Sitting of 25 November 1914

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
RAMSGATE HARBOUR.
Copy presented of Statement of the Income and Expenditure of the Board of Trade for the year ended 31st March, 1914, together with an Account of the Receipt and Issue of Stores [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copies presented of Orders made by the Councils of the under-mentioned local authorities, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—

County Palatine of Chester (urban district of Runcorn);

Cities of Bangor and Sheffield;

County borough of Huddersfield;

Boroughs of Grimsby and Wolverhampton;

Urban districts of Edmonton, Rowley Regis, and Bexley

[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of Minute of the Board of Education, dated 25th November, 1914, modifying the Regulations for Public Elementary Schools, 1912, in England and Wales, as already modified by the Minutes dated 4th July, 1913 and 24th June, 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Order, dated 20th November, 1914, made by the Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Deposit Contributors' Benefits) Order, 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS, 1877 AND 1907.
Copy presented of Orders declaring certain areas to be infected with Wart Disease and to be Infected Areas for the purposes of the Wart Disease of Potatoes (Infected Areas) Order of 1914 (D.I.P., Nos. 143–148) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Report, No. 820 (Jamaica, Report for 1913–14) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—

Anglo-Portuguese Commercial Treaty Bill,

Exportation of Arms Act (1900) Amendment Bill,

House of Commons (Commissions in His Majesty's Forces) Bill,

Land Drainage Bill,

Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Bill, without Amendment.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR IN EUROPE.

    DARTMOUTH CADETS (PROMOTION).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether he is aware of the diversity in the promotion of the Dartmouth naval cadets to the rank of midshipmen, and that, for instance, some first-term boys, who could not possibly know anything of officers' duties, were promoted midshipmen, dating from the 2nd August; and that some fourth and fifth-term boys were appointed, dating from the 22nd September, after the cruiser disasters, thus ranking for all time in the Navy as juniors to the first-term boys previously promoted; and whether he will inquire into the whole question of seniority in future years which has arisen from his action in regard to the Dartmouth cadets?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I am aware of the diversity in promotion mentioned by the hon. Member. It is, however, not a fact that cadets of any term can be passed over in their future career by cadets of a lower term on account of the seniority given them as midshipmen. A circular will shortly be issued to the Fleet containing regulations which will allay the anxiety as to the future of these young officers apparently existing.

    PETROLEUM CONTRACTS.
    Mr. EVELYN CECILasked whether His Majesty's Government are at present under contract with a company, of which 99 per cent. of the shares are held by a German company, for the supply of petroleum products to the Navy; and whether His Majesty's Government will discontinue employing this or any similar company during the War?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It has been ascertained that the actual share capital of the company which the hon. Member apparently has in mind is owned to the extent of one-half by subjects of our Allies in the field, namely, Belgium, France and Russia; the other half is owned mainly by German shareholders. Some portion is understood to be in Roumanian hands. There are now no German directors. The employés of the company are exclusively British. The company possesses certain facilities for distribution of petroleum products, and the contracts which the Admiralty have entered into with the company are by virtue of its agreements and relations with a number of producing companies as their accredited distributing or sales agents for various petroleum products. Steps have been taken in this and other similar cases to ensure that the requirements of the Trading with the Enemy Act are fully met. The Admiralty do not therefore propose to take such steps as are suggested in the second part of the question.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the London County Council have terminated their contracts with this company?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I was not aware of that; I will take note of it. All these cases have passed through a very narrow sieve.

    NAVAL BRIGADE.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the members of the Naval Brigade now interned in Holland lost the whole of their kits at Antwerp; whether he is aware that these men allotted most of their pay to those dependent upon them, and are therefore unable to provide themselves with comforts; whether money orders can be sent through the post offices to prisoners of the Naval Brigade; and, if so, can the Admiralty send the interned men their pay?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: All the kits lost by the Naval Brigade in Antwerp are being replaced by the Government and supplies of warm clothing similar to those issued to the Fleet in Home waters are being sent to Holland. It is the case that a considerable number of the brigade had allotted their pay, but letters and parcels are being sent to them free of postage charges, and my information is that officers and men are being treated with great consideration and humanity by the Netherlands Government. The question whether they may receive any part of their pay in excess of the payments that are being made by the Netherlands Government is under consideration, but pending a settlement all allotments declared are being paid, separation allowances are being issued, and those interned are being credited with the full pay of their rank or rating.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is consider able anxiety among the dependants of officers and men of the Naval Brigade, more particularly with regard to casualties, and that that anxiety has been considerably increased since the statement of the First Lord? Can he inform the House of the large number of missing, of whom no account has been given? Can he give—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lord ought to give notice of that.

    CANTEEN CONTRACTORS (HIS MAJESTY'S SHIPS).
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked why the Admiralty advised the War Risk Insurance Office to insure stocks belonging to canteen contractors against losses incurred

    1091
    through damage to and sinking of His Majesty's ships in war and still decline to recommend the same course being extended to the naval wine merchants' stocks, which, in accordance with a well-established usage, are kept on board ship?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The canteens are worked under contracts arranged and supervised by the Admiralty as part of the regular messing system of the Fleet. It was necessary to provide a method of guaranteeing the canteen contractors against war risk in order to secure the maintenance of the canteens under war conditions. The supply of wine to officers' messes is not controlled by the Admiralty, officers being free to make their own arrangements for purchase and supply.

    NORTH SEA PATROLS (STEAM DRIFTERS).
    Mr. COWANasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Admiralty, while employing a considerable number of Peterhead steam drifters for patrol purposes in the North Sea, is not similarly employing any Fraserburgh steam drifters, notwithstanding the fact that the whole of the Fraserburgh fishing fleet is at present laid up on account, of the War; and whether he will now take steps to provide for the employment by the Admiralty of a proportion of Fraserburgh steam drifters in order to more equitably distribute, as between different ports, moneys expended by the Admiralty for such service?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The suggestion of my hon. Friend will be borne in mind.
    Mr. COWAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman now give me an answer to the letter which I wrote to him on the 20th October on this very urgent matter?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: If my hon. Friend has not had a reply in writing, he will have one.

    MR. ARMGAARD KARL GRAVES.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in or about the autumn of 1912, or at any other time, Mr. Armgaard Karl Graves was entrusted by the Foreign Office with a mission to a foreign country?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Charles Roberts): I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member for Gravesend on 16th June, 1913. Neither the Foreign Office nor my right hon. Friend had anything to do with Mr. Armgaard Karl Graves before that answer was given, nor have we had anything to do with him since that answer was given.
    Mr. KING: Then it is quite untrue to say that he ever had any commission entrusted to him, directly or indirectly, by the Foreign Office?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: That, I understand, is the grammatical sense of the answer which I have given.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: May we also take it for granted that no interview was ever held between the Foreign Office and this gentleman after his discharge from prison?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: I cannot put any other interpretation upon the words which I have read.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary for Scotland if he can state present whereabouts of Armgaard Karl Graves, who was convicted of espionage at Edinburgh in 1912, and was released before completing the full sentence then passed upon him?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. KING: Is there any information of the recent whereabouts of this gentleman up to, say, two years ago?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am afraid I do not know anything about it.
    Mr. KINGasked the Solicitor-General, whether he has taken into consideration a book, entitled "Secrets of the German War Office," purporting to be written by an ex-convict named Graves; whether he is aware that the book contains accusations of bad faith against three Cabinet Ministers; and whether, in view of the prominence given to these charges against Ministers, he intends to permit further circulation of these libels?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Stanley Buckmaster): I have looked at the book mentioned, although I have never considered it. I am unaware of the charges referred to, or that any prominence has ever been given to them.
    Mr. KING: In view of the fact that this book has imposed upon a great number of the loyal and dutiful subjects of His Majesty will the Solicitor-General read the book through carefully?
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: That is a very good reason why I should not do so.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who is responsible for the difference of the editions of the book published in England as compared with the version published in America?
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: I cannot conceive why hon. Members should think that I am an encyclopædia of knowledge. I have no knowledge whatever of the publication.

    DESTITUTION IN EGYPT.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action, if any, has been taken by the Government of Egypt to make provision for the natives thrown out of work through the Government dismissing employés, stopping works of public utility in progress at the beginning of the European War, and postponing new undertakings; whether anything is being done to provide work for the saïdis, 7,000 of whom are reported to have been returned from Alexandria to their native villages; and whether the Egyptian Government intends, by setting up a commission or otherwise, to find a remedy for the destitution now prevailing?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: I have no detailed information as to the steps which the Egyptian Government have taken to meet distress and loss of employment consequent upon the War, but I am aware that they fully realise the situation, and I am confident that they are doing all in their power to deal with it efficiently, and, as a matter of fact, with regard to taxation and finance, steps have been taken, in consultation with His Majesty's Government, to relieve the situation.

    EXCHANGE OF CIVILIAN CITIZENS.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that with regard to the proposed exchange with Germany of civilian
    1094
    citizens over military age, many of whom are invalids at health resorts, reports have been spread in Germany that the difficulty has arisen from the failure of the British Government to welcome reciprocity in the matter; whether any unwillingness on that score exists; if not, whether a clear expression will be given of a desire to come to terms for mutual advantage; and whether the matter will be expedited as much as possible either by direct action or by employing the friendly offices of representatives of neutral Powers?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: I am aware that reports of the nature indicated have been spread in Germany, but there is absolutely no foundation for them. As long ago as 17th September His Majesty's Government undertook to release German subjects not of the age for military service—i.e., under seventeen and over fifty-five years of age—provided that the German Government would reciprocate, and an agreement was reached forthwith. Further, on 8th October, His Majesty's Government proposed to the German Government that an agreement for the mutual exchange of the medically unfit should be concluded. They have recently caused the German Government to be reminded of this proposal, and stated that they will act in accordance with it as soon as assurances are received from the German Government that they will adopt a similar course. Hitherto this and other similar offers have been refused by the German Government. With regard to the last part of the question, direct communication between His Majesty's Government and the German Government is not possible and the negotiations have throughout been conducted through the medium of the United States representatives, who have spared no pains in their efforts to arrange a satisfactory settlement.
    Mr. LYNCH: Has the right hon. Gentleman made it clear to the representatives of friendly Powers that the detention of these citizens is unimportant from a military or diplomatic point of view, and is simply a case of cruelty?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I understand the Secretary for Foreign Affairs will be here tomorrow, and will be glad to give any further information; I would suggest that any further inquiries should be addressed to him.

    BRITISH AND RUSSIAN GOVERNMENTS (BRITISH ALES).
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked what correspondence has taken place between the British and Russian Governments in reference to the exportation to that country of British ales and stout, and the effect on the trade of Russian prohibition; and, if so, what is the nature of the British communications?
    Mr. ROBERTS: No correspondence of the nature indicated by the hon. Member has passed between the British and Russian Governments.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Then do I understand that the statement made in the Press was entirely false; it said that such correspondence had taken place between the two Governments?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I have not seen the statement.

    YARMOUTH CORPORATION.
    Mr. COWANasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the corporation of Yarmouth has declined to receive a deputation of Fraserburgh fish curers who desired to lay before the corporation a request for the remission or reduction of the rents chargeable in respect of certain pickling plots rented by them from the corporation, which, owing to the War and the consequent suspension of fishing operations, cannot be utilised by the fish curers, many of whom are now in very straitened circumstances; and whether he can use any influence with the corporation to induce it to consider the application referred to?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Harry Verney): I have no direct information on the subject, but I understand that the facts are generally as stated by my hon. Friend. It is not possible, however, for the Board to intervene in the matter.

    MR. G. B. SHAW.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Solicitor-General whether Mr. George Bernard Shaw's pamphlet, called "Common Sense about the War," has passed the Censor;
    1096
    and, if so, can he say why the Censor allowed it to be published in its present form?
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: I have never seen the document referred to; it was not submitted for censorship.
    Mr. HUNT: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the statements in the pamphlet are not only very false, but are very injurious to this country; and are we really to understand that any conceited person of the Bernard Shaw type is at liberty to publish anything he likes, however detrimental to the country, although in the case of the "Globe" newspaper—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member forgets that this is Question time.

    WAR LOAN APPLICATIONS.
    Sir JOHN BARRANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can undertake that in the allotment of the War Loan all applications from individual investors for small amounts shall be allotted as far as possible in full?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I am not yet in a position to give any undertaking as to the basis of allotment; but I will bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is in a position to tell us what amount has been reached?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope to be able to make a statement about that to-morrow.

  WAR BUDGET.

    BEER TAX.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the effect of the new Beer Tax upon the custom which obtains in Scotland of selling beer by the schooner, three of which make a quart, and of the fact that the size of bottle commonly used in Scotland comes between an imperial pint and an imperial half-pint, in view of the difficulty there would be in passing on the tax to the consumer?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The facts mentioned in the question have been brought

    1097
    to my notice. It would be impossible to adopt a figure for duty which would be capable of accurate adjustment to all varieties of local practice as regards the sale of beer either in open vessels or in bottles.
    Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell a waiting public what is to be the tax upon a schooner?

    INCOME TAX.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked whether any provision has been or will be made for reducing the amount of the assessment this year for Income Tax on those who have left their business in order to serve in the Army or Navy, and whose business profits under management are likely to be much less than otherwise would have been the case?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would refer the hon. Member to Clause 12 of the Finance Bill as amended in Committee.

    TRANSFERENCE OF ASSETS.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked what steps, if any, are being taken by the Government to prevent firms which are unable to meet their acceptances from transferring their assets abroad?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on Monday last in answer to a question in identical terms by the hon. Member for the Hertford Division. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of my reply.

    ENGAGEMENT IN EAST AFRICA.
    Mr. BUTLER LLOYDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any definite information has been received of the action which took place on 3rd November in East Africa; and if it is known whether the Germans took any prisoners on that occasion?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): Information relating to the action on the 3rd instant in East Africa has reached the War Office. The question of its publication is under consideration. I am unable to say whether the Germans took any prisoners on the occasion, but three rank and file were reported missing and, as far as I know, have not since rejoined.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are we to understand that that consideration is in the hands of the Press Bureau?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE (BOOTS).
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked when the regulations were made entitling men joining the Territorial Forces to draw money for boots at once; and if men already in the Yeomanry or joining on mobilisation were wrongly informed when they were given to understand that they could not draw boots for six months?
    Mr. H. BAKER: Instructions regarding the payment of 10s. to Territorial Force soldiers producing a full kit of necessaries (including a pair of serviceable boots) were promulgated generally by Army Order 71 of March, 1914, and are contained in paragraph 615 B Territorial Force Regulations. I have no knowledge that any Yeoman have been informed that boots would not be issued for six months. They should not have been so informed, as during the period of mobilisation boots are issuable free by commanding officers as the men require them.

    SERVICES OF REGIMENTS.
    Mr. COTTONasked the Solicitor-General whether, in view of the prominence deservedly given to the deed of the London Scottish on the battlefield, he will arrange to obtain for the Press Bureau a similar report from the general commanding each of the other regiments with regard to the operations of that regiment since the beginning of the War, together with a weekly report from each regiment during the continuance of the War, subject, of course, to military contingencies; and whether he could arrange to have such reports collated and subedited by practical journalists and issued day by day by the Press Bureau to the newspapers?
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: I think the hon. Gentleman will find the answer to that question printed in Monday's OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what the answer is? As the question has been on the Paper for several days, is the House not entitled to an answer?
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: This question was down two days ago, and I forwarded a copy to the hon. Gentleman who asked the question. I thought that was a sufficient answer, particularly as I have seen in in the report of yesterday's proceedings.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: As the question was on the Paper and postponed by the hon. Member, how did the hon. and learned Gentleman send it to the Official Reporters?
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: It was not postponed; it was not reached. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was. You were not there!"]
    Mr. SPEAKER: There was some misunderstanding. This question was postponed.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give us the answer now?
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: It is in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

    GERMAN SPIES AS BELGIAN REFUGEES.
    Mr. COWANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the arrival in this country of German spies accompanying and passing themselves off a Belgian refugees; whether any such Germans are known to have obtained admission to Belgian refugee homes; and whether instructions have been issued to the police to take precautions in view of such a possibility, especially in the case of refugee homes situated in the immediate vicinity of military camps?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The Government are fully alive to the possibility indicated in the first sentence of the question, and have from the first taken steps through the police and otherwise to guard against it. It would militate against the success of those steps to state details in public.

    LIGHTING (LONDON).
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the approach of the Christmas shopping season and the detrimental effect of the present lighting arrangements on the business of London tradesmen, he will
    1100
    confer with the Admiralty as to the possibility of further relaxing the regulations as to the lighting of shops until a later hour than 6 p.m., say, until 7.30 or 8 p.m., with such requirements as regards outside, shop blinds or otherwise as the Admiralty may consider necessary?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have consulted the Admiralty, and I am advised that no further relaxation in the lighting regulations would be advisable at present.

    SOLDIER'S WIDOW (POSTHUMOUS CHILD).
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the case of the widow of an Army Reservist belonging to the Stoke-on-Trent police force, whose husband died from wounds received in action with the Colours, and whose child was born after the father's death; have the police authorities any power to make provision for the child in cases of this kind; is he aware that the chief constable reported that the pension regulations make no mention of an allowance for a posthumous child; is he advised that, if such an allowance is not specifically included, it is excluded; and, if so, will steps be taken to remedy this hardship?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am making inquiry in the case and will let the hon. Member know the result, but as at present advised I see no reason to think that posthumous children are excluded from the benefits allowed to children of deceased police officers.

    SPECIAL CONSTABLES.
    Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether special constables appointed by the justices under the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, s. 196, are liable to be called out by the military or civil authorities for duties other than those specified in that Act to maintain the peace of the borough; if so, will he state under what Statute such power is conferred?
    Mr. McKENNA: My opinion on a question of law is not of binding authority, but I am advised that a special constable, appointed under the enactment in question, cannot be called on to act except in pursuance of a warrant issued by a Justice in accordance with the Statute.

    METROPOLITAN POLICE.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether any men of Army age and standard have been taken on by the Metropolitan Police since the commencement of the War; and, if so, will he take steps to enlist only older men for the police, or keep the vacant places for time-expired soldiers, and arrange for those already enlisted to join the Army if they wish?
    Mr. McKENNA: Owing to the withdrawal of reservists and enlistments, the Force is very considerably under authorised strength, whilst its duties and responsibilities have been greatly increased. Recruitment is being made on a scale only just sufficient to replace ordinary wastage. The Commissioner of Police does not think it practicable to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion: but a large number of police pensioners have been recalled for temporary service, and will retire again at the end of the War.

    NATURALISED GERMANS INTERNED.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many naturalised Germans have been interned since the War began, because their actions have rendered them open to suspicion without being guilty of actual espionage; and whether he will consider the advisability of obtaining further powers to enable him to deal with naturalised persons whose actions are suspicious without being actually illegal?
    Mr. McKENNA: British subjects, whether naturalised or natural-born, of German origin are not liable to be interned. Internment is a military measure which is applicable only to alien enemies. The very wide powers which are given by the Defence of the Realm Acts, which will be further extended by the Bill now before the House, apply to all persons whose actions are suspicious.

    NATURALISED CHAUFFEURS.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state why the unnaturalised German chauffeurs of the Lord Chief Justice and
    1102
    of the Secretary of State for the Colonies were given naturalisation certificates just after the War broke out, and why the chauffeur of the Lord Chief Justice has since been allowed to leave the country; and could he say whether these naturalisation certificates were granted, as in the case of Baron Bruno Schroder, because it was in the public advantage that they should be?
    Mr. McKENNA: The general principle upon which I have proceeded since the War began in granting certificates of naturalisation to the small number of Germans and Austrians who have received them is that there should be clear grounds of advantages to the State or special circumstances which would justify the grant. In the cases referred to in the questions, I was quite satisfied that they came within the general principle which I have just stated. For the information of the House I would like to state that extreme care has been exercised in the examination of the circumstances of every case. Out of about 10,000 applications, less than 100 certificates have been given, and these figures include readmission of British widows formerly married to enemy subjects and persons whose nationality was doubtful and who had always believed themselves to be British both in blood and nationality.
    EARL of RONALDSHAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the first person alluded to in the question has openly, since the outbreak of the War, been expressing his sympathy with the cause of Germany and hostility to the cause of this country?
    Mr. McKENNA: To which particular person does the Noble Lord refer?
    EARL of RONALDSHAY: To the chauffeur of the Lord Chief Justice.
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir; I am not aware of anything of the sort.
    Mr. HUNT: Is it a fact that the chauffeur has left the country?
    Mr. McKENNA: He has left temporarily. I cannot answer any further on the subject.
    Mr. HUNT: Why was he allowed to leave?
    Mr. McKENNA: Because he was entitled to.
    HON. MEMBERS: Where is he gone?

    EMIGRATION OF MEN OF MILITARY AGE.
    Mr. STEWARTasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will state how many men of military age have emigrated from the United Kingdom since the beginning of August?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The number of male British subjects over nineteen and under thirty-nine years of age shown by the lists of passengers to countries out of Europe as intending to transfer their permanent residence from the United Kingdom to another country was, during the months of August, September, and October this year, about 13,000. As the lists have been found to include as persons previously resident in this country a not inconsiderable number more properly descrbed as visitors to this country, this total is probably well in excess of the actual number of male emigrants within the limits of age specified.

    FISH INDUSTRY.
    Mr. COWANasked the Prime Minister whether he has received a petition on behalf of the Peterhead Fish Trade Association, the Fraserburgh Fish Curers' Association, and the Wick Fish Trades' Association representing the stagnation of business, and consequent distress, caused by the cessation of export trade in cured herrings due to the War, the accumulation of stocks at ports on the East Coast of Scotland and in the adjacent islands to the value of half a million sterling, and praying that, in order to afford relief to the population engaged in the fishing and allied industries, the Government should purchase cured herrings to be utilised for the feeding of German prisoners of War; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I received the petition referred to yesterday. I am receiving a deputation on this matter this afternoon.

    CIVIL SERVANTS AND ENLISTMENT.
    Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that there are many Civil servants anxious and
    1104
    willing to enlist; and whether he will consider the possibility of modifying the present restrictions and temporarily filling the places of those who enlist with men over military age who have been thrown out of employment?
    The PRIME MINISTER: A written answer to this question appeared in Monday's Votes.

    REPRESENTATIVES OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS.
    EARL of RONALDSHAYasked the Prime Minister if the accredited representatives of foreign Governments in this country are afforded means in existing arrangements of communicating with countries with which we are at war; and, if so, are such communications exempt from the supervision of the Censor?
    Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: I have been asked to answer this question on the part of the Prime Minister. There is no direct postal or telegraphic communication between this country and the enemy countries, but it is open to the Diplomatic Representatives of neutral Powers in London to send their postal communications by means of couriers or through the intermediary of their representatives in neutral States. Telegrams can be sent by the Diplomatic Representatives through their own Governments. The postal and telegraphic correspondence of the Diplomatic Representatives of neutral Powers is exempt from Censorship, in accordance with the usual custom.

    PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister (1) whether, as the recently-appointed Committee on Pensions does not deal with the present position of officers' wives, he will consider whether something in the nature of separation or lodging allowances can be allowed for those wives whose husbands are now at the front; and (2) whether the wives of such officers as are entitled to lodgings or lodging allowance are turned out within ninety days of their husbands leaving for the front; and whether he will consider the possibility, pending the consideration of the whole question, of modifying this order or providing a sufficient lodging allowance?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Baker): This subject has been under consideration, and I hope that an announcement will be made very soon.
    Mr. COWANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what provision it is intended to make by way of pension or otherwise to soldiers who have suffered injuries, such as the loss of an eye, which although incapacitating them for further military service do not altogether prevent their following civil employment?
    Mr. H. BAKER: The present regulations make provision for grants of pension or gratuity for injuries which result in a loss of earning capacity in civil life. As the hon. Member is aware, the whole subject is under review by the recently appointed Committee.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked whether the usual separation allowance is payable to the wife of a soldier serving with the Colours when such wife has obtained, before her husband enlisted, a separation order and a magistrate's order on her husband to pay her 10s. or some other sum a week for the maintenance of herself and children; if such separation allowance is payable, whether the wife is entitled to enforce such magistrate's order, wholly or in part, in the case where the soldier has no means other than his pay; and, if such separation allowance is not payable, what steps the wife should take to enforce such magistrate's order, first when the soldier is serving or is under orders to serve beyond the seas, and, secondly, when the soldier is not serving or under orders to serve beyond the seas?
    Mr. BAKER: This question is receiving consideration.
    Mr. BUTCHER: When will the hon. Gentleman be in a position to give an answer?
    Mr. BAKER: I am not sure that this does not come within the scope of the Committee.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether where the wife has got a separation order on the husband to pay her 10s. per week, the Government's separation allowance will also be paid her?
    Mr. BAKER: That question was under consideration before the Committee was appointed.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether in considering the question of separation allowances, he will put before the Committee the case of the lieutenant-quartermaster, the majority of whom have risen from the ranks, and whose wives and children suffer hardships when the husband is at the front?
    Mr. BAKER: Provision has already been made in these cases for the continuous issue of lodging, fuel and light allowances for the whole period of absence at the front.
    Mr. GWYNNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War, whether the new regulations by which a soldier can obtain 9s. a week for his mother, if dependent on him, by agreeing to a deduction of 6d. a day from his pay, apply in the case of two sons—that is, can 18s. a week be obtained by the mother if both sons agree to a deduction of 6d. a day?
    Mr. BAKER: No, Sir. The sons may-allot at their discretion, but it is not considered that the public should pay more separation allowance to any one dependant than to a wife.
    Mr. GWYNNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to cases in which men in the Territorial Force who were engaged to be married before the War broke out, and have since been married, are unable to obtain separation allowances for their wives because they were not married before 14th August; and whether he will have this hardship remedied, seeing that new recruits now joining the forces can obtain separation allowances for their wives irrespective of the date of their marriage?
    Mr. BAKER: The War Office has considered and is prepared to consider specially cases where satisfactory evidence is adduced showing that definite arrangements for marriage had been made prior to the 14th August or to the date of enlistment, if later.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Are we to understand that those regulations have been issued already?
    Mr. BAKER: These cases are considered specially.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Will the hon. Gentleman give intimation to the different Commands?
    Mr. BAKER: The question has been answered several times in this House.
    Mr. MOUNTasked whether, when the father of a soldier has died since the commencement of the War and since the son's enlistment, and the soldier signifies his intention of allotting a sum for the maintenance of his widowed mother, this allotment will have the same allowances added to it as would be the case had the allotments been made before the War and had the mother been dependent on her son?
    Mr. H. BAKER: This case is outside the existing provision for dependants; but I will see that it receives consideration.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the financial Secretary to the War Office whether quartermasters in the Territorial Force, if married, get lodging allowances for their families on mobilisation in the same way that quartermasters in the Regular Army get it; and, if such is the case, will he inquire why these allowances have been refused by head-quarters, Eastern Command?
    Mr. BAKER: These allowances have been correctly refused as the regulations stand; but questions affecting the officers under certain conditions are under consideration.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: Will the hon. Gentleman say how it is that the Territorials on mobilisation do not get the same privileges as the men in the Regular Army?
    Mr. BAKER: I have already informed the hon. Member that as the regulations stand these allowances are not included, but the question is now being considered.
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked if a man of thirty-four years of age, in excellent health, who retired from the Army after twelve years' service as a private, possessing two medals and seven bars, and volunteered for service on the 14th November in answer to the call for recruits, was refused a separation allowance for his wife on the ground that his marriage had taken place after the 13th August; and whether some modification could be made in the regulation in legitimate cases?
    Mr. BAKER: Such a case has not been brought to my notice. Perhaps the hon. Member will enable me to identify it. If, as I understand from the dates given in the question, the man was married before enlistment, he should not have been refused separation allowance.
    Mr. MOUNTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether any regulations have yet been issued for the guidance of local old age pensions committees in arriving at the recommendations to be made to the War Office and the Admiralty for the purpose of assessing the additional allowances to be given to widows of soldiers and sailors in cases of necessity under paragraphs A, 7, and 9 of Command Paper 7662?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The answer is in the negative. The whole subject is now before the recently appointed Select Committee.

    CADET SCHOOLS FOR OFFICERS.
    Sir GEORGE SCOTT ROBERTSONasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the importance of thorough war training, he will consider the advisability of establishing cadet schools for officers, more or less on the model of Osborne and Dartmouth, where boys from the preparatory school age, at a moderate cost to parents and with perhaps the aid of local and other scholarships, may be trained systematically for a scientific military career.
    Mr. TENNANT: Whatever the merits of this idea might be, its fruits could hardly mature in time to affect the present War. At present all energy must be concentrated on training those whose age renders it possible that they may be used in this War.

    COLOMBIA AND ECUADOR.

      WIRELESS STATIONS USED FOR ENEMY.
      EARL of RONALDSHAYasked the Prime Minister if evidence has recently been received of breaches of neutrality on the part of the Republics of Colombia and Ecuador; and, if so, can he state the nature of such evidence; has a protest been lodged with the Government of the United. States of America, in which it is asserted that but for such breaches of neutrality the circumstances resulting in the loss of H.M.S. "Good Hope" and H.M.S. "Monmouth" could not have arisen; and is he satisfied that adequate steps have now been taken to prevent similar breaches of neutrality on the part of these two States in the future?
      Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: Information in the possession of His Majesty's Government indicates that the Governments of Colombia and Ecuador have, in certain respects, failed to observe an attitude of strict neutrality, and that their failure to do so is likely to be detrimental to the interests of this country.
      In the case of Colombia, the principal cause of complaint has reference to the high-power wireless telegraph station at Cartagena. Mr. Bowle, His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Bogotà, has repeatedly endeavoured, since the outbreak of war, to induce the Colombian Government either to remove the German staff from the station and to institute strict control to prevent the passage of messages of an neutral nature, or, alternatively, to close the station completely. He has also made every effort to secure the adoption of measures by the Colombian Government which will effectively prevent the use of wireless installations by belligerent merchant ships lying in Colombian ports.
      As the reports received from Mr. Bowle left it in doubt whether the steps taken by the Colombian Government, in consequence of his urgent and repeated representations, were of an effective nature, Captain Gaunt, Naval Attaché to His Majesty's Embassy at Washington, was sent to Colombia for the purpose of ascertaining the true position. Captain Gaunt reported, under date of 28th September, that the wireless station at Cartagena was working nominally under censorship, but was in reality entirely subject to German influence, of which he considered it very important to obtain the removal. He also reported, under date of 8th October, that German steamers in Colombian ports, though their wireless installations had ostensibly been dismantled, had been continuing to use them with the attachment of a muffler.
      It appeared to His Majesty's Government that further representations to the Colombian Government, through His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Bogotà, were unlikely to be of any avail, and they therefore decided to appeal, in conjunction with the French Government, to the
      1110
      good offices of the United States Government, asking them to use their influence at Bogotà to secure a more correct observance of the obligations of Colombian neutrality, and stating that, in the event of Colombia continuing in her existing attitude, the allied Governments might be obliged, in self-defence, to take such measures as they deemed necessary for the protection of their interests.
      A similar communication was also made to the United States Government in respect of Ecuador, the grounds in this case being (1) that the Ecuadorean Minister for Foreign Affairs had himself informed Mr. Jerome, His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Quito, and his French colleague, on 4th October, that German warships had converted the Galápagos Islands, belonging to Ecuador, into a naval base, and (2) that the Ecuadorean Government had failed to comply with the request of the British and French Legations that proper control should be exercised over the wireless station at Guayaquil to prevent its use as an intelligence centre for belligerents. Mr. Jerome and his French colleague were both of opinion that further diplomatic protests to the Ecuadorean Government would be useless, and His Majesty's Government, not being prepared to acquiesce in the disregard of Ecuador's obligations of neutrality, judged it expedient to refer the matter to the United States Government, as explained above.
      The latter have consented to make a communication to the two South American Governments, but I am as yet unaware what result has attended their action. The Note addressed to the United States Government by His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington contained no assertion of the nature mentioned in the question.
      EARL of RONALDSHAYasked the Prime Minister if information indicating Colombia as a probable source of German intelligence was filed with the Home Office and the Foreign Office on or about 29th August; if so, can he say what steps, if any, were taken to anticipate a breach of neutrality by that Republic; and when such steps were taken?
      Mr. C. ROBERTS: His Majesty's Government have no reason to apprehend that any breach of neutrality was ever contemplated by Colombia.
      EARL of RONALDSHAY: Can the hon. Gentleman answer the first part of the question?
      Mr. C. ROBERTS: Perhaps, if the hon. Member will put the next question.

    PRINCE ALBERT OF SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN.
    Mr. WILLIAM YOUNGasked the Prime Minister whether Prince Albert of Schleswig-Holstein, son of Her Royal Highness Princess Christian, is known to be engaged as a combatant in the enemy forces or in any capacity connected with the German army; whether he was in this country at the outbreak of hostilities; and whether, in that case, any efforts were made to detain him?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Prince Albert of Schleswig-Holstein is, I am informed, serving in a military capacity in Germany. I have no information as to whether he was in this country at the outbreak of hostilities.
    Mr. YOUNG: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in view of his answer, have the status of this family, evidently of German sympathies, inquired into, and does he consider it either just or expedient that British taxpayers should be called upon to pay for the upkeep of this family to the extent of some £6,000 per annum?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The question relates only to a particular individual.
    Mr. PONSONBY: Is the Prime Minister aware that Princess Christian had a son in the British Army who did excellent service?

    MILITARY CAMPS (EDUCATION AND RECREATION).
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the help being given in about 500 recruiting camps by the Young Men's Christian Association, mainly in the way of useful forms of education, healthy recreation, and the opening of
    1112
    popular refreshment rooms in which good wholesome food is supplied at moderate prices; whether he is aware that in some camps the refreshment rooms are prohibited through the opposition of the canteen contractor, who claims a monopoly in the canteen supplies; and what action he proposes taking to remove this embargo?
    Mr. BAKER: The value of the work done by the Young Men's Christian Association in the camps is fully recognised. In so far as it includes the provision of refreshment rooms, it would necessarily cover to some extent the same ground as that covered by the canteen. Arrangements are made at the discretion of the commanding officer, but in any event the Young Men's Christian Association is not debarred from pursuing its ordinary activities.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: In view of the good work being done by the Young Men's Christian Association, will he see that the War Office overrides the objection of the canteen contractors who are responsible for preventing this association continuing its work?
    Mr. BAKER: That is a matter for the Central Board.

    VOLUNTEER TRAINING CORPS.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if the War Office has recognised and approved the formation of civilian rifle volunteer and training corps, which are being joined in large numbers by men who, being ineligible for enlistment in the Army, are anxious to render some service and are learning to drill and use the rifle in case of emergency: is he aware that uncertainty has been caused by the impression, created by recent statements, that there is no intention of using these men as combatants under any circumstances; and will he say with what object their formation has been encouraged, seeing that it has not yet been determined whether, in the event of invasion, their position will be precisely the same as that of other civilians or whether they will be entitled to fight?
    Mr. TENNANT: The War Office has recognised the Central Association Volunteer Training Corps and is prepared to recognise all those civilian rifle and volunteer corps which become affiliated to that

    1113
    Association. The feeling in the country has been such that there has been no need to encourage these organisations, which have been formed in large numbers in many parts. Their utility in time of emergency will be to remove stock and to help the threatened inhabitants, and lend assistance generally to the military operations.

    WAR OFFICE CONTRACTS (FAIRWAGES CLAUSE).
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked whether, seeing that the Clause in Government contracts relating to all work being done on the premises of the contractor is now suspended, he can state what steps are being taken by the War Office to prevent abuse of the Fair-Wages Clause; whether facilities will be given to trade union officials to learn whom contractors employ off their premises; and whether he will instruct contractors to exhibit in their workroom the prices paid for piecework as required by Government contracts?
    Mr. BAKER: In all contracts from which the Clause referred to by the hon. Member has been suspended provision is made that "all wages earned in connection with this contract shall be paid direct to the workers, and not through a foreman or others supervising or taking part in the operations upon which the workers are engaged"; and the Home Office Order under the Factory Acts requires that every worker shall receive particulars of the rate of wages applicable to the work to be done by him when the work is given out. These provisions are intended to guard against breaches of the Fair-Wages Clause in the case of outworkers. Any complaint that the Fair-Wages Clause is not being observed is at once investigated. I am afraid it would be impracticable to require contractors to give trade union officials the facilities suggested by the hon. Member. It is, of course, open to any outworker having a grievance to bring the facts to their notice. The exhibition in workrooms of the prices paid for piece-work is required by the Home Office under the Factory Acts.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Arising out of the answer, will the hon. Member see whether the price lists of the work given out cannot be at the disposal of the trade union officials? Much sweating had resulted
    1114
    from the same policy in past times. It formed an important part of the Lords Sweating Commission Inquiry, particularly in connection with the accoutrements trade, and it was believed that the same was taking place now.
    Mr. BAKER: I have given in detail the safeguards, and I think they are very considerable If my hon. Friend knows of any case I shall be very glad to investigate it.
    Mr. HINDSasked whether it is proposed to constitute a central board of military and civilian members to control contracts, prices, and administration, as recommended in the interim Report of the Committee on Garrison and Regimental Institutes [Cd. 7677]; and whether, if the central board is so constituted, it can be extended so as to deal with all War Office contracts for general commercial commodities, excluding military equipments?
    Mr. BAKER: As regards the first part of the question, the matter is still under consideration, but, if constituted, it will be specially designed for special purposes in connection with canteens.

    1ST COMRADES BATTALION (LIVERPOOL).
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that several men belonging to the 1st Comrades Battalion (Liverpool), now stationed at Prescot, have been offered commissions in other regiments, but that the colonel of their regiment refuses to release them and insists on their remaining as privates; and whether he will give intructions that where men are offered commissions they shall be immediately released for their new duties?
    Mr. TENNANT: No refusals of the kind mentioned have been brought to the notice of the War Office. Instructions in the sense of the last part of the question have been sent to all commanding officers.
    Mr. J. WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman take notice, particularly in the case of the refusal of the commanding officer to allow one of his privates to accept a commission that has been offered, that very often it is because he is an extremely able man and he wants merely to keep him in his own corps?
    Mr. TENNANT: If that were so I think the commanding officer would naturally recommend him for a commission in his own corps.

    HOME CAMPS (TRAINED COOKS).
    Mr. EVELYN CECILasked what effective means are being taken to ensure that the Home camps are supplied with adequately trained cooks; and whether further arrangements can be made for supervision and assistance by expert demonstrators and inspectors of cooking serving directly under the War Office?
    Mr. TENNANT: As many cooks as possible are being trained at the School of Cookery. In the meantime, in order to meet the pressing need for cooks, steps are being taken to enlist them at special rates of pay, and authority has also been given, where no regimental cooks exist, to engage cooks temporarily.

    COMMISSIONS (YOUNG OFFICERS).
    Mr. GEORGE GREENWOODasked whether it is possible to give any assurance, having regard to the number of very young officers who are now receiving commissions, that such officers will not be sent on active service until they have reached at least nineteen years of age, or, in the alternative, have had at least six months' training with battalions at Home?
    Mr. TENNANT: No definite instructions have been issued. The local commanders are relied upon to decide whether a young officer is or is not fit to proceed on active service. In forming this decision he would have regard to the natural qualities of leadership and command, the technical knowledge possessed by the officer, his physical and mental development as well as his age. Although there is at present a great demand for officers it is believed that no commanding officer would send to the front any young officer who was unequal to the strain.
    Mr. HUGH LAW: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long it is proposed that boys leaving the Royal Military College at the age of eighteen years should be trained with Home battalions before being sent on active service?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, I cannot say.
    Mr. J. WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman take particular notice that he should not merely because of these questions prevent a young officer going to the front if he wishes to do so?
    Mr. TENNANT: Oh, yes.

    BRITISH PETROLEUM COMPANY.
    Mr. E. CECILasked whether His Majesty's Government are at present under contract with a company, of which 99 per cent. of the shares are held by a German company, for the supply of petroleum products to the Army; and whether His Majesty's Government will discontinue employing this or any similar company during the War?
    Mr. BAKER: The company presumably referred to, the British Petroleum Company, Limited, holds the contract for aircraft spirit for the United Kingdom and also holds contracts for mineral burning oil at certain local stations. Practically the whole of the share capital of the British Petroleum Company, Limited, is held by the Europaische Petroleum Union, a very large proportion of whose shares are, I understand, held by Belgian and Russian Companies. The British Petroleum Company has large distributing facilities in this country; all its officials and employés are stated to be British; and it is making no payment to the parent company. In the circumstances it is not proposed to take the action suggested by the hon. Member.

    ACCOMMODATION FOR TROOPS.
    Mr. HINDSasked how many recruits it is proposed to accommodate in huts; what contracts for huts have been placed; how many recruits are being billeted, and at what rates; and whether, having regard to the losses sustained by seaside and inland resorts last summer, arrangements can be made for further billeting in the immediate future, particularly as the health and physical efficiency of the recruits would thereby be better served and the cost of erecting the huts would be saved?
    Mr. TENNANT: I hope my hon. Friend will excuse me from attempting to obtain the information asked for in the first part of the question. The preparation of a return such as that suggested would cause

    1117
    heavy labour. As regards the accommodation of the troops in billets in preference to huts, important questions of defence, military training and efficiency are involved to which those mentioned by my hon. Friend must, I think, give place.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the huts are completed as soon as possible as the cold weather is coming on?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, as soon as possible.

    BRITISH RECRUITS FROM AMERICAN STATES.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is now in a position to state the result of his promised consideration of the question of increasing the credit to Sir Courtenay Bennett, Consul-General in New York, in connection with the transport to Europe of qualified men of British nationality, scattered throughout the different American States, who have offered their services to the Army; is he aware that the number of men sent over could be increased probably by several thousands with further assistance from the Government; that, without such further assistance, the opportunity of securing a great body of men of exceptional worth will be lost and the present patriotism of British subjects in the United States and Mexico discouraged; and will he announce his decision as early as possible?
    Mr. TENNANT: My Noble Friend does not at present see his way to extend the arrangements now in force in the manner suggested.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that numbers of public-school men and others, British subjects, who have been ranching or engineering in the United States of America and in Mexico, many of whom have been campaigning in Mexico and are good shots and horsemen, are prepared to come over here for service at the front and bring their own horses and equipment, if some organisation is established here to which they could be advised to report themselves; that such men are willing to come at their own charges, especially if the Government will pay the cost of shipping their horses; and will the Government establish an
    1118
    organisation to which these men, probably numbering upwards of 3,000, can report themselves in order that their services may not be lost to the nation?
    Mr. TENNANT: I hardly think it is necessary to establish a special organisation for this purpose. If the men in question are willing to come over at their own charges they will be gladly accepted for enlistment for general service in the Regular Army if they fulfil the required conditions.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman try and raise some organisation to which these men could go on arriving here? Many men have come over and have found no particular place to which they can go. It is not very encouraging to them to come from abroad?
    Mr. TENNANT: I will try and arrange something of the kind, but I cannot give any definite promise.

    ROYAL GARRISON ARTILLERY (PROMOTION).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the desirability of expediting promotion in the Royal Garrison Artillery?
    Mr. TENNANT: As a result of measures, shortly to be taken, considerable improvement in this regard will take place.

    RECRUITING.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he could, without prejudice to public interests, state the number of recruits obtained in each recruiting area in the United Kingdom since the outbreak of War up to the most convenient recent date?
    Mr. TENNANT: I regret that I can add nothing to previous answers which have been given on this matter.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask whether the whole of this information is not in the possession of the right hon. Gentleman at this moment, and, if so, why it cannot be communicated to the House?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not concerned to deny it.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Then why do not we have it?
    Mr. COTTONasked whether any intimation was issued at any time since the War began, by the Government or the War Office, to the military authorities of the commands in Great Britain or Ireland, that if recruiting did not show an improvement a form of conscription would have to be enforced?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Under-Secretary for War, if the number of recruits coming forward the last few days come up to his expectation?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is not desirable to make official statements as to any temporary fluctuations in recruiting that may occur from time to time.

    WINTER CLOTHING FOR TROOPS.
    Colonel WHITEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will authorise the issue of warm woolen undervests to men serving with the Ex-peditionary Force, more especially as a large proportion of the shirts now supplied are of inferior quality?
    Mr. TENNANT: All demands from the Front for woollen vests have been complied with and inquiry was made recently whether any more are required. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is misinformed in thinking that shirts of inferior quality have been supplied.
    Colonel WHITE: May I send the right hon. Gentleman a sample of the shirts now being supplied?
    Mr. TENNANT: Certainly, Sir.
    Colonel WHITEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he can now state when woollen gloves will be ready for issue to troops serving at Home; and whether the gloves of the special warm pattern for men serving with the Expeditionary Force are now ready for issue to drafts proceeding over seas?
    Mr. TENNANT: The answer to the first part of the question is during the next fortnight. The special warm gloves are now being delivered in large consignments.

    WOUNDED SOLDIEBS (RELATIVES' VISITS).
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the difficulty of raising train fares by soldiers' wives or dependants when visiting soldiers sent home wounded or ill, he will arrange for a member of a soldier's family to visit him periodically, or at once if he is on the danger list, free of cost as regards railway fares?
    Mr. BAKER: I explained fully the conditions under which free travelling to visit wounded soldiers is allowed in a written reply to the hon. Member for South St. Pancras on the 23rd instant. I will send the hon. Member a copy. There are, I am afraid, medical objections to periodical visits.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: There are many cases where a woman knows that her husband is ill, and should she not out of humanity be allowed a free railway pass to see her husband?
    Mr. BAKER: When the hon. Member sees the copy of the answer to which I have referred, he will find that free passes are granted in certain cases, but I am not prepared to dispute the medical opinion.

    WAR CORRESPONDENTS.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked if any list has been drawn up of war correspondents at the front; and, if so, when the selections were made, by whom they were made, what papers have been selected, and when the correspondents will be allowed to proceed with their work?
    Mr. TENNANT: A list of correspondents representative of the principal agencies and papers desirous of being included has been drawn up by the authorities, in collaboration with the agencies and papers in question. There are none at the front now. I am unable at present to give an answer to the last part of the question.

    SEDITIOUS PRESS (IRELAND).
    Mr. HUNTasked the Solicitor-General whether his attention has been called to a letter in the "Mayo News," in Ireland, by Mr. John M'Bride, urging

    1121
    Irishmen to prevent any recruits joining the British Army, and asserting that the British Empire was a blood-sucking vampire, and that the Nationalist representatives in Parliament wanted to send Irishmen to France and Belgium and leave their bones in foreign countries, so that there would be none left in Ireland to defend their country, and that dying Catholic soldiers in France had no chance of receiving the Sacraments; and can he say whether this sort of letter is to be allowed by the Censor to be published in future?
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: Until I saw a copy of the paper, through the courtesy of the Member for the Ludlow Division, my attention had not been called to it. I should certainly not allow publication of any such letter as that referred to.
    Mr. HUNT: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman going to do anything to prevent such matters being published in the future, and, if not, will he tell us is there anybody who can stop them?
    Mr. LONG: I desire to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether he has had his attention called to the publication of statements injurious to recruiting in certain Irish newspapers, and what steps he proposes to take in order to render a repetition of these treasonable practices impossible?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Government are well aware of the seditious contents of the publication which the right hon. Gentleman has in his mind. These publications appear to have an unusually large free circulation, particularly in England. We are at this moment considering what immediate steps should be taken to secure the suppression of documents and statements of this character. Although I do not myself regard them as a danger I am sure they are an insult to the sentiment of the vast majority of the Irish people.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: When was this matter first brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman officially, and what steps did he take?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have been reading these papers for the last six weeks.

    IRISH REGIMENTS.
    Mr. COTTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can state, with regard to the Connaught Rangers, the Munster Fusiliers, the Dublin Fusiliers, and the Royal Irish, the total strength of each at the beginning of the War and the total casualties to date?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is not in the public interest to give this information.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Might I ask what reason there is why the deeds of Irish regiments at the front should not be published as freely as the deeds of other regiments?
    Mr. TENNANT: That is not the question asked. The question asks for definite information about specific duties, and to answer it might give information which would be useful to the enemy.

    CASUALTIES (BRITISH FORCES).
    Mr. HOGGEasked whether the War Office could, at convenient but not too great intervals, give the total casualties to date of our Forces?
    Mr. TENNANT: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already given a figure for the period up to 31st October. Further statements on this matter must depend upon circumstances.

    NATIONAL RESERVE (LONDON).
    Mr. BOYTONasked whether London National Reservists are subject to different official conditions than those of the borough of Croydon and of the counties of Berkshire and Essex; and whether the authorities can frame some scheme of registration and organisation whereby the services of a large number of men could be secured and receive official recognition, so that in case of emergency they may be part of the Services of the State?
    Mr. TENNANT: The National Reserve Regulations apply equally to all National Reservists throughout Great Britain, whether in the City or County of London or the counties of Berkshire and Essex. The majority of National Reservists who undertook the Class I. or II. obligation have already been enlisted into the

    1123
    Regular Army or Territorial Force, and steps are being taken to make use, as opportunities offer, of all those remaining men who have not joined any portion of His Majesty's Forces.

    NEW ZEALAND NATIVE VOLUNTEERS.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked if the New Zealand natives (Maoris), who have volunteered their services have left New Zealand; and if there is any intention to send them to East Africa?
    Mr. TENNANT: There is no present intention of sending the Maoris to East Africa. I am not aware whether they have yet left New Zealand.

    NEW BATTALIONS (COLOURS).
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked whether Colours have been presented to any and, if so, to which of the new battalions formed since the beginning of the War?
    Mr. TENNANT: There have been no presentations so far, as the conditions to which I referred on Monday have not yet been fulfilled.

    YEOMANRY (KIT ALLOWANCE).
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked whether Yeomen who joined on mobilisation were allowed only 10s. per kit, whilst those who joined a month later received 23s.; and, if so, what is the reason for the distinction?
    Mr. BAKER: No distinction was made between Territorial Force soldiers serving on mobilisation and those who enlisted subsequently. Men who produced a full kit of necessaries (including a pair of serviceable boots) received a payment of 10s.; but those whose kits were not complete received no payment but were provided with the articles they required. No payment other than the 10s. was issuable to any Territorial Force soldier in respect of necessaries.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Then what did they get the 23s. for?
    Mr. BAKER: That is a question which has puzzled me ever since the hon. Member asked it of me some time ago.

    SHORT WEIGHTS.
    Mr. LOUGHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the higher prices of commodities which may become necessary owing to the War and the desirability of giving as much protection as possible to the public, he can see his way to pass a short measure giving effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Short Weights?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I do not think that the amendment of the existing law relating to short weight is a matter that can conveniently be undertaken at present.

    ROYAL NAVY.

      CHIEF WRITERS (PROMOTION).
      Lord C. BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state why chief writers in the Navy are not allowed to attain commissioned rank; whether, in 1913, there was a shortage of accountant officers, and whether since that time the Admiralty have endeavoured to provide for this shortage by the special entry of assistant clerks from the shore who, after three and a half years' service, would be promoted to the rank of assistant-paymaster, and thus provide the accountant officers required for peace service and assistant-paymasters R.N.R. (formerly bank clerks, pursers and assistant-pursers of the mercantile marine, and clerks in ordinary commercial life); whether none of these new entry assistant-paymasters have any knowledge of naval accountant work, with the result that official reports have been sent to the Admiralty to the effect that they are not capable of performing the duties required of them; whether he is aware that 200 chief writers have been recommended for promotion; and if he will explain why these chief writers have not been promoted to a rank for which they are qualified?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: The question of providing the necessary number of officers for the Accountant Branch, was under the consideration of the Admiralty when war broke out, and this question, in common with others, had to be deferred. The branch is manned in peace by officers entered as assistant clerks and by warrant writers, supplemented by assistant paymasters of

      1125
      the Royal Naval Reserve. To meet the growing requirements of the Fleet, additional entries of assistant clerks have been made in the past two years, and additional assistant paymasters, R.N.R., have been entered from the shore to meet the heavy demands made upon this branch. Generally speaking it is found that with a little experience the latter officers do their work very well, though in one or two isolated cases adverse reports have been received. The number of chief writers now serving who were recommended for warrant rank by the last half-yearly returns available was 113. To make any large number of promotions from chief writer would seriously deplete their numbers at a time when every available writer is required for his ordinary work, but it is under consideration at the present time to make some advancements. I regret, however, that I am unable to hold out any prospect of immediate advancement to commissioned rank.
      Lord C. BERESFORD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how soon he will be able to advance these men? They ought to have been advanced before.
      Dr. MACNAMARA: The matter is under consideration. I should not like to give an answer now.

      ANT JURGENS MARGARINE COMPANY.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether margarine from the Ant Jurgens Margarine Company is being supplied by two English canteen firms to His Majesty's ships; whether certain Maltese firms, who hold tenancies in His Majesty's ships, are also selling this margarine, in the canteens; whether the Ant Jurgens Margarine Company has works in Germany as well as in Holland; whether the company has furnished guarantees to the effect that they have never supplied German manufactured margarine to the canteen firms; and what distinction the Admiralty draws between a firm which admits its dual activities and British firms of margarine manufacturers who cannot even get access to the various canteens of the forces in this country?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: The answers to the first four parts of the question are in the affirmative so far as regards the English canteen firms. It has also been ascertained that the Maltese firms referred to in the second part of the question are not now selling this brand of margarine.
      1126
      With regard to the last part of the question, all British and other firms, not being enemy firms, are alike eligible to supply goods to the canteen tenants of His Majesty's ships, and provided prices and quality are satisfactory, no distinction is drawn by the Admiralty between such firms, but the Admiralty neither recommends nor excludes particular brands of any suitable article.

    NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

      DELAY IN PAYMENT OF BENEFIT.
      Mr. PAGETasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that though the panel doctor gave Minnie Halls, a domestic servant and a member of an approved society, a certificate of disability for work on the 28th July, and the official of the Refuge Insurance Company in which she was insured stated on the 31st July that the benefit would be forwarded when she had filled up the forms he sent, Halls received no payment whatsoever until the 10th November, nearly three and a half months later; and will he state what steps he has taken to prevent such delay in other cases?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Dr. Addison): As the hon. Member has already been informed, the delay in the payment, of benefit was due to the fact that inquiries had to be made as to the member's title to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and that the member changed her address in the course of such inquiries. I have no reason to think that in ordinary circumstances there is any avoidable delay in the payment of claims for benefit.
      Mr. PAGETasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a stock printed letter, described as No. 16 letter, was sent by the legal department of the National Amalgamated Approved Society to Minnie Halls, in which the society, though stating that the circumstances of the case did not warrant legal proceedings being taken to recover compensation, told Halls that their decision did not prevent her from taking such proceedings if she desired; whether he will take steps to prevent such incitement of unlearned persons by an approved society to engage in futile legal proceedings against their employers; and will he make inquiry whether the approved society, before endeavouring to bring the case under the

      1127
      Workmen's Compensation Act, sent an inspector to the panel doctor to ascertain whether his knowledge of the case would support such a claim?
      Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend has seen a copy of the letter referred to, which does not appear to bear the interpretation placed upon it by the hon. Member. My right hon. Friend is informed that the reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.

      MERTHYR TYDVIL COMMITTEE.
      Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received a protest from the Merthyr Tydvil Borough Insurance Committee against having the new model, or stock medicine, Clause of the Insurance Commissioners forced upon them; whether this proposal is a return to the discarded Poor Law system; and what action he proposes taking to safeguard the rights of local insurance committees in this matter?
      Dr. ADDISON: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The provision referred to, however, which merely relates to the pricing of certain mixtures, in no way affects the standard of quality either of the medical treatment or of the drugs required to be supplied, which continue to be subject to the same conditions and safeguards as hitherto. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that there is no ground for the apprehensions expressed in the question.
      Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Then, are these local committees to have out-of-date Regulations forced upon them, even when they are unanimously opposed to them?
      Dr. ADDISON: The Regulations are not out of date, but the object of the Commissioners is to safeguard the stock mixture generally employed in most parts of the country.

      Housing (No. 2) Act, 1914.
      Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMSasked how much of the sum of £4,000,000 made available on 10th August for the housing of the working classes by the Housing (No. 2) Act, 1914, has been lent by his Department for such purposes; at what rate of interest and on what conditions it has been decided to lend out of the above sum for such purposes; and what total sum has been applied for but not yet lent?
      Sir HARRY VERNEY: No loans have yet been made by the Board under the Housing (No. 2) Act. The conditions under which money will be advanced were circulated this morning with the Votes in an answer given to the hon. Member for Whitehaven. The Board have received applications proposing a total expenditure of £69,765.
      Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when there is likely to be any building under this Act, now nearly four months old?
      Sir HARRY VERNEY: I am glad to say that unemployment in the building trade is so low at present that there are no houses being built. As soon as unemployment becomes at all grievous the Board are quite ready with a number of schemes and building will begin at once.

      Frazerburgh (Housing).
      Mr. COWANasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the medical inspector of the Scottish Local Government Board has now reported the result of his inspection of certain premises within the burgh of Frazerburgh, where girls employed in the herring-curing industry are housed; and, if so, whether he will take steps to give such report the same publicity as was given to the charges made in this House on 28th July regarding housing conditions in Frazerburgh by the Noble Lord the Member for West Perthshire?
      Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, I understand he has been furnished with a copy of the report in question. It discloses certain defects which the town council has undertaken to remedy.

      Estate Duty.
      Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the case of a man dying before 11th May last, when Settlement Estate Duty became payable, but for unforeseen circumstances has not yet been paid, in respect of daughters' settled life interests after the death of their mother now living, he will forego the claim to Settlement Estate Duty and take the full Estate Duty on the deaths of the daughters without depriving their mother of the interest which the Settlement Estate Duty would bring in,

      1129
      during her lifetime, and whose life interest gives rise to no claim for Settlement Estate Duty?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The whole question of Settlement Estate Duty was recently before the House, and I regret that I cannot now re-open it.
      Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will see—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"]—that some attention is given to the point in the question?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I promised to consider this amongst other suggestions before next year, but on the whole I think it is better not to enter into these Amendments of the general law on an Emergency Budget.

      Board of Agriculture Offices.
      Mr. MOUNTasked the hon. Member for Dumfries, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that, in inviting tenders for book-cases for the offices of the Board of Agriculture, the specifications required the use of Austrian oak; and whether he will see that the specifications are so altered as to allow the use of English oak in the office to which is entrusted the duty of looking after English forestry?
      Mr. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury): Austrian oak was no part of the original specification, although, through a misunderstanding, it was made imperative instead of permissive in a subsequent circular. The First Commissioner, after most careful inquiry, is advised by experts, whom he has consulted, that Austrian oak is most suitable for furniture, and as there were huge stocks of that timber in this country, bought and paid for long before the declaration of War, he feels that it would be manifestly unjust to penalise British merchants by boycotting their stock of this timber.
      Mr. MOUNT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the English Forestry Association have been in communication with architects with reference to the use of English oak for this purpose?
      Mr. GULLAND: I was not aware of that, but I will convey that opinion to my right hon. Friend.
      Mr. KING: Is not the objection to the use of English oak for this purpose that it must lie and mature for eight or ten years. How is it possible to get oak of that mature seasoning and quality at a short notice?
      Mr. GULLAND: I believe that is so, and that is one of the grounds of the decision of my right hon. Friend.

      Beechwood Agricultural School.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Development Commissioners have refused to sanction a grant in aid to establish an agricultural school at Beechwood, in Scotland; and whether, in view of the fact that in this and other cases the Development Commissioners are out of touch and sympathy with local and national needs, he can see his way to introduce legislation at an early date to make them directly responsible to Parliament?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): The Development Commissioners were unable to recommend the grant of the considerable annual and capital sums required for the purpose stated by my hon. Friend as they were not convinced that results would be produced commensurate with the expenditure. I am not aware that the facts of the case give any support to the suggestion made in the last part of the question.

      Boer War (Officers' Pensions and Gratuities).
      Mr. BARNESasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if there is any published list of officers granted gratuities and pensions in respect to wounds received or injuries arising out of the Boer War; if there is no such list will he get one prepared; and will he give the amount of public expenditure in respect to such wounds and injuries for each year since the Boer War settlement?
      Mr. BAKER: No such list exists; nor are the figures asked for available. I trust that, in view of the heavy pressure on all sections of the War Office my hon. Friend will be willing to consult with me as to how the purpose he has in view may be met with as little clerical labour as possible.

      Central Unemployed Body (Pay to Women).
      Mr. DAWESasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Central Unemployed Body state that, acting under instructions from the Local Government Board, they are unable to pay women with dependants more than 10s. per week in the special workrooms which they have established, while in their permanent workrooms they are able to pay such women up to 17s. 6d. per week; and whether he will consider how this state of things can be remedied?
      The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The answer to the first part is in the affirmative. In the permanent workrooms a payment exceeding 10s. is only made where the woman has dependants. In the other case the payment does not provide for dependants, it being intended that a woman with dependants should, if necessary, apply for an allowance in respect of them from the local representative committee.

      Housing of Working Classes.
      Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMSasked the President of the Local Government Board how much of the sum of £4,000,000 made available on 10th August for the housing of the working classes by the Housing (No. 2) Act, 1914, has been lent by his Department for such purposes; at what rate of interest and on what conditions it has been decided to lend out of the above sum for such purposes; and what total sum has been applied for but not yet lent?
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No part of the sum referred to has yet been lent by the Local Government Board; but recommendations have been made by the Board to the Treasury, that sums amounting to £40,044 should be advanced under the Act to three local authorities. In answer to the second part of the question, I may refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday to the question put by the hon. Member for Whitehaven. Applications have been received from local authorities and other bodies with a view to advances under the Act. In many cases the applications are not at present of a definite character, but the sums foreshadowed as the cost of schemes amount, in the case of local authorities, to about £520,000, and
      1132
      in the case of other bodies to about £1,600,000. It is probable that a large proportion of these cases will be found to be outside the intention of the Act, as explained in Parliament, but, on the other hand, it is to be expected that a large number of other applications from local authorities for loans under Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, now under consideration, will be made the subject of applications under the Act of 1914.

      Merchandise Marks (Gloves).
      EARL of RONALDSHAYasked the President of the Board of Trade if articles such as gloves manufactured in a foreign country, but with buttons on them stamped with the name of an English glove manufacturer when imported into this country, satisfy the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Act if sent with a paper wrapper stamped with the country of origin round each half-dozen pairs of gloves; and, if so, will he consider the advisability of introducing legislation to amend the Merchandise Marks Act so that in future every single article manufactured in a foreign country for sale in this country must bear the stamp of the country of origin?
      Mr. ROBERTSON: Under the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Act imported gloves of foreign make bearing on the glove buttons the name of any manufacturer or trader in this country are required to bear also, either on the buttons or on the gloves themselves, in conspicuous and indelible characters, a statement as to the country of manufacture of the gloves. The answer to the first part of the question is therefore in the negative.

      Post Office (Christmas Staff).
      Mr. MORRELLasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, in the notices issued by his Department stating that men are wanted as extra postmen, sorters, etc., in connection with Christmas work, an ago limit of nineteen to forty-five has been fixed; and whether he will consider the desirability of extending this age limit, and giving a preference to those men who are not at present eligible for military service?
      The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): The age limit has been raised from forty-five to fifty this year. Other things being equal,

      1133
      preference is given to married men, and it has been laid down that single men eligible for enlistment in the Army are not to be engaged for temporary work in the Post Office if other suitable men are available.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Prime Minister what business is likely to be taken before this House adjourns?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I hope we may be able to get through the Orders on the Paper to-day. There is only one, as far as I can gather, which is likely to excite prolonged discussion—the Trading with the Enemy Bill. There are a very large number of Amendments down in Committee, but I hope some arrangement may be arrived at. We do not want to push this Bill through in a contentious spirit, and I do not believe that the points of difference relate to more than questions of detail; but there are valuable principles embodied in the Bill, and I think it is generally agreed that its passing would have a good effect. Of course, if there is anything like prolonged discussion upon it, we may have to consider whether it is not desirable to postpone further proceedings. We shall proceed with the remaining stages of these Orders to-morrow, and I hope I may be able to move the Adjournment of the House on Friday.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I quite agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I presume he will desire, if time permit, to give full opportunity for discussion on the Consolidated Fund Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I believe that Bill must be passed in the course of the next few days. I do not know whether some parts of the discussion might not equally well take place on the Motion for Adjournment. The Consolidated Fund Bill can, of course, be taken after eleven o'clock, but it is not desirable that important matters should be discussed after that hour. Perhaps I may be able to make it the first Order to-morrow.
  Mr. DENNISS: Will an opportunity be afforded to this House of discussing the new Order regarding officers' pay?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No Sir, except such opportunity as is afforded by the Consolidated Fund Bill and the Motion for Adjournment.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Will the Prime Minister, in regard to the Trading with the Enemy Bill, allow the House an oppor-
  1152
  tunity of deciding important questions which have arisen, without putting on the Government Whips?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I hope the differences will be accommodated. If they cannot, we may be unable to proceed with the Bill now.
  Mr. BOOTH: With regard to the first Order of the day—the Government War Obligations Bill—may I ask whether, as it is intended to take the Committee stage to-day, the Prime Minister will take the Third Reading to-morrow, having regard to what was promised when the Second Reading was moved?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, that will be done.

  BILLS PRESENTED
    COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) (IRELAND) BILL.
    "To amend the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1914, in its application to Ireland." Presented by Mr. BIRRELL; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 22.]
    LAW AGENTS APPRENTICESHIP (WAR SERVICE) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    "To enable Apprentices to Law Agents in Scotland to reckon service in connection with the present War as service under an indenture of apprenticeship for the purposes of the Law Agents (Scotland) Act, 1873." Presented by Mr. McKINNON WOOD; supported by the Lord Advocate; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be, printed. [Bill 23.]

  GOVERNMENT WAR OBLIGATIONS BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  GOVERNMENT WAR OBLIGATIONS BILL.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Powers of Associations with Respect to Insurance of Ships or Cargo against War Risks.)
    Any policies of insurance or reinsurance granted, or any contract made, or other action taken, by any association or body of persons approved by the Board of Trade for the purpose of carrying out any Government scheme of insurance of ships or cargo against risk of the King's enemies or for the relief of dependants of persons on insured ships shall, if and so

    1153
    far as the Board of Trade so direct, be deemed to be valid, notwithstanding that the granting of the policy or the making of the contract or the taking of the action was beyond the powers of the association or body of persons.
    Amendment made: After the word "scheme" ["for the purpose of carrying out any Government scheme of insurance"] insert the words "in connection with the present war."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. BOOTH: On that question I should like to express my obligation that the Amendment which I suggested has been made. I think it is a very satisfactory one.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    SCHEDULE.—GOVERNMENT WAR OBLIGATIONS.
    Obligations incurred in respect of—

    1. Guarantees given to the Bank of England in connection with—

    (a) The discount of bills of exchange;

    (b) Advances to acceptors of bills of exchange;

    (c) Advances in connection with loans made to members of the Stock Exchange;

    2. Guarantees given in connection with bills of exchange drawn by traders having debts due from abroad which are not immediately recoverable, and in connection with advances to traders to enable them to meet liabilities under contracts entered into before the outbreak of war;

    3. Payments on contracts of insurance or reinsurance against war risks of ships or cargo or for the relief of dependants of persons on insured ships so far as provision is not made for those payments by the application of premiums or otherwise;

    4. Any loan raised by any of the Powers allied in the present War or by the Government of Egypt or by the Government of any of His Majesty's Dominion or any British Possession or Protectorate;

    5. The maintenance, or assistance, in connection with the present war, of food supply, trade, industry, business, or communications in the United Kingdom or in any other country, or the relief of distres in the United Kingdom or in any other country.

    Amendment made: After the word "incurred" ["obligations incurred in respect of"] insert the words "in connection with the present War." [Mr. Lloyd George.]
    Question proposed, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the Schedule of the Bill."
    Mr. BOOTH: I am not sure that the Committee realises the far-reaching effect of this Bill as shown by an examination of the Schedule. This is a Bill where the Government does something totally unprecedented, and but for the fact that we are in a time of national emergency I doubt whether any quarter of the Committee would even have allowed it to be discussed so far without tremendous opposition. It shows that the Government may incur obligations to private individuals, particularly members of the Stock Exchange, to practically unlimited amounts. That may be necessary. I take it that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, upon the Third Reading of the Bill, will do what he omitted to do on the Second Reading, namely, justify such a far-reaching measure as this. I do not want to anticipate that speech, but I think the Committee should make it clearly to be understood by the Government that the explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is open to review by the House. We must assume, for the moment, that he can make his case good, otherwise I cannot see how any Government could ask us to pass a Bill with such a Schedule as this. I beg to give notice that I shall move a new Clause to-morrow on the Report stage. I have not moved it to-day because of the inconvenience to Members of the Committee when an Amendment is a manuscript Amendment. The Prime Minister promised to-day that the subsequent stages of this Bill should be taken to-morrow, therefore I do not move the new Clause on the Committee stage. I shall, however, put it on the Notice Paper and submit it to the House to-morrow, with Mr. Speaker in the Chair.
    I will tell the Committee the effect of it. When we are giving such vast help to the Stock Exchange, this is the time to ask for the consideration of the public interests on the other side. I do not wish to ask for anything unreasonable. What I ask is that the State should be protected against "bear" attacks upon Government securities while the War lasts. I shall propose a Clause making it illegal for any contracts of sale to pass unless the particulars are given and a certificate of

    1155
    ownership is attached to the contract note. At the present moment it is not unreasonable to ask that that should obtain during the War, so that no "bear" attack may take place upon the present loan, which might arise upon any news coming of an unsatisfactory character, say, a temporary reverse, of which advantage might be taken to boar down this War Loan, which would have an influence upon the taxpayers if we ask for a succeeding loan. In addition to that, I should like to point out to the Committee now that the aliens in this country, even belonging to enemy countries, who are interned in camps can operate upon the Stock Exchange against this Government's securities. It is not trading with the enemy, because they are in England. Therefore, we are in a position in which tens of thousands of enemies of this country can operate upon the Stock Exchange, bearing down Government securities at their own sweet will, and making money at the expense of large or small investors and the innocent, public. I mention the matter now because it seems to me of vast importance. Perhaps hon. Members of the Committee will think it over and be prepared to discuss it to-morrow. I will just give a precedent which occurred in France, when the French Government prevented an attack being made upon Russian securities during the Russo-Japanese war. Those securities were largely held in France and, as an act of friendliness to a friendly country, the French Government protected Russian securities by special legislation. It is only fair to ask that if a man sells Government securities he shall be in possession of them when he offers them for sale. I know there is a question as to certain industrial securities, but I shall move my Clause as applying to Government securities only and leave industrial securities alone. I shall put the Clause on the Paper to-night, and I hope hon. Members will be prepared to deal with it.
    4.0 p.m.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): My hon. Friend will find, when I make my statement to-morrow—because part of the statement will deal with the arrangements made between the Government and the Stock Exchange—that we have taken complete powers to deal with matters of that kind. The assistance was rendered by us on the express condition that the Stock Exchange would only be opened
    1156
    subject to the conditions fixed by the Government, and certainly matters of that kind would be matters which we should deem it absolutely necessary that we should receive protection against. Therefore, it is not necessary to have any Clause in the Bill at all. However, if my hon. Friend will wait till he hears the statement I have to make, he will find I have anticipated the kind of apprehension he has in his mind, and it will be quite unnecessary to insert any Clause in the Bill. The worst of putting the Clause in the Bill would be that if we insert one Clause providing against one contingency, by a rule of law it is assumed that you have practically abandoned other conditions which we think would be absolutely necessary for us to insert when we assent to the opening of the Stock Exchange. The Stock Exchange is not to be opened at all, except subject to the consent of the Government, and then under conditions to be imposed by the Government at the time, and it would be far better for my hon. Friends that those conditions should be imposed which can be reconsidered from time to time, rather than that you should have one specific danger noted in the Bill and all the others left out.
    Mr. BOOTH: Might I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer then, to make his statement on the Report stage? My only opportunity to put the Clause down would come before the statement he intends to make on the Third Reading, and if on the Question that the Report stage be taken, or that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill, he would make his speech at the beginning of the proceedings to-morrow, if I am satisfied I need not lose my Clause. But if I wait for the speech on the Third Reading I shall have lost my opportunity, and I feel so strongly on it that, unless I am satisfied, I shall divide the House, and I have already been promised a substantial amount of support.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think, subject, of course, to what Mr. Speaker has to say, it will be quite competent for me to make my statement on the Question that Clause 1 stand part.
    Mr. BOOTH: That is not put on Report.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Might I suggest that, if the hon. Member moved to omit the Schedule, then the right hon. Gentleman could give his explanation?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Parliamentary experience of the hon. Baronet has come to the rescue. That seems to me a very admirable suggestion. That raises the whole of the transactions entered into by the Government, therefore I think I should be in a position to make a statement upon that.
    Mr. BOOTH: The hon. Baronet has suggested a very comforting means for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but on this occasion he has deserted his follower and has not given me any help. I shall lose my opportunity to move the new Clause. I have been too well trained by the hon. Baronet to be misled by him so easily.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Why should not the hon. Member move his Clause, and then the discussion take place?
    Mr. JOHN WARD: I am very interested in this short discussion, and unquestionably the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes it easier for us to allow the Bill to go through without any dispute, it is quite clear that immense assistance is going to be given to financiers in the City, and a great deal of protection and Government credit is going to be given to a class which, apparently, if we see the way they operate on contracts and things of that description, is not very friendly to the State when it is in difficulties. I was wondering whether there were any conditions attached to the assistance, because I notice that the last part of the Schedule refers to subjects which, naturally, we on these benches are very interested in. I note that in case of any assistance that is given to a workmen's organisation relating to distress, unemployment and matters of that kind, the Government Department controlling these affairs have been very strict. In every case they have insisted upon a quid pro quo. They have insisted upon a heavy burden being placed upon trade unions before any assistance is given, and it would seem, certainly, very onesided if the business could only be given to a workmen's organisation to meet the distress created by the War on condition that they shouldered very heavy burdens themselves before that assistance could be rendered, if gentlemen from the City can get all that they want and all the protection and credit of the Government behind them without shouldering any burden at all. Even apart from the hon. Member (Mr. Booth), it was our intention to know something about the conditions under
    1158
    which this assistance was going to be given. It seems so easy for wealth and influence to get all the help possible with very little responsibility, even in this national emergency, while we know, as trade union officials, from practical experience, that it is one of the most difficult things in the world for us to be able to secure assistance because of the onerous conditions which are imposed upon working-class organisations.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I wish to utter my strongest protest at the manner in which this Bill is being taken. We had the Second Reading yesterday; we are asked to take the Committee stage now, and to take the. Third Reading to-morrow on a matter on which there is no urgency.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There is.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to show the House why there is urgency for one or two days, and why, as we had no statement on the Second Reading, we could not have at all events a statement on the Schedule, which gives the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of dealing with these matters. I have a number of questions on the Paper for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and perhaps he will take the opportunity now of giving the House some information on a matter involving a liability of many millions of money of which the House up till now has been kept in complete ignorance. The first question I had on the Paper for to-morrow, which is too late if I do not get the information to-day to deal with it, is to ask the right hon. Gentleman—
    "If he will state the total sums of money advanced under the Treasury claim to acceptors of pre-moratorium bills of exchange to 21st November instant?"
    That information the right hon. Gentleman must have and has had for some time past. The next question I had is:
    "Whether, before advances have been made by the Bank of England to acceptors of pre-moratorium bills of exchange under the Treasury scheme, the securities deposited with the accepting houses by the drawers of such bills have been hypothecated by deed to the Bank of England for the security of His Majesty's Government?"
    The third question is:
    "If he will state the total sums of money advanced to 21st November under the Treasury scheme or pre-moratorium bills of exchange to private banks or accepting houses who have representatives on the Board of Directors of the Bank of England?"
    The next question is:
    "Whether the Bank of England under the Treasury scheme have, in all cases, before making advances to accepting houses on pre-moratorium bills of exchange,

    1159
    asked that collateral security should be given in addition to the securities, if any, deposited by the drawers of the bills with the accepting houses; and if so, what margin of collateral security has been asked for or obtained by the bank for and on behalf of His Majesty's Government; and if collateral security has in all cases been demanded by the bank from the private banks or accepting houses who have representatives sitting on the Board of the Directors of the Bank of England?"
    When the bill market came to a standstill at the beginning of the War, City representatives of accepting houses came to the Exchequer and said, "We have here taken bills to a very large amount of money." We have not yet been definitely told how many millions. They asked him for relief. The first point I wish to put is, Why was the Bank of England constituted the agent of the Government in this matter? It seems to mo a most extraordinary proceeding that the Bank of England should be the agent of the Government in the matter at all, because on the board of directors of the Bank of England we have a number of accepting houses. I will start with the Governor of the Bank of England, Mr. Walter Cunliffe, who represents an accepting house, Messrs. Cunliffe Brothers; Mr. B. Cokayne, another director, is a partner of the firm of Antony Gibbs and Sons; Mr. C. H. Goschen is a member of Frühling and Goschen; Mr. E. C. Grenfell is a partner in Morgan, Grenfell and Co.; Sir Everard Hambro is a partner in E. J. Hambro and Son; Mr. F. H. Jackson is a partner in the firm of Frederick Huth; Mr. M. C. Norman is a partner in the firm of Brown Shipley; Lord Revelstoke is a member of the firm of Baring Bros. and Co.; Mr. Tiarks is a member in the firm of Schroeder and Company.
    I will deal first with Baron von Schroeder, an alien enemy who was naturalised a few hours after the War broke out, who has acceptances, I am told, for several millions of money and who has a representative on the Bank of England. Like all companies, the Bank of England has acting directors and quiet directors. Some sign their cheques and draw their fees and go away, but there are always some dominant people on a board of directors, and there are some old gentlemen, wine merchants and others, on the Bank of England who have, no doubt, done very good work in their time. After all, the chief active people in the Bank of England are the private bankers. The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) will tell me that under the constitution of the Bank of England no banker is entitled to sit on the
    1160
    board. That is not so. It is and it is not. If he will refer to the official Stock Exchange List for this year, under the heading of private banks, he will find this list of names that I have given classified under discount houses and private banks, and, at all events, they sit on the board of the Bank of England. The official Stock Exchange Book is an authority which the hon. Baronet will accept. At all events these houses he will not deny are accepted houses. I ought to have read out the name of Mr. Kindersley, of Lazard Brothers, for an enormous amount of acceptances on the market. These gentlemen, like all accepting houses, have millions of money in bills of which they have acceptances. The bills orginated in many cases in Genmany, and the Bank of England seems to have given a preference to bills originating in Germany over those originating in France and Russia. That I cannot say, but no doubt we shall have an explanation later on.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is not true.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: That is what I am given to understand. I am glad to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer say it is not true, but he knows it is very difficult to prove where a bill originates from. The accepting houses found these millions of money in bills, and in the ordinary course of events bills which have been accepted are discounted, their endorser being liable for payment to the holder, whoever he may be. There are as many as half a dozen endorsements on the back of many of these bills, and, as far as I can understand, the holder has a right against the last endorser, and after he has exhausted the credit of the last endorser he can move up the list but not down. The drawer of the bill, if it is endorsed, is the last man to be shot at. Everyone of the large joint-stock banks was responsible for every penny in their coffers for all these bills of exchange. Under the Government scheme the acceptors of these bills are given the privilege of going to the Bank of England, and the Bank of England, acting as agents for the Government, say whether the bills they bring are approved or not. The sole determination rests with the Bank of England whether they approve them or not. The point I want my right hon. Friend to answer is, What steps have the Bank of England taken to hypothecate the securities attaching to these acceptances when they originally came into the hands of the acceptors who take them in turn to

    1161
    the Bank of England. Have these securities attached to the acceptances been hypothecated by the Bank of England in all cases? The second question is, has collateral security, altogether outside the securities attaching to the acceptances, if any, been asked for by the Bank of England in all cases, and how they have discriminated in saying which bills are approved and which are not. The fact remains that the Government have pledged the credit of this country to make good to every joint stock bank in the country the full value of all the acceptances which the accepting houses are unable to meet. I do not say for a moment that the Bank of England has not acted judicially in the matter. Of that I have no knowledge. It seems to me a curious proceeding that the Government should commit to the Bank of England, whose board consists of members of whom a large number are directors of accepting houses, the right of saying which bills shall or shall not be accepted. It seems to me to place the bank, first of all, in an invidious position, and secondly, it seems unfair to the outside people who are not in the inner ring of the Bank of England. The third point I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with is this: I particularly want to know whether collateral security has been asked in all cases, because my right hon. Friend is perfectly aware that the Government have said that at the end of a term—one year after the end of the War—"If you fail to meet your obligations, we will make you a present of the whole of the money you are unable to meet, without having regard to the endorser of the bill." I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has relieved endorsers of bills of their liability. If this Bill did not become law the acceptors would be liable. I do not see how this is worked out in practice.
    It is within my own knowledge that the Bank of England has refused, as regards certain houses, to approve their bills when they have approved bills in a similar category drawn by the same people in other banks. That has caused immediate damage to the accepting houses which did not come under their scheme. The same procedure seems to have been followed in relation to advances made by the banks. The House is aware that the banks came to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and said, "We have here 1,200,000,000 of deposits in this country," and the Chancellor said, "I am prepared to issue
    1162
    Treasury notes to 20 per cent. of your deposits if for that accommodation the banks pay the Treasury 5 per cent." I have twice asked what the Bank of England has done about the 5 per cent. Have they been in communication with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce that in consideration of finding the money to really make liquid the War Loans which they have agreed to discount 1 per cent. from the bank rate? When the Government gave the facilities which were only given to clearing banks, all the other banks, including the Colonial Banks, were placed in a different position. The small banks, although they have depositors, have been refused this accommodation unless they are members of the clearing banks. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to tell us why that is so. In conclusion, I want to have a definite reply as to the hypothecation of deeds. I wish to know whether there has been any privilege shown to the Bank of England. I do not know whether there has been. The Chancellor would be well advised to make a statement on this subject, because he is dealing with a difficult problem. I do not object to the principle of the Government action. It is only the machinery I take a strong exception to. It does seem to me that when pledging the credit of this country there ought to be—especially in foreign countries and in the Colonies—no objection raised as to the bills which the Bank of England ought to take. There should be no suspicion of favouritism in the matter as regards banks which are approved as agents of the Government.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My hon. Friend (Sir A. Markham) did not give me notice that he was going to raise this question to-day.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I gave notice last night to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am rather surprised to hear that. I saw my hon. Friend this morning and he did not inform me of the notice. My hon. Friend agreed that this matter should be raised to-morrow, and I understood that the House acquiesced in that proposal. I thought it was a very proper suggestion that the discussion should take place to-morrow, because it was for the convenience of the Treasury that it should be put off till then My hon. Friend has asked a series of questions, which were put down for to-morrow.

    1163
    I am not prepared to give the information at present, but I would say that some of the things he stated I know to be absolutely untrue. With regard to all these matters, I shall get information which will be given to-morrow, but I would point out that my hon. Friend did not give a single case or a single illustration of what he considers to be favouritism by the Bank of England.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I never said so.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I certainly understood him to suggest that, and I think the impression left on the House was that in every case where there was any refusal by the Bank of England there may have been favouritism. I may tell my hon. Friend that there was no favouritism by the Committee of the Bank of England. The bank transacted the whole of this business, with Mr. Cole as chairman of that particular Committee. He is not connected with an accepting house. When the Government handed over the whole of that business—and a very difficult and invidious task it was—Mr. Cole discharged it with very great ability and perfect impartiality.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The Governor himself was interviewed by persons who had a grievance on this matter.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If anybody who had a grievance went to the Governor he was bound to see him. If people who had a grievance went to the Governor, it showed the confidence they had in the Governor's impartiality and ability. Mr. Cole was chosen as chairman of the committee, and he discharged his duty impartially. With regard to some of the questions asked by my hon. Friend he says that they are not statements but simply inquiries. But inquiries can be put in such a form as to convey to the general public that something has been done which ought not to have been done. He ought to have been in a position to give me privately, or to give to the House publicly, some sort of information to support the innuendo against those very responsible gentlemen who have a difficult task to discharge. If my hon. Friend had told me that he would insist on bringing up this matter to-day I should have been in a position to reply to his questions. I shall be in a position to do so to-morrow and to give answers to all the questions he put to me.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what statements are untrue?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will give him one straight away. The hon. Member stated that the small banks have been refused accommodation. It is absolutely untrue. There are just two or three houses which, for reasons that I think will satisfy the House, were not given the same accommodation as was extended to other houses. I think these houses are the last houses in the world which would think it desirable to have a discussion in public.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: There was one point which struck me as more interesting and more suspicious than that. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman took notice of it, namely, that certain houses could get this arrangement for a definite kind of security, while other houses, which had the same sort of bills, could not get the security. That is what seemed to me serious.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That shows the danger of the sort of questions put by my hon. Friend in the case of persons with suspicious minds. I do not say that my hon. Friend has a suspicious mind, but to people not acquainted with the details of what is going on, the suggestion which will be gathered from what my hon. Friend said was that there has been strong favouritism shown to some particular houses. I think before a statement of that kind is made there ought, at any rate, to be some sort of evidence. It is the first time I have ever heard the suggestion made. When I come to tell the House how many bills there were to be dealt with, I think my hon. Friend will be satisfied that there were not many cases of that kind.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Can we not be given an idea now of the number?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is exactly the statement I propose to make to the House to-morrow. My hon. Friend did not tell me that he proposed to raise this subject to-day, and therefore I have not my statement ready. I understood that the House assented to the proposal that it would be better to have the discussion to-morrow, when we could have a full discussion. It will be put down as the first Order to-morrow.
    Schedule, as amended, added to the Bill.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT (1914) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 24th November.]
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT (1914) AMENDMENT BILL.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Payment of Dividends, etc., Payable to Enemy.)
    (1) Any sum which, had a state of war not existed, would have been payable and paid to or for the benefit of an enemy by way of dividends, interest, or share of profits, shall be paid by the person, firm, or company by whom it would have been payable to the Custodian to hold subject to the provisions of this Act and any Order in Council made thereunder, and the payment shall be accompanied by such particulars as the Board of Trade may prescribe, or as the Custodian, if so authorised by the Board of Trade, may require.
    Any payment required to be made under this Sub-section to the Custodian shall be made—

    (a) Within fourteen days after the passing of this Act, if the sum, had a state of war not existed, would have been paid before the passing of this Act; and

    (b) in any other case within fourteen days after it would have been paid.

    (2) Where before the passing of this Act any such sum has been paid into any account with a bank, or has been paid to any other person in trust for an enemy, the person, firm, or company by whom the payment was made shall, within fourteen days after the passing of this Act, by notice in writing, require the bank or person to pay the sum over to the Custodian to hold as aforesaid, and shall furnish the Custodian with such particulars as aforesaid. The bank or other person shall within one week after the receipt of the notice comply with the requirements and shall be exempt from all liability for having done so.
    (3) If any person fails to make or require the making of any payment or to furnish the prescribed particulars within the time required by this Section, he shall, on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding six months, or to both such fine
    1166
    and imprisonment, and in addition to a further fine not exceeding fifty pounds for every day during which the default continues, and every director, manager, secretary or officer of a company, or any other person who is knowingly a party to the default shall, on the like conviction, be liable to the like penalty.
    (4) If in the case of any person firm or company whose books and documents are liable to inspection under Sub-section (2) of Section two of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), any question arises as to the amount which would have been so pay able and paid as aforesaid the question shall be determined by the person who may have been or who may be appointed to inspect the books and documents of the person firm or company, or, on appeal, by the Board of Trade, and if in the course of determining the question it appears to the inspector or the Board of Trade that the person firm or company has not distributed as dividends interest or profits the whole of the amount properly available for that purpose, the inspector or Board may require the whole of such amount to be so distributed, and in the case of a company, if such dividends have not been declared, the inspector or the Board may himself or themselves declare the appropriate dividends, and every such declaration shall be as effective as a declaration to the like effect duly made in accordance with the constitution of the company:
    Provided that where a controller has been appointed under Section three of the principal Act this Sub-section shall apply as if for references to the inspector there were substituted references to the controller.
    (5) For the purposes of this Act the expression "dividends interest or share of profits" means any dividends bonus or interest in respect of any shares stock debentures debenture stock or other obligations of any company, any interest in respect of any loan to a firm or person carrying on business for the purposes of that business, and any profits or share of profits of such a business, and where a per son is carrying on any business on behalf of an enemy any sum which had a state of war not existed would have been transmissible by a person to the enemy by way of profits from that business shall be deemed to be a sum which would have been payable and paid to that enemy.
    Amendment proposed [24th November]: In Sub-section (1), after the word "enemy" ["for the benefit of the enemy"], to insert the words "or a limited company registered in Great Britain or Ireland where shares are held as to upwards of seventy-five per cent. by enemies."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not want to repeat the arguments which we had last night, but I wish to make a suggestion to see if we cannot come to some agreement as to the Amendment on which many Members on both sides of the House feel very strongly. The discussion yesterday did not follow party lines. Some Members on this side of the House abused me, and some on the other side abused the Government, which is perhaps the best way of getting legislation. The object of this Amendment is simply to deal with the question of these limited liability companies who are, in fact, alien enemies. I entirely repudiate the suggestion that we desire to confiscate the shares in any English company which are held by alien enemies. Any such statement is a travesty of anything said either by the hon. Member for Mansfield or by myself. The point simply is this: If an alien enemy in Berlin, Mr. Schmidt, carries on business here and a large amount of money is owed to him by customers, he cannot at the present moment sue in any English Courts to get his money. In order to get hold of this money and make things easier for trading here, Mr. Schmidt has converted himself into a limited liability company under our law. In the case which I gave yesterday the whole of the shares were held by Mr. Schmidt. There was not an Englishman among the shareholders.
    In many of these companies the whole of the shares, except perhaps a few held by solicitors' assistants, and in one case every single share, was held by Mr. Schmidt. He cannot come to our Courts himself but the company can, and does at the present moment, come to our Courts and sue English citizens for money which is due nominally to the company, but in its essence is due to Mr. Schmidt. That is a fraud on our company law, and I want the Government to take some steps under the provisions of the Bill to prevent that fraud being carried out successfully. The Attorney-General made a speech last night which, in some respects, was convincing,
    1168
    and in other respects was unconvincing in regard to this matter. He admitted that the law is not satisfactory at the present time. He admitted that the Trading with the Enemy Act which was passed in September is not a satisfactory Act so far as relates to this particular point. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade told us that he would make a statement before the House rose with regard to this matter. Perhaps I may refer to the speech of the Attorney-General in reply to myself on this matter, on September 9th, when I raised the point. The Attorney-General then told us that they had been looking into it very closely, and his right hon. Friend hoped to introduce before the present sittings terminated proposals dealing with this matter. Then he went on to say—I am concluding the quotation which I made last night—
    "I want to make it quite plain, however, that the Bill which I am asking to introduce does not profess to deal with the case of a company registered under our law, which is found in substance to be a company with a hostile directorate and shareholders, save to this extent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th September. 1914, cols. 590 and 591.]
    that it gives power to inspect and so on. It does not deal with the whole point which I am raising here. I want to come to terms with the Government. On Clause 11 I have an Amendment which will not give me all I want, but it will go a great way towards allaying public feeling in regard to the enemy company. Under the parent Act there is power in certain circumstances to appoint a controller, and the President of the Board of Trade told us last night that they had appointed, I think he said, 240.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): No; 228 companies have been inspected.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: But only in regard to nineteen of these companies have controllers been appointed, and in the case of one of the most important companies of all—Siemens—they have only appointed an inspector, though nearly all the shares are held in Germany, and though they have vast contracts with the Government, they have not yet appointed a controller of the company, and I think that they ought to have done so. The proposal which I make to the Government is this, that they should agree to the Amendment which I have got on Clause 11, which is for additional powers. They may wherever they think necessary, appoint a controller. I suggest that they should add

    1169
    the words, "in any case of one of these companies where the shares of more than 50 per cent. of them are held by alien enemies." That does not meet all my views, but I do think that it goes a very long way towards doing so. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech last night indicated that he is prepared to use his powers a great deal more stringently and drastically than he has used them up to the present. He has only appointed a controller in the case of nineteen companies, knowing perfectly well that in Germany they are appointing supervisors and controllers in regard to all English companies trading in that country. I venture to suggest that these companies which I have brought before the House so often are a fraud upon our company law. I do not mind whether the measure is 50, 60 or 70 per cent., because in all these companies which I have in my mind they are from 90 to 95 per cent. If you will accept that Amendment I should be glad to withdraw the present one, and the difficulties that have arisen with regard to this Bill would be removed, and I hope that it would go through quickly and satisfactorily.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he made a speech in the Debate last night which was founded on the fact that here was a company established in England, which is a German company, whose taxes were being paid and whose business was being carried on by British capital which was being employed? He used that as an illustration to show that the House ought to allow that company to continue to trade. But the hon. Member for Ealing (Mr. Nield) pointed out that you are going to put the trading company in this country in a much better position than the private individual. You lock him up and prevent him from paying rent, prevent him paying rates and taxes, or doing any business by the direct action of His Majesty's Government. But this does not happen provided that the individual has turned himself into a limited company. That is what actually happens. I know several cases from my own knowledge where Germans carrying on business in this country have been interned in different camps. Their business has come to an end; all the people they employed have been dismissed; therefore, as the hon. Member for Ealing pointed out, a limited company is in a different position from a private firm. The whole power of this country to-day is being used for the purposes of destroying German trade, or
    1170
    any trade carried on in Germany, by cutting off supplies from the coast of Germany, and yet you are giving every facility to allow foreigners to carry on trade here and to have their business preserved as going concerns after the War is over.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not propose to cover the ground which has been traversed by my hon. Friend who has just sat down. The speech which was made from the opposite side of the House simply shows what I thought had been made clear last night, that, although you can go ahead with great rapidity with the appointment of inspectors under the parent Act which was passed some weeks ago, it is a slow business to get a controller. I do not go in detail into the process, but it practically amounts to this, that before a controller can be appointed you have to satisfy the Court as to two or three things. Affidavits have to be made, solicitors have to come on the scene and draw up statements, and the whole procedure is longer than is necessary for such executive act, and one of the objects of this very Bill is to make the proceedings so short that there need not be these delays. It is true that we have covered a very great deal of ground with these inspectors.
    I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has very clearly in mind the difference between an inspector and a controller. The inspector knows what is going on in the business personally. He can see the correspondence, the books, and the banking account. It is true that he has not full power, but he is able to scrutinise the business of the firm, and, as many chartered accountants could tell you, the work done by the inspectors enables them to see every detail of what is going on within the four walls of these companies. However, that is not sufficient, and it is because it is not sufficient that we want to get this Bill. I therefore hope that the House will not delay the passage of this Bill. I would suggest to the Committee that we could get over the small difficulties that have been described here by a statement of actually what is proposed by the Executive if this Bill passes into law—that is with the Amendment put down on the Paper by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General—providing for supervisors. It is the intention of the Board of Trade to appoint supervisors in the case of every company which is referred to in the Amendment of the hon.

    1171
    Gentleman. That surely goes as far as the hon. Gentleman wants, and I think that it would very much shorten our proceedings if he would accept that assurance and leave us free at the earliest possible moment to proceed with the appointment of these supervisors. If we do that, I have no doubt that it will meet the view of those for whom he speaks. I hope that we can now proceed with the Bill as quickly as may be.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could tell us what exactly is the difference between "inspector," "supervisor," and "controller"?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon Member reads very carefully the Bill and the parent Act he will see that an inspector is appointed to look into the whole proceedings of the firm. A supervisor is what may be called a continuing inspector who may go in at any time, without any notice, every day if he wishes, and see what is going on. A controller is for all practical purposes acting as the managing director of a concern. The latter are difficult to obtain, and in some cases quite unnecessary. But the continuance of the inspection will give us all the information which we want, and the powers taken will enable us to check the passage of any money abroad exactly in the way the hon. Gentleman desires.
    Sir WALTER ESSEX: Last night we were told by a Member of one of the Divisions of Liverpool that he spoke in this matter as representing some particular body of engineers. He will forgive me if I do not remember the name. I should not have intervened in this discussion but for the fact that I have been requested to do so on behalf of persons who are very deeply concerned, as deeply concerned as human beings can be, in one firm whose name has transpired here to-day. There has been what I think a great many Englishmen feel to be a discreditable aspect in this wild, ravaging attack upon the stranger within our midst. I know that there has been a very great deal of underhand work on the part of enemies of this country from the two countries with which we are at war, and no man will pass more bitter condemnation on any of these underhand practices than I. But because a man has been born in Germany and bears a German name, are we to take no account whatever of a long career honour-
    1172
    ably passed by him in this country? Let me take the firm whose name this afternoon has been again and again bandied about by innuendo, but against whom no charge has ever been brought in this House or out of it. The men who have alluded to the firm, again and again, dare not in this House or cut of it say anything derogatory of it, or in the least degree charge it with not having performed its part with due regard to our commercial law, which is the admiration of the whole world. Why this attack on great commercial and industrial institutions, unless it be motived by some selfish interest lurking in the background, and used by Members of this House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order! order!"]
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Member has the right to make an innuendo of that kind against the good faith of his fellow Members.
    Sir W. ESSEX: I certainly would not desire to do anything of that kind, and I was myself led to speak rather warmly against the innuendoes made against the firm to which I refer, but I beg to apologise if I have transgressed in anything I have said, so let that pass and sleep. I spoke under strong feeling in this matter. One hon. Member came here and said he had been requested to make his protest against the proposal of the Government, and he did that with good nature and with due respect for order. He said he came on behalf of a body of employers. In my pocket I hold a petition from twelve trade unions in regard to the particular firm to which I refer. What do they say? They express the hope that I will endeavour to resist these attacks which are made. The firm whose interests I am now defending has had an honourable career in England for sixty years. It was the first firm that came into this country with practically a new scientific development along lines which established a model for employers to manufacture according to scientific methods. The firm has always paid good wages; it is a model employer; it is paying its men at the front, and it is giving a preference to married men in affording employment. It has issued a notice that all its employés of foreign birth who have not taken out naturalisation papers must do so; and let me point out, in regard to this attack, that I have letters from two of the men employed. One writes that he has worked for the firm for forty years, and that they have always treated him well. He came into

    1173
    this country at a time when he thought there was no need to bring with him the police methods of his own land. He admits that he may have acted foolishly, and he now wishes he had taken up his naturalisation papers; but he asks whether a man could not call himself naturalised in this country who is between sixty and seventy years of age, and has three of his sons in the Army. Two died with the Colours. One is now ill and just returned from the front, and a fourth seeks to enter the Artillery. He concludes his letter by asking if he is not justified in considering himself naturalised, especially when all his neighbours regard him as a good citizen and neighbour. Another man wrote me last week, stating that he has given two sons to the Army—one of them having been sent back because he was not physically fit; the other was now wearing the King's uniform.
    In regard to the firm which has been attacked in this cowardly way, a good many years ago its chief was honoured by the Queen. The present chief had laboured long to bring the advantage of his knowledge to English industries, and for the growth of our manufacture; he has received degrees and honours from all the learned societies interested in various crafts and industries; and he brought into the country gigantic industries. He is a man who has helped us to compete with the whole world, and make gigantic contracts for railways, docks, warehouses, factories, harbours, and so on. This man who for sixty years has lived in this country, but has not taken up his naturalisation papers, is attacked and charged as a foreigner. No English company has ever done more to keep up the credit of English manufactures than his firm, a very large proportion of whose workmen are English. A few of them are strangers within your gate, let them be treated fairly. For when this War is over many will be proud to have them as friends. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] Then the hon. Gentleman will have one less in his personal companionships of a creditable character. When this War is over, I hope it will be found that we have done nothing in these days to lower the high order of English commercial life. We have maintained a courageous attitude in the face of all the peoples of the earth, and may that continue, but I do not want to rob people in this country, whether by law or by any other methods. Fight them if you will, but do not, under the cover of commercial law,
    1174
    start filching the goods of these people because they were born abroad, and for no better reason.
    Mr. H. TERRELL: I do not know to what firm the hon. Member refers, but I strongly suspect that it is one in his own constituency.
    Sir W. ESSEX: I stated that I represented the workmen in my Constituency.
    Mr. H. TERRELL: I have not the slightest doubt I was right in my suggestion. Before the hon. Member spoke I was very much inclined to vote against the Amendment, but the hon. Member's speech has convinced me that if we can have a Member of this House making a speech of that kind here, such an Amendment is necessary. The hon. Member seems to laud our enemies to the sky, and says that they are honourable men beyond question. But it is the feeling of trust we have in these honourable men that has led us into this War. We have trusted them and treated them as honourable men, but now we find their system of dishonour throughout the world; their spying of the worst kind has become their national system. What about the Germans in this country who have not taken out naturalisation papers? Many of them are here for the purpose of serving their country, and if they are not here for that purpose, they are either betraying their country, or betraying us. The speech which the hon. Member has made will be repeated, with possibly a great deal of exaggeration and additions, in every paper in Germany, just to show the Germans that even in the House there are men who can belaud them as honourable men throughout the world. We know what they are. We have trusted them, and if we had not trusted them, as we are now asked to trust them, things would be different to-day. To me the speech of the hon. Member is evidence that this Amendment is necessary, and if it goes to a Division I shall vote for it.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir J. Simon): I cannot help thinking that it would be rather a pity if this discussion, which we are conducting in a businesslike way, and in regard to which we are co-operating for the same end, should by any accident or misfortune become diverted to other channels. With what we are aiming at it appears to me that both my hon. and learned Friend opposite and my hon. Friend behind me both sympathise. I would venture to urge in this matter that,

    1175
    on the one hand, we must make it our business, by this Bill, to see that whatever be the forms and methods of our law, the substance of our law is such as will prevent financial aid being given to the enemy we are fighting. I am sure the hon. Member behind me just as warmly supports that as any other Member of the House.
    Sir W. ESSEX: Hear, hear.
    Sir J. SIMON: It may be said with equal truth and with equal force—and I am sure all agree—that in pursuing that object we must also have regard to the purpose we have in view, and do it in such a way that we do not inflict unnecessary injustice and un-English treatment on people who are entitled to be treated fairly, like everybody else. That object is one in which we are all interested, and the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite has spoken for one part of it, and the hon. Member on this side has spoken for the other. I must say that I sympathise with the fervour and intensity and determination to do all that is necessary to stop trading with the enemy. I must say, also, that the hon. and learned Member referred to no particular firm.
    Mr. H. TERRELL: I do not know what firm it is.
    5.0 p.m.
    Sir J. SIMON: I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman began by telling us that he did not know what firm was referred to. Are we to proceed on the assumption that because a man is a German he is a spy? What we are trying by this Bill to secure is that no financial assistance shall be given to Germany which we can stop, and show to every country in the world that under our commercial law we deal fairly with people of all nationalities. After all, I do not see why this occasion should be taken for such a debate. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment indicated quite fairly that he thought any difficulty would be in some degree met, or, if not met, ameliorated, if he were satisfied that the Board of Trade were really going to use their powers more rapidly than they have done hitherto. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has given him his answer. He pointed out that the Department, with the best will in the world, was not able before to do everything that all of us would have liked, because this emergency legislation, passed necessarily in rather a hurry, we have found from
    1176
    experience, does not give wide enough powers. However, if we get the new-Clauses inserted in this Bill, as I hope we will in the course of the next few-hours, there is one which is designed to enable the Board of Trade to use its very necessary and I think quite essential powers of control, in suitable cases, without having to go through the elaborate process which the original Bill prescribed. It is not merely that the inspector should be entitled to act, but that there should be established some form of continuous supervision, and the Clause will provide that the inspector is to have such powers as the Board of Trade, in special circumstances, think right. In one case it may be less, and in another case it may be more. I really think that it meets the point, especially since, as the President of the Board of Trade told the hon. Gentleman, action is going to be taken at once in every case in this country which comes within the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I do appeal to the Committee, because all of us desire to do a business matter in a businesslike way, to let us get this Amendment out of the way and get on with the next.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: After what has taken place, I need hardly say that I think the best course is to accept the offer made by the President of the Board of Trade and by the Attorney-General. It does not quite meet all my views, but it is distinctly better, and I appreciate the spirit in which the Government has met me. I therefore ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "by way of dividends, interest, or share of profits."
    May I be allowed to say that I was the Member that did say in connection with one Amendment last night that I was requested to bring that Amendment forward by the British Engineering Association which consists of a number of firms with a capital of one hundred millions of money in this country. The suggestion that we heard just now from the hon. Member opposite that in bringing forward any of these Amendments we were doing so in any manner that was not bonâ fide I would repudiate. With regard to this Amendment I am anxious, as one who has taken some part in connection with this Bill, to

    1177
    shorten the discussion upon this and upon subsequent Amendments as much as possible. Therefore, when I move this Amendment if the Attorney-General is still disinclined to accept any modification in this direction of strengthening and improving the Bill in the manner indicated in this Amendment I shall accept the position and let the Government take the responsibility. As far as I am concerned we have done our best. We are bound to accept the decision and I, at all events, under those circumstances shall not move any of the other Amendments I have put down to either Clauses 3, 4, or 5. I think that is a fair statement. What I mean is this: that in making these suggestions we are not going to a Division. The responsibility really for this Bill rests with the Government. We are simply doing what we conceive to be our duty in bringing forward these Amendments with a view to making the measure a reasonable and, in our view, a proper measure. By Clause 1 we have constituted a Custodian. This Amendment goes to the very root of the question as to what the Custodian is to take possession of. The Clause says dividends, interest, or share of profits, and Sub-section (5) gives a definition as to what dividends, interest, or share of profits is to include. The definition does not extend the items in any respect. They are cut down to dividends of shares, bonuses, interest on loans and share of profits of any business that is being carried on.
    The object of my Amendment is in order to give the Custodian the right to immediately take possession of any sums of money that would be payable to an alien enemy. I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman why the Clause should be limited and why the sums of money which the Custodian is empowered to take possession of should be restricted? There are obviously plenty of other kinds of sums of money which are payable to an alien enemy in addition to those which are mentioned. For instance, there are the proceeds of goods which have been sold on account of an alien enemy. I have in my own knowledge a number of cases where the proceeds of goods that were consigned by enemies before the War, and which have been sold on account of those enemies since the War, are now payable to those enemies and in those two or three cases they total over a million of money. That being so, I ask why should not the Custodian receive the proceeds in those cases? What is the good of leaving him
    1178
    to collect interest and dividends and not let him take possession of those enormous sums of money? I make no doubt whatever that there are hundreds of thousands of pounds to-day owing by British subjects to alien enemies, and in a large number of those cases the British subjects would like to pay the money to some person really entitled to receive it. It is a curious position to have to explain in Committee of this House that people are really anxious to try and pay money, but I know of cases where people really are anxious to be relieved of sums of money which do not belong to them, and which they are precluded by law from paying to the alien enemy. Why, in the name of all that is reasonable, should not the Custodian be able to take receipt of all those debts and discharge the account?
    We have mention also of charges, fees, royalties on patents, and all kinds of sums of money which are, or may become, due, but why should all these different kinds of money be distinctly excluded from the purview of the Bill, and why should not the Custodian be able to receive them? If dividends on shares and interest on debentures are to be handed over, why not the shares and the debentures and also in the case of a loan? If the profits of a business are to go to the Custodian, why should not the capital also pass to him, if he likes to take possession of it? It is because where these sums belong to an alien enemy he cannot to-day come and get them. I am making the suggestion. I am not suggesting that they should be confiscated, but unless you pass them over to the Custodian they will not be taken care of properly as they ought to be, or dealt with in an equitable manner. The Clause is restricted at present to dividends and interest on shares and profits, and as regards all other real and personal property we have Clauses 3, 4, and 5. Those Clauses give power to ascertain particulars and to apply to the High Court. I am going to be told that those Clauses are quite sufficient to deal with all the rest of the real and personal property and that the power to go to the High Court is quite sufficient. We have had a speech this afternoon from the President of the Board of Trade, who told us that he had only been able to get controllers appointed in nine cases because you have to have affidavits, or something to go upon, for the Court, and somebody has to begin to incur expense and to take all the responsibility in

    1179
    initiating litigation, and you have got all this paraphernalia, and therefore we have only got controllers appointed in nine cases instead of 9,000—that is, the 8,991 cases have not had controllers yet appointed.
    I ask, if the President of the Board of Trade tells us that it is difficult and expensive to get controllers appointed, why should not these sums I have mentioned, stocks and shares and securities, automatically under Act of Parliament pass into the possession of the Custodian? I move this Amendment. We shall have done our best. We have only put our own views forward. I beg to assure, anybody who has got the slightest feeling of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman who spoke just now that I am not actuated by any ill-will against any firm. I never mentioned any firm's name in this Committee. I do not think it a right thing to do, and I consider it is very dangerous to refer to any firm or person. In bringing forward this Amendment I beg to assure the Committee that I am simply actuated by the desire to see a workable, strengthened and complete Act of Parliament. I am anxious to save expense, bother, litigation and law costs. I am anxious to see this official whom we have just appointed empowered to take possession of, to take care of, and to preserve all the property and effects of an alien enemy that he can lay his hands upon. If the Attorney-General considers that his way of doing this as provided in subsequent Clauses is superior to mine, if he is content to take responsibility on behalf of the Government, I will accept his answer and endeavour to shorten the proceedings by not moving any of the Amendments that I have on the Paper to Clauses 3, 4 and 5.
    Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Gentleman has told us, and I am sure we have all accepted his statement, that his object is to make this Bill as workmanlike and businesslike for the purpose of preventing trading with the enemy, as is possible. That is my object too, and I hope I have enough fair-mindedness to be prepared to consider quite frankly a suggestion made in that spirit by the hon. Gentleman. I am equally certain that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to listen to my explanation, which I think will convince him, because he is a fair-minded man, that his proposal, instead of improving the Bill, would inflict very great injury on British subjects. If I do not convince him of that,
    1180
    I shall certainly think there is something wrong with my argument. However that may be, we shall each be certain that we are trying to make the Bill as good as it can be made. Let me point out what the Amendment would do. It would say that if there is any British subject in this country who at the outbreak of war owed any sum of money to a German enemy, even although that British subject may find it very difficult to find the money, because, war having broken out, his business has dropped, and even although he cannot be compelled by the German enemy to pay that money till the War comes to an end, none the less he shall go to prison for six months if he does not produce the money and pay it to the Custodian. That is the businesslike effect of the businesslike Amendment. The hon. Gentleman proposes to make Clause 2 read in such a way that any sum of money due from a British person to an alien enemy will have to be paid within fourteen days, and any sum of money which becomes due hereafter will have to be paid within fourteen days of the date upon which it falls due. Subsection (3) provides that if any person fails to comply with that provision he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £100, or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding six months. Obviously, that is not what the hon. Member intended. But it is equally obvious that that is the result. On reference to the Order Paper, I see that this Amendment stands in the names of the hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) and of the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), as well as in that of the hon. Member who has moved it. It has been on the Paper for two days. There was some debate on this subject last night, and it will be seen, by reference to the OFFICIAL REPORT, that the hon. and learned Member for Kingston, who was the first to put down this Amendment, said that, after reflection as to its effect, he did not intend to move it. His words were:—
    "Although I had intended to move an Amendment to extend this Clause to all debts—in fact I have an Amendment on the Paper which would have that result—I do not to-day propose to move it, because I do not want to make a condition under which it would be criminal for a man not to pay his debts. He may not be able to pay his debts. It would be very unreasonable that such a penalty should fall upon those who are simply prevented from paying money which they owe, and which may, no doubt, be recovered by civil process."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Tuesday, 24th November, 1914, col. 1060.]
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: I agree.
    Sir J. SIMON: If ever there was a case where you should not make it a criminal offence, because a man who owed a sum of money did not produce the money and hand it over, it is this case. Who is the man who, under the hon. Member's proposal, is to be penalised if he does not pay? A British subject. Who is the man who has the claim against him? An alien enemy. The hon. Gentleman is actually proposing that, although the alien enemy cannot compel the British merchant to pay before the War comes to an end, none the less, the Act of Parliament shall make the British merchant find the money within fourteen days. Anybody who has done me the honour of following my argument will see that, whatever be the proper Amendment to this Clause, the Amendment now proposed would make the provision very hard on the British subject. I hope that that very large and responsible body of commercial opinion outside, which is very easily led to suppose that a Government—and especially lawyers in a Government—do not understand business, will realise that the proposal they are putting forward is one to make every British subject who, at the outbreak of war, owed money to an alien enemy in Germany, find that money within fourteen days or go to prison. The proper place to provide that other assets of alien enemies should be brought into the hands of the Custodian is not in this Clause, which is a penal and compulsory provision, but in Clause 4, which I hope we shall shortly reach. The hon. Gentleman has dealt with the matter fairly and generously, because he has said that he will take in good part the view which I might feel it my duty to express to the Commitee. I trust the hon. Gentleman will not imagine that I am encouraging further debate when I express the hope that, because this particular suggestion is shown to have the consequences to which I have referred, he will not deprive us of the advantage of his views if there be other points about which he feels strongly. My own feeling about the present Amendment is that its effect is so plain that the hon. Member will probably be the first to say that he does not desire to produce that effect. Therefore, I would ask him to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: Of course, as I have said, that if the Attorney-General did not see his way to accept the Amendment I should withdraw it; I feel bound to do so. I would, however, point out that it was no part of my suggestion
    1182
    that a man who could not pay should go to prison. That is absurd. All I meant by my Amendment was that the Custodian should be able to give a receipt for everything that was owing to an alien enemy. All the rest of the Clause about who is to go to prison and under what circumstances, we should, of course, have to consider. If a British subject owed £20 to an alien enemy and flatly declined to pay it—although he was able to do so—I think he ought to go to prison if he did not hand it over to the Custodian.
    Sir J. SIMON: Even though he cannot collect his debts owing to the War?
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: I do not suggest that a Clause of this kind should be used for oppressive purposes against British subjects. However, the Attorney-General is going, in a different way, which is not as effective as I think it might be, to bring about this very result.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): Does the hon. Member withdraw his Amendment?
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: I was about to say that I therefore ask leave to withdraw.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We cannot have a speech on the question of withdrawal.
    Sir CLIFFORD CORY (indistinctly heard): I think there is something to be said for allowing the Custodian to collect dividends that may arise from capital here. Although it may not be desirable that he should collect debts owing by British people to German creditors, at the same time there are many assets which might be put into the hands of the Custodian and fairly used to meet the claims of British creditors.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. H. TERRELL: I wish to move an Amendment which is not on the Paper, namely, to insert words so that the Clause shall read "profits or annuities." I have had a case to-day where a firm have to pay an annuity to an alien enemy, and they do not know what to do with it. It is an annuity out of profits, but I do not think it is covered by the definition of profits in the Bill. There is also another kind of case which is not infrequent—
    Sir J. SIMON: Might I interrupt the hon. and learned Member? I have not had the advantage of seeing this Amendment, and if the hon. Member could give me an opportunity of knowing what cases he has in mind, I should be glad to co-operate. At present I could not do more than say that I do not think it would be safe to insert the Amendment without consideration. There will be a Report stage, and I should be glad if in the meantime the hon. Member would give me an opportunity to consider the matter.
    Mr. H. TERRELL: I will not move the Amendment now; I will introduce it on the Report stage. I beg to move, in Subsection (1), at the end of paragraph (b), to insert the words,
    "Provided that, in case any such person, firm, or company as aforesaid shall claim to be entitled to any set-off against any money so payable or to maintain any counterclaim, whether for a liquidated sum or for damages against the enemy to whom or for whose benefit any sum would have been payable from any such person, firm, or company had a state of war not existed, such person, firm, or company may by originating summons apply to a judge of the High Court to determine whether any and, if so, what part of any sum so payable shall be paid to the Custodian, and such person, firm, or company shall be liable under this Act to pay such sum only as the judge shall so determine."
    The Amendment I have put down may in a measure be met by what was said by the Attorney-General yesterday with regard to the words "payable and paying." What I want to provide by this Amendment is that if, for instance, any man owed a sum of money by way of interest, and he also had a counterclaim or claim by way of set-off, or claim by way of damage against the enemy, that he should not become compelled to pay without at the same time being allowed the set-off or counterclaim against what the enemy owes him. The Attorney-General may say that the Section would not apply to that case. Under which circumstances a man who owed interest would not have paid it; therefore it would not come within this Section. I want to provide for the case of the kind that constantly arises, of a man owed interest, or a company owing shareholder's dividends, so that the man or company may have a counterclaim. In these cases it
    1184
    would be very hard to say to the man, "You have got to pay up, you must pay your interest over to the Custodian; and wait until the end of the War, when you can sue the alien and, if you can, recover your counterclaim from him." What I propose by the Amendment is that a man should be able to claim, by way of set-off or counterclaim, against the alien creditor; that he should, by a summons, apply to the judge, and then the judge would say how much he ought to pay, if anything. The judge would determine whether there was a primâ facie case of counterclaim, and whether the man ought to pay a part or the whole of the amount. The procedure I propose would relieve a man of the manifest injustice of paying the whole of what might be due without entitling him to setoff any of what may be due to him.
    Sir J. SIMON: The object of this Amendment, which the hon. and learned Gentleman has so clearly explained, is, in my judgment, perfectly to the point. The principle which he is endeavouring to enforce is one which everybody must accept. But I have a great deal of doubt whether it is really necessary to insert it. There are two reasons why I think not. First of all, the hon. and learned Gentleman will bear in mind that this Clause, in view of our decision upon the last Amendment, is limited to payment by way of dividends or share of profits. Nearly all the cases therefore that may arise are already provided for in circumstances very familiar to the hon. and learned Gentleman. Take a company—he knows better than I do—but I think I am correct in saying that the articles of a company almost invariably provide that the company has a paramount lien over the dividends, and only hands over what is payable to the shareholders after the company are satisfied it has no claim against the shareholders.
    Take the other principal case, that of the share of profits. Circumstances may differ, but certainly in substance it is true to say that all you pay out to a partner is what he gets after claims against him are satisfied. I do not say it is true in every case. I rather doubt whether it is. I can imagine an ingenious person finding some exceptions. Most cases are certainly of that sort. The second ground is that, for reasons which were given to the Committee, we determined to keep in the test that the money should be such as would have been paid—not merely payable, but paid—and it does not appear to me doubtful that that test would quite

    1185
    positively provide, by much simpler methods than what appears here, to do what the hon. Member desires. If he could see his way to withdraw his proposal now I would say, not in a formal way but with the intention of looking at the matter afresh, as best I may in the interval—and if I may see him and others interested before we come to Report to-morrow—we may see whether or not the matter cannot be left as it is. Obviously the less we introduce into this Bill applications to Court and everything suggesting to the trading community that this Bill involves a great deal of litigation, the better. I would hope therefore that the hon. and learned Gentleman would be able to withdraw his Amendment.
    Mr. H. TERRELL: I agree to the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and ask him to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), after the word "themselves" ["the Board may themselves declare the appropriate dividends"], to insert the words "ascertained such profits and." I will ask the Attorney-General to accept this Amendment as a means of ascertaining what profits are actually available.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): We accept that Amendment.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER had an Amendment in Sub-section (5), after the word "which" ["which, had a state of war not existed"], to insert the words "after the payment of the debts of such business in the United Kingdom."Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER had an Amendment in Sub-section (5), after the word "which" ["which, had a state of war not existed"], to insert the words "after the payment of the debts of such business in the United Kingdom."
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This Amendment appears to me, if it comes in at all, to come under Clause 5, which deals with how in some respects the Custodian is to deal with property. It does not seem to me to be relevant to this Clause.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I do not desire to press it in view of the discussion that has just taken place with regard to counterclaims.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Duty of Trustees for Enemies to Notify the Custodian.)
    Any person who holds or manages for or on behalf of an enemy any property, real or personal (including any rights, whether legal or equitable, in or arising out of property, real or personal), shall within one month after the passing of this Act by notice in writing communicate the fact to the Custodian, and shall furnish the Custodian with such particulars in relation thereto as the Custodian may require, and if any person fails to do so he shall, on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding six months, or to both such a fine and imprisonment, and in addition to a further fine not exceeding fifty pounds for every day during which the default continues.
    Amendment made: After the word "Act" ["after the passing of this Act"], insert the words
    "or if the property comes into his possession or under his control after the passing of this Act, then within one month after the time when it comes into his possession or under his control."—[The Attorney-General.]
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: I beg to move, after the word "require" ["as the Custodian may require"], to insert the words
    "and the secretary of every limited company registered in Great Britain, Ireland, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man, shall within one month after the passing of this Act communicate to the Custodian full particulars of all shares, stock, debentures, debenture stock, or other obligations of or in such company which he has reasonable grounds for believing belong to an enemy or in which an enemy is interested."
    If the Attorney-General does not desire a Clause of this kind, I will not move it.
    Sir J. SIMON: I shall be much obliged to the hon. Member if he will explain his proposal. We are endeavouring to co-operate in this matter, and I have no doubt that his suggestion is one that needs to be considered.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: I will avail myself of the invitation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I think it is very important that the Custodian should get hold of all the particulars that he possibly can

    1187
    of any property or right of any alien enemy, and this Amendment which I have moved would require the secretary of a limited company registered in the United Kingdom to do something which he has a statutory obligation to do, at all events in a complete form, once a year—namely, to send to the Custodian particulars of the debenture shares and stocks and every kind of obligation of such company which he has reasonable ground to believe belong to an enemy or in which an enemy is interested. Many people, and even the right hon. and learned Gentleman, would be surprised, possibly absolutely astounded, at the result of passing such an Amendment as is here suggested. I have no hesitation in saying that there are shares extending to millions of money that would be disclosed to the Custodian as the result of passing this Amendment. I really think, if we had a Custodian at all, we ought to have the information as to what alien enemies hold in connection with our limited companies. I move my Amendment for the reason I have given, otherwise I do not want to delay the proceedings.
    Sir J. SIMON: I sympathise, if I may say so, entirely with the object which the hon. Member has in view. What he wants, and what we all want I think, is to secure that the provisions of this Bill shall not be mere formal provisions which can be avoided by astute and, it may be, dishonest and malevolent individuals—for there are such in all communities—but practical. That seems to be generally agreed upon, but I say to the hon. Member quite frankly what for the moment strikes me as a difficulty—and I should like to think the matter over—and it is this: We have already made a provision that every limited company shall pay the dividend which, if the War was not going on, would be payable and paid to or on behalf of the enemy to the Custodian. We have imposed a severe penalty on any company—its directors, secretary, or anybody else—who knows that this provision is not complied with if it is not complied. It is quite possible it may not be complied with, and somebody may try to wriggle out of it. But if you assume such a case I find it difficult to understand how, when you say the same thing in another form, you are more likely to get at the truth.
    Mr. DUKE: May I point out how it is a safeguard? Every British company is
    1188
    registered, and every person interested can go to Somerset House and see the register over a reasonable period, and what it contains. It may be you cannot find out whether the company failed to pay dividends, but you will find the persons registered and who are entitled to dividends. I venture to suggest this is a valuable ancillary provision.
    Sir J. SIMON: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentlemen. As I said, and said sincerely, if I find the object is good, and am satisfied that it provides that further check, I should be glad to incorporate it in the Bill. I do not know whether the hon. Member who moved the Amendment would let me have an opportunity of consulting the Companies Department of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: Yes. This might be put down as a new Clause later on.
    Sir J. SIMON: I had that in mind, and I say to the hon. Gentleman that I shall be prepared to accept the proposal in principle unless it turns out on examination that it does not assist materially the check which the Clause as it stands would provide. If it does add to the check, it seems to me to be a useful thing, and if so I should like to have it added to the Bill. If the hon. Member will withdraw the Amendment now, I will consult my advisers, and we will decide whether to put it down ourselves on the Report stage or to ask the hon. Gentleman to do so.
    Mr. HOLT: I am very glad my right hon. and learned Friend thinks favourably of this proposal, because every information would not apply in cases where there are no dividends at all. This would cause the full information to be given, and it would not entail much trouble or serious trouble.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I should like to add a word—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the Committte what the effect is if hon. Members speak after an hon. Member asks leave to withdraw an Amendment. If hon. Members address the Committee, after an hon. Member asks leave to withdraw an Amendment he has no power to withdraw it. It has to be negatived, and if negatived it cannot be brought up again.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to move, to add at the end of the Clause, the words
    "Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply in regard to cases where a controller or inspector has already been appointed in respect of such property and rights."
    It seems to be rather hard to have this double penalty imposed. If an inspector is appointed, not only would the work be supervised, but the firm would also be liable to this fine for not giving information. If the inspector or controller is there, he will have access to the books and can give the information requisite, and therefore I think it is quite unnecessary to place a penalty of a fine upon the firm in addition to the controller and inspector.
    Sir J. SIMON: I am afraid I do not understand this Amendment. Is there any Sub-section in Clause 3?
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: The Amendment should read, "provided this Section shall not apply." You fine a man £100 after putting in an inspector who has full authority to go through the books.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The disclosure is required whether the controller is appointed or not.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Power to Vest Enemy Property in Custodian.)
    (1) The High Court or a judge thereof may, on the application in accordance with rules of Court of any person who appears to the Court to be interested or of the Custodian or of any Government Department, by order vest in the Custodian any property, real or personal (including any rights, whether legal or equitable, in or arising out of property real or personal) belonging to or held or managed for or on behalf of an enemy if the Court or the judge is satisfied that such vesting is expedient for the purposes of this Act, and may by the order confer on the Custodian such powers of selling, managing and otherwise dealing with the property as to the Court or judge may seem proper.

    (2) The Court or judge before making any order under this Section may direct that such notices (if any), whether by way
    1190
    of advertisement or otherwise, shall be given as the Court or judge may think fit.

    (3) A vesting order under this Section as respects property of any description shall be of the like purport and effect as a vesting order as respects property of the same description made under the Trustee Act, 1893.

    Mr. H. TERRELL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "be" ["any person who appears to the Court to be interested"], to insert the words "a creditor of an enemy or entitled to recover damages against an enemy, or to be interested in."
    I move this Amendment and later on I will move the two others standing in my name. These Amendments would meet the case which has been referred to so often in the course of these Debates, that is the case of a creditor who has a claim against an alien who has property in this country. What caused me to put down these Amendments was the case which had been referred to of a firm of iron ore merchants who had a claim against Messrs. Krupp's. There was an unquestioned claim for £27,000 or £28,000 against Messrs. Krupp's. Messrs. Krupp's have a block of shares in this country in a company which is very valuable. The creditors had no means of suing Messrs. Krupp's because they could not serve a writ. They had means of preventing Messrs. Krupp's from dealing with this firm. We tried first of all to issue a writ which we could not serve; then we applied for a receiver upon this particular property. The Court of Appeal said we could not appoint a receiver because we had not the defendants here, and they held that the action was not properly constituted. The claimants have an undoubted claim which Messrs. Krupp's could deal with. Messrs. Krupp's could go to America and sell these shares in America quite easily, though they could not register them, and they could take the money received with them to Germany. The moment the War was over the neutral transferee would be entitled to register the transfer, and he would have a prior claim to anybody else. That would enable them to part with their property and prevent the English creditor getting paid his debt. The object of my Amendment is to enable the creditor in such a case to come within this Section 4, and by adding the words you would enable the creditor entitled to recover damages against an enemy to get the benefit of this Clause.
    Sir J. SIMON: The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to me to be quite right. Taking his three Amendments together they cover more ground than the proposal I put down. So I do not propose to move my Amendment, and I shall advise the Committee to accept the Amendments of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and the result will be to extend very usefully the operations of this Clause.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In Subsection (1), leave out the words "interested or of the Custodian or of any Government Department by order vest in the Custodian."—[Mr. H. Terrell.]
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "order" ["by order vest in the Custodian"], to insert the words "subject to the rights of encumbrancers and creditors in the United Kingdom not enemies." As the Clause stands at present you would part with the property without any reference to encumbrancers.
    Sir J. SIMON: With the spirit of this Amendment everybody will agree, but I do not think it is necessary to put it in. The Clause is so framed as to adjust itself to the circumstances of different cases. I should think that in most cases where title deeds are in somebody else's hands they probably would never think of making any order at all, because it was quite safe.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Further Amendment made: In Subsection (1), after the word "enemy" ["of an enemy if the Court or the judge is satisfied"], insert the words
    "or on the application of the Custodian or any Government Department by order vest in the Custodian any such real or personal property as aforesaid."—[Mr. H. Terrell.]
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "selling" ["such powers of selling, managing, and otherwise"], to insert the words "collecting the debts."
    6.0. P.M.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am afraid that this Amendment is an impracticable proposition. How can the hon. Member suggest that the Custodian should go and collect the debts and take legal proceedings?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Committee has already disposed of this question, and my remark also applies to the succeeding Amendments.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Holding and Dealing with Property by Custodian.)
    (1) The Custodian shall, except so far as the Board of Trade or the High Court or a judge thereof may otherwise direct and subject to the provisions of the next succeeding Sub-section, hold any money paid to, and any property vested in, him under this Act until the termination of the present War, and shall thereafter deal with the same in such manner as His Majesty may by Order in Council direct.

    (2) The property held by the Custodian under this Act shall not be liable to be attached or otherwise taken in execution, but the Custodian may, if so authorised by an order of the High Court or a judge by whose order any property belonging to an enemy was vested in the Custodian under this Act, or of any Court in which judgment has been recovered against an enemy, pay out of the property paid to him in respect of that enemy any debts due by that enemy and specified in the order.

    (3) The receipt of the Custodian or any person duly authorised to sign receipts on his behalf for any sum paid to him under this Act shall be a good discharge to the person paying the same as against the person or body of persons in respect of whom the sum was paid to the Custodian.

    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "except," to insert the words
    "as may be requisite for the purpose of discharging the liabilities to creditors in the United Kingdom (other than enemy creditors) and."
    I should like to know how the High Court will deal with this subject. My hon. Friend has dealt with the case of Krupp's. If you look at the "Times" law proceedings yesterday you will find that there is a similar case in which an application was made by the creditors to obtain money from a debtor, and the Court held that, in consequence of proper notices not having been given, that the proceedings could not

    1193
    go on, and the plaintiff's claim was disallowed. The object of this Amendment is that the Custodian should be able to pay to an English creditor money which he has collected from an alien debtor, and I think there should be no difficulty about it. The judges have placed many difficulties in the way up to the present time, and there has not been a chance of an English creditor being able to obtain money which may be collectable from an alien debtor. It is to be one of the main features of this Bill that an English creditor shall be able to get his money if there is money available from an enemy alien in this country.
    We know that judges in this country have to be very impartial, and they look at these things in a very strict manner. Undoubtedly in a case like this it is very much against the English creditor getting his money, because the judges ask for this and that notice, and service on the debtor must be by registered post, and there are all sorts of forms really disqualifying the English creditor from getting his money to which he is properly entitled. For these reasons I would like the Attorney-General to tell us very clearly how he is going to carry out this object, so that there shall be no undue difficulties raised in regard to money which comes into the hands of the Custodian being ordered by the judges to be made payable to the English creditors. There have been so many difficulties in the Krupp case, and the case tried yesterday, against what apparently is the justice of the facts in which an English creditor should be entitled to his money, and we are most anxious to see a form in which the English creditor can get his claim made as complete as possible.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I suggest that this Amendment is entirely unnecessary, because Sub-section (2) of the Clause provides that:—
    "The Custodian may if so authorised by an order of the High Court or a judge by whose order any property belonging to an enemy was vested in the Custodian under this Act …… pay out of the property paid to him in respect of that enemy any debts due by that enemy and specified in the order."
    Unless the hon. Member wishes to suggest a new kind of creditor, Sub-section (2) provides already for what he desires, and therefore his Amendment is quite unnecessary.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: "With that assurance, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir CLIFFORD CORY: I beg to move to add, at the end of Sub-section (1), the following Sub-section:—
    "(2) The Custodian shall keep a register of all property of enemies whose property has been transferred to or vested in him which shall be open to public inspection at all reasonable times free of charge.
    Any British subject, firm, or corporation having claims, whether liquidated or not, against enemies may serve a notice, giving particulars of such claims verified by statutory declaration, on the Custodian, and in such event he shall not distribute or deal with any property vested in him until such claims have been adjudicated on by the High Court.
    Notices of writs and other process served on the Custodian shall be deemed to be good service on the enemy.
    Before distributing or dealing with the property of enemies, the Custodian shall in all cases give at least three weeks' notice by public advertisement for British creditors to send in their claims to him, and all such creditors shall rank pari passu in any distribution."
    I have put down my proposals as one Sub-section for convenience. I understand that the Attorney-General is willing to accept the first paragraph of my Amendment, but with regard to the second paragraph I do not know whether he will accept it. I submit it is very desirable before the Custodian should distribute or deal with any property vested in him, firms that have claims should have power to serve a notice of their claims upon the Custodian. As to the third paragraph I know that at the present time there is great difficulty in serving writs upon the enemy. You have now to serve writs upon a registered company through the registered post or through the usual diplomatic channels. I know the present procedure, but I do not think the House of Commons is precluded from establishing a fresh legal procedure which I think is very desirable in this matter. I know the present legal method is a great bar to English creditors getting their debts paid, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will either accept this Amendment or draw up words which will better

    1195
    carry out my object. With regard to the fourth paragraph, I think it is a very fair proposal to put forward that British creditors should know what assets the Custodian has in hand.
    Sir J. SIMON: The proposal of my hon. Friend consists really of two parts. He has already pointed out that for convenience he has put it down as one Amendment, although it really deals with two things. As regards the first paragraph providing that the Custodian shall keep a register of all property of enemies in his hands, that seems to me a very useful addition to the Bill. I think it is highly desirable that these who have claims should be able to ascertain, if they wish to do so, whether there is property belonging to their alien enemy debtor in the hands of the Custodian. I am going to suggest that while we accept the first paragraph of the hon. Baronet's proposal it is not convenient to put it in at this point. I think the proper place to insert it would be at the end of the Clause, and when we reach that point I shall either propose it myself or ask my hon. Friend to move another Sub-section. I think, however, that my hon. Friend's proposal ought to read in this way:—
    "The Custodian shall keep a register of all property held by him under this Act, which shall be open to public inspection at all reasonable times, free of charge."
    If those words are put in as an additional Sub-section, I think they will carry out the object of my hon. Friend in regard to his first paragraph. The second paragraph of this Amendment is of equal, if not of more, importance, but I am sorry that I cannot recommend the Committee to accept it. The difficulty which we are trying to solve is one that a great many people have been trying to solve since this War began. It is that in times of peace trade goes on between the subjects of one country and the other. They make contracts without ever thinking that before they may be performed the common life of the two countries may be changed, and they may find themselves at war, and then a British subject may find himself in great difficulty, and, it may be, great embarassment, because he has given credit to his German debtor who may have gone away from this country, and may even be fighting against this country, although he may have left behind him here
    1196
    some assets or other stock or property. Naturally, the British creditor then says. "If I cannot serve a writ on my German debtor in the ordinary way, at any rate I see there is some property in this country which belongs to him and which would suit very well for paying my debt. Is there not somebody else upon whom I can serve the writ?" My hon. Friend's suggestion is: "Yes, serve it on the Public Trustee." I have made every effort to get over this difficulty. It is not merely a technical difficulty, but one of very great substance and importance. It is a difficulty under which many people in this country are labouring at this moment, and it is a particularly hard case, because it sometimes happens that a man who wants to recover so much from his German debtor is in the position that he has relied on getting in that debt in order to carry on some portion of his business, or with which to pay some debt that he himself owes. Therefore, whilst he is open to claims in our Courts against him, he has a great difficulty in collecting the money to which he was looking forward to meet those claims. I have avoided repeating in this House that which it has been my duty before the seven lords justices to urge about this matter. A great deal of curious, interesting, and instructive matter may be gathered if anybody cares to look into it in detail, but the fundamental point is this: I do not think it is possible to meet the claims of British creditors out of assets found here of German debtors unless the British creditors' claims are proved in some judicial way.
    Sir C. CORY: Take the case of acceptances. I understand it does not require any proving; the acceptance is proof itself.
    Sir J. SIMON: Let me just go on. All I am saying in general terms is that is the difficulty. I have thought about this subject a good deal, and that is the principle difficulty. The hon. Gentleman's Amendment would even include a man who thought he had been libelled. He could say, "I have a libel action against Schmidt. You have some property of Schmidt. Please give it me in settlement of my claim against him." That is one difficulty. The other difficulty is this: I do not think we ought to take too technical or strained a view about it, but still it is a difficulty. It is really absolutely essential for the doing of fair justice, and we all of us desire to do

    1197
    fair justice even to our enemies in time of war, and it is the most elementary of all principles that, before you decide against a man, you should do the utmost you can to give him an opportunity of saying what he has got to say. I am very far from saying, for my part, that when you are at war with Germany nobody should be able to establish a claim unless he gives affirmative proof positive that a solicitor's clerk has served a copy of the writ upon the defendant himself. That is legality run perfectly mad, but you really must have some sort of procedure by which you get as near it as you can. I have thought that it might sometimes be done by some substituted form of service or notice. There are, we are told, ways by which we can communicate between London and Berlin at this moment. The whole of this Trading with the Enemy Bill is being passed for the purpose of stopping such communications where they should not take place, so I suppose it can happen somehow.
    I should like to see whether it is not possible, either by use of the existing machinery or by the making of some rules of Court—it is not a matter for me or, indeed, for the House, but for the judges, and I know they are considering it at this moment—so to mould and adjust our methods that we really can, at any rate, in some cases have these claims against German debtors dealt with and adjudged while the War is going on. It is not at all easy, because I do not think the Public Trustee, admirable and energetic official as he is, could reasonably be expected to be treated in the Courts as embodying, in his single person, all the alien enemies against whom any Britisher thinks he has got a claim. Something of that sort seems to me the proper way to deal with it, and I think it will have to be dealt with by altering the rules of Court. It is one of the great advantages of our common law—I hope the lawyers in the House will stand up for this—that it is a thing that can be adjusted and moulded in order to suit the special difficulties of the time. It is a great mistake to meet all difficulties by legislation, because when you have done it you find that it will not fit. You had better rely on our always expanding and modifying common law and the good sense of our judicial bench, who have it in their power to modify the rules in order to enable it to be done. I do not regard this at all as a trumpery matter. It raises a big and important question about which a
    1198
    great many people in this country are much exercised at the present time. I have racked my brains to see whether it is not possible to introduce into the Bill something which would cut the knot, and, having failed myself, I should be very glad indeed if somebody else could succeed, but I do not think the hon. Baronet has succeeded in this Amendment.
    I shall be very glad to accept the first paragraph of the Amendment, but for the rest I think we must leave it to the judicial authorities applying our law or mould-it to put this thing right. The Committee will observe that we have provided in Sub-section (2) of Clause 5 that the property which the Custodian gets into his hands shall be available in two cases. It is available, first of all, where the High Court judge, by whose order the property of the enemy is left in the hands of the Custodian, directs that it shall be used to pay a debt, and it is also available to pay a debt by order of any Court in which judgment had been recovered against the enemy. I should like to see machinery in our Courts by which a British subject, or anybody who is entitled to avail himself of our Courts, may go there in time of war and start an action in which he is the plaintiff and an enemy debtor the defendant. If only you can find some method by which you can treat the defendant as having been fairly notified that the proceedings are going on and see that his case in some way or another is fairly represented, then you can prove your debt. It seems to me entirely right, when judgment is given and the judge, on the application of the plaintiff, so directs, that the assets of an alien enemy defendant in the hands of the Custodian shall be available to satisfy that judgment so far as it will go. That has the disadvantage that you are using lawyers and the Law Courts when some people would do it much more quickly, but it is not because I want to use the Law Courts and lawyers: it is because I cannot see any other way. That is the contribution which, after a good deal of consideration and deliberation, I have at this time to make on the subject.
    Mr. DUKE: I hope that the Attorney-General will be able to consider further the second paragraph of the hon. Member's Amendment. Everybody who has taken pains to consider what is involved in a process at law must agree absolutely with the Attorney-General that you cannot have a real legal process without giving the defendant an opportunity of being

    1199
    heard. For my part, I do not go quite so far as the Attorney-General in thinking how you could make a pretence of the opposite party being heard. It is much more in the public interest that you should maintain the administration of justice than that you should snatch a temporary advantage at the cost of absent men, even although they are enemies, and for that reason I am not hopeful of the possibility which the Attorney-General in the public interest has indicated, that you may be able to devise means by which judgment would be possible, although you knew the defendant had not had a real opportunity of making his defence.
    Sir J. SIMON: I should be very sorry to think that the hon. and learned Member and I took a different view. This is the sort of case I had in mind: As things stand at this moment, you cannot serve the writ on a manager in London who has been carrying on business for an individual German who is away in Germany, because our present rules do not permit it, though you might serve it on him if he were the manager for two Germans in partnership. That sort of thing seems to me to require to be revised and recast. While I quite agree that you must not pretend to do justice by affecting to give notice when you really do not do so, I am not myself disposed to think that the present rule is satisfactory, and I think you might give what is substantial notice.
    Mr. DUKE: I did not suppose that I differed from the Attorney-General in spirit in this matter, because I cannot conceive that any man whose life has been spent in endeavouring to help, or even to hinder, the administration of justice would have a different view from that which the right hon. Gentleman has expressed. It is a question of mere procedure how notice should be brought to the defendant, and, if there is such a case as the Attorney-General mentioned, where there is a man in London who is competent to put forward a defence, we can trust our Courts, and even our enemies can trust our Courts, to see that justice is then proceeded with, and I do not think any reflection would fall upon the administration of justice in this country by that means. I respectfully endorse, if I may say so, the suggestion that we should make our procedure as flexible as need be to see that justice is not hindered for want of the means of justice; but, on the other hand, we should not make the process of justice
    1200
    lax so that injustices would be effected under the cover of justice. You ought not to endeavour to proceed to decide a contentious question against an absent enemy unless you take such means as would satisfy a disinterested tribunal that the enemy can in truth be heard by somebody who can competently put forward his case. I agree absolutely there are many cases not covered by our present rules where that could be done, and I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will induce those who are responsible for the rules of procedure in this country to so far relax them as to give effect to the simplicity of our common law on this subject. Beyond that he cannot perhaps go.
    But with regard to the second paragraph of the hon. baronet's Amendment, I think there is a good deal to be said for it. The hon. Baronet proposes that where a firm or corporation have claims, they may serve notices and give particulars of the claims by statutory declaration. That is a matter of some solemnity. Then the Custodian will not be at liberty to relax his hold on the property until the claim has been disposed of. That is an intermediate mode of giving some satisfaction to the British creditor in the absence of his alien enemy debtor. I do not see any objection in principle to it. Many hon. Members are familiar with the process of attachment, an old process in common law, a process familiar in the City of London of so-called foreign attachment, whereby, where a claim was verified by oath, the creditor was entitled to have some security. It must be assumed that the absent enemy will deal honestly with the claim, and, if you do assume that, there is no hardship in providing, as is done by the second paragraph of the Amendment, that money that comes into the hands of the Custodian shall remain there until the claim upon it, of which notice has been given, has been discharged by due process of law, or got rid of by some other means. I venture to support the proposal of the hon. Member, at any rate in spirit, for a modification of the Clause, so as to give British creditors that limited degree of satisfaction in the difficult circumstances in which they are placed.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I do not think this Amendment can possibly be accepted. How can you deal with the claims of British creditors on property held here until you have given the alien enemy creditors in Germany and Austria an opportunity of making their claims

    1201
    also? Let me put it in this way. A man in London carries on a business in Vienna. He has a very large stock there, which at present is locked up. He has creditors and debtors there, and he also has creditors and debtors here. The bulk of his stock is in Vienna, and there is sufficient to pay all the Viennese creditors while leaving the British creditors "up the pole." I venture to say the Courts of this country would never order property held here to be distributed only to the English creditors without the creditors in Germany and Austria first having an opportunity of putting forward their claims. If your idea is to take the property, and to leave the alien enemy creditor out of account altogether, then say so; but do not say you are trying to do justice, because it is not justice. It is simple confiscation, and, however much you may be justified in confiscating the property of the German Government, if you are going to deal with private individuals, you must not leave them out in the cold, any more than you would wish British creditors of property in Germany to be left out in the cold. There are a good many firms in this country which have been carrying on business in Germany and Austria, and have large properties there. If this principle is adopted there you will have the German creditors getting their money out of the estate, while British creditors, who are entitled to share the assets, will never get anything at all. That cannot be a proper principle to go upon.
    With regard to the Statutory declaration there is this difficulty. I take it the Custodian would never part with any of the funds which have come into his possession until he is perfectly satisfied, and the Court also is satisfied, that he may fairly distribute the money among the creditors after the War. The making of an affidavit, therefore, puts him in no better position, and if you are going to proceed by judgment, that, of course, means preference, and I am sure the House of Commons would never wish any one creditor to have preference over another. You cannot distribute a man's property until you have heard what he has to say. We had a case in Court the other day. It was the case of a man in Brussels, and the Court declined to give judgment against him because he could not possibly be present to defend it. The idea of distributing a man's property without giving him the fullest opportunity of being heard, even to the extent of appealing, is not one which we can approve.
    1202
    Let us be just even towards our enemies, because we hope for justice from them. We hope that they will consider the claims of British creditors in the same way as we ought to consider their claims in this country. With regard to the register, I think there may be considerable difficulty about that. No doubt everybody has a right to see a company register, but with regard to a register affecting private persons I doubt very much whether we ought to give an opportunity of inspection to people who may have no interest in the matter beyond that of curiosity.
    Sir J. SIMON: Nobody proposes to do that. The idea is to give an opportunity to English creditors of examining the register to ascertain whether or not there is any property belonging to an alien enemy debtor in the charge of the Custodian. There would be nothing to show anything about the constitution or business of the firm, and, unless you have some such register, I do not quite see how other parts of the Bill, such as Sub-section (2), Section 5, can work.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: That is a different thing altogether. I thought the proposal went a great deal further.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I think there will be considerable disappointment in the country when it is found that what is being done in Germany, in the matter of the appointment of controllers to receive the property of alien firms, is not possible in this country. The Bill, as it stands, is somewhat emasculated. It may do a good deal by collecting these assets, but that is no consolation to the man to whom the money is due, as he apparently is to sit still and see the Public Trustee accumulate a vast pile of cash, of which, however, he is to get no share. Certainly it might be alleged that the Germans who have left this country have done so with intent to defeat or delay their creditors, and in that case you might secure the appointment of the Official Receiver as trustee and then proceed to distribute the money in this country in accordance with the bankruptcy law. There seems to me to be something in the nature of a poverty of mind on the part of the legal element in this House, seeing that they cannot devise a means of doing this justice to the English creditor. I repeat the English creditor is to sit still and see these sums of money accumulate, but he is to have no means of touching the cash. He will say, "It is

    1203
    all very nice for this money to be kept away from the Germans, but it is no good to me." He will be driven to the conclusion that this Bill is absolutely useless to him.
    The Germans apparently have got over the difficulty. They will collect money in Germany and hand it over to German creditors, and there is apparently a great absence of talent in this House, in view of the failure to suggest some scheme or other that will enable exactly the same thing to be done in this country. I have suggested that the Bankruptcy Law would afford a means of doing this, if it can be alleged that the Germans have left the country with a view to defeat and delay their creditors. Then the Official Receiver will be able to distribute the money amongst the English creditors and in that way they will get something at any rate, but under this Bill they will absolutely get nothing at all. It is nice to say that English justice is so superior to every other justice in the world, but it is not nice for the man to whom a large sum of money is due, and who has rights which he is entitled to expect Parliament to enable him to exercise, but which he will not secure under this Bill.
    Sir F. LOW: With regard to the observation made by the last speaker may I point out that this is a Bill to restrain trading with the enemy, and it is not intended as a measure to extend the Bankruptcy Acts or anything of that sort. Incidentally, of course, if we can protect ourselves to some extent, and still manage to do justice, so much the better. I think most of us must have been satisfied, as was the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke), with the reasons which were given by the Attorney-General for dispensing with a great part of this Amendment. But at the same time the hon. and learned Member for Exeter did press upon the Committee, as it seemed to me with very considerable force, the expediency of at all events adopting the principle contained in the second paragraph. That paragraph has been, I think, somewhat mistakenly viewed by some of the speakers. It has nothing whatever to do with the question of distribution. It is a question of affording some sort of restraint on the fund at the suit of a person who may have claims against the German debtor; something in the nature of a caveat; something to prevent the Custodian of the fund from
    1204
    dealing with it without notice to the person who obtains this very moderate kind of security over the fund. As I understand this particular proposal is to receive consideration, I will not dwell further upon it.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I think I may venture to suggest to the hon. Member for the Everton Division of Liverpool (Sir J. Harmood-Banner) that the fears he has expressed are not entirely founded on the facts. He seems to be afraid that once the property reaches the hands of the Custodian the English creditor will not get anything at all. He appears to have overlooked Clause 5, Sub-section (2), which gives an English creditor the right to get judgment and, when he has a judgment, to get it paid out of the funds in the hands of the Custodian by the order either of the judge from whom he has obtained the judgment or an order of the High Court. I desire to add one word only to the argument put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke), and fortified by the last speaker, and to point out that the only hardship of that part of the Amendment of which they have spoken is to preserve property in the hands of the Custodian until judgment can be obtained. There is only one qualification I should like to add, which I think ought to be added, namely, that after this stay has been placed upon the property in the hands of the Custodian pending the obtaining of judgment, there should be power in somebody to set it aside if the creditor does not within a reasonable time take proceedings on his claim. Otherwise, he might have a stop put upon the property which would operate indefinitely, and the creditor instead of proceeding, as he ought to do under Clause 5, Sub-section (2), after getting his judgment, might not do anything at all. That might embarrass the Custodian in the distribution of the property. Leave should be given to the Custodian to apply to the High Court to set aside the stay.
    Sir J. SIMON: May I suggest that possibly we may arrive at an understanding. I feel there is great force in the arguments that have been used about the second paragraph in the Amendment. It is agreed that the second paragraph could not possibly go in as it stands, and the right thing would therefore be that we should negative the Amendment now. I have already said I will put in definite

    1205
    words of the first paragraph a little lower down, and I will most certainly make it my duty at once, with the help of others who take an interest in this matter, to see if we cannot devise a form of words which will effect what the hon. Baronet desires.
    Mr. SANDERSON: As it stands any creditor who goes to the Custodian is apparently, under this Amendment, to have power to retain the money belonging to any other creditor.
    Sir J. SIMONmade an observation which was not heard in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I should like to say a word in support of my hon. Friend the Member for the Everton Division of Liverpool (Sir J. Harmood-Banner). I do not profess to be a lawyer in this House, but when I find the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke) agreeing with the Attorney-General I am suspicious. I want to say to the Attorney-General that the commercial community agrees in substance with the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir C. Cory). The commercial community feels that some means must be found to enable men to get their just debts paid when the Germans have money in this country. It is not our fault that we are at war with Germany. It is not the fault of our commerce that Germans have gone to war. The Germans have gone to war with us. They are not treating us very well in Germany, and they are not treating commerce well in Belgium. We most earnestly say to the Attorney-General that as head of the law we look to him to find some means which will enable the commercial community to have their cases at least partially tried, and some means found by which they can get hold of German moneys in this country.
    I do not suggest that the Amendment is exactly right, but I do suggest to the Attorney-General that all this talk about tht beauty of our common law and natural justice is all very well and all very right, but the commercial community wants some means to be found by which they can deal with German debtors who are not in this country. The Attorney-General has told us that he has been considering for some time past what means can be utilised for giving notice where writs cannot be served. I would press upon him that the
    1206
    judges with whom he is consulting should take this matter into their very earnest consideration, and should at the earliest possible moment bring out those rules for which people have been waiting during the last few weeks. Commercial business has been upset and restrained by lack of those rules. They do not know how they can issue writs or serve them. The Attorney-General says he has been thinking over the matter for weeks past. I would urge him in the most respectful manner to bring forward his conclusions.
    Sir J. SIMON: I do not make the rules.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The judges are not in this House, but the Attorney-General is in communication with the judges himself, and I ask him to convey to His Majesty's judges the desire of the commercial community that those rules should be issued at the earliest possible moment.
    Sir C. CORY: I am very grateful to the Attorney-General for accepting the first paragraph. I am very much indebted to the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke) for putting my case with regard to paragraph two much better than I could have put it, and I am glad it has attained the desirable result with the Attorney-General. With regard to paragraph three, as to the service of writs, it has been stated by the Attorney-General and the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke) that it would not be fair to serve a writ on the Custodian without giving the enemy a chance of defending. I share the view that it is necessary to uphold the justice of our Courts as much as anybody. I would, however, put this case: I understand that if an enemy company has a branch in this country which has been registered, although the offices may be closed, and the representatives and the management gone away, you can send a writ through the registered post to the address, and that that is good service. In that case the enemy has no better chance of defending himself in the Courts than if the service had been on the Custodian. A man who has gone away and left no registered address is equally in fault. I cannot see why you should not put in some words to enable a creditor to serve a writ on the Custodian, in which case it is doing no greater hardship than if the enemy had a registered address. If he does not comply with the law he ought to be fined.

    1207
    I hope the Attorney-General will take that point into consideration. In reply to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. J. M. Henderson) who says that it is not right to distribute the funds without giving English creditors, perhaps in Vienna and other places, an opportunity of participating, I would point out that the last paragraph of my Amendment provides that notice should be given by public advertisement, so that all creditors shall rank pari passu. In the circumstances I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. NIELD: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to add the words "with or without interest thereon." These funds are accumulating interest in the hands of the Custodian, and it is therefore only fair that you should have power, in giving judgment, to enable interest to be paid on the debt. A creditor ought to get interest if the Court directs him to have it.
    Sir J. SIMON: I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal is, that the sum which should be payable out of this fund should not be the amount for which judgment is given, but that amount with interest on it added.
    Mr. NIELD: It will give the Court power to give interest on the debt.
    Sir J. SIMON: That power is already possessed in a certain number of cases, but there are some cases where that power does not exist. I do not see why, because you are adopting this machinery in order to try and get people's debts paid, so far as may be, you should alter the general law relating to debts carrying interest in this particular case. I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.
    Question, "That the words with or without interest thereon' be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    Amendment made: At the end of the Clause, add the following new Subsection:—
    "(4) The Custodian shall keep a register of all property held by him under this Act, which register shall be open to public inspection at all reasonable times, free of charge."—[Sir C. Cory.]
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Invalidity of Assignment of Debts, etc., by Enemies.)
    (1) No person shall by virtue of any transfer or assignment of any negotiable instrument, debt, or other chose in action, or delivery of any coupon or other security transferable by delivery, or transfer of any other obligation, made in his favour by or on behalf of an enemy, whether for valuable consideration or otherwise, have any rights or remedies against the person liable to pay, discharge or satisfy the negotiable instrument, debt, chose in action, security or obligation, unless he proves that the assignment, delivery, or transfer was made before the nineteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and fourteen, and any person who knowingly pays, discharges or satisfies any negotiable instrument, debt, or chose in action so transferred or assigned, or any security so delivered, or any obligation so transferred before the said date, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence of trading with the enemy within the meaning of the principal Act.

    (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of the foregoing Sub-section, where a bill of exchange or other negotiable instrument bears the indorsement of an enemy and the indorsement does not purport to have been made before the fourth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen, the person presenting or seeking to enforce payment thereof shall have on him the burden of proving that he is not collecting the bill or negotiable instrument for or for the benefit of an enemy.

    (3) Nothing in this Section shall be construed as validating any assignment, delivery or transfer which would be invalid apart from this Section.

    7.0 P.M.
    Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "transfer or" ["no person shall by virtue of any transfer or assignment of"]
    I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I state in a very few words what will be the effect of adopting in Clause 6 the Amendments which stand in my name. The Clause was criticised by some on the Second Reading, and in view of the criticisms then made and others I have received since, the Clause has been to a large extent redrafted. The Rules of Order require that these things should be done one at a time. I am glad to say that we have now passed to what I trust will prove to be calm waters. The Clause does not deal with the Custodian. We

    1209
    have said "good-bye" to the Custodian. We have now reached a part of the Bill which is quite as important, and I am not sure that it is not more important, if our object is to prevent trading with the enemy. Clause 6 is designed to invalidate transfers or assignments of any kind of rights which Germans or other enemies had at the beginning of the War against Englishmen, if the assignee comes forward and endeavours to enforce that which the German himself could not have enforced at all. If I may just read what would be the effect of my Amendments if they are put into Sub-section (1), I will do so. I know it is a little long, and I ask the Committee kindly to give me their very close attention while I read it. The Clause will then run in this way:—
    "(1) No person shall by virtue of any assignment of any negotiable instrument, debt, or other chose in action or delivery of any coupon or other security transferable by delivery, or transfer of any other obligation, made or to be made in his favour by or on behalf of an enemy, whether for valuable consideration or otherwise, have any rights or remedies against the person liable to pay, discharge, or satisfy the negotiable instrument, debt, chose in action, security, or obligation, unless he proves that the assignment, delivery, or transfer was made by leave of the Board of Trade, or was made before the commencement of the present War, and any person who knowingly pays, discharges, or satisfies any negotiable instrument, debt, or chose in action so transferred or assigned, or any security so delivered, or any obligation so transferred after the said date shall be deemed to be guilty of trading with the enemy within the meaning of the principal Act."
    The substantial effect of it is that we substitute the beginning of the present War for 19th November. I think that is quite right, because I do not see why a neutral, who has acquired since the beginning of the present War a claim against someone in this country which the German himself could not enforce, should get any better rights than the German has. But there is obviously one exception which must be made if this is to operate from the beginning of the present War—that is, the case where, in the interval between the beginning of the War and the introduction of this Bill, the neutral has not merely acquired but has acquired bonâ fide and for
    1210
    a valuable consideration. Not only is that obviously fair to the neutral, who, after all, in this matter has to be considered, but you may also have a case where the neutral has handed the property on again—it may be to a British subject—all in good faith and within the law and quite unaware that this was going to be passed by Parliament at the end of November. So I propose to add this proviso:—
    "Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply where the person to whom the assignment, delivery, or transfer was made, or some person deriving title under him, proves that the transfer, delivery, or assignment, or some subsequent transfer, delivery, or assignment, was made before the nineteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and fourteen, in good faith and for valuable consideration."
    The effect of that will be that in so far as the enemy has already transferred or assigned to a neutral, not in good faith or for valuable consideration in order to hand the property over, but merely to put it in a neutral name in order to have a trustee who is not an alien enemy, the fact that he has already done it will not help him. On the other hand, if the transfer which has already taken place is a transfer which has been made bonâ fide and for valuable consideration to a neutral, of course we must accept and recognise a right which has already occurred. But for the future I propose that we shall say that from 19th November, that is the day when the Bill was introduced, it will not make any difference, bonâ fide or not bonâ fide, valuable consideration or not valuable consideration. No third party will be able to acquire from an enemy, while war is going on, a claim of any sort against persons in this country which the enemy himself could not enforce. I may be wrong. I believe everyone does not take the same view as I do, that this provision and the provision which immediately follows, about negotiable instruments, are going to do a great deal more to produce an effective interference with the financing of our enemy during the War than a great many of these rather elaborate and threatening provisions, which some of us have been discussing in the earlier Clauses of the Bill. Both are valuable, but my own belief, and it is based on good information, is that if we can only pass this Clause quickly we may do a very great deal in order to produce that financial stringency which we are entitled

    1211
    to produce, and we shall do it without in the least inflicting any wrong upon any neutral or, of course, any British subject. A neutral who has already acquired such an interest will be entitled to enforce it if he got it bonâ fide for valuable consideration, and we now give neutrals fair notice that if they buy a German claim against this country they have bought something which is a mere stroke of the pen.
    Mr. SANDERSON: Is it right to say 19th November instead of the date of the passing of this Act?
    Sir J. SIMON: Yes. Even to-day or to-morrow, for all I know, there may be an enormous transfer between the time of which I am speaking and the time the Royal Assent is secured. But as we wish to do nothing but what is quite fair, we do not choose a date in that case which is earlier than the date of the introduction of the Bill. Sub-section (2) is going to deal with negotiable instruments. It is a difficult case to deal with. I am anxious that we should not do anything which will in the least undermine or prejudice the unrivalled reputation of bills drawn on London. We propose to shift the burden. The present law is that if you are the holder of a negotiable instrument, the mere fact that you hold it is, until the contrary is proved, enough to show that you are the bonâ fide holder for value, and have the full rights which that gives you. All we propose is that if a man comes forward and demands payment here in London on a London acceptance against the acceptor, and if it appears that the bill, by its endorsements, has been in the hands of an enemy, the inference should not be drawn, merely because a neutral holder presents it, that therefore he is a bonâ fide holder for value, but it will be proper that the burden should be the other way. In a great many cases it will not make the slightest difference. But there are very many cases where London acceptances were in the hands of the enemy at the outbreak of War, and, of course, cannot be collected direct, but they are collected by being sent forward to some neutral bank simply for collection. They are not transferred over in the proper sense of the term; they are merely put in the hands of a neutral bank for collection, and we make no complaint, of course. If a Swiss bank, or an Italian bank, does that business they are quite entitled, only we
    1212
    intend to stop it in future, and Sub-section (2) is devised to deal with the case of negotiable instruments. If the Committee think that the changes which I now propose are an improvement, I hope we may consent summarily to make those changes. In order to satisfy any lingering suspicion, I will add, in justice to those who have helped me, that the Sub-section that I now have on the Paper is the result of a good deal of discussion in which I have been helped by Members in various parts of the House, to whom I am extremely grateful.
    Mr. CAVE: The Amendments which the Attorney-General has on the Paper to this Clause and Clause 8 entirely meet my criticism, and are, I think, a very great improvement indeed. I have been very anxious that the transfer of shares and debts which have taken place by enemies since the War began should be avoided. I have heard of a good many such cases, and since I put my Amendment down, making the Clause retrospective, I have heard of a good many more and I am confident that they exist in considerable numbers. I am equally sure they ought to be avoided, as it is now proposed, and that the two Clauses ought to be made retrospective. At the same time it is only fair to protect transactions where any party, either the original transferee or the subsequent transferee, has given value for the transfer of the debts, and the Amendments in the form in which they appear on the Paper will have that effect. I hope we shall adopt all the Attorney-General's Amendments as they come up, because taken altogether they make a very great improvement.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: I think all of us who take an interest in the Bill ought to be very grateful to the Attorney-General and the other Gentlemen whom he has consulted for the very excellent manner in which it is proposed to amend this Clause. I have the greatest possible pleasure in not moving any of my several Amendments because I think practically every one of the points is quite as well, if not better, met than by those Amendments or by others in other parts of the Bill.
    The CHAIRMAN: Before putting the Attorney-General's Amendment, the hon. Member (Mr. Radford) has two Amendments on the Paper. I think they are also dealt with, but I ought to call attention to them.
    Sir J. SIMON: They are covered by mine.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Before you call the other Amendments may I suggest one in which I think one point has escaped notice. If these Amendments are carried I think you would want, after the words "after the said date," the words "without leave of the Board of Trade." The penalty ought to follow upon paying this debt or obligation if it is transferred after the commencement of the War without leave of the Board of Trade.
    Sir J. SIMON: I do not quite see that at the moment. The Clause consists of two parts. The first is a prohibition against certain transfers, and the second is a penalty if you disregard the prohibition. Does not the word "sole," in the second part, bring in all you want? However, if we put it in as it stands, it would be very easy to put right.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I think I am right, but I do not press it.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I am not in the least objecting to the alterations, as far as I understand them, of Clause 6, but my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cave) is rather classing with them the alterations in Clause 8. I will not anticipate further than to say there is a distinction between the two Clauses. The class of case I want to protect in Clause 8—I think it may require it in Clause 6, too—is this: If a person under Clause 8 transfers, say, London and North-Western stock next month, he will receive on his transfer the name either of a neutral or a British subject. There is, therefore, nothing which will put him on inquiry. But his title will be liable to be voided if it can be shown that in August or September a transfer has been made from an enemy to a neutral, and from the neutral to someone else, we will say in October or November, as the case may be, unless he can show that value has been given before 19th November. That, of course, will be almost impossible for him to do. It may be that in commercial transactions that would not be a real reason, but we are dealing with registered shareholders. It does seem to me that some way might be devised by the Government to avoid the throwing of doubt in these transactions. For that reason, I am certainly rather frightened at the sweeping retrospective Clause which the Attorney-General is proposing in both these cases.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendments made:
    In Sub-section (1), after the word "made" ["made in his favour"], insert the words "or to be made."
    After the word "made" ["or transfer was made before"], insert the words "by leave of the Board of Trade or was made before the commencement of the present War."
    Leave out the words "negotiable instrument" ["satisfies any negotiable instrument"].
    Leave out the words "transferred or" ["so transferred or assigned"].
    Leave out the word "before" ["before the said date"], and insert the word "after."
    Insert, at the end of Sub-section (1), the words
    "Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply where the person to whom the assignment, delivery, or transfer was made, or some person deriving title under him, proves that the transfer, delivery, or assignment, or some subsequent transfer, delivery, or assignment, was made before the nineteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and fourteen, in good faith and for valuable consideration."
    Insert, at the end of Sub-section (1):
    "(2) No person shall by virtue of any transfer of a negotiable instrument made, or to be made, in his favour by or on behalf of an enemy, whether for valuable consideration or otherwise, have any rights or remedies against any party to the negotiable instrument unless he proves that the transfer was made before the commencement of the present War, and any party to the negotiable instrument who knowingly discharges the instrument shall be deemed to be guilty of trading with the enemy within the meaning of the principal Act.
    Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply where the transferee, or some subsequent holder of the instrument, proves that the transfer, or some subsequent transfer, of the instrument was made before the nineteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and fourteen, in good faith and for valuable consideration."
    Leave out Sub-section (2).
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Right to pay into Court Sums Due on Coupons Suspected of being Enemy Property.)
    Where during the continuance of the present War any coupon or other security transferable by delivery is presented for payment to any company, municipal authority, or other body, and the company or body has reason to suspect that it is so presented on behalf or for the benefit of an enemy or that since the said eighteenth day of November it has been held by or for the benefit of an enemy, the company or body may pay the sum due in respect thereof into Court, and such a payment shall for all purposes be a good discharge to the company or body.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to move, after the first word "body" ["or other body"] to insert the words "or person."
    I wish to elicit an explanation as to the purpose of the Clause. I am not quite certain that I understand it, nor am I quite certain that it is necessary to amend the Clause at all. It contains a beneficial provision which enables a person who has doubt about a security presented for payment to have the privilege of paying the money into Court. My difficulty is in quite understanding how far the Clause is intended to go. If it is intended to apply to coupons or dividends which are declared by a municipal body on the inscribed stock of that municipal body, why do you have in the Clause the words "or other security transferable by delivery"? If you are going to include in the ambit of the Clause negotiable instruments, then why should not persons who may have to pay not also have the privilege which is given to a company, municipal authority, or other body? It will be observed from the Preamble that a distinction is drawn between persons and bodies of persons. You cannot suggest that a person is included in any of the words at present used in the Clause, and so it comes really to this, that if Clause 7 is intended to apply to coupons or dividends, then the words which are at present used are not applicable to that purpose. If, on the other hand, you do intend to include and give the privilege to all persons to whom are presented for payment coupons or negotiable securities, or any security transferable by delivery, there is nothing in the Clause to provide for that. I do not press the matter, I am asking, information. I wish to know the Government's view as to the intention of
    1216
    the Clause. If it is intended to be a wide Clause, I think the word "person" should be inserted.
    Sir J. SIMON: The hon. and learned Member presents me with a dilemma consisting of two prongs, and he invites me to impale myself on one prong or the other. I do not think I have any alternative, if I deserve to be impaled, as to the terms of his Amendment. I propose that we should put in the word "person" here, but it will be necessary to do two things which he has not mentioned. The word "or" ["company or body has reason to suspect"] will have to be left out. The word "or" will also have to be left out at the end of the Clause ["to the company or body"].
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to move, after the word "body" ["the company or body may pay"], to insert the words "or person."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: I beg to move to leave out the words "into Court," and to insert instead thereof the words "to the Custodian."
    In regard to this Amendment it is a singular thing that the Lord Advocate is going to propose two Amendments further down to do for Scotland exactly what I propose to do for England, namely, to allow this money to be handed over to the Custodian. I do not know what the representative of Ireland would have suggested if he had been here, but I call the attention of the Attorney-General to the rather anomalous position set up by the Lord Advocate's Amendment. I suggest to him that we should have uniformity of practice in England, Scotland, and Ireland.
    Sir J. SIMON: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will sympathise with me when I say the Clause as it stands is quite right. The only reason the Lord Advocate has for his Amendment is that they have not in Scotland reached the same stage of civilisation as in England. There is no such thing in Scotland as payment into Court.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, after the word "Court," to insert the words "and

    1217
    the same shall, subject to rules of Court, be dealt with according to the orders of the Court."
    Mr. CAVE: If the Amendment is carried in this form, the Lord Advocate's Amendment would not fit into the Clause.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: Leave out the word "or" ["company or body"].
    After the word "body," insert the words "or person."
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Invalidity of Transfers of Shares in Company, etc.)
    (1) No transfer made after the eighteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and fourteen, by or on behalf of an enemy of any securities shall confer on the transferee any rights or remedies in respect thereof, and no company or municipal authority or other body by whom the securities were issued or are managed shall take any cognizance of or otherwise act upon any notice of such transfer.

    (2) No entry shall, during the continuance of the present War, be made in any register or branch register or other book kept in the United Kingdom of any transfer of any securities therein registered, inscribed or standing in the name of an enemy, except by leave of a Court of competent jurisdiction.

    (3) No share warrants payable to bearer shall be issued during the continuance of the present War in respect of any shares or stock registered in the name of any enemy.

    (4) If any company or any body contravenes the provisions of this Section the company or body shall be liable on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Act to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, and every director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company or body who is knowingly a party to the default, shall be liable on the like conviction to a like fine or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding six months.

    (5) For the purposes of this Section the expression "securities" includes any annuities, stock, shares, debentures, or debenture stock issued by or on behalf of the Government or by any municipal or other authority, or by any company or by any other body.

    Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words from "No" ["No transfer"] to "and" ["thereof, and no company"], and to insert instead thereof the words: "person shall by virtue of any transfer of any securities made by or on behalf of an enemy have any rights or remedies in respect thereto unless he proves that the transfer was made with the leave of the Board of Trade, or was made before the commencement of the present war, and"
    The hon. Member for Cambridge University was good enough to point out a difficulty in making this provision in the Bill. There is a difficulty there, and I doubt very much whether we can usefully discuss it until we see these Amendments in print. Meantime, I quite understand the point which he makes and the illustration which he gives. There may be matter for consideration whether there is anything that can be done to ease the difficulty, but I am bound to say that I rather doubt it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "shall" ["shall confer"], to insert the words "except as hereinafter appears."
    This is a small drafting Amendment, though it is not quite so trivial as might appear. As I read Sub-sections (1) and (2), it seems to me that they may involve a slight contradiction which was perhaps due to an oversight in drafting, because Sub-section (1) provides that no transfer of shares is to be made, and if it is made the company is to take no cognisance of it or act upon it. The chief way in which a company can act on a transfer is to enter it in their register. Then Sub-section (2) says that no entry shall be made except with the leave of the judge of the High Court. So that the second Clause gives power to a judge of the High Court to give leave for that which the first Sub-section says cannot be done.
    Sir J. SIMON: I will accept the Amendment.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: At the end of Sub-section (1) add the words
    "Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply where the transferee or some subsequent transferee proves that the transfer or some subsequent transfer was

    1219
    made before the nineteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and fourteen, in good faith and for valuable consideration."—[Sir J. Simon.]
    At the end of Sub-section (2), add the words "or of the Board of Trade."—[Sir J. Simon.]
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: I beg to move, in Sub-section (5), after the word "stock," to insert the words "mortgage or charge."
    I would like to insert the words "mortgage or charge," but if the Attorney-General objects I will not press it. I do not see why debenture stock is included and mortgage or charge is not.
    Sir J. SIMON: I will consider that.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the following Sub-section:
    "(6) Any contract for the future supply of goods to an enemy which was in existence on the fourth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen, or which may be entered into during the currency of the War, is hereby declared to be null and void, and no action in respect of any such contract brought by the parties thereto or their agents shall be entertained in the Courts of this country."
    Sir J. SIMON: I doubt very much whether on any strict view it would be possible to have an Amendment of this kind to a Clause which deals with the transfer of shares, but as long as it is clearly understood that this point shall be disposed of here and not debated on any new Clause I have no objection.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: There is a number of new Clauses on this very important subject of contracts. I think that it is the only point of any substance that is left. I do not know whether it is convenient to discuss it as an Amendment to a Clause that has got nothing to do with it, but it would be a proper thing to have one discussion on the subject.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am glad that my attention has been drawn to the matter. I think that this is much better discussed as a new Clause.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 9.—(Conditions as to the Incorporation of New Companies.)
    (1) During the continuance of the present War a certificate of incorporation of a company shall not be given by the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies until there has been filed with him either—

    (a) a statutory declaration by a solicitor of the Supreme Court, or, in Scotland, by an enrolled law agent, engaged in the formation of the company, that the company is not formed for the purpose or with the intention of acquiring the whole or any part of the undertaking of a person, firm or company the books and documents of which are liable to inspection under Sub-section (2) of Section two of the principal Act; or

    (b) a licence from the Board of Trade authorising the acquisition by the company of such an undertaking.

    (2) Where such a statutory declaration has been filed it shall not be lawful for the company during the continuance of the present War, without the licence of the Board of Trade, to acquire the whole or any part of any such undertaking, and if it does so the company shall, without prejudice to any other liability, be liable on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, and every director, manager, secretary, or other officer of the company who is knowingly a party to the default shall on the like conviction be liable to the like fine or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding six months.

    Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "during the continuance of the present War."
    I move this in the interest of safeguarding our position at the close of the War. Hon. Members will see that this Clause is directed to preventing companies being formed for the purpose of taking over what may be called enemy businesses, and therefore enabling enemies to trade by means of a company formed in order to conceal their real purpose. So one of two things is required before a company can start business—either a statutory declaration by a solicitor or a licence by the Board of Trade. Assuming that all was in good order, and that the solicitor has been able to declare that there is no intention or purpose of taking over any business

    1221
    which is liable to inspection under Sub-section (2) of the principal Act—which provides for inspection by the Board of Trade of firms or companies in which one-third or more of the capital or directorate is held by or consist of Germans—this Clause is directed to the prevention of a company being formed to take over a business which is really subject to inspection by the Board of Trade, because it is substantially held by Germans. If a company is formed, and if a statutory declaration has been made by a solicitor that it is all right or a licence has been given by the Board of Trade, and it enters upon a new period of existence, it may be that it will then take over such an undertaking as is described in Sub-section (2) of the principal Act, and you have got in some way to put a stop to that. So this provision is inserted, that where that declaration has been made or where that company has started during the continuance of the present War the company shall not acquire any business which is substantially held by Germans.
    In the interests of commercial people generally and of British trade, it would be wise to leave out the words "during the continuance of the present War" in order that, when the War is over, the Board of Trade or some other authority may decide whether or not they will allow free trading to Germans in just the same way as it existed before the War broke out. That is the only purpose of my Amendment. I do not wish to stop them altogether, but when peace is declared it will be very important to consider how far we should restore the position of German traders in this country. And at the time of peace it may very well be wise on our part to have something to begin with. Therefore I do not want to decide now that we should automatically put them back in the position which they were before the War. If they behave well to us in Germany, if they treat our merchants properly, if they have respect for the property of others, at the conclusion of the War we on our side will do the same. But I think that to have the possibility that at the conclusion of the War a company may take over the business of a company liable to inspection under Sub-section (2) of the principal Act, is unwise at the present moment. It may involve a little later on some action, or possibly a new Bill by the Board of Trade. I do not wish to decide anything about
    1222
    that now, but what I do object to is leaving an automatic provision in favour of Germans without the Board of Trade having the opportunity or the right to decide whether this free transfer of business shall take place. Therefore I want to leave out those words "during the continuance of the present War" until we see what circumstances arise. If we are properly treated by Germany, of course the old relations might be established, and it might be unnecessary to put any sort of embargo on the transfer.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I hope that the hon. and learned Member will not press this Amendment. I do not think that the hon. and learned Member suggests any way in which, at the close of the War, this provision would be at all likely to do anything that would be injurious to this country or would be helpful to the other country in any way in which we do not want to be helpful to the other country. I might suggest to him that if there should at the conclusion of the War emerge any considerations which would seem to make it advisable to prevent future action of this sort, it would be quite a simple matter then to make fresh legislation providing for it; whereas, if you make this provision absolute, you would find yourself at the close of the War faced by a condition of things in which you would have suddenly to legislate to make transactions which are ordinarily quite possible legal. That does not seem necessary. The hon. Member has not suggested how it could be desirable to prevent the taking over of such a concern. At the close of the War, if there were unforeseen circumstances we should then be perfectly free to deal with them, and I think it far more convenient that we should leave it on that footing. We make the prohibition apply only to the period of the War, leaving ourselves free to apply an extended provision at the close of the War. I think that a perfectly reasonable and prudent course.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: I have been entirely unable to discover the slightest utility in this Clause. Throughout I have been in favour of improving the Bill, but as to this Clause I cannot see any advantage in it. Why not make as many British

    1223
    companies as possible to carry on any business which otherwise the Germans would be carrying on? I should have thought that was the most desirable thing possible to do. As a matter of practice, not as a matter of law on which I am less in a position to speak, but as a matter of practice, with which I am better acquainted, even if the Clause is intended to stop something that it is desirable to stop, it is perfectly useless; because anybody that wants to register a company can buy the registration. I can sell the right hon. Gentleman half a dozen registrations, which were effected two or three years ago, and which he can have for a very few pounds over the amount of the stamps. How you are to stop a company from being registered to carry on business I do not know. For these reasons I do not see the slightest use in the Clause. I have an Amendment on the Paper to leave it out, but if the Attorney-General really thinks that there is some utility in it, then I am quite prepared to accept it and not press the Amendment.
    Sir J. SIMON: I have for a good many hours in this Committee been hearing what a shocking thing it is that there should be companies registered under the British law, the registration being merely a disguise for German undertakings. I accepted that criticism, and I rather thought that we were to do what we could to prevent that, though we cannot do everything. But this is a case where a British company is going to carry on a business the Germans had carried on before; it is going to acquire the undertaking, and the Clause has this value, that it prevents a German undertaking, in time of war, from disguising itself as a British company.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: Suppose a German firm has hitherto carried on business in this country, and an English company desires to buy its business, if the German firm is prepared to sell, an undertaking might be formed to take over the plant and stock, and the purchase money could go to the Custodian instead of going to the Germans.
    Sir J. SIMON: Clause 9 provides that there is to be a licence from the Board of Trade authorising the acquisition by the company of such an undertaking, that is, if the Board of Trade acquiesces in it.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 10.—(Additional Provisions as to Trading with Enemy.)
    (1) Section one of the principal Act shall apply to a person who during the present War attempts, or directly or indirectly offers, or proposes or agrees, or has since the fourth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen, attempted or directly or indirectly offered or proposed or agreed, to trade with the enemy within the meaning of that Act in like manner as it applies to a person who so trades or has so traded.

    (2) If any person, without lawful authority, in anywise aids or abets any other person, whether or not such other person is in the United Kingdom, to enter into, negotiate, or complete any transaction or do any act which, if effected or done in the United Kingdom by such other person, would constitute an offence of trading with the enemy within the meaning of the principal Act, he shall be deemed to be guilty of such an offence.

    (3) If any person without lawful authority deals, or attempts, or directly or indirectly offers, proposes or agrees, to deal with any money or security for money or other property which is in his hands or over which he has any claim or control for the purpose of enabling an enemy to obtain money or credit thereon or thereby he shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence of trading with the enemy within the meaning of the principal Act.

    Mr. POLLOCK: I have two Amendments on the Paper which perhaps the Attorney-General may see his way to accept. The Clause at present runs, it will be observed:—
    "If any person without lawful authority deals, or attempts, or directly or indirectly offers, or proposes or agrees ……"
    There does not seem any reason why the words "directly or indirectly" should be placed there.
    Sir J. SIMON: I agree.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (3), after the word "attempts" ["deals or attempts"], leave out the words "directly or indirectly."
    In the same Sub-section, after the word "agrees," insert the words "whether directly or indirectly".—[Mr. Pollock.]
    Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "control" ["claim or control"], to leave out the words "for the purpose of enabling," and

    1225
    insert instead thereof the words "in such a manner as to enable."
    The Amendment is important, and it will be observed that this is a very powerful and very useful and a very important Clause. It imposes upon the person who deals directly or indirectly with the enemy, by means of placing credits or money in a manner in which the enemy can get hold of it, certain penalties, provided for those who are guilty of the offence of trading with the enemy. It is to prevent persons from remitting money or placing money in neutral hands in such a manner that the enemy can get hold of that money. That being the object of the Clause, as I understand it—and I fully welcome it as a very important one—I would ask the Committee to look at the words:—
    "If any person without lawful authority deals, or attempts or agrees to deal, with any money or security or money or other property which is in his hands, or over which he has any claim or control, for the purpose of enabling an enemy to obtain money or credit. … he shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence."
    For the purpose for which the Section is to be used I do not think those words will be very effective, because if you are charging a man with the offence it will be very difficult indeed to prove that the purpose he had when he remitted the money was the purpose of enabling the enemy to obtain money or credit. In almost all cases he would be able to say, "I gave the money, because I was asked to do so, into neutral hands; I had no idea it was going to be used to enable the enemy to obtain money or credit." I think therefore that those words, "for the purpose of enabling," ought to be deleted, and that there should be substituted for them the words "in such a manner as to enable." That would leave the defence to show—and I think rightly to show—that what you ordinarily presume from the remission of money, that it has been sent out to enable the enemy to obtain credit on money, was not the case, and it would be for the defendant to show that he had no reason to suspect that any difficulty would arise at all, and he would be cleared, and ought to be cleared, of the offence. Relatively to that I further propose to add, at the end of the Clause, the following words as Sub-section (4):—
    "Where any person has in his possession money due to an enemy and has
    1226
    reason to suspect that there is danger of Section three hereof being infringed by the payment thereof, such person may pay the sum so due into Court in accordance with rules to be made under this Act, and such payment shall, for all purposes, be a good discharge to such person."
    The effect of those two Amendments would be to strengthen the Clause. Instead of the prosecution having to prove that it has been done in a manner to enable the enemy to obtain money or credit, it would safeguard any person from being placed in a dangerous or difficult position, and you would give him the liberty to pay the money into Court. If you give him the option to pay the money into Court, if he has any doubt or thinks there is any danger, he can avail himself of the provision which I suggest. I beg to move the first Amendment.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am afraid the first Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member would operate in far more effective manner than he has shown. Even supposing a person had not the slightest intention of bringing about the effect to which he alludes, he seems to suppose in that case that it would be a good defence that the person had not foreseen what was going to happen. It is possible that the Court might overrule the Clause, and still say that they were not going to punish the man because he had no intention. But the words of the hon. Member really makes the Court punish a man if the effect is to enable the money to go to the enemy. It might be probably difficult to prove that the person meant the money to go in an improper way, but surely some proof is necessary before you penalise anyone. In regard to the correlative Amendment, there seems to be some mistake. It runs:—
    "Where any person has in his possession money due to an enemy, and has reason to suspect that there is danger of section three thereof being infringed by the payment thereof, such person may pay the sum so due into Court."
    That is simply a question as to money due to the enemy, but it does not entitle the person to pay it at all. No question arises of the company being safeguarded in this way. He is bound under the law not to pay the money, and I hope therefore that the hon. and learned Member will not press these Amendments.
    Mr. CAVE: I think the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend goes too far, where we are creating a criminal act, and I hope he will not insist upon it.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I will withdraw it. I confess that I put both Amendments forward simply for the purpose of trying to strengthen the Clause, and I think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade rather agreed that the words as they stand in the Clause might give a loophole to some we might wish to catch. I do not think my words are very artistic or very happy, and I shall be very glad if some hon. Member can think of other words, but, if that be impossible, I will not delay the Committee further.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill." put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Additional Ground for Appointment of Controller.)
    8.0 P.M.
    In addition to the grounds on which an application can be made to the Court by the Board of Trade to appoint a controller under Section three of the principal Act, such an application may be made in any case in which the Board think it is expedient in the public interest that a controller should be appointed owing to the circumstances arising out of the present War, and that Section shall be considered accordingly.
    Mr. SANDERSON: I beg to move, after the word "circumstances" ["owing to circumstances"], to insert the words "or considerations."
    I understand that the Attorney-General intends to accept this Amendment. I regard this as a very important proposal, because it gives power to appoint a controller. My own opinion is that the only way you are going to stop firms in this country which are really German, although English in appearance, is by appointing a receiver. You cannot put in a receiver unless you get it done by this means. The words in the Clause are "owing to circumstances arising out of the present War." A German might say that although the company was really German, and 99 per cent. owned by Germans, yet that that was not a matter
    1228
    which arose out of the present War, because it existed before the War, therefore, I suggest, the insertion of the words "or consideration."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. DENNISS: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words, "and for the purpose of this Section Section three of the principal Act shall read as if the word "person" were inserted between the words "any" and "firm" in line 2 thereof."
    When the principal Act was under consideration I moved this same Amendment. The Act was passed in a great hurry, and it was not quite clear at the time why Clause 3 should not refer to a "person," as well as to a "firm" or "company." I put it to the Attorney-General that a firm must consist within the meaning of that Section of more than one person and that the word "firm" did not include a person. I pressed him to insert the word "person." The Clause is a very important one, and provides for action by the Board or Trade in reference to a firm or company if an offence has been or is likely to be committed, or if the control or management of the company is likely to be so affected that the business may come to an end and if it is, in the public interest, that it ought to be carried on.
    Sir J. SIMON: I am so far converted that I feel I ought to have accepted the hon. Member's suggestion two months ago. I suggest now that he should withdraw this Amendment and move it in the following form: "Section 3 of the principal Act as amended by this Section shall extend to enable a controller to be appointed of a business carried on by a person, in like manner as it applies to the appointment of a controller of a business carried on by a firm."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: At the end of the Clause, insert the words "Section 3 of the principal Act, as amended by this Section, shall extend to enable a controller to be appointed of a business carried on by a person in like manner as it applies to the appointment of a controller of a business carried on by a firm."—[Mr. Denniss.]
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 12.—(Short Title and Construction.)
    (1) This Act may be cited as the Trading with the Enemy Amendment Act, 1914, and shall be construed as one with the principal Act.

    (2) In the application of this Act to Scotland "real property" shall mean "heritable property"; "personal property" shall mean "movable property"; "chose in action" shall mean "right of action"; "attached or otherwise taken in execution" shall mean "arrested or otherwise affected by diligence"; "assignment" shall mean "assignation"; "judgment has been recovered" shall mean "decree has been obtained"; a reference to a vesting order made under the Trustee Act, 1893, shall be construed as a reference to a warrant to complete a title granted under Section twelve of the Trusts (Scotland) Act, 1867.

    (3) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as limiting the power of His Majesty by proclamation to prohibit any transaction which is not prohibited by this Act, or by licence to permit any transaction which is so prohibited.

    Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words
    "(2) No person or body of persons shall, for the purposes of this Act, be treated as an enemy who would not be so treated for the purpose of any proclamation issued by His Majesty dealing with trading with the enemy for the time being in force, and the expression 'commencement of the present War,' shall mean as respects any enemy the date on which War was declared on the country in which that enemy resides or carries on business."
    Mr. BOOTH: May I suggest that after the words "War was declared," you should insert the words "by His Majesty," so as to make it clear that you refer to the commencement of a War in which this country was engaged.
    Sir J. SIMON: I will accept that suggestion.
    Words "by His Majesty" inserted in proposed Amendment.
    Amended, as amended, agreed to.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am rather doubtful about the next Amendment. I think it ought to be a new Clause, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman wishes to address me on the point.
    Mr. MORTON: I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (1) to insert the words
    "(2) The expression 'enemy' in the principal Act or in this Act shall extend to and include any company or firm the business whereof is managed or controlled by persons who were or are on or subsequently to the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fourteen, born subjects of or resident or carrying on business in any State for the time being at war with His Majesty, and shall extend to and include any company or firm who were or are acting as agents for any person, firm, or company trading or carrying on business in a State for the time being at war with His Majesty, notwithstanding that the company or firm may be registered within His Majesty's dominions."
    As the Bill stands at present there is no definition of an "enemy" except in the Preamble. That is an extraordinary way of bringing in a definition. What we desire is to get a real definition of the meaning of the word "enemy," and especially that no one shall be allowed to get out of the consequences of being an alien enemy by registering as a company in this country with someone taking one share. I should hope that the Attorney-General would help us in getting a proper definition of the word "enemy." There may be better words than we have chosen, but we are anxious to know how to obey the law, and that there should be some definition of what an enemy is. We are most anxious in the City to help the Government and the Parliament in every way we possibly can, but, where these difficulties occur, we do ask assistance in getting out of them, so that we can keep within the law and make others do the same. I have proposed this Amendment in order to get the Attorney-General to tell us what he thinks about the matter.
    Sir J. SIMON: Nobody could resist my hon. Friend's appeal. I can answer very briefly. Enemies, for the purpose of the law relating to trading with the enemy, mean what my hon. Friend will find stated in the Preamble to this Bill. I feel quite confident that is so, and that is the view taken by every judicial authority which has concerned itself with the matter. It must be so, because, of course, damage done to this country if trade goes on with persons in Germany, even though those persons happen to be neutral or British subjects, is just the same as if

    1231
    trade goes on with Germans in Germany, but the damage that is done by trading by persons of German nationality here is not the same as the damage which arises if you do not have a sufficiently effective law to prevent them in their turn transmitting to the foreign country. The right view is to treat the German in this country as somebody subject to our law, and who has got to obey our law. Our law is that he, like anybody else, must not trade with Germany. If my hon. Friend asks me to say what I think about it, in all other respects, in the dinner hour, my thoughts are too deep for words.
    Mr. MORTON: I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman expressed those last few words a few weeks ago at the Guildhall. Is it right that by merely registering shares a person should be able to evade the law?
    Amendment negatived.
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro): I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "arrested," to insert the words "in execution or in security."
    The hon. Member for South Lanarkshire (Mr. Watson), who was supported by the hon. Member for Central Glasgow (Mr. Scott Dickson), asked me if I would accept this Amendment. I undertook to do so, and in his absence I move it. It is purely technical.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to add the words "any money paid into Court in terms of this Act shall be paid in such manner as may be prescribed by Act of Sederunt."
    I may say that Act of Sederunt simply means rules of Court in Scotland. The Attorney-General a moment ago said that we had not reached such a stage of civilisation in Scotland as to know what payment in Court means. The difference between the two countries is that here there is payment into Court although there is no definite action in the Court, but in Scotland that cannot be done. Accordingly the Amendment which the Attorney-General moved, to the effect that rules of Court may be made which should deal with money paid into Court, would not quite cover the matter, because in Scotland the money has got to get there first,
    1232
    and it is desirable that that should be provided for by rules of Court.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section 2 of Principal Act.)
    (1) Where, on the report of an inspector appointed to inspect the books and documents of a person, firm, or company under Section 2 of the principal Act, it appears to the Board of Trade that it is expedient that the business should be subject to frequent inspection or constant supervision, the Board of Trade may appoint that inspector or some other person to supervise the business with such powers as the Board of Trade may determine, and any remuneration payable and expenses incurred whether for the original supervision or the subsequent supervision to such amount as may be fixed by the Board of Trade shall be paid by the said person, firm, or company.

    (2) Paragraph (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the principal Act shall have effect and shall be deemed always to have had effect as if for the word "trading," there were substituted the word "resident."

    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time." The Clause in its present form simply provides for the different kinds of remuneration made necessary by the extension of the functions of the inspector.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Determination of Contracts.)
    Any contract which has been entered into by any British person, firm, company, or corporation with an enemy may be determined or suspended by a written order by a Secretary of State or the Board of Trade, which order a Secretary of State or the Board of Trade are hereby empowered to make, so far as any act, thing, or obligation remains to be done or performed under such contract, and any contract for the supply of goods imported from any State for the time being at war with His Majesty, or for goods which are

    1233
    manufactured or partly manufactured in any such State may also be determined or suspended in like manner: Provided that such determination or suspension under this Section shall not determine or suspend any act or thing which has been performed or done under such contract prior to the passing of this Act.
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. MORTON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    We want to get rid of a real difficulty in dealing with running contracts made for a series of years. Most of our contracts for paving in the City of London are running contracts. We make contracts for perhaps fifteen years at so much a square yard over the whole street. We have one in particular running at the present moment under which we owe the company £700 or £800, and we have contracts with that company for seven years' ahead, amounting, it is estimated, to about £1,400 a year. As we understand the matter, we cannot pay them any money until the end of the War. The question is, how are we to get the work done? The streets in the City of London are the best paved in the world. If we cannot pay the contractor or get rid of him, how are we to get our streets repaired? On behalf of the corporation, I propose a Clause which, I think, is very moderate, and will protect anybody who might otherwise be damaged: I know that there are other contracts even more serious than ours. We have no feeling whatever against the particular company involved. We have every desire to pay our debts, and we have an equal desire to make the streets safe and to keep them in good order. There is no other way of doing it than that we should be able to determine the contract and employ somebody who is not an enemy company. I am not bound by the particular words on the Paper. If better words can be suggested I shall be glad to accept them. Under my proposal I do not think that the contractor will be hurt, because he cannot get the money now, and it might be said that as long as the contract is running he is bound to do the work. Before this Bill becomes law I think the matter ought to be settled so that we know what to do.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: We all realise the difficulty in which the City Corporation
    1234
    finds itself in regard to its paving, there are all kinds of other contracts between German enemies and British subjects. There are, for instance, a number of Englishmen engaged in various capacities in German and Austrian undertakings. Some of them are actually on the spot, others are not. They have contracts for personal services of various descriptions, covering three, four, or more years to come. There are contracts for the sale of goods; in fact, there are contracts of all kinds and descriptions. Some of these Clauses contemplate the making of application to the Board of Trade, or to one of the Secretaries of State. In thousands of cases it is impracticable to go to any official at all. I have felt the very serious difficulty in connection with this matter ever since the original Act was passed, and I have made inquiries as to what has been done in Germany. According to my information, which is only second-hand, they have passed the necessary Proclamation or Act, the equivalent to which I have embodied in a Clause lower on the Paper, giving to every German subject the option of saying whether such contract should be cancelled or postponed until after the War without prejudice to the British subject's right to recover damages for non-fulfilment or delay. None of these contracts can be carried out at present, and everybody wants to know how they stand with regard to them. The Clause under discussion relates to only a very small portion of the subject, and involves considerable technical and departmental difficulties. I have no prejudice in favour of the words of my own Clause, but the idea there embodied is, I am informed, the exact counterpart of what the Germans have done to us in similar cases. I am sure that the Attorney-General has given this subject his very earnest consideration. I do not know what determination the Law Officers of the Crown have come to, because so far as I can see there is no new Clause or Amendment down in their name. I am not sure that I have worded my Amendment in the proper manner, but I do think that the proper way to dispose of the whole subject of these contracts is to give British subjects the right or option either to say that they must be carried out at the end of the War, or to be put a stop to now; the British subject not to be deprived of a claim for damages if he has got one.
    Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order. Are we to be free to discuss the Amendment of the hon. Member who has just spoken? We do not want two or three discussions upon it. If the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire sees his way to withdraw this Clause, and take the discussion upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liverpool, which is all that my hon. Friend wants to enable us to put the point more definitely, I think it would be convenient. I wish to raise the question of reinsurance treaties, and I much prefer to do it on the hon. Member's Clause than on the combined Clause.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We will take the question before the Committee on the present Clause, and I shall consider when we come to the other new Clause whether the discussion on this has covered it or not?
    Sir J. SIMON: On a point of Order, and with great respect to you, may I say that we have already had this matter up this afternoon. The hon. and learned Member who sits below the Gangway had an Amendment which raised it, and I rather understood then that Mr. Whitley, gathering the general sense of the Committee, was disposed to suggest to my hon. Friend that one and only one discussion would suffice. I am sure that was your view.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That was in my mind.
    Sir J. SIMON: It is nothing to me whether we have the Debate on one or the other Amendment; but it would be too much to have it over again in a different form.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If we take it here on this Amendment we cannot have it over again.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I recognise, as I am sure everbody does, the very complex nature of the subject which is exercising a great number of traders in the City, who desire to know whether in fact existing contracts with Germans are put an end to by the War or are only suspended. There are those who think that the issue of the War ipso facto puts an end to a contract with the enemy. There are others who think that the rights of the parties to the contract are only suspended and consequently that at the termination of the War one may sue the other. The
    1236
    kind of case that is in my mind, and which makes it so essential that we should deal with this proposition now if we can, is a case brought before me the other day of a very large firm in England producing goods which require to be finished. They have a contract with a German firm to send all their output for treatment, and this contract is for a period of ten years. The English firm is sure that that contract is put an end to, or can be put an end to, at their option. They are prepared to carry out that treatment in England, and to spend very large sums in England upon the erection of the plant required. Thereby they will give a great deal of employment to English people both in the erection of the factory and in the ultimate treatment of the product. Very rightly, however, they want to be told that if they do that, that if they treat the contract as broken, and make these extensive arrangements to deal with their product themselves in the future, they will be doing the right thing. All I suggest to the House is that any contract for the future supply of goods to enemies which was in existence on 4th August or which may be entered into during the currency of the War is hereby declared to be null and void.
    I put it in that somewhat drastic form because I think the commercial community wants to know plainly one way or the other whether such contracts are absolutely at an end. I confine it to contracts for the future supply of goods because it seems to me to be the simplest, though the most important, form of contract which is likely to be effected by the War. I think I ought to have added an option to the English contractor to either determine the contract or not as he pleases, because there may be contracts which the English contractor entered into which he would like to revise at the expiration of the War and does not want to cancel. I should therefore like a Clause to be inserted in the Act giving that option. I know it is a difficult subject and, as has been said several times in this House, we want to deal fairly even with an enemy's contract. In the meantime, the commercial community is, I know, very much disturbed. I have received several representations upon the matter, and know that the commercial community is very much disturbed as to what is the present position. I cannot support the proposed new Clause which is now before the House—because I do not

    1237
    think the Board of Trade is the proper authority to determine the matter—and because I am not sure I can go quite so far as the adoption of the German system advocated by the hon. Friend on my right. I should like, reposing complete trust in the Attorney-General—and the whole House has that complete confidence in the right hon. and learned Gentleman—to press him to see if he can—taking the crux of the various Amendments before the House—as far as possible to introduce into this Bill a Clause which will set at rest the doubt at the present time existing; and shall declare—because this is what people want—whether at option running contracts may be terminated.
    Mr. BOOTH: When the Attorney-General speaks I would like him, if he can, to give some pronouncement which will settle the difficulty in which Insurance companies find themselves who have reinsurance treaties. Those treaties operate in both ways. Sometimes they are treaties by which risks are given to German companies, and sometimes they are treaties by which they accept risks from German companies.
    Mr. MORTON: I am not wedded to my own Clause, and if the Attorney-General or anybody else can see a better way out of this difficulty, I shall only be too pleased to withdraw my Amendment.
    Sir J. SIMON: I, indeed, wish I could do all those things which hon. Members are so kind as to say they will be much gratified if I will do. Let us remember what is the dimension of the problem which I have been asked to solve. Our exports to Germany run into something like one hundred millions in times of peace. Trade both ways between the two countries in times of peace is considerable. Even if we confine ourselves to commercial contracts, though none of these Amendments seem to do so—for there are contracts of marriage and others—what is involved in dealing with this matter? In any of those ways, or anything like them, it is dealing with a stupendous commercial proposition. Of course, that is no reason why it should not be dealt with.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: It must be.
    Sir J. SIMON: It is no reason, but very much the contrary. But the
    1238
    complication of this problem is such that it really almost baffles the most active imagination. I have noticed very much in all those suggestions—and I have had a great number of them, there are a number of them on the Paper—that they have this common feature, and really it is only an illustration of the defect of the human mind. It does not matter who it is who makes a suggestion in order to deal with this subject; he has always a Clause that will suit the case that he has in mind. My hon. Friend below the Gangway comes from Scotland and he talks about the City of London.
    Mr. MORTON: Why not?
    Sir J. SIMON: Quite right, of course, but he is speaking of a case that affects the City of London.
    Mr. MORTON: My case affects the whole of the big towns and cities of the United Kingdom.
    Sir J. SIMON: I wonder whether my hon. Friend was speaking of contracts on the Liverpool Cotton Exchange or the London Stock Exchange and contracts of insurance and reinsurance. There are all sorts of cases. I am not complaining. I am pointing out that this is a terrific business and it is very difficult for anybody, I do not care how active and wide his imagination might be, even to devise a form of words which would apply. There is this second thing I want to point out. I confess for my part I should conceive there was a rooted objection to enacting that settled contracts made between two parties should in case of the outbreak of war be voidable at the option of one of the parties. That would be reducing the commercial law of this country to the level of the most disreputable republic in South America. I have heard what the hon. Gentleman opposite said, but his information, as he told us, is not first-hand, and I would be grateful if he would show me the original of that about which he says he has information. I have got to deal with information from the Board of Trade which is quite accurate, and I am bound to say that the information we have does not go to show that the German Government is the tremendous menace in this and other directions in our trade contracts as sometimes supposed. If they have done what is suggested it was very wrong and very foolish.

    1239
    Nothing could destroy the reputation of a country in its trade so rapidly as jerrymandering commercial contracts to which its subjects are parties. Therefore whatever we do I do not think I could contemplate a change which says that contracts which may be binding on two sides are in the case of something that has happened, to be voidable at the option of one side. It means that an Englishman who thought he had got a good bargain would stick to it, and if he had got a bad bargain he would repudiate it, and that a man who, because of the War, finds the price he is going to pay is bigger than the price he likes to pay should be allowed to repudiate it, but if because of the War the price he is going to pay is lower than the price now he would stick to it. That is not a doctrine to which anybody concerned in our commercial interests would ever subscribe.
    Putting that on one side, and I understand the suggestion was only thrown out for the purpose of consideration, you are faced with this: You cannot deal with this matter by giving people an option to declare whether they are going to be bound by their contracts or not. You are dealing with problems of almost infinite complexity and variation. It would not be of any service to anybody if I were to express my own view upon the subject, and of course it would not bind anybody. But just to explain my own difficulty I would say this: I think most persons who are qualified to form an opinion on this matter would say, that there are some contracts which had not been completed before the War broke out which properly are voided and brought to an end by the War. I think most persons would say there are other contracts about which it would be very rash to affirm that they were absolutely destroyed because the War broke out. There may be, and I have no doubt there are contracts, the performance of which during the War, are entirely suspended. But it would be a very strong proposition to say that every contract, as a matter of fact, is brought to a summary conclusion because of the War.
    Hon. Members may say that is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. Here is a situation in which some contracts fall into one class, and others into another class, and nobody seems able to draw the line. The line would be drawn under other circumstances by a judicial
    1240
    authority, and I do not know any other way in which such a line could be drawn. There is only one alternative and that is that it should appear on investigation, which it would be a very laborious and extremely difficult to conduct, that there actually is a consensus of opinion that the true rule—and when I say the true rule I mean a rule that commends itself to commercial persons and those acquainted with our legal institutions—that the true rule is so-an-so, and if you were able as a result of some consideration and consultation to say whether it is pretty clear that this formula or proposition is right and commends itself to the good sense of our people and does not confer any illegitimate advantage on one man as against the other, and if what you are doing is simply to enact that which has been found upon investigation by common consent to be the true view, then not only would you be doing no harm but you would be doing immense good. I am bound to say I am not very hopeful of arriving at any such conclusion, even in consultation with those who are best able to advise. I think what you would find, if you made such investigation, is that the only rule you could lay down would be a rule so hedged round with exceptions or, at any rate, expressed in such vague terms and raising questions as to whether the outbreak of the War went to the root of the contract, which is only solving one question by asking another. I doubt whether, at the end, the commercial interests of the country would consider they were getting anything worth having. It is perfectly possible to try.
    I have not been indolent, and I thought it my duty, at the very beginning of the War, to suggest to some distinguished lawyers on the other side of the House, that this might be a good thing to do, and I have consulted many times those best qualified to speak. I am perfectly clear it cannot be done by this new Clause or any other new Clause in this Bill. It is not due to the Attorney-General or the Government, but because of the nature of things. If you have a country that will engage in such variety of contracts, and contracts with Germans in time of peace, and thereby make great profits for themselves and other people, you must accept this difficulty. My hon. Friend behind me referred to the case of insurance and reinsurance. I know the case very well indeed. I should be very sorry I to affirm that I am certain of the answer.

    1241
    There again I believe it would be possible to have useful conference and discussion, but unless I was satisfied there was a simple rule to be laid down by an Act, which was not only fair and right but a thing which those concerned universally accepted and regarded as what they wished, I do not see what the good would be. The real truth is that there are some people at this moment in this country who believe that their contract will not be terminated at the outbreak of War, and there are others who think the opposite; therefore, if you have to have a rule at all, it must be one that will do justice between those two sets of people. It may be that a man has purchased from Germany and arranged a contract for future deliveries at a certain price, and on the face of that he may have resold to another British subject at a big profit; and it may be that this second person has sold to a third person. How are you going to deal with that case? Is one party to have the opportunity of declaring the contract off, while the other must carry it out? I know that I shall be reproached with not taking a bold course, but I am sorry to say that I have not found the answer to this problem, and I really doubt whether it is to be found. What I do say is that it is quite impossible to legislate upon this problem by putting new Clauses into this Bill.
    I have this suggestion to make: If I gather, as the result of a consultation with hon. Members in this House and citizens outside, that it is really desirable to make a trial, I would endeavour to get the help of a limited number of those who would be able to help. Most probably I should get the help of one or two hon. Members of this House, and one or two of great commercial experience and persons capable of accuracy of commercial expression, because it is no good unless you are in a position to say what you want definitely both for yourselves and everybody else. Some of them might be persons of judicial experience, and I would like to see in this way whether it is possible to arrive at any concensus of opinion in regard to the law of contract that applies to these cases. But I warn the Committee, although I shall do my best, that I believe you will be left with a formula which will involve a series of new questions. That is not due to want of enterprise, or want of imagination on the part of this or that man, but it is due to the fact that from the very nature of the case
    1242
    we are faced with a difficulty which is greatly inconvenient and not well understood by the commercial community and many others, but it is a difficulty which we have done our best to meet on some other lines by the moratorium in the first instance, by the advance of Government credit and assistance embodied in the War Obligations Bill, which may have to be met in other ways. For that reason I am sorry to have to say that I cannot accept this Clause or any Clause which I have yet seen to deal with this matter. I doubt whether the whole topic of this Clause is within the ambit of the Bill. This measure deals with trading with the enemy, and what that has to do with the common law of England upon contracts at the outbreak of war I have difficulty in seeing. I agree that it is a proper discussion to raise, but I regret to have to confess that up to the present I have no solution to offer. If it is desired, I shall try and get further information in the way I have suggested, and I have the authority of the Prime Minister when I say that he would approve of such an attempt being made if it is really desired. Whether it will give us any real assistance or not I am very doubtful.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: Would you bring in a Bill?
    Sir J. SIMON: Yes, if we could agree.
    Mr. BOOTH: Whether the suggestion which has been made will solve all the difficulties or not, at any rate I believe it would solve very quickly the question of reinsurance treaties. I think that could be settled in a few hours, and I do not think it would require much expert knowledge. I think those with a judicial mind could very soon come to a decision. I am very hopeful that even if the larger question was not solved that this question of reinsurance, and perhaps some other very important matters, might be successfully treated. The question of the reinsurance of contracts is a matter of urgency, and cannot be put right at the termination of the War like some other contracts. What we are anxious about is not so much a favourable decision as to have some decision. Suppose a company reinsured half its risk upon hulls with a German company; suppose it had an insurance of £10,000 risk with the White Star Company and £10,000 with a German company when the War broke out, does that contract run

    1243
    on or does it not? That is what the London company wishes to know. In a certain sense it is not material whether it does or does not, because if the contract terminated when the War broke out an arrangement would be made with another company. At present the English company does not know whether it will have to pay both companies for the same risk, and therefore I suggest that it is highly important that there should be some decision in this matter.
    The Attorney-General challenged any hon. Member of the House to make a suggestion that offered something like a solution, and I think I can make one. I suggest that where any reinsurance contracts were in existence upon the outbreak of war they should be treated as if both companies had come into voluntary liquidation. There would have to be a settling up of accounts, and the contract would not have to go on beyond a certain date, and a strict account would have to be kept. That seems to me fair on both sides. I should be sorry to suggest a solution of the difficulty of English companies which would be unfair to German companies, and I have in mind contracts made both ways. It does seem to me that if both companies went into voluntary liquidation and made up their accounts to that date, they could leave things in suspense until the Government determined how the money should be appropriated and in the meantime, free the companies on both sides. They must feel they want to be free in order to carry out their business. I therefore suggest that it is important, not merely to consider something which will suit a particular company, but something which will be fair to insurance companies of both countries, and I think the suggestion which I make is equitable. I am quite sure that a short conference of the description outlined by the Attorney-General, if they commenced at this part of their labours, would do some practical good in the course of a few hours, which would be of very great service to the insurance community.
    Mr. DENNISS: One thing is perfectly clear, and that is that no satisfactory Clause can be put in this Bill dealing with this enormous question. It is also clear that this House has very little time for a general discussion of questions of only academic interest. I want to see this Bill
    1244
    go through, but there are other Bills on the Paper which have to be got through. What is the use, therefore, of wasting time on a question which it is only practical for lawyers of great ability to discuss, and in regard to which we can never arrive at any definite conclusion, and can never put anything into this Bill. If we had unlimited time the discussion would be exceedingly interesting, and might lead to some conclusion, such as the appointment of a Committee to consider whether it were advisable to have any legislation on the subject, and then, if they thought it was, to the bringing in of a Bill ad hoc for that purpose. It must be a separate Bill. If you limited it to commercial cases only, you would have to take every possible commercial case, get, sound legal opinions as to the position of the parties to such contracts, and either put these sound opinions in a series of Clauses in a Bill, or else try to draw some general principles or conclusions from them and put them into a Bill. They would be in general terms, and they might be less satisfying to the commercial men of this country than things are as they now stand.
    The proper way to settle the question of what ought to be done with regard to insurance and re-insurance is not to ask this House to decide it by Act of Parliament, but to have the legal position of the parties decided by a judge of the High Court in the usual way. To try and get the Attorney-General to give a legal opinion upon the position of all the various contracts at the outbreak of the War is to try and do cheaply that which can be done in the usual course by going to a solicitor, getting counsel's opinion upon it, and, if necessary having test cases tried in a Court of Law. That is the proper way for people to have determined what is the effect of the War upon their contracts. I entirely agree with all the learned Attorney-General has said with regard to the different effects which the War may have upon contracts, and it ought to be sufficient for us to-night to know that it is impossible for us ever to put a Clause in this Bill, and I do appeal to Members—there are so many lawyers present, and it is such a fascinating subject—not to attempt to discuss the matter. If they do, there will not be time to carry the other Bills on the Paper, and even this Bill might be endangered, because the Prime Minister has told us that if the discussion on this Bill were too long it would have to be withdrawn.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: Would not the simple course be for the hon. Member proposing this new Clause to withdraw it, having regard to the speech of the Attorney-General, and for other hon. Members who have similar new Clauses down not to move, so that the subject might drop.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. MORTON: I have no doubt I shall have to withdraw it, but I am exceedingly sorry that the Attorney-General did not see his way to help us in any way in dealing with this question. His position is very inconsistent. He comes to Parliament and asks us to say, "You shall not deal with the enemy," and, further, "You shall not pay him any money," and yet we cannot deal with contracts. Those who know anything about public life know that there are hundreds of ways in which contracts are declared null and void for less reason than a war with Germany and Austria. We want to see this question settled, and it is a most extraordinary thing if my proposal or the proposal of some other hon. Member is not the best way to do it, that the Government do not find out a way. I have no personal feeling whatever in the matter, and I know it refers to many other subjects besides the repair of the streets. I only mention that case because it illustrates the difficulty we are in. The Government say to us, "You shall not repair them any longer," and in the meantime they are asking us to darken all the streets, so that the Zeppelins shall not land here.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That does not seem relative to the Amendment. Does the hon. Member wish to withdraw it?
    Mr. MORTON: Yes. I was just finishing my speech. The hon. Member opposite thinks that we should not take up time in discussing the Bill. I am sorry that he took up so much time. I have sat here quietly all the evening, and only intervened when I had Amendments on the Paper. I ask leave to withdraw, but I wish to express my deep regret that the Government have done nothing to assist us in this matter.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Board of Trade may Terminate Contracts in Certain Cases.)
    That power may be given to the Board of Trade to terminate contracts, made by or with any company, the majority of
    1246
    whose shareholders are foreigners, subjects of any country with which this country is at war, for the sale of products of such a character that the knowledge of their sale and distribution is or may be detrimental to national interests during or after the War, or may inflict material damage upon British subjects proprietors of articles in which the company trades.
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    I have put down this new Clause with the object of satisfying a great grievance in the commercial community. Since the War many hardships have been suffered by commercial firms who have contracts with companies established in this country for distribution The majority of the shares in these companies are held by German subjects—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It seems to me that the substance of the Motion which the hon. Member is about to make has been already covered by the discussion. I understood it was agreed that all the discussion with regard to contracts should be taken on the Amendment which has been withdrawn.
    Mr. S. SAMUEL: It does not cover the same subject at all.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will confine his remarks to the difference between his Motion and the Motion we have already discussed, I am sure it will shorten our proceedings.
    Mr. S. SAMUEL: I will be as brief as I can. A company established here and having a majority of German shareholders have a contract with British companies, owners of proprietary articles. In consequence of the War the opponents of this company travel through the country and tell its customers that they are dealing with a German company, and they induce the customers to leave this German company and to enter into contracts with them. The object of my Clause is that, where British subjects are suffering from this serious injustice, they should be enabled to put the matter before the President of the Board of Trade, who should judge whether, under the circumstances, the trade in this company's proprietaries is suffering loss in consequence of the association with the German undertaking, and

    1247
    whether they should be relieved at least for the period of the War, so as to be able to do their distribution notwithstanding that contracts exist and that this company should be able to continue its trade without prejudice. In the case of a German individual trading in this country his business has been absolutely shut up, and, consequently, if a contract of that kind did exist with him as an individual distributor it would automatically come to an end. I would ask the Attorney-General whether, under the circumstances, he cannot see some way in which he can give relief from this great grievance under which the commercial community is suffering. I am afraid the Committee is very tired of hearing arguments, but this is a point which has not been referred to before, and I shall be very glad if the Board of Trade can find some means of giving relief in these cases.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Although, as the hon. Member suggested, there is a superficial difference between his Clause and the others that have come before us, I would point out that this Clause comes under the same objection as has been made to the other proposals for legislation on the subject of contracts. You cannot lay down a general principle that all these contracts are to be terminated.
    Mr. SAMUEL: They can be treated on their merits when put before the Board of Trade; it is not obligatory.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: As regards the power of the Board of Trade to deal with this question, may I point out that companies of the kind the hon. Member has described are precisely the companies which would be brought under observation under the powers we already possess and under the extended powers proposed to be given under this Bill. Companies such as the hon. Gentleman described will be inspected, and there will be power to continue the inspection and to secure financial supervision, and even to appoint a controller who could take practically the managing direction of the whole concern, and in that way prevent the carrying on of any business at all injurious to the interests of this nation. The general argument against dealing with an enemy country gives a sufficient reason for not embodying in the Bill this new Clause which raises the whole thorny problem of legislation on contracts.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to use Information in Prosecutions.)
    "That where a person has given any information to a person appointed to inspect the books and documents of any person, firm or company under Section 2 of the Principal Act, the information so given may be used in evidence against him in any proceedings relating to the offence of trading with the enemy within the meaning of the Principal Act, notwithstanding that he only gave the information on being required so to do by the inspector in pursuance of his powers under the said Section."
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am not surprised that some hon. Members should think this to be a rather strong proposal. But I may point out to the Committee that there is already a precedent for this Clause in the recent Bankruptcy Act, which makes a similar provision with regard to the examination of a bankrupt. As regards the merits of the Clause, which I see does not favourably impress the hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool. I have only to say, firstly, it would not have been pressed save as a matter of urgent emergency legislation, and secondly, that no prosecution will take place in connection with this Act save by the authority of the Attorney-General, which authority would, of course, be scrupulously used to prevent anything in the nature of oppressive procedure under the powers conferred. The Clause appears to me to be at least as necessary in this case as it was felt to be in regard to bankruptcy legislation.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: I am sorry to have to object to anything that comes from the Government on this Bill at this stage of our proceedings. We have all been working together for a couple of hours, but now we have come to a Clause not on the Paper, which we have had no opportunity of seeing. What is the effect of it? As far as I can gather, when one of these inspectors, appointed under the original Act, comes in to inspect a

    1249
    business, and happens to ask a clerk or anybody else for a bit of information and gets it, he is to be at liberty to use that information for the purpose of prosecuting the person who gave it him. I think that it is playing it rather low down. I have always consistently, for the last twelve years, opposed in this House making any new offence that can possibly be avoided, and I think to give an inspector or any official appointed by the Board of Trade power to get this information and then to take advantage of it for purposes of prosecution—if that is the effect of the Clause—then I must very strongly object to it. I would suggest that the proper course would be to put this Clause down for the Report stage We could then see it in print and examine it, and if it does not turn out to be so bad as we fear then we will do our best to agree to it. But at present, as I understand it, it is a most objectionable Clause.
    Mr. MORTON: I am not going to object to this Clause, because I did not hear half of it, but I do object to its not having been put on the Paper, seeing that there has been ample time to do that. I should like to ask if, seeing that it is intended to take the Report stage to-morrow, we can have the Bill printed and obtainable, at least in the Vote Office, before we proceed to deal with it.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The Bill will be printed and hon. Members will have an opportunity, therefore, of seeing it.
    Mr. MORTON: Before we proceed to discuss it to-morrow?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Yes, it will be circulated in due course to-morrow. In reply to the hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool I venture to suggest that his objections are unnecessary. The Clause only provides that in the case where information is given, it may be used in evidence in criminal proceedings, as is done in the case of the bankruptcy laws. It may easily be that information thus obtained, may be of the first importance in making out a case. However, I have no objection to the suggestion of the hon. Member that this matter should be considered on Report to-morrow.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    Preamble added to the Bill.
    Bill, as amended, reported; to be considered To-morrow.

  FINANCE BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  FINANCE BILL.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Reduction of Licence Duty where Hours of Sale are Curtailed.)
    (1) If the holder of a retailer's on-licence proves that the sale or consumption of intoxicating liquor on his premises has in any year been suspended during any hours under the Intoxicating Liquor (Temporary Restriction) Act, 1914, he shall be entitled to a repayment of any duty paid by him in respect of his licence at the rate per annum of one-fifteenth part of the duty for every hour or part of an hour that the sale or consumption has been so suspended.
    This provision shall not have effect as respects premises in any area to which the Secretary of State orders that it is not to apply owing to the increased opportunities afforded for the sale of intoxicating liquor due to the concentration of troops in the area.
    (2) In order to make provision for the case where hours of sale are curtailed by Section seven of the Temperance (Scotland) Act, 1913, the holder of a retailer's on-licence in Scotland shall (in addition to any other relief granted by this Section) be entitled to a rebate of two-fifteenths of the duty payable by him in respect of his licence.
    (3) The amount of any duty repaid or allowed under this Section shall in no case exceed one-fourth part of the whole duty payable by the licence holder in respect of his licence.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after "1914" ["Intoxicating Liquor (Temporary Restriction) Act, 1914"], to insert the words "or under any Regulations made in pursuance of the Defence of the Realm Act, 1914, or any Act re-enacting that Act with or without Amendment."
    Under Clause 8 a reduction in Licence Duty is legislated for in cases where under legislation passed this Session—the Intoxicating Liquor (Temporary Restriction) Act, 1913—public-houses are closed earlier. Since the Committee stage it has been brought to our notice that there is a certain curtailment of hours going on in certain parts of the country, not under that Statute at all, but under the Defence of the Realm Act. It seems a hard case that the public-house licensee is to get the benefit of this provision if he closes under

    1251
    one Statute but not if he closes earlier under the other Statute. I move this Amendment to meet that case.
    Mr. WATT: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he proposes to deal with the question of grocers' licences in Scotland, which come under this particular Clause? So far as I understand the matter, when it was brought up the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised that he would inquire into it and if he found that these licence holders in Scotland suffered any loss from the diminution of hours under the Temperance (Scotland Act), 1913, he would grant them a rebate of 3–15ths for the reduction of hours. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows, and the right hon. Gentleman knows, that the hours are reduced there and that these people are not allowed to open their shops under that particular Act until ten o'clock in the morning, whereas formerly they opened at eight o'clock. The 3–15ths reduction is being given to one section of the trade—the on-licence holders—but the off-licence holders who hold grocers' licences are not being granted the same privilege. They think they are suffering a loss and disadvantage in this respect, and they have sought to be put on the same footing as the on-licensees. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will consider that point.
    Mr. MONTAGU: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given very careful consideration to the proposal made yesterday on the Committee stage that the off-licences should be included in the proposal, but at present we are not prepared to recommend the proposal to extend this reduction to the off-licence holders. If a man has a licence for the consumption of intoxicating liquor on the premises then, as the best-intentioned among us can only drink at a certain rate, the curtailment of hours must mean a certain reduction in consumption. But when a man goes to premises to buy liquor which he drinks off them, it does not mean that there will be necessarily a reduction of consumption because of the reduction in the hours. For that reason my right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot agree to the suggestion.
    Question, "That the words or under any Regulations made in pursuance of the Defence of the Realm Act, 1914, or any Act re-enacting that Act with or without Amendment' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 12.—(Relief in Respect of Diminution of Income Due to War.)
    (1) Section one hundred and thirty-three of the Income Tax Act, 1842, and Section six of the Revenue Act, 1865 (which provide for the reduction of assessments or the repayment of duty in certain cases where the profits of the year of assessment fall short of the sum on which the assessment has been made), shall, notwithstanding their repeal by Section twenty-four of the Finance Act, 1907, have effect as respects any assessment to Income Tax for the current Income Tax year where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners by whom the assessment has been made that the diminution of profits and gains on account of which relief is claimed under those Sections is due to circumstances attributable directly or indirectly to the present war, whether those circumstances are a specific cause of the diminution of income within the meaning of Section one hundred and thirty-four of the Income Tax Act, 1842, or not; and in any case where relief can be given un der this Section, the said Section one hundred and thirty-four shall not apply.
    The foregoing provision, in its application to the case of any person who, in connection with the present war, is or has been serving as a member of any of the Military or Naval Forces of the Crown, or in any work abroad of the British Red Cross Society, or the Saint John Ambulance Association, or any other body with similar objects, shall be construed as if that provision referred only to Section one hundred and thirty-three of the Income Tax Act, 1842, and contained no reference to Section six of the Revenue Act, 1865.
    (2) Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners for the special purposes of the Acts relating to Income Tax that the actual income from all sources of any individual charged to Super-tax for the current Income Tax year is or will be less than two-thirds of the income on which he is liable to be so charged, he shall be entitled to postpone the payment of so much of the Super-tax payable by him as represents the difference between the tax payable on the income on which he is liable to be assessed and the tax which would have been payable by him if he had been assessed on his actual income; and any amount of which the payment is so postponed shall, subject to any provisions which may be made by Parliament, become payable on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and sixteen.
    (3) Section fifty-nine of the Taxes Management Act, 1880 (which relates to the statement of a case on a point of law), shall apply to cases in which relief is claimed under this Section.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.
    I do this because I want to ask a question of the Government with regard to Super-tax and the new Sub-section introduced by the Government the other day. Supposing Super-tax is paid on the 1st January or shortly afterwards, and then, when the end of the year comes, namely, 31st March, it is discovered that the person who has paid the Super-Tax would be entitled to the concession given by this Clause, in other words, that he has paid a great deal too much Super-tax, I want to receive an assurance from the Government that in that case he would be entitled to the repayment of the amount he has overpaid?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Certainly.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Having received that answer, I beg leave to withdraw.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "in any case where" ["and in any case where relief can be given under this Section"], and to insert instead thereof the words "diminution of profits and gains on account of which."
    This is really little more than a drafting Amendment. Under Section 134 of the Income Tax Act certain relief is granted in the case of the death or bankruptcy of the Income Tax payer. It was the intention of the Committee, when it passed Clause 12 in its present form—that being in the new provision the re-enactment of Section 133—that if owing to reduced profits an Income Tax payer was entitled to relief he should not get the relief for those same reduced profits under Section 134. As the Clause is drawn, when a man has had relief under Section 133 as re-enacted, even if he died or was bankrupt, he would not have relief under Section 134. It was not intended to take the whole of that Section away, and therefore I propose to move Amendments so that the Clause may read, "and diminution of profits and gains on account of which relief can be given under this Section shall not be deemed to be a specific case authorising the grant of relief under the said Section 134." The
    1254
    effect of that will be that the Income Tax payer will not be entitled to double relief, but he will still have the rights in other circumstances which Section 134 gives him. It is little more than a drafting Amendment, but it ensures the Income Tax payer against hardship.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: After the word "Section" ["can be given under this Section"], insert the words "shall not be deemed to be a specific case authorising the grant of relief under."
    Leave out the words "shall not apply."—[Mr. Montagu.]
    Mr. BUTCHER: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words,
    "Provided that during the continuance of the present War, no duty of Income Tax shall be levied on or payable out of the pay of any person serving in the Naval or Military Forces of the Crown."
    I propose to confine this exemption, so that it will only last during the continuance of the War. There was a proposal made in Committee that officers of the Navy or Army should be totally exempted from Income Tax in respect of their income. That was negatived. My proposal is far more limited in character. What I propose is, that they shall not be called upon to pay Income Tax in respect of the pay which they receive as officers. I do not think that is a very excessive demand to make in favour of the men who are fighting our battles, or indeed in favour of that comparatively limited number of men who remain at home—officers of the Navy and Army—who have to work under exceptional strain and have to put in an amount of work far beyond that which they ever do in times of peace. As regards our fighting men, I suggest that they already make a splendid contribution in their heroic services, their sufferings, their hardships, their dangers, and often in giving their lives. It is not reasonable that in addition to that special contribution they should be also asked to pay an increased contribution this year out of the relatively small income which they get by way of pay towards the cost of the War.
    This is not a time when our officers ought to be asked to make any deduction from their pay when they are already rendering these services. The duty of meeting the expenses of the War ought,

    1255
    in my judgment at any rate, mainly to fall upon those who are staying at home and those who, for one cause or another, are unable to serve their country in the field, and I feel confident that practically the entire mass of the population who stay at home would be only too glad to pay the small additional taxation which would fall upon them if the Treasury would give this relief to the officers who are fighting our battles. There really seems to be an exceptional hardship in asking them to pay Income Tax out of their pay at present because you have this result. Not only have they all the hardships of the War to suffer, but they are called upon to pay 2s. 6d. in the £ out of their income in addition to suffering these exceptional hardships and rendering those splendid services which they give to the country. It is certainly right that they should be relieved of the extra expense, the doubled Income Tax which falls upon other Members of the community, and it is right that they should be relieved of the whole of the Income Tax, at any rate, so long as the War goes on.
    Then what is the official answer? This suggestion was made on the Second Reading, and the official answer seemed to me to be exceedingly feeble, ineffective, and inconclusive. They said these officers will get extra pay. An Army Order has come out to-day. I have not had time to study its effect, but undoubtedly it gives additional pay to officers up to the rank of captain. No additional pay is given beyond that rank except, I think, in the case of majors of the Army Service Corps. I am not saying whether the increase of pay is adequate or not, because I have not studied it. Let me assume that it is perfectly adequate. It is in fact long overdue. It has been admitted time after time in times of peace that the pay of these Army and Navy officers is entirely inadequate, and when this tardy act of justice is rendered in favour of a limited class of officers, we are asked to say this is entirely sufficient for them as a recognition of their services.
    This increase of pay, such as it is, is an increase to which they were entitled in peace time, and it is quite idle to say it is any adequate recognition of their services in war or constitutes any reason whatsoever why you should not give them this special exemption, so long as the War lasts. They have been entitled for many years past to this concession as
    1256
    regards pay. The matter now comes under consideration, and quite apart from the question of the amount of their pay, the question arises whether they should not receive their pay during war time without this deduction for Income Tax. I do not know how much it will cost the Treasury. I do not suppose it can be a very large sum, at any rate relatively to the enormous sum which this War is costing us, and which we shall have to spend before we bring it to a successful issue. Not merely as an act of justice, but as an act of recognition of the exceptional way in which our troops have distinguished themselves in this War, the Government, might meet the case and grant this exemption to men who certainly, whatever else they have done, have done worthy service and proved themselves to be worthy of the deepest gratitude of the country.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I regret to have to undertake the very disagreeable task of endeavouring to persuade the House not to pass this Amendment. I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will understand that it is not because of any lack of appreciation of the services rendered by those upon whose behalf he speaks, but it is rather from a belief that that consideration hardly enters into it at all. The services they are rendering are not services which we can recognise by small sums of money. As a matter of fact, what the hon. and learned Gentleman really seeks to do is to increase the pay of officers. It always seems to me to be a far better principle, rather than let off from a particular tax a particular part of our Army, that the right way to accomplish the same object is to increase their pay. It was with the view of doing that that the Army Orders were published this morning. The cost to the taxpayers during the War will amount to £1,150,000 a year, a far greater boon to officers than this Amendment would represent. If the hon. and learned Member thinks that even that is not sufficient, I would most respectfully suggest to him that it would be a far sounder principle on which to go to urge upon the House at the proper time that they should get a still further increase rather than to suggest that while the soldiers have to pay taxes on their beer, tea and tobacco, a certain portion should get off the Income Tax. The Committee did, on the recommendation of my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General yesterday make a concession in regard to

    1257
    the Income Tax. We have generously increased the pay as announced this morning, and I venture to suggest that the House would do well to leave the matter there and not accept this Amendment.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate what the cost will be in time of peace?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I simply gave the figure for the extra cost which will be entailed during the War. It is very difficult to estimate what it will cost after peace comes. That will depend on the strength of the Army.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.

  TRUSTS BILL.
  Order for Second Heading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir S. Buckmaster): This is a small Bill designed to remove a difficulty in which men engaged on active service find themselves placed if they happen to be trustees. At the present time the law relating to the execution of trusts is complicated by two facts. One is that no body of trustees can delegate their powers. They must all act together or they cannot act at all. The second is that no trustee has any right to delegate his discretion to a third person. It follows, therefore, that if a man be a trustee and he be engaged on active service, the whole of the execution of the trust must be suspended, or, at any rate, seriously interfered with while, this one trustee is away. This Bill is designed to remove that difficulty by providing that, for the period which is measured by the duration of the War and one month thereafter, a trustee who is engaged on active service, may act through a deputy, whom he appoints under Power of Attorney, which has to be attested by one or more witnesses. I am informed by people, who have the management of large family estates in their hands, that the need for this Bill has been already felt, and unless we pass it, a man who goes on active service must either resign his trusteeship or be rendered liable to have another
  1258
  trustee appointed in his place. Therefore this Bill should be passed in order to enable the execution of trusts to be done. I do not think it is necessary that I should take the House in detail through the Clauses. The only important matter is that active service is defined in Clause 1, Sub-section (2), as being not merely active service as a member of the Naval or Military Forces, but also the service of man who are engaged in the work of the British Red Cross Society, or St. John's Ambulance Association, or who happen to be prisoners interned in an enemy country. Finally, there is provision in Clause 3 which states that the same powers may be exercised by a man who is not engaged in war service but who for any period is abroad for a reason in connection with the War. That is intended to cover the cases of people who, not being engaged in active service, have had their movements suspended in Germany during the War, for of course the same considerations affect them as affect those engaged in active operations in the field. I trust that the House will allow me to take the Bill now.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Gulland.]

  POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): This is a Bill of two Clauses which was rendered necessary by the action of the War Office as soon as the War broke out in requiring from the Irish Local Government Board the possession and use for the accommodation of troops of Irish workhouses. The one thing of which Ireland enjoys a plethora is empty workhouses. We were able to furnish the War Office with a list of thirty workhouses in different parts of the country with less than 100 inmates, and to place them at their disposal without any hardship to the poor. In anticipation of the provisions of this Bill, the paupers have already been boarded out or placed in other workhouses. That is an illegal proceeding. Under an Act passed in 1847 no pauper can be placed in any union except his or her own, and consequently I have

  1259
  to come to the House with this Bill to get an indemnity for illegalities already committed, and also security that I shall not be guilty of an illegality in allowing this action to be continued. I am glad that by this means one difficulty in the way of Poor Law union reform in Ireland will be removed, because we have far too many workhouses, and it is desirable that we should allow some workhouses to be used as lunatic asylums, and the like. But the immediate object of the Bill is that, notwithstanding Section 9 of the Act of 1847, the action which I described should be carried out.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I must disagree with the right hon. Gentleman that that is the sole effect of the Bill, though it is its sole object, The Bill goes a great deal further than that. I have no objection whatever to the Bill as outlined by the right hon. Gentleman, but have considerable objection to the Bill as drafted. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the object of the Bill is to allow the workhouses which are unoccupied to be handed over for the housing of the troops, and to provide that the paupers, who might possibly have been in the workhouses, should be lodged in other workhouses. To that I have no objection. The Bill goes much further than that. It gives power to the Local Government Board for Ireland to modify or repeal for any purpose in connection with the present War, or for the better administration of the Poor Law Relief Ireland Acts, 1838 to 1900. That, I maintain, gives power to the Irish Local Government Board to alter the whole of the Poor Law in Ireland without coming to this House. Further, Sub-section 2 provides that an order under this Section may contain such consequential, incidental and supplementary provisions, including provisions as to remuneration and superannuation of officers—what has that got to do with the War or the moving of troops into workhouses?—as the board may deem necessary, and shall have effect as from any date subsequent to the 1st day of August, 1914, which may be specified therein for the purpose. This is a Bill which must be amended to bring it into conformity with the right hon. Gentleman's description, and therefore I shall put down an Amendment to leave out Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 and also to leave out all those lines of Sub-section (1) which give power to the Board to modify or repeal anything which they deem necessary or expedient for any
  1260
  purpose in connection with the present War or for the better administration of the Poor Law Relief Ireland Act. After what the right hon. Gentleman has said as to the object of introducing this Bill I am sure that it will be quite impossible for him to refuse to accept my Amendment.
  Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Baronet has listened to one half of my speech and not to the other, for I said that I was very glad that the result of bringing in this Bill would be to enable us hereafter to deal with the workhouses which had been disused and handed over for other purposes, and after the paupers had been removed we should be able to deal with them in a rational and sensible manner hereafter. Though we can deal with the hon. Baronet's Amendment when it is put on the Paper, still in the course of this midnight reflection I would ask him to bear in mind that, if we are to take the paupers out of these workhouses, and remove them to other places, after the War is over it would be perfectly impossible to restore those paupers to the practically abandoned workhouse, and it would be most desirable to avail ourselves of that opportunity for the purpose of making a reform which has been the subject-matter of absolute agreement in a Poor Law Report to this House, which was fully considered, and which recommended that this course should be adopted.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I quite understood, from what the right hon. Gentleman said, that he was going to make an alteration in the law as regards workhouses, because of something rendered necessary by the present War. But I did not understand that after the War was over he was going to take advantage of emergency legislation passed because of the present War to make some other alterations.
  Mr. BIRRELL: What are you going to do with these workhouses? The paupers would be removed in other workhouses.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Pull them down.
  Mr. BIRRELL: That is a nice economical suggestion. There are many better ways in which they could be used. I am astonished at such an advocate of economy objecting to make an economical use of what is a by-product of the present situation.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: The point is, whether or not powers should be given

  1261
  to a Government Department beyond what is necessary for the purpose of the War. If no further powers are given, nobody on this side of the House would object.
  Mr. BIRRELL: These powers are consequential.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: There are powers here including such matters as superannuation.
  Mr. BIRRELL: We can discuss that when the Amendment is put down.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: It would be very much better that the Government should consent to the Bill being restricted so that no powers should be given beyond what are absolutely necessary for the War at the present time.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Gulland.]

  NATIONAL INSURANCE (NAVY AND ARMY) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Dr. Addison): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  The object of this Bill is to secure for soldiers and sailors, when they pass from the Army, the benefits of insurance from the Navy or Army Insurance Fund. When a man is discharged from the service he comes automatically off the fund, and unless he can show the Commissioners, within a reasonable time, that by reason of the state of his health he is unable to enter a society, he cannot then be placed again on the fund. But the fact is that a considerable number of men on discharge, although the necessary papers are given to them, are quite unacquainted with this procedure, and do not avail themselves of it. The result is that these men drop out of insurance on the Army and Navy Fund and are not able, because of their disablement, to enter a society, and the consequence is that they disappear from sight altogether, or become deposit contributors. The object of this Bill is simply to secure that these classes of soldiers and sailors on discharge during the present War, will continue to be entitled to receive the benefits from the Army and Navy Fund
  1262
  while they are disabled, and in the case of a man, who, the Commissioners have reason to think, is in good health and can enter a society, notice shall be given him by the Commissioners that unless he can show to their satisfaction that on account of his health no society will take him, he will be required to enter a society. But the ordinary disabled soldier or sailor will under this Bill be secured, and will be entitled to sickness or disablement benefit out of the Army and Navy Fund after his discharge, and he will not be left in the false position in which many have found themselves up to the present. There is one other little point on this Bill we should mention. Clause 2 is limited to a single class—seamen and marines. The reason for that is that a small Act was passed during the month of September, which brought soldiers who served during the present War within the scope of Section 46 of the principal Act. These are the purposes of this short emergency measure, and I beg to move that the Bill be road a second time.
  Mr. BOOTH: I thank the hon. Member for his explanation of this measure, and I am sure that in every quarter of the House it will be welcomed. There is one point of danger which has probably not been taken into account, and that is, when a man is being required to join a society there is a possibility of a preference being given. I am not quite sure whether the Commissioners will state which societies are available, but I am sure they will be able to do that without showing any bias, and leaving the men free to make their choice.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Gulland.]

  ROYAL MARINES BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a second time."
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Let me explain in two or three sentences the purposes of this small emergency Bill. The War Office may extend the period of the service of soldiers whose engagements expire during war time. The Admiralty already has similar power

  1263
  to extend the service of seamen. As regards Marines, our power is limited to the case of Marines serving abroad on foreign stations, under Section 5 of the Royal Marines Act of 1847. This Bill extends the provision as regards Marines to the provision already existing with regard to soldiers and seamen. I should add that the Marine will not draw his pension during the period of extended service, but if he has not earned his maximum pension, the additional time will come for increase.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Gulland.]

  NAVY AND MARINES (WILLS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Dr. MACNAMARA: This little emergency Bill is necessary for the administration of the whole of the estate of any deceased seamen or Marines. As regards civil estate a seaman or Marine can dispose of his property just like a civilian; that is, by making a will signed in the presence of two witnesses. But he cannot so dispose of his naval estate. Under the Navy and Marines (Wills) Act, 1865 and 1897, no will made by a seaman or marine is valid to pass naval estate unless amongst other things (first), that it is made after entering the Service; (secondly), unless one of the witnesses is an officer, or in lieu, if made elsewhere than on board of one of His Majesty's ships, a Justice of the Peace, Minister of Religion, British Consular Officer, Officer of Custom, Notary Public, Solicitor, or in Scotland a law agent (Section V., 1865). The present Bill makes the civil will good for naval estate for the purposes of this War. It is desirable to do this, particularly in view of the large number of Reservists serving, who whilst they may have civil wills may not be familiar with this procedure, and will in all probability not have made what I may call a naval will.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Gulland.]

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM CONSOLIDATION BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM CONSOLIDATION BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Power to Make Regulations as to the Defence of the Realm.)
    (1) His Majesty in Council has power during the continuance of the present War to issue regulations for securnig the public safety and the defence of the Realm, and as to the powers and duties for that purpose of the Admiralty and Army Council and of the members of His Majesty's Forces and other persons acting in His behalf; and may by such regulations authorise the trial by courts-martial, or in the case of minor offences by Courts of Summary Jurisdiction, and punishment of persons committing offences against the regulations and in particular against any of the provisions of such regulations designed—

    (a) to prevent persons communicating with the enemy or obtaining information for that purpose or any purpose calculated to jeopardise the success of the operations of any of His Majesty's Forces or the Forces of his Allies or to assist the enemy; or

    (b) to secure the safety of His Majesty's Forces and ships and the safety of any means of communication and of railways, ports, harbours; or

    (c) to prevent the spread of reports likely to cause disaffection or alarm; or

    (d) to secure the navigation of vessels in accordance with directions given by or under the authority of the Admiralty; or

    (d) otherwise to prevent assistance being given to the enemy or the successful prosecution of the War being endangered,

    (2) Any such regulations may provide for the suspension of any restrictions on the acquisition or user of land, or the exercise of the power of making by-laws, or any other power under the Defence Acts, 1842 to 1875, or the Military Lands Acts, 1891 to 1903, and any such regulations or any orders made thereunder affecting the pilotage of vessels may supersede any enactment, order, charter, bylaw, regulation or provision as to pilotage.

    (3) For the purpose of the trial of a person for an offence under the regulations by court-martial and the punishment

    1265
    thereof, the person may be proceeded against and dealt with as if he were a person subject to military law and had on active service committed an offence under Section 5 of the Army Act:

    Provided that where it is proved that the offence is committed with the intention of assisting the enemy a person convicted of such an offence by a court-martial shall be liable to suffer death.
    (4) For the purpose of the trial of a person for an offence under the regulations by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction and the punishment thereof, the offence shall be deemed to have been committed either at the place in which the same actually was committed or in any place in which the offender may be, and the maximum penalty which may be inflicted shall be imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term of six months or a fine of one hundred pounds, or both such imprisonment and fine; Section seventeen of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, shall not apply to charges of offences against the regulations, but any person aggrieved by a conviction of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction may appeal in England to a Court of Quarter Sessions, and in Scotland under and in terms of the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Acts, and in Ireland in manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Acts.
    (5) The regulations may authorise a court-martial or Court of Summary Jurisdiction, in addition to any other punishment, to order the forfeiture of any goods in respect of which an offence against the regulations has been committed.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (c), after the word "of," to insert the word "false."
    This, and three other Amendments standing in my name, are designed to recast or make some alteration in paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1) of Clause 1. The Clause as it at present stands gives power to His Majesty in Council to make Regulations to prevent the spread of reports likely to cause disaffection or alarm. On the Second Reading of this Bill it was pointed out that this went a very long way, and that it might lead to a suspicion in the public mind that the Sub-section might be used for the purpose of protecting the Government or for undue concealment from the public of the course of the War. I understand that the Government would be glad to receive any
    1266
    legitimate criticism of the wording, and that they are prepared to accept the first three Amendments standing in my name, and to accept an Amendment similar to the fourth Amendment which I have on the Paper, if the wording were a little changed. To make quite clear the effect of these Amendments, I will read the Sub-section as it would stand after the insertion of the Amendments. The paragraph would read:
    "To prevent the spread of false reports, or reports likely to cause disaffection to His Majesty, or alarm, and to interfere with the success of our arms by land or sea, or prejudice His Majesty's relations with foreign Powers."
    I think that covers any possible ground in connection with this Sub-section, and I hope that the Committee will accept the Amendments altering the paragraph in that sense. I personally recognise very fully both the desirability of the censorship and the extreme difficulties of carrying out the duties. I listened to what fell from the Solicitor-General on the previous occasion, namely, on the question of withholding news, that even if a mistake is made in regard to it, it does not boar comparison with the importance of not allowing anything to be published which could possibly injure the success of our Forces; and, therefore, I quite agree that it is not a matter which this House or the public would be well advised in criticising with great nicety or severity every single act of the censorship, and asking why a particular word was omitted, or why a particular reference was not allowed to be made. At the same time, while I recognise all that, I do most honestly and sincerely admit that, the difficulties of those who are discharging their duty entitle them to the most favourable consideration possible. But those who are responsible for the censorship would be the first to agree that nothing would be more disastrous than that any impression should get abroad that the censorship was used for political purposes or even purposes of undue concealment or misfortune or anything of that kind, merely because they were likely to prove embarrassing or disagreeable or hurtful to the reputation of the forces. I am very glad that the Government have seen their way to accept these Amendments, and that they fully recognise the desirability of carrying out the censorship with strict regard to the principle which underlies any popular Government.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: I think it is right to express my gratitude for the kind and sympathetic words in which the Noble Lord has referred to the duties which I have to perform. The speech that he has made renders it quite unnecessary for me to detain the Committee for more than a few minutes because he has expresed better than I could the exact principles which I think are required in the discharge of my duties. I agree with him entirely in saying that this office should have no concern with politics. I did my best to make plain when this matter was before the House on the discussion of the Gracious Speech from the Throne that that was my firm and fixed opinion. If it were once thought in the emergency of a great national crisis the Government had called into existence a body whose function it was to colour the nation in their favour, that would be an abuse of the confidence of the nation, and a use of a great national emergency for a very base end. I also agree that the idea of keeping back news from the public, because it is disagreeable to disclose it, is a policy that should never be pursued. It is, and always has been, my opinion that the country should be taken as far as possible into the confidence of the Government and every department of the Government, and I have no sympathy whatever with the view that difficulties may be concealed until they are forgotten, or that disasters should be concealed in the hope that something may happen in the interval which will divert public opinion from the fact that the disaster has occurred.
    Having said that, I think I should secure the assent of the Noble Lord if I add that it is possible that there may be occasions in which full disclosure of events or disasters might not be desirable, and, of course, the real difficulty of the office that I hold is to know exactly when that can be done, and with the assistance of the Departments, by whose directions I am regulated and controlled, to follow the line, which is not always clear, between the one case and the other. I think, having said that. I need say no more in accepting these Amendments, except that I am glad that they should be introduced, because it is my desire, as far as possible, that the functions and duties of my office should be made plain. It is only by that being done that it may be possible and it may be a long time after the office
    1268
    has ceased to exist, that the mists of misunderstanding and misrepresentation by which at the present moment the work of this office is surrounded may be ultimately cleared away.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In paragraph (c), after the word "reports," insert the words "or reports."
    After the word "disaffection," insert the words "to His Majesty."
    Leave out the word "alarm," and insert instead thereof the words "to interfere with the success of His Majesty's Forces on land or sea or prejudice His Majesty's relations with foreign Powers."—[Lord Robert Cecil.]
    Mr. BUTCHER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) (c), at the end, to insert the words
    "to secure the free enlistment of all British subjects willing and anxious to serve in His Majesty's Forces."
    The effect of this Amendment would be to empower His Majesty's Government to make Regulations directed against such offences as interfering in any way whatsoever with the free enlistment of any British subject anxious to serve in His Majesty's Forces. The House and the country rejoice to know that at the present moment, speaking broadly, all parties in the State are joined in the effort to obtain recruits for His Majesty's Army in prosecuting this War, and the unusual spectacle is seen of men of all parties attending meetings for that purpose. But it must be admitted that there is a small an exceedingly small, section of people in this country who, on occasions, have taken steps, either by the Press or by speeches, to discourage recruiting. I believe that they are a very small section, and a section which we in this House, and the country at large, treat with the greatest contempt. But when these cases occur, they ought, I think, to be met by proper legislation, and the offences committed by those people ought to be laid down and made the subject of proper punishment.
    I said that in this country these offences are exceedingly rare. I wish I could say the same for Ireland. I am sorry to say it is notorious that there is in Ireland at the present moment a strongly organised and very largely subsidised effort, and I should like to know very much where the

    1269
    money comes from to subsidise it, to restrain recruiting and to prevent men from enlisting in His Majesty's Forces, and to hold out this country and this War to the contempt of the Irish people, and to prevent Irishmen, who certainly as a rule and in times past have served a gallant part in His Majesty's Army, and who are doing it to-day abroad to prevent them from joining His Majesty's Forces. An even more regrettable fact is that the efforts of these contemptible and traitorous men have met with a certain degree of success in Ireland because, although there is a large number of Irishmen serving in His Majesty's Regular Forces, men who enlisted before the War and reservists, yet the response of recruits for the New Army in Ireland has not been as satisfactory as we could expect. We have every reason to believe that that unfortunate result is due in no small degree to those disloyal and traitorous utterances, sometimes on platforms and more generally in the Press. I am not going to give the House many nauseous samples of the utterances to which I refer; but there are four Irish papers at the present moment, with a widespread gratuitous circulation in Ireland, in which these grossly seditious utterances have been found: the "Irish Volunteer," which professes to be the organ of, at any rate, a section of the National Volunteers, "Sinn Fein," "Irish Freedom," and "The Irish Worker." I have had the misfortune to read a good many extracts from these papers, and the key-note of their utterances is, "Do not, you Irishmen, fight for dirty little England." I believe that that very expression has been used again and again; "let England fight her own battles; do not let Irishmen give help to England; Englishmen do not want to fight their own battles, they want Irishmen to fight them for them." Anything more grossly and criminally untrue cannot be imagined. The "Irish Volunteer" of the 10th of October has an article headed, "No recruits from the West," and in the course of a violently worded article it says:—
    "The motto of the British Government is to get rid of the Irish Volunteers by having them slaughtered by the Germans."
    That is the kind of appeal that is made to the Irish peasants to prevent them from enlisting. As recently as the 7th November the same paper says:—
    "Our only path to the glorious happy Ireland of our aspirations lies through the downfall of the British Empire."
    1270
    Upon that they found the argument, "You must not fight for the British Empire; you must not enlist in the armies of the British Empire; because to do so would be to prevent the realisation of our aspirations." One more quotation, and I really apologise for giving publicity to these disgusting utterances. I only do so for the purpose of showing that there is a real need for suppressing these things in Ireland. If Irish law is in any way deficient to deal with these papers, I hope the Home Secretary will, by inserting this Amendment, obtain an easy way of dealing with the offences which have undoubtedly been committed. In November one of these papers said:—
    "Ireland would be better off were she a protectorate of the German people."
    The inference from that is, I suppose, that Irishmen ought to enlist in the German Army. But they do not go so far as that, because they say:—
    "Ireland is neutral. If the British Navy gets the worst of the coming fight, we shall have our German friends coming over the Irish sea."
    That is the sort of thing that is going on in Ireland, and I am sure that the Home Secretary as deeply disapproves of it as any other Member of this House. I have given these quotations to show that there are people in the United Kingdom who misuse the freedom of the Press; therefore, I think, it is only fair to ask the right hon. Gentleman to insert my Amendment, so that he may make proper regulations under the Act for dealing with offences of this very gross character.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): My labours, I regret to say, have not allowed me the opportunity of making so full a study of the papers which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to as he has been able to devote to them. But I am sure that he will be glad for me to add to his account of them the fact that has struck me in such articles as I have read, that however bitter the feelings of the writers of the articles may be against this Government and this country they are no less bitter against the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford and the party which he leads in this House. He would wish me to say that as otherwise the use of the term "Nationalist" in relation to these papers and these articles might be likely to mislead the British public into thinking that the Nationalist party, which has shown itself throughout

    1271
    most zealous, energetic, and enthusiastic to the cause of the British Empire in this War, is in any way identified with the articles in question. Having said so much, let me go on to say that I am sure the whole Committee associates itself thoroughly with the expressions of abhorrence which here follow from the hon. and learned Gentleman in regard to the articles themselves. There is hardly need for me to say that this Amendment, if it were necessary to insert it in the Bill, would be accepted with hardly a dissentient. But the hon. and learned Gentleman will see, if he looks at the Bill, that we already have these powers without adding these words. He will, too, agree, I hope before I finish, that to add these words would not be to strengthen the Bill but might have the effect of weakening it. If the hon. and learned Gentleman looks at the Bill he will see that the first words in Clause 1 are:—
    "His Majesty's Council has power during the continuance of the present War to issue regulations for securing the public safety and the Defence of the Realm."
    I cannot imagine any action that would be more appropriate to the Defence of the Realm than to secure the free enlistment of British subjects willing and anxious to serve in His Majesty's Forces. We have construed the powers of the Bill as enabling us to do the very thing in respect of which the hon. and learned Gentleman asks for precise words to be inserted. The Order in Council, which is now in draft, and which we hope to be passed when this Bill is passed, includes powers of this kind, and I should deprecate inserting special words in the Bill which might have the effect of appearing to limit the general powers which are conferred upon the Government by these larger and more general words at the opening of the Clause. I am sure if the hon. and learned Gentleman looks at the first Order in Council of 12th August, which was passed after the first Act was passed by this House, he would see in the second paragraph that:
    "It shall be lawful for the competent naval or military authorities or other persons duly authorised by them, whether for the purpose of securing the public safety, or the Defence of the Realm, where it is necessary so to do …"
    1272
    Then follow a number of definite enactments. We hope the words do allow us to include in the Order in Council provisions precisely of the kind which the hon. and learned Gentleman desires. For that reason, though I entirely agree with the object he has in view, I would ask him not to press this Amendment.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am not quite sure that I followed the argument of the Home Secretary in this matter, because if it were valid it seems to me that in order to be consistent he ought to strike out paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) of the Clause, because after all they are only specific examples of the general powers expressed by the words of the Clause. The words of the Clause are:—
    "His Majesty in Council has power during the continuance of the War to issue regulations for securing the public safety and Defence of the Realm, and as to the powers and duties," and so
    And it goes on to say
    "and may by such regulations authorise the trial by court-martial, or in the case of offences by Courts of Summary Jurisdiction, and punishment of persons committing offences against the Regulations and in particular against any of the provisions of such Regulations designed."
    And paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) are examples of what may be done under the general words, and are so intended to be. The Home Secretary thinks if he puts in another example it may weaken the powers of the general words. Surely that cannot be right. I quite agree it would be possible to draft this Bill without any examples, but if you do give examples, I should have thought you should give examples covering all the kind of Regulations you intended to issue. However, this is a matter of little importance, and I am sure my hon. Friend does not care a bit whether his particular words are accepted or not. What he desires and what we desire is an assurance from the Government that they will prevent what is becoming a public scandal in this matter, and although we were told at question time to-day that for six weeks they have done nothing, we respectfully press upon the Government that it is their duty to take action in this matter, as they would, if similar occurrences took place elsewhere, and to see that the law is respected in all parts of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. BOOTH: I do not propose to refer to the question discussed, because it is a matter rather for the Irish Executive, and I gathered at Question time to-day, from the Chief Secretary and the Solicitor-General that they are going to devote their attention to it. So far as this question is concerned, I associate myself entirely with the remarks made upon the other side of the House. It is very painful that such stuff should be circulated in any part of the United Kingdom, and the sooner it is put a stop to the better. If these words, however, were inserted in the Bill, their effect might be very different from what is intended. We hear that in Borne cases men were asked not to enlist because they were working in armament firms, or at supplies for the Government; and while they are willing and anxious to enlist they were told they were better employed providing ammunition. I am afraid if these words were inserted they might include within the scope of the Bill persons who are working in ammunition and armament firms. I am afraid there would be difficulty on that ground. It seems to me that the criticism of the Noble Lord was very effective, and if all these things are covered by the general Clause, it would be better not to put in a specific proviso on account of this matter.
    Mr. CAVE: I am not very much impressed by the argument of the hon. Member opposite, because the only object of this Amendment is to authorise the trial by court martial of certain persons. I cannot conceive that regulations would be made designed to compel the enlistment of men whom it is not desired to enlist in His Majesty's Forces. I think that is a sufficient answer to the hon. Member. I rise mainly to support what has been said by my hon. Friend. I hope that, after the arguments we have heard to-night the Government do intend to act in this matter. There is no country in the world where during a time of war the publication of articles such as we have heard read to-night would be allowed to continue. No matter how contemptible the articles or the authors are, the fact that they are printed in a paper which has some kind of circulation is reason enough to take steps to suppress them. I am sure the country would support the Government in any measures which are necessary to deal with this matter. I think we may understand from the absence of any disclaimer that steps of that kind will be taken at an early date.
    Mr. PIKE PEASE: I hope the Government realise what a serious matter this is. I have heard of an instance in addition to those mentioned by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Butcher) and I would like to ask the Home Secretary to give a pledge that he will deal with this matter.
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member probably did not hear what the Chief Secretary said on this subject. He will understand that this matter is within the jurisdiction of the Irish Department and is being dealt with by the Chief Secretary.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I understand that the Home Secretary is willing to give an assurance that he will deal with this very matter in the Order in Council shortly to be brought out, and make it an offence under the Defence of the Realm Act to have such incitement as I have read to prevent recruiting. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has given that assurance, and that he will introduce into this draft Order some regulations which will have the desired effect of preventing such gross and abominable publications as those to which I have referred.
    Mr. McKENNA: I have not the draft with me, but so far as my recollection goes, there is a Clause in the Order in Council dealing with this subject, but if there; is not I will inquire further into the matter.
    Mr. BUTCHER: And put it in?
    Mr. McKENNA: Before committing myself definitely I want first to see what other powers we have, and if the powers are not there I will put them in, but I cannot say definitely until I have inquired into the matter.
    Mr. BUTCHER: On that assurance I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to add the words,
    "It shall be lawful for the Admiralty or Army Council—

    (a) to require that there shall be placed at their disposal the whole or any part of the output of any factory or workshop in which arms, ammunition, or warlike stores or equipment, or any articles required for the production thereof, are manufactured;

    (b) to take possession and use for the purpose of His Majesty's Naval or

    1275
    Military Service any such factory or workshop or any plant thereof, and Regulations under this Act may be made accordingly."

    These powers which at ordinary times might appear to be very remarkable are powers with which the House have already been accustomed in other respects. These powers are desired to secure that the Government can obtain the highest maximum possible output of the factories or workshops in which arms, ammunition, warlike stores, or equipment are manufactured. I am sure that the Committee will agree that it is most desirable that every step should be taken which will assist the Government in securing as abundant a supply of arms and ammunition as the country is capable of producing. These powers may not have to be used. In other cases we have similar powers, and I do not think, except in the case of railways, they have been put into operation, but it is very necessary to have some reserve power of this kind in order to secure the maximum output, and I would ask the Committee to allow me to have this Amendment to the Bill in the form in which I have read it
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Personally, I think this is a very useful and proper addition. I presume it is scarcely necessary to ask that any damage suffered will be compensated.
    Mr. McKENNA: Oh, yes!
    Mr. BOOTH: I do not know that it is quite clear clothing and boots are included, but I presume they are in the word "equipment"?
    Mr. McKENNA: "Warlike stores or "equipment."
    Mr. HOLT: That is rather a tall order. What guarantee have you that the Army and Navy will be reasonable in their requirements? We know by experience that when you allow military gentlemen to take control of everything they are most unreasonable. The requirements of the civil population are just as important to the Crown as any other section of the population—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—and there really ought to be a guarantee that the Army and Navy will not be the sole masters, and that some balance will be struck in the interests of the civil population.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I am fully in agreement with the Government, but is the
    1276
    right hon. Gentleman absolutely certain that these words, "warlike stores or equipment," will give him the powers he requires? They are doubtful words.
    Mr. McKENNA: I will call the attention of the Attorney-General to the point, but my understanding of the Bill is that the word "equipment" does include clothing and boots required for the Army or Navy. I can only say, in reply to the hon. Member (Mr. Holt), that he must not forget the Government as a whole is responsible, and the Government have to be satisfied that the equipment is required for His Majesty's naval or military service. I cannot agree with the hon. Member that we ought to put anything in front of the requirements of the naval and military Services.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out the words "under Section five of the Army Act," and to insert instead thereof the words "punishable with imprisonment or any less punishment."
    This is a small drafting Amendment, and does away with one of the blemishes of the Bill. Legislation by reference is quite unnecessary in this instance. Then it does not say which Army Act is referred to. There may be another Army Act during this Session in which the number of the Sections may be quite different.
    Mr. McKENNA: I am sorry I cannot accept my hon. Friend's Amendment. The words "punishment with imprisonment or any less punishment" would not convey the same meaning as the words proposed to be left out. If the Amendment were accepted it would mean there could be no punishment between death and two years' imprisonment, but there are other grades of punishment which might reasonably be adopted, such as penal servitude. I think it would be safer to leave the Bill in its present form.
    Mr. BOOTH: Does it allow the punishment of flogging?
    Mr. McKENNA: No.
    Mr. KING: I will withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3), after the word "death," to insert the words "or any less punishment."
    Mr. McKENNA: This is not necessary.
    Mr. KING: I do not think there is any harm in it. It is one of those things that if it had been put in the Bill at the start it would have saved a lot of talk.
    Mr. McKENNA: It is such bad drafting that I really cannot accept it.
    Sir W. BYLES: I strongly support the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I do not believe in the death punishment and therefore I would have any minor punishment which would be affective.
    Mr. McKENNA: All the Clause says is that they are liable to the death punishment. It does not relieve the prisoner of his liability to that. It is merely adding a new punishment.
    Sir W. BYLES: If it empowers the tribunal to exercise its discretion I am agreed.
    Mr. KING: It seems to me, after the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, that the words are wanted and for this reason, that this law will be put in force by military men who do not understand legal drafting but only common-sense drafting.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: If the Home Secretary is advised that this Amendment is not necessary at all, I do not wish to support it. Personally, I should think in such a case as is contemplated under this proviso the death penalty would be proper. I confess I am rather surprised at the Home Secretary's confidence that the words mean exactly what he says. I should have been a little doubtful myself, but if he is so advised by those more skilled in drafting than I am, I will not press the point. But when I find an offence singled out and the phrase used that those guilty of that offence shall be liable to suffer death, I should have thought the natural meaning of that expression was that they would be liable to suffer death and nothing else. The right hon. Gentleman must remember that in the only case in which the death punishment is possible under the ordinary criminal law you cannot substitute any less punishment at all. A person found guilty of murder must be sentenced to death and there is no alternative. At the same time I do not very much mind leaving the words as they stand with the construction he has put on them.
    Mr. McKENNA: I consulted my legal advisers on the point to-day and I was told that the matter is quite clear. Still,
    1278
    I rather hesitate after the expression of opinion by so competent an authority as the Noble Lord. But my advisers were quite clear that this proviso merely adds to the power of the Court to inflict more severe punishment and that it does not in any way derogate from the power of the Court to inflict a minor punishment.
    Sir W. BYLES: Then why not accept an Amendment to that effect?
    Mr. McKENNA: Because it would be bad drafting.
    Sir F. LOW: Surely this is an amplification of Section 5, which, as it stands, omits the penalty of death and leaves penal servitude or something else. This simply adds to Section 5 the power to inflict the penalty of death.
    Mr. KING: I regretfully withdraw.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Short Title and Repeal.)
    (1) This Act may be cited as the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914.

    (2) The Defence of the Realm Act, 1914, and the Defence of the Realm (No. 2) Act, 1914, are hereby repealed, but nothing in this repeal shall affect any Orders in Council made thereunder, and all such Orders in Council shall until altered or revoked by an Order in Council under this Act continue in force and have effect as if made under this Act.

    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Sub-Section (1), to leave out the word "Consolidation."
    I move that we have some other name for this Bill. It is not the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Bill, but more of a Bill amending two previous Acts passed since the War began. Why not leave out the word "Consolidation" altogether, seeing that the Bill repeals the two former Acts? Then it will be the only Defence of the Realm Act remaining.
    Mr. McKENNA: My difficulty is, that if we leave out the word "Consolidation," this Bill will be cited as the Defence of the Realm Act, 1914. There was one Act passed on the 8th August, which, under Section 2, may be cited as the Defence of the Realm Act, 1914, so that we should have two Acts with precisely the same title. The second Act was called the

    1279
    Defence of the Realm (No. 2) Act, 1914. We desire to suggest, by the title, that this Bill contains within itself all the preceding Acts relating to the Defence of the Realm that have been passed during the year 1914. If a better word than "Consolidation" had suggested itself to us, we should have been glad to adopt it. Some word we must have.
    Mr. KING: It might be called "No. 3." It is No. 3, and it is not consolidation in the ordinary sense. In order that me may be correct I will withdraw this Amendment, and move another word.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "Consolidation," and to insert instead thereof, the words "No. 3."
    Mr. CAVE: If Acts No. 1 and No. 2 are repealed, the words "No. 3" on the Statute Rook will mean nothing at all. The word "Consolidation" is well known, and we have other Acts in which it appears.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member withdraw?
    Mr. KING: Yes, Sir.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Certificates of Naturalisation to be Cancelled in Certain Cases.)
    It shall be lawful for the Secretary of State in proper cases, if he so thinks fit, to cancel the certificate of naturalisation granted to any person of German, Austrian, or Turkish nationality, or to suspend the same during the duration of the War.
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Sir F. LOW: Is this Amendment within the scope of the Bill?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Bill is stated to be a Bill to amend and consolidate the Defence of the Realm Acts. I cannot carry in my mind what those Acts are, and I give the hon. and learned Gentleman the benefit of any doubt there may be.
    Mr. BUTCHER: The object of this Amendment is to strengthen the hands of the Executive, and in proper cases to bring naturalised Germans and Austrians under the provisions of the Aliens Restriction Act and regulations, and in that way to give additional protection against dangerous persons. It is common knowledge that there are at present naturalised Germans and Austrians at large who are suspected of offences against the Realm, but in whose cases it is difficult and in some cases impossible to bring legal proof of their offence. These gentlemen shelter themselves under a shield of naturalisation. They pose as British soldiers, and they cannot be dealt with as alien enemies, and in some cases in that way they escape punishment altogether. There was a case given in another place the other day which was commented upon in a memorandum issued by the Secretary for Scotland, where the military authorities had arrested a naturalised German upon a charge of tampering with official messages. Unfortunately when he came to be tried there was no legal proof sufficient to convict him and he escaped. It is to meet that class of case that I move this Amendment. If my Clause is carried the result will be that the Home Secretary in the exercise of his discretion in a proper case will suspend or cancel a certificate of naturalisation, and this German or Austrian person will no longer be able to hold in front of him the shield of British nationality, and will be dealt with under the Aliens Restriction Act. He would be prevented from residing in a prohibited area.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It seems to me that the matter is relevant to the Aliens Restriction Act rather than to the Acts which this Bill proposes to consolidate.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I want to bring by means of this legislation these persons within the Aliens Restriction Act and other powers. This is an Act for better insuring the protection of the Realm, and in order to enable the authorities to deal with persons like this under the ordinary law and under the Aliens Restrictions Act, it is necessary to pass this Clause.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have made up my mind on the point; and I regret that I must rule the hon. and learned Gentleman's Clause out of Order.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I have not put my point.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow the hon. and learned Gentleman to argue with me.
    Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

  CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION POSTPONEMENT BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I have to thank the Home Secretary for practically redrafting the Bill, as he kindly promised to do on the Second Reading. My only reason for saying a word now is that it is a little difficult to follow, naturally, in its present form, and I rather hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to send a circular round to let clerks to magistrates and so forth know that the very important provisions of this Bill come into force on 1st December. I dare say he will see his way to send a circular round.
  Mr. McKENNA: I will do my best.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  INJURIES IN WAR (COMPENSATION)— [MONEY].
  Resolution reported, "That it is expedient to make provision for the grant of Pensions and other Allowances to certain persons if disabled whilst employed abroad in connection with warlike operations, and to their dependants under any Act of the present Session relating to such provision."
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

  INJURIES IN WAR (COMPENSATION)— [MONEY].

    INJURIES IN WAR (COMPENSATION) BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    [MR. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

    CLAUSE 1.—(Pension Schemes for Persons Disabled Abroad in Connection with Warlike Operations.)
    (1) The Army Council, subject to the consent of the Treasury, shall have power to frame a scheme as to pensions and grants
    1282
    and other allowances in the nature thereof, to be paid to persons (not being officers or soldiers of any of His Majesty's land forces) in respect of disablement suffered whilst employed on shore out of the United Kingdom by or under the Army Council in connection with warlike operations in which His Majesty is engaged, and, in the case of their death, to their widows or other dependants.

    (2) A scheme shall specify the persons to whom the scheme applies and the conditions under which it becomes applicable, and may include persons not in the direct employment of the Army Council.

    (3) A person to whom any such scheme applies shall not, nor, in the case of his death, shall his widow or other dependants or his personal representatives, in respect of any disablement suffered by him whilst the scheme so applies to him, be entitled to any pensions or other benefits under any Order in Council or any warrant or regulations relating to officers and men in the military service of the Crown, or to any gratuity or any superannuation or other allowance under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1914, or to any compensation or damages at common law or under any other statute, except so far as the scheme otherwise provides.

    (4) All pensions grants and other allowances under this Act shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.

    (5) A scheme under this Act may provide that the scheme shall have effect as from the third day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen, and any such scheme may be revoked or varied by a subsequent scheme.

    (6) For the purposes of this section, "disablement" means disablement by personal injury or by sickness specifically attributable to the nature or conditions of the employment.

    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have a series of Amendments which I hope the Committee will agree to. The cases of soldiers and sailors who suffer injuries from home are covered by the Army and Navy pension regulations, and the cases of workmen employed in similar circumstances are covered by the Workmen's Compensation Act. The only case that is not covered is that of the workman who may be employed under

    1283
    contract afloat or on shore, and the purpose of the Bill is to cover that case. The Bill as drafted only applied to Army men, and the Amendments seek to give to the Admiralty the same power.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "the" ["the Army Council"], insert the words "Admiralty and."
    Leave out the words "a scheme," and insert instead thereof the word "schemes."
    Leave out the word "soldiers" ["soldiers of any"], and insert instead thereof the word "men."
    Leave out the word "land" ["land forces"].
    After the word "the" ["the Army Council"], insert the words "Admiralty and."
    In Sub-section (2), after the word "the" ["the Army Council"], insert the words "Admiralty or."
    In Sub-section (3), after the word "the" ["the military service"], insert the words "naval or."
    After Clause 1, the following

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Extension of 4 and 5 Geo. V., c. 30.)
    The Injuries in War (Compensation) Act, 1914, shall extend to pensions, grants, and other allowances in respect of disablement by sickness specifically attributable to the nature and conditions of the employment in like manner as it applies to pensions, grants, and other allowances in respect of injuries.
    Title: At end, insert the words, "and to amend the Injuries in War Compensation Act, 1914."—[Dr. Macnamara.]
    Bill reported, with an amended Title.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
    Sir F. BANBURY: I submit that we can not take the Report stage of a Money Bill like this. The two stages cannot be taken to-night.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is not a Money Bill.
    Sir F. BANBURY: It is a Money Bill. It gives pensions to certain sailors, and also includes for pensions people who have been injured by sickness as well as people who have been injured by war. Therefore it is practically a Money Bill. There have been several Amendments moved of which we know nothing, and we should have an opportunity of seeing what the Amendments are before taking the Report.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Very well, say to-morrow.
    Bill, as amended, to be considered to-morrow (Thursday).

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (DISQUALIFICATION RELIEF) BILL.
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th November, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Three Minutes after Eleven o'clock.

WAR IN EUROPE.
  CANADIAN GIFT OF FLOUR (STORAGE).
  CANADIAN GIFT OF FLOUR (STORAGE).
  BRITISH EXPEDITIONARY FORCE (MAIL SERVICE).
  BRITISH EXPEDITIONARY FORCE (MAIL SERVICE).
  "GOEBEN'S" ESCAPE.
  "GOEBEN'S" ESCAPE.
  ENEMY-OWNED STOCKS.
  ENEMY-OWNED STOCKS.
  PETROLEUM PRODUCTS.
  PETROLEUM PRODUCTS.
  ARRESTS WITHOUT WARRANT.
  ARRESTS WITHOUT WARRANT.
  NAVAL CASUALTIES.
  NAVAL CASUALTIES.
  RESTRICTIONS ON SALE OF LIQUOR.
  RESTRICTIONS ON SALE OF LIQUOR.
  FISHING COMMUNITIES (DISTRESS.)
  FISHING COMMUNITIES (DISTRESS.)
  TELEGRAMS TO VALPARAISO
  TELEGRAMS TO VALPARAISO
  VACCINATION AND INOCULATION.
  VACCINATION AND INOCULATION.
  PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  ARMY CHAPLAINS.
  ARMY CHAPLAINS.
  RECRUITING.
  RECRUITING.
  SHORT FURLOUGH (TRAVELLING FACILITIES).
  SHORT FURLOUGH (TRAVELLING FACILITIES).
  REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA (MR. BOSHELLS' CLAIM).
  REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA (MR. BOSHELLS' CLAIM).
  SOLDIERS' WIVES (POLICE WARNING).
  SOLDIERS' WIVES (POLICE WARNING).
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  PANEL CHEMISTS (LONDON).
  PANEL CHEMISTS (LONDON).
  Cultivation of Waste Land (Carnarvon County Council).
  Cultivation of Waste Land (Carnarvon County Council).
  Home-Brewed Beer.
  Home-Brewed Beer.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Intermediate Education (Ireland).
  Intermediate Education (Ireland).
  Evicted Tenants, Ireland (Reinstatement).
  Evicted Tenants, Ireland (Reinstatement).
  Nigeria.
  Nigeria.
  Indian Store Depot, London.
  Indian Store Depot, London.
  Registry of Death (Certificate).
  Registry of Death (Certificate).
  London Postal Service (Casual Sorters).
  London Postal Service (Casual Sorters).
  Casual Postmen's Wages.
  Casual Postmen's Wages.
Preamble
The Lord WIMBORNE—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
Standing Orders respecting: Ordered to be printed. (No. 297.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I beg to make the Motion which stands in my name. There are certain measures coming from another place which it is desirable that we should possess the power of taking through all their stages rapidly up to the time when we adjourn.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered and suspended for the remainder of the week.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE SPY PERIL.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the position of aliens in this country, and to the powers of the naval, military, and police authorities in relation to them. On September 10 last I raised this matter before your Lordships in a short debate which took place on the general position of aliens, raised by 'I my noble friend beside me, Lord Leith of Fyvie. I am afraid that my remarks on that occasion produced very little effect. Accordingly a month later—on October 17—so much distressed was I with the position in the part of the country in which I live, I wrote to the Prime Minister on the subject. By that time there was a great amount of public unrest on the subject. My letter synchronised with this manifestation of public anxiety, and I am glad to say that immediately after that date considerable activity was shown. However, I did not consider, and I do not now consider, that: the activity shown by the Government was adequate. I raised the subject again in your Lordships' House on the 11th of
130
this month, and one of the Members of Parliament for the district to which I alluded, Sir Henry Dalziel, also raised the matter in the House of Commons. Let me say at once that a great deal has been done since then. I wish to acknowledge in the fullest way how much has been effected since our debates in Parliament as regards the removal of aliens from that part of Scotland; and, amongst other things, we have resumed complete control of our own estuaries and waterways on the East coast, to which I attach the greatest importance.
The Secretary for Scotland has written me a long letter commenting upon my remarks in this House, and I am very much obliged to him for the trouble he has taken in the matter. On one point I must apologise to the House, and indeed to Mr. McKinnon Wood as well, for having been misled. Some of your Lordships may remember that I referred to a case where a ship was alleged to have arrived with a quantity of sawdust in one of her bunkers. Mr. McKinnon Wood says that that is an exaggeration. I accept it as such and regret that I should have given currency to it, though I am bound to state that the authority from whom the information reached me was one who, better than anybody else, ought to have known the exact state of affairs. But what concerns me most about the statement of the Scottish Office and what satisfies me most about it is the fact that it is a frank and general admission of the gravity of the situation. There has been no official document since war was declared which has been so significant and has so frankly recognised the peril. For that I am much gratified, and what has passed since gives me further cause for satisfaction. However, there is still room for criticism, and I propose, by your Lordships' leave, to make a few remarks on the general situation, having previously referred to one or two cases in particular in the County of Fife.
I wish to remind your Lordships of a particular case to which I referred a fortnight ago, in connection with which I asked a question of the Lord Chancellor which I hope he will be able to answer to-day. I refer to the illegal export of petrol by neutral ships from Fife ports. I quoted a case in which one of these instances was detected, and the man was brought to justice and fined £5. The

131
Secretary for Scotland says that the quantity of petrol in question was small and was allowed to go out "owing to a misunderstanding." On that point I should like to say that I do not for a moment admit that the persons who exported this petrol could conceivably have done so under a misapprehension. Their knowledge of the law and of the practice and decisions of the Customs Department is such that misunderstanding is practically impossible. As regards the quantity, I admit that it was negligible—forty gallons, worth perhaps eighty shillings. But forty gallons of petrol delivered to an enemy ship off our coast may to that enemy ship be a matter of life and death; and I do not, therefore, think that the paucity of the amount of petrol exported should have so closely corresponded to the paucity of the fine. My question to the Lord Chancellor is whether he can see his way to remove this offence from the category of fines and insist upon very much more drastic action when it occurs.
Since I addressed your Lordships on this subject another case, also from the Forth, of illegal export of petrol has come before the Courts. It is not decided yet, but as the prosecution is undertaken by the Government I presume that prima facie the facts are correct. On Friday last the Government prosecuted a Dane, a captain of a Danish ship, for attempting to export petrol in defiance of the Royal Proclamation. The case was remanded, and I hope it is not contempt of Court to say that the authorities recognised more fully the gravity of the offence by putting a substantial bail upon the person charged. In this case there were two consignments from two Forth ports, amounting in all to 134 gallons. I therefore point out to your Lordships that the illegal export of petrol has continued since the case was last decided in the Courts. The noble and learned Earl on the Front Opposition Bench, Lord Halsbury, speaking on this point a week ago to-day, indicated that such an offence might be considered high treason. Whether that be so or not I, of course, offer no opinion, but if that be the case I think it undesirable that the prosecution should be undertaken through His Majesty's Customs and Excise; if it be so serious an offence, a more responsible authority should be put in charge of the prosecution.
The second point in the Secretary for Scotland's letter to which I wish to refer
132
is the question of night signalling, which I said had been continuous. Mr. McKinnon Wood says—
"I presume you have reported those cases to the police or the naval or military authority on the spot."
When I first read that it seemed to me to convey a certain rebuke, and I wondered whether Mr. McKinnon Wood suspected that I had been signalling to submarines. Then what happened in my own case occurred to me. Late one night I was routed out by the military patrol and ocularly shown that there was a light burning in one of the high rooms in inv house, which commands an extremely wide view over both shores of the Firth. At that particular moment the authorities had been veiling all lights in that particular neighbourhood in order to make it more easy to detect unauthorised lights, and it was then that I came to learn about the signalling that was going on and how serious it was considered by the military patrol.
I am perfectly certain that signalling has been going on, but equally I am bound to say that I agree with Mr. McKinnon Wood that no single act of night signalling has been proved—proved, I presume him to mean, by trial in the Law Courts or by Court-Martial. That is the base of my grievance. It was because we had been unable to catch the persons concerned that I brought the subject forward. The fact is that the residence of aliens in this prohibited area has continued almost uninterruptedly up till two or three weeks ago. Great progress has been made in the last ten days or two weeks. But how slow it has been! For months these men have been living there. The Home Secretary the day before yesterday announced the latest figures of aliens resident in prohibited areas, and said that on the East coast and on part of the South coast of this country alone—nothing to do with internal areas which are prohibited—there were 771 male and 2,190 female alien enemies. I am bound to say that it seems to me a grave risk to run to allow in prohibited areas—because it is in those areas that dangerous occurrences may be feared—nearly 3,000 aliens to continue residence. And that in only one section of the country. The figures do not refer to any of the West coast; they do not touch Wales or Ireland.

133
For my own part, I think the naturalised British subject of German birth is in many cases more dangerous than the alien enemy. I do not myself trust any man who has denationalised himself. And when we learn that these naturalisations have in many cases occurred within the last few years, surely we must not be called unduly suspicious if we say that under the terrible conditions of to-day we must take certain risks, and, unfortunate as some persons may consider it, bring these naturalised as well as unnaturalised Germans within the meshes of internment. The naturalised alien question is one to which the Government at the present moment are giving insufficient attention, and it is one in respect of which I strongly urge the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack to give a sympathetic reply.
The second question which I asked was as to the power of removal of these people. In his reply, Mr. McKinnon Wood states that the police and the naval and military authorities are empowered to remove any naturalised British subject of German birth who is open to reasonable suspicion. That power, he says, is vested in the competent naval and military authorities. I should like to know who is the competent naval or military authority. If it is an authority from whom we cannot expect to extract a reply under a fortnight, it is not very much use. We want promptitude in these matters, and much depends upon the definition of who is the competent authority. On that question there is a marked divergence of opinion. In the House of Commons Mr. McKinnon Wood, speaking of Scotland, said that the Scottish Office has no real responsibility—a very striking observation. I gather that he meant that the real responsibility rested with the chief constables. The Home Secretary, on the other hand, speaking on the 12th instant, said that the responsibility for saying which particular cases shall be interned rests with the War Office. There you have a conflict of opinion. When the Home Secretary referred to the War Office I suppose he also meant the Admiralty, because their powers are co-ordinate.
Now, how can the War Office act? If the War Office are to be responsible for interning these people, one assumes also that they are responsible for the direction of any prosecutions which may be necessary. But when all is said and done, the
134
military authorities are not made for that work. They have no legal knowledge and experience, and no officials to whom they could turn. There is a very material doubt in various parts of the country—this does not apply only to Scotland—as to what the powers are and who is responsible for their exercise. I cannot help feeling that somehow or other we have almost blundered into a condition of quasi-martial law. I am not sure which it ought to be—whether it ought to be real martial law or wholly civilian control; but a combination of the two is fatal, because it means delay, and delay may mean disaster. My feeling is that we ought not to put too much responsibility upon the War Office. Their primary duty at the present moment is to enlist, to equip, to drill, and to despatch soldiers. When you place upon the War Office a quasi-civilian duty of this kind you subject that Department to all the political controversy and pressure which the Home Office, a bona fide political Department, is accustomed to and w ell knows how to deal with. If you put this on the War Office, you divert the attention of the War Office, from the central and the crucial point, which is the provision and training of men, My feeling, however, is that if you are going to put this duty on soldiers, put it on them entirely and do not mix them up with the civilian authorities. Do not continue this half-and-half measure under which we are living to-day, and which in many respects is unsatisfactory.
Even though the responsibility for saying which particular cases shall be interned rests upon the War Office, your Lordships must have observed that the Home Office is all the time retaining power to release people from these camps. Application is made to the Home Office, and it is said that it is desirable that this or that man should be got out or that he is an employer and therefore should not be detained; and while the War Office on its responsibility, according to Mr. McKenna, is putting these people into confinement, the Home Office on its own responsibility is letting some of them out. That is manifestly undesirable. An officer commanding a district not in my part of the country said the other day that some of these people who had been let out had been released after signing a paper that they would be neutral during the war. It is almost impossible to believe that that is so, but I ask the question because it came to me front a very

135
responsible official in charge of an important district.
I want to ask one further question on this problem of control. Would it not be better, unless you are going to put the country under martial law and make soldiers and sailors solely responsible, to keep the dealing with this subject in the hands of chief constables and public prosecutors? The amount of work involved by this movement of aliens has been severe. None the less I imagine that if the Lord Chancellor were to announce that he desired the voluntary assistance of, we will say, twenty or fifty honorary recorders, he would secure the co-operation for the time being of men of the highest standing and integrity in the legal world. They could be made either recorders or prosecutors in the case of these aliens. The fact is that the people on the spot who are trying to deal with this question are frankly puzzled as to what their powers are and in whom full powers are regularly vested. This is not unnatural. There is the Common Law, to begin with; there is the Aliens Restriction Act; there have been two Defence of the Realm Acts and to-morrow we are going to have a third. It is not unnatural, therefore, that this confusion should exist.
I make this appeal to the Lord Chancellor, that he should make a blunt, terse, unenigmatic statement of what the duty and the power of these people are. That is what they do not know. They want guidance; they want something crisp and perfectly precise, which they can embody in their orders and explain to their subordinate officials. The authorities do not know what their powers are, and the public does not know what the duties of the authorities are. That is why there is this chaotic feeling in the Press and among ordinary civilians like myself. And that, believe me, is why we hear this talk about vigilance committees being formed in different parts of the country. I do not like the idea of amateur people trying to intervene where proper authorities exist, but it is because of the confusion into which those who live in the country in these areas know the matter has fallen that this proposal of vigilant committees is, I am afraid, taking a strong hold on the public mind.
A fortnight ago I made a third suggestion to the Lord Chancellor, and that was that
136
what I called a Joint Aliens Board should be established. The noble and learned Viscount said that it would be a slow and abstract institution, and there he left it. Perhaps he misunderstood my proposal. My real object was not that an authority should be put into commission and that everybody remotely or indirectly connected with the subject should have representation or a right to a say upon the subject. I did not mean it to be a debating society. What I really meant was this, that if you collected together the four or five or six Departments concerned they would codify and simplify the Government policy. What I suggested, therefore, was that the Departments concerned, knowing the facts of the case, appreciating all the dangers, knowing moreover the tremendous difficulties which must exist, should combine and lay down a common, clearly-understood policy which should be circulated amongst all those who are concerned in the country in dealing with aliens. I repeat that proposal to the Lord Chancellor. I do not think it would be slow. I think that if a board of that kind had met a fortnight ago when I first made the suggestion, they would have by to-day codified their policy on the subject. It is essential that it should be known who is responsible and to whom the public is to turn. It is necessary for the officials; I am sure it is advisable for the public; and it is, to say the least of it, only fair to the aliens who are still at large. I therefore strongly urge the Lord Chancellor to give that proposal, or something analogous to it, his favourable consideration.
LORD LEITH OF FYVIE: My Lords, I desire to associate myself with what has been said by the noble Earl as regards the necessity for Government action in defining where the power for dealing with this matter lies. At present authority to act is in the hands of the Home Office; but the Home Secretary, as is clear from his public assertions, does not recognise that it is his Department which has the final decision in this matter. Consequently when suspects are arrested they are turned over to the military authorities, and all action of the civil authorities then ceases. What is required is a definition of the powers of the respective authorities. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will give consideration to that point.
Great delays have occurred in individual cases because there is no authority prepared

137
to take them up. There was a case which went to the Scottish Office from the Home Office of a female who was suspected of being a spy, and it took fifty-seven days before she was out of the country. A period of forty-two days passed before the case was recognised at all. I never could understand—I had no connection with the case except by correspondence—who the power was who kept the Scottish Office and the Home Office from acting all that time. At any rate they acted eventually, and the woman has been out of the country now for a fortnight. But her presence while here resulted almost in a not, the provost stating that he could not have held the men back another: night; they would have sacked the place she was in. There was another case of delay near my own home. It took the Scottish Office together with the local authorities over forty days from the day they decided that the coast of Aberdeen, finishing at the Bridge of Torry, was a prohibited area, before they made the further extension which every one had been demanding. No reason at all was given for that delay. Then in Banffshire it took twenty-eight days before we could get the prohibited area extended along the Moray Firth; and although the county council have applied for certain parishes at the back of the present prohibited area to be scheduled, nothing has been done. Consequently the chief of the police of the district informs me that those aliens whom he had to move from the prohibited areas have gone into the parishes a few miles at the back. This, of course, reduces the matter to a farce. I presume that in the course of time these parishes will be brought within the prohibited area, because not only are the county council taking action but the Lord Lieutenant has again applied for this to be done.
The Home Secretary reported the other day in another place that the prohibited areas extended along the whole of the East coast round to the coast of Dorsetshire. The request which I made originally in your Lordships' House was that the whole of the South coast should be a prohibited area, and also the West coast of England and Scotland. Why, I ask, should the prohibited area cease at the coast of Dorset-shire? Why should Devonshire be left out? A mass meeting at Torquay has appealed to have that county made a prohibited area. The local authorities there have made similar applications, but
138
nothing has resulted. I mention these cases to show that, under present conditions, jurisdiction conflicts to such an extent that action is not taken. I also called attention on the last occasion that I spoke on this subject to the unfairness of the method of arrest. The rich aliens have steadily gone free and they remain free still.
Again, there has been no practical consideration of the sources of supply of money in these cases. If you found out in the case of an alien suspect who his paymaster was, you would get at the root of the matter. It is acknowledged in many cases that suspicion has been followed by almost evidence of the alien having been paid. The funds are coming through the Deutsche, the Dresdner, and other German banks in the City of London. There is no question about it. Money also comes from innumerable parties dealing with the German Government, and the only way of reaching them is by doing what other countries have done. I have to go some way back in history to give you a case. Along the coast of North America, in the war between the North and the South, contraband of war could not be stopped until a Bill was passed one afternoon and put in force at once under which every firm doing business on the Atlantic coast in lines which were considered contraband of war was visited and its books and everything else were placed in the hands of a Court the same night. What was the consequence? Within a month contraband business had ceased. Some cases were discovered where munitions of war had been imported in the shape of saints and other works of art. German money is, I repeat, at the bottom of the whole of what is happening in this country. It is known, and can be easily followed up, that some of the paymasters are those who are receiving raw material through neutral countries, and the payment for this raw material is going to the spies. That is a matter which can be proved up to the hilt if the Government will only go into it. By ascertaining where the money is coming from and stopping it you will strike at the heart of the trouble. It is absolutely necessary under present conditions to speak plainly, and unless the Government take the matter in hand as it affects all Germans, whether they are rich or poor, who are doing business with Germany and Austria and have done business with the enemy for the last twelve months, you will not succeed in finding

139
out who are the guilty ones. It is necessary to have possession of their books and to know exactly the business they have been doing for the last twelve months.
There is no question about it that the calamity in the Pacific lately was caused by our lack of knowledge. The Germans have a most scientific system which they developed very largely in convoying and supplying with coal and provisions the Russian Fleet to Japan. This came to my knowledge through an American naval source. The Germans have done this coaling business, this ships' chandlers business, in such a way that it is a perfect wonder. Every cruiser that they sent out had probably not less than eight tenders; those tenders were large ships which carried coal and provisions. Not only that, but each one had a double supply of wireless so that they could put it on shore and connect up with the shore. Those are all facts which have been noted. The source from which I get this information is not English but American. These ships are to-day operating from our shores; coal is being sold; firms that stopped selling, coal two months ago are now selling it; Scottish and English firms are concerned, and Lord Inverclyde writes to me stating that a firm in Scotland is doing this business. Therefore I say you must strike at the heart of the matter.
Another subject that requires urgent consideration is that of coast defence. The present condition on the coast of Ireland is one approaching great danger. There is no question about it that enemy money is flowing steadily into Ireland. You see the results in the virulent and treasonable newspapers that are published there and in other regrettable incidences which are still worse than the paper talk. I know from official sources that this matter is being taken in hand, but action will not be a bit of good unless you strike at the source whence the payment comes. Spies and other people, fishermen and the like, will not work for love in these matters. They are being paid, and paid handsomely. If you knew the prices paid in the Pacific for the coal that is being taken out there you would be surprised; it is perfectly staggering where the money comes from. The same thing is occurring on the West Coast of Scotland and on the coast of Ireland, and the suggestion which I make to the noble and learned Viscount on the
140
Woolsack is that the Government should aim at discovering the source of finance in this matter, because it is only thus that you will get at those in your midst who are striking at your heart. The ultimate success of the war is undoubted, but it would be delayed for months by not striking at the heart—which is finance—of the conspiracy.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, before the noble and learned Viscount replies I should like to make one or two remarks and also put a few questions. There can be no doubt of the point of view of everybody in this country. We are unanimous on one thing. I think we should all wish that there were fewer aliens here. As to the method of coping with them, I quite see the disadvantages. While in Germany and in Austria there are comparatively few British subjects, in this country there are an enormous number of Germans and Austrians. I think we all share the wish that the number could be materially reduced. It would be a benefit to everybody; it would be a benefit to the Government Departments that have to watch and deal with them, and it would make it much easier to cope with and watch those aliens who were left. I put this question to the noble and learned Viscount: Have the Government any information as to the statements that have appeared in the Press of neutral countries that the Germans are putting women and children and men above military age into concentration camps, or threatening to do so, under the idea that Germans in this country are being maltreated? If that is true, I think it would be well that the Government of this country should go even further than they have done in demonstrating that we are far from treating alien enemies unkindly. I believe a good deal has been done by inviting people from the American and other Embassies to visit the concentration camps and the camps of prisoners and to satisfy themselves and report abroad that everybody is being kindly treated. But I think the Government might take another step which would make it perfectly obvious that we are not keeping any alien in an observation camp in this country out of malice or hatred. I would like the Government to make a public offer that they would pay the expenses of sending back to their own country all alien women and children and men who are not of military age. It would not cost us very much; it would be an untold blessing to get rid of some of

141
them, and it would satisfy everybody abroad that we were not keeping anybody here out of malice. I cannot help thinking that that is a proposal worthy of the Government's consideration. Perhaps they have considered it. If so, no doubt the noble and learned Viscount will tell me why they have not adopted it. It certainly seems to me to be a thing worth doing, and if only a minority of the aliens in this country availed themselves of such an offer, if it were made, it would at any rate make our position plain to everybody in European countries. I think the noble Earl opposite suggested that all naturalised aliens should be put into concentration camps—
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: There are obvious reasons why that would be going too far.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: I thought it would be going too far, because, after all, in the case of a man who has been for many years naturalised in this country and whose sons are serving with our sons in the trenches abroad—in a case like that I think a naturalised alien ought to be recognised as though he were a British citizen. But there are other cases where rich aliens, very prominent people, have been naturalised within recent years as regards whom no Englishman can feel that the fire of patriotism to this country is burning very brightly in their hearts. Without thinking of putting them in concentration camps I suggest that a hint might be given by the Government that there are some very nice counties in the Midlands—outside the radius of the metropolis and not bordering on the sea—which, while the war lasted, would be admirable places of residence for those people who had been naturalised within the last ten years. If the Government were to consider that point of view, they would give a great deal of satisfaction to many of their best friends.
In the last few weeks the Government have done a great deal to tighten up proceedings in all these matters, and I have no doubt it took a long time to get things going. Other business was more pressing at the beginning of the war, and it has been only as time went on that the Government have been able to perfect their machinery in this matter. But I think that in some counties the trouble arises from the fact that the chief constables, who have to deal with this business, were
142
appointed under a very different state of things. Old men, as we know in this House, are sometimes the ablest and the most vigorous, but I think that an old man who is given something entirely different to do from anything he has ever clone in the earlier days of his life is not the best person to cope with an entirely fresh state of circumstances. I know one county not very far from the coast where the public are very dissatisfied with the lack of activity that is being shown on the alien question, and where they believe, rightly or wrongly, that the whole trouble arises from the very great and reverend age of the gentleman who would be expected to cope with the matter. I would like to ask the Government to consider this point—I have no doubt it does not refer to many places—and satisfy themselves that the people who have to deal with this entirely new state of things are really up to the mark and acquainted with the work they have to do.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, we have listened to three speeches on this very important topic, speeches which dealt with it ill different phases, and I will refer first to the speech which my noble friend has just made. With much of what he said I quite agree. I think it would be a very convenient thing if we could agree upon some kind of exchange of prisoners—
LORD ST. DAVIDS: I was not suggesting an exchange. From my point of view, and from most people's point of view, the retention of aliens here who are not of military age is not of the slightest advantage, and whether the Germans set free women and children or not I think we ought to do it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is a good deal to be said for what my noble friend has just put forward. As he knows, in cases of war it always takes some time before a stage is reached at which these things commend themselves to the common sense of combatants, and I hope that some such time may not be far off. At any rate, the point has not been overlooked. Then the noble Lord asked whether the Government had any information as to the Germans putting women and children, British subjects, into concentration camps, or threatening to do so, under the idea that Germans in this country were being

143
maltreated. I have no knowledge of that matter beyond having seen in the English newspapers extracts to that effect purporting to be taken from German newspapers. No doubt some of our subjects who are their prisoners have been lately removed from the great freedom which they enjoyed of roaming about in places like Baden-Baden and other quite agreeable spots, and placed in prisons. That has been done since we took to interning large numbers of aliens here in concentration camps. The Germans ale within their rights, and we are within our rights. I only hope that things that are not necessary will not be said here which may be misconstrued and probably mistranslated, and so tend to exacerbate public feeling and lead to reprisals. One ought to be careful to be accurate about the facts in these matters. As regards these two points I am glad that my noble friend spoke as he did, because on the last occasion when I made a suggestion that to arrest aliens wholesale, irrespective of their guilt or innocence, irrespective of whether or not they had wives and families depending upon them, in such a way that you might be subjecting absolutely innocent people to the greatest hardship, was a policy as inhuman as it was inefficacious, he rather reproached me for being too considerate to the people of the enemy. There is a great deal to be said about the necessity of being just even in war and sparing the innocent—
LORD ST. DAVIDS: I am not proposing any drastic course. What I am suggesting to the Government is the mildest thing possible, not that they should export German women and children and men not of military age to Germany against their will. What I am suggesting is that they should make a public offer that if any such are willing to go back to Germany, we would let them go and pay their expenses.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was congratulating my noble friend on the gentler tone of his speech on this occasion as compared with his speech a week ago to-day when this subject was under discussion. It was his speech on Wednesday last to which I was referring. Now I come to the speech of Lord Leith of Fyvie. The noble Lord appears to me, not only in the speech which he has made to-day but in his speech a week ago, to confound two things—allegation and truth.
144
If the things happened to which the noble Lord has made allusion, then I agree that we cannot be too quick in dealing with those cases. But what we want to get at are the cases. If, instead of coming here and saying vaguely that coal is being exported in large quantities from the west coast to the enemy, the noble Lord would tell us where exactly it is being exported from, by whom, and how much, I can promise him that the cases shall be investigated with the greatest promptitude and thoroughness.
LORD LEITH OF FYVIE: The fact of the tonnage going out is a matter of statistics; there are the bills of lading and of shipment. I have not the particulars written down, but unquestionably they could be got at by a proper committee.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Lord will give us any details, anything to which we can apply our minds, I can promise him that the matter shall be thoroughly investigated.
LORD LEITH OF FYVIE: It can be ascertained what tonnage of coal has been shipped out of the Welsh ports and out of Newcastle, Glasgow, and other ports.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We are the greatest exporting country in the world, and one of our largest exports is coal. We export coal to a large number of places with which we are not at war. If the noble Lord will adduce any information to give colour to the suspicion that coal is going to the enemy I can promise him that the matter shall be fully investigated. I may say that the Board of Trade have given the closest attention to the very point on which the noble Lord has spoken, and they have no reason to suppose that coal is going in any large quantities, or indeed so far as they know at all, to the enemy. Vague allegations of the kind we have heard are not only useless but destroy the very purpose at which the noble Lord is at work. The more he can make his case convincing the more he will do good; the less he can make it convincing the more he will do harm. As I have said, what we really want is something tangible with which to deal.
The noble Earl who initiated this discussion went into very important questions. He asked what powers exist, who is

145
responsible for their exercise, and whether there could not be more co-ordination. I will endeavour to tell the noble Earl what the powers are. Apart from the Common Law—which must not be neglected, because, particularly in times of national danger, the powers of the Common Law are extensive—there are three main sources of power which can be applied. First of all there is the Official Secrets Act. I mention that Act because it was passed in time of peace. The reason why it was passed I will tell you. When I was at the War Office we were aware that a very large and highly organised system for obtaining intelligence existed in this country, which was being used by the foreign Power with which we are now at war. It was necessary to take active steps to counteract that, and steps were taken. An Intelligence Department was set up—it was naturally a secret Department—and for a long time it was at work. Then we strengthened its hands by passing the Official Secrets Act, which gave much more drastic remedies. It may be of interest to noble Lords to know the kind of people who co-operated. I will take the Metropolitan Police because they are, after all, the main people who come in in matters of this kind. Before the outbreak of the war the Metropolitan Police had for some years, in co-operation with the Secret Service Department of which I am speaking, been actively combating espionage. The work was taken up by a special branch of the Criminal investigation Department. Skilled officers were employed; foreign agents were traced and marked down; and there were several successful prosecutions even at that time. On the outbreak of war no break was made; on the contrary, the process was increased. The police establishment for making inquiries regarding aliens and suspects was strengthened, and a chief officer and a staff of over 114 officers and men have been engaged exclusively on this duty, these officers receiving the assistance of the police throughout the country. Over 120,000 inquiries have been carried out. Enemy aliens numbering 342 who have been suspected as dangerous have been interned—this is exclusive of a very much larger number who have been dealt with on more general grounds; and 6,000 house searches have been made. The record is one of considerable activity, and it has gone on, of course, unnoticed because attention has not been drawn to it.
146
Now I come to the other two sets of powers which have been created and set in motion since the war. One is the set of powers under the Aliens Restriction Acts, and the other the set of powers under the Defence of the Realm Acts. In the case of aliens the real difficulties with which you have to deal are threefold. There is, first of all, the risk of organised hostilities. I myself have always been a sceptic about that, but it is a point that must not be neglected. Then there is the possibility of espionage. That falls under two subheads—the restriction of the movement of aliens, and time internment of enemy aliens. Under the Aliens Restriction Acts a series of Orders in Council have been passed fixing areas as required from time to time, and in other ways dealing with aliens under those Acts. I have these in a very convenient form in this book here. Noble Lords may not be aware that the Stationery Office has just published a Manual of Emergency Legislation, prepared by the Government, which gives all the Orders in Council and the explanations as to their application. It is too late for me to read copious extracts from this manual in answer to noble Lords' speeches, but if you will look at it yon will find very valuable information there concerning the two sets of Proclamations and the Orders in Council made under the Aliens Acts and under the Defence of the Realm Acts. As the noble Rail knows, the Acts are very general and provide for the possibility of these Proclamations and Orders in Council; but the Orders in Council are of a very potent kind. Those dealing with aliens give very large powers to the police in the way of putting restrictions upon aliens, preventing them entering the country pr going out, enforcing their registration, and restricting them as to area.
The other set of powers are of a different kind. They arise out of the Defence of the Realm Acts, and these powers, which are applicable only to a state of war, are in connection with people who have to be dealt with by the naval or military authorities, or, at any rate, on military principles. For instance, an officer commanding a district may become aware that there is reason to suppose that telegrams have been tampered with, or the naval authorities might become aware that wireless telegraphy is being set up or that wireless messages have been tapped. I am speaking not for the purpose of showing that the

147
civilian authorities should not be asked to co-operate, but for the purpose of showing that the principle of the Defence of the Realm Acts is military in application and therefore is primarily interesting to soldiers and sailors. The Orders in Council put forth under the Defence of the Realm Acts are very elaborate. They create a number of offences—in many cases they go far beyond offences at Common Law—and impose very great restrictions upon the action of people in this country, the country being treated as in a state of war; and it is an important point to remember that they apply not only to aliens but equally to other people.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: May I ask a question?
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I expected to have heard something from the noble and learned Viscount with reference to what my noble friend behind me called attention—namely, that there had been discovered an elaborate system of spying by signalling from the East coast. I should like to know whether that has been communicated to the noble and learned Viscount.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should also like to reply to the question which the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, was going to ask. Perhaps he will put his question and then I will reply to both at once. I had not finished my speech.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The point on which the Lord Chancellor was speaking is the one where ambiguity exists. Soldiers and sailors are unaware whether they are entitled to intern British subjects, and, if they do so, whether the civil authorities of the State reserve to themselves the right to release those persons.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Order in Council under the Defence of the Realm Acts deals with a vast variety of subjects, amongst them being the power of arresting any one, alien or not; it also gives power to intern as a semi-military measure; and the responsibility for arresting, for providing concentration camps—they are not prisons—and the responsibility for releasing rests with the military authorities.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: For releasing?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes. But I need not say that that is a power which has been—in fact, both powers have been—very properly exercised in consultation between the military and the civil authorities. I will give the noble Earl an instance. One unfortunate German who had been interned had been in this country since he was two years of age; he did not know the German language, and he had two sons actually fighting for us at the Front. He was a German, and therefore he was put in the concentration camp. The military authorities had not the means of making complete inquiries into a case like that, and the chief constable of the district was asked to make them. Then, in conjunction with the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for War decided to release him. There is another case which has come to my knowledge. An unfortunate Austrian gentleman—a more harmless man from our point of view I do not think any one in this House could wish to find—has been living in this country a long while and has been engaged on an important literary work. All of a sudden he was whisked away from Colchester where he was living and taken to Chester, I think it was. He was a man as free from bias against this country as any one could wish to see. That was a case where it was necessary for the civilian authorities to deal with his release. Both the War Office and the Home Office have been working very closely together in this matter.
It has been asked, Who is responsible for the administration of the powers taken by the Government? Under the Aliens Acts the civil authorities are almost exclusively responsible—that is to say, in London the Home Secretary, who has control over the Metropolitan Police; in the country the chief constables are mainly responsible, and, of course, the magistrates; and in Scotland the chief constables acting partly under the direction of the magistrates but mainly of the sheriffs. Then I come to the question of whether some good purpose might be served by a Joint Committee. My Lords, there is virtually a Joint Committee. The closest consultation is going on between the War Office, the Admiralty, and the Home Office in regard to these matters, and the powers are clearly distributed under the Acts to which I have referred. The same suggestion that the noble Earl has made was put forward the

149
other day in the House of Commons, and I would refer him to the answer given on November 18 by the Prime Minister. Speaking of these three Departments—the War Office, the Admiralty, and the Home Office—he said:
"The three Departments mentioned co-operate with one another, and I cannot agree with the suggestion that the division of responsibility has resulted in confusion and inefficiency. Division of duties is inevitable, because they relate partly to civil and partly to naval and military matters. The Homo Office and the police are responsible for the steps taken to register alien enemies and to enforce the provisions of the Aliens Restriction Order. The internment of alien enemies of military age is a military measure for which tire War Office is, and must be, responsible, though the Secretary of State for War is assisted by the civil authority in giving effect to Iris policy."
I think that puts perfectly plainly the way in which responsibility is being apportioned at the present time. In all the cases with which the noble Earl is familiar the responsibility rests with the military authorities. The Prime Minister went on to say—
"As regards the dangers of espionage—a subject which the noble Lord has, no doubt, especially in mind—some time ago, on the advice of the Committee of Imperial Defence, there was established at the War Office an Intelligence Department, which co-operates with the Admiralty and has the assistance of the civil power wherever necessary. This Department has done invaluable work. The powers which the naval and military authorities possessed before the war to deal with espionage have been materially supplemented by the passing of the Defence of the Realm Acts, and the question of strengthening the staff of the Intelligence Department to cope with the new duties imposed upon it is now being considered. I would point out to the noble Lord that his suggestion would not remove any responsibility from the existing authorities, unless he proposes to transfer to his Committee of Public Safety the naval and military forces of the Crown and the police forces now controlled in the metropolis by the Government and elsewhere by the local police authorities."
I have quoted that because I think it is a good answer to the question as to the nature of the division of responsibility.
Then the noble and learned Earl on the Front Opposition Bench put another question to me. He asked why have not steps been taken about signalling from the coast and other matters which have been referred to in debate? I do not think the noble and learned Earl can have realised the correspondence which has taken place between Lord Crawford and Mr. McKinnon Wood, the Secretary for Scotland, upon
150
this subject. Every case of signalling that has been reported has been most closely and carefully investigated. I gathered from what he said that Lord Crawford himself, who is of course beyond the breath of suspicion, had attracted the attention of the authorities on account of light that was showing in his house, which seems to indicate that at least the authorities were not wanting in vigilance. No doubt there is a great deal going on. With the extraordinary intelligence system which Germany organised in this country long before the war, no doubt they have certain advantages which they ought not to have, even of this kind. But when the authorities, whether civil, military, or naval, leave got the least trace of a case, they have followed it up with the utmost vigour; and it has become more and more clear what an elaborate system it is with which we have to cope.
If I were to harbour a suspicion, it would be that the most formidable people we have to deal with are not aliens but probably people of British nationality who have been suborned. One knows from the French official reports of the number of French spies who have been detected by the French, and one knows what an organised system there has been of paying for information. I wish I were sure that when really valuable and dangerous pieces of information were given they were not given by people of our own nationality. They are the people with the greatest facilities; and some of the information which has been given could only have been given by people who had access to knowledge of that kind because they were British. I heard of a case the other day which fully bore out this contention. It is so with every country and every war. I rejoice to think that we have very little of it; but that we have some, and that it is formidable, I cannot gainsay. In seeking these sources of communication with the enemy it is desirable to go about the search in a scientific way and to cast suspicion where it is most likely to be founded.
Reference has been made to the export of petrol. I would point out that in the first case mentioned by Lord Crawford, where a fine of £5 was imposed, the quantity was small and there was no suspicion, so I am informed, that it was sent for any enemy purpose. In the other case of

151
which the noble Earl spoke, I am informed that a fine of £50 was imposed and proceedings were taken against the owner of the ship—
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Surely some penalty more than the imposition of a wretched fine of £50 ought to be inflicted. A fortnight ago I asked the noble and learned Viscount to look into the question of the fine. It may be that the fine was three times the worth of the petrol. But is not something further going to be done?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Earl thinks I have control over the Judges, and particularly over the Judges in Scotland. I have no more control over them than he has. I can only say that where there is the least suspicion of dealing with the enemy the case should be treated as one of high treason. I am entirely at one with the noble and learned Earl that whenever you do get anything approaching a case of high treason you should deal with it, at once. As a matter of fact, there are such cases that have been dealt with at once. But if the learned Judge who hears the case thinks it is merely a piece of stupidity or recklessness about the law and that there was no enemy purpose about it, and imposes a fine instead of committing the offender to prison, I have no control over the Judge, nor have I the means of saying that he has acted unjustly. All I can say is that these laws, whatever they are, ought to be strictly put in force, and that whenever it is shown that there has been dealing with the enemy such a case should be dealt with strictly.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Cannot the power be handed over to some one who will deal with these cases more severely than imposing a wretched fine of £50? That is the point.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know the circumstances of the case except what the noble Earl has told me and that a fine of £50 was imposed. I do not know whether there was the smallest justification for a more severe penalty. As I have not been informed that there is any ground for suspecting such circumstances as have been referred to to exist, I again say that I am not in a position to discuss the case further. One other point. It has been said that if
152
the military authorities have responsibility over matters arising under the Defence of the Realm Acts there will be delay in taking action, and that they are not the people who should be given the duty of instituting civil proceedings. Under the Defence of the Realm Acts all cases that arise are tried by Court-Martial. They are being so tried now. The only restriction is that you cannot give a sentence of death. You can give penal servitude for life but not a sentence of death in a case which arises under the Defence of the Realm Acts. But you can always, if it is a serious case of an alien enemy trying to obtain information for the benefit of the enemy, have him dealt with as was done in the case of the spy Lody, who was tried by Court-Martial and executed. You cannot try an alien for high treason.
Some of your Lordships may say, "There is all this going on. Why is not more done to stop it?" The only answer I have to make is that everything is being done that we think can be done. No effort is being spared, either at the War Office, the Admiralty, or the Home Office, or by the Public Prosecutor, the Attorney-General, or the chief constables throughout the country, to deal with the cases as they come up. But I would remind your Lordships that we are dealing with matters of a most difficult and intangible order in which it is very difficult to get at the truth, matters as to which only unremitting vigilance can give you any result, and probably that result only the reaching of a proportion of the cases. We may lament this fact, but I suggest that the best is being done under the circumstances. The difficulty of defeating espionage and the kind of measures of which your Lordships have spoken is enormous, and I can only say that to the best of my judgment the action of the authorities has been not only vigorous but, as they get more and more experience of what is happening, is becoming more and more searching.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I do not want to repeat what I said the other night as to allowing things to be done which may or may not show acts of high treason and when they are done taking some trifling and modern Statute and attempting to put that in force as if it would stop what every one knows is going on in this country at this moment. I

153
entirely repudiate the suggestion that we are dependent upon these modern Acts which have been passed for dealing with trifling and comparatively immaterial matters. What I would apply would be the Statute of Treason. It ought to be understood that every act done in aid or assistance of His Majesty's enemies is an act for which a person may be indicted and hanged. With reference to putting this law in force, I am a little surprised to hear any doubt expressed upon the subject. Every constable, not the chief constable but every constable, is entitled to arrest upon reasonable suspicion of felony, much less for high treason. What the public feel is that what is every one's business is no one's business. As to any conflict between the Home Office and other authorities, I do not really know what particular jurisdiction the Home Office has, except perhaps to direct a criminal prosecution on the part of the State instead of its being done in the ordinary course of the law. But every constable has the right to arrest upon reasonable suspicion of felony, and no lawyer would deny that. In those circumstances I do not understand the difficulty there is in putting the law into force. My noble friend seemed to think that one must have an authority from the Home Office. I deprecate the sort of notion that you are to give the whole jurisdiction of the Criminal Law to the Home Office. The Common Law prevails, and every constable has a right, upon reasonable suspicion, to arrest if any act is done in assistance of the King's enemies. And if that is done and he does arrest, there should be a prosecution for high treason and not for some lighter offence.
THE MARQUESS OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I wish to bring to your notice a matter which refers to the county of Kent. Although I am strongly in favour of strong measures, I think this divided responsibility leads to cases which inflict great hardships on certain people. I shall be glad to give the noble and learned Viscount particulars of a case. The person concerned certainly has a German name, but he was born in this country and had a British mother and a naturalised German father; for many years he was the electrical engineer of one of the largest Corporations in England. He has now been dealt with thus by the military authorities. A Deputy Lieutenant took a Yeomanry detachment and invaded
154
his premises, and he was told that he must I leave the county of Kent within twenty-four hours. On his seeing the military authorities at Dover, he was given until the end of the month. It seems to me that if a man has to leave in twenty-four hours there must be a grave reason, and if there was a grave reason certainly he ought not to be allowed to stay there until the end of the month.
There was one matter with which the noble and learned Viscount did not deal. I refer to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Leith—the question of payments. My noble friend mentioned the Deutsche and Dresdner Banks. I do not think that the Deutsche and Dresdner Banks could make payments of the description indicated, because all their business is in the hands of Sir William Plender. But there are other businesses carried on by gentlemen who have become naturalised but whose naturalisation does not go very far. Surely there is nothing to prevent the Government from appointing a person who could act in the position of a commissary in the case of those offices. I know that the noble and learned Viscount said we should not do anything which could give offence in Germany and lead to possible recrimination.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I said that by unnecessary prosecution we should possibly give rise to reprisals.
THE MARQUESS OF WINCHESTER: I accept the correction. But certainly I understood the noble and learned Viscount to say that action taken in this country might result in action being taken in Germany against British subjects. I believe I am right in saying that action has been taken in Germany against British subjects there who had any business connections with Germany and were in a position to be of assistance to this country; but there are certainly Germans in this country who have not been dealt with. There is no business house in Belgium at the present time that has not got a German commissary. It cannot write a letter, or draw a cheque, or do anything; and I do not sec at all why some steps of that sort should not be taken here where businesses are conducted by people of alien origin many of whom have not got papers of naturalisation.
VISCOUNT ALLENDALE: My Lords, I need hardly say that after the exhaustive reply of the Lord Chancellor I have very little to say on behalf of the Home Office. Nor do I propose, even if I were competent to do so, to enter into any legal question. But I should like, from the point of view of the Home Office, to emphasise what was said by the noble and learned Viscount as to the need of something tangible to go upon. I can assure Lord Leith, who has interested himself so much in this question, that any information sent to the Home Office or to the Police, whether authenticated by the writer's name and address or not, is very closely investigated. An enormous amount of time and labour has, in fact, been expended by the Police in the investigation of information given by noble Lords and others, and frequently labour has been wasted owing to the fact that in some cases the information, though given no doubt in perfect good faith, was based on hearsay or surmise, thus showing the difficulty in getting reliable information. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Leith, will excuse me if I illustrate that by some correspondence which he himself had with my right hon. friend the Home Secretary. In his letter of September 24 the noble Lord desired "to call attention to the fact that spies and alien enemies had been arrested along our South shores, making communication with steamers." He went on to say that he had personally seen men arrested in khaki uniform getting on the boats, and that it was only on account of the good look-out kept on board the mail steamers at Folkestone that the men were detected and handed over to the Folkestone Police. Naturally my right hon. friend thought that here was something specific to go upon, and he caused inquiries to be at once made. The result of the inquiries—I need not read the whole correspondence—was that the Folkestone Police said that they knew nothing whatever about this.
LORD LEITH OF FYVIE: May I ask the noble Viscount to read my letter?
VISCOUNT ALLENDALE: Certainly, but which letter?
LORD LEITH OF FYVIE: The one to which you were referring.
VISCOUNT ALLENDALE: The first one?
LORD LEITH OF FYVIE: No, the one to which you were referring.
VISCOUNT ALLENDALE: As the noble Lord wishes I will read it in full. It was only to save the time of the House that I did not do so—
LORD LEITH OF FYVIE: If you will allow me I will state the case. I have not the correspondence here, but the arrest was made while I was at Boulogne on some Red Cross business. The captain of the "Onward" reported to me that he had arrested a man in khaki uniform and seen another one who was in semi-khaki uniform ashore at Folkestone. When my attention was called to the fact that my dictated letter stated that I had myself seen them, I immediately wrote to the Home Secretary that a correction must he made, that I had not seen the incident myself but had had it reported to me by the captain of the "Onward," and that I would write to the captain and get a confirmation of the fact and the date. That I did, and if the noble Viscount will follow the correspondence he will see that the captain confirmed the fact that he had turned down one man on board in semi-khaki uniform and that the other man was in khaki uniform trying to go from Folkestone to Boulogne, trying to go to the front. The Private Secretary to the Home Secretary, Mr. Harris, confirmed that; and if the noble Viscount will refer to the last sentence of his letter he will see that there is no question of contradiction.
VISCOUNT ALLENDALE: I have no wish to be at all unfair to the noble Lord. I was coming to the remainder of the correspondence in due course, but I wanted to save the time of the House. The noble Lord did write in his first letter, "I have personally seen men arrested in khaki uniform." He afterwards said that that was a mistake, that he had not actually seen it. The noble Lord's first letter was typewritten, so presumably it would be dictated and would be looked through. Anyhow, I do not want to press that point; but it probably would not be a letter which was written in haste for the post. Then Mr. Harris, the secretary to whom the noble Lord has referred by name, wrote a letter early in October —I do not wish to trouble the House by reading it—to the effect that inquiries had been made, and that the Folkestone Police knew nothing whatever about the matter. The next letter bearing on this

157
subject was from Lord Leith on October 24 to the Home Secretary, in which he said that the person who had reported this to him was the captain of the "Onward." This case turned out to be one of a man in khaki uniform who was attempting to go from Folkestone to Boulogne with the object of making his way to the firing line—the noble Lord did not know the exact date, but thought it was the date mentioned in the letter from the secretary to the Home Secretary—whereas the allegation was that spies were coming over to this country. The one fact that has come out of all this was that of one man only who wanted to get to the firing line and for some reason or another had not been allowed to go. So I think the noble Lord was misinformed if he assumed that there were spies in khaki coming over to this country—which was what was inferred from his first letter to my right hon. friend. But I do not desire to score a point against the noble Lord. I only mention this to show how very difficult it is for the Home Office or any other Department to press matters and investigate all the cases that are brought to their notice when they are founded on such inaccurate information as this. I can, however, assure the noble Lord and the House that the Home Office and the Police are perfectly ready to investigate, in fact are continually investigating, any information reaching them with regard to these matters.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, it seems to me that we have lapsed into a very irregular procedure. The noble Viscount who has just been speaking on behalf of the Government has, I have no doubt with the best intentions, holding a correspondence in his hand, been quoting extracts or passages here and there in a mariner that made it almost impossible for the House to follow the sequence or to note what was going on. I am not quite certain what is the practice of your Lordships' House, but certainly when I was in the House of Commons nobody was allowed, by an invariable although an unwritten rule, to quote from any correspondence without laying it on the Table. I do not know whether that would be the desire of my noble friend Lord Leith in this connection; I only call attention to it in passing. Although the noble Viscount no doubt had no desire to break any rule, as a matter of fact it is very important that these unwritten rules should continue to be observed in our procedure.
158
I do not know that I have much to say, but inasmuch as this has been an admittedly important debate, and as we have had two speeches from noble Lords representing His Majesty's Government occupying between them, I think, something like an hour of time, perhaps it may be considered desirable that at least a few words should be said from this Bench in reply. The first thing that strikes one is this. The frequent repetition of debates on the spy question in this House is, I think, a measure of the anxiety which continues to be felt not in this House alone but in the country on the matter; and for my own part I think your Lordships in all parts of the House will feel that a debt of gratitude is due to Lord Crawford, Lord Leith, and others—I include Lord St. Davids—who have been persistent in calling the attention of the House to this subject. They have rendered a public service if for no other reason than that of having elicited, in the reply from the Lord Chancellor, the first really comprehensive statement of what we understand to be the position of the Government. I do not think the speech of the Lord Chancellor will quite have satisfied the expectations of my noble friend Lord Crawford. My noble friend asked the Lord Chancellor to make a reply that should be both "blunt and terse." I hardly think that those are the two adjectives which any one would choose to describe the oration which we have heard. It certainly was not blunt, for the obvious reason that I do not think the noble and learned Viscount could be blunt if he tried; and I hope I am not disparaging his speech when I say that it certainly was not terse. But at any rate the noble and learned Viscount's speech in reply did cover a great deal of ground.
Before I pass on to mention the branches of the subject which the Lord Chancellor did not touch, may I join with Lord Crawford for a moment in his recognition of the fact that during the past three weeks, at any rate, progress has been made in the serious interest which the Government are taking in this matter, in their realisation of the dimensions of the problem, and in the practical measures that they are taking to meet it. That we acknowledge. But we also think that there is a great deal of ground still to be covered and a good many gaps still to be filled. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack and the noble Lord opposite, with I think perfect justice, said, "Give us cases.

159
Let us have something tangible to go upon." Just as those noble Lords plead the extreme difficulty with which the Government are confronted in dealing with the matter, so also I think they must in fairness acknowledge the difficulty we sometimes find in being able to prove the actual facts of each case. There is an element of suspicion that often enters which may turn out to be unfounded, but certainly the charge of not producing specific cases cannot possibly be brought against my noble friend Lord Crawford. His cases have been specific throughout. His cases in the speech he made on November 11 were specific. The cases he has submitted to your Lordships this afternoon have been specific. The ease raised by my noble friend sitting behind me was a specific case; and there are one or two specific cases to which I shall also personally refer.
I do not think the reply of the Lord Chancellor on the question of the export of petrol from our shores and the imposition for that offence of what appears to many of us to be a very light fine, really covered the whole ground. The noble and learned Viscount said that you can, if there is any reasonable ground for doing so, proceed for high treason. Quite so. But we are referring to cases in which it might be difficult to establish such a charge; and really we do invite the noble and learned Viscount to say whether the existing powers are adequate when cases like this, which are likely to be very serious in their consequences, can be dealt with by a tribunal which only imposes the penalty of a comparatively trifling fine.
Then we come to the case of night signalling. We do not dispose of the matter by saying that, close as the investigation has been, in none of the cases that have been so far examined has definite proof been obtained. There is not any one of us who has any connection with the Eastern shores of England and Scotland who is not perfectly certain that the thing is going on, and going on every night. I make mention of the matter, not with a view of reproaching the Government, because I truly believe that every case that has been brought before them they have immediately investigated, but with the view of urging that the very fact that the existing procedure has been inadequate shows the depth, the ramifications, the secrecy, and the cleverness of the procedure that has been
160
adopted, and should really urge the Government to reiterated efforts in this connection. Of all these matters this matter of night signalling seems to me to be one of the most serious. We have every one of us talked to men living in these counties who say that, whether it be by flash lights from houses, by lights from motors, or by lamps, this signalling to ships lying off our shores is going on. I hope, as we are shortly going to separate, that that will be one of the matters to which, while Parliament is not sitting, the Government will continue to give their most earnest attention.
There was another point in the speech of my noble friend Lord Crawford to which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack did not refer in his reply. Lord Crawford gave the numbers of alien enemies—771 men and 2,190 women—who are still living in the prohibited areas on the East Coast of Scotland and England and on the South Coast of this country; and he mentioned these very significant and rather alarming numbers with a view to asking the Government whether they had any explanation of them, or whether they proposed to take any steps. I repeat the question, because it is one of some moment.
Then we pass on to the question of naturalised Germans, of whom it has been said, I think more than once in this debate; that they are perhaps the most dangerous factor with whom we have to deal. Again my noble friend pressed upon the Government greater attention to the matter. Upon that nothing was said in reply. If the question of greater vigilance is raised, I think I could myself contribute one or two cases where perhaps there is a need for that quality. For instance I had only to-day brought to my notice a case of a German who has a house at Camberley. He is a man of rank in his own country, and he has to report himself once a month at Farnham and once a week to the Camberley police. He has been deprived of his motor, and may not go more than five miles from his home. I have nothing whatever to say against this individual; I have no suspicion even to suggest about him; but is it altogether wise to leave, under these very slight restrictions, a German gentleman of this description in close proximity to a place where large numbers of troops are employed? I

161
venture to think that that is a case that calls for sonic inquiry.
Another case that has been mentioned to me may perhaps be worthy of being laid before your Lordships. It is that of a German who is the district manager of a boiler-making company bearing what looks to be a German name, and who travels about the country in connection with the business of the firm by whom he is employed. Again, I have nothing to say against the individual except that he boasts that, under the easy conditions of Our law, he can go wherever he likes about the country and do what he chooses. When the chief constable of the borough or the county concerned was asked to make inquiries about this case, it turned out that all this German gentleman has to do is to report himself to the police and obtain a travelling permit confirming that he is subject to the provisions of the Aliens Restriction Order, and apart from that his movements are entirely free from any control. Really this man is in receipt of police protection. He is moving about the country with what one may call a passport signed by our own people. Heaven knows what he may be doing. He may be doing nothing unfriendly to us. On the other hand, he may. Yet under this system no check seems to be placed upon his liberty of movement or his liberty of action.
I pass for a moment to what was the chief topic raised by my noble friend Lord Crawford, and here, if I may say so, I do not think that the reply of the Lord Chancellor quite gave us the information that we desired. The point that was raised by my noble friend was this. Having in his mind, I imagine, debates that have recently taken place in the other House of Parliament upon the subject, he sought an explanation here of the apparently conflicting statements as to the authority by which the various powers, enjoyed by the Government are set in motion in the prohibited areas and in other parts of this country. I own that I have been left in similar doubt by the mysterious speeches in the other House. We had the Secretary for Scotland disowning responsibility and yet admitting that the chief constables who are under him were constantly set in motion in the matter. Again, the Home Secretary in
162
the other House—and may I be allowed in passing, while I am mentioning the Home Secretary, to say how entirely we on both sides of the House, I am sure, repudiate the ungenerous sneers in which he indulged in the other House at the expense of my noble friend Lord Crawford, sneers which no doubt many in this House have not read, but if they have they have pint at their proper value—the Home Secretary, in his speech the other day, divested himself of all responsibility and threw the responsibility on to the War Office, a Department which, as my noble friend remarked, is overburdened with other and more important duties and which ought to be relieved of a task for which it is unfit.
My noble friend accordingly comes here and asks two questions—first, what are the powers that are being exercised, and by whom are they exercised; and, secondly, cannot we have some greater co-ordination, and cannot the orders, if so co-ordinated, be made known in some simple form to the people who have to administer them? I think I am correctly putting his questions. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack answers with great fullness the first question. He gives us a long and learned account of the different powers conferred by legislation on the Government in this respect. He tells us, for instance, that some of these powers are conferred by the Official Secrets Act of 1911, and he gives us interesting information as to the vigour and efficiency with which an Intelligence Department created under that Act has been conducting those operations. Then he went on to say that there were powers enjoyed by the Government under the Aliens Act—powers for the discharge of which the civil authorities and the chief constables acting in conjunction with them are responsible. Thirdly there were, he said, the Defence of the Realm Acts, the powers under which are primarily entrusted to the military and naval authorities; they are responsible for the arresting and the interning, and, I think he also said, the releasing of suspected persons. I wonder what the actual facts about this are. I think I remember reading in the debate in the House of Commons that it was there stated that while the military authorities had in some cases arrested and interned these people, they were let out by the Home Office.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Arrangements were made between the two Departments.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: That makes it even more difficult to understand. The powers vested by Statute are vested in the naval and military authorities, but by arrangement they are handed over to the civil authorities.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The military authorities cause inquiries to be made—a matter which, I am afraid in a rather long speech, I described at some length—and in connection with those inquiries it was considered desirable that the co-operation of the police should be obtained, and that they should make a full report.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for giving us so clear an explanation. But that still leaves the question unanswered whether it would not be desirable for all the officers who are concerned in these operations in these coastal areas to know exactly where they stand. I believe at the present moment that they are bewildered and puzzled by the conflicting instructions as to how they are to proceed. When my noble friend Lord Crawford suggested the other day—and he repeated the suggestion this evening—that there should be a Joint Aliens Board or Committee, I think what he had in view was a body which should draw up and promulgate some such instructions—I think he used the word "codify." That was a point not taken by the noble and learned Viscount. I own for myself that when I spoke the other day I meant something quite different. I meant by a Joint Aliens Board a Committee sitting in London on which there would be a representative, perhaps more than one, of the Home Office, the War Office, and the Admiralty, which should take in hand the whole of this business, thereby relieving the War Office of a burden which I maintain it ought not to bear, and not merely discharging the functions mentioned by my noble friend but practically charging itself with the whole business of spies. To that the noble and learned Viscount replies that we have such a Committee already, that there is
164
already perfect co-ordination between the various Departments. If that be so, I do not quite know why the noble and learned Viscount the other day, when he deprecated the suggestion emanating either from the noble Earl or myself, spoke of it as a "slow and abstract institution." There is, of course, nothing abstract about it; and as for slowness, nothing could be slower than the present system. We could all of us give many instances of that. I was rather sorry, therefore, to hear the noble and learned Viscount put on one side as not worthy of consideration that suggestion of a Joint Committee. But even taking the word in the rather more limited sense which my noble friend Lord Crawford has in view, I would ask the noble and learned Viscount whether it might not be possible to draw up for the information of the various authorities—naval, military, and civil—in the coastal areas some body of rules which would enable them to act with a greater knowledge of the law and their powers and duties under it than they at present enjoy.
There was one other matter mentioned in the debate to which I may refer—the suggestion made by Lord St. Davids that the Government might well consider the advisability of repatriating boys, old men, women, and children now living in our midst, and, so to speak, making them a present to their own country irrespective of what Germany may do in reply. The noble and learned Viscount said of this suggestion that the point had not been overlooked. I should have liked him to express rather more sympathy than that, because although I have not had the opportunity of examining the suggestion in detail it seems to me to have a very great deal to be said for it, and I hope that it will continue not to be overlooked and that His Majesty's Government will address themselves to a serious contemplation of the suggestion. I do not think I need say anything more, except, as this is the last occasion on which before the adjournment of the House we shall have an opportunity of raising the subject, to implore His Majesty's Government to continue that active and vigilant interest in the matter of which they have lately shown signs, and which I believe in the opinion of every one of your Lordships is absolutely essential to the successful prosecution of the task on which we are engaged.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the subject of this debate is such an important one and so much interest has been taken in it by noble Lords on both sides of the House that I am unwilling to allow the discussion to close without saving one or two words on various points which have been raised in the course of it. First of all with regard to the mention by my noble friend behind me [Lord Allendale] of the correspondence which had taken place between the Home Office and Lord Leith, I can only repeat what my noble friend said—that his only object in doing it was to show the great difficulty of arriving at strictly verbally accurate accounts of these matters. We all know the extreme difficulty of repeating with perfect accuracy an account even of anything that one has seen oneself. Certainly it is quite familiar to all noble Lords who are connected with the law how difficult it is for the most honest witnesses to tell a perfectly coherent story; and my noble friend only desired to illustrate by this example one of the difficulties with which the Departments are confronted in attempting to deal with this question. As regards the use which Lord Allendale made of the correspondence, the noble Earl opposite is quite right in saying that it is the unwritten custom in this House, as in the other, that where any document of a public nature is quoted in part those interested have a right to ask that the whole document, or in such a case as this the whole correspondence, should be laid on the Table, and, if desired, printed and circulated as a Parliamentary Paper. I do not think the noble Earl is likely in this particular instance—the matter is a small one—to make this request; but we certainly should not decline it if it were made.
I followed with great interest the speech of Lord Crawford, particularly on the point with which Lord Curzon dealt last in summing up the matter—that is to say, the question of the supposed conflict of authority in dealing with this subject of aliens and of espionage generally, and the steps which the Government ought to take or might take to inform the different public authorities more precisely of their duties, and, generally, to bring the whole business into a more coherent shape. It is quite true, as the noble Earl pointed out, that there is a possibility of confusion arising from the fact that there are various Statutes
166
under which it is possible to proceed and under which proceedings are actually taken. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Halsbury, desired that more reliance should be placed on the Common Law and on the general powers which exist under older Statutes, and that not so much exclusive attention should be paid to those more novel expedients which have been tried in order to meet particular cases; and I have no doubt that the noble and learned Earl's opinion, as always, will receive due attention.
But we come to the real question whether the main management of this business ought to be in civil or in military hands. The noble Earl was not inaccurate when he stated that we were living in a condition of quasi-martial law. I do not quarrel with that statement, because the powers given under the Defence of the Realm Acts are somewhat of the nature of what is described as martial law, whereas on the other hand the powers under the original Aliens Act and also under the Aliens Restriction Act which was passed recently are in the hands of the civil authority; and I gather—I am particularly anxious in no way to misrepresent the noble Earl—that he thinks that on the whole it would have been better if, when the Defence of the Realm Acts were passed, no attempt had been made to place the onus on the Admiralty or the War Office, but that it would have been better if in all those cases the responsibility had rested with the civil authorities—speaking generally, the Home Office. I quite see that it is possible to adduce forcible arguments in favour of that contention, but I think there is this difficulty—that it is not clear that Parliament and the country generally would have tolerated that those powers, which are, as I say, martial law powers, should be placed in the hands of the Police. It is simply because we are at war and because the defence of the country has been handed over in the main to the Admiralty and the War Office that these more or less arbitrary powers have been so cordially agreed to by the whole country. Consequently I think that a certain division of authority, which, as my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has pointed out, is got over as far as it can be got over by communication of the most friendly kind between the two Departments, was unavoidable.

167
So far as the last suggestion which the noble Earl who is leading the Opposition made—that of the promulgation of some general statement of a co-ordinating character for the benefit of the various local authorities—so far as that suggestion is concerned I have no doubt that my noble and learned friend and the various Departments concerned will take it into careful consideration. I might add that had we depended entirely upon the civilian authority for carrying out the exceptional legislation which the times demand we should have been in a weaker position as regards the imposition of severe penalties than we are at present. It is a fact that trial by Court-Martial can and does take place in certain instances. That makes the infliction—at any rate the possible infliction—of severe penalties easier than if we had to go through the whole of the ordinary process of hauling up a man before a magistrate and committing him for trial at some future time. Then as regards the whole question of the internment of aliens generally. Lord Curzon alluded to the fact that it had been stated that there were 771 aliens within prohibited areas.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: That was males only.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Yes, besides possibly some members of their families.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: And that is only on the East coast and part of the South coast.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Precisely. The number seems to me large. I had no idea there were so many. But it is the fact, as the House knows, that no alien enemy is permitted to reside in a prohibited area without a special licence after his case has been carefully examined and investigated by the police. In this connection I cannot help remarking on the fact that although there are a great number of people who would be willing to see aliens generally interned, each one—and I believe it was the case with the hon. gentleman in another place who initiated the discussion there—each one has three, four, or half-a-dozen aliens among his own personal acquaintances whom he knows to be quite honourable people, people about whom suspicien
168
would be almost farcical, and who therefore ought obviously to be excepted from any idea of general internment. Well, if each critic has half-a-dozen friends of that kind, it does go some considerable distance towards producing the 771 males of whom complaint has been made. I think from our own experience we should all say that we have known some unnaturalised Austrians or Germans whom it would have been quite ridiculous to place in a barbed wire compound. Then there is the question of the supply of funds, on which Lord Leith laid not a little stress. I understood the noble Lord to say that he had personal knowledge that payments were made from the three great German Banks in London which he was able to prove were in respect of consignments, as I gathered, of commodities—
LORD LEITH OF FYVIE: I did not say that I knew that the Deutsche and Dresdner Banks had done so, but there is no question about it that the majority of German funds has passed through their hands. Not only that, but money required during the war was certainly in the City of London before war was declared.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: As it happens I have been concerned with these particular matters and am familiar with the position of these German Banks, because I was one of the people who had to arrange for their being taken over by a receiver. And, of course, so far as their present payments are concerned, they are all under control, as the noble Lord very well knows and as the noble Marquess behind him also pointed out. The export of coal—another point that has been made —is a matter which has given us great anxiety, but nobody, so far as I know, has suggested that we should attempt altogether to kill our great export trade in coal to neutral countries, for that would be a terrible blow to a great industry. The limitations imposed on that trade have, of course, been severe, but a complete shutting down of a great many collieries in the North of England and Scotland is not a matter which can be lightly contemplated. The closest care is taken by the committees whose particular business it is to look after those matters to trace the final destination of consignments of coal, particularly navigation coal, which is the kind

169
that the enemy specially desire to obtain. There is a great deal of export coal, as the House very well knows, which would be practically of no use to a German cruiser in the Pacific or anywhere else; but the particular kind of steam coal which they must have if they are to conduct their operations successfully, is, of course, watched with the greatest care. At the same time I most fully admit, as Lord Leith pointed out, that the skill and capacity with which the German naval authorities made arrangements long beforehand for the coaling of their cruisers at sea has been a source of astonishment and even of admiration to every one who has observed them. The whole thing had been most capably and carefully planned, no doubt, beforehand. But I do not think that it could be shown that there has been any failure of skill, and certainly not any carelessness or inattention, in the steps that have been taken by the authorities in the restriction of supplies which by any possibility might fall into the hands of the enemy. And perhaps Lord Leith will also allow me to say that I know very well that he has made representations at various times on specific cases to the Admiralty, and I can assure hint that all those cases have received the most careful investigation at the hands of the Intelligence Department there, so that he must not suppose that in those cases in which he has been able to supply a specific case any sort of investigation has been overlooked.
Lord Curzon mentioned the case of naturalised Germans, who, he said, by common consent were regarded as possessing at any rate the most dangerous potentialities of any class. I am not quite sure that that would be generally agreed, because, as my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack pointed out, there might be some people, not Germans at all—we hope not many—who might be and probably would be more dangerous still. The noble Earl mentioned the case of a German gentleman at Camberley, and the case of another German gentleman who was allowed to go about where he chose—that is to say, only under a very small degree of supervision. Well, those cases must have been, in fact undoubtedly have been, carefully investigated by the police, and all that it is possible to say in a case of that kind is that the critic who supplied the noble Earl with his facts takes one view and the police take
170
another, and until you come to the conclusion that it is necessary to intern everybody those cases and such criticism will continue to arise. It is obviously impossible to make sure that every one will be convinced that these particular people are altogether harmless and inoffensive and that the comparatively mild restriction to which they are subjected is sufficient. I suppose if we were to go to Germany we should find that there were a number of English people undergoing no more supervision than this. To that it might be replied that it is more dangerous to allow Germans to be running about loose in England than it is to allow Englishmen to be running about loose in Germany. I do not deny, because I think it probably is so, that our particular position obliges us to take special precautions which it is not necessary for a large Continental country to take.
Then the noble Earl opposite asked about the question of the export of petrol, obviously a most serious matter. The great importance of the possible export of petrol, even in small quantities, subsists in the fact that it may be taken out to sea., possibly in a trawler, and that a submarine may thereby receive just the amount of petrol to enable it to get home, which it might otherwise not do, and therefore serious risks might attach even to the export of a small quantity. That, I understand, was the point of the noble Earl. I quite agree that great importance ought to be attached to any export of petrol. But when you come to the infliction of a really grave penalty, you are confronted by the question, "Is there anything to show that the petrol was destined for the enemy? Is there anything in the character of the man who is proved to have shipped the petrol, or anything in the circumstances, which would lead to a reasonable suspicion that such is the case?" If there is, as my noble and learned friend pointed out, scarcely any penalty can be too severe. On the other hand it is quite possible to criticise, as the noble Earl did, and as others have, the smallness of the penalty which was inflicted in a certain case; and I know that the question of increasing the penalties for illegal exports as such, apart from the question of their guilty destination, is now being carefully considered by the different Departments concerned—the Customs and the Admiralty.

171
With this question of petrol is closely connected the other one which the noble Earl mentioned—that of night signalling. It has been assumed that if, as is believed by so many, there has been a system of coast signalling, it has probably been at any rate to a great extent in connection with this very question of the supply of petrol, because it is not easy to indicate a great number of purposes for which a rather elementary system of flash signals of that kind could be applied, although no doubt it might be applied to that particular one. Of course, it is impossible to prove or to disprove these allegations about night signalling; they have been continually repeated, and I should be very sorry to say that I entirely disbelieve them. No doubt some supposed instances of signalling have been accounted for by harmless causes. But I do not think it is said, and I do not think the noble Earl opposite says, that there has been a failure of intention or of activity on the part of the authorities in endeavouring to hunt down the culprits in these cases. I believe it is also the fact that the civilian population has given a great deal of help in turning out and trying to hunt hillsides and find out where these people with mysterious lights come from. I am sure that my right hon. friend the Secretary for Scotland fully recognises the absolute necessity for doing everything he can to encourage the police to show all possible activity in this matter, and I sincerely hope, if it is shown that in a particular case there undoubtedly has been signalling, that at last the efforts that are made will be crowned with success.
My noble friend behind me, Lord St. Davids, referred to the possible inertia of some chief constables owing to advancing years. I have no doubt that my noble friend's statement will receive the attention it would deserve. I am glad to say that most of the chief constables I have the pleasure of knowing are considerably younger than I am myself, and, I believe, exceedingly active. But there may be some exceptions such as that to which my noble friend alluded, and I have no doubt that, if so, the Watch Committees or the Standing Joint Committees concerned will take to heart the observations of my noble friend. Lord St. Davids also alluded to the possibility of the repatriation of men—I take it not of a combatant age—and of women and children, his suggestion being
172
that the country should offer to pay the expense of returning to Germany a number of those belonging to those classes. Like my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack I should not think of scouting a suggestion of that kind, and it will certainly be considered. Whether a great number of people would take advantage of it I am not in a position to say. I should think it is doubtful. I am afraid that those who in the interests of public safety ought to take advantage of it would be just the ones who would not. A large number of them would be people whose husbands or the younger members of whose families were interned in this country, and they might not be willing to go home and leave them. And, of course, there are a large proportion among whom, if some noble Lords are right, the greatest danger is to be found—those who have been here a long time and who have become Anglicised in appearance and in all outward matters, but who, at the same time, have so warm a love for their Fatherland that they are prepared to engage in espionage on its behalf. Those are the ones who would not by any scheme of the kind be induced to leave our shores. But, as I say, I am far from saying that something might not be done in the direction of my noble friend's suggestion, and I am sure it will be carefully considered by the Departments specially concerned.
Like the noble Earl opposite, I am glad that this discussion has taken place as it will be some little time before we are able to mention the question again; and though I am afraid that neither he nor the noble Earl who started the discussion would profess themselves to be entirely satisfied by what has been said, I hope that we have been able in our observations to put forward some facts and some deductions which they may regard as being of certain assistance in their consideration of the subject.
THE MARQUESS OF WINCHESTER: The noble Marquess has not dealt with the point which I raised—namely, as to whether the Government have considered the question of the extension of the principles which have been applied to the Deutsche and Dresdner Banks to other and private institutions under the control of, or in the hands of, German agents who have not been naturalised.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am sorry I omitted to deal with the point which was raised by the noble Marquess. The extension which he suggests would have to be one, as I think he realises, of a very large character. I take him to mean an extension to all businesses which contain either a large element of German shareholders or German managers or German partners of the kind of inspection, a sort of receivership, which has been applied to particular banks with which he is well acquainted. I do not know what evidence the noble Marquess may have that transactions are taking place by bills of exchange or otherwise through such firms with enemy countries which have a dangerous effect upon this country, either in supplying the enemy with actual money or in facilitating the supply of the enemy with goods. Those, I take it, are the two points, and I do not know on what evidence the noble Marquess relies; but I will consult the Treasury on that point. My impression is that the remedy which the noble Marquess proposes would have to be on so large a scale that it would be exceedingly difficult in practice to carry it out. It would not, of course, apply only to London but to a very large number of business firms all over England in varying degrees, and I suspect that it would be found barely possible to carry out in practice. But I will make the inquiry.

ANGLO-PORTUGUESE COMMERCIAL TREATY BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD ISLINGTON): My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill, and to ask your Lordships, if you are disposed to give it a Second Reading, to allow it to pass through its successive stages to-day. The object of the measure is to give effect to the Commercial Treaty with Portugal that has been recently signed. Under this Treaty, as your Lordships may know, we are for the first time entitled to most-favoured-nation treatment for our goods on importation into Portugal. Hitherto we have introduced those goods into Portugal at a distinct disability as compared to other countries. But contingent to our enjoying this favoured-nation treatment is an arrangement by which the
174
exportation from Portugal and the importation into this country of their wines should be brought upon a more favourable basis. Considerable negotiation took place with a view of getting a relief of duties, but those negotiations failed because it was found that there would be serious complaint by competitors in othercountries. Another basis, therefore, has been formed, by which all wine known as "port" will only be in future regarded as such if coming from the country of Portugal. That designation will be exclusive and confined to wine coming from Portugal for consumption in this country; and arrangements, of course, will be made for wine that has been in bond during the past twelve months. This Bill, as I say, is a complement of the Treaty, and as such has passed without amendment through the other House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

EXPORTATION OF ARMS ACT (1900) AMENDMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ISLINGTON: My Lords, this is a Bill that has passed through the other House with only amendments that have been moved by the Government in order to make the Bill more explicit. Its main object is to extend the scope of other Acts which now deal with the exportation of naval and military stores and food, Acts which were passed first in 1879, then in 1900, and the most recent of which was passed in a more comprehensive form at the commencement of the war, enabling by Proclamation and Order in Council the prohibition of the exportation of any articles whatsoever. Under the conditions of the present war it is necessary, in regard to certain articles, to take steps to insure that they do not reach the enemy's country, and it is also equally important that articles should not reach neutral countries which might be released to find their way into the enemy's country. But in protecting ourselves against the exportation to foreign countries of war material or any indirect

175
material which will enhance their strength, it is also important that there should be no steps taken to hamper unduly our trade with those countries which are in no way in contact with the enemy. This Bill is to extend the scope of prohibition and at the same time to modify it where necessary. It also enables the Government to deal in their actions in this matter in a more expeditious manner by Order of Council instead of the more dilatory mariner by Proclamation. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Islington.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I have no wish to interfere with the passage of this Bill or in any way to delay its progress, but I would like to ask the noble Lord whether he can tell us a little more fully why a rather unusual procedure is adopted in the Bill, and why the authority is "the Lords of the Council on the recommendation of the Board of Trade." I do not know quite who the Lords of the Council are. We are familiar with Proclamations in Council and Orders in Council by the Sovereign, but I do not know why this change is made from the usual procedure. I believe it was made in one of the Bills we passed rather hurriedly in August, but I should like to know whether there is any reason for this, as I may point out that the powers are very drastic. I do not want to criticise them, of course, but I bring this point forward in order to raise a little demur at the new procedure becoming too much of a precedent and being imported too freely into powers dealing with emergency matters such as this.
LORD ISLINGTON: My Lords, the main reason for placing this as an Order of Council as distinguished from an Order in Council is to give the necessary expedition to any action where necessary for a modification of the prohibition. The process of an Order in Council and then Proclamation is somewhat dilatory and is bound to take some days. This is a more rapid process by which the sanction of the President of the Council is obtained and given effect to on the recommendation of the Board of Trade, who are the authority dealing with these questions of prohibition or modification. The powers certainly are very wide, and, as I am sure my noble friend will understand, necessarily so,
176
because you have to deal with these matters at very short notice. This is only for the war, and it is in order to meet those exceptional cases that crop up from day to day that the proposal has been made.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (COMMISSIONS IN HIS MAJESTY'S FORCES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a Bill which I am sure your Lordships will agree should be given effect to, otherwise the seats of those members of the other House who are patriotically serving His Majesty will be forfeited. I hope the Bill will be passed through all its stages to-day.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a and passed.

LAND DRAINAGE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LUCAS): My Lords, this is a temporary measure to meet certain technical difficulties in carrying out works of arterial drainage which are of the utmost value and importance. Another thing about them is that they will afford suitable employment if there is any widespread unemployment during the war. It is necessary to get the Bill on the Statute Book as soon as possible, and I hope your Lordships will consent to pass it through all its stages to-day.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a and passed.

SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (LORD EMMOTT): My Lords, certain sheriffs' substitutes are serving His Majesty in connection with the war. It is very doubtful whether the present law allows an interim appointment in their place, because they cannot be said to be away on account of ill-health. It is to remedy that fault in the law that this Bill is introduced.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Emmott.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

CLOTHING FOR THE TROOPS.
LORD HAVERSHAM LORD HAVERSHAM rose to ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the letter addressed to the secretaries of County Associations on November 12, whether it is the intention of the Government to send troops to the Front without any change of clothing and with the one pair of boots only which they are wearing.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in addressing this Question to my noble friend I beg to disclaim any intention whatever of criticising any action of the War Office. I am merely asking for the purposes of information. There has been a letter issued to all the Territorial Associations by Sir Reginald Brade, the Secretary of the War Office, and it deals with the extra clothing which will not be required apparently by the troops going abroad. These are to be collected and carried to the headquarters of the corps, where they are to be put in order and issued afterwards to other corps. With that disposal of them I have no sort of objection. But this letter of Sir Reginald Brade's goes on to saya
"In view of the fact tint the members of most Imperial Service units have now two suits of service dress clothing and pairs of boots, only one set of which will be taken abroad by those joining the Expeditionary Force, it is probable that a considerable quantity of serviceable clothing may, in this way, become available for members of Reserve units and others. Renewals of clothing for all troops on service abroad will be arranged for by The Army Ordnance Department."
It does seem to me a most extraordinary thing, after we have taken great trouble in getting these battalions supplied, who I trust as Territorial battalions will go abroad complete in every particular, that now they are to give away part of their clothing. Again,
178
I think it a most dangerous thing to send men abroad with absolutely nothing except what they stand up in. It seems to me that they will have only one service dress and one pair of boots. They will have to do some marching before they get up to the Front, and when they get there they will not have a change of boots. It is a very difficult thing for the men to get supplies from an ordnance store abroad, and it would be better for them to take them out with them. Boots play a great part in the power of a man's marching. If he is used to the boots he is wearing he gets on very well, but if he has to take boots from an ordnance store my noble friend does not need to be told that they may bring on sore feet. I do not know whether this is-intended to be carried out, but, if so, I should like to know the reason. It cannot be for the convenience of the troops remaining at home, because we have ample stores from which to supply them; at any rate in the case of my own district, Reading, we can supply them if needed. To take these things from the men who are going on active service seems to me to be au unwise proceeding and very inconvenient to the men concerned.
LORD LUCAS: My Lords, it does sound, I admit, an extremely Spartan procedure, but the fact remains that when troops go on active service in this campaign they take with them only the clothes they stand up in and one spare pair of socks, which is put in the pockets of their greatcoats. I do not know that I feel capable of explaining exactly why that is, but no one knows better than my noble friend that all these things are the result of an enormous amount of carefully worked out and carefully prepared organisation, in which questions of transport, the weight a man can carry on his back, and a number of cognate questions of that sort have all to be taken into consideration. But this is what has been done with regard to all troops that have gone abroad. Of course, the War Office is sending out to the base of supplies a large amount of new clothing which is served out to the troops as required. But as regards the clothing they take with them, they are not allowed to take more than actually the clothes they stand up in.
LORD HAVERSHAM: Then they can get out there the stores to which Sir Reginald Brade alludes?
LORD LUCAS: Yes, as their own clothing wears out.
House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.