with contumely and insolence by the Government on every possible occasion. The Prime Minister does not think it worth while to attend here. We have the greatest difficulty in securing reasonable treatment from the Government on any subject, simply because they have an enormous majority in this House. That is not discharging their duty properly to the country, and I venture to hope that the Government will not ask the House to consider this very important measure till four or five in the morning, and then bring in another matter of very great importance. It is really not treating the House fairly and reasonably, and it is not calculated to raise the estimation in which the Government is held in the country, or, what is of even more importance, the reputation of the House of Commons.

Mr. BONAR LAW

I have had much more experience in moving Resolutions such as this than in replying to them, and I am not sure that I can reply so adequately as I could move such a Resolution. Those who have been Members of previous Parliaments have gone through this sort of thing, I do not know how many times, and the same complaint is always made.

Lord R. CECIL

And the result is the position of the House of Commons now.

Mr. BONAR LAW

The complaint is always made that the House of Commons has been treated with contumely, and that we pay no respect to it.

Lord R. CECIL

Quite true.

Mr. BONAR LAW

All that my Noble Friend's interpretations mean is that he has not forgotten his old practices, and is quite ready to begin them again under the new conditions Members of the Government do not like sitting up all night any more than anyone else. We are not doing it to please ourselves. As far as I am concerned, I would much prefer to keep the House sitting two or three days longer. It is a mistake to suppose that we are treating the House with disrespect, or that we are not trying to do what I believe the House desires. The real fact is that we have to choose between getting this Bill through rapidly now, or having a very considerable delay. It has got to go through another place, and it is my opinion that in the course we are taking we are really doing what the great majority of the House of Commons wish. I think they want to get on with the Bill, and, in spite of all that is said about not being able to legislate at this hour of the morning, so long as there is a fair attendance, as is the case now, there is no reason to suppose that Amendments will not be considered as adequately as if we were taking it at four in the afternoon. I venture to think that I am expressing the wish of the vast majority of the House of Commons. If I thought otherwise I would take the course suggested by the Noble Lord. The Government wish to do what the House of Commons wishes them to do. As to his remark about our relying on our big majority, everyone knows that the exact reverse is the case. If we had to run the Government with a majority of fifty there would be no question about everyone of our supporters backing us up. Under present conditions we have frequently found it essential that we should carry the good sense of the majority of the House of Commons with us, and I am convinced that that is so in the course we are now taking.

Mr. ACLAND

I am inclined to support the Noble Lord's Motion, but I would like to make a suggestion that might possibly be helpful. A good many hon. Members are more interested in the Lords Amendments to the Ministry of Transport Bill than in this Bill, and I suggest that we might now break off and consider the Lords Amendments, and, if it were found that those Amendments could be disposed of in a short time, we could resume with this Bill. That might be done by general consent.

Mr. BONAR LAW

As a matter of fact I myself thought that that would be the more convenient course, because arrangements have been made to deal with the Transport Bill in another place to-morrow, and it is the duty of the House of Commons to consider the convenience of the House of Lords just as much as our own convenience. It has, however, been found that the course suggested is not practicable.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

A communication has just been made to me by the Minister-designate to the effect that the Transport Bill is not likely to have an easy passage, and I think it will take a considerable time. There are a number of Amendments which I believe the Government have accepted, but there are several important ones which they have rejected. The right hon. Gentleman has just informed me, and I appreciate his kindness in doing so, that the Government have succumbed to an Amendment in the Lords in the interests of the railways, and that is a very serious matter, which I think will have to be debated at considerable length. It completely nullifies the Clause, and the Government frankly intends to adopt it as a Government Amendment, so they cannot expect an easy passage for the other Amendments, and the measure becomes a contentious one again. I suggest that the Government should either take the one Bill or the other, but not both. If the Profiteering Bill is to last till four or five o'clock it would not be fair to take these important. Amendments on the Transport Bill then.

Earl WINTERTON

The point at issue has not been fully dealt with by the Government. It is really ridiculous to say that suggested legislation, however urgent, can be properly discussed at such, an hour. That is an attitude which has been taken up again and again. It was taken up particularly by the Unionist party on the introduction of the Budget in 1909, and it shows unparalleled cynicism now to say that a Bill of this kind should be so taken. I will go further and say that what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman, if it is fully reported in the papers, will add to the mistrust of the sincerity of politicians and of political life. With a levity which I personally found surprising, the right hon. Gentleman said he was much more at home in proposing Motions to report Progress than in opposing them, and found it easier to move than to oppose them. Except for the statement that it was necessary to pass the Bill to-night that was the only statement that the right hon. Gentleman made. The Leader of the House has admitted that when he is in opposition he takes certain action, while when he represents the Government, under exactly similar circumstances, he opposes it. Such an attitude is one of the reasons why there is so little faith in this House. Moreover, legislation passed at this hour never really succeeds in the country. We have had a dozen instances of that during the last ten years. The 1909 Budget is an outstanding example. The Land Valuation Clauses of that Budget, for instance, which have been thrown over by the Government, were passed at two, three, four, or five in the morning, and even their authors could not understand them; and the state of chaos to which they led is one of the causes of the utter chaos now prevailing, and, indeed, of the necessity for this Bill.

Major E. WOOD

If it is not desirable to accede to the request to report Progress, and if we cannot by general consent follow the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland), might I ask whether the Leader of the House could give us some direction, say, that the consideration of this Bill would be continued till two o'clock, so that we may know where we are.

1.0 A.M.

Mr. BONAR LAW

When I said that I believed that what we are doing is what would be desired by the majority of this House, I meant what I said. We are not doing this for the sake of the Government itself. Indeed, it is very much the reverse. We have got to realise what the facts are. We have to get these two measures through before we adjourn for the Recess. The time for them to be taken depends not only upon this House but upon another place. My fear is that many Members who are here to-night may not for one reason or another, be able to be here at a later date. My impression is that the course the Government is taking commends itself to the majority of the Members of the House. But I am agreeable, if there is to be a Division on the Motion, to report Progress, that it should be taken without the Government Whips being put on. If the result shows that the Committee is willing to go on I hope Members will fully realise that they must take a fair share in the work later on. On the other hand, if it shows that I am wrong we will take any measures which should follow the result of the Division. If the Committee decides to report Progress on this Bill we will not be able to take the other Bill to-night. If the Committee takes the other view we will go right on, but if we find that without obstruction—and I think there has been very fair discussion so far—we are able to take the Transport Bill after an hour or two more on this Bill we may then take the opinion of the Committee again.

Lord R. CECIL

Is it really necessary to take the Transport Bill to-night?

Mr. BONAR LAW

Yes.

Lord R. CECIL

Is it only a question of the convenience of the other House? I should myself prefer if I were a Member of the other House, that my Amendments were considered at a time when they could be properly understood than that they should be hurried through, even if the result of that should be that some different arrangement had to be made for the convenience of another place. I do not know what the hon. Baronet who has just spoken may have been told in the conversation he referred to. I believe there is a certain amount of difference on the Amendments to the Transport Bill, but that there is no serious difficulty. I am cure hon. Members will realise that a quarrel with the other House just now would be a very disastrous thing.

Mr. BONAR LAW

What has been said on this Motion 'has been quite reasonable. I think I can say we have taken every means in our power to find out what was the wish of the other House in regard to these measures. I believe the other House has made arrangements to deal with the Transport Bill to-morrow, and if that is not dealt with here to-night it will cause great inconvenience to them. That is one reason why I press it. I think I have made members of the Committee a very fair offer—that they should take a Division, and we will act on their decision.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS

I do not think the Committee wants a Division now. The hon. Member who made the Motion did so to obtain some idea of what the Government intended to do, and how long they proposed we should sit. I suggest that after what has been said we should not divide now, but we, might take a Division in about an hour's time without putting the Government Whips on.

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 25; Noes, 141.

Division No. 100.]	AYES.	[1.5 a.m.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke	Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E. (B. St. E)	Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)
Adair, Rear-Admiral	Holmes, J. S.	Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)
Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin	Johnstone, J.	Stevens, Marshall
Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)	Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Briant, F.	Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander	Waddington, R.
Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)	Kiley, James Daniel	Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)
Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.	Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)	Newbould, A. L	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord
Entwistle, Major C. F.	Remer, J. B.	Robert Cecil and Earl Winterton.
Foxcroft, Captain C.

NOES.
Agg-.Gardner, Sir James Tynte	Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke	Pratt, John William
Ainsworth, Captain C.	Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Cambridge)	Pulley, Charles Thornton
Atkey, A. R-.	Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham	Purchase, H. G.
Baird, John Lawrence	Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John.	Raeburn, Sir William
Baldwin, Stanley	Green, J. F. (Leicester)	Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr.
Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)	Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)	Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Barnett, Major Richard W.	Grundy, T. W.	Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Beck, Arthur Cecil	Guest, Capt. Ron. F. E. (Dorset, E.)	Rogers, Sir Hallewell
Bell, James (Ormskirk)	Hailwood, A.	Roundell, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)	Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)	Royce, William Stapleton
Blades, Sir George R.	Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)	Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)
Blair, Major Reginald	Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon	Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.	Seddon, J. A.
Brackenbury, Captain H. L.	Hirst, G. H.	Seely, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. John
Bridgeman, William Clive	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Sexton, James
Briggs, Harold	Hughes, Spencer Leigh	Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Brittain, Sir Harry E.	Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)	Short, A. (Wednesbury)
Broad, Thomas Tucker	Inskip, T. W. H.	Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)
Bromfield, W.	Jodrell, N. P.	Simm, Colonel M. T.
Brown, T. W. (Down, N.)	Johnson, L. S.	Smith, W. (Wellingborough)
Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.	Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)	Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Campion, Col. W. R.	Kellaway, Frederick George	Stanier, Captain Sir Beville
Cape, Tom	Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr	Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Carr, W. T.	Kidd, James	Stephenson, Colonel H. K.
Carter, W. (Mansfield)	Knights, Captain H.	Strauss, Edward Anthony
Casey, T. W.	Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)	Sugden, W. H.
Child, Brig.-Gen. Sir Hill	Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)	Sutherland, Sir William
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender	Lindsay, William Arthur	Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord E. (Chichester)
Clough, R.	Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)	Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)
Colvin, Brig.-General R. B.	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)
Conway, Sir W. Martin	Lort-Williams, J.	Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)	Loseby, Captain C. E.	Townley, Maximilan G.
Cozens-Hardy, Hon. W. H.	Lunn, William	Tryon, Major George Clement
Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)	M'Curdy, Charles Albert	Wallace, J.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.
Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)	Mitchell, William Lane-	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)	Morden, Col. H. Grant	Weston, Col. John W.
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H.	Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)	Wild, Sir Ernest Edward
Doyle, N. Grattan	Murray. William (Dumfries)	Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir Rhys (Banbury)
Du Pre, Colonel W. B.	Nail, Major Joseph	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Edge, Captain William	Neal, Arthur	Woolcock, W. J. U.
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)	Newman. Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)	Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Eyres-Monsell, Commander	Norris, Sir Henry G.	Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)
Farquharson, Major A. C.	Parker, James	Younger, Sir George
Fitzroy, Capt Hon. Edward A.	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Flannery. Sir J. Fortescue	Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Forestier-Walker, L.	Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)	Major Barnston and Major Wheler.
Fraser, Major Sir Keith	Perring, William George

Mr. INSKIP

I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), after the word "company" officer of the company "to insert the words "proved to have been cognisant of the price charged or sought to be charged."

The Amendment is simply designed to effect what I believe to be the desire of every Member of this House, which is to retain the British practice of allowing a man to be deemed innocent until he is proved to be guilty. This is a subject which demands no lengthy discussion. During the War we were accustomed under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, for reasons of national safety, to have adopted this method of saying that a man must prove himself to be innocent. and we submitted to it, but I shall always set my face against it if ever I find an attempt made to carry this practice into what I may call our normal Acts of Parliament. I find here a proposal to put this system into practice, and I therefore move to insert words to make it incumbent on the prosecution to prove that those who are held to be guilty shall know the offence with which they are charged. I am not committed to these particular words, and there are other Amendments on the subject on the Paper, but the whole subject can be discussed upon my Amendment. I beg to move.

Sir A. GEDDES

I understand that Clauses in this form are of common occurrence in the Companies' Acts, and that there is no departure from British practice involved in this Clause. It will be clear to the Committee that, in the first instance, the company has to be convicted, and that the ordinary rules which exist outside the Companies' Acts apply to that conviction; and it is only on what I may call a dissection of the composite personality that this Section comes in, and I understand that it is on that ground that this form is used in connection with these statutory persons and companies. This is in the ordinary form for such cases, and I see no reason for departing from the ordinary course of legislation.

Lord R. CECIL

Surely the case in which a company is guilty of crime is an extremely rare one. There are such cases, I dare say—offences against by-laws, Building Acts, and those kind of things—but here is an offence for which a man may be sent to prison for three months and fined £200. You are going first to prove a company guilty of an offence in contravening this Act—that, perhaps, will not be a difficulty—and then you have to bring it home to some individual. After all, a company is only guilty of a crime by a mere fiction. It is not, strictly speaking, guilty of a crime. Only an individual can be guilty of a crime, strictly speaking. When you come to putting somebody into prison you cannot put a company into prison. You have to put some individual into prison. What you are going to say is that if the individual is a member of a firm you will have to prove against that man that he is guilty of a crime, but if he is a director of a company you will not have to prove it against him, you will only have to prove that there has been profiteering on the part of the company, and then lie will have to prove that he knew nothing about it, which is a reversal of the rule, and I cannot conceive any reason why a director of a company should be treated differently from a partner in a firm. The case seems to be absolutely parallel. In the case of an ordinary trading firm you prove that they have charged too high a price, which shows profiteering, and that will be, as far as the actual act of trading is concerned, complete. When you have to bring it home to any individual member you will have to prove that he was guilty of that offence. I cannot conceive why, because a man happens to be a director and not a partner, he should be treated differently. I hope the Government will consider this again, because it appears to me to be absolutely indefensible, and though I do not pretend to a great knowledge of company law—that is a subject of which I never knew very much, and I do not pretend to remember what I did know—I should be surprised to learn that there was any parallel ease, one in which you made directors guilty of a crime in a case of this kind unless they had an opportunity of hearing the whole of the evidence, and of testing it, which they could do if they were present when the charge was made. Just conceive how unfair it would be. A man is a director. Ho may take no part in the management of the company—it may be a co-operative society—but the charge of profiteering is made, the whole charge is heard in his absence. He has no opportunity of dealing with it at all. Then a conviction is obtained against the company—it may be quite properly—'but it may be that he has a complete defence so far as he is concerned, and when he is called up he has got to prove that he knew nothing about it. That is putting upon him a burden that you do not put upon the meanest criminal, and I hope the Government will consider this Amendment

Mr. KILEY

I desire to join in the appeal which the Noble Lord has made to the President of the Board of Trade to reconsider the answer be has given. If he is not prepared to accept the Amendment, will he accept the words "managing director"? There are many Members of this House who are directors of companies, but take no part in the "detailed work of the company. They attend the board meeting and look at facts and figures, but to ask a director to take part in every transaction and every sale is an impossible proposition, and if the President of the Board of Trade intends to resist the Amendment be ought to qualify it by limiting it to the managing directors That would be some safeguard.

Major GREAME

I think the Committee passed a recent Amendment on the recommendation of the Attorney-General, and on the assurance of the Attorney-General that there would be no hardship or unfairness to the directors or any officers of a company, but I do not think that the Committee would have given that vote if they had realised that the Government were the next moment going to create a new system of criminal procedure in a six months' Bill. I wish the Attorney-General was here, but I cannot remember a single Act of Parliament in which the onus is put upon a body of men of proving themselves innocent. and in default to be liable to imprisonment, unless it is the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and I am sure the House will not wish to prolong the worst features in the Defence of the Realm Act. It is a perfectly simple proposition. We do not want to create injustice or unfairness. We want to hold the balance fairly between the trading community on the one hand and the people with whom they trade on the other, and I cannot conceive anything more likely to rouse antipathy to the Government than a Bill which introduces this provision that people are to be assumed guilty until they prove that they are innocent. Just imagine what the procedure is going to be. You take some branch of some company which is alleged—rightly or wrongly—to be profiteering. The whole of the officers and directors of this company will be brought to the inquiry, and they must attend, for otherwise it will be said against them: "You let this go by default. "I am sure this was put in by the Government in an excess of zeal, but it was misplaced zeal, and they will be meeting the wishes of the House and country if they accept the Amendment.

Sir E. WILD

There was one case I had in criminal law—and I can only recall one case apart from the Defence of the Realm Act—in which the onus was thrown on the prisoner. That is an Act passed by this House, "The Prevention of Corruption Act," by which a public official when proved to have received a sum of money is proved to be corrupt unless he proves to the contrary.

Mr. NEAL

The Coal Mines Act, 1911—agents and managers.

Sir E. WILD

At all events it is a modern invention which is subversive of justice. I do hope that my right hon. Friend will be advised and meet the sense of the Committee in trying to preserve some signs of British liberty. I have been in hundreds of cases under Defence of the Realm Act—and everything I have said to-night has been against my own interests, for it is a magnificent Bill for the lawyers—and it was uncommon to send a company to prison. You generally got the maximum costs. This Bill goes farther, and if you can prove that any director is "cognisant of the price charged or sought to be charged," then you are not only willing to fine him but to send him to prison as well. I hope my right hon. Friend will consider this and give us a little vestige of ordinary British justice.

Major BARNES

I am quite sure it is not the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved this Clause to enable directors to escape from the charge of profiteering. I do submit that as it stands that would be its effect. We have been told directors deal with matters of policy and not with details of prices. Charges will always arise in connection with prices, and if these words are affixed it will be impossible to show that any director was personally cognisant of the particular price of the particular article in connection with which the charge is brought. Directors occupy a position of responsibility. In fact if they do not know about the business, in theory they ought. They represent all the advantages of the concern, and they should be liable for the finance. Directors would be placed in an entirely favourable position by the Amendment, and while the principals of single firms would be got at, directors would always escape, since they would always be able to show that they were ignorant of the price of the particular article.

Mr. INSKIP

My hon. Friend gets up and says he is sure I have no intention of enabling directors to escape, very much as he would say, ''As I have no intention of enabling a murderer to escape the gallows." It is suggested that every director must be primâ facie, guilty because it is intensely difficult to prove him guilty by the ordinary process of the law, therefore, it is said, let us assume he is guilty by a special process.

Sir A. G EDDES

I do feel that this point is not really being clarified. We have got here, in the first part of the Clause, "Where a person convicted under this Section is a company," not a section of a company, therefore it seems to me quite right and proper to say, primâ facie, the individuals who are responsible for running that company are guilty. That seems to me to be a perfectly straightforward, honest thing. If we wanted to stop there, I could have understood the criticism of the Clause. Thus it would have been said, "You are not giving anybody any chance of escape," but here it says unless he can prove it took place without his knowledge and consent. A person at a meeting, if he had nothing to do with the prices fixed, will not come in. I really cannot see that there is any special possibility of injustice here. If there were any points which could be brought forward, which would not be allowing the big man to go scot-free—and the greatest part of the profiteers in the whole country are covered by this Clause—if we are not going to allow the big men to escape, I should be prepared to meet any suggestion with reason; but to say that no director is to be regarded as responsible for the doings of the company of which he forms a directing part unless, as is suggested, he is actually proved to have known about that particular act, is perfectly impossible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] How can any director of a big concern know about a sale made by some individual?

Lord R. CECIL

Why should he be treated differently from the firm?

Sir A. GEDDES

He is not. If hon. Members have, anything to suggest which will meet the difficulty which they see, and which I see partly, I shall be glad. But I see a much greater difficulty on the other side. If we were to accept these Amendments as they stand, I think we should be rightly said to be throwing a special protection around the very biggest of the fish that we hope will be caught in this net.

Mr. JAMESON

The only point raised by the right hon. Gentleman is that if the company is convicted it follows primâ facie, according to him, that every director is guilty. The whole point of this Amendment is that the very reverse is the case. It does not follow, because you convict a company, that any director is guilty. It cannot properly be so assumed, except in the case of the managing director. Directors only deal with general policy, not with particular retail prices or particular prices of particular articles. I think the argument remains perfectly valid that it is the duty of the Crown to prosecute in a case like this; and then, having convicted the company, they must proceed to discharge the onus that clearly lies upon them of bringing to any director his particular guilt. It was admitted, on the former Amendment, that, although there might be a primtâ facie case against the managing director, there would be no primâ facie case against other directors, and therefore I think the case for this Amendment cannot be gainsaid. Otherwise a very great innovation is introduced into the criminal practice in this country. The cases that have been mentioned are the only ones I can remember in which the onus has been placed on the accused of proving his innocence. Whenever any proceedings of this kind are taken against a company, every director on the board would have to come forward, however innocent he might be, and to prove his innocence or go to gaol. That is absurd, and would lead to the most cumbrous and long-winded procedure, which would provide a perfect fortune for the lawyers.

Major E. WOOD

The point is really a simple one. Nobody wishes to enable the big men who are guilty to escape. By all means let them stand the racket for what they have done wrong, but do not condemn them unheard. The right hon. Gentleman urged that it was unreasonable to suggest that the ordinary director was to be expected to know all the details of a business for which he might be held responsible, and yet he does hold him responsible. If that position is taken up the only logical thing is to go a step further and include the shareholders, because they make the profits no less than the directors. That, I think, proves how absolutely indefensible is the doctrine of corporate liability quoted by the right hon. Gentleman. I earnestly appeal to him, even at this last moment, to give us some hope that the door may not be entirely closed, and that he will sec if something cannot be done between now and the Report stage in the direction of finding such a form of words as will avoid these objections and meet the point which he no less than ourselves has in view.

Mr. HOLMES

This Clause enacts that every director or officer of the convicted company shall be regarded as guilty. Now, at any rate from the Inland Revenue point of view, the auditor is an officer. Let us suppose that a large company, which has a branch in Manchester, is convicted in London. Is Sir William Plender to be considered as guilty, and must he go and prove himself innocent? That, apparently, is what it means. Again, many companies have directors abroad, or local directors in various parts of the country, who would not be responsible for what was done elsewhere; yet they might have to submit to the indignity of being taken into a Court of justice to prove themselves innocent. At the present time many company directors are serving in the Army of Occupation, and they also might have to prove in a Court of justice that they are innocent. The right hon. Gentleman told the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin that he was treating firms and companies alike; but apparently, while a charge would not be preferred against a member of a firm who was serving, yet if a company was convicted one of its directors in the same circumstances might be treated differently.

Mr. NEAL

With a great deal that has been said as to the inequity of calling upon persons to prove their innocence I am in absolute agreement. That can only be justified, if at all, in extraordinary cases. The only analogous case to this is that of the Coal Mines Act, which makes the agent of the colliery—and hon. Members will recollect that the term "agent," as there used, is a technical term—and the manager of the colliery, liable for acts of default, even of workmen, in the pit, unless it can be proved that such acts were done in circumstances which leave the agent or manager free from responsibility. The principle is, as I take it, that, having accepted a position of direct responsibility for the safety of the mines, he is responsible for what happens to them unless he divests himself of that position. The terms of the Section in the Bill are too wide, and I think that between now and the Report stage—I fear it could not be done at this hour—the Attorney-General might find words which would meet the purpose. I cannot vote for the Amendment, because the effect of it might be that a company or the debenture holders might be ordered to pay a large sum of money which had been, as alleged, illicitly obtained from the public or by fraudulent competition with competitors in trade, without any public definition of the grounds on which such fines should be enforced. If the provision could be limited to the managing director, where there was one, or some person who was in a like position, it seems to me it would be justifiable to make an. exception from the general principle applicable to such persons.

Sir F. FLANNERY

The hon. Member who gave reasons in favour of this Amendment gave some illustrations of the way in which? companies or directors could prove that they were not responsible because they lived in other towns or even abroad. They could not be guilty in such cases, and I say these are just the persons who could prove by the fact of their absence that they were not guilty. The accountant and the partner may be in another town, and, if so, surely they could have no guilty knowledge of what was going on. The complete absence of the evidence necessary to make any allegation against them would be obvious. It seems to me that this discussion, which is already too long, is based on two misunderstandings. The first is that the director is a person who may have little or no knowledge of the affairs of the company of which he is a director. I have had as much experience, perhaps, as a director as any man in this House, a very large experience at any rate, and I say that the individual who becomes a director of a company and does not acquaint himself with the operations of that business is guilty of fraud and misrepresentation. It is the-duty of any man who takes such a position in a company to know what are its general policy and its general operations, and to hold himself responsible to everyone concerned for the duty he has undertaken.

The second misconception of the supporters of the Amendment is that there is no conviction, no primâ-facie conviction. There is. A conviction must be established against a company before a director shall be made responsible. That is the onus lying on the prosecution. Once the company is proved to be guilty, there is a primâ-facie case that all persons responsible for the management and paid for the mangagement, and who have a duty to that company, must know what has been going on. There is, therefore, no substantial grievance to be put forward, and the case of the Mover and supporters of the Amendment is only theory and not put forth in a practical way. We want to stop profiteering. If you want to stop it, you must make those responsible liable for it when it is discovered. There is a case which is plausible, specious, and attractive to induce the Attorney-General to put some such Amendment to the Clause in the Bill, but he should not go so far as to defeat the object of the Bill.

Sir G. HEWART

I think the observations which have been made prove the justice of the Clause. I have listened respectfully to the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend who moved the Amendment and his supporter, who is also a lawyer of great experience and knowledge, and I will certainly endeavour between this morning and the Report stage to devise, if I can, some way of meeting their point.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES

Why not accept the Amendment?

Sir G. HEWART

It goes too far. I am sure the Committee desires to deal fairly with this matter. The law recognises two persons: one the human being, the individual; the other is the artificial person, a company which enjoys advantages and privileges. This part of the Bill only begins to operate where that artificial person is a director or agent of a company which has committed an offence. The object of the Bill here is to make profiteering an unpopular and uneasy practice and thus to discourage the profiteer. What is the positon where the person convicted is a company and is immediately face to face with the making of the profit? There are human beings behind this entity, and they are liable morally and legally. The Bill says that where persons are really charged with responsibility in the conduct of the affairs of the company they shall be legally liable. That includes the directors and officers of a company, and when a company has been convicted the Bill says that these directors and officers of a company, properly so called, are guilty of the same offence unless they prove that when the act which constituted the offence took place they had no knowledge of it or consent in it. I suggest to the Committee that it is clear that before this liability of the directors and officers comes in there must have been an offence by the company. Meanwhile, I will endeavour to meet the point which has been raised.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

Will there be two trials—first, the conviction of the company, and then a second trial of the directors and officers of that company?

Sir G. HEWART

I should, have thought it must depend on the circumstances of the case. The directors might not be obtainable, they might not be accessible, at the moment of the first trial. If there was a trial of a company somebody would appear on behalf of the company. It might be that the directors would appear, some or all of them, or officers of the company. Then, if conviction followed, there would be a further trial in which the only question would be not whether the offence was made out but whether the director or officer, or both, then before the Court,. could satisfy the Court that he was not cognisant of what occurred.

Lord R. CECIL

I only want to ask one question—

The CHAIRMAN

I understand the Attorney-General to undertake to do his best to bring up approved words, and I think it rather a pity to go on.

Lord R. CECIL

I quite agree. I was only going to ask one question—whether the Attorney-General would explain to the Committee how ho differentiates between the case of a firm and the case of a company? In the case of a firm you have got to prove that some person you bring up, whoever he is, is actually guilty of an offence. Here you seem to get a general verdict against a number of people and then leave each to prove his innocence.

Sir G. HEWART

No doubt there is a distinction. The answer I give is this:A partnership firm consists of certain persons, two or three, or there may be more; a company consists of a very great many persons, shareholders and others. Where you are dealing with a firm, I imagine that the prosecution will be lodged against the members of the firm, unless there are facts known to the prosecution which absolved particular members of the firm. It might, be that that would have to be proved by evidence. But I ask myself the question which my Noble Friend puts to me, and supposing I were asked to direct a prosecution of a firm, in the absence of clear evidence. that certain persons were, in the words of this Clause, "ignorant that the act which constitutes the offence had taken place." I should certainly direct that the prosecution took place against all the members of the firm. Then we should have to prove each one of those persons knew. In the case of a company we take not the people who constitute the company, the shareholders, but we take the people who are responsible for the direction, and we say, "primâ facie you are all liable, but you may be able to prove that you do not know. "I agree that the two things are not in the same plane. Why? Because the law has given special privileges, special position, to a company of limited liability. I cannot imagine a better way of dealing with the matter at present, but I will try to find one.

Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL

I wish to ask whether in the word "company" cooperative societies are included, or are they not?

Sir G. HEWART

They are not included.

Mr. SAMUEL

They are not touched by this Bill, then?

Sir G. HEWART

Every individual who is concerned is touched by this Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS

hope the House will not accept the soothing words of the Attorney-General, which really conceal a very deep difference of principle. He says that the Amendment as framed goes too far, but he gives no reasons. There would be no difficulty, in cases of guilt, for the Government to prove knowledge on the part of the guilty directors. All they have to do is to send for the secretary, order him to bring the minute book, see when the particular question at issue was discussed, see what directors were present, see who signed the letters, and take proceedings accordingly. The whole case really is that the Government want to pander to the cry "Hang the profiteers! It does not matter if we can get the right ones or not, we have got to hang someone." The President of the Board of Trade actually argued that, because directors got fees, therefore they were to be assumed guilty. Auditors get fees as well. There is this thing in common between the fees of the directors and the auditors, that they do not depend on profiteering; they are generally fixed fees for controlling the company, and whether the company make an undue profit on transactions or whether they do not their fees remain the same. So if you do really want to be vindictive—I will not say vindictive, but severe—surely the right person against whom you should proceed is the person who gets the benefit of the profit—not the director, but the shareholder. The director, perhaps, is getting £5 per meeting. The shareholder may be making thousands of pounds every year out of the profiteering, and I think it is a mere case of playing to the gallery to revolutionise the principle of the onus of proof by saying that every director of a company—simply because, in certain quarters of the country, directors of a limited liability company are unpoular—is to be deprived of the principle of British law that he is to be assumed to be innocent until the Government take some steps to satisfy themselves that he is guilty.

Mr. NEWBOULD

I wish to ask the Attorney-General one question—whether the words in this Clause, "with his knowledge and consent," may be read, "with his knowledge or consent." I can quite well see many instances where directors may have knowledge of and may have consented to an increase of price, and I just want to know whether it may read "knowledge or consent" as well as "knowledge and consent''?

Sir G. HEWART

No, Sir, clearly not. The burden of proof to be put upon the director of a company which has been convicted is proof that the act which constituted the offence took place without his knowledge and without his consent.

Mr. NEWBOULD

In a case of which I had experience recently an increase of price was put to the vote at a board meeting. Some directors voted against the increase and others voted for the increase. Those directors who voted against the increase had the knowledge but had not given consent. According to the Attorney-General, although they had knowledge and refused their consent they are to be equally guilty with the others.

Sir G. HEWART

My hon. Friend completely misunderstands what I said. This is inserted for the benefit of the directors. Supposing the words were not there, the Bill would then provide that where a company is convicted under this Section of the Act "every director and officer of the company shall be deemed to be primâ facie," and there it would stop. Seriously, is it said that the words which follow are not a benefit to the director? What is the benefit? "Unless he proves that the act which constituted the offence took place without his knowledge and consent."

Mr. NEWBOULD

Would he have to prove both?

Sir G. HEWART

My hon. and learned Friend forgets the negative. Surely if he proves that he did not know it is clear that he did not consent. If he proves that he did not consent, it matters not that he knew.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

The Clause might be amended in these terms:

shall be guilty of the like offence when it is proved that the offence took place with his knowledge and consent. That might meet the difficulty.

2.0 A.M.

Major ENTWISTLE

An hon. Member below the Gangway opposite asked a question as to whether there would be one trial or two. As the words stand in the Section there would be only one trial. The words read, "Where a person convicted under this Section is a company every director and officer of the company shall be guilty of the like offence." That means he is not prosecuted again to be guilty of an offence. I pso facto when there is a conviction of a company there is a conviction of every director. I should say that the intention of the learned Attorney-General is that in case there is a conviction of the company and any director of the company is subsequently prosecuted, then the onus of proof shall lie on him to show that it

was without his knowledge and consent. As the words stand at present that is not what happens. Words ought to be inserted so that it would read, "Where a person under the Section is a company, then in the case of any director or officer of that company who is prosecuted," and that would overcome the difficulty. I see the learned Attorney-General shakes his head, but I think he should consider it to. see if there is a substantial difference.

Sir G. HEWART

I said we would consider it, and if it would meet the difficulty I would take out the word "and" and substitute the word "or."

Mr. INSKIP

I only desire to have it either that a. man is guilty until he is innocent or innocent until he is guilty. The Attorney-General's suggestion does not meet my point, and I wish to press my Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 43; Noes, 125.

Division No. 101.]	AYES.	[2.4 a.m.
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte	Foxcroft, Captain C.	Raeburn, sir William
Ainsworth, Captain C.	Glyn, Major R.	Remer, J. B.
Atkey, A. R.	Green, J. F. (Leicester)	Rogers, Sir Hallewell
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E. (B. St. E)	Roundell. Lieut.-Colonel R. F.
Bean, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)	Holmes, J. S.	Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)
Blair, Major Reginald	Johnstone, J.	Stephenson, Colonel H. K.
Brackenbury, Captain H. L.	Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)	Stevens, Marshall
Briggs, Harold	Kiley, James Daniel	Tryon, Major George Clement
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)	King, Commander Douglas	Vickers, D.
Child, Brig.-Gen. Sir Hill	Lindsay, William Arthur	Wild, Sir Ernest Edward
Clough, R.	Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)	Winterton, Major Earl
Conway, Sir W. Martin	Macquisten, F. A.	Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)
Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)	Mitchell, W. Lane
Davies, Sir Joseph (Crowe)	Morden, Col. H. Grant	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H.	Perring, William George	Mr. Inskip and Major Lloyd Greame.
Forestier-Walker, L.
NOES.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke	Clay, Captain H. H. Spender	Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Adair, Rear-Admiral	Cockerill, Brig.-General G. K.	Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.
Baird, John Lawrence	Colvin, Brig. General R. B.	Hirst, G. H.
Baldwin, Stanley	Cozens-Hardy, Hon. W. H.	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)	Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)	Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Barnett, Major Richard W.	Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.	Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Barnston, Major Harry	Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)	Jodrell, N. P.
Beck, Arthur Cecil	Doyle, N. Grattan	Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Bell James (Ormskirk)	Du Pre, Colonel W. B.	Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)	Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)	Kellaway, Frederick George
Blades, Sir George R.	Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)	Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Entwistle, Major C. F.	Kerr-Smiley, Major P.
Briant, F.	Eyres-Monsell, Commander	Kidd, James
Bridgeman, William Clive	Farquharson, Major A. C.	Knights, Captain H.
Britton, G. B.	Fitzroy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.	Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)
Broad, Thomas Tucker	Flannery. Sir J. Fortescue	Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)
Bromfield, W.	Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)	Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)
Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)	Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Cambridge)	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter
Brown, T. W. (Down, N.)	Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham	Lort-Williams, J.
Buchanan, Lieut.-Col, A. L. H	Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John	Loseby, Captain C. E.
Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.	Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)	Lunn, William
Campion, Colonel W. R.	Grundy, T. W.	M'Curdy, Charles Albert
Cape, Tom	Hailwood, A.	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Carr, W. T.	Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)	Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)
Carter, W. (Mansfield)	Hamilton, Major C. G C. (Altrincham)	Murray. William (Dumfries)
Casey, T. W.	Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)	Nail, Major Joseph
Neal, Arthur	Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Newbould, A. E.	Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)	Townley, Maximilan G.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)	Seddon, J. A.	Wallace, J.
Norris Colonel Sir Henry G.	Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John	Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.
Parker, James	Sexton, James	Ward, w. Dudley (Southampton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)	Western, Col. John W.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike	Short, A. (Wednesbury)	Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.
Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)	Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)	Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)
Pratt, John William	Smith, W. (Wellingborough)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Pulley, Charles Thornton	Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander	Woolcock, W. J. U.
Purchase, H. G.	Stanier, Captain Sir Beville	Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Raffan, Peter Wilson	Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)	Young, Sir F. W, (Swindon)
Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr.	Strauss, Edward Anthony	Younger, Sir George
Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)	Sugden, W. H.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)	Sutherland, Sir William	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Royce, William Stapleton	Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)	Capt. Guest and Lord E. Talbot.
Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)	Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)

Amendments made: At end of Subsection (4), insert the words "In any proceedings under this Section to which the Board of Trade is a party, costs may be awarded to or against the Board."—[Sir G. Hewart]

In Sub-section (5), leave out the words "majority of the population," and insert instead thereof the words "public, or bring material, machinery, or accessories used in the production thereof."—[Sir A. Geddes.]

Major GREAME

I have an earlier Amendment, which goes to the root of this matter, and has not been covered. It is to leave out Sub-section (5), and insert instead of thereof the following new Sub-section: "(5) This Act applies to such of the articles specified in the Schedule hereto as are not from time to time declared to be controlled articles."

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. and gallant Member's Amendment fails, because there is no Schedule.. Unless I have the Schedule in front of me I cannot put the Amendment.

Major GREAME

If this Amendment is agreed to, shall I not be allowed at a later stage to move to insert the Schedule?

The CHAIRMAN

When the hon. and gallant Member has been a little longer in the House he will discover that that is a mistake which is frequently made. I must have the Schedule in front of me.

Sir A. GEDDES

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (5); after the word "articles," to insert the words" and different provisions of this Act may be applied to different articles."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

Are we to have any explanation of these rather vague words? Although I have tried, I am afraid I cannot see what is aimed at.

Sir A. GEDDES

The object is quite clear. There are various provisions in the Bill, and it is laid down that the Board of Trade shall declare various articles, or class of articles, by Order—articles of a kind in common use by the public, or, according to the Amendment just made, material, machinery, or accessories used in the production thereof. The Amendment I am now moving is to provide various treatment for the various articles, if such be necessary. For example, provided that Clause 3 becomes part of the Act, it might not be necessary to allow a local authority to trade in machines. It might be desirable to allow them to trade in boots, but not in machinery for making boots, although machinery for making boots might be dealt with in another Order. If it were not provided for in some such way the whole thing might have to go together.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir G. HEWART

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (5), to add the words: "The Board of Trade shall have power to require any person to appear before them under this Act and give evidence on oath, and shall have power to authorise any person to administer the oath for the purpose." This is the Amendment which I promised my hon. Friend below the Gangway that I would move.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN

I find myself in considerable difficulty in voting that this Clause shall stand part of the Bill. It is not that I am not as keen as other hon. Members that profiteering shall be put an end to, nor that I am not anxious to see the Board of Trade equipped with the necessary power to deal with trusts and trade combinations, so that prices may be lowered. I do not, however, believe that this Clause will be effective. Under it the Board of Trade has the power to fix prices, which I regard as most pernicious, because no power is given to the Board to see that traders in this country continue to import goods to be sold at the restricted prices, nor any power to see that home goods are not exported to places where there are no fixed prices. The result may be that, instead of lower prices, there may be a greater scarcity, and, consequently, higher prices. Higher prices may be borne by rich people, or by working men who receive commensurate wages; but what is going to happen to men and women with fixed incomes, or to pensioned Civil servants? I feel that it would be very dangerous to make this Clause part of the Bill. I would far sooner see the Government go ahead and sell the goods that they have here today at reasonable prices—that they instructed the War Office to sell their millions of yards of cloth, and so forth, at reasonable prices, and at fixed periods during the next twelve months. That would have a far greater effect in reducing prices than any Clause such as this.

Major GREAME

I must take this opportunity to draw attention to the extreme vagueness of the articles to which this Act applies. Of all the points which I mentioned on the Second Reading, I do not think anything obtained such unanimous support as the suggestion that the Government ought to specify the articles which are included. In my ignorance of procedure, I did not include a Schedule with my Amendment, because I felt that it was the business of the Government to inform this House and the country as to the scope of the Bill. After this Debate, I am left in much more doubt than I started with as to what these articles are to be. Some remarks which have been made by the Attorney-General suggest that meals in restaurants are included in the Bill. It may be a mutton cutlet. Is that, or is a horse or a house an article used by the majority of the people? Is a motor car? If so, what type of hot or car? Is whisky an article of common consumption? Then in the matter of clothes, what kind of clothes are articles in common use by the people? We all know a certain amount of clothing is necessary for everybody. Where does it begin and stop? Are pyjamas clothes? They are used, I suppose, by every male person who does not wear a nightshirt. Then there are pyjamas of flannel and of silk. Can I go to the Board of Trade and complain about the price of the former but not of the latter? It is easy to be humorous about these things, but I suggest that they are serious matters for the persons who buy and sell such goods. The country does want to know what are the cases which come under the Bill. The Government must know what is in their minds. The tribunals should know. Are you going to give them a definition? One tribunal may say, "I do not regard this as an article in common use," and another will adopt a different standard. The Government should put a Schedule into this Bill setting out what are the articles that will come under it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I have heard many views of lawyers and company directors, and I am quite convinced that this Bill is mischievous. We are in a panic about the profiteer, and the furious cry about profiteering. An unreasonable profit in one case may be a reasonable profit when all the circumstances of the case are known. The first profiteer was Joseph, who took the corn out of the land of Egypt. Profiteering is making a profit out of goods sold to your fellow man, and has up till now been a perfectly legal transaction. It may not be all right from the social point of view. There are men who say that a person, by taking a profit, is unsocial and wrong. Now we make it an offence. I do not know where it is going to end. But I do know that the greatest of all articles of production and consumption, the land, is left out of the Bill. The Amendment would take company directors out of the Bill. I ask is the Bill to apply to trade combines? I do not know why those who are opposed to the Bill should vote against Clause I unless they vote against the other Clauses.

Mr. RAFFAN

I ask the Attorney-General to say whether land is or is not in common use. It appears to me that it is but is left out of the Bill. If that definition of common use is to be applied it must apply to land. The Minister says it will not apply to farms and mines. The Land Acquisition. Bill applies only to land required by local authorities. But there is other land outside of that Bill, and bought and sold by private individuals. I ask why hon. Members should be so anxious to see that land is left out expressly. If so, it certainly will not come, as it ought to do, under the definition of "articles in common use."