Sitting of 22 November 1916

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    INDIA.

      CAVALRY COMMANDS.
      Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether the Indian Army Order of November, 1913, by which Cavalry officers who had reached the age of forty-eight were debarred from promotion to the command of their regiments, has lately been altered so that officers who are now over forty-five years of age and under forty-eight, and are otherwise fit for command, are being passed over for promotion; if so, will he publish the Order on the subject; and, if not, will he see that the rights of these officers up to the age of forty-eight are maintained?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): The Indian Army Order of 15th December, 1913, has not been altered, but I believe that the practice in France is more rigorous than the terms of this Order.
      Colonel YATE: May I ask whether the Indian rules apply to France in this respect?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The question of what officers are to be employed in France is a question for the Commander-in-Chief in France, and I cannot interfere with his discretion.
      Colonel YATE: Does not the Government of India appoint the officers to command Indian regiments? Is the Commander-in-Chief in India to be entirely ignored?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If an officer is removed from his command in France, or if his services are placed at the disposal
      1386
      of the Government of India by the Commander-in-Chief and the War Office, I cannot reverse their decision.
      Colonel YATE: If he is not removed, will the Indian officer be allowed to remain?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly, if he is not removed he will remain.

      OFFICERS (PAV).
      Colonel YATEasked the Secretary for India whether, considering that sick and wounded officers of the Indian Army employed in the South African War were given full pay at Indian rates by the Imperial Government for all the time until they were sufficiently well to rejoin their regiments again, he will suggest to the Government of India the necessity of following the example of the Imperial Government in this respect and of giving sick and wounded officers of the Indian Army engaged in the present War more generous treatment than the bare three months on full Indian pay that they now receive?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I can find no record of any such concession. If it was made by the War Office, I suggest that the hon. and gallant Member should address himself to that Department.
      Colonel YATE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the question of giving officers of the Indian Army more generous treatment than they are now receiving?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is not the question I was asked to answer. The question was whether, considering that certain concessions were made to the Indian Army in the South African War, I would make the same concession now? I have made careful inquiry in all directions, and I cannot find out that any such concessions were made at that time.

      UNIFORM REGULATIONS.
      Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary for India if he can see his way to modify the Order preventing officers of the Indian Army wearing uniform when on leave in this country, or at any rate a distinguishing badge, so that they will not be exposed to ridicule and often insult?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of any such Order as the hon. Member mentions.

  MERCANTILE MARINE (TRANSPORT BADGES).
  Mr. PETOasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there is any intention to withdraw the Admiralty transport badges, or any other badges authorised to be used by officers of vessels performing auxiliary services to the Navy; and, if so, whether he will state the reasons for such decision?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): There is no intention whatever of withdrawing any of these cap badges.
  Mr. PETO: May I ask if these cap badges do not include the crown? Is there any intention of issuing orders that no officers of the merchant service are to wear any crown on any cap?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: That is not what I am advised, but I will make inquiry into it.

  GERMAN RAID IN CHANNEL.
  Commander BELLAIRSasked, in view of the fact that two destroyers, a transport, and a number of drifters were lost on the occasion of the German raid on our Channel route, what was the nature of the inquiries which followed, whether by court-martial or otherwise; and whether a statement can be made as to the terms of reference of the inquiries and the conclusions formed?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: In accordance with the King's Regulations, Courts of Inquiry have been held into the loss of His Majesty's ship "Flirt" and the stranding of His Majesty's ship "Nubian." The reports will be fully considered at the Admiralty. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Does the Board of Admiralty recognise that if they withdraw from this House the guidance of reports of Courts-Martial and Courts of Inquiry we are driven to ask questions here?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not know there is anything novel in what has been done, but I will look into it.
  Commander BELLAIRS: I beg to give not that if there is a Secret Session I
  1388
  will draw attention to facts which have not been revealed in connection with this raid.

  AIR SERVICES.

    NAVAL BRANCH (PERSONNEL).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what percentage of the personnel of the Royal Naval Air Service are pilots; what percentage are on service in Great Britain; and, of the latter, what percentage are of military age?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The percentage of trained pilots on the total personnel of the Royal Naval Air Service (officers and ratings) is 3.2; the percentage of pilots under training compared with the total personnel is 1.7, making a total of 4.9 per cent. on the total personnel of the Royal Naval Air Service. Of the trained pilots-in the Royal Naval Air Service, 47.7 per cent, are serving abroad, leaving 52.3 per cent. serving at home. All the latter are between the ages of eighteen and forty-one and include pilots for the "Lighter-than-Air" side and those employed on training-and instructional work.

    APPLICATIONS FOR TRANSFER.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether several officers of the Royal Naval Air Service have applied for transfers to the Royal Flying Corps; and why, as the latter corps needs pilots, the transfers have been refused?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As far as can be traced, three applications have recently been received from Royal Naval Air Service pilots to transfer to the Royal Flying Corps, two of whom wished to-transfer as pilots and one as an observer. One of these officers was a trained airship pilot and the others were trained seaplane pilots. All were trained in types of aircraft peculiar to the Royal Naval Air Service, and it was considered they were doing better service in the Royal Naval Air Service, where their services were urgently required, than they would have done had they been transferred to the Royal Flying Corps.

    ADMIRALTY AEROPLANE CONTRACTS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether he is aware that in the early part of the War one Lyman J. Seely, selling agent of

    1389
    an American aeroplane factory, informed his company that, through the influence in London of an English barrister, he would be able to get a large order for aeroplanes if he were allowed a commission of 15 per cent., as that was the usual rate for such business, in addition to the 1 per cent. which had up to that, date been his previous rate for obtaining orders; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take; and (2) whether he is aware that in certain large orders placed in America for the supply of aeroplanes, there was added to the price a sum of 15 per cent., or one-sixth of the total order, amounting to some millions of dollars, for disbursements in England for securing the Admiralty order; whether various payments on account of these commissions have been made by the vendors to a certain English barrister; what precisely were the services rendered by him; whether the Admiralty has made any inquiry as to the origin and destination of this commission; and whether there was any necessity for paying a price to cover such a commission when the vendors were in direct communication with the Admiralty, and there was both a willing seller and a willing purchaser?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We are informed that the gentlemen referred to represented the company in this country and were entitled to receive certain payments or commissions under the terms of the agreements between the company and themselves The agreements, we learn, do not merely deal with agents' selling commissions, but with patent rights and other matters. During the course of an examination of accounts last July, it appeared that payment of commissions to agents to the extent of 16 per cent. of the contract price was being made. We objected and asked for explanations, and further inquiries are proceeding in the States. I should add that in the matter of our inquiries the company is giving us every assistance. I do not wish to prejudge the case one way or another, but it appears to be clear that the payments were made solely to the two persons referred to under the business agreements subsisting between them and their agents in this particular case.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry whether these commissions were paid, as suggested in the question, for influencing business at
    1390
    the Admiralty? May we take it it is to-be rigorously inquired into? If so, I will postpone any further questions for the-present.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: An inquiry is now being held into the accounts, in which the company is assisting. The point my hon. Friend puts is certainly one which will be fully gone into; I will give him that assurance.
    Mr. G. FABER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the barrister mentioned in the first question?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Obviously that is a question which will arise on the inquiry I have promised.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Does it not mean that if the Government enable the company to pay 16 per cent. to their agents they are paying too much for the aeroplanes?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have said I am anxious not to prejudge the question. I do not think I ought to be called upon to answer questions in view of the promised inquiry. The House will have full opportunity of considering on the Report of the Public Accounts Committee.
    Mr. ASHLEY: But that Committee will not know the facts for eighteen months?
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Might we not have a small Parliamentary Inquiry into Admiralty contracts, as to which there is a great deal of dissatisfaction?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I think we had better have the examination of the accounts first, and then I will put the other points to the First Lord.

    SALVAGE MONEY.
    Colonel LOCKWOODasked the hon. Member for Rugby, as the Parliamentary Representative of the Air Board, if, in view of officers of flying corps being-forbidden to accept public money for services rendered in the air, the Government will consider the question of allowing salvage money for bringing down airships, in the same way as salvage money is now awarded for sinking ships of the enemy at sea?
    Major BAIRD(representing the Air Board): I may refer my right hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given by the Prime Minister to a similar question on

    1391
    the 8th instant. The proposal contained in his question involves considerations of military discipline and administration, and it is receiving the careful attention of the Departments concerned. I am afraid that I cannot say more at present.

    AEROPLANE PRICES.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the hon. Member for Rugby, as the Parliamentary representative of the Air Board, whether he can give any figures showing the prices paid by the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service respectively for the same aeroplane?
    Major BAIRD: I regret that I cannot supply figures of the kind referred to. Variations of price for the same machine may well arise, among other causes, from the differences in the number of machines ordered and in the degree of urgency with which they are required. I can assure my hon. Friend that this is a matter in which all possible measures are taken to secure co-operation between the two Services.

  SHETLAND FISHERMEN.
  Mr. C. WASONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that men in Shetland over recruitable age were employed on definite terms; that recently the conditions have been made much less favourable; and whether, in view of the fact that the men referred to might have been earning large sums in either the mercantile marine or at fishing, he will make inquiry if the former conditions can be reverted to?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: From a private communication which my hon. Friend was good enough to supply me with in advance, it would appear that his question refers more particularly to the conditions as to clothing of the Shetland Royal Naval Reserve. The local arrangements made were found not to be in accordance with the Clothing Regulations, either for the Shetland Royal Naval Reserve or for Royal Naval Reserve men generally, and had, therefore, to be discontinued; but the whole question of what kit is required under the conditions of service of the Shetland Royal Naval Reserve and how it shall be supplied is now under review.

  NAVAL CORDITE FACTORY (BATHS CONTRACT).
  Colonel CROFTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that a naval cordite factory asked for tenders for porcelain enamelled baths in May, 1916; that the contract was given to a firm at Lambeth at prices considerably higher than those tended by Messrs. Kennedy, Limited, of Bournemouth, and that the Bournemouth price included fittings, whereas the Lambeth firm tendered without fittings; and whether he can state why a tender was accepted at approximately double the price that offered by Messrs. Kennedy?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The only purchase of baths for the establishment in question which was made in the month named was for ten baths. Three local firms were invited to tender, and the lowest offer was accepted. No London firm was invited to quote for these baths. The transaction was carried out by the contractors for the factory, who, I presume, considered the matter so comparatively small that local firms could satisfactorily and economically deal with it. I am advised that some baths were included in another contract as to which I have not yet got particulars as to date, etc. In this case, as the contract was of more considerable volume, I understand that no local firms at all were invited to tender, so that if this were the case which my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind, the facts could hardly be as stated. However, if he wishes to pursue the matter further, perhaps he will put the question down again.

  GREECE.

    NEUTRAL ZONE.
    Sir EDWIN CORNWALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Entente Powers have given their approval to any proposal for the establishment of a neutral zone in Greece; and, in that case, what action has been taken?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): An arrangement has been come to between the Allied Powers and the Greek Government, providing for the

    1393
    creation of a neutral zone between Thessaly and the districts of Southern Macedonia occupied by the forces of the Venizelist Government. The execution of this arrangement has been left to the French General Commanding in Chief of the Allied Forces at Salonika.

    NEGOTIATIONS IN ATHENS.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the negotiations carried on in Athens by the Entente Powers are direct with King Constantine or through the usual diplomatic channels?
    Lord R. CECIL: In both ways.

    VENIZELIST TROOPS.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Greek Army under the direction of M. Venizelos is now taking part in the fighting in Macedonia; and what arrangements are being made for the issue of official communiqués on their operations?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The Venizelist troops form part of the Allied Army under the command of General Sarrail. The issue of communiqués regarding their action is not a matter for the British Government.
    Mr. LYNCH: Is it not a fact that the value of this force is completely neutralised by the efforts being made to prop up a pro-German Prince?

  NATIVE RACES.
  Sir GEORGE TOULMINasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider the desirability of inviting ex-adminstrators and other persons with experience of the native races of Africa now in England to confer with him upon the available man-power of Africa and the most desirable means of utilising our resources in Africa during the spring, summer, and autumn of next year?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): I am already in communication with the various Governments concerned, but I shall also consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend.
  Commander WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies
  1394
  whether his attention has been drawn to the inquiry conducted by the "Daily Chronicle" as to the available resources in African man-power; and, seeing that, in the opinion of well-known African ex-administrators and others, that, under proper organisation, it would be possible to obtain and equip ready for service in the spring a total labour force for France of not less than 200,000 men, some part of which might be trained for fighting, will he say what action he proposes to take?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, Sir; the matter has been, and is, engaging the serious attention of His Majesty's Government, and all steps that are possible are being taken.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these coloured men are prepared to enlist in fighting battalions at considerbly less pay than they would get in the Labour Battalions?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: All these considerations are now before the Colonial Office and the War Office, and are being duly weighed.

  GALLIPOLI (ENGLISH GRAVES).
  Mr. MALCOLMasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he has received from the Vatican a Report from the Apostolic delegate at Constantinople upon the state of English graves in Gallipoli; and, if so, how soon he will be able to publish it?
  Mr. FORSTER: No such Report has been communicated to us; we are informed, however, that photographs of the graves have been taken and that the Vatican will supply us with reproductions. I need hardly say that we very highly appreciate the Pope's solicitude in this matter.
  Mr. MALCOLM: Do I understand from that answer that it is untrue that on 7th November such a report had been sent, not to the Treasurer of the Household or the War Office, but to the Foreign Office, and, if so, when the report does arrive will the hon. Gentleman see that it is circulated, because the parents in Great Britain, New Zealand and Australia are anxiously awaiting information?
  Mr. FORSTER: Certainly.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will the hon. Gentleman also inquire about the Scottish case?

  ROYAL FUSILIERS (SENTENCE OF DETENTION)
  Mr. HAZLETONasked the Secretary of State for War if he is now in a position to say for what reason William G. H. Miller is at present under detention; was he tried by any Court, and, if so, what Court; what was the charge against him; and what was the result of the investigation?
  Mr. FORSTER: Private Miller was tried by District Court-martial at Hounslow on the 18th October, 1916, and sentenced to undergo detention for one year for the offence of disobeying a lawful command given by his superior officer, in that he did not undress for medical examination when ordered to do so by Lance-Sergeant Miller, Depot Royal Fusiliers. The accused pleaded guilty to the charge. Private Miller was convicted at Brentford Police Court on the 2nd October, 1916, for being absent when called up for service, fined 40s., and handed over to an escort.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether that refusal was on the ground of conscientious objection or not?
  Mr. FORSTER: I cannot say whether it was conscientious or not.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to inquire, because this is a very frequent way of getting out of the Service?
  Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir, I will certainly inquire.

  ARMY CHAPLAINCIES (INTERDENOMINATIONAL BOARD).
  Mr. HINDSasked the Secretary of State for War whether an inter-denominational board on chaplaincies has been formed; if so, who are the persons constituting it; what are its functions; and how many meetings of the board have been held?
  Mr. FORSTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. A list of members of the Committee was published on the 20th instant, but I will send my hon. Friend a copy of it. The Committee consists of representatives of each denomination, and is intended to remove the risk of inequalities of treatment owing to the different authorities
  1396
  not being in touch with one another. By means of the Committee each authority will become informed as to the needs of the other denominations in matters of common interest) to all. Meetings are held once a month, and so far four have been held.

  WAR OFFICE HAY PURCHASES.
  Mr. FITXPATRICKasked the Secretary of State for War whether the military authorities in Ireland, in estimating the number of tons of hay purchased from farmers for the purpose of paying the first instalment of the price for which such hay has been purchased, are in many cases making an estimate very much below what the vendor believes his rick of hay to contain; and, as this method of guessing the weight of hay before it is weighed is causing loss to farmers, will he take steps to have it remedied?
  Mr. FORSTER: The nearest possible estimate is always made and when the final settlement is made on the actual weight, 5 per cent. per annum interest is allowed on any balance of money due. Under this system it is not understood that any loss is occasioned to the farmers.

  ARMY CANTEENS.
  Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Secretary of State for War on what terms as regards salary, pension, and termination of employment by notice on either side have Sir Alexander Prince and Mr. Benson joined the Canteen Management Committee, will the money for financing the new scheme by the Treasury be a debt repayable by the Canteen Committee or a free Grant; will he undertake that no officer who holds or has held a commission in the Army will be appointed to any position of emolument in connection with the new scheme of canteen management; and, having regard to the financial and other interests involved in the scheme, will he provide an opportunity for discussion of the subject in this House before the scheme comes into operation?
  Mr. FORSTER: As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy was informed yesterday, we are not yet in a position to make a statement on the subject. I may, however, state that any money advanced by the Treasury will be by way of loan, and not by Grant.
  Mr. McNEILL: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the matter will be open to discussion in this House before the scheme is brought into operation?
  Mr. FORSTER:I cannot say whether it will be before a start is made, but, as the Secretary of State for War said yesterday, if there is any general desire to discuss it an opportunity will be given.
  Colonel CROFTasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to General Routine Order No. 1730 with reference to canteens in France; whether he is aware that owing to divisional canteens having to purchase through the Expeditionary Force Canteens the cost of articles such as biscuits, cigarettes, tinned fruits, etc., is approximately doubled and the increased cost falls on the soldiers in France; that perishable goods such as sponge sandwiches, jam rolls, etc., cannot be purchased fresh unless consigned direct to the coffee-bar canteens; that these divisional canteens have made considerable contracts running into several hundred pounds sterling per week, and that the contracting firms demand notice for termination of these large contracts; and if, under the circumstances, he can cause reconsideration of this Order in view of these facts?
  Mr. FORSTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 8th November to the hon. and gallant Member for Mid-Antrim. The new system was introduced at the desire of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief the British Armies in France, and the points mentioned in the question were no doubt considered.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Why should troops have to pay, not 20 per cent. more than they have had to pay formerly but up to 45 per cent. or 50 per cent?
  Mr. FORSTER: For reasons which have been partly given and partly hinted at the General Officer came to the conclusion that it was necessary that these purchases should be made by the Expeditionary Force canteens.
  Colonel CROFT: Will my hon. Friend inquire into this matter again because it is an absolute fact that in many cases to my knowledge something like 100 per cent. more has been paid by soldiers for the few luxuries which they can get?
  Mr. FORSTER: I have inquired very closely into it. I shall be very happy to
  1398
  discuss it with my hon. and gallant Friend, and if he is not satisfied he can put down a further question.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: When foods are imported into France for consumption in these canteens do they pay the tax or tariff in France?
  Mr. FORSTER: No, they do not.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    ADMIRALTY EMPLOYÉ.
    Sir H. DALZIELasked the Secretary to the Admiralty the exact offence which led to the expulsion from Portsmouth of Ernest Walter Dickes, an Admiralty official receiving a salary of £485 per annum, who claims exemption from military service as a conscientious objector; when arrested at Portsmouth in September, 1915, what was the result of the police examination, and why, when removed from Portsmouth, Dickes was transferred to the National Debt Office; and, if it was then desirable to remove him from Admiralty employ, why he is now working at the Admiralty?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Mr. Dickes was ordered to leave Portsmouth by the competent military authority. The order for his removal was issued in pursuance of Article 14 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, which provides for the removal of persons "suspected of acting, or of having acted, or being about to act in a manner prejudicial to the public safety or the defence of the realm." No specific reason for his removal was given. The result of the police examination was that the prosecution was withdrawn, and the charge brought against Mr. Dickes was therefore dismissed by the magistrates. Mr. Dickes was then lent to the National Debt Office because the Admiralty considered that he had, through his own improper behaviour and lack of discretion, brought himself into bad odour with the naval and military authorities at Portsmouth, and that it was expedient that he should for a time serve in a Department where he could not possibly be brought into contact with these authorities. At a later stage, the National Debt Office decided that Mr. Dickes could not be regarded as indispensable. Mr. Dickes appealed as a con-

    1399
    scientious objector to the Lambeth Tribunal, and the tribunal admitted his claim subject to the condition that he should undertake work which, not being under military control, was nevertheless useful for the prosecution of the War. The Committee on Work of National Importance, to whom the matter was referred, recommended that Mr. Dickes should be allowed to continue in civilian employment under the Crown. In view of this, and with the object of coping with the increasing pressure of work at the Admiralty, Mr. Dickes was transferred to the Department of the Accountant-General of the Navy, and the Committee on Work of National Importance informed the tribunal that they could recommend no work of national importance more useful for the prosecution of the War than that in which he is now employed in this Department. As I have already stated, in view of the position taken up by the Lambeth Tribunal, Mr. Dickes' continued employment in his present office is under consideration.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some people have already resigned rather than serve in the same office with this gentleman, and that others have resigned and have been asked to reconsider their position until a decision is come to; and does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is time that this gentleman was removed?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: This is the first I have heard of it. I will certainly make inquiries. Mr. Dickes, as I have said already, is at work in connection with the payments to the dependants of deceased sailors, and is continued in employment in that office.
    Sir H. DALZI EL: Is it or is it not a fact that this gentleman described himself as an advocate of pro-Germanism?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think that is quite right. Mr. Dickes showed great indiscretion and great stupidity. I understand he filled up a sample form in which, I suppose stung by the comment made upon his pacifist views, he thought he had better proclaim himself in favour of German propaganda. That is my interpretation. It is the most charitable interpretation. I do not defend his action; certainly not. I have stated that I put a perfectly charitable interpretation upon it. I have said twice that if my right hon. Friend
    1400
    would put down a question for this day week I will give a final answer as to what will be the future of this gentleman.
    Mr. G. FABER: Cannot, a man with a more savory record be found to earn public money and do this work?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Mr. Dickes has been twenty years in the public service. I understand that recently, since the War, he has expressed pacifist views. That is what I understand the hon. Member to refer to. I have said that his position will be carefully looked into.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that dependants of deceased soldiers and sailors do not require the services of this man?
    Sir S. COLLINS: Is it a crime to hold these views?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Yes, it is.

    SOLDIERS UNDER AGE.
    Mr. R. LAMBERTasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Private J Howe, No. 36355, of C Company, 6th Royal Berkshire Regiment, now with the forces in France, concerning whom an assurance was given on 2nd November that he would be released, is still in the trenches; and whether he will take immediate steps to have this case disposed of in accordance with the promise given?
    Mr. FORSTER: This man's birth certificate was only received by the Record Office on 14th November, and instructions have been given for him to be dealt with in accordance with the rules.

    MEDICAL RE-EXAMINATION.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked whether fresh instructions have been issued for the medical re-examination of men who, since May, have been rejected or classified B2, B3, C1, C2, or C3; and, if so, what these instructions are?
    Mr. FORSTER: No fresh instructions have been issued.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Will the hon. Gentleman report to the Secretary of State for War that I propose to raise this question on the Adjournment on Tuesday?
    Mr. FORSTER: I shall be very glad to report that to my right hon. Friend.

    DETAINED REFUGEE.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Mr. Georges Ozon, of 4, New Kent Road, S.E., who sought refuge in England before the War in order to escape prosecution in France on account of his connection with the political agitation against the Three Years' Military Service Bill, has been detained since 8th November at Cannon Row Police Station; that no charge has been preferred against him; that he has not been allowed to secure the advice of a solicitor; and whether he will now be released in default of a charge being brought against him?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Georges Ozon refused to return to France voluntarily to perform his military service and was arrested with a view to the enforcement of his military duty to our Ally. In consequence of representations made on his behalf, he was released a week ago pending further inquiries. An application from his solicitors for an interview was received on 14th November, and the interview would have been allowed but for the fact of the prisoner being released on the following day.

    MAN-POWER.
    Major NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether all men now called up for service who are not classified as fit for general service and who exercise their option of being placed in the Reserve are required to place themselves at the disposal of the nearest Labour Exchange with a view to obtaining work of national importance; and whether, in view of the fact that the Labour Exchanges will control the allocation of the man-power of the country that is of military age, what steps is he taking to increase the efficiency of their personnel, and will this personnel consist entirely of men not fit for general service?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Prety-man): I presume the reference is to men who enrol themselves as Army Reserve Munition Workers. Men so enrolled place themselves at the disposal of the Minister of Munitions, with whom, therefore, the decision with regard to their allocation will rest. I have already informed the hon. and gallant Member on
    1402
    9th November that it is not correct to say that the Employment Exchanges will control the allocation of the man-power of the country. All possible steps are being taken to strengthen and increase the-efficiency of the Exchanges, and at the-same time, so far as is consistent with this-object, to release staff for military service.
    Major NEWMAN: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that at the present moment the Labour Exchange clerk has assigned to him the duty of saying whether the man who applies to him to be enrolled in munition work is fit to be enrolled or shall be turned over to the Army?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I think he can only recommend to the Munitions Department; the final decision rests with them.
    Major NEWMANasked whether, to-meet the organisation of man-power outside of military requirements that is to be made by Germany, the Government have-in contemplation any form of national service for the production of munitions, the supply of Home-grown food, and the maintenance of the import and export trade of the country?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The best means of utilising the man-power in the country for both military and civil purposes is carefully considered by His-Majesty's Government and fresh steps are taken as required. The Labour Adviser is in consultation with representatives of the trade unions on the subject as regards-industrial labour, and other aspects of the question are being dealt with by the competent authorities.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Shall we-have any opportunity of discussing this question in the House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does not the Prime Minister remember the speech, in which he stated that he sympathised with the idea of the whole of the manpower of the country being organised?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes. I am still of that opinion.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. ALDENasked the Prime-Minister whether he is aware that a considerable number of conscientious objectors whose convictions have never been

    1403
    questioned or doubted are nevertheless passed by the tribunals for non-combatant service; that in the majority of cases this involves imprisonment; and whether he can see his way to consent to the appointment of a tribunal composed of people specially qualified to judge to deal with all the remaining cases of conscientious objectors?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Parliament has enacted that the determination of these cases shall rest with the local tribunals, subject to the appeals provided for by the Military Service Acts. To transfer this duty to a new central body would require legislation. I doubt whether such legislation would be acceptable, especially, in view of the difficulty that would be experienced by such a central body in deciding, as a court of first instance, cases arising in all parts of the country.

    EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE STAFF.
    Mr. W. YOUNG(by Private Notice>) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has given further consideration, promised by him in reply to questions in this House, with regard to the possibility of releasing further members of the staff of the Employment Exchanges for service for the Army?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: As already stated by my right hon. Friend to the House, over 1,200 members of the staff of the Employment Department have already joined the Forces. The Department is engaged in work on behalf of the War Office, Ministry of Munitions, and Admiralty, which is recognised by all three Departments as work of essential importance for the successful prosecution of the War. As the strain on the available manpower of the country increases the importance of this work is bound to increase, and it has therefore been necessary to consider very carefully the possibility of releasing men without impairing the efficiency of the organisation. I have, however, found it possible, by arrangement with the Army Council and by the training of substitutes, to authorise the release of all men fit for general service under twenty-six years of age, subject only to the retention of 5 per cent. of men whose particular qualifications or the special nature of whose work renders them indispensable.

  GERMAN BANKS.
  Mr. G. FABERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many official supervisors have been appointed by the controller for the Deutsche Bank, the Dresdner Bank, and the Disconto-Gessellschaft, respectively, and at what salaries, and whether he can state their names; whether any German or Austrian employé has had the sole or joint charge of any of the books or papers of any of said banks since the appointment of the official supervisors; whether the supervisors have kept the keys of the strong rooms containing the said books and papers, or what persons have; whether, in view of the fact that after the outbreak of war 118 enemy German and Austrian aliens were suffered to remain in the employment of the said banks, any special precautions, and, if so, what, were ever taken by the controller or the supervisors to prevent these persons, or any of them, making extracts from the said books or papers; and whether any German or Austrian employé has (been allowed to pass the night on the premises of the said banks since the City Police took possession on the 7th August, 1914?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): The answer to the first three pares of the question is as follows: The following official supervisors have been appointed: At the Deutsche Bank, Mr. Ernest Cooper, senior partner in Messrs. Cooper Brothers and Company; at the Dresdner Bank, Mr. Lionel Maltby, partner in Messrs. Deloitte, Plender and Company; at the Disconto-Gesellschaft, Mr. William Cash, senior partner in Messrs. Cash, Stone and Company. The official supervisors are paid out of the funds of the respective banks at the rate of five guineas per day of seven hours for the official supervisors; two guineas for their senior assistants; one guinea per day for other assistants. In answer to the fourth, fifth, and sixth parts of the question, the books and papers of the banks are, of course, in use by the bank's officers during the day, subject to the control and supervision of the official supervisors. The steps taken For their security after working hours vary at the different banks, but in each case the books are placed in strong rooms or fireproof compartments, the keys of which are in the hands of messengers of British birth, or, where access can be gained only by unlocking two separate locks, the key of one

  1405
  is held by the official supervisor and that of the other by the management. The strong rooms of each bank can only be opened by the use of two different keys, one of which is held by the supervisor and one by the management. No one is allowed access to them after working hours. In answer to the last part of the question, no German or Austrian employé has been allowed to pass the night on any of the premises since the outbreak of the War.
  Mr. FABERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he declined to allow his part in the correspondence between himself, Lord Northcliffe, and Sir William Plender in regard to the position of German banks in London to be published?
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. I do not understand that any question was ever raised of the publication of a letter from me to Lord Northcliffe.
  Mr. FABER: Was the right hon. Gentleman's permission asked before Sir William Plender published his letter?
  Mr. McKENNA: No; Sir William Plender's letter was not written to me, but to Lord Northcliffe. I think the hon. Member is really under a misapprehension on the subject, and, if he will allow me, I shall be very happy to show him the whole correspondence.
  Mr. FABER: Did not Lord Northcliffe, in fact, ask the right hon. Gentleman to permit the publication of his letter to Lord Northcliffe?
  Mr. McKENNA: No; what happened was this: In reply to a letter from me, Lord Northcliffe wrote to me. My letter to him was a personal letter. Lord Northcliffe wrote to me, and in the course of his letter he stated what he proposed to do with regard to Sir William Plender. As I thought that would lead to misapprehension, and it might be supposed that I had complained of Sir William Plender, inasmuch as he was to be removed from his employment by Lord Northcliffe, I said whatever he published with regard to Sir William Plender I should prefer that he would publish it not in the form of a letter to me. I shall be very happy to show my hon. Friend the whole of the correspondence. As it originated in a personal letter, I do not think it is a matter which should be published.

  LAND (GOVERNMENT PURCHASES).
  Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the number of Governments Departments who have been purchasing land during the War; whether these Departments all act independently; and what information he has as to the prices which have been paid?
  Mr. McKENNA: As regards the first two parts of the question, I beg to refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him by the Prime Minister on the 7th November. As regards the last part, the general rule is that no Government Department may purchase land outright without Treasury sanction, though certain Departments have discretionary power to purchase within prescribed limits (in the case of the War Office £1,000). These limits have not been raised since the outbreak of War.
  Mr. RAFFAN: In all these purchases, has regard been had to the price as ascertained by valuation?
  Mr. McKENNA: I should like to have notice of that question It would involve much inquiry as regards every purchase, but I assume that would be the case.
  Sir E. CORNWALL: Is the Treasury far too busy for any proper control over these Government Departments buying land all over the country at any price they like?
  Mr. McKENNA: So far as we retain our control we exercise it, and this is one of the matters over which we have control.

  WESTENHANGER CAMP.
  Mr. R. MCNEILLasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has consulted the Law Officers of the Crown as to the legality under the Defence of the Realm Acts of the proposed conversion of Westenhanger Camp into a venereal hospital by the Canadian military authorities; and whether, in view of the doubtful legality of the scheme and the local opposition to it, he will give an assurance that the scheme now in abeyance shall not be proceeded with until an opportunity has been given of discussing the question in this House?
  Mr. FORSTER: It has been decided not to use Westenhanger Camp as a venereal hospital The points mentioned in the

  1407
  question do not, therefore, arise. I must not, however, be taken as accepting my hon. Friend's view that there would have been any want of legality in using the camp for the purpose indicated.
  Mr. MCNEILL: Am I to understand that the scheme now has been finally abandoned, and is not merely in abeyance?
  Mr. FORSTER: It is finally abandoned, so far as Westenhanger is concerned.

  BRITISH TROOPS (CHRISTMAS LEAVE).
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make an effort to secure leave for all men who have not yet had any during Christmas or New Year's week?
  Mr. FORSTER: If my hon. Friend refers to troops abroad, I must remind him that the grant of leave is a question for the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief. As regards troops at home, the matter is under consideration.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is there any estimate of the number of men who have not yet had any leave of any kind?
  Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid I have not any estimate.

  ARMY PAY CLERKS (PAY).
  Mr. GILBERTasked the Secretary of State for War why men who voluntarily enlisted for the period of the War and six months after in 1914 and 1915 as Army pay clerks, and who were medically certified in Class C 2 and were to receive rates of pay of 4s. and 3s, 6d. per day, are now being called upon, under Army Order No. 1915 of this year, to accept payment of 1s. 8d. per day or to leave the Army and join Army Reserve W.; will he explain why a contract for payment of the above wages entered into with these men is not kept for the period for which they joined the Army; and will he state, if these men join Army Reserve W, whether they will be liable to be called up at any time to do the same class of work at the lower rate of pay of 1s. 8d. per day?
  Mr. FORSTER: The men referred to (who were enlisted at special rates of pay)
  1408
  were enlisted as fit for clerical duties overseas. The present arrangement applies only to those men who are found to be permanently unfit for service overseas. Such men, if transferred to Class P, or W., P. (T.), or W. (T.), of the Reserve by substitution, will not be recalled to the Colours so long as they remain in their employment—not necessarily with the same employer. If transferred to any of the above Reserves without substitution being effected, such men will be liable to recall to the Colours at any time should the exigencies of the Service so demand.

  CAPTAINS COMMANDING BATTALIONS.
  Colonel CROFTasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that whereas a major commanding a battalion in France receives the temporary rank and pay of a lieutenant-colonel, a captain in command of a battalion receives neither the temporary rank or pay in spite of the fact that he has precisely similar duties and greater responsibilities in the exercise of his command; and whether he will cause this state of affairs to be remedied?
  Mr. FORSTER: This alteration has already been made. An officer appointed to command a battalion gets the acting rank of lieutenant-colonel, with pay as such, whatever his permanent rank may be.

  BRIGADE COMMANDERS.
  Colonel CROFTasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a brigade commander appointed in 1914 becomes junior to a brigade commander appointed in 1916; if the latter is senior to-him in permanent rank; and whether this can now be rectified so that the temporary rank of brigadier-general may have the-same seniority as other temporary ranks?
  Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir; seniority is decided by their substantive rank. It is not considered desirable to make any change.
  Colonel CROFT: Has my hon. Friend considered the fact that a brigade commander may have been promoted as far back as 1914, apparently for efficiency in the field, and another brigade commander

  1409
  may be only considered fit for promotion to-day, and yet the latter's substantive rank is greater than that of the other officer and he becomes his senior at once?
  Mr. FORSTER: The matter was very fully considered by the military authorities at the outbreak of the War and has been quite recently reconsidered. They have come to the conclusion that it is best not to interfere.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: Is it not time, after two and a half years of war, to unify the Army and have the same promotion for Kitchener's Army and the Territorials?
  Mr. FORSTER: I am not quite sure that that question arises out of the question on the Paper.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of ex-Private E. Robson, late No. 29829, No. 6 Company, Royal Army Medical Corps, who was discharged from the Army on 30th July after serving for one year and 126 days and is now a physical wreck, disabled by rheumatoid arthritis from following his employment; whether he is aware that up to the time of joining the Army he was free from rheumatism, and that the books of the company which employed him show that he was in regular work; and will he say upon what grounds the Chelsea Commissioners refuse this man any pension?
  Mr. FORSTER: Inquiries are being made into this case, and I will inform the hon. Member of the result in due course.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister, in view of the steadily increasing cost of living and the hardships which soldiers' wives and dependants are enduring, whether he can state definitely when the Government proposes to increase the allowances and to what extent?
  The PRIME MINISTER: This matter is being reconsidered.
  Mr. HOGGE: If we bring to the notice of my right hon. Friend that many soldiers' wives are actually pawning the goods out of their houses in order to get
  1410
  food, can he not give an undertaking that the Cabinet will come to a decision within the next week?

  BILLETING ALLOWANCE.
  Mr. HINDSasked whether there is any intention to reduce the billeting allowance for sleeping accommodation to soldiers; and, if so, what is the reason for such an action?
  Mr. FORSTER: There is no such intention.

  COCAINE.
  Mr. HAZLETONasked the Home Secretary why there is no representative from Ireland on the Committee to inquire into the use of cocaine for dentalpurposes; whether there is a representative of every party in this House on this Committee except the Irish party; and whether he will appoint a representative from Ireland, in view of the importance of this subject to a large section of the people in Ireland?
  Mr. SAMUEL: The Committee is a small one, consisting of only five Members. As the question is a general one, which does not appear to affect the different parts of the United Kingdom differently, it was not thought necessary to provide for the specific representation of Ireland or of Scotland or Wales. No doubt the Committee would consider any application to hear evidence from Ireland.

  ENEMY ALIENS.
  Mr. R. McNEILLasked whether steps will be taken to ensure that the 2,400 German civilians now about to be repatriated shall not return to this country after the War?
  Mr. SAMUEL: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister on 17th October, in which he said that the matter of alien immigration from enemy countries after the War was being closely considered. The question of the return of Germans repatriated during the War is included in the examination of the subject which is now proceeding.
  Mr. G. FABER: Can the right hon. Gentleman not furnish us with the numbers of Germans and Austrians who are naturalised subjects?
  Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir, for the reason I have given. There is no record of the number who die or leave the country.
  Mr. FABER: No approximate number?
  Mr. SAMUEL: No.
  Mr. GILBERTasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the recent conviction, with a fine of £3 at Lambeth Police Court, of Carl Hackemer, a German subject aged twenty-seven, a clerk employed in the City, for travelling more than five miles from his residence, 28, Lorrimore Street, Walworth Road; can he state why this man, who is of military age, is not interned; can he say if he is employed by a German firm; and, in view of the local feeling of the English residents in the district whose husbands and sons have been called to the Colours, will he have this alien enemy of twenty-seven interned at once?
  Mr. SAMUEL: This man, who has been in this country since he was four years old, was exempted from internment on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee. He has been convicted as stated, and I am making further inquiry into the case, the result of which I will communicate to my hon. Friend.

  NATURALISED ALIENS.
  Mr. G. FABERasked the Home Secretary if he will state the totals of naturalised British subjects of German origin and Austrian origin, respectively; for what reasons twenty-seven persons of German origin and two persons of Austrian origin are interned under the Defence of the Realm Regulations; and whether any, and, if so, how many of the said naturalised Germans and Austrians have made formal renunciation of their German and Austrian citizenship which was accepted by their respective Governments?
  Mr. SAMUEL: There are no figures available of the nature asked for in the first part of the question, as there is no record of the number of naturalised persons who have died or have left the country. Nor are there any figures which would enable an answer to be given to the third part of the question. The persons referred to in the second part were interned because it appeared to the Home Secre-
  1412
  tary in the terms of Regulation 14 B that this was expedient "for securing the public safety or the defence of the realm."

  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

    FRONGOCH CAMP.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Irish prisoners interned in Frongoch, while unanimously appreciative of their treatment by the officers and men generally, are, and have for several months been, unanimous in protesting against the conception of his duties displayed by Colonel Lambert, the commandant of the camp; and whether he will now, in the public interest, cause that gentleman to be promoted to some more suitable office in France where he will not have unarmed men to deal with?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Home Secretary if he received a letter, dated 13th November, 1916, from the Irish prisoners at Frongoch Camp, complaining of the treatment of fifteen of the hut leaders who have been returned for trial by district courts-martial; if he will say whether this means special punishment; if he is aware that the alleged offence they are being court-martialled; for involves 327 other prisoners; if he will state the charge for which they are to be court-martialled; and, seeing that the commandant's treatment of the prisoners is likely to cause a riot, will he consider the advisability of releasing the prisoners?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have received the letter to which the hon. Member refers. Fifteen hut leaders at Frongoch are awaiting trial by a Military Court for refusing to answer to their names when the roll was called. These men set the example of disobeying orders, the rest merely imitated them. Apart from this incident the camp is in good order. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

  DUTCH SUBJECT ARRESTED.
  Mr. R. LAMBERTasked the Home Secretary whether ho is aware that Morris Arbeid, of 60, Holloway-road, N., a Dutch subject resident in England for over three years, was arrested at Holborn Town Hall

  1413
  on 11th November, discharged at Bow Street two days later on the ground that there was no charge against him, rearrested on 16th November, and is now at Cannon Row Police, Station under threat of deportation; and whether any charge is to be preferred against him or, failing this, whether steps will be taken to secure his release?
  Mr. SAMUEL: This man is an alien who has been employed as an hotel porter in Inverness and in London, and who refuses to conform to the requirements imposed under the Aliens' Restriction Act. In April last he was imprisoned for giving false particulars for the register. Recently he has been prosecuted for changing his lodgings without saying where he was going; and though he escaped conviction on a technical ground, the fact was not denied. When received in prison in April he admitted a previous conviction for indecency. In view of all the circumstances, it appears to be a case where his return to his own country should be enforced.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. FITZPATRICKasked the Secretary to the Treasury what steps have been taken to ensure that all old age pensioners in Ireland who are entitled to receive the additional 2s. 6d. per week in their pension allowance may be able to avail themselves of this increase immediately?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday to the Noble Lord the Member for South Nottingham.

  IRISH RAILWAY EMPLOYES (BONUS).
  Mr. BYRNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government have yet devised or are considering any scheme, by way of Grant or otherwise, that would enable the Irish railway companies to pay a war bonus to their employés similar to that paid to English railway employés?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I am not aware that Any such scheme is being considered by the Government.

  ENEMY BUSINESSES.
  Mr. R. McNEILLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make public a list of all firms and companies which have been declared enemies in any of His Majesty's self-governing Dominions; and if he will say whether all such firms and companies are officially considered as enemies in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The question whether or not a particular firm or company is permitted to trade in this country can only be determined by United Kingdom law and not by reference to any action taken under local law in another part of the Empire. I see no necessity to publish a list such as is suggested.
  Mr. McNEILL: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is the intention to treat enemy firms in this country in the same way that they are treated in the Dominions; and whether a firm which is treated as an enemy in the Dominions will be treated as an enemy here?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: We can only act here under the law of the United Kingdom.
  Sir E. CARSON: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that it is an anomaly to treat a firm as an enemy in one part of the Kingdom and not in another part of the Kingdom; and, if that be so, is it not necessary to alter the law, if we have not the power?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The circumstances of each case have to be considered. I will look into the matter.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Will the hon. Gentleman take the opinion of the Law Officers on this question?
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, after two years and a quarter of war, no steps have yet been taken to sell the premises of the German banks or of the Hamburg-Amerika Shipping Company in London, such course being the only effectual means of preventing their continuing to trade here after the War; and whether he will make a declaration on the part of the Government as to the Cabinet's intentions in this and similar cases?
  The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the German banks, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday to the hon. and learned Member for the City,

  1415
  of York. The premises of the Hamburg-Amerika Line were until recently commandeered by the War Office, and are now, I understand, partly occupied by the Admiralty. But I am making further inquiries into the exact position and will communicate again with my hon. Friend.
  Mr. R. GWYNNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Société Suisse pour Valeurs de Metaux, Basle, which is identical with the Schweizerische Gesellschaft fur Mctall-werke, Basle, was a company promoted by the Metallgesellschaft, of Frankfurt; and whether, on account of this Swiss company holding a large number of the shares of Henry R. Merton and Company, Limited, he can say if the Metallgesell schaft continues to be interested in Henry R. Merton and Company, Limited?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I am informed that the Swiss company referred to was promoted by the Metallgesellschaft, which, through the shareholding of the Swiss company, has an indirect interest in 11,875 shares out of the issued capital of 95,000 shares in Henry R. Merton and Company, Limited. That company recently applied to the Board of Trade for permission to initiate negotiations for the acquisition of the shares belongng to the Swiss company by British subjects.
  Sir CHARLES HENRY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the existing opinion that this process of juggling with shares will not have the desired effect?
  Mr. GWYNNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the American Metal Company of New York is a concern which is mainly directed by German-born subjects; whether the Metallgesell-schaft and Henry R. Merton and Company, Limited, are largely interested in this company; and whether he was consulted as regards giving permission for Mr. Frank Baer, of Henry R. Merton and Company, Limited, a German-born subject who had been refused exemption from military service, to go to America and have the opportunity of uncensored intercourse with the American Metal Company?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I have no official information as to the nationality of the directors of the American Metal Company of New York, but I am informed that they are all American subjects of whom half are German-born and half are American-horn. Both the Metallgesellschaft and
  1416
  Henry R. Merton and Company, Limited, are largely interested in the company. I have no record of having been consulted with regard to Mr. Frank Baer being given permission to go to America, but the object of his visit was to conduct negotiations which had been approved by the Board of Trade.
  Mr. GWYNNE: When the hon. Gentleman says he has no records, how does he know what the object was of Mr. Baer's going to America?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Certain negotiations that had been referred to them were sanctioned or approved by the Board of Trade, but, so far as I can trace it, we had no knowledge, and we were not consulted, as to who was to carry out those negotiations.
  Sir C. HENRY: Can the hon. Gentleman say who was consulted?
  Sir E. CARSON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the American Metal Company is held to be an enemy company in the Colonies?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: In Australia; but I must have notice of the question. The answer is Yes, as to the Commonwealth of Australia, where the company is treated as an enemy company. As I answered the other day, I understand that they have applied to be removed.
  Mr. W. YOUNG: If in Australia, why not here?
  Mr. BOOTH: Did not the hon. Gentleman say in answer to a question of mine a few days ago that he was entirely unaware of the object of Mr. Baer's visit to America, and am I to understand that now he knows he went there to do something for the Board of Trade? Is this the same man?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: He was not sent to do anything for the Board of Trade. The Department was consulted as to negotiation taking place between the Merton-Company and this American company, and the Beard of Trade, at any rate, approved of the negotiations being undertaken. We had no knowledge that Mr. Baer was to conduct those negotiations.
  Mr. BOOTH: Are we to understand that this Mr. Baer can come to this country and go from this country as he pleases, and at his own option, and he an enemy?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I think Mr. Baer is a British subject.
  Major-General IVOR PHILIPPS: Is he not liable for military service?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not know.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: What were those negotiations?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has already given his answer.
  Mr. R. GWYNNEasked the Minister of Munitions whether the Government are still purchasing goods from Messrs. H. and R. Merton and Company or whether they are acting for the Government in any capacity; and, if so, is he unable to find a British firm without alien or enemy connections to carry out this work?
  The PARLIAMENTARY (MILITARY) SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Primrose): Messrs. Mertons do not act for the Government. They are given the opportunity from time to time of tendering with other important firms for the supply of certain metals. So far as the Ministry are aware, enemy connections have no influence or share in the present conduct of business by the firm. I may add that the whole question of metal economy and purchase is being most carefully reviewed at the present time.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Will the hon. Gentleman take the trouble to find out whether there are any enemy connections or not?
  Mr. PRIMROSE: I will inquire.
  Sir E. CARSON: Is it not the fact that the question of the dealing with this Merton Company has been under consideration for two and a half years, and when will the consideration come to an end?
  Mr. PRIMROSE: I will inquire.

  ENEMY RAIDS (INSURANCE).
  Mr. FELLasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he can state the percentage of the amount of damage by air or sea raid of premises which have been insured compared with the premises damaged but not insured; and if a report on the working of the aircraft insurance scheme of the Government will be presented shortly; and (2) if the Government has a considerable sum of money in hand on account of the Government aircraft insurance scheme; and if it is proposed to reduce the rates for insurance in consequence in the near future?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: It is not possible to estimate what percentage of the property damaged by hostile aircraft or bombardment was insured and what percentage was not insured, and I do not think the time has yet come for publishing the accounts of the Government aircraft insurance scheme. The question whether any alteration should be made in the rate of premium charged is under consideration.
  Mr. FELL: Is it not possible to say whether the larger part of the premises destroyed or injured by these raids are insured or not?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: We have the particulars of the insured premises which are injured, but not necessarily all the particulars of the non-insured premises.

  RABBITS.
  Major NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, to supplement the meat resources of the country, he will commandeer all available stocks of rabbits and organise local corps of rabbiters for their catching and delivery; and is he aware of the boon to agriculture and forestry that would ultimately accrue by the extermination of these animals?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): I am not sure that rabbits would respond at all readily to a commandeering order, and I fear that it is not possible in the present state of the labour supply to increase very substantially their present rate of destruction. Great numbers of rabbits are coming on to the market, and at the suggestion of the Board the War Office have agreed to issue rabbit meat as an occasional substitute for the ordinary meat ration, wherever this is possible. I personally agree with the hon. and gallant Member that both agriculture and forestry would be enormously benefited by the absolute extermination of rabbits.
  Mr. REDDY: Will the right hon. Gentleman recommend that the hon. and gallant Member should go rabbiting when he will not go to the front?
  Mr. ACLAND: If the suggestion is to be taken seriously, I would rather talk with the hon. Member privately about the latter suggestion.

  SWANSEA VALE COMPANY (BARON HIRSCH'S INTEREST).
  Major HUNTasked what steps have been taken to dispose of Baron Hirsch's interest in the Swansea Vale Company?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The Public Trustee informs me that he has had considerable difficulty in obtaining facilities from the Swansea Vale Spelter Company, Limited, to enable him to obtain particulars of the value of the shares which have been vested in him. These particulars are now being obtained, and the Public Trustee hopes to be able to dispose of the shares shortly.

  COAL PRICES (IRELAND).
  Mr. DEVLINasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to make any announcement with regard to action taken by the Board of Trade with a view to ensuring to the working classes in Belfast, Dublin, and other Irish centres a sufficient supply of coal at reasonable prices?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: As my right hon. Friend informed the hon. Member for St. Patrick's Division on 7th November, he is of opinion that the matter is one to be dealt with locally in the first instance. I have no information as to the present position in the various Irish centres.
  Mr. DEVLINasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he? is aware that the price of best quality house coal was, on 4th August, 1914, when War was declared, 15s. to 16s. per ton, whilst the present price for the same quality of coal is 25s. to 26s. per ton, free-onboard steamer at Garston or Partington, two of the principal English ports for coal shipment to Belfast, Dublin, and other Irish ports; that the current rate of freight on such coal from those English shipping ports to Belfast, Dublin, and other Irish ports was 3s. to 3s. 6d. per ton on 4th August, 1914, whilst the rate is now 10s. 6d. per ton, or three times the former rate; whether and when he proposes to take any steps to reduce the increase in the free-on-board prices of coal, as intended but not effected by his coal prices legislation; and whether he will at once take steps to reduce by at least one-half the present rates of coal freights between England and Ireland, and thus afford to Ireland the same freight advantages as given to France and Italy?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The shipment prices to which the hon. Member refers do not necessarily relate to coal shipped to Ireland. It would be difficult, I think, to-justify a price of 25s. 6d. f.o.b. under the Price of Coal (Limitation) Act, but the Beard appear to have received only one complaint with regard to colliery prices of house coal for Ireland. I should be glad to receive any information that the hon. Member may have on the subject. With regard to freights, I would point out that the proportional increase in the freights to Ireland is not so great as those in the rates to France and Italy even under the arrangements come to with those countries.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: Now that the Government are able to ascertain the profits made by coal owners, in view of the working of the Act of Parliament fixing coal prices, will they not consider the revision of the coal prices with a view to reduction?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That hardly arises out of the question.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, it does.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Will the right horn. Gentleman consider the advisability of receiving a deputation in this matter?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I shall be glad to see any hon. Members who desire to see me.

  ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS (MANUFACTURE).
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the Prime Minister whether he will give a day; for this House to discuss and express an opinion on the question whether it should continue permissible for foodstuffs to be consumed in the manufacture of alcoholic liquors?
  The PRIME MINISTER: This matter was discussed to some extent in the Debate on food prices, and, as at present advised, I am not prepared to set apart a day for its further discussion.
  Mr. WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a Motion to that effect has been put down by a number of hon. Members of the House?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.

  GERMAN PRINCES.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to give the date on which will be presented the Bill dealing with German enemy princes?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Bill is being drafted, and as soon as it is ready-it will be introduced, as I have already informed the House, in another place.
  Mr. LYNCH: When the Bill is introduced, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to keep a House, as a count out is now a method of protecting German princes?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As I have said, it will be introduced in another place, over whose proceedings I have no control.

  SECRET SESSION.
  Sir H. DALZIELasked the Prime Minister whether he is now able to state definitely the decision of the Government in regard to a Secret Session?
  Mr. HOBHOUSEasked the Prime Minister whether he will grant a Secret Session of the House to discuss fully the naval, military, and financial position of the country?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am advised that there is not sufficient evidence of a general desire in the House for such a Session, but if my right hon. Friends can satisfy me that there is such a general desire, both as to having a Secret Session and as to the topics which should be discussed at it, the Government will certainly reconsider the matter.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: My right hon. Friend said some days ago that he would communicate with representative Members of the House in regard to the matter. Has he done so, and, if so, with what result?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Before the Prime Minister answers that question, is he aware that the Colonial Secretary on his behalf asked me to communicate to the Chief Whip the names of Members who were desirous of having a Secret Session, and that I communicated such names, and was assured, or at least I understood that I was assured, that the names furnished to my hon. Friend were sufficient to indicate the general sense of the House?
  Sir E. CARSON: Will the discussion on man-power be an open discussion?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I had much rather that it was.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Shall we have the Report of the Man-Power Board for the purposes of this discussion?
  The PRIME MINISTER: All available materials will be at the disposal of the House.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Does the Prime Minister desire further evidence of the opinion of the House on this matter?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I shall be glad to receive and consider it.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that confidential information has been given by the First Lord of the Admiralty to the Press which has never been given to this House?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That seems rather an argument in favour of an open discussion.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    BREAD.
    Mr. PARTINGTONasked whether national bread in France contains maize-flour and rice-flour; and, if so, in what proportions?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The wheaten flour now used in making bread in France is required to contain not less than 80 per cent. of the weight of the wheat. The admixture of flour other than wheat flour is not compulsory, but is permitted on condition that bread made from such mixed flours is sold under a name accurately describing its nature.

    FLOUR.
    Mr. PARTINGTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that low-grade wheat-flour is largely used in textile industries for sizing purposes; and whether he can state the quantity used for the nine months ending 30th September, 1916?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I understand that wheat flour is used for sizing purposes, but I have no information as to the quantities that are consumed in this way.
    Mr. PARTINGTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that something like 20,000 tons

    1423
    were used for this purpose in normal times, and will he see that substitutes are used?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The matter has been already under our consideration.

  CARGO STEAMERS.
  Captain Sir OWEN PHILLIPSasked whether, in view of the national importance at the present time for British shipowners to acquire as many as possible of the cargo steamers now under construction in neutral countries, and in view of the fact that the prices for such neutral steamers in the open market are now about double that of similar British vessels, what steps, if any, the Government propose to take to make the purchase of at least a proportion of these steamers commercially possible?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I am aware of the importance of the question and am prepared to consider any concrete proposals which may be placed before me.

  MARCONI WIRELESS TELEGRAPH COMPANY.
  Mr. R. GWYNNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether M. Travailleur, a director of Marconi's Wire less Telegraph Company, of London, and chairman of the Société Anonyme Inter-nationale de Telegraphie sans fils, of Brussels, has held any communication with the board of the Brussels company or the board of the Marconi company since the beginning of the War; and, if so, what has been the nature of those communications?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I have no information as to communications between M. Travailleur and the Marconi Company or the Brussels company referred to.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Will the hon. Gentle, man take steps to find out who were M. Travailleur's colleagues on the Brussels Board?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I hardly think it necessary to investigate any communications which do not appear to have any bearing in connection with us.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the Marconi Company are doing Government work, and that they have control of the wireless?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: If my hon. Friend can give me any information which would lead it to be supposed that this correspondence would be of interest, and that anything required investigation, I should be glad to receive that information, but at present I have not sufficient information to justify investigation.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Does the hon. Gentleman think his Department too busy to inquire, and therefore leaves it to private Members to obtain information?

  SOLDIERS' LETTERS UNDELIVERED.
  Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that only four out of more than thirty letters sent to Private Potter, of the Buffs, to Mesopotamia since February have been de livered to the addressee., and that since he has been in hospital in Bombay letters still fail to reach him; and whether, having regard to the anxiety and distress occasioned to this soldier and his relatives at home through the failure to communicate with him, he will make special inquiry as to the cause of his letters miscarrying, and will give an assurance that the failure will not continue?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: The Secretary of State will make inquiry into the case if the hon. Member will give him some further partculars, about which he will communicate with him.

  PETROL SUPPLIES.
  Mr. P. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether it was with his sanction that a notice signed by the district inspector, and dated 16th October, 1916, Kilkenny, was recently served on Messrs. De Loughry and Sons, motor engineers and vendors, of petrol, Kilkenny, warning them that the sale of petrol to any person is prohibited unless a permit in writing issued by the police is produced by the purchaser, or unless his licence from the Petrol Control Committee is counter signed by a police officer; whether he is aware that the operations of this notice has injured the business of Messrs. De

  1425
  Loughry; and will he see that this firm is allowed the full amount of petrol necessary for their business?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): I am informed that the notice referred to was served by the district inspector, pursuant to his duty, on all the dealers in petrol in Kilkenny, and that a permit has now been granted to Messrs. De Loughry and Sons for 14 gallons of petrol per month for their own use and, in addition, a permit to purchase 50 gallons per month for purposes of resale.

  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS, IRELAND (WAR BONUS).
  Mr. DEVLINasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Belfast master stevedores, owing to the increased cost of living, have made the standard wages paid to their men 9s. per eight-hour day; and whether he will take this fact into account in considering the claims of the Irish national school teachers for an adequate war bonus?
  Mr. DUKE: I am not able to add anything to my reply given on Thursday last to the hon. Member for Queen's County (Leix).
  Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that stevedores are giving 9s. per day for eight hours' work, and that school teachers are getting a little over half that amount?
  Mr. DUKE: It would be impossible to discuss the scale of wages by question and answer, at any rate, with any justice to the Exchequer.
  Mr. DEVLIN: It is not a question of a scale of wages; it is a matter of simple justice, and the treatment of the teachers is simply outrageous.

  LABOUR DISPUTE (SOUTH WALES).
  Mr. R. MCNEILL(by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will say what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, to avert the danger of labour trouble in South Wales, and if he will immediately institute an independent audit of the books of the colliery owners concerned, with a view to ascertaining the facts relating to the matters in dispute?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: My hon. Friend's question was put into my hand as I came on the bench about ten minutes ago, and therefore I have had no opportunity of consulting my right hon. Friend about it; but I can say personal negotiations are being conducted to-day by my right hon. Friend on this particular matter, and nothing connected with the subject is being left out of consideration.
  Mr. McNEILL: If I repeat the question to-morrow, will the hon. Gentleman be able to give me a definite reply?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I hope so.

  Metropolitan Police (Dismissals).
  Mr. GILBERTasked whether three police constables have been dismissed from the Metropolitan Police Force, because they had joined the National Union of Police and Prison Officers; and if the Chief Commissioner has issued an order that no officer or constable of the Metropolitan force may join this union or attend any of its meetings?
  Mr. SAMUEL: The answer to both questions is in the affirmative. The number, however, is four.

  Registry of Deeds (Ireland).
  Mr. HAZLETONasked the Prime Minister whether he will give time for the discussion of the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the names of the hon. Members for East Cork, St. Stephen's Green, and North Galway? [Registry of Deeds (Ireland) (Fees),—That the Treasury Order, dated the 30th day of October, 1916, relating to Fees in the Office of the Registry of Deeds, Ireland, ought not to be in force.]
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; I do not think there is a general desire that time should be set apart for this discussion. The matter could be raised on the Motion for Adjournment.

  National Gallery (Lane Bequest).
  Mr. HAZLETONasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been drawn to a memorial signed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Dublin, the president of University College, National University of Ireland, the Resident Commissioner of National Education and chairman of the Board of Intermediate Education, the president of the Royal

  1427
  Irish Academy, the president of the Arts and Crafts Society of Ireland, the president of the Royal Hibernian Academy, the president of the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland, the president of the Royal Society of Antiquaries, the president of the Royal College of Physicians, the director of the National Gallery of Ireland, the principal of Alexandra College, Dublin, the director of the Dublin Municipal Technical Schools, the headmaster of the Metropolitan School of Art, Dublin, a senator of the National University of Ireland, and the librarian of the National Library of Ireland, addressed to the Trustees of the National Gallery, London, expressing the hope that the trustees will carry out the wishes of the late Sir Hugh Lane, as expressed in the uncompleted codicil to his will, concerning the pictures collected by him now held in London, which Sir Hugh Lane desired to present to Dublin; and whether he will make representations to the trustees in favour of the request contained in this memorial?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, I am advised that the powers of the trustees are regulated by Statute, and this is not a matter in which I am entitled to intervene.
  Mr. HAZLETON: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a Bill before the House of Lords at present which is promoted by the Trustees of the National Gallery, and will the Government endeavour to have a Clause to this effect inserted in that Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: When the Bill comes down here Amendments can be moved.
  Mr. HAZLETON: Will the Government themselves propose an Amendment to that effect?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No. I think that is not a matter for the Government. It is a matter for the House.

  National Insurance Commissioners (Ireland).
  Mr. DEVLINasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, whether, in connection with the proposed appointment of temporary female clerks in the offices of the Irish
  1428
  Insurance Commissioners, he will state the names of the members of the Committee which is to personally interview and select the applicants and the mental and physical standards by which the applicants are to be judged; whether the Selection Committee is to be appointed by the Irish Insurance Commissioners, and whether appointment to the Selection Committee will be limited to officials or employés of the Commissioners or otherwise; whether applicants are to be judged by general fitness, apart from ability to pass an examination in school subjects or otherwise; whether any age limit will be fixed; whether any preference will be given to the applicants on the ground of social or financial standing; whether all applicants will have equal consideration apart from this; what is to be the wages or salary of the successful applicants; whether, in fixing this, regard will be had to the present cost of living; whether any calculation has been actually made as to the difference in cost between the proposed method of interviewing, judging, and examining the applicants and examination by a representative of the Civil Service Commission, and, if so, what is the difference; why it is that, although no advertisement with regard to these appointments was published in the newspapers, so many applications for them have been received; whether he is aware that the proposed method of appointment is causing dissatisfaction in Ireland; whether there is any reason, apart from the expense, why applications for these positions should not be invited by advertisement in the newspapers, so as to give everyone a fair chance in regard to them; and whether, under all the circumstances, he will consider the advisability of advertising the vacancies and of filling them up by competitive examination by the Civil Service Commission?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS (Comptroller of the Household): The examination to which the hon. Member refers was held at the end of last week. I have inquired into the methods of selection and examination and I am satisfied that they were impartial and, having regard to the nature of the employment, adequate. I cannot within the limits of a Parliamentary answer reply to each of the thirteen parts of the hon. Member's question.
  Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask the hon. Gentleman why those vacancies were not advertised?
  Mr. ROBERTS: There were already in the office of the Commission applications for general employment to the amount of six or seven times the need.
  Mr. HAZLETON: Who conducted the examination?
  Mr. ROBERTS: If the hon. Member asks me and presses me, I would say that the answer to parts 2, 6, 8 is Yes; to parts 4, 5, 9, 11, and 13, No; and the answer to parts 1, 7, 10, and 12 would take rather longer.
  Mr. HAZLETON: Cannot the hon. Gentleman read out the whole reply to the question, instead of a reply which is quite unintelligible?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I think it would be an abuse of the forms of the House.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Might I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, being only an Under-Secretary, he is entitled to give such an insulting answer to the Members of this House, and to adopt a most unprecedented course? I shall certainly take the first opportunity to call the attention of the House to the matter.
  Mr. ROBERTS: I do not see anything that was discourteous in the answer that I gave.
  Mr. HAZLETON: There was.
  Mr. ROBERTS: Neither intentionally nor actually.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Is it not the fact that the hon. Gentleman has in his hands a series of replies to a series of points which I have raised?
  Mr. HAZLETON: Why does he not read them out?
  Mr. DEVLIN: He has refused to read them out to the House, although he is the least burdened Minister on that Bench.
  Mr. ROBERTS: I can give the answer "yes," "no," "no," "yes."
  Mr. DEVLIN: Will the hon. Gentleman give the names of the persons who held the examination?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I cannot give the names, but the secretary, the accountant, the lady superintendent of the women's staff, and one of the first-class clerks conducted this examination.
  Mr. NUGENT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the statement he has made is inaccurate, and, further, is he aware that
  1430
  general dissatisfaction exists in the city that private information should be conveyed to friends when vacancies occur?
  Mr. ROBERTS: My statement is absolutely accurate, and there is nothing in the insinuation of the hon. Member.
  Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask whether this-examination has not been hurried since I called attention to the facts contained in this question?
  Mr. ROBERTS: No.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Yes, it has.
  Mr. SPEAKER: We have had already seven or eight supplementary questions.
  Mr. HAZLETON: On a point of Order. May I ask is it in order for a Minister from the Treasury Bench to suggest that for a Member to ask him to read a reply which he has in his hand is an abuse of the forms of the House?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is not for any Minister to pronounce definite judgment on that point. I think that probably rests with me.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Daniel O'Leary, Esquire, for the County of Cork (West Cork Division).
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: May I ask the Prime Minister what business he proposes to take to-morrow?
  Mr. DILLON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask him whether the time has not now come to consider the advisability of sitting for five days out of seven and of winding up the business of these sittings?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Tomorrow we shall take Money Resolutions on War Obligations and on the Board of Pensions Bill.
  I think I shall have to ask the House to sit on Monday, to take the Committee stage of the Board of Pensions Bill.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: May I ask the business for Tuesday and Wednesday of next week?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Tomorrow.
  Mr. HOGGE: I suppose the right hon. Gentleman is making arrangements so that the Pensions Bill will go through both Houses before the Recess?
  Commander BELLA IRS: May I ask the Prime Minister whether his refusal to give a day for a Secret Session is definite and final, because otherwise we are forced to discuss matters which we would rather discuss in secret?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, I did not say it was definite or final. On the contrary, I invited an expression of opinion as to whether it was the general desire of the House to have it.
  Mr. BOOTH: May I ask for the guidance of the House whether the Government will be in a position in open Session to give us that candid statement of the facts of their requirements which they might give us in private, and whether my right hon. Friend can undertake that he will make as full a statement if the Session is in public as he would if it were in private?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think my answer, provisionally, is in the affirmative.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, when he said if we would give
  1448
  names, that he has not consulted a great many Members of the House who are in favour of a Secret Session?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am accessible to information from all quarters.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of Ministers meeting Members, say, in the large Committee Room upstairs in the same manner as they met members of the Press, and it would get over the difficulty of the Secret Session?

CONSTABULARY AND POLICE (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed,. "That the Bill be now read the third time."
4.0 P.M.
Mr. DILLON: Before this Bill is read the third time and leaves this House, I should like if some statement could be made by the Chief Secretary as to the present situation in the Metropolitan Police Force in Dublin. I do not desire to say anything which will in the slightest degree exacerbate the trouble in Dublin; or add to the difficulties of the task of the Chief Secretary in dealing with the police situation. Quite the contrary. Undoubtedly the situation is somewhat serious, and I think that on this Bill we ought to have such a statement as the Chief Secretary feels himself free to-make. As I understand, five constables of the Dublin Police Force have been summarily dismissed or suspended—I do not know which—and so far as outsiders like myself can understand the situation, they have been dismissed for—I frankly admit—very foolish proceedings. But it is difficult to understand where a breach of discipline came in, because the action which they are reported to have been guilty of was done while they were off duty, and it did not contravene any of the regulations to which they were subject. I am prepared to admit that their proceedings seemed to be very foolish; but what I should like to impress upon the Chief Secretary is this, that undoubtedly there was very grave misunderstanding. Perhaps the Chief Secretary himself was not fully informed of the history of this trouble in the Dublin Police. But there-

1449
was very grave misunderstanding, and the men were undoubtedly under the impression, correctly or incorrectly, as the case may be, that their just claims, which are now admitted by the passage of this Bill, for reconsideration of their salaries and allowances were being ignored by the Government. They were left for a long time in a state of uncertainty. In point of fact, I am informed that the men, shortly before the Government indicated their decision to the members of the Dublin Police Force, were informed by one of their inspectors that they would get nothing whatever; that the Government did not trust them.
If that be true, the Chief Secretary would be wisely advised to make the greatest possible allowance for any slight misconduct or breach of discipline—if there has been a breach of discipline on the part of these men. I am quite certain that if the Chief Secretary makes careful inquiries he will find that the record of the Dublin Police Force as a police force is an extremely high one, and that even these men—I am told by a person of position who knows what he is talking about—now dismissed have an exceedingly high record in the force, and are, some of them with many years' service, men against whom no black mark of any sort or kind exists. I think, therefore, the Chief Secretary would be very well advised if he took a conciliatory and lenient view of any incidents that arose in the course of this trouble. All I have risen to ask the Chief Secretary to do is to give us information, so far as he thinks necessary, desirable, or wise, as to the situation in Dublin which will convey the impression that the feeling of the Irish Government, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself, as representing the Irish Government, is conciliatory, and that the door is not closed against some action which would restore these men to their position in the force, and obviate and remove any irritation which may remain in consequence of this misunderstanding and trouble.
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): The hon. Member who has just sat down has spoken with great consideration of the difficulties which accompany a statement of the position in connection with the Dublin police. I entirely appreciate the spirit in which he has approached this matter. In answer to the hon. Gentleman I am very
1450
glad to say that the present conduct of the whole body of those who are at present members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police is satisfactory, and promises to be satisfactory. I shall avail myself of the considerate manner in which this question has been raised to refrain from entering into any details of the causes of the difficulties there were in the administration of the police. There were cases of difficulty which for a few days appeared to be possible to develop into circumstances of gravity. They were due in a very considerable degree to false statements which were circulated—statements which I believe to have been in some instances deliberately circulated with a view to disturbing the police. I should like to refer to one to which reference has been made in this House, which has been made public through the Press, and which caused grave apprehension on the part of the police, and those responsible for their discipline—the statement that a very large number if not nearly all of the members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force, and a very considerable body of the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, in breach of their own oath of office, an oath, that is, which every one of them had taken, had joined a society which was described. The society was not accurately described. If they had joined it it would have been a breach of discipline. Any adhesion to the society, so far as my judgment goes, could not properly or decently be given by men who were in this force. If joined either by the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary or members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police it would have been a great breach of discipline, as well as a breach of their oath of office. I am satisfied by information I have had—and I have had it from those who are best competent to inform me upon the subject—that not merely have not a large body of the Dublin Metropolitan Police joined that society, but none of them have joined it.
Mr. NUGENT: That is so.
Mr. DUKE: That is assented to by the hon. Member for Dublin, who holds, as I am told, a very prominent official position in that society. So far as the Royal Irish Constabulary is concerned, the imputation was even more baseless. Not only had no members of that force

1451
of constabulary joined the Ancient Order of Hibernians, but there never had been a question in regard to them.
Major NEWMAN: Nobody in this House ever said in this House that they thought any member of the Royal Irish Constabulary had joined the Ancient Order of Hibernians, but only 300 members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force.
Mr. DUKE: The statements which were circulated, and which I was so strongly reprehended for for protesting against and trying to prevent circulating, were statements of much the same character of those which have reached the attention of ray hon. and gallant Friend, statements of the most alarming and mischievous kind, statements which were calculated to cause trouble in the police, and I think intended to incite the police to trouble; to break the bond of confidence and sympathy which ought to exist between the police force and those under whose direction they had to work. Further than that, I think I may properly state that certain orders were given in the course of the not unnatural agitation in respect of wages, which orders were deliberately disobeyed by a considerable body of men. The disobedience to the orders in question was made a matter of inquiry, and brought to the attention of the men who had made the default. After that had taken place there was deliberate and organised action for the purpose of fomenting further disturbance, and in that deliberate and organised action five constables were prominent. One of them was dismissed, I think, about three months ago, and the other four were cautioned and dealt with by disciplinary measures in the force. After that occurrence those four members, in evident consultation with other persons, both inside and outside the police force, committed a series of acts to which reference was made by the hon. Member, and which he spoke of as silly. Everybody familiar with the facts is aware that it was a course of action taken with a view to throw contempt upon the disciplinary proceedings which it had been necessary to have recourse to, and to put those who were in charge of the discipline of the police in a contemptible and ridiculous light.
That is my view of the matter. It is a view which the Chief Commissioner took, and which was taken by everybody to
1452
whom the facts were submitted. I do not believe there is any sympathy in the police force with that which was grave misconduct, and which was a breach of discipline, not merely after repeated warnings by the Chief Commissioner, but after repeated warnings given by me from my place here in this House. I would, Mr. Speaker, take upon myself to say that throughout this controversy I desired, if it were possible, to prevent the infliction of any disciplinary punishment upon any man who might have been misled, if it had been practicable without bringing the whole scheme of discipline into question, and without entirely undermining the authority of the Chief Commissioner and those immediately responsible for discipline. I should have been very glad to have acceded to the proposal that these offences should be wiped out. But my view of my responsibility is that I must stand by the Chief Commissioner of Police in the decision which he has taken, painful though it is, and that the men, some of whom have been several years in the force, should forfeit the advantages which they had gained by a course of police service. I can see no other course than to maintain the action which has been taken, and so far as these five members of the force are concerned to treat this matter as at an end. I want to say this further: I mentioned to the House that there was a large number who were guilty of disciplinary fault. The Chief Commissioner is ready, I know, to treat that error as an error into which the men fell, partly because they were misled and partly because there were misunderstandings as to their position. So far as the general body of the force is concerned, if they are content to conform to the conditions under which they entered the service, and to maintain, as they have been proud in the past, the discipline of the force. I can promise them that not one of them will be called in question for anything that has happened during these misunderstandings. I myself regard that as the furthest extent to which leniency can go in this case. I trust hon. Members who know the gravity of the matter, and the difficulty of the problem as to maintaining order under some circumstances in a city like Dublin, will realise that I will support the course which has been taken as to the general body of the force, and will not treat as grievances the cases of the men who have-subjected themselves to disciplinary

1453
measures and have incurred penalties to which unhappily they are liable in view of their conduct.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: The general statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made, I think, everybody will have heard with feelings of some satisfaction, but, at the same time, I think it right to point out that the whole difficulty in Dublin arose because of the delays imposed by the British Treasury in regard to the claims that had been made, and it is really intolerable that people here in Downing Street, knowing nothing whatever of the conditions of Ireland, should delay and obstruct and make themselves a public danger. I do not hesitate to describe the British Treasury now, as I have described it at all times, as the greatest menace to the peace of Ireland. The whole trouble in Dublin is entirely due to the action of a few Treasury clerks. When a force, which, on the whole, has been a credit to the Metropolis of Ireland, has made reasonable and proper claims, it seems incredible that the right hon. Gentleman should have his hand paralysed. I say it is shocking and monstrous that that force should be thrown into a condition of seething discontent by the delay imposed by the imposters of the British Treasury. Having said that, I pass from the Dublin case with this expression of hope: The right hon. Gentleman knows there is a great deal of camaraderie amongst the members of this force, and I think the words he has let fall will act as an anodyne in respect of a good deal of the trouble. At the same time, I do not think that discipline will be in the last degree affected if the door of hope is not entirely closed against those who have suffered the extreme penalty of disciplinary action, and, therefore, without intending in any sense to encourage any agitation upon that subject, or doing anything to contravene that which the right hon. Gentleman has laid down as necessary for the force, I do not think it would be well to shut the door entirely upon that hope.
With regard to the Royal Irish Constabulary, I venture to put forward a suggestion I made some twenty-five years ago, and which, I think, would do a great deal to improve the situation of that force. The Royal Irish Constabulary is officered by an entirely different body of men, rank, and station from
1454
the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force, and it is one of the advantages of the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force that the humblest constable has, so to speak, the baton of a marshal in his knapsack, and can rise to the highest position in the force. At the present moment the second in command is an officer of energy and distinction who entered the force originally as a constable. The case of the Royal Irish Constabulary is entirely different, and I venture to think that much of the trouble which has arisen in Ireland during the last couple of years is due to the fact that there is an entire difference of feeling in many places between the population and the officers of that force. I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should not by a stroke of his pen declare that all offices in the Royal Irish Constabulary should be open to all ranks. Of course, I exclude the head of the force in both cases. I think the Government are entitled in regard to the Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and the Inspector-General, or whatever his title is, of the Dublin Metropolitan Police to reserve those posts in their own executive power. But I see no reason why the district inspectors, and the county inspectors, should not be appointed by promotion from the ranks as is the case in the Dubin Metropolitan Police. It would give every man an additional stimulus to action. A small number of them, by passing the "P" list examination, can, and do, become inspectors, but it should be the case of all. The only person it could inflict a grievance upon would be the Chief Secretary for the time being, who has a certain number of nominees, and, I think, the Inspector-General also has a certain number of nominees.
The knowledge that the policeman, sergeant, and so on could rise to be an inspector, and thereby get the additional pay of that position, would be in the nature of an advance of salary. As it would not need an Act of Parliament, so far as I know, but could be done by Executive action, I would strongly urge the right hon. Gentleman to look into the matter. Of course, I do not expect an announcement from him immediately, but I would strongly urge him, during his term of office, to consider the advantage of this reform. It would, of course, meet with opposition from the heads of the force, because they want to keep these posts in

1455
their own hands, but it is strange to see in a three-quarter Catholic country that out of some thirty inspectors you have only three Catholics. I think that is a monstrous state of affairs, and that is due to the nominative system. If,. of course, the intention of the Government is to keep the pay and patronage for a special class, leaving the Catholics nothing, that is a state of things which may well explain the temper of the Irish people at the present time. But it is not upon the religious ground—the ground of fairness to any particular denomination—that I urge this. I urge it in fairness to the force itself. It would enable a career to be open to talent, and there is no reason I can see why this distinction between the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force and the Royal Irish Constabulary should be preserved for another year.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read the third time.
Mr. DUKE: I beg to move to add to the title the words "and for other purposes relating thereto."
I ask, in order to avoid any question with regard to the Standing Orders of the House, to be allowed to add these words, so as to meet Amendments made in Committee, which might be held not to come within the strict construction of the title as it stands.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, with an Amended Title.

REGISTRATION OF BUSINESS NAMES (RE-COMMITTED) BILL [Lords.]
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Firms and Persons to be Registered.)
Subject to the provisions of this Act—

(a) Every firm having a place of business in the United Kingdom and carrying on business under a business name which does not consist of the true surnames of all partners who are individuals and the corporate names of all partners who are corporations without any addition other than the true Christian names of individual partners or initials of such Christian names;

1456

(b) Every individual having a place of business in the United Kingdom and carrying on business under a business name which does nob consist of his true surname without any addition other than his true Christian names or the initials thereof;

shall be registered in the manner directed by this Act:
Provided that—

(i.) where the addition merely indicates that the business is carried on in succession to a former owner of the business, that addition shall not of itself render registration necessary; and

(ii.) where two or more individual partners have the same surname, the addition of an s at the end of that surname shall not of itself render registration necessary; and

(iii.) where the business is carried on by a trustee in bankruptcy or a receiver or manager appointed by any court, registration shall not be necessary:

(iv.) a purchase or acquisition of property by two or more persons as joint tenants or tenants in common is not of itself to be deemed carrying on a business whether or not the owners share any profits arising from the sale thereof.

The CHAIRMAN: Some of the Amendments on the Paper seem to cover points already in the Bill, but hon. Members may have some points that escape my observation, and therefore I propose to allow the Amendments to be moved in order to show whether that is so or not.
The following Amendment stood in the name of Mr. BUTCHER: After paragraph (a) to insert the words
"(b) Every firm carrying on business at any place in the United Kingdom in which any partner has changed or may hereafter change his name."
Mr. BUTCHER: There is a similar Amendment to this one later on the Paper in my name, to insert after paragraph (b), the words
"(c) Every individual or firm having a place of business in the United Kingdom, who, or a member of which, has either before or after the passing of this Act changed his name, except in the case of a woman in consequence of marriage."

1457
It is quite true that that is embodied in the Bill now by the effect of the definition Clause, but I think my hon. Friend (Mr. Pretyman) will agree that the definition Clause is not happily framed, because it asks us to assume a state of things not in accordance with the facts, and it would be better, I think, if my hon. Friend agrees, that we should put in the change of name in a Sub-section to this Clause, and I should like to move it in this form. It really covers the Amendment which appears in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Denniss) and other hon. Members.
Mr. DENNISS: It will not be necessary for me to move my Amendment under those circumstances.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman): I should like to accept this Amendment if the Committee will agree. I concur in what my hon. Friend has said, that it only carries out what the Bill really effected before, but perhaps by rather a clumsy method. Therefore, I think, this form is preferable, and I should like to accept the Amendment.
Mr. FELL: I beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "before"["has either before or after the passing of this Act"], and to insert instead thereof the words "during the period not exceeding ten years preceding the date of this Act."
My object is that there should be some limit to the time during which the change of name has taken place. There might be considerable confusion if they had to put in all names they had assumed during a long business period, and it might be sufficient to cover all cases if it were limited in the way I propose. There was a case, I believe, of a Mr. Trebitch, a Member of this House, who assumed the name of Lincoln. I see that he assumed three or four other names under which he had traded, and in cases like that there might be very considerable difficulty in giving all the various names an individual had taken. I think, therefore, it would be sufficient if any name assumed during ten years were required to be registered.
Mr. BUTCHER: I prefer very much the form of the Amendment on the Paper. I do not see the necessity for this legislation for ten years. If there are a number of aliases, such as my hon. Friend sug-
1458
gests, I think it is just as well that we should know the man and be able to trace his history, and see what—I will not say crime—but what transactions he has been engaged in in the past. Therefore I hope the Government will not accept the Amendment to the Amendment.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I cannot say that I am inclined to accept my hon. Friend's proposal.
Mr. FELL: Then I do not press it.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Proposed words there inserted.
Further Amendment made: In paragraph (iii.), at the end, to insert the word "and."—[Mr. King.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the hon. Gentleman and the Board of Trade for accepting so many Amendments to this Bill. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dublin University expected to be here. I may say that the Amendments incorporated have been very largely the result of a small Committee presided over by my right hon. and learned Friend, and I desire, on behalf of that Committee, to express our deep sense of obligation to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade for having incorporated practically the whole of our Amendments which has made this really a satisfactory Bill.
Mr. BUTCHER: May I associate myself with what has fallen from my hon. Friend. I think we are very much indebted to the Government for having improved this Bill so substantially, and for having done it in a way which has not caused any loss of time. I hope, in the form in which it now stands, we shall pass it into law.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I wish to thank hon. Members opposite for what they have said. I also wish to express my obligation to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Hallam Division of Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) for having suggested a method by which we were able to get the Bill into its present form, so that the Committee can see exactly what is before us. I would, however, remind my hon. Friends that, although we have received very great

1459
assistance from the Amendments which they have put forward, and which we have been glad to incorporate, they really only embody suggestions which I made on the Second Reading and on the introduction of the Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Registration of True Name by Nominee, etc.)
Where a firm, individual, or corporation having a place of business within the United Kingdom carries on the business wholly or mainly as nominee or trustee of or for another person, or other persons, or another corporation, or as agent for any foreign firm, the first-mentioned firm, individual, or corporation shall be registered in manner provided by this Act, and, in addition to the other particulars required to be furnished and registered, there shall be furnished and registered the particulars mentioned in the Schedule to this Act:
Provided that where the business is carried on by a trustee in bankruptcy or a receiver or manager appointed by any Court, registration under this Section shall not be necessary.
Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I beg to move, after the word "or"["or as agent"], to insert the words "wholly or mainly."
This is rather a difficult point. There are many businesses in England that act as agents now and again for a firm, and then that same foreign firm gives work to someone else as its agent. There are foreign firms who employ several people here and employ somebody quite casually, perhaps once a month. Therefore I think it is desirable to define the position of the agent. It is obvious to the Committee that firms could not always, if they are acting only casually or for a great many people, give all the particulars of those foreign firms that might be called for under the Clause as it stands. I do not think there can be any objection to include these words which I think are necessary.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I am afraid I cannot see my way to accept these words. The words "wholly or mainly" are not intended to cover an agent. They were intended to cover a nominee or trustee. It sometimes happens in case of death that a business is carried on by trustees or executors, and then it is desirable that we should have the words "wholly or mainly."
1460
When we deal with the word "agent" my hon. Friend must read the words as they appear in the Clause. If a man carries on business as agent, what it is desirable to avoid is that a man who is carrying on an ordinary business here under his own name should be rendered liable to registration. This Clause not only prescribes that certain particulars should be furnished which are mentioned in the Schedule, but actually renders any firm liable to registration. These words therefore will render a man not only liable to enter certain particulars in his register, but they actually render him liable to registration. I do not think it is desirable that if an English business man or firm were merely to act as agent in some single transaction or odd transactions occasionally for a foreign firm-that he should be rendered liable to registration by that fact. But where an English firm, even if it is not wholly or mainly its business to act for a foreign firm, does habitually act, it is desirable that he should be registered, and that that fact should be stated. That is the dividing line we wish to draw7. Whether these words exactly do that or not may be doubtful, but I think they do; but perhaps my hon. Friend will allow this point to be considered before the Report stage, and I will consider whether any other words are necessary. I do not say that the words "wholly or mainly" would achieve what we desire, and we want words to indicate that the person must be carrying on business as the accredited agent properly appointed and not acting in regard to some odd transactions. If it is necessary to add any other words, I will consider that point for Report.
Mr. BUTCHER: May I point out to my hon. Friend that as the Clause is drawn it looks as though the words "wholly or mainly" did apply also to agents as well as to the nominee or trustee? I hope this point will also be considered by my hon. Friend.
Mr. PRETYMAN: We will consider that point.
Mr. BUTCHER: I think the words "wholly or mainly" should not apply to the agent.
Mr. DENNISS: I think the words "wholly or mainly" do apply to the agent as the Clause is drawn, according to the ordinary rules of construction. A man may act as agent on one or two occasions-now and then and perhaps only once in

1461
his life. What you want to deal with is somebody who acts as representing a foreign firm or is the accredited agent. If other words are put in on the Report stage I think the difficulty will be met.
Mr. RENDALL: There may be a case where only perhaps one-third of the total business is with a foreign firm, and that is not "wholly or mainly." It seems to me that these words are necessary.
Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The difficulty is what is intended by the Government. I know the law of agency is rather difficult, but my difficulty as a practical business man is that we are constantly asked to do services for some foreign firm, and I want to know, are we, in regard to those people who ask us to do work now and again, to furnish particulars of those firms and have them registered? That is really our difficulty. We do not want to do that, especially with all the nationalities suggested in the Bill. If the Government will really consider this matter and meet our difficulties as far as they can, I need not trouble the Committee with my Amendment, and I ask leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I beg to move, after the word "as"[or as agent"], to insert the word "sole."
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir G. Cave): I do not think we could accept this Amendment because, if we did, then a foreign firm would only have to appoint a second agent and would then be able to contract entirely out of the Bill.
Amendment negatived.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3. —(Manner and Particulars of Registration.)
(1) Every firm or person required under this Act to be registered shall furnish by sending by post or delivering to the registrar at the register office in that part of the United Kingdom in which the principal place of business of the firm or person is situated a statement in writing in the prescribed form containing the following particulars:

(a) The business name;

(b) The general nature of the business;

(c) The principal place of the business;

1462

(d) Where the registration to be effected is that of a firm, the present Christian name and surname, any former Christian name or surname, nationality, and if that nationality is not the nationality of origin, the-nationality of origin, the usual residence, and other business occupation if any) of each of the individuals who are partners, and the corporate name and registered or principal office of every corporation which is a partner;

(e) where the registration to be effected is that of an individual, the present Christian name and surname, any former Christian name or surname, nationality, and if that nationality is not the nationality of origin, the-nationality of origin, the usual residence, and other business occupation (if any) of such individual;

(f) Where the registration to be effected is that of a corporation, its corporate name and registered or principal office;

(g) If the business is commenced after the commencement of this Act, the date of the commencement of the business.

(2) Where a business is carried on under two or more business names, each of those business names must be stated.
Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), paragraph (d,) after the word "surname," insert the word "the."
After the word "and"["and other business occupation"] insert the word "the."
In paragraph (e), after the word "surname," insert the word "the."
After the word "and"["and other business occupation"], insert the word "the."—[Mr. Pretyman.]
Mr. PRETYMAN: I beg to move in Sub-section (1), paragraph (g), to leave out the word "commencement"["after the commencement of this Act"], and to insert instead thereof the word "passing."
Mr. KING: Have the Beard of Trade really determined that this Bill can come into force on its passing? Is that really practical? Is it feasible to put it into operation in this way, or would it not be better to have a period, say, of two months, after the passing of the Act?
Mr. DENNISS: A person has three months in which to register.
Mr. PRETYMAN: It is absolutely provided for, because we take the date of the passing of the Act as the commencement of the period after which the actual registration shall commence.
Amendment agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Butcher), which deals with the matter of notepaper and so on, belongs to Clause 17.
Mr. BUTCHER: When we come to that Clause I shall accept the Government's proposal, and not move my Amendment.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move at the end of the Clause to add the following new Sub-section:
"(3) Where it appears to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade—

(a) that the name which it is proposed to register under this Act contains the word "British" or "Imperial," or any word or words calculated to lead to the belief that the individual or all the individuals carrying on business under that name is or are British subjects; and

(b) that such individual or individuals, or any of them, are not British subjects;

the Board of Trade shall refuse registration of such name and require another name to be put forward for registration instead thereof."
This is another Amendment which emanates from the Unionist Committee, and as it is one which was not adumbrated by the hon. Gentleman in his speech, such credit or discredit as there may be attaches to us alone. It is a matter of great substance. There are a large number of people who use the words "British," "Imperial," or "National" without any possible claim to them. It is quite open to any two or three men, whose name may be Schmidt or Golden-stein, to call themselves "The English Bakery Company" or "The National Explosives Company." Anybody may use a name of that kind at the present time, and the object of this Amendment is to prevent people using the name "British," "Imperial," or something similar, and making the public think that it is a British business when in reality it is not. I am not quite sure whether the wording of the Amendment will commend itself to the Solicitor-General, but I hope so. All we want is
1464
to get the matter cleared up, and, if any other words are preferred, I need hardly say that we shall be quite willing to accept them. We do not want any German commencing business or carrying on business in future in this country under a title which leads a person to suppose that he is dealing with an English or British firm. The whole object of the Bill is to cause Germans, or any persons of other nationalities whose names do not appear in the title of the firm, to register in order that English people may know with whom they are dealing. We want to go a step further and to give the Board of Trade power to veto people using the title, say, of "The British Bakery Company," unless they are genuine British people. There is no objection to two Englishmen, say, Butcher and Pell, trading as "The British Bakery Company" if they desire to do so, but there is every possible objection to Schmidt and Company doing so. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept this Amendment, and allow the Board of Trade to take that power which we are anxious to confer upon them.
Mr. BUTCHER: It is in the experience of us all that a great many businesses have been carried on under a very high-sounding British name, inviting custom because it is, say, a "British" or "Imperial" bakery, or a "British" or "Imperial" tailoring business, or even some larger enterprise still. It is quite certain that a large number of unwary customers have been induced in the past to do business with these so-called British and Imperial firms by the magnificence of the name, which has had an attraction for some people. It is only comparatively lately that we have been in the habit of looking behind the firm's name and seeing whose are the hands that really move this decorative machinery. We have found that behind the names of apparently British companies has really been concealed the identity of Schmidt, Golden-stein, and so on. We do not want persons who are not British subjects to be allowed to assume these misleading names. If they want to be registered, let them register under a name which is not misleading. That is the object of the Amendment. Now that we are throwing some light upon the real partners in a firm, do not let us allow people to trade under a totally misleading description. I hope my hon. Friend will see that there is some substance in this Amendment, and, if he cannot accept the

1465
exact form of words suggested, that he will himself suggest some words which will meet this undoubted evil which has sprung up in our midst.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I have very great sympathy with this Amendment, but I certainly do not think it would do in the form in which it appears upon the Paper. In the first place, it would be ineffective. All this Amendment does is to say that no firm can be actually registered if the Board of Trade thinks that the word "British" attached to it is calculated to deceive. That would not prevent a firm, when once it has been registered, from changing its name.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: If a firm is registered and changes its name, it has to register its change of name.
Mr. PRETYMAN: My hon. Friend has misunderstood me. Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I wanted to say that the ownership might change. There is nothing in the Amendment to prevent a firm registering itself as British when it is British, and then afterwards passing on its assets and property to people who are not British. This really creates great difficulty in the matter of existing goodwill, and, in considering the Bill, we must not allow our minds to be solely directed to the question of German firms. It is not merely a war Bill dealing with German firms. It is a Bill for all time dealing with the registration of firms who trade under names other than those of the actual owners of the business, whether they are Englishmen, Americans, Frenchmen, Italians—our Allies or our enemies. We must consider the Bill from that point of view, and not be led by a natural anxiety to discover some German taint to throw an undue burden or difficulty upon British firms, or actually to reduce the value of property of our own fellow-subjects or of our Allies. Clearly, if a Clause of this character were applied to all existing firms, it would deprive a considerable number and possibly a large number of firms of goodwill which is valuable.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Not British subjects.
Mr. PRETYMAN: No, not where a firm was wholly British; but where a firm was, say, American, it might happen. A firm in America starts a branch in this country, and calls it the British branch of the company, not with any evil intent, but because it is in this country and in order to dis-
1466
tinguish it from the American branch. They may have acquired a goodwill under that name, and it would be rather hard to-deprive them of it. I hardly feel justified in applying a Clause of this kind to existing firms or businesses. I have very great sympathy with the suggestion that we should apply it to future registration, but I should like to point out that the question really arises in connection with companies rather than with firms and persons, and we have to consider it from that point of view. I should like to leave the matter over till the Report stage. It is an important and a rather difficult question, and we do not want to legislate in a hurry. This Amendment, I think, only appeared on the-Paper to-day. I spent two hours this-morning trying to get at the real effect of it, because we have to appreciate what the actual effect is going to be upon business people in this country, and I am not quite clear what it would be. If the Committee will consent to this standing over to the Report stage, I will consider whether it would not be possible to meet this proposal or whether it might not be possible to introduce a separate Bill covering the cases of companies as well. There-may be difficulties in connection with companies; the question has not yet been considered. I have thought it right to-show the Committee the whole bearing of the matter. We considered it this morning, and I would like to reserve any further statement till the Report stage. If we consider it better to introduce a watertight proposal in this Bill going as far as it seems wise, I will do that on Report; but if, on the other hand, we think it better to deal with the whole question, including companies as well, in a separate Bill, I will inform the House when we come to that stage.
Sir E. CARSON: For my own part, I hold out this amendment of the law is absolutely essential. What is it that the Amendment proposes? It is that nobody should be allowed to use a term such as "British" or "Imperial" which is calculated to lead to the belief that the individual or individuals carrying on the business is or are British subjects. It seems to me a monstrous thing that the law as it at present stands should allow anybody, Germans, Austrians, Frenchmen, Russians —I take them all; they are all in the same category-—to come forward and hold themselves out to the people of this country as being British, Imperial, or Canadian, or it may be anything else that will attract

1467
the public, whereas, in point of fact, they are foreign firms. This Amendment, so far as I can see, does not in the slightest degree prevent the same individuals or firms from carrying on their business so long as they have in their name something that will show that they are not really what they have been holding themselves out to be in the past, but are in reality foreign firms. I do not know what argument can be urged against it. Since the War broke out we have had the case of the British Petroleum Company. When it came to be looked into the British Petroleum Company had nothing to do with Great Britain at all and had nothing British about it. I suppose we could give hundreds of illustrations of the same kind. I am certain that during this War and after this War the people of this country are going to say, "We wish in our dealings to know whether we are acting in the interests of our own people or in such a way as to build up credits and businesses for those who either are or may hereafter became our enemies."
5.0 P.M.
That is the whole object of this Amendment. I cannot see how any British interests are affected by it, because the Sub-section (b) says that "such individual or individuals, or any of them, are not British subjects," then "the Board of Trade shall refuse registration of such names and require another name to be put forward for registration instead thereof." My hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Pretyman) has said that he would like to consider this matter. I think that is a very reasonable proposition on his part, but I hope he will remember that we attach considerable importance to this matter. I agree with him that the abuse is probably greater in the case of companies than it is in the case of individuals, though I think when he comes to deal with that he will find it is more difficult to deal with it in the case of companies, because you may have a few British shareholders, or even a large proportion of British shareholders, when the company may in reality be a foreign one. But as he has given his assurance that before the Report stage he hopes to be able to make some amendment after he has given further consideration to the question, I do not think we ought at this stage to divide upon the matter, but if it becomes necessary I should not hesitate myself, holding the strong views I do, to take the opinion of the House as to
1468
whether people should be allowed to deceive the public in future by the use of such names
Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I hope in anything the Government may do in connection with this matter that they will take good care there is no differentiation between a firm and a company. It seems very hard that firms should be singled out and companies allowed to trade in any name they like. I would point out that this Amendment reads:
"Where it appears to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade that the name which it is proposed to register under this Act contains the word 'British' or 'Imperial,' or any word or words calculated to lead to the belief that the individual or all the individuals carrying on business under that name is or are British subjects."
There is this difficulty, that you may have a man called Jones who may be Jones and Company, and he may be an American; it does not follow that the word "Jones" does not convey that he is not a British subject, and you get into a maze of difficulties when you come to give the Board of Trade powers to refuse, for example, some name that is an English name because it applies to an American.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for a minute, I would point out that the Amendment only applies where the word "British" or "Imperial" is part of the title of the firm, like the Jones Imperial Flour Company.
Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I think the hon. Gentleman has not read his own Amendment:
"Where it is proposed to register under this Act the name. (Jones) or the word 'British' or 'Imperial' or any word or words."
Under any word or words you might have Jones, Smith or Robinson. I think I am correct in that, but if it is going to be withdrawn we need not perhaps discuss it, but I do urge the Government not to penalise firms as opposed to companies in connection with this matter. Moreover, I would point out that the word "Imperial" is a very dangerous one to include, because there are other Empires besides this, and it would be difficult to exclude the word "Imperial." We must also bear in mind in connection with the word "British" that we do not exclude our own Colonies.
Mr. R. MCNEILL: I really do not think the objection raised by the hon. Baronet opposite has much force, because although there are other Empires, we are dealing here with firms in this country, and it ought to be assumed that a firm in this country which uses the word "Imperial" or "British Imperial" has to do with our Empire. So far as the more general objection of the hon. Baronet is concerned, I would point out that I think my hon. Friend beside me is quite correct. The words "British" or "Imperial" are put into the Amendment for the purpose of guiding the Courts as to the general meaning of the Clause. They would construe that, I understand—my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General will correct me if I am wrong—they would construe the Clause so that the "other words" should be just and generous. The name Jones or Smith would not be "other words" within the meaning of the Clause. On the other hand, a company calling itself "The London So-and-so," or "The London and Liverpool So-and-so" would be, because London and Liverpool being British place names, might reasonably be construed as just and generous with "British" and "Imperial," and it is in order to avoid that deliberate misleading of the people in the use of words of that sort, which imply a British character, that we are anxious that this Clause should be included.
Mr. CURRIE: I am quite in sympathy with the object of this Clause. At the same time, I think the Board of Trade require to be careful in dealing with companies in Scotland. There we have a number of companies using such names as "The Special American Investment Company" or "The North British Canadian Investment Company." These names have been well known to the public for twenty-five or fifty years, and they are valuable to the companies. I do not think it would be reasonable, simply because you have detected someone in America, say, some banker in New York holding a hundred shares in a company like that, to force that company to change its name for such a reason. I wish to point out that to the Board of Trade.
Sir R. COOPER: I think the proposal my right hon. Friend has made is a perfectly reasonable one, which everyone will desire to fall in with. I want, if I may, to make this observation, that, personally, I should like to see as drastic a line taken
1470
as possible, more or less on the lines of this Amendment, if the Board of Trade and the Government can see their way to do so. If, on the other hand, they come to the conclusion that the Amendment now before the Committee is going too far and raising difficulties, which I am quite prepared to believe, it may be undesirable for them to give way to, I would ask my hon. Friend to further consider whether he can move another Amendment which at any rate will make it quite clear to the public that where the title "British" or "Imperial" is used and where the Board of Trade think it would be wrong to refuse to register it, that there shall be some means by which the people in the country may know that they are dealing with a firm or a company in which enemy interests are involved. I think, however, this is quite a different point. The Amendment says:
"The Board of Trade shall not be allowed to register that name."
If we cannot go as far as that, we should at least go a considerable distance. If you say they must register, in allowing registration it should be made clear to anybody dealing with this firm from their notepaper or some outer mark that it has outside interests other than British.
Mr. PRETYMAN: That is exactly what the Bill does. The person registering has to give these particulars, and by a later Clause he has to put them on his note-paper; therefore we do get that amount of information. I do not know that this suggestion is additional to what is in the Bill. That is already the main object of the Bill. The name "British" or "Imperial" obviously cannot be the personal name of the owner of the business. Clearly, therefore, anybody who trades with these words has to be registered. I think I should have pointed out to the Committee that in the registration they have to give particulars which will show whether or not they are foreign, and that must be stated on the notepaper and the stationery. That is an important power.
Sir F. BANBURY: Does that have an important bearing? It might have an important bearing where the people who are going to trade with them are men of business and are conversant with the details of the business and would look into every particular, but would it have an important bearing, say, in the case of a large shop, which calls itself "The British Imperial Tobacco Company," or something

1471
of that sort, and has to put on its bill that it consists of a certain number of people who are not English? The ordinary buyer going in would see British Imperial on the doorplate and written all over the place, but probably would not look at the bill, but would only see that the 10s. that he had paid had been properly receipted. It seems to me that it is necessary in some form or other to have this safeguard. It certainly would not do to penalise firms and not penalise companies.
Mr. PRETYMAN: We cannot do it in this Bill.
Mr. DENNISS: As my hon. Friend is going to consider this matter, I would like to make one little suggestion. It seems to me quite clear that you will have to have a special Act of Parliament to carry this out, just as you did in the case of Anzac the other day. It would have to be thoroughly threshed out in another Bill. For the purposes of this Bill you might incorporate some matter which would require a person trading under a name which had the word "British" or "Imperial" as part of it, to put his nationality at the end of the style; to have, say, British Petroleum Company, and then, in brackets, German. That would do exactly what my hon. Friend wants, but would do it in an exaggerated way. That is only a suggestion for the purposes of this Bill; meanwhile, I hope my hon. Friends will dispose of this Amendment, which I do not think is practicable to its full extent in this Bill.
Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I am in sympathy with this Amendment, because it raises the important principle of the official attitude. Of course, the Departmental attitude we all know of old has been that there should be in all these sort of matters the utmost possible freedom. Our recent experience shows how this so-called freedom degenerates into a licence which is harmful to this country. I do not feel in the least ashamed to stand up and say that if a man wants to monopolise the word "British," and he is only one of many millions of Britons, he ought to show cause; if he wants to use that word for his particular business, and wants a special ticket with the word "British" upon it, as if his were the only British firm of the kind, then he ought to justify his right to its use. We have left all the old departmental ideas behind. We know the abuses
1472
that exist. We do not allow a man to have the Royal Arms upon his goods unless he has a special licence appointing him to supply the Royal Family. You do not allow him the right to that in any way unless he is under special Government patronage; and I say you ought not to allow him to stamp himself with British citizenship when he is not entitled to it.
Sir G. CAVE: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is entitled to say that the Department's attitude in this matter has been one of absolute freedom. That is beside the truth. My hon. Friend said that he was in sympathy with the point which has been raised and promised to consider it. I think he has taken the right course, because there are plain objections to the Amendment. The point has been raised by more than one Member that the Amendment ought to go further. I am in the fullest sympathy with the Clause as it stands, but it is complained that it does not go far enough, that it does not deal with the important point raised by my hon. Friend in regard to the registration of names. We want carefully to consider the matter, and when he has done so my hon. Friend on Report will announce what he will do.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I desire at once, and, in fact, I have been waiting for some time past, to accept the suggestion made by my hon. Friend. And certainly, after what my hon. Friend and ray hon. and learned Friend have said, I desire, with your permission, to withdraw the Amendment. Doubtless before Report my hon. Friend will communicate with me as to the terms of any proposed Amendment or in regard to the terms of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4 (Particulars to be Signed by Persons Registering,) CLAUSE 5 (Time of Registration,) and CLAUSE 6 (Registration of Changes in Firm) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 7.—(Penalty for Default in Registration.)
  If any firm or person by this Act required to furnish a statement of particulars or of any change in particulars shall without reasonable excuse make default in so doing in manner and within the time specified by this Act, every partner in the firm or the person so in default shall be

  1473
  liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds for every day during which the default continues, and the Court shall order a statement of the required particulars or change in the particulars to be furnished to the registrar within such time as may be specified in the order: Provided that no proceedings shall be instituted under this Section except by or with the consent of the Board of Trade.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I beg to move to leave out the words "Provided that no proceedings shall be instituted under this Section except by or with the consent of the Board of Trade."
  The object of this Section is that if any man without reasonable excuse makes default in registering as required by the Bill, then he shall be subject to a fine. But as the Bill stands it provides that no proceedings shall be taken for wilful default on the part of a person who violates the Act unless the Board of Trade give their consent. I do not know why the Board of Trade consent should be necessary. It is an extremely unsual course when an Act is passed imposing a penalty for an offence to say that proceedings shall not be taken to recover the fine except with the consent of the Board of Trade. In a very limited class of cases—and my right hon. and learned Friend will agree it is very limited—the consent is required of the Attorney-General before instituting proceedings. But these are in regard to cases of a somewhat serious character. I do not remember any precedent for saying you shall not enforce an Act of Parliament except with the consent of the Board of Trade. Whether there be such a precedent or not, it really does not much matter, because in this case I cannot see why the consent of the Board of Trade should be necessary. It is not because I have not the most profound respect for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, but then he will not always be there to watch over evil doings which may be contemplated in connection with the Act. I have no doubt, personally, in any such case his consent -would be readily given, but then he cannot undertake that the Board of Trade will always be on the alert or in a reasonable mood. I can picture to myself some day in the future when a Member of this House—myself, or some other hon. Gentleman—may come across a most flagrant violation of the Act and the Board of Trade may be too inactive to give consent to a prosecution. Unless some very much
  1474
  stronger reason is given for retaining this prohibition on the punishment of offenders, I hope these words will be struck out.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I can assure my hon. and learned Friend it is not the desire of the Board of Trade to assume this liability at all. They would sooner be without it. (But the reason why these words are put in is, I think, fairly obvious. It is to avoid blackmailing. That is rather an important point. A man may unwittingly contravene the Act. It may be he is a small trader, and it might easily happen that he would feel he would be gravely injured by being dragged into a Police Court, whether he was acquitted or not. There are people going about only too ready to make use of an Act of Parliament for their own ends, and, therefore, an innocent man, despite his innocence, might be willing to pay money to avoid being drawn into a Court. A trader, for instance, might set a trap to catch a rival. The Special Committee which considered this Bill in another place was so strongly impressed with this point that it introduced a Clause, as will be remembered, which prevented anybody being proceeded against for not registering unless the Board of Trade had required him to register. That would, of course, have made the whole Act inoperative.
  But we do feel it is necessary to have some safeguard introduced, and the safeguard which we would have desired to keep is quite a common one, frequently used in Acts of Parliament, creating offences of a kindred character. That safeguard is to leave it to the Attorney-General to prosecute if necessary, and it would have been introduced here except that we considered the matter was not of sufficient importance to go to him. That was the sole reason. There must be some reference of the kind, otherwise any private individual in England might institute proceedings. Under the Scottish law, I believe, no private prosecution can take place; it must be instituted by the Crown, and therefore such a provision is not necessary in that case. But in this country prosecutions can take place at the instance of private individuals, and this is merely a protection against malicious or trivial prosecutions designed to draw business men into Courts of summary jurisdiction. If any better means can be suggested which would relieve the Board of Trade of this responsibility, we should be very glad to accept them, but I hardly

  1475
  see what better means are possible. My hon. and learned Friend has spoken of this as very unusual legislation, but I would remind him that under the Newspaper Libel Act, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the Perjury Act, no prosecution can take place without the leave of the Attorney-General.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I did not suggest that this provision was an uncommon one. What I did urge was that the precedent of asking the leave of the Board of Trade was uncommon.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: But there is a precedent for asking the leave of the Board of Trade for power to prosecute, and it is found in Part II. of the National Insurance Act, which provides for the sanction of the Board of Trade being obtained. We feel strongly that this safeguard is required and that this is the best that could be devised. Should such a circumstance arise as has been suggested by my hon. and learned Friend—who we hope to have with us in this House for many years-exercising a watchful interest in its proceedings—should the Board of Trade refuse to allow a prosecution in case of a flagrant violation of the Act, I feel certain the hon. Gentleman would be the first to raise the matter here—certainly someone would raise it—and the result would be that the Board of Trade would quickly be brought to book in this House for not giving effect to the intentions of Parliament.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: I am sorry to find myself in disagreement with the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Pretyman). I think his objections to the Amendment are rather far-fetched. He says it is a safeguard designed to avoid the dangers of blackmail and to prevent frivolous and vexatious prosecutions. Is there any really substantial danger of that sort? Are not people amply protected by the rest of the Clause? He is afraid that anyone offending unknowingly and unwittingly may be harassed by proceedings of a frivolous nature. But if a person was prosecuted it would be open to him to show he had reasonable cause.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Not until after he has been taken into Court.
  Mr. MCNEILL: The obligation is that every trader should obey the law, and it
  1476
  is no great grievance if a person fails in so doing that that he should be taken into Court, presumably by someone who thinks-he will not be able to give a valid excuse. That is a protection against frivolous proceedings. No one is likely to take a case into Court if he thinks there is no possible chance of success. I do not think there is the slightest danger that a trader would be taken into Court for the purpose of blackmail. There is no necessary disgrace if a man can show that he has failed to register through inadvertence. There is nothing he need fear—nothing that would put him in the hands of a blackmailer.
  I really think there should be some stronger justification for a provision of this sort. It is a purely imaginary and fanciful objection after all. There is a real objection to the proviso, because it will necessarily impose delay in getting cases heard and remedied. There might be the case of a firm doing business in the North of England. Someone might discover, in the course of his transactions with them, that the firm were defaulting under the Act. Surely there ought to be, proceedings in order to enforce the Act without adopting the cumbrous procedure of having first to submit the facts to the Board of Trade for that body to consider whether or not it will allow proceedings to be instituted. What would happen? The Board will have to make inquiries. We shall have the usual process in that respect. We shall be told it is giving earnest consideration to the matter. That will be the answer from week to week and month to month. Then perhaps a question may have to be put in this House as to whether such and such a firm is a defaulter under the Act, and whether the Board of Trade have given permission for proceedings to be taken. Months will in fact elapse before anything can be decided, whereas if the aggrieved person were in a position to put the law into operation at once the whole matter could be disposed of in a much shorter period. I think this provision will prove to be of very great disadvantage in the efficient working of the Act.
  Mr. BOOTH: I cannot agree with the representative of the Board of Trade either in regard to his precedents or in his description of the manner in which this House can make the Department move. The reference he has made to the Insurance Act affords us an experience which is against my hon. Friend's case. No one who has had anything to do with Part I. or Part II.

  1477
  of the Act can fail to realise that one of the greatest blots in the Act is that people are barred from going to the Law Courts to get an impartial decision. Look at the position of Part I. under that Act. The permanent officials may charge a Friendly Society with not having done justice to a member, and after a great deal of correspondence instructions may be given for proceedings to be instituted. Immediately that is done the very Commissioners who have made the charge actually constitute themselves the judges and sit in judgment. That was at a time when the spirit which ruled our legislation was that if only we could keep people away from the lawyers, barristers, and judges we should be doing something sensible, because when one got into Court everything was delayed. Then we came to Part II. of that Act, which was put under the Board of Trade to administer. The reason they have this power of veto is because they are administering Part II., which deals with their Labour Exchanges and their own Department, and therefore they are supposed to know all about it. This case is very different. This is a case where they are to have the power to stop an action. They have probably shirked all knowledge of the case, and it probably has to be brought before them. Anyone who quotes the precedent of the Insurance Act must shut his eyes to the awful position that Act has produced.
  I do not think my hon. Friend was quite candid with the House. What opportunity would my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Mr. Butcher) have? My hon. and learned Friend seizes the opportunities he gets. He seized one and made very good use of it. That was simply because with his skill he cleverly intervened with his point when the Government wanted a Bill and wanted to hurry it through in point of time, and he stood his ground and secured his concession. The ordinary remedy is nonexistent. What would he have to do in this case? The hon. and learned Member would put a question on the Notice Paper. We are told that is the way to bring the Government to book. That is the easy and simple way suggested by my hon. Friend. What would he get? An evasive answer, as we get every day. We had three or four to-day from the Board of Trade, and we shall have a number of them to-morrow, and so long as the House sits during the War. What will the Board of Trade do?
  1478
  There will be an Advisory Committee on whom to shift the responsibility. When the hon. Member brings forward a specific instance he will get a reply that it does not concern my hon. Friend, and he will be referred to a Committee. A Committee has no responsibility to this House. That is what the Board of Trade have done with me in the last few days. I asked them whether they were going to take action in a certain matter. I named the firm in whose case ex-employés brought a specific charge that the firm were breaking the law and passing German machines off as British. What was the reply of the Board of Trade? Did they promise, as the hon. Member has promised to-day, that the Board of Trade would bring them to book and satisfy the House? He said, "No, that will be referred to a Committee." That is the way I am disposed of. Although I could produce two or three ex-employés who would come and swear to the facts, although they would incriminate themselves, that is what happened. Committees would consider these matters for eighteen months or two years, and that would be the end of it
  As to the answer the hon. Member has given with regard to the action of the Board of Trade in regard to these inquiries, he assured the House that they were properly protected because there was ample opportunity to bring the Department to book. If we depend upon that, it will be totally illusory. I hope we shall depend upon something much better. I certainly think that a case has been made out on the other side of the Committee for this Amendment. Those of us in business stand to be shot at, if anybody does. What happens if a man wishes to bring a frivolous prosecution? A man can choose any Act of Parliament and bring another into Court on any trumped-up charge and sue him. I do not see why there should be any special leave required of the Board of Trade. Will my hon. Friend say whether the Board of Trade will administer this Bill themselves or set up a Committee to do so? Of whom will the Committee consist? Shall we have to go from one to another? If I ask my hon. Friend about a particular firm he says that it is in the hands of his Controller and then sits down, and the Board of Trade say they have nothing further to do with that German firm. I have not the slightest doubt, if this legislation passes, that should the hon. and learned Member for York inquire about a certain case I

  1479
  could write the answer out now. My hon. Friend would get up and say, "This case will be referred to the Advisory Committee." Then he would look to Mr. Speaker for the next question to be called.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I have had some private conversation with the hon. Gentleman upon this particular point. I can assure the Committee that he is really anxious to meet us upon this point if he can avoid blackmail. I think his fear about blackmail is a little exaggerated, and I told him so. I have put an Amendment down to Clause 17. It was to that Clause I alluded when I talked with him. There is possibly some little fear of blackmail on Clause 17, because it does not contain the provision to which my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Butcher) referred, and because there are a good many particulars required under that Clause which might possibly be genuinely forgotten. But when you come to Clause 7, especially with the proviso contained in the words "without reasonable excuse," what is it that the Clause asks people to do? It asks them to register. Where can blackmailing come in when you are simply asked to register under an Act of Parliament? This is a Bill called the "Registration of Business Names Bill." If a person does not register, then anybody ought to be at liberty to prosecute him for not complying with an Act of Parliament. There can be no blackmail in that. Blackmail only means that you go to some person and tell him that if he does not do so-and-so, you will prosecute him. A man has no justification for using such threats, but if the person threatened does not wish to appear in a Police Court, he gets money out of him. In this case the man ought to have registered. In this case he ought to be prosecuted, even if a prosecutor begins proceedings for blackmailing purposes or anything else. The provision as to
  "any change in particulars"
  is guarded by the words
  "without reasonable excuse."
  Therefore in regard to this Clause I cannot see any reason why it should be necessary to have the consent of the Board of Trade. I admit that Clause 17 may be different, but in this Clause I see no reason why these words should not be omitted. What will happen? An ordinary man in business, whose time is very much occupied, finds that a certain firm whom
  1480
  he knows has not complied with this Clause, and he says to himself—nine out of ten people would say it—that it would be a great trouble to take proceedings, that he would have to go to a Police Court, and probably have to consult solicitors. It would mean great delay, and he would not known whether he ought to do it. Yet his duty would be to see that the Act of Parliament was enforced. Then be goes to a solicitor, who would say that he would have to communicate with the Board of Trade. What would that mean? It means that the man himself would have to write letters, or possibly see some official at the Board of Trade, or put the matter into the hands of a solicitor, who would write several letters charging several six-and-eightpences, or whatever the fee is, and then, after many months, the prosecution would probably be allowed. All that might mean that no prosecutions at all would take place. In this case, as there can be no reasonable fear of blackmail, the hon. Gentleman might agree to accept the Amendment.
  Sir G. CAVE: What my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) has said does help us, because he makes a distinction between, this Clause and Clause 17. On Clause 17 we must have some sort of protection; and there are good reasons in favour of the proviso even in this Clause. The effect of this Clause is that if a man forgets to register, or if he sends in particulars which omit certain statements that ought to be made, he may be liable to a penalty, because the default to send in a statement means a default to send in a proper statement. If you send in a statement which is incomplete, or which contains some mistake or error, you may be liable. I doubt very much myself whether forgetfulness is a reasonable excuse. That is a point which has often bean considered, as some of my hon. and learned Friends know. It has been held that forgetfulness is no answer. That being so, it is obvious that there is a risk of proceedings being taken against the firm or individual who, although liable to a penalty, is not morally to blame. It was for that reason that this proviso was inserted. It was certainly not put in without consideration, because in another place the Bill was not only discussed but referred to a Select Committee, which took evidence, including that of representatives of the chambers of commerce, and, after hearing that evidence, they put in protective words a good deal stronger than these are.

  1481
  I would only add that it is well known to many of us that there are similar provisions in the Companies Acts, and as a result of those provisions, which can be enforced without the sanction of any Department, there was a gentleman whom many of us have known and seen who made a regular living out of prosecutions for defaults committed under those Acts. He spent his whole time in taking out summonses against companies or directors for default in not complying with similar provisions. He used to make an affidavit in support of his summons and would then supply the other side with a copy of that affidavit upon the usual terms. The affidavit being very long, the sum paid was considerable, and in that way, I will not say he made an honest living, but he made a certain amount of profit out of a provision of this kind. Of course that sort of thing ought to be stopped. It was stopped in the end as regards that individual, but it ought to be impossible. It was for that reason that this sort of protective Clause was inserted. However, it has been shown that there is a strong opinion on both sides of the Committee in favour of this Amendment, and my hon. Friend authorises me to say that if the matter is allowed to stand over he will consider the point before Report and see whether he can meet it.
  Sir R. COOPER: It is most unsatisfactory to me that every point that has been raised upon this Bill is to be referred to the Report stage, when things come with a rush and there is not the same opportunity that we have now and here of settling such matters. Every point of importance raised upon this Bill is to be considered on Report. I view this method of dealing with Amendments to a Bill in Committee with the gravest suspicion. None of us want to be unreasonable, but surely the Government has a mind of its own about these things. The fact is that the President of the Board of Trade is not here himself to take charge of this Bill. He ought to be, or, if he cannot be here, the hon. Gentleman ought to take the responsibility upon himself. It is most unsatisfactory on a matter of this importance that one point after another has to be shelved till a later occasion. It is just like the policy of the Government in dealing with the War. No doubt many of these things will be overlooked or forgotten."
  Mr. PRETYMAN: That is not fair.
  Sir R. COOPER: I am not going to withdraw that, because I object on principle to these matters being shelved till the Report stage. That is not the proper way of dealing with a Bill. The hon. Gentleman gave as the reason why he did not like to accept the Amendment that it laid firms open to blackmail. That may have some element of truth, but it seems to me that if any firm is going to lay itself open to blackmail and to fall under the threat, it must have some pretty good reason for doing so, because if there is no suggestion that a firm who has not registered may have some foreign element in it, then it is surely in the interest of that firm that it should register and let the whole world know that it is British. But there is another point of view that I take with regard to these two lines. I would not suggest that the Government or the Board of Trade is sheltering German interests, but the inclusion of these words leaves the opportunity to future Governments if they were minded to protect German interests to make it impossible for anyone to get their consent. I do not think that is at all a desirable power, so far as taking proceedings is concerned. I allow that Clause 17 is quite different, but in this case I do not think that is a power which ought to be given, not to this Government and this Board of Trade, but to any future Board of Trade or any Minister who may hold that responsible position. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will persist in his Amendment.
  Mr. CURRIE: Anyone who, like myself, comes across a good many secrets of individuals and companies in the capacity of an auditor must know perfectly well that the number of petty offences committed unintentionally is large. I think the risk of blackmail and trickery of various sorts is too serious for the Board of Trade to overlook, and I hope the Solicitor-General will stick to his proviso.
  Mr. RENDALL: I wish to say a word to the same effect. I am very glad the Government is not going to give way. The penalty is £5 a day, which is a very heavy penalty indeed. The temptation might not arise in many cases, but it would arise in some among a certain class of traders who might desire to injure their competitors, and I think an honest trader, in the case of some small clerical error in his return, ought to have the protection of this provision.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I think I have heard the objection of possible blackmail raised to every proposal to amend the criminal law that I have ever seen made in this House since I have been a Member of it. Secondly, it is not very desirable to add to the quasi-judicial duties of an executive Department. There is a constant tendency in all Departments to add to that kind of duty. The remedy is probably not to add to these quasi-judicial duties, but to have a little more confidence in your Courts of Justice. We have a very fine body of stipendiary and other magistrates administering summary justice, and these are cases of summary proceeding. The probable remedy is, if necessary—and I do not say it is necessary—to increase and improve the power of awarding costs against a frivolous applicant who sets going legal machinery against a man who has excusably broken the law.
  Mr. MORTON: The Government having promised to reconsider the matter between now and Report stage, that is something. I am personally aware that there is a great demand for the powers proposed to be given by this Bill outside, and I hope, therefore, the Government will seriously consider the whole matter before they allow anything to appear in the Bill which would damage it or make it useless. We are all anxious to get the Bill passed and improved as much as possible, but I hope the Government will reconsider the matter and allow these particular words with regard to the consent of the Board of Trade to be left out.
  Mr. HAZLETON: I do not think there is any difference of opinion in the Committee as to the end to be attained, and it is purely a question of what is the best way in which to proceed. I should be very glad for one reason in particular to see these words left out. I have no objection whatever to the Board of Trade dealing with this matter if it would deal with it in a prompt and efficient way, as if left to itself I have no doubt whatever that it would. But it seems to me that the general procedure in cases of this kind is that the Board of Trade as a Department does not deal with a question of this kind when it comes before it at all, but refers it to one of the Law Officers of the Crown. We have had cases before the Public Accounts Committee where, in the opinion of many of its members, prosecutions ought to have taken place by Government Departments, but we have been
  1484
  given the invariable answer, when the question was raised as to why no prosecution has taken place, that the matter was referred to the Law Officers of the Crown, and in their opinion there was not sufficient evidence to sustain a prosecution. So far as I can gather, what will happen if this proviso is left in will be this: These cases when they come before the Board of Trade will be referred to the Law Officers of the Crown. They have a great deal of work to do. They will not necessarily have before them the full facts and documents to come to a proper decision, because it is only really in a Court of Law that these full facts and documents can be brought out. Therefore, I think, there is a great danger, first of all, of delay, and secondly, of that happening which so often happens to my mind in similar cases to this, that the Law Officers, on the facts put before them, which may not be the full facts at all, may decide that there is not sufficient ground for a prosecution; but if that danger is guarded against, I do not believe there is any other serious objection to the Board of Trade being consulted before these transactions take place.
  Sir E. CARSON: I think we may reasonably accept the proposal of the Solicitor-General that this matter should be further considered before the Report stage. Having been in the legal profession for I do not know how many years, I think all this talk about blackmail is moonshine. So far as legal proceedings are concerned, there is really very little in the nature of blackmail that goes on, for the simple reason that the blackmailer has to come before the Court and to suffer the consequences of his blackmail if it is blackmail. But why talk about blackmail in a case like this? It would be no disgrace for a trader to come up and say, "The reason I did not register was so and so," if it was held by the magistrate to be a reasonable excuse. It is quite a short procedure, and is defended easily and without any very great expense. On the other hand, if he has not a reasonable excuse, surely anyone who puts the law in motion as against him is helping to carry out the Act of Parliament passed by this House, and I do not see why, because he does that, he is to be accused of doing anything whatsoever that is improper. If I wanted to take proceedings against a man for breach of this Act, I should certainly think a long time before I entered into a protracted correspondence with the Board of Trade. I think I would

  1485
  rather leave it alone. I am not saying that as any adverse criticism of the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade has a very-great number of things to do. I know the way these things are done in the public offices perfectly well.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: This has not to go to the Law Officers.
  Sir E. CARSON: How do I know? I have had many cases from the Board of Trade.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Yes, but not like this.
  Sir E. CARSON: This Act was not passed before, but let us test it upon that. I think that that adds to my argument. Supposing the Board of Trade is doubtful whether it comes within the law or not, will they do it off their own bat or ask the Law Officers?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I explained that it is usual in cases rather more important than this that the reference should be to a commission and the sanction required should not be the sanction of a public Department, which I agree is rather objectionable, but to the proper authority, namely, the Attorney-General, and the only reason why the Attorney-General was not put into this was because the case was not regarded as of sufficient importance with which to trouble the Attorney-General on a point which the Board of Trade considered would not be a point of law. That would be left for the Court. It is not a question of ousting or replacing the jurisdiction of the Court, but merely that the Board of Trade should be satisfied that there was a primâ facie case to go before the Court. The only way blackmailing could come in is that people do not like to be dragged into a Police Court, particularly small people, who are very jealous of their good name. There have been such cases as that named by the hon. and learned Gentleman of a man who found it possible to make a living by trivial blackmailing acts. That is the reason for it. But strong feeling has been expressed on the point and I will consider it before Report.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I also am pleased that the Government is going to consider this before Report. I do not think they will be able to carry it exactly as it stands, because we must remember that the Board of Trade did not take the initiative in this matter at all. This is not a Board of Trade Bill. They never recognised it or really
  1486
  took any initiative themselves. We should never have heard of it but for the action of an individual Member in another place. Therefore it is too much to ask us, now that the Government has been forced to take up the matter, to exhibit the enthusiasm which we ought to have in order to make the Bill a success. My own candid view is that if the Bill is passed with this paragraph in it it will practically be a dead letter, because no action can be taken under this Clause unless the Board of Trade gives it their approval. The Solicitor-General made play with what had happened in a previous Bill, and insinuated that some member of his profession had been practically making money under a frivolous pretext.
  Sir G. CAVEI did not say a member of my profession.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Then an individual outside. I rather thought that that helped the case very much for the position we have taken up against the proposal, for there would have been no field of operation for that particular gentleman, whoever he was, if the Board of Trade had themselves taken the initiative. Therefore it seems to me the very statement makes our case complete. The plain truth is that, even if it is left where it is, the Board of Trade will not have the information which is necessary in order to take action. You cannot have the Board of Trade scouring all over the country looking up registers and that sort of thing. The information will be by a private individual. In view of our experience of the Board of Trade in winding up enemy firms and in other matters, I have absolutely no confidence that they will be able to carry this out. I think they are greatly overworked, and they are also anxious to keep everything in their own hands. I hope they will consider it fully before the Report stage. I will suggest to the Solicitor-General whether he cannot go the whole way and take it put altogether. Would it not be worthy of consideration whether the Clause might be altered so as to give permission, say, to the police magistrate or to some other person in a similar capacity, who should be satisfied that the action was not frivolous and was not blackmailing, and was founded upon reasonable business grounds? If action is not taken people are going to suffer from the want of information that has not been provided. I suggest that some middle course of that kind

  1487
  might be taken, because the whole thing is whether we are going to have the machinery in motion or whether it is going to be allowed to stop dead until a certain time after the Board of Trade has decided to take action.
  Mr. CURRIE: I should be glad to know from the Government how this particular Section—the last few lines—is to be applied to Scotland?
  6.0 P.M.
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro): I propose to put down later on an Amendment which will exclude the application of this particular provision to Scotland. The reason for this proviso is, I think, that in England a private individual from some improper motive might start a prosecution against a rival trader. There is no such possibility in Scotland as my Scottish colleagues know. All prosecutions in Scotland are of a public character and under my control and direction, and accordingly the possibility of a blackmailing or oppressive prosecution may be left out of question. Accordingly, when we come to the Scottish Clause I propose to put an Amendment which will have the effect of omitting this proviso.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. KING: I beg to propose, after the word "that"["provided that"], to insert the words "(a) the maximum total fine imposed shall not exceed fifty pounds; and (b)."
  It is quite obvious that a moderate fine ought to suffice for an offence under this Bill, and I suggest £50. It is very possible that a man may commit an offence something of this character. Suppose that the daughter of a former owner of a firm is a partner, and she goes abroad and marries a foreigner, then, unless her change of nationality is registered, an offence is committed That may go on for months, and there may be danger of a huge fine being imposed.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment, because there might be very grave consequences following a breach of this act. It is quite true that the offence might be very trivial, but we must leave that to the judgment of the Court. In the case such as my hon. Friend suggests the Court would not impose a penalty totally
  1488
  out of proportion to the character of the offence, but it is quite conceivable that a firm might enter into contracts of great importance which they would not have obtained had a certain registration of particulars been available, and such a firm might stand to lose by registration a much larger sum than £50. A further point is that there would be no object in registration after a certain number of days had expired and the penalty of £50 had accumulated, for then they could not be fined any more no matter how long they had been without registration.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: In reference to this question of the amount of the fine, among the particulars required are changes in the name and constitution of firms abroad for whom firms here act as agents. It is not possible to know within fourteen days changes which may take place in the heart of South America, and there should be some provision to deal with cases such as that. The Court might fine a man £5 a day, though it might be six months before he knew of the change taking place.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: That is not so, because Clause 6 says, "within fourteen days after such change or such longer period as the Board of Trade may in any particular case, whether before or after the expiration of such fourteen days, allow." That is exactly the case which we had in our mind in inserting that provision.
  Sir E. CARSON: I think that the case which my hon. Friend opposite put is also met by the words in Clause 7, "shall without reasonable excuse." If the information cannot be got in time that would be a reasonable excuse. I am glad that my hon. Friend has not accepted this Amendment. The Court will have the fullest power to do justice, and it is quite plain that there may be very aggravated cases in which it is necessary to impose very severe fines.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. R. MCNEILL: There is an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for York and myself, among others.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is consequential.
  Mr. McNEILL: It is consequential on some Section which the hon. Gentleman opposite has undertaken to consider, and I hope we may take it that, in the event of his accepting our Sub-section or a Subsection substantially the same, he will also consider this consequential Amendment as part of it.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Certainly. Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 8.—(Disability of Persons in Default.)
(1) Where any firm or person by this Act required to furnish a statement of particulars or of any change in particulars shall have made default in so doing, then the rights of that defaulter under or arising out of any contract or other dealing made or entered into by or on behalf of such defaulter at any time while he is in default shall not be enforceable by action or other legal proceeding either in the business name or otherwise:
Provided always as follows:—

(a) The defaulter may apply to the Court for relief against the disability imposed by this Section, and the Court, on being satisfied that the default was accidental, or due to inadvertence, or some other sufficient cause, or that on other grounds it is just and equitable to grant relief, grant such relief either generally, or as respects any particular contracts or dealings, on condition of the costs of the application being paid by the defaulter, unless the Court otherwise orders, and on such other conditions (if any) as the Court may impose, but such relief shall not be granted except on such service and such publication of notice of the application as the Court may order, nor shall relief be given in respect of any contract or dealing if any party to the contract or dealing proves to the satisfaction of the Court that, if this Act had been complied with, he would not have entered into the contract or dealing;

(b) Nothing herein contained shall prejudice the rights of any other parties as against the defaulters in respect of such contract or other dealing as aforesaid;

1490

(c) If any action or proceeding shall be commenced by any other party against the defaulter to enforce the-rights of such party in respect of such contract or other dealing, nothing herein contained shall preclude the defaulter from enforcing in that action or proceeding, by way of counterclaim set off or otherwise, such rights as he may have against that party in respect of such contract or dealing.

(2) In this Section the expression "Court" means the "High Court":
Provided that if any proceeding to enforce any contract is commenced by a defaulter in a County Court, the County Court may, as respects that contract, grant such relief as aforesaid.
Amendments made: In Sub-section (1) leave out the words "or other dealing."
After the word "defaulter," insert the words "in relation to the business in respect to the carrying on of which particulars were required to be furnished."
In paragraph (a), after the word "relief"["grant relief"], insert the word "may."
Leave out the words "or dealings" ["contracts or dealings"].
Leave out the words "or dealing" ["or dealing if"].
Leave out the words "or dealing" ["or dealing proves"].
Leave out the words "or dealing" at end of paragraph.
In paragraph (b) leave out the words "or other dealing."
In paragraph (c) leave out the words "other dealing."
Leave out the words "or dealing."—[Mr. Pretyman.]
Mr. KING: I beg to move in Sub-section (2), after the word "that," to insert the words "without prejudice to the power of the High Court to grant such relief as aforesaid."
This is the first of two Amendments which reserve the right of appeal to the High Court. I hope that they may be accepted.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I accept this Amendment, which may possibly be an improvement. The second Amendment, I think, is not necessary.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: On behalf of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, I desire to raise a question under this Clause. It seems to me that we are creating quite a new offence. Hitherto when a penalty has been applied the penalty has been the punishment. But in this particular case there is not only the penalty, but there is also the fact that there is power to cancel a contract. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen pointed out, it is quite possible in very important dealings in cotton, corn or other merchandise to cancel a contract. This seems to be quite a new position. In the case of a limited company, of course, it does not apply. A limited company make default and are fined for breach of the Act, but the contract holds good, but in this particular case the contract does not hold good to the end of the period, and, owing to a small fault, the contract may be called off. The contract may be for an enormous amount, and this penalty may be incurred for some small breach of this description. A limited company pays a fine In accordance with the nature of the offence committed, but here the offender not only pays the fine, but the contract is cancelled. This is a most serious thing to a firm conducting its business, and I hope that some way will be found of remedying it. It is quite true that there is this provision, that a defaulter may apply to the Court, but that is a rather serious matter, and there ought to be some other relief.
Sir G. CAVE: I agree with the hon. Member that this Clause is very important and somewhat new. The effect of it is that anyone who does not register is disabled from enforcing his contract tin relation to the business in respect of which he ought to have registered. It is, I agree, a serions matter, and the reason for it has been considered in another place. It is assumed that when a man does not register, but makes default, persons contracting with him may contract under a misapprehension, not knowing who the partners are, the names of whom they are entitled to know by law. It is thought advisable to impose what I agree is a somewhat stringent penalty upon those who make default. We have express power in the Clause enabling the Court to grant relief in certain cases. Where the Court finds that the default is accidental or due
1492
to inadvertence, or some other sufficient cause, or that on other grounds it is just and equitable to grant relief, the Court may grant such relief. I am quite sure that when a Court was informed that a party to the contract had been lying by waiting for the default and waiting until the last moment before calling attention to what would vitiate his contract, any Court would grant relief in such a case. I think that paragraph (a) in the Clause meets many of my hon. Friend's points.
Mr. R. MCNEILL: I regard this Clause as one of the most valuable parts of this Bill. It would be a very great loss if it were not included. Certainly it is an innovation which we ought to welcome. There is far too much facility in various parts of our commercial legislation for offences to be committed and for the trader to be able to take advantage of those offences. I think the value of an innovation like this is that it strikes at the title of any person who does not comply with the terms of the Act. I am extremely glad that the Government have introduced the principle of saying that so far as this Act is concerned the defaulter shall be not merely liable for the formal penalty for breach of the law, but that he shall at the same time be deprived of the opportunity of taking advantage of his default in the civil Court.
Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(Penalty for False Statements.)
If any statement required to be furnished under this Act contains any matter which-is false in any material particular to the knowledge of any person signing it, that person shall, on summary conviction, be liable to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months, or to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine.
Mr. KING: I beg to move the addition of a new Sub-section—
"(2) Nothing in this Section shall affect any liability to be proceeded against and punished under Section five of the Perjury Act, 1911, so, however, that no person be twice punished for the same offence."
I think this is an important Amendment, because in Clause 4 of the Bill in certain cases the particulars have to be accompanied by a statutory declaration. A false declaration is punishable under the Perjury Act, and I believe that liability

1493
should be kept alive. If this Sub-section is added, it would have to be made applicable in Scotland and probably in Ireland. I hope the Amendment will be accepted, because I understand that it does really embody a point of importance which has been recognised in authoritative quarters.
Sir G. CAVE: I think, upon reflection, my hon. Friend will see that this Amendment is not required. The Bill provides for the delivery of a statement, signed by the proper person, and in certain cases the statement has to be verified by statutory declaration. This is a Clause in which we impose a penalty for false statements; it does not impose any penalty for a false statutory declaration. If that declaration is false, the person making it is liable to be prosecuted for perjury, as my hon. Friend knows. Nothing in the Clause as it stands can interfere with the penalty for perjury, because the Clause only deals with false statements and imposes a special penalty for that. If it imposed a penalty for a false statutory declaration, then such an Amendment as that of my hon. Friend might be required. As it is, I do not think it is required.
Mr. KING: I accept that explanation, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 10.—(Duty to Furnish Particulars to Board of Trade.)
(1) The Board of Trade may require any person to furnish to the Board such particulars as appear necessary to the Board for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not he or the firm of which he is partner should be registered under this Act, and may also in the case of a corporation require the secretary or any other officer of a corporation performing the duties of secretary to furnish such particulars, and if any person when so required fails to supply such particulars as it is in his power to give, or furnishes particulars which are false in any material particulars, he shall on summary conviction be liable to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds or to both such imprisonment and fine.
(2) If from any information so furnished it appears to the Board of Trade that any
1494
firm or person ought to be registered under this Act, the Board may require the firm or person to furnish to the registrar the required particulars within such time as may be allowed by the Board, but, where any default under this Act has been discovered from the information acquired under this Section, no proceedings under this Act shall be taken against any person in respect of such default prior to the expiration of the time within which the firm or person is required by the Board under this Section to furnish particulars to the registrar.
Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "particulars" ["in any material particulars"], and to insert instead thereof the word "particular." I understand that this Amendment will be accepted.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Can the representative of the Board of Trade give any reason for this Clause? Is it to help people to know whether they come within the Bill or not, because there are cases near the border line. There are foreign firms doing business in this country through a firm here, and it is not quite clear whether they have a place of business here or not. I do not know whether that is what is in mind. It would be useful if the Board of Trade could tell people so situated whether they are within this Bill or not. I can conceive such cases as that, and there may be other cases near the border line.
Mr. PRETYMAN: The Clause is simply this, that where it is reported to the Board of Trade that a firm ought to be registered, it will be in their power to send somebody to require particulars to be given, which will enable them to decide whether the firm ought to be registered or not. Without the power to require the furnishing of particulars, it would be impossible to decide whether they ought to be registered or not without going to a Court of Law.
Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 11.—(Registrar to File Statement and Issue Certificate of Registration.)
On receiving any statement or statutory declaration made in pursuance of this Act, the registrar shall cause the same to be

1495
filed, and he shall send by post or deliver a certificate of the registration thereof to the firm or person registering.
Mr. FELL: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words, "Such certificate of registration shall be framed and exhibited in a conspicuous position at the principal place of business of the firm or individual."
I think this Amendment will be of great convenience to the public. It will mean that companies or individuals, when they have their certificate of registration, will frame it and put it up in the office of the company or individual. Then everyone who went into the office or into the waiting room would have an opportunity of seeing the certificate of registration. I think that if this Amendment is accepted, it will be the handiest means of ascertaining who the parties are who are conducting the firm or business or shop. People can go to the head office of the company, business, or firm, look at the certificate of registration and take down the names of the members if they wish to sue them, or do anything of that kind. Not only will this be the handiest method and the most convenient, but it will be inexpensive to all parties, and certainly much less expensive than advertising, which I do not think will be quite so efficacious.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I am quite ready to accept this Amendment. I think it is right that the certificate should be exhibited, but I hardly think we need stipulate that it should be framed. It would be even less expensive if it is not framed. Perhaps it will be better if the hon. Member moved his Amendment in these words, "and the certificate shall be exhibited in a conspicuous position at the principal place of business of the firm or individual."
Mr. FELL: I beg to move it in that form.
Mr. KING: I do not know whether this will always be a practicable matter to carry out. I have in my mind the case of a man who carries on an agency business and who lives in hotels, going from place to place. Such a man has a banking account, and he gets a large amount of his correspondence addressed to his bank or to the different places he goes to from time to time. That man has no fixed office. Is he to carry this registration
1496
certificate about with him and to hang it up in his bedroom when he changes his address once a month? I suppose he will have to do that. If he does not do it he will be committing an offence under the Act and be liable to be fined £5 a day. I do not know what is going to happen. No doubt this Amendment is well meant and will be applicable and useful in many cases, but whether it is always going to be so easy to carry out I am not certain.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. J. W. Wilson): The hon. Member (Mr. Fell) had better withdraw his original Amendment and move the revised Amendment.
Mr. FELL: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. FELL: I beg to move, to insert the words "and the certificate of registration shall be exhibited in a conspicuous position in the principal place of business of the firm or individual."
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The further Amendment which has been moved is, "and the certificate shall be exhibited in a conspicuous position in the principal place of business of the firm or individual."
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Sir A. WILLIAMSON: What is the certificate to contain?
Mr. PRETYMAN: It will really be a certificate that the man has registered. It will not contain particulars. Those can be obtained elsewhere The process, I imagine, will be that anyone who goes into the place of business will see the certificate and will note that in accordance with the Act the firm is registered. The person will have his attention called to the fact that the firm is registered and he can write to the Central Office for particulars or go to get particulars from the Inquiry Office.
Mr. R. McNEILL: I should like to move an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to insert after the word"registration"—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Amendment has already been adopted. I have put the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. McNEIL: I think I gathered that you put the Amendment in a form other than that moved by my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend read out the words "certificate of registration." In putting the Amendment, you put it in a different form.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I put it in the form in which I understood the hon. Member to move it—"and the certificate shall be exhibited in a conspicuous position at the principal place of business of the firm or individual. "Those words I have declared carried, and I have since put the Question," That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. McNEILL: On a point of Order. I may say that those words were not moved. Is there any way of rectifying it, because you left out the words "of registration," which were moved by my hon. Friend?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The words "of registration" were in my hon. Friend's original Amendment, but not in the amended Amendment suggested by my hon. Friend (Mr. Pretyman).
Mr. McNEILL: I read it from the paper in my hand, and my hon. Friend left out the word "such" and made it read "and the certificate of registration," and he also left out the words "framed and." You, Sir, not catching my hon. Friend's words, omitted the words "of registration."
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: As a matter of fact I took the words suggested by the hon. Gentleman on my right, in which he omitted the words "of registration" as being redundant.
Mr. McNEILL: I submit that my hon. Friend was entitled to move the Amendment in his own way, and not to accept the form suggested by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman); and, in fact, he moved the words which I have stated.
Mr. RENDALL: You read out the words, Sir, and you asked the hon. Member whether he assented to them.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have put the Amendment. I cannot suggest any remedy, having put the Amendment in the words suggested, and which the Committee have passed. I hold that no alteration can now be made.
Mr. KING: There is one point in connection with the question of the Clause as amended which I should like to put to the
1498
Solicitor-General. I notice that he has just added the duty that a certificate shall be exhibited, but he has not provided for any penalty.
Sir G. CAVE: We have noticed that, and we propose to put in words on Report.
Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 12.—(Index to be Kept.)
At each of the register offices hereinafter referred to, the registrar shall keep an index of all the firms and persons registered.
Mr. KING: I beg to move, after the word "registered"["persons registered"], to insert the words "at that office under this Act."
I move this Amendment formally, as I understand that it is to be accepted.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 13.—(Removal of Names from Register.)
(1) If any firm or individual registered under this Act ceases to carry on business it shall be the duty of the persons who were partners in the firm at the time when it ceased to carry on business or of the individual or if he is dead his personal representative, within three months after the business has ceased to be carried on, to send by post or deliver to the registrar' notice in the prescribed form that the firm or individual has ceased to carry on business, and if any person whose duty it is to give such notice fails to do so within such time as aforesaid, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not ex-ceding twenty pounds.
(2) On receipt of such a notice as aforesaid the registrar may remove the firm or individual from the register.
(3) Where the registrar has reasonable cause to believe that any firm or individual registered under this Act is not carrying on business he may send to the firm or individual by registered post a notice that, unless an answer is received to such notice within one month from the date thereof, the firm or individual will be removed from the register.
(4) If the registrar either receives an answer from the firm or individual to the

1499
effect that the firm or individual is not carrying on business or does not within one month after sending the notice receive an answer, he may remove the firm or individual from the register.
Mr. DENNISS: I beg to leave out Subsection (3):
"Where the Registrar has reasonable cause to believe that any firm or individual registered under this Act is not carrying on business he may send to the firm or individual by registered post a notice that unless an answer is received to such notice within one month from the date thereof, the firm or individual will be removed from the register"
I have put down this Amendment in order to elicit an answer from the Government on a point which I wish to raise. The offices are in London, Edinburgh, and Dublin. The words used in the Sub-section are that the firm or individual "will be removed," and in the next Clause the word is that you "may" do it. It seems to me that it is not quite the right thing to tell them that you will remove them from the register, and then afterwards not remove them at all. The object of the Act is not to remove them from the register at all, but as far as possible leave everybody on the register.
Mr. PRETYMAN: The words of the Subsection are "will remove."
Mr. DENNISS: And in the next Section you say "may." I think if you make the word "may" instead of "will" it would be better. Perhaps you will consider that.
Mr. PRETYMAN: Yes, we will consider that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.

CLAUSE 14.—(Registrar.)
There shall be offices in London, Edinburgh, and Dublin for the registration of firms and persons carrying on business within those parts of the United Kingdom in which their principal places of business are respectively situated, and the registrar of companies in each of those cities or such other person as the Board of Trade may determine shall be the registrar for the purposes of this Act.
Mr. DENNISS: I beg to move, to leave out the words "carrying on business
1500
within those parts of the United Kingdom in which their," and to insert instead, thereof the word "whose"
I understand that the Amendment is accepted.
Mr. PRETYMAN: Yes; we accept that Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. DENNISS: I beg to move, after the word "situated," to insert the words "in England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland."
Mr. PRETYMAN: This Amendment is-also accepted.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. DENNISS: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words "The clerk of each county and borough council shall be supplied from time to time with a copy of so much of the register as relates to firms and persons carrying on business within the area of the county or borough for which he is appointed."
This Amendment is more important. The object of this Act is that people should get to know as easily as possible who they are dealing with, and that they should be able to search the register. But to ask people in the North of England to search the register in London would be to put such an obstacle in the way that I am afraid it would not be of much use. Consider what would happen. A man in Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield or York would have to write up to the Registrar in London, and say, "Please give me the particulars of the firm of Jones Bros." The office then turns to see how much it would cost to send a copy of so many words, and so on, to the person in Yorkshire. The Board of Trade then writes to tell him that the cost is so much, and the individual in Yorkshire sends a postal order, and after that he gets his reply, with the extract copied from the register. That is a very long procedure, and a very troublesome one. The man might choose to do it by correspondence, and he could write to somebody in London to call and see the register and get a copy of what he wanted. That again would take time, and would be more expensive. The procedure that I propose is that in every county council office that part of the register which contains the names of individuals and firms within the county area should be kept there. It was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool on the Second Reading that chambers

1501
of commerce should be used for the purpose, but I understand that they do not care to undertake the duty because they would have to intervene continually and call the attention of the Board of Trade to cases of registration. Besides that, the chambers of commerce have no corporate authority and no area over which they have jurisdiction. In some areas there are no chambers of commerce at all. I suggested on the Second Reading that the County Court might be used, but some of my Friends upstairs suggested that there might be an objection to County Courts being used. For my part, I think the County Court would be the best, and there is a registrar of the County Court in nearly every town in the country.
My present proposal is a compromise, and instead of the County Court I propose that the local register should be kept in the county council office, which would be very much more accessible to the people who want to find out with whom they are dealing than would be the case if the register were kept in London. If the hon. Gentleman would like to substitute County Court for county council, I should be only too glad. I looked up the County Courts in the Law List, and I think there are about 407 or 507 registrars, who are in every town, there being a County Court registrar for each, excepting where the towns are small and are together, in which case there is one registrar for two towns. The County Court would be a very convenient place for people to go to, for it is the place where they go to collect their debts, and the registrar could easily keep that small part of the register which relates to his particular town. However, if the hon. Gentleman does not agree to the words "County Court" I propose to use the words "county council." I am quite sure, to make this Act of practical value, that in some way its machinery should be co-ordinated and made more local than it is. One single office in London for England and Wales, and one in Edinburgh and one in Dublin would be quite unworkable and practically useless; at all events, it would not be nearly so beneficial as if you had some local co-ordination, with a central office in London. The cost would be very little. It is calculated that there are about 260,000 firms that will have to be registered, and if you divide the 260,000 by the number of counties in England and Wales, and Scotland and Ireland, the cost would not be very much for each
1502
office. The clerk of the county council could do the work in the course of his ordinary duties, and the making of an inquiry would not throw very much work upon him. The Board of Trade would be able to make regulations as to the amount to be spent by the county council in respect of time occupied in keeping the register, and as to fees paid, and the work under the registrar could be done quite easily by women.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I quite sympathise with the object of the Amendment, but it would be really impossible to carry it out under the principle of the Bill. The matter has been very carefully considered whether it is to be a local or a central register. We cannot really have both, for the very obvious reason that all that has to be registered is the principal place of business. Take the case of a firm carrying on business in a particular locality. They might not have their principal business there, and they would not be registered there; they would only be registered in respect of their principal place of business and not anywhere else. It is necessary, therefore, to have one central register for England and Wales, and anyone can obtain particulars relating to any firm by writing through the post and sending a small fee. Everyone knows exactly where to go, and how to obtain particulars. The moment you made a local register difficulty would arise. While I quite sympathise with the suggestion which the hon. Gentleman has made, it would really be trying to do two things instead of one, and it would be outside the principle of the Bill, which is framed on the principle that a central register is on the whole the best for all interests concerned. The labour involved in extracting parts for every town and county in the country for the purposes of local registry would be enormously greater than the result that would be attained. I ask my hon. Friend not to press his Amendment, which is really impracticable.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 15.—(Inspection of Statements Registered.)
At any time after the expiration of six months from the passing of this Act or of such longer period, not being more than nine months from the passing of this Act, as the Board of Trade may by order

1503
direct, any person may inspect the documents filed by the registrar on payment of such fees as may be appointed by the Treasury not erceeding one shilling for each inspection; and any person may require a certificate of the registration of any firm or person, or a copy of or extract from any registered statement to be certified by the registrar or assistant registrar, and there shall be paid for such certificate of registration, certified copy, or extract such fees as the Treasury may appoint not exceeding two shillings for the certificate of registration, and not exceeding sixpence for each folio of seventy-two words, or in Scotland for each sheet of two hundred words, of the entry, copy, or extract.
A certificate of registration, or a copy of or extract from any statement registered under this Act, if duly certified to be a true copy or extract under the "hand of the registrar or one of the assistant registrars (whom it shall not be necessary to prove to be the registrar or assistant registrar), shall, in all legal proceedings, civil or criminal, and in all cases whatsoever, be received in evidence.
The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment on the Paper to this Clause does not seem to belong to it; it is rather an alternative or additional proposal in the form of a new Clause.
Mr. McNEILL: Are you referring, Sir, to the Amendment in the name of the" hon. and learned Member for York and some other hon. Members, including my own?
The CHAIRMAN: Yes.
Mr. McNEILL: I submit, Sir, that this is the only place where this particular Amendment could come into the Bill. You will see that the Clause is dealing with the manner in which inspection can be had; in other words, the way in which the public get to know the registered particulars. All that the Amendment does is to attempt to extend the facilities for the public to make themselves acquainted with the registration.
The CHAIRMAN: I understand the hon. Member is right.
Mr. McNEILL: I beg to move, to leave out the words "any person may inspect," and to insert instead thereof the words, "a complete list of individuals and firms registered under this Act, together with
1504
the registered particulars, shall be published in the 'Gazette,' and any additions or changes in the said list or particulars shall, at intervals of not more than six months, be similarly published in the 'Gazette,' and any person may at any time thereafter inspect and make copies of or extracts from such list, and."
This Amendment, which is of some substance, has really in view the object which my hon. Friend (Mr. Denniss) sought to attain, but by a different method. I was very much inclined to support my hon. Friend's proposal, but I was struck by what the Parliamentary Secretary said as to the practical difficulties of working out a local register, and it seemed that it would have been a very difficult thing to carry out. I do not think that objection applies to the proposal I am now making, and I believe that if the hon. Gentleman approaches it with anything like a sympathetic mind he will see his way to accepting it. Everyone who wants this Bill passed wants to make it as effective as possible, and I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary, who has gone so far in the way of improving it and has given a great deal of satisfaction to those interested in it by the way he has improved it, is as anxious as anyone to make the Bill really effective. To make it so, one of the objects in view should be for the public at large to know the individual firms to whom the Act applies, and to get particulars with regard to them. Under the Clause in the Bill as it stands, all that anybody can do is to go and ask for particulars as to any one firm, just like going to Somerset House to obtain particulars of a will. It ought to be possible not merely to do that, but to find out for example what firms belonging to a certain trade are on the register. The engineering trade, for instance, might be anxious to know what firms trading in this country were registered under the Act, which would be a, perfectly legitimate thing for them to seek to know. They never could do that under the Clause as it stands. Why should it not be possible for them to go to the complete list? It would no doubt be a laborious process in an alphabetical list to get out all the particular firms, but it could be done, and I have not the slightest doubt from the knowledge conveyed to me that it would be done. Most of the trades in the country have trade journals, and is there any reason to suppose that the journals

1505
of the engineering or building or textile trades would not give a statement from the official list, giving the names of the firms registered in the particular trade? I see scepticism on the face of my hon. Friend as to whether that could be done, but I think it would be done.
The proposal of myself and my hon. Friends in this matter is that there should be publication at the outset with the registered particulars, to which any person at any time could apply. The only possible objection I can see is that it might be suggested that the "Gazette" which would contain those names and particulars would be a very considerable volume. It might be as large as an ordinary Blue Book, but the proposal is that it should be done once and for all, and after that only additions and changes. It would form a continuous record to which interested people could go to find out not merely with regard to one particular firm, but all the information available under the Act. My hon. Friend surely cannot object to publicity except on the ground that the firms which are being treated under this Act are entitled to secrecy. I want to know if he takes up that attitude. I feel very strongly, and hon. Members with whom I have been associated in examining this Bill feel likewise, that the greatest possible publicity that you can give ought to be given to firms who are masquerading and have been masquerading, I do not say in any disgraceful way, but the very fact that the Government are bringing forward this legislation proves that the Government, as well as the House and the country, want that system to be brought to an end, and that we should discourage in every possible way trading under names which are in some sense a concealment of fact. That being so, I submit that the hon. Gentleman ought not to resist my Amendment, the sole purpose of which is to give greater facilities for making the facts disclosed by this legislation available for the country. It cannot do any harm. The hon. Gentleman may say that it would require a lot of printing, but I think that is a trivial objection, even if the volume of names were as large as a family Bible. I cannot conceive any other objection, and I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will accept the Amendment, or, if not, that he will favourably consider it.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment, but not for the
1506
reason suggested by my hon. Friend that we do not desire as much publicity as can be obtained. I am entirely at one with him in desiring as much publicity as possible, but the point is whether the additional publicity suggested would be obtained at too great a cost by the expense and trouble involved to carry out the provisions of the Amendment.
Mr. MCNEILL: What would be the cost of it?
Mr. PRETYMAN: We want to get as much publicity as possible so far as it is practicable. It is calculated that it would take 10,000 pages of the "Gazette" to put all these particulars of firms in it. Then the changes are constant, thousands of them; and does my hon. Friend really mean to suggest that people will take the trouble to examine the list, which will be probably, I will not compare it with Holy Writ, as large as the Telephone Directory, in order to sort out all the engineers or members of any particular trade? The result of the publication of a volume of that sort might create more difficulty, because it would be very soon out of date. Is it likely that anybody would be able to keep such a list up to date? Trade papers might take the trouble and great expense of publishing a list of names in the particular business in which they were concerned, but it would not really be kept up to date. This Act is to be permanently on the Statute Book, and I do not think anybody would really rely upon the particulars which had appeared originally in the "Gazette," but would, in practice, write to the central registry in order to ascertain the up-to date particulars. I really do not think this proposal would be worth while. I really do not know what the Chairman of the Paper Commission would say to it, but I do not think it is practicable or that the amount of publicity to be obtained would be worth the expense and trouble.
7.0 P.M.
Mr. KING: We have listened to a very interesting speech, but the facts which we have just had given to us by the Parliamentary Secretary confirm the idea which I have had all along, that this is going to be a, very big and possibly a costly business. Especially if it runs into thousands of pages, it is not going to be easy to start in war time. It is quite out of the question talking about a great change like this

1507
being widely published in the Press now. But I rose to make one suggestion that may possibly meet the case, and that is that facilities might be given to certain people to make extracts from this list, and then to publish those extracts at their own expense.
Mr. PRETYMAN: They can do so.
Mr. KING: I suppose they may or can do so, but what I say is that certain facilities should be given, as, for instance, making easy conditions for copying and so on, and possibly reduced rates. There are certain trades which might very well be selected for certain purposes of information to other persons connected with that particular trade. The thing applies in the same way to certain localities who may find it desirable to have extracts published from this register. Under these circumstances, I think something might be done. We are, of course, all in agreement with the object, which is that as much publicity as possible should be given to this register.
Mr. McNEILL: I rise to ask the Solicitor-General a question an regard to the interpretation of one point of the Clause as it stands. I am not at all sure that the Clause gives the right to anybody t) see more than the documents in any one case. That idea is rather confirmed by what the Parliamentary Secretary said when I was speaking a few moments ago. When I said it would be like going to see a will at Somerset House, the hon. Gentleman intimated his assent. The Clause says:
"Any person may inspect the documents filed by the registrar on payment of such fees as may be appointed by the Treasury."
The Clause continues:
"Any person may require a certificate of the registration of any firm or person."
Does that mean that the whole list of registered individuals, firms, and documents may be seen on the payment of the fee, or does it only mean some particular case in which the applicant may be interested?
Sir G. CAVE: The whole list.
Mr. McNEILL: I am very glad to hear that that is so, because the Clause as it stands suggests a doubt as to whether it
1508
has that meaning. I would suggest to my hon. Friend that he ought to make that point clearer, that he ought to make it quite certain that anybody who goes to see the register may see all the list and take extracts from any part of it without demanding to see merely the documents in any one particular case. After what my hon. Friend has said, I am not going to press this Amendment to a Division. At the same time, before I ask leave to withdraw it, I may say that I am not altogether convinced by what he has said. After all, the only objection that he has urged against the acceptation of this Amendment is the question of cost; that is really the whole difficulty. He says that it would run to 10,000 pages. That is an estimate. He did not tell us upon what basis that estimate was formed. It is extremely doubtful whether it would be found that the publication would be anything approaching that. size. A further answer he made to me, and that to my mind was not of very much force, was that the list would never be up to date. I expect the effect of this legislation will be—I certainly hope it will be—that as time goes on people will more and more trade in their own ordinary natural names. There might be a considerable number of changes to be notified at the: first in the way suggested, and from time to time, but I believe that would be purely temporary. That will go on for a comparatively-short time. As, however, the registration became more evident in business, and the people of the trading community got more accustomed to it, and new firms came into being who would use their own names, because the registration of names was on, instead of masquerading under other names, I think that the Board of Trade would find that the number of changes would be far and few between. On the other hand, it will be a great advantage that there should be some permanent record to which people could go, even if it consisted of 10,000 pages. People who are accustomed to make researches dip into volumes of much greater dimensions than that. I think what has been suggested by the Amendment would be an advantage. Other hon. Members are associated with me in this Amendment, and I hope my hon. Friend opposite will not think that I am too persistent if I say that I reserve the right to put down the Amendment on the Report stage, when perhaps he will be able to-give it further consideration. Mean-

1509
while, and in consequence of what my right hon. Friend has said, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. KING: I beg to move to leave out the words "and in all cases whatsoever."
Amendment negatived.
Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. BUTCHER: I should like to be sure from my hon. Friend as to what is meant by inspecting the documents. The Solicitor-General has been good enough to say that the documents which may be inspected at the registrar's include all the documents relating to all firms. Then what is the meaning of the few words which follow in the Clause:
"on payment of such fees as may be appointed by the Treasury not exceeding one shilling for each inspection."
Does that mean that a man will have to pay a shilling for every single firm into the particulars of which he wants to look That might be a very serious matter. I hope that is not really the meaning. If it means that for each day of inspection a shilling is not an exorbitant payment, but possibly it might be too little if a man is going to copy the whole file every day, and be entitled to copy for a day on payment of a shilling. This point ought to be made clear. May I also ask my hon. Friend another thing. I suppose an individual will be able to make an inspection and copies for his own use, if he requires them, without payment of the fee? By the latter part of the Clause, if he wants anything for any formal purpose, he has to pay for it. If he wants merely a copy for his own information I do not think he ought to pay.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I am bound to say that what we had in mind in this Clause was an inspection of as many names as were desired. I had not in mind the class of inspection which has now been suggested by my hon. Friend where somebody interested, for instance, in a publication might go and spend the whole day in the office of the registrar to the exclusion of other people and monopolise the register making extracts. That is a matter which requires consideration. It is a little difficult. The facilities given would be ample for anyone who desires to go and look at two or three names, and to spend a limited time at the office, but I do not think we could possibly allow any one person to monopolise the register for the fee
1510
of one shilling. The point is rather a new one, and I think we ought to be allowed to consider it. In regard to the other point, at Somerset House, for instance, people are not allowed to make copies for themselves; they have to get copies made and pay for them. What was in mind in this particular case was that no objection should be raised to anybody taking a pencil and making an extract or notes for his own purpose. But if proper copies are wanted they must be paid for, the same as at Somerset House. The point is rather a difficult one, as we shall perhaps have to consider whether there should not be some limit on the amount of time allowed a man to monopolise the register, list, or volume. Perhaps I had better reserve any other observations for the Report stage. Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 16.—(Power for Board of Trade to Make Rules.)
(1) The Board of Trade may make rules (but as to fees with the concurrence of the Treasury) concerning any of the following matters:

(a) The fees to be paid to the registrar under this Act, so that they do not exceed the sum of five shillings for the registration of any one statement;

(b) The forms to be used under this Act;

(c) The duties to be performed by any registrar under this Act;

(d) The performance by assistant registrars and other officers of acts by this Act required to be done by the registrar;

(e) Generally the conduct and regulation of registration under this Act, and any matters incidental thereto.

(2) All fees payable in pursuance of any such rules shall be applied as the Treasury may direct.
Sir A. WILLIAMSON:I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), at the end of paragraph (b), to insert the words "which shall not extend the particulars required under Section 3."
The object of my Amendment is to get a Board of Trade assurance that no authority shall be given to the Board of Trade to make rules to get other information than what is laid down in Clause 3. If this House gives the Board of Trade unlimited power to make rules I suppose it will be possible to ask questions as to the capital of firms, their bankers, and a

1511
great many other things which would be very much resented. Such information, of course, might be very useful to the Income Tax people who would be able to get the Board of Trade to put out questions, but that course, I think, will be unfair and unreasonable.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not think it is likely that the Board of Trade will put into operation a proceeding such as that described by the hon. Gentleman, particularly in view of the experience in relation to Form IV., which raised this very point. There would be no right to demand particulars, as in the other Act, except those actually in the Act. That, I think, has been so thoroughly established that these words are unnecessary. We should never attempt—if we did, obviously it would not be right under the law—to adopt the course suggested by my hon. Friend. All that will be asked for are the particulars included in the Act. My hon. Friend is perfectly justified in raising the question, but his Amendment is unnecessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 17.—(Publication of True Names, etc.)
(1) After the expiration of three months from the passing of this Act every individual and firm required by this Act to be registered shall, in all trade catalogues, trade circulars, and business letters, on or in which the business name appears and which are issued or sent by the individual or firm to any person in the United Kingdom, have mentioned in legible characters—

(a) in the case of an individual, his present Christian names or the initials thereof and present surname, any former Christian name or surname, his nationality if not British, and if his nationality is not his nationality of origin his nationality of origin; and

(b) in the case of a firm, the present Christian names or the initials thereof and present surnames, any former Christian names and surnames, and the nationality if not British, and if the nationality is not his nationality of origin the nationality of origin of all the partners in the firm.

(2) If default is made in compliance with this Section the individual or, as the case may be, every member of the firm shall be liable on summary conviction for each offence to a fine not exceeding five pounds:
Provided that no proceedings shall be instituted under this Section except by or with the consent of the Board of Trade.
Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "and business letters," and to insert instead thereof the words, "bill-heads, invoices, advertisements, show cards, notices, letter paper, or other stationery issued or used by the individual or firm." The Clause as it stands only requires individuals and firms to put the names upon trade catalogues, trade circulars, and business letters. The Amendment of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Stuart-Wortley), who has asked rue to move it on his behalf, would carry the matter further, and will put what is specified on invoices, and, what I think is very important, on bill-heads, invoices, show cards, etc. I am not quite certain myself, though I undertook to move this Amendment, whether it is necessary to put in advertisements. That would perhaps make a very large and very expensive advertisement; but I think it is necessary to put in the others. My right hon. Friend has given me a copy of Clause 63 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, which reads as follows:
"Every limited company shall have its name mentioned in legible characters in all notices, advertisements, and other official publications of the company, and in all bills of exchange, promissory notes, endorsements, cheques, and orders for money or goods purporting to be signed by or on behalf of the company, and in all bills of parcels, invoices, receipts and letters of credit of the company."
So that my right hon. Friend's Amendment does not go quite as far as an Act of Parliament which was passed so recently as 1908. The question raised a short time ago by my hon. and learned Friend with regard to the giving of publicity would be very much furthered by the Amendment of my right hon. Friend. This would be publicity in a very easy way by enabling everybody to see without going to inspect the register. It would give a very increased amount of

1513
publicity to the fact that the firm was trading in another name, or had formerly been an alien firm, and had changed its name. Perhaps with the omission of the word "advertisements" my hon. Friend will accept this Amendment?
Mr. PRETYMAN: This is rather a difficult Clause, and I gave this a very great deal of consideration. All the points in this Amendment I considered very carefully from this point of view: are we going to gain more in obtaining the publicity we require, or lose more in inflicting unnecessary trouble or injury upon British trade at home? That really is the point of view, and from that point of view I considered all these suggestions. Take, for instance, the words "letter paper, or other stationery issued or used by the individual or firm." That would open a very wide door indeed. Stationery might not necessarily be used in connection with the particular business. It must be "issued," I think, and not "used," in any case. Then there are the words "letter paper." I think it is better to treat it as in the Clause, and use the words "business letters." If you say that, then you are on perfectly firm ground.
Mr. McNEILL: I quite follow what my hon. Friend has said, but there is one word that is important, and that is the word "advertisements." It is important that people who are dealing with firms should know with whom they are dealing, and therefore, if a firm is advertising its goods all over the country, that is particularly the part of its apparatus where the true facts should be known to everyone.
Mr. PRETYMAN: My right hon. Friend and hon. Friend are a little unfortunate, because my right hon. Friend said that that was the one thing he did not wish to
insert.
Sir F. BANBURY: It was not that I did not wish it; but that I was rather afraid my hon. Friend would not accept that, and I rather suggested as a compromise that if I withdrew the word "advertisements" he would accept the other words. Another compromise is to accept "advertisements," and to withdraw all the others.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I have been through the whole matter. "Advertisements" would include advertisements for employés in the columns of a newspaper. Is it suggested that a man advertising for an employé should put all these particulars in the advertisement? [HON. MEMBEBS: "It
1514
would increase the cost."] Yes, it would enormously increase the C03t, and therefore be a very heavy burden. We must disabuse our minds that all the firms registered under this Act are criminal. Perhaps I am putting it too strongly. We must disabuse our minds that everybody registered under this Act has to be registered because he is attempting to conceal something. There are an enormous number of firms absolutely British in every sense who have the goodwill of some previous owner of the firm, or some business name they have used for a very great number of years which would be registered, and there would be no odium in being registered. But we cannot separate the treatment of those firms from other firms who are trying to conceal their identity, and whom we wish to get at, and we have so to temper our legislation that while doing everything necessary to discover the real identity of firms who have been attempting to conceal it, we do not put too heavy a burden on other firms who are simply registered because they do not happen to be trading under the names of the individual owners. It was from that point of view only that I considered this particular proposal very carefully and all these points one by one, and eventually, with considerable regret, I put them all aside and came down to the words in the Clause. Take the case of an invoice. A firm may require to send out a large number of invoices, and it is hardly necessary for every invoice that the particulars required here should be inserted. There would be a covering letter with the invoices, which would contain the information instead of the invoices themselves. That is the kind of case which is met by the Clause, I think, as it stands.
Sir F. BANBURY: I do not think it follows that there need be a covering letter.
Mr. PRETYMAN: Not necessarily; but I suppose an invoice could hardly be sent without. There must be some document, I take it.
Mr. DENNISS: Take the case of the halfpenny circular.
Mr. PRETYMAN: Remember we have the words in the Clause "business letters, on or in which the business name appears," so that if the paper has either a stamp on it or written upon it the business name, or if the business name is signed in the letter, then a letter is a

1515
pretty wide term and a good deal wider than "letter paper." If a business name appears either on or in the letter, then the particulars that are required have to be added, and I think it is very difficult to send an effective business communication which does not contain in the form of a business letter the name of the firm either on or in it. But when you come to trade circulars and trade catalogues, there, I think, it is important, because these trade circulars or catalogues are issued broadcast without letters at all, and where these are issued it is a temptation to people to deal with that particular firm. Therefore, in those trade circulars and trade catalogues, when the business name does appear upon it, they must add these other particulars. That, we think, is necessary, and there can be no reason against it; but the ordinary communication which passes in the post from one firm to another is usually accompanied by something in the form of a letter, and, therefore, although I would like to go further, I am afraid by going further we should do more harm to the mass of traders in this country who would have to be registered than would be gained by the advantage over the firms from whom we want to get those further particulars. And, remember, those particulars given will be an indication of the further particulars which can be obtained from the register.
Sir WILLIAM PRIESTLEY: The Clause says "to any person in the United Kingdom." Why is it confined to the United Kingdom? Should it not be the Empire? We are doing an enormous trade with our Colonies, and why should not anyone there have the same advantage as traders in the United Kingdom? I would suggest that words should be put in so as to embrace the Empire.
Colonel GRETTON: I think the hon. Gentleman opposite does not appreciate the fact that in the vast number of transactions in trade and business it is very seldom indeed that a letter is sent with an invoice, although occasionally a piece of paper printed with compliments and no name upon it is sometimes inserted. If this Bill is to be effective to carry out the intentions which the hon. Gentleman has expressed, if there is any paper more than another on which the names should appear it is on the invoice. That is far more important than the advertisement.
1516
I think invoices must be included, and I strongly press upon the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to reconsider this point.
Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Why are we to make this great difference between private firms and companies? The last speaker has told us about the importance of having the names on the invoice. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite takes his own firm, it is a company and would not be affected. The name of a firm always appears on the invoice, but here you want printed the names of all the partners in the firm. I belong to a firm where there are twelve or fourteen partners, and are we to print on all our invoices the names of all those partners? At the present time there is nothing printed on the invoice at all, and I speak not only for my own firm in this respect, but for thousands of merchants. It is preposterous to do this. Often we send out 300 or 400 invoices, and are we to have printed on each sheet the names of all the partners? I see no object in it. If there were people in the firm who are foreigners there is a very simple remedy, because they could then call themselves a limited company and they would have to print nothing at all. There is no object to be gained by this. By this kind of trivial legislation, instead of helping trade, you are going to harass the merchants. This Clause is a most objectionable one from the point of view of giving trouble, and it will do nothing to accomplish the object of those who support it. With regard to the business letter, take, for instance, a large firm in the City of London like Messrs. Rothschilds. When they write a letter they simply head it, "Number So-and-so, St. Swithins Lane." Is it proposed that all these firms are to have the names of all their partners printed on everything they issue? I agree it would be less objectionable on trade catalogues and trade circulars, but when you come to invoices, notes of all sorts, and memoranda, it is quite a different matter. I suppose this would also apply to contract notes and bills of lading, and I see no reason why you should not have it on cheques. I really think that we are carrying this matter to an absurd length, and I am sure the business community and the large houses will be very much opposed to it when they realise what it means. There is no other country in the world where this sort

1517
of thing is done. I know there are countries where it is necessary to register partnerships and all your partners. We do it in South America every day, and we have no objection to that, but there is an objection to printing the name of every person connected with the firm. This is to be done after the expiration of three months. May I point out that there are many catalogues for 1917 already printed, and all those catalogues, which probably hold good for a year, are going to be out of date and will have to be scrapped at a time when paper is very dear, and they will have to be reprinted. This proposal bristles with absurdities, and I hope the Government will reconsider this point.
Mr. CURRIE: I beg to support what my hon. Friend opposite who spoke last has said. I think he has made out a very strong case for firms such as his own. I would like to raise a similar case. Take, for instance, A, B, and Company, Solicitors. That firm, perhaps, has printed on its paper, A, B, and Company, and not the names. Many firms do not have the names of the individual partners printed upon their letter-paper. Are we to understand that for the future it will be illegal for A, B, and Company to send a letter on paper that simply carries their address, and that if they write such a letter they will be liable to some penalty?
Sir F. BANBURY: I certainly think the invoice ought to be included. Possibly the Amendment of my right hon. Friend goes too far in other matters, but my hon. Friend must remember that for once he has made a mistake in thinking that a covering letter always accompanies an invoice. I should say that this is very rarely the case, and I hope he wall consider my suggestion that the word "invoice" should be inserted. With regard to what the hon. Baronet opposite has said, I do not think there is any great hardship in printing ten or twelve names. Assuming that there are a large number of partners, I suppose the reason for that is that it is a very good business, and only a small expenditure is involved. The point as to whether it is going to inflict a hardship and inconvenience upon the business community is quite another question, and I have always opposed anything which I thought would have that effect. It is only because now circumstances have altered under the stress of war, when we find to what length our
1518
enemies have taken advantage of our kindness and have misused the facilities we gave them, that I have withdrawn my objection, and although this will inflict inconvenience and expense on business firms I do not think they will object in view of the facts which I have stated. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. PETO: I hope the hon. Gentleman who represents the Board of Trade will give some answer to the point made by the hon. Baronet (Sir A. Williamson). It seems to me that this is most upside-down legislation. It is open to any firm, no matter how undesirable such firm may be, to conceal the identity of the partners simply by adopting the guise of a limited company, and then they will not have any obligation to publish any of the names of the directors or the shareholders. In this way we might have a British company entirely alien in its whole nature and constitution. While that is possible, I do not see what is the use of closing this door. I should like to hear what the hon. Gentleman representing the Board of Trade has to say on this point. If this proposal is going to result only in a largo number of firms with partners who do not want to disclose themselves becoming limited companies, I cannot see of what use this Clause is going to be.
Mr. McNEILL: I agree with the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) that this legislation is very incomplete, but I have always understood that the Government were treating this Bill as the first instalment of legislation dealing with this subject, and I do not gather that the Government are not going to deal with companies. I think that ought to be the answer to the criticisms which have been made on this point. I agree that it would be a ridiculous result if a firm with more than seven partners turned itself into a company at once with the object which has been suggested. I hope that the Government intend to legislate and deal with that point. The hon. Baronet opposite, referred to the great hardship which he seems to think would be inflicted upon such firms as his own, because they would have to put the names of the partners on trade documents. I really think he is exaggerating the hardship. I know a firm of brokers who are in the habit now of printing the names of all the partners on

1519
every letter I get from them. The hon. Baronet also spoke of catalogues and invoices' which may already have been printed and the cost of scrapping them. I imagine for 10s. or less you could get a rubber stamp with the names of all the partners on it, and then all you would have to do would be to stamp the invoices. I do not think the hon. Baronet would find this legislation so expensive as he imagines, and I think we might safely support the Clause as it stands.
Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am strongly opposed to this Clause not on account of the cost of a rubber stamp, but because here we are differentiating between companies and private firms to the disadvantage of private firms.
Mr. BUTCHER: We differentiate between private firms and companies throughout the whole of this Bill. I agree that this legislation will be quite incomplete if it is confined to firms, and I hope the Government after having passed this Bill will turn their attention to companies so as to get the same information for the public and the customers of companies as that which is provided for by this Bill in the case of firms. I think that is absolutely essential. I do not say it is easy, but I do not think it is beyond the competence of the Board of Trade to do that.
Mr. BRUNNER: I think the Unionist Enemy Influence Committee do not quite understand that 99 per cent. of the people who will be registered under this Bill will be purely British, that one-half per cent. will be rogues, and one-half per cent. aliens. We are merely legislating for that 1 per cent., and inflicting these regulations upon the 99 per cent. who are purely British firms. It seems to me to be nonsense. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken suggested that we should try to do this in the case of companies. That is obviously impossible. There are companies, such as railway companies with 50,000 shareholders. It would be impossible to print the names of 50,000 shareholders on each invoice. The directors might be all British, and the shareholders might be 99 per cent. aliens. You cannot print thousands of shareholders upon your invoices, so that this is differentiating against British firms. It is quite wrong that our legislation should tend to abolish firms and establish limited companies. The private firms in this country are disappearing very rapidly, but in commercial life it
1520
is an admirable thing for a young man to join a firm. He can never join a limited company, because he has to acquire his fortune before he can become a shareholder in a limited company, whereas in a partnership he can join as a junior partner and rise to the top. The limited company principle has had a very serious effect upon the prospects of young men in business life, and I trust that the House will do nothing to injure firms in this country.
Sir FREDERICK CAWLEY: I should like to support the hon. Baronet (Sir A. Williamson). I think it is carrying legislation a little too far. It is almost getting to witch-hunting. I have no objection to it so far as catalogues and trade circulars are concerned, because they are invitations to buy, and it is quite fair when you send a person a catalogue or a trade circular that he should know by whom he is invited to buy. I have therefore no objection to that, but it is perfectly absurd that you should have all the names of the partners printed on all the business letters and invoices. I also agree, in view of the fact that you cannot legislate for limited companies, that it is an unfair differentiation to make. I happen to belong to a limited company consisting of myself and my family. I shall not have to print the names of the shareholders at all, whereas another man who is trading without being a limited company will have to put every name on his invoices. There is unfairness as between the private firm and the limited company. I really think the Government ought to drop this Clause altogether, but, so far as I am concerned, I am prepared to support it if the words "business letters" are left out, and it is merely confined to trade Circulars and letters which are invitations to buy.
Sir WILLIAM BEALE: My hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Butcher) pointed out that this legislation, taken alone and without similar legislation applying to companies, would only have a very small effect. I want to suggest that the Government, instead of hereafter bringing in a Bill applying this sort of thing to members of a limited company, should, between this and the Report stage, remodel this part of this Bill so that it might possibly be made applicable to limited companies. Personally, I do not see the demand for this Clause at all. We want to prevent what we call penetration. We want to have the means of finding it out. I have no objection to some indication

1521
that there may be something to be found out, but it is a mistake altogether to go to this length in the ease of private firms, hampering them in this way, whilst not applying it to companies. If the Government do not see their way to drop the Clause altogether, I would suggest that they should only require a partnership to do that which they can require a company to do.
Mr. DENNISS: If you put all this information on every letter that is written it will be a very great hardship upon smaller and poorer people. Would it not be sufficient if you had it on your trade catalogue and trade circular, and then on your invoice and order form and letter, put after the name of the firm the word "registered." The public would soon get to know that the word "registered" meant that the firm was not carrying on business in its own name, and if they wanted information they could refer to the register. That little word "registered" would be notice to all the world that the firm was not trading in its own name, and if anybody wanted to know its real name and nationality he could go to the Registry Office in London and find out. That would get rid of this difficulty of printing twenty names or a large number of names of partners and all kinds of information as to their nationality. I do not think that is necessary for the ordinary transactions of business life. It would be a great hardship upon small shopkeepers and people who find it expensive to have printed stationery. Have it on the trade catalogues and invitations to buy, but when you come to the letter, the invoice, the order form, and so on, have the word "registered." It would be a sufficient guide that the firm was not trading in its own name, and if anyone wanted to know its real name he could refer to the register.
Mr. PRETYMAN: The Clause has been equally criticised upon both sides. On the one hand, it is said that it goes too far, and on the other that it does not go far enough. The Clause really strikes the medium between going too far and not going far enough. My hon. Friend appears to think that we are requiring a great many particulars, but we only require the names and the nationality. I do not think the small firm is likely to have nineteen partners. A tiny business is not likely to have many partners. We did consider the question of using the word "registered," and we referred it to the chambers of com-
1522
merce. They practically unanimously rejected it, because it would convey some kind of suspicion that there might be something to conceal. I cannot quite-accept my hon. Friend's figures, but taking them as a basis of discussion 99 per cent. would have to use the word "registered" and would be subject to some suspicion that there might be something to conceal. There would be a great deal of trouble taken to look up particulars, and it would reveal nothing whatever. If they put their names and nationality on the paper, everybody will see that the firm is not trading in its own name, but that it is British and that the partners are British. That is all people want to know. The majority of the cases would be like that. If you have the word "registered," nobody will know anything except that the firm is registered, and that it may contain a foreign, element. Therefore inquiries would have to be made. We considered all these points very carefully—I myself spent hours over them—from various points of view. This and that suggestion was considered and rejected. If we are to have any sort of publication of particulars by a firm on the documents which it issues, this is the minimum which we can have, giving just simply their names and nationality. I do not think that we can do less than that.
The whole Committee has agreed that it should certainly be on the trade catalogue and the trade circular. It is suggested on the one hand that invoices ought to be included. I am not prepared to go further than we have gone, and I cannot accept that suggestion here. Of course it can be put down for the Report stage if any hon. Member thinks it desirable. Then, on on the other hand, it is suggested by my hon. Friend behind me that we are going too far in applying this to business letters. It is too late to make that Amendment now that we are discussing whether the Clause should stand part, but it will be quite competent for any hon. Member to put an Amendment on the Paper for the Report stage, and, of course, it can be considered. At present I certainly do not think that we can accept that Amendment, but naturally it will be our duty to consider it if it is put on the Paper. On the whole, I think it is desirable that the Clause should be in the Bill. We ask for the minimum only, namely, that the names and nationality should be put upon a small number of documents, and I submit that the Clause should be allowed to stand.
Mr. NEEDHAM: Could the hon. Gentleman say whether the words "business letters" include postcards, which, after all, are very largely used in correspondence?
Mr. HAZLETON: I think the hon. Gentleman has made out a very good case. The only reservation in my mind—and I think it will be in the minds of a good many hon. Members—is with regard to companies. He has said nothing with regard to them. He has not said whether it is the intention of the Government to deal with them in some corresponding form later on. It would appear as if something were necessary in that way in order to make this legislation watertight. Unless we are sure that some time in the near future that will be proposed and carried out by the Government, there is an unfair discrimination in this Bill, and before we leave the Clause I hope the hon. Gentleman will make some statement to the Committee about it.
8.0 P.M.
Mr. PRETYMAN: It is quite obvious that the effect of this legislation will be rather to accentuate the tendency towards the conversion of private firms into limited companies. The tendency is very much in that direction. I agree with my hon. Friends behind me that it is not a desirable thing that the private firms in this country should all be turned into limited companies. A certain amount of responsibility goes. You have a company and you have officials who are responsible for making as much money as possible, and, on the other hand, shareholders who do not know how the business is being managed. The human element is very largely eliminated. I cannot, of course, give any pledge to introduce a Bill now dealing with limited companies. I do not think the Committee would expect me to give any such pledge, but I will give an undertaking that the matter will be considered. I do not mean to say simply that it will be considered and then not to consider it in detail, but I will undertake that we will look into the question and see what legislation is possible and necessary. It cannot, of course, be on the same lines as this Bill. You cannot, for instance, ask a company to put on its notepaper the name of every shareholder. The Committee will remember that limited companies are already registered, and the register includes the name of every shareholder. Therefore anybody who wishes to know particulars about the
1524
company can get them by going to the register and ascertaining all they want to know.
Mr. HAZLETON: The register would not include any change of name that might have been made by a shareholder or a director.
Mr. PRETYMAN: Companies have to keep their registers up to date and to furnish a return of any change.
Mr. HAZLETON: In the case of a shareholder who is not of British nationality, that fact is not set out in the register, or the fact that some years ago he may have changed his name from a foreign name to a British one.
Mr. PETO: Nor a director.
Mr. PRETYMAN: Nothing appears in the register but his name. A company is usually rather on a larger scale: than many firms. The original object of this Bill when first introduced many years ago was to prevent the kind of practice that was called, I think, long-firm business —individuals who took offices in the City, sent out orders for goods, and, when the goods were sent, both they and the goods disappeared. That was really the primary object of this Bill. These sort of people can, of course, never be registered as companies. We have now got into a different region from that in which the Bill was first introduced. I can quite appreciate the point made against this Clause. It is imposing liabilities on firms not imposed on companies. And I agree that there appears to be no valid reason why particulars as to the constitution and ownership of companies and the business carried on by them should not be as easily available for their customers and the public as particulars of the business and the ownership of private firms. I express that general opinion and I give an undertaking to go into the question, but I cannot go any further at this stage.
Mr. NEEDHAM: What about my point about the postcards?
Mr. PRETYMAN: Oh, as to the postcard, the legal advice on one side of me was that a postcard would be included, but on the other side that it would not. We do not wish a postcard to be included, and if found necessary on consideration we will put in words to make it clear that it should not be included.
Mr. BRUNNER: The hon. Gentleman said that the figure of 99 per cent. British

1525
firms which would be affected by this Clause was too high. I want to ask him whether the Board of Trade has formed any estimate of the proportion of British firms which would come under the Bill. Have the Board of Trade any information on that point?
Mr. PRETYMAN: That is the kind of information which the Bill is designed to secure for us. It would be impossible for me to give any kind of estimate as to what proportion of the firms would be purely British and what proportion would contain any other element.
Mr. BRUNNER: Well, then, I think my estimate of 99 per cent. stands.
Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 18 (Mode and Action by the Board of Trade,) and CLAUSE 19 (Remuneration for Duties under this Act,) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 20.—(Interpretation of Firms.)
  In the construction of this Act the following words and expressions shall have the meanings in this Section assigned to them, unless there be something in the subject or context repugnant to such construction:—
  "Firm" shall mean an unincorporate body of two or more individuals, or one or more individuals and one or more corporations, or two or more corporations, who have entered into partnership with one another with a view to carrying on business for profit, but shall not include any unincorporated company which was in existence on the second day of November eighteen hundred and sixty-two:
  "Business" shall include profession:
  "Individual" shall mean a natural person and shall not include a corporation:
  "True surname" and "true Christian name" shall mean respectively the surname and Christian name under which an individual is for the time being known, not including a surname adopted or assumed for business purposes: Provided that if an individual has changed or hereafter changes his surname or Christian name (except in the case of a woman in consequence of her marriage), the changed name shall not be deemed to be his true surname or Christian name, and "Christian name" includes any forename:
  1526
  "Business name" shall mean the name or style under which any business is carried on, whether in partnership or otherwise:
  "Foreign firm" shall mean any firm, individual, or corporation whose principal place of business is situate outside His Majesty's Dominions:
  "Prescribed" shall mean prescribed by rules made in pursuance of this Act.
  Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move to leave out the words "'True surname' and 'true Christian name' shall mean respectively the surname and Christian name under which an individual is for the time being known, not including a surname adopted or assumed for business purposes: Provided that if an individual has changed or hereafter changes his surname or Christian name (except in the case of a woman in consequence of her marriage), the changed name shall not be deemed to be his true surname or Christian name, and 'Christian.'"
  My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Butcher) asked me to move this. It is consequential on an Amendment we accepted to Clause 1.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. CURRIE: I beg to move, after the words "Christian name"["Christian name under which an individual is for the time being known"], to insert the words "and other name."
  I wish to guard against a defence that may be set up by, say, a Chinaman, a Mahomedan, or a Japanese that he has no Christian name. There was a case in Edinburgh of a man who went by the name of Maru, or Mazu—I do not know which. That is not a Christian name. I believe it was not a business name.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: My hon. Friend will see from the Bill that "Christian name" includes "any fore-name."
  Mr. CURRIE: But I do not know whether this was a fore-name, and you cannot find out whether it is a fore-name or a surname. All you know is that it is a name, and I wish to protect you against that risk. I had my attention called to this by the solicitor who had the case in hand.
  The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): This Amendment is ruled out by the last one, which the Committee has passed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. HAZLETON: Before the Clause is agreed to I should like to know whether the definition of "foreign firm" under this Clause includes a limited liability company that may have its principal business outside the country. Is not that a distinction against foreign firms which does not apply to any home firms?
  Sir G. CAVE: It refers to a firm, individual, or corporation whose principal place of business is outside His Majesty's Dominions, therefore it would include a limited company.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Take the case of two or three people banding themselves together to keep, say, a lodging house without any written deed. Is that a firm? You may have a partnership at will as well as a written partnership, and if two or three women join to keep a boarding house it is a firm under this Bill, or two or three people joining to keep a greengrocers' shop.
  Question put, and agreed to.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Application to Scotland.)
In the application of this Act to Scotland—
"Court of Session" shall be substituted for "High Court";
"Sheriff Court" shall be substituted for "County Court";
"Trustee on a sequestrated estate" shall be substituted for "trustee in bankruptcy";
"Receiver or manager appointed by any Court" includes "judicial factor"; and
"Joint tenants" and "tenants in common" mean pro indivison proprietors.

SCHEDULE.

Description of firm, etc:.

The additional particulars.

Where the firm, individual, or corporation required to be registered carries on business as nominee or trustee

The present Christian name and surname, any former name, nationality, and, if that nationality is not the nationality of origin, the nationality of origin, and usual residence, or, as the case may be, the corporate name, of every person or corporation on whose behalf the business is carried on: Provided that if the business is carried on under any trust and any of the beneficiaries are a class of children or other persons, a description of the class shall be sufficient.

Where the firm, individual, or corporation required to be registered carries on business as agent for any foreign firm

The business name and address of the firm or person as agent for whom the business is carried on: Provided that if the business is carried on as agent for three or more foreign firms it shall be sufficient to state the fact that the business is so carried on, specifying the nationality of the firms.

The provisos to Sections. 7 and 17 shall not apply.—[The Lord Advocate.]
Clause brought up, and read the first time.
Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a second time."
I move the Clause to give effect to a promise I made to the hon. Member for Leith during the course of the Committee stage. I propose to add to the Clause as it stands on the Paper the words "the provisos to Section 7 and 17 shall not apply." The effect of that will be that in Scotland it will not be necessary to go to the Board of Trade for consent to any prosecution there. In Scotland all prosecutions are Crown prosecutions, and that justifies my proposal.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Application to Ireland.)
In the application of this Act to Ireland, the expression "trustee in bankruptcy" shall be construed as including an assignee in bankruptcy and a trustee of the estate of an arranging debtor.
Clause brought up, and read the first time.
Mr. DUKE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
The object is to adapt the Bill to the state of the Irish law of bankruptcy, which differs in detail from the English law, The Clause will have the effect of making the practical operation of the Bill the same in Ireland as in England.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause added to the Bill.
Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I beg to move to leave out the words at the end of the Schedule "specifying the nationality of the firms."
The reason is that a man in this country may be acting as agent for people of whom he knows comparatively little, his agency having been procured through a foreign branch. It is, therefore, not always easy for him to give the nationality of the people concerned in the foreign firm. I hope the Government will accept this Amendment. May I take the opportunity of thanking the hon Gentleman in charge of the Bill for having given such careful consideration to various points brought to his notice by myself and other hon. Members.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I thank the hon. Gentlemen for his suggestion, which I think is a very valuable one. I propose to leave out the words he suggests, because it is quite obvious that a person acting in this country as a agent for foreign firms cannot really know the technical nationality of the members of the firm. What is really intended is that he should merely state the countries in which those firms are actually carrying on business. If he is only acting as agent for two firms, he has to give the names of the members; but if he is acting for more than two firms, then he must give the nationality of the firm. I would suggest that the Amendment be altered to read, to leave out the words "nationality of the firms," and to insert instead thereof the words "countries in which such foreign firms carry on business."
Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am pleased to accept that altered form of Amendment.
Question, "That the words 'nationality of the firms' stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived. Words, "countries in which such foreign firms carry on business," there inserted.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the Schedule to the Bill."
Mr. HAZELTON: This Bill, as we know, will apply to a good many firms, not only important firms but various small traders, and anything the Government can do to facilitate its operations ought to be done. There are a great many small traders in Ireland who do not follow very closely the proceedings of this House, and who may be unfamiliar with the terms of this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament. The Bill is to come into operation
1530
very soon after it reaches the Statute Book, and the penalties will also be enforceable soon after the Bill is in operation. I do not know what arrangements the hon. Gentleman is making for this country or for Scotland, but I do suggest that, in regard to Ireland, he should communicate with the Chief Secretary and suggest to him to issue from the Irish Office a short summary of the terms of the Bill and to communicate it to the police in each district, as the members of the force will know the firms that are concerned and effected. The operation of the Bill would thereby be considerably facilitated. There are many small traders with names over their shops which are not their own and which they have never taken the trouble to alter. This is not a very large request to make, but I am sure, if it is acted upon, it will greatly help the smooth working of the Bill.
Mr. FIELD: I should like to support the observations of my hon. Friend and colleague, and I would make a further suggestion, i.e., that the information be given to the chambers of commerce and to the Dublin Mercantile Associations, which are in close communication with the traders. I am speaking not so much for country districts as for the City of Dublin, where we think the less we have to do with the constabulary the better for ourselves and for them. If this information can be conveyed through commercial sources to various parts of the country I certainly think it would be most useful.
Mr. GLYN-JONES: I hope the Government will do all they can to give the fullest publicity to the passing of this Bill, but I trust, at the same time, they will carefully consider the advisability of doing nothing which will convey the impression that no one who commits an offence against the Bill is liable unless he has had his attention called to the fact that it has been passed and has some knowledge of its provisions. If that is done you are not going to get at the men against whom the Bill is aimed, and who will really want to escape from its operation. I should have thought it would have been sufficient if the attention of the Board of Trade were called to the desirability of giving publicity through the usual channels, which they know so well, such as technical journals which desire to convey to their readers the latest information which concerns them. I hope nothing will be done that will lead anyone to think that they

1531
should be served with some notice or that there is responsibility on the part of some public officer to call their attention to the Bill; if that is done we shall do a great deal to minimise the effects of the Bill.
Mr. FIELD: May I point out with regard to Ireland that these technical journals have really no circulation in the small towns in Ireland. With regard to chambers of commerce I know that some of them in Ireland for the last twenty-five years have been vainly trying to get a Bill of this nature passed into law, and, therefore, I am sure they will heartily welcome it and do their best to facilitate its working.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I fully agree with what the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Field) has said, and I would take this opportunity of thanking hon. Members opposite for having assented to this Bill. I am perfectly well aware that it has probably less applicability to the people in trade in Ireland than in any other part of the United Kingdom. It might easily be that a larger burden proportionate to the benefit actually derived by Ireland is placed upon Ireland than upon any other part of the United Kingdom. I quite recognise that. I would readily accept the suggestion the hon. Gentleman has made, and if he will write to me on any points that occur to him, I will communicate with the Irish Office and do everything possible to see that full publicity is given, so that people shall not be caught unawares. With reference to the point raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Glyn-Jones), we will certainly guard the point, if it does require guarding, that our moral obligation to make this as public as possible does not relieve people from their legal obligation to register under this Bill.
Question, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 126.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMERGENCY PROVISIONS (No. 2) BILL.
Read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tomorrow.—[Mr. Rea.]

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Mr. HAZLETON: I did not happen to be in the House when this Bill was introduced, and I should like to know whether it was explained at that time?
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The National Conference of Friendly Societies have requested the Treasury to try to obtain the passage of this Bill through Parliament as soon as possible. Two difficulties have arisen in their administration owing to circumstances arising out of the War. In the first place, the question of a quinquennial valuation presents some difficulty to them, partly from the fact of the shortage of staff, and partly from the fact that the enlistment of a large proportion of their members makes the valuation especially difficult at the present moment. They therefore wish to have some relaxation in regard to valuation. The other point arises from the fact that the friendly societies have given benefits to a considerable number of members who have enlisted, and they have done this without appreciating that it required an alteration of rules to put them in proper order. In many instances an alteration of the rules requires an annual meeting, and it is an expensive matter and not at all convenient at the present time of stress to call an annual meeting for that purpose. They have therefore asked that they shall have a relaxation in that respect, and that with the consent of the Registrar, the privileges which are indicated in the Bill and the variation of the usual practice might be permitted by Parliament. The House will agree that the friendly societies are entitled to consideration in this matter, therefore I hope the House will give me the Second Reading of the Bill.
Mr. NUGENT: I understand that this Bill has been introduced at the request of the Conference of Friendly Societies, but there are one or two things in reference to it which will require a little consideration. In the first place, most of the friendly societies fixed their tables of benefits and risks at a date previous to the War, and, as a result, most of them find at the present moment that they are

1533
practically at the present rates faced with insolvency. This Bill gives them facilities to alter the rules. It says:
"Provided that nothing done under this Section shall deprive a member so serving as aforesaid of his membership, or suspend or diminish any benefit payable to him under the rules without providing an equivalent relief of contributions."
I should like to know whether it is possible for the friendly societies, if they find that the rates of contribution are inadequate at the present moment, to alter the rules at either their annual meeting, or a meeting called in accordance with these rules, because if it does not make that provision these freindly societies will find in the majority of cases a state of solvency which will compel them to overload the contributions of people on the membership at home. I have heard that the Registrar of Friendly Societies refuses to permit an alteration in some of his societies. No one suggests that the friendly societies themselves should alter the rates affecting the men who have joined His Majesty's Forces, but whatever alterations are necessary to make these societies solvent, facilities for them should apply all round. The postponement of the quinquennial valuation will not help much. Does the Government anticipate giving some relief to friendly societies who are saddled with a liability which was never contemplated when they were fixing their tables? If not, the Bill as it is contains nothing for them. It prevents them going to the expense of an annual meeting, or prevents them having a valuation for this particular period, but affords no relief whatever.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Rea.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE (TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT IN AGRICULTURE) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS (Comptroller of the Household): I should like to explain that this Bill, which is a small one, is intended to remove a discourage-
1534
ment to the temporary employment of women and other persons as war workers in agriculture. I need not dwell upon the vital need of doing everything to secure all available labour for the land, and I think the experiences of last year have amply proved to the Board of Agriculture that the services of women can be-successfully utilised, at all events, in a good many agricultural districts. The Board of Agriculture has made representations to the National Health Insurance Commission for some relaxation of the provisions of, the Insurance Act on this, point, and we think that if any relaxation is to be made it had best be done in this way. Briefly, the Bill proposes to enable persons of the normally non-insurable class who take up agricultural work as a war occupation, to remain outside the scope of compulsory health insurance if they wish. The difficulty which the Bill meets is really twofold. The Board of Agriculture has organised a plan of campaign throughout the country to enlist the services of women workers on the land. It is found in practice that many of the women can only spare part time, being engaged in household duties, consequently in, at all events, some parts of the country gangs of women are occupied which provide a uniform number continuously working, although the units of the gang are continuously changing. According to the law at present, the farmer has to pay an extra 3d. a week for each unit who does any kind of work during the week. That doubtless acts as a deterrent to the employment of women on farms.
There is another point. Many of these women are what is technically known in the Insurance Act as exempted persons. That is to say, the farmer himself has to contribute his 3d. a week, while they themselves are exempt from contributing. There is a good deal of misconception abroad in that case. These women are exempted persons for certain benefits under the Act. They are eligible for medical and sanatorium benefit, but that is not publicly known, and, even when it is known, and even though some benefits are available after a by no means excessive interval, yet it nevertheless happens that a good many women do not get these benefits, and in fact the Bill is asked for as much by the representatives of these women's organisations as by the farmers themselves. It is proposed to make special orders to exclude the class of workers

1535
who are normally not insurable from the provisions of the Insurance Act unless they themselves wish to enter into insurance. The Order may be made subject to any conditions specified in that Order, and it is not proposed if any persons wish to enter into insurance to exclude them. If they desire to be excluded they can be. It is, of course, strictly an Emergency Bill. These Orders are only to have effect for the duration of the War, and it is quite clear that under the conditions of peace different considerations would arise which could not be dealt with in this way. I cannot consent to open the door any wider than is proposed in the present Bill. It would be manifestly impracticable and unfair to cut out of the benefits of the Insurance Act any class of persons who are normally insured, and who have been already insured. We have taken their contributions, of course, and they would naturally expect the benefits obtainable under the Act. I think the farmers must understand that if we meet their susceptibilities on this point we cannot let down the standard of enforcement of the Act for other classes of workers, and we hope that, having made a concession to them on this point, we may have their co-operation in the general enforcement of the Act. I do not think they will have auy difficulty at present in contributing their 3d. in these cases, considering the present prices of agricultural produce, but we should like to get rid of any grievance, even if it is a fancied grievance, which can be quoted as an excuse for an apathetic refusal to try novel methods. The object of the Bill is to remove any chance of sand getting into the machinery, and to enable, at all events, a little extra available labour to be employed. I hope the House will approve the purpose of the Bill and will equally approve the method and the scope to which it is restricted, and if it does over so little to increase the labour available for the farmers at this moment, and if it does anything to increase the production of food in this country, I feel sure the House will gladly give it a Second Reading.
Captain BATHURST: I warmly welcome this little Bill as meeting a real necessity. In days such as these we do not want any sort of deterrent to prevent women and other temporarily employed persons who are willing to take up agricultural operations from doing what is an essential, a national work. The farmers
1536
are in many districts seriously depleted of labour, and are likely, even under improved Government administration, to continue to be seriously lacking in their normal requirements next year. The hon. Gentleman spoke as though the Bill applied exclusively or mainly to women, but it would apply to other people as well, for instance, to partially disabled soldiers who, one hopes, in the course of the next few weeks are going, for their good as well as the country's, to be given a certain amount of agricultural employment where they are fitted for it. But as regards women, it applies particularly to those classes of women who under normal circumstances would not have come under the provisions of the National Insurance Act at all, and for whom, in fact, the National Insurance Acts were never intended, and in this connection it is worthy of mention that the employment of women on farms is apt to be very occasional. Women, at any rate in England, are, we find, unfortunately deterred a good deal by stormy weather, and other conditions to which they are not used, which means that their employment is not continuous on farms. This will meet, of course, a case of that sort.
The drafting of the Bill seems to me to be somewhat unfortunate, and on the Committee stage I will move certain Amendments. For instance, we are told that it applies to those who are temporarily employed on or about any agricultural holding. There are considerable numbers of persons who are temporarily employed during the War who are not on or about agricultural holdings at all, but are doing very valuable work in connection with agricultural industry, as, for instance, taking milk from the farms to the nearest station or what is called in some districts higgling, going about collecting eggs from various small holdings, and others, in order to save labour, in conveying small consignments to the station. I suggest that that expression ought to be stretched sufficienly to enable it to cover all those who are temporarily employed in any way in connection with the agricultural industry during the War. In the following line there occurs the expression "men"
"in cansequence of the loss of men through enlistment, or transference to Government service, or other circumstances arising out of the present War."
I do not know if this is a case where we ought to have a definition Clause to the

1537
effect that the term "men" in this Bill includes women. In Wales, probably in Ireland, and certainly in Scotland, there are a certain number of women who have been employed on agricultural holdings who have now left those holdings in order to go into munition factories and other attractive and lucrative forms of employment which the War has produced. I suggest amendment in these respects in order to make the Bill comprehensive.
Mr. NUGENT: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and to add at the end of the Question the words "upon this day three months."
I move the postponement of this Bill because I feel that it is introduced to enable farmers to further block and destroy the good effects of the Insurance Act. The hon. Member who moved the Second Reading informed us that he wants to prevent sand from getting into the machine. I think the sand is there already. Everyone knows—and he should know better than anyone—that the number of people employed on farms and about farms who are not insured are very many. This Bill is intended to exempt a certain class of people from insurance. There is no definition of the class of people or how they are to be exempted. Is the Board of Trade to exempt them, or what is the authority which is to be empowered to issue exemption certificates to the people who are going to be employed upon farm work? The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Bathurst) states that there are people engaged in the practice of "higgling," making collections of eggs and other things. If we are going to have this, where is the thing going to end? He suggested that disabled soldiers are to be exempt. He hopes they may. I trust that this Bill will be postponed until we have a little more definite information, because our experience is that the various insurance Commissions are not very active in seeing that those who are employed on or about farms are insured. I think that is largely the case in this country as it is in Ireland. In Ireland a large body of the labour employed upon the farms is not insured, and effort is not made by the Commission in order to see that these people are insured. The Commissioners, or some of them, are more engaged at the present time in fixing up positions for their particular friends. We have had an experience in Ireland of how they mete out justice to those who have not sufficient
1538
personal influence with them. We have had a case recently—and I presume I am in order in dealing with it—in which a temporary clerk engaged upon the Commission was deliberately dismissed from his position in order to create a vacancy for the nominee of a Commissioner. Correspondence was suppressed, and the hon. Gentleman who represents here the General Insurance Commission is aware of the fact that the correspondence was suppressed. Although the whole of this matter was to be referred to a Committee appointed for the purpose, we had what I may describe as the scandal of the very culprits who suppressed the correspondence actually being constituted as the tribunal to try this particular man, without affording him an opportunity of appearing to give any evidence in his own defence.
This makes us feel that we cannot have absolute confidence that this Bill, which is so vague, will be administered in the spirit in which it should be administered. If the hon. Member who is responsible for this Bill had had our experience, he would have very little confidence as to the way in which the Commissioners will interpret the Act. If it is to be left absolutely with the Commission, where can we get satisfaction? Whatever correspondence is sent in will be deliberately suppressed and people victimised. The Insurance Act, so far as the farming and rural districts of Ireland are concerned, is not satisfactory. I do think that we ought not to agree to this Bill, which is of so sweeping a character, and which cuts into the whole foundations of the Insurance Act when it admits for the first time that people employed are to be exempt from insurance. That is the principle that is embodied in this Bill, and we have the hon. Member (Captain Bathurst), who represents the farming interests, wanting to extend it still further. The Comptroller of the Household perhaps thinks that when the sand is in the machine it will go no further. Our experience is that looseness of administration is indicated in the administration of the Insurance Act. Nobody will deny that it is loose. I think the best proof of its looseness is the information that I have given, which was at the disposal of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. Roberts). We understood that a full and adequate inquiry would take place, and that full and adequate inquiry consisted in constituting the people who were guilty of the crime as the tribunal to decide the case and to cover up their own conduct. I believe

1539
that the best course is to postpone this Bill for a period of three months.
Mr. HAZLETON: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so in order to enter a protest against the way in which Parliamentary-business is being conducted by some of the Under-Secretaries at the present time. We had an illustration of it at Question Time to-day. I suppose some Under-Secretaries are so preoccupied with other matters that they cannot even find time to answer Parliamentary questions put to them by Members of this House in relation to matters of considerable public importance. A few minutes ago we had the further spectacle of these same Under-Secretaries trying to rush through the Second Heading of these Bills without one word of discussion. This Bill would have gone through without a word if I had not intervened on the Bill that preceded it and secured from the Minister in charge some statement as to what the Bill contains. That is all the more serious by reason of the fact that these Bills were introduced by the Government without one single word of explanation or discussion on the First Reading. A case has been made out by my hon. Friend who moved the rejection of this Bill, and I would like to reinforce that case by asking the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill a few questions. It is true he gave us an explanation of this Bill, but he had not very much, if anything, to say about its application to Ireland. The circumstances in this country and in Ireland with regard to this Bill are very dissimilar.
This Bill deals mainly with agriculture. What does the Under-Secretary who explained this Bill in a few words know about agriculture? Why is not the Minister for Agriculture or his Under-Secretary here? Why is not the Chief Secretary for Ireland here to explain to the House a question which Irish Members may well bring up in considering a Bill of this kind? I do not think it is treating the House of Commons with respect that he should be absent, if I might use the phrase that was quoted at Question Time to-day. Only for the fact that the Speaker rebuked its use, I might almost say that it was an abuse of the procedure of the House of Commons. Has the Under-Secretary approached the Irish Department of Agriculture and consulted them, before bringing forward this Bill and including Ire-
1540
land, as to what its effect is to be in that country? If he has consulted them, what have they said? Has he consulted the Irish Insurance Commissioners and what attitude have they adopted upon this method? Perhaps they are too busy with other things, including a brand new scheme of stuffing the insurance offices in Dublin with some of their own nominees, in which they are supported by the Government and by the Under-Secretary, to pay attention to a mere trifle of this kind which concerns vitally the whole future of the National Insurance Commission and the National Insurance Act in Ireland. We are told that this is a War measure. We know perfectly well that while a need has arisen in Great Britain for the substitution of labour in agriculture on account of the Military Service Act, and while I am not going as an Irish Member to interfere in English or Scottish domestic affairs in matters of that kind, that case cannot be made out for Ireland at all. I think that we are entitled to say that until we have some explanation of the future effect of the Bill upon Ireland if it becomes law, if there is nobody here to speak for the Government of Ireland, we have a right to expect that the Second Reading of the Bill be not further proceeded with now.
Mr. T. WILSON: I quite understand the protest made by representatives from Ireland, but I do hope that they will not press that protest to a Division. The last speaker admits that as far as Ireland is concerned the Bill would to a very small extent affect the agricultural workers there. It does to a large extent affect those people who are at work upon the land in England.
Mr. HAZLETON: If the hon. Member will excuse me, I did not say that the Bill would not affect Ireland considerably. I said that the need for it in Ireland is very small, but that the effect will be very large.
9.0 P.M.
Mr. WILSON: The effect will not be great in Ireland. It cannot be great. In this country it will affect a very large number of people who are substitutes for people who are in the Army. But in Ireland it will not have this effect. This Bill, I take it for granted, will apply to women who are working on the land. There is quite a large number of women in this country working on the land to take the place of men. I do know from personal

1541
knowledge that there is a large number of men and women in this country who have gone to work on the land and wish to be exempted from the operation of the Insurance Act. There is quite a large number of people working on the land who have incomes of from £200 a year to £10,000 a year, and who, therefore, have no need to come under the Act. I know two Members of this House who are putting in as much of their spare time as they possibly can in digging potatoes. These men, in present circumstances, will be compelled to contribute under the Insurance Act, and I do not know whether they could claim any benefit on account of their income. But I do say that there is a demand from workers in this country that they should be exempted from the Insurance Act. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not seen his way to carry the matter still further, and to make provision for exempting certain people from the unemployment provisions of the Insurance Act. Very strong representation has been made by trade unionists for further exemption in this direction at the present time. But as far as this small Bill is concerned, the object is useful and will commend itself unanimously, I believe, to those people who have taken the place of men on the land who have joined the Army. Therefore I hope that the opposition will be withdrawn. I quite appreciate the reasons for moving the rejection of the Bill. Every opportunity should be taken of protesting against any wrong action on the part of those responsible for administering the Insurance Act, but at the same time, on behalf of the English workers on the land who have taken the place of workers who have joined the Army, I do appeal to hon. Members to give the Bill a Second Reading and to amend it in Committee if they possibly can.
Mr. COOTE: As representing an agricultural constituency in Ireland, I trust that hon. Members below the Gangway will reconsider their opposition, and will agree to this Bill receiving a Second Reading with the unanimous support of the House. I speak on behalf of the labouring classes on the land in Ireland—at least, in the part of Ireland with which I am connected—and also on behalf of the farmer. This Bill will confer considerable benefit both on employers and employed. There is a class of migratory labour, working one or two days in one place and some
1542
days in another place, perhaps at some other business, and people of this class feel very much having to pay under the Insurance Act. If Irish agricultural labourers were allowed to choose, I question if they would agree to go in for the benefits of this Insurance Act at all. The Irish people, the employers and employed in agriculture, have never taken kindly to the Act. That is my impression —I may be wrong—and as this Bill, will ease the conditions of the Act it will be received with very great pleasure in the part of Ireland to which I belong.
Mr. ROBERTS: I should be glad to consider the question as it affects Ireland, and I have been asked whether the Irish Commissioners have been consulted on the matter. It has been before the Joint Committee on which the Irish Commission is represented, and I have been assured that this measure has a very limited reference to Ireland, and probably would have very little effect there. Therefore, no great objection was anticipated so far as Ireland is concerned. I have not consulted the Irish Board of Agriculture, but the name of the Secretary of the Board of Agriculture is on the back of this Bill. In regard to the Irish Department, I regarded this Bill as having a very limited application to Ireland. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not include Ireland?"] If it is desired in Ireland that there should be none of these special Orders in that country, that wish and that desire could be met. It should be recollected that the measure is limited to cases of substitution in the place of men who have enlisted, or are absent through other circumstances of the War. When the Bill reaches Committee it will be open to hon. Members to move Amendments with the object of excluding Ireland from the measure, and I think, under the circumstances, that would meet the case which has been put.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: If the work of agricultural labourers be so desirable, why should any agricultural labourer be exempted from benefit? Can any answer be given to that question? Four or five years ago the Government came down to this House and said it was absolutely essential that every man and woman engaged in labour in this country should be insured. The insured man goes to some other employment on the land, and up to that moment it had been absolutely essential that his employer should pay benefit for him and that he himself should pay for

1543
benefit. But now, I understand, should he become engaged in agriculture because of the War, he is to be exempted from insurance and loses all benefit. Supposing he becomes sick, will he get any benefit? Supposing a man meets with an accident when employed under the special circumstances of this Act, will he gain benefit or lose benefit? I ask an answer to that question.
Mr. ROBERTS: I think the hon. Member was not here when I made my observations.
Mr. HEALY: I saw your name on the tape and I came in immediately.
Mr. ROBERTS: This Bill does not apply to persons of the class the hon. Member has in mind, namely, the person already insured in some way or other; and if such a person goes temporarily into agriculture he would not be excepted under this Bill. but would remain insured. The Bill only deals with persons not of a normally insurable class. The man in the mind of the hon. Member would receive his benefit in the ordinary way.
Mr. HEALY: If the person were insured before he took agricultural work, he would get benefit. Is that right?
Mr. ROBERTS: Yes.
Mr. HEALY: On the other hand, if you take the man who was not of an insurable class, what would be his position under this Bill? The man insured before going into agricultural employment would still get benefit, and this Bill does not apply to that man at all, and he gets his benefit. It only attempts to exempt the man who never was insured, and the number affected would be an extremely small class of persons, for I understand that the main Act is of almost universal application. Therefore it seems to be this, that for the purpose of the War the farmer who employs a particular class of man is exempted from making any payment. That seems to be an extraordinary policy, because it would enable the farmer, in the case of two men applying, to ask the first, "Have you been insured before," and if the man has, the farmer would say, "You are all right." But the unfortunate applicant who belongs to the class who is not insurable according to the hon. Gentleman would not be taker) on at all. The Government are rushing this proposal, which is not, I
1544
think, quite sufficiently understood, and I submit the real object of this measure has not been thoroughly considered. I am not going to oppose the Bill because it will exempt from insurance, and, if there is exemption, I see no objection to it so far as it goes.
Amendment negatived.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Gulland.]

GOVERNMENT WAR OBLIGATIONS.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do to-morrow resolve itself into a Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, and, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund, of such sums as may be required for giving effect to obligations incurred for the purposes of the present War or in connection therewith, by or on behalf of His Majesty's Government, and for other purposes in relation thereto."—(King's Recommendation Signified)—[Mr. Gulland.]
Mr. RAWLINSON: Can any statement be made as to this Resolution?
Mr. GULLAND (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): It is only giving notice of a Resolution which will be explained to-morrow.
Mr. RAWLINSON: Will it appear on the Paper to-morrow, so that we may have an opportunity of seeing it?
Mr. GULLAND: It will be moved tomorrow.
Mr. RAWLINSON: Can we see it in print? It is very useless unless we have the Resolution before us.
Mr. GULLAND: I can assure my hon. Friend that this is the invariable practice.
Question put, and agreed to.

BOARD OF PENSIONS (SALARIES AND REMUNERATION).
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do to-morrow resolve itself into a Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the salaries

1545
and remuneration payable to the President, officers, and servants of the Board of Pensions constituted under any Act of the present Session establishing a Board of Pensions."—(King's Recommendation Signified.)—[Mr. Gulland.]
Mr. HAZLETON: I think we ought to have some explanation from the Secretary to the Treasury with regard to this Financial Resolution and as to what amount of money is involved. I presume it deals with the Pensions Bill, and is the enabling Resolution that must be passed before that Bill is dealt with in Committee or the financial Clauses.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The unusual-ness of the practice is not on the part of the Government but on the part of those who object, because nothing is being done to-night except to give notice of Motion which is to be brought before the House to-morrow.
Mr. RAWLINSON: I quite agree; but may I ask will it be possible to see the
1546
Resolution before it comes up for discussion? I think it is most desirable in this case, which is of some importance, that the Government should arrange that we can see the Resolution. I do not in the least complain of this notice, but I think we ought to be able to see it in the morning.
Question put, and agreed to.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean), pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen minutes after Nine o'clock.

WAR.
  REBATES ON LICENCES.
  REBATES ON LICENCES.
ROYAL NAVY.
  PERCENTAGE OF DEATHS.
  PERCENTAGE OF DEATHS.

  WARRANT WRITERS.
  Dr. MACNAMARA
  There is only one warrant writer on the active list of similar seniority as warrant writer to those promoted to commissioned writer in October, 1915, and April last, the next warrant writers on the list being two years' junior as officers. The warrant writer in question will have an opportunity of reaching commissioned rank before retirement, and no reason, therefore, is seen for increasing the number of commissioned writers to meet his case. It should be borne in mind that in promotion to commissioned warrant rank, seniority in warrant rank is taken into consideration and not seniority in the Service.

  WARRANT WRITERS.
  ENGINE-ROOM ARTIFICERS.
  ENGINE-ROOM ARTIFICERS.
  DARTMOUTH NAVAL COLLEGE.
  DARTMOUTH NAVAL COLLEGE.
  9TH ARGYLE AND SUTHERLAND HIGHLANDERS.
  9TH ARGYLE AND SUTHERLAND HIGHLANDERS.
  BRITISH PRISONERS IN GERMANY.
  BRITISH PRISONERS IN GERMANY.
MILITARY SERVICE.
  AYRSHIRE LOCAL TRIBUNAL.
  AYRSHIRE LOCAL TRIBUNAL.
  RECRUITING (IRELAND).
  RECRUITING (IRELAND).
  IRISH REGIMENTS (TRANSFERS).
  IRISH REGIMENTS (TRANSFERS).
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  BODY-SHIELDS.
  BODY-SHIELDS.
  HONOURS (POSTHUMOUS AWARD).
  HONOURS (POSTHUMOUS AWARD).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  RECRUITMENT FRAUDS (INQUIRY).
  RECRUITMENT FRAUDS (INQUIRY).
MUNITIONS.
  SOLDIERS RELEASED FROM ARMY.
  SOLDIERS RELEASED FROM ARMY.
  SUTTON HARBOUR COMPANY, PLYMOUTH.
  SUTTON HARBOUR COMPANY, PLYMOUTH.
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (CLEARING HOUSE).
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (CLEARING HOUSE).
  NIGERIA (SALE OF ENEMY PROPERTY).
  NIGERIA (SALE OF ENEMY PROPERTY).
DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.
  PRISONERS AT FRONGOCH CAMP.
  PRISONERS AT FRONGOCH CAMP.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  FLOUR AND BREAD MANUFACTURE.
  FLOUR AND BREAD MANUFACTURE.
  MANURES AND FEEDING STUFFS.
  MANURES AND FEEDING STUFFS.
  THRESHING MACHINES.
  THRESHING MACHINES.
  BRITISH CONSULAR SERVICE.
  BRITISH CONSULAR SERVICE.
  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Housing Conditions (Dublin).
  Housing Conditions (Dublin).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Elementary Schools.
  Elementary Schools.