Sitting of 28 November 1916

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS.
Copies presented of Orders numbered D.I.P. 417 and 418, declaring the respective areas described in the Schedules thereto to be infected with Wart Disease and infected areas for the purposes of the Wart Disease of Potatoes (Infected Areas) Order of 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 23rd November, 1916, approving a Memorial of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
MUNITIONS (MILITARY SERVICE).
Copy presented of Report of the Military Service Committee on the Headquarters Staff of the Ministry of Munitions [by Command; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911 (UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT AUDIT).
Copy presented of the Report of the Committee on Audit of Unemployment Benefit of Associations' paying arrangements under Section 106 of the National Insurance Act, 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
HIGH-SPEED TELEGRAPHY.
Copy presented of Report of the Committee appointed to consider the question of High-speed Telegraphy [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

BOARD OF PENSIONS BILL.
Copy ordered "of the Board of Pensions Bill showing the effect of the Amendments proposed to be moved in Committee-on behalf of the Government."—[Mr. Arthur Henderson.]
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 137.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    INTERNED GERMANS (BOARDING OF RELATIVES).
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the wives and families of interned Germans are in many cases boarded and lodged, at large expense, in the unions, where they are free from any supervision, and can go out at any hour of the day; and, if so, whether the wives and families of such interned Germans as are exchanged and repatriated will be compulsorily repatriated at the same time?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I am informed by the Local Government Board that the number of wives and children of interned aliens who are maintained in Poor Law institutions is exceedingly small, and in almost all cases they are maintained in the institution because of sickness or other special circumstances of a like nature. Aliens in Poor Law institutions are subject to the-ordinary supervision and discipline of the establishment, and are also subject to the police regulations applicable to aliens generally. Repatriation has been and will be carried out in proper cases; but the wives of many interned aliens are British-born and others have young; children who are British-born.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Sir H. CRAIKasked whether the possibility of an exchange of prisoners of war has been under consideration, or

    123
    whether such proposal might be made through the intermediary agency of a Neutral Powers?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE (Treasurer of the Household): I am not quite clear as to what my hon. Friend refers to. Arrangements for the exchange of civilian prisoners of war over forty-five years of age have we hope been almost concluded with the German Government and further negotiations as to the exchange of -certain classes of invalid civilians under forty-five years of age are proceeding. All such negotiations are conducted through the good offices of the American Embassies.
    Sir H. CRAIK: My question referred to prisoners of war and not to civilians. I want to know whether any suggestion has been made that there might be an exchange of prisoners of war?
    Mr. HOPE: Such questions are continually being discussed, but I fear nothing -definite has been concluded, and we have no reason to suppose that the German Government is willing to make any such arrangement.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Has any attempt been made to ascertain through a Neutral Power? The hon. Member has completely misunderstood my question. I had better put it down again.
    Mr. HOPE: Yes.
    Mr. COWANasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the arrangement made through the American Ambassador in Berlin for the exchange of British-civilian prisoners interned in Germany for German civilians interned in the British Empire is limited to the exchange of prisoners over forty-five years of age; and whether, in that case, he will request the American Ambassador in Berlin to endeavour to arrange for a similar exchange of such civilian prisoners under forty-five years of age as are unfit for military service?
    Mr. HOPE: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, we concluded an agreement with Germany early in 1915 for the exchange of invalid civilians. A proposal has recently been made to the German Government, which we hope will result in a further number of incapacitated civilians being repatriated.
    Mr. COWAN: Can anything be done in the case of those civilian interned prisoners in Germany who are slowly being done to death in so-called German sanatoria—men under forty-five years of age?
    Mr. HOPE: That is the subject matter of a question later on the Paper.
    Mr. MALCOLM: Are we to understand that an agreement has been reached with Germany about the repatriation of civilian prisoners over forty-five or has not been reached?
    Mr. HOPE: The German Government has made one fresh point which I trust may be overcome. If that is overcome and no other difficulty intervenes, I trust it will take effect very shortly.
    Mr. WATT: Are an equal number of Britishers to be exchanged for a similar number of Germans?
    Mr. HOPE: No.
    Mr. WATT: Why not?
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Treasurer of the Household if he will now state in detail or cause to be circulated the number of British prisoners of war in Germany who have been sentenced to imprisonment of three years and upwards, stating the term of imprisonment and whether with or without solitary confinement, penal servitude, or hard labour; how many German prisoners in Great Britain have received similar sentences since the outbreak of war; and what are the reasons why His Majesty's Government decline to negotiate for a postponement of the execution of these sentences until the conclusion of hostilities?
    Mr. HOPE: The number of British prisoners of war in Germany sentenced to imprisonment for terms of three years and upwards is, so far as is known, thirty-four. Of these, one has received a sentence of 13 years', twenty-three of 12 years', three of 10 years', two of 8 years', one of 3 years' and 3 months', and four of 3 years' duration, respectively. We are without information as to whether any of the sentences involved solitary confinement or as to the amount of hard labour involved.
    The number of German prisoners of war in Great Britain who are serving sentences of three years and upwards is seven (including two tried and sentenced outside Great Britain but serving their sentences within Great Britain). The ques-

    125
    tion of the postponement of the execution of these sentences until the conclusion of hostilities has been under consideration, but the essential differences in the Military Codes of this and other countries render an agreement on the lines settled between France and Germany practically impossible.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is there any probability whatever that any such sentence, if suspended till the end of the War, will be carried out? Is it the least likely?
    Mr. HOPE: I am afraid I do not quite follow the hon. Member.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is it not extremely unlikely?
    Viscount WOLMERasked the Treasurer of the Household whether he can give the number of unemployed prisoners of war in this country, military and civil, including prisoners in the Isle of Man?
    Mr. HOPE: It is considered undesirable by the military authorities to give further information as to the employment of prisoners of war.
    Viscount WOLMERasked whether the War Office is prepared to allow convalescent soldiers to act as guards for prisoners of war employed in agricultural work?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): It is not considered desirable that convalescent soldiers should guard prisoners of war. All the endeavours of the War Office are directed to making convalescent soldiers fit again for the ranks, and this end will not be furthered by putting them to guard prisoners of war.

  GREECE.

    COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL DEFENCE.
    Sir EDWIN CORNWALLasked what results have followed the steps taken by the Allies to obtain the release of the officers of the Committee of National Defence who were imprisoned by the order of King Constantine on the ground of their anti-Bulgarian sentiments?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): Three officers have been released and the Greek Prime Minister has undertaken to take immediate action in the case of the remainder, a list of whom has been furnished to him.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    SOLDIERS ON LEAVE.
    Captain DOUGLAS HALLasked the Secretary of State for War if the War Office can, with due regard to efficiency, arrange with the Commander-in-Chief that any officers and men of the original Expeditionary Force not now under medical treatment who have been through the whole campaign without getting home except for short leave, and who may apply in the usual routine through their commanding officers for a short period of Home service this winter, may have their application favourably considered?
    Mr. THOMASasked whether any arrangements have yet been made to grant a furlough to every soldier who has served twelve months or more in the trenches without having had a leave of absence, and especially in the case of married men with children?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Lloyd George): I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave yesterday on this subject.
    Captain HALL: Is it not a fact that only consideration was promised by the War Office? Cannot such consideration be accelerated?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The promise went further than that. Something is being done.
    Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some cases officers who have been out since July, 1915, have had no leave whatever, while other officers have been back three or four times?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes. I have heard of a good many cases of that kind. In some of those cases I have made investigations, and I have found that there were special reasons why they should be retained in France.
    Mr. WING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the same thing applies to the men?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes; I meant officers and men. It is quite true. I get letters constantly from people about cases of that kind. There is generally some reason why the officers and the men who have been in France for a long time are kept there and no leave given—special circumstances. After all, the question of

    127
    leave must be decided by the Commander-in-Chief; the War Office cannot take that out of his hands. I am perfectly certain that he will show every consideration for the men who have borne the heat and burden of the day. He has that well in mind. It is a very serious thing for the War Office to lay down any rule in the face of an urgent military situation, which the Commander-in-Chief must take into account.
    Captain HALL: Has the right hon. Gentleman not noticed in my question that I ask him to confer with the Commander-in-Chief? I do not suggest that the War Office should take the matter out of his hands.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: He was over last week, and we had a talk upon this very subject.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the French Government arrange systematic leave, so that every soldier is on the same footing as his comrades? Why cannot we have the same?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think my right hon. Friend will find that the Commander-in-Chief is doing his very best—[SIB H. DALZIEL:"I am sure of that!"]—to arrange that there shall be absolute equality of treatment, but complete equality is almost impossible because there are certain duties which naturally bear a larger share of the burden, and there are many considerations which must be present to the mind of everybody why it is very difficult to give complete equality of treatment in all cases.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Will every consideration be given—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Any further questions must be put on the Paper.

    HOME SERVICE (PROMOTION).
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Secretary for War whether his attention has been drawn to the complaints and grievances of soldiers in the Old Army and the New Army raised on the volunteer principle; if he is aware that promotion is given more rapidly to men who were called up under the Military Service Acts, whilst promotion is denied to men of the old Regular Army; if he is aware that there are many cases of soldiers at the front since the outbreak of war who have not yet
    128
    received leave; if he will take steps to see that soldiers of the old Army or those who joined voluntarily where eligible will receive preference for promotion; if he will see that soldiers who have not yet received leave will obtain it; and if he will see that time-expired soldiers shall be retained for Home service only?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, Sir, I am not aware that the elements of which the Army is composed have complaints and grievances as against each other, and I regret that such a suggestion should ever have been made. Promotion is given to the best qualified man available, irrespective of the terms of his service. As the House has often been informed, leave is a question which rests with the General Officer Commanding-in-field in the field,, and depends upon the exigencies of the military situation. Time-expired men, like other soldiers, will naturally wish that their services may be used where they are of most value, and it is not proposed to run counter to their wishes.
    Mr. BYRNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman arrange that time-expired soldiers, when they have done their bit at the front, should be allowed to stay at home for Home service?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think that is much too serious a decision to come to. Men must be utilised where their services are most valuable to the State, and naturally those who are the most experienced are the men whose services are of the most value to the State in a most difficult position.
    Mr. BYRNE: Is it not a reasonable request that these men when they have done their bit should be allowed to remain at home and take the places of other soldiers who have found soft jobs?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We need them all. If there are any men who have found soft jobs and have not done their share, they will be found out.

    GENERAL HEADQUARTERS STAFF, FRANCE (CLERICAL HOURS).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is possible to revise the hours worked by the clerks in general headquarters offices in France; and whether the present hours, from

    129
    7.30 a.m. to 12 p.m., will be so adjusted as to give more than one hour's exercise in the interests of the staff?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am aware that both officers and clerks in the general headquarters offices in France work long hours, but I do not think that the period stated in my hon. Friend's question represents the normal. Anyhow, it is a matter which I am sure my hon. Friend will, on reflection, admit is one for those who know the facts, i.e., the heads of the offices concerned, to adjust as may from time to time be necessary and desirable.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am not asking for fewer hours, but that these men who are working these long hours should have a little more time for exercise?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the whole case depends upon the pressure. If there is a great struggle on, no doubt the pressure is abnormal, but when times are more quiet it is very probable that there will be a good deal of opportunity for making any necessary adjustment.

    ATTESTED MEN.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the 'Secretary of State for War whether the Under-Secretary of State for War has been consulted with regard to the calling up for medical re-examination of all attested men who have been rejected by medical boards since 14th August, 1915, and to whom the Army Council has not, before 1st September, 1&16, sent a notice calling them up for re-examination; and whether he has sanctioned this breach of the pledge given to the attested men that if they volunteered under the Derby scheme they would not be placed in a less favourable position than those who refused to volunteer, and who now in such circumstances, have their medical rejection regarded as final?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave the hon. Member on 21st November. To call an attested man up for examination after the examination of unattested men is surely more to his advantage than calling him up before the unattested men.
    Mr. SCOTT: Has Lord Derby been consulted with regard to this breach of the pledge which was given to the men who have volunteered?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes.
    Mr. SCOTT: Is it not admitted that men who volunteered under Lord Derby's scheme were promised that they would not be placed in a less favourable position than men who had refused to volunteer and have waited for compulsion?
    Mr. FORSTER: Lord Derby takes the view, and I share it, that they are not placed in a more unfavourable position.
    Mr. SCOTT: Will the hon. Gentleman use his influence with the Secretary of State to induce him to be present when the matter is discussed to-morrow evening on the Adjournment?

    DISCHARGE FROM ARMY.
    Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Private R. Addison, No. 222,588, Motor Transport Army Service Corps, was previous to his joining up a tenant farmer occupying about 600 acres, of which 400 acres were arable land, and that he was his own foreman, working on the farm himself; whether he is aware that he had 850 sheep, 90 beasts, and 16 horses at the time of his joining up; and, having regard to the national importance of such a farm as a food-producing element, whether he will immediately issue orders for him to be allowed to return to his farm?
    Mr. JOHN O'CONNORasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that one Peter Costello, late of 65, Easterhill Street, Folcross, Scotland, was recently conscripted and is now serving as private, No. 34,547, B Company, Royal Scots, at Glencora, Edinburgh; whether he has produced and shown to his commanding officer his certificate of birth, indicating that he was born on the 26th May, 1867, being now over forty-nine years of age; whether he is aware that Costello has a wife and seven children depending on him; and will he, under the circumstance that Costello is over military age, and has been unfairly treated in being wrongly called on to serve, order his discharge?
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for War if he will have inquiry made at once into the circumstances connected with the taking into the Army of Private H. Ansell, No. 6976, C Company 2/4th County of London Royal Fusiliers, who was passed as fit for service in October last, though it was known that

    131
    he had not long ago spent six months in a tuberculosis sanatorium and since his discharge been frequently ill from this cause, and that his condition was known to the doctors who passed him into the Army; and (2) if William Brook Morton, a conscientious objector, is now in the Northern General Hospital, Armstrong College, Newcastle-on-Tyne; if he is being forcibly fed; and if it is intended to let this man die rather than give him the exemption from military service to which he is legally entitled?
    Mr. FORSTER: In each case it is necessary to make inquiries, which have been instituted, and the result in each case will be sent to the hon. Members interested.

    MEDICAL FEES.
    Mr. COWANasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that certain Scottish doctors have been paid, for medically examining recruits, at the rate of 2s. 6d. each for the first sixteen recruits with a limit of £2 for any one day, resulting, in some cases, in an average rate of less than 6d. per recruit, while other medical men have been paid at the rate of 2s. 6d. per head without any limit; whether this discrimination has been justified by the War Office on the ground that the higher rate has been paid through the inadvertence of recruiting officers who, in some cases, did not receive notice of the £2 limit, and consequently engaged doctors at wrong rates, though this does not apply to the Scottish Command; and whether, considering the inadequacy of the rates actually paid in Scotland for the professional services rendered, he will now authorise the payment to such Scottish doctors of such sums as may be necessary to place them upon an equal footing with their colleagues in the Eastern Command?
    Mr. FORSTER: £2 is considered a fair maximum for a full day's work in the medical examination of recruits. Authority has been given to exceed this maximum in certain exceptional cases in which a rate per head was promised without limitation as to total, but it is not considered that a simlar arrangement in other cases could be justified.
    Mr. COWAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it fair treatment of medical men, who in some cases were not told until their work was done what the conditions of remuneration would be?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have looked carefully into the whole of this question, and I cannot came to any other conclusion than I have come to.
    Mr. HOGGE: Has the hon. Gentleman recovered from doctors any of the money that has been paid for passing into the Army men who were medically unfit?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes. I think, speaking, from memory, that a certain amount has been recovered. If the hon. Gentleman wishes, he can have particulars.

    CONTRACTOR'S EXEMPTION.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Mr. Lloyd Howard Fox, who is connected with manufacturing puttees and holds contracts with the War Office, came before the local tribunal at Wellington, and appealed for absolute exemption on the ground of conscientious objection to join the Army or to engage in the production of material the object of which was-the taking of human life; and that the miliary representative intimated to the-tribunal that he had orders from the War Office to assent to the appeal on production of a certificate; will he say whether this man was exempted from combatant service and, if so, on what grounds; will he also say what certificate was referred to by the military representative; and whether the War Office gave any and, if so, what orders in respect to that certificate?
    Mr. FORSTER: Mr. Lloyd Howard Fox,. who is stated to be a member of the-Society of Friends, applied on 14th March last to the Wellington local tribunal, and was granted a certificate of exemption from combatant service on the grounds that he was a member of the Friends Ambulance Unit. He produced a certificate of his membership of the unit signed by the chairman, and the military representative thereupon assented to the exemption from combatant service pursuant to general instructions given by the Army Council relating to members of the-Friends' Ambulance Unit. Messrs. Fox Brothers, Limited, of Wellington, hold contracts for puttees, but this gentleman is not one of the directors.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not a fact that the man admits that he is not a-member of the Society of Friends, but that he has only an objection to fighting?
    Mr. FORSTER: That he is a member of the Friends' Ambulance Unit.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this man is not a member of the Society of Friends?
    Mr. FORSTER: I had forgotten that.
    Mr. FABER: Does he derive any profit from the contract?
    Mr. FORSTER: My information is that he is not a director.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE rose—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot debate these matters in question and answer when we have such a large number of questions.

    CONSCIENTIOUS ORJECTORS.
    Mr. KINGasked whether Hubert Wild, of Mottram, Manchester, was court martialled at Colchester on the 23rd September and sentenced to six months' detention for refusing, as a conscientious objector, to obey military orders; and whether he has been, or will be, sent to a civil prison in accordance with Army Order 10?
    Mr. FORSTER: The facts are as stated by the hon. Member. In view of the fact that the Court sentenced Private Wild to detention and not to imprisonment, his appearance before the tribunal was expedited, but he refused to comply with the conditions in regard to undertaking work under the Brace Committee offered to him. Under these circumstances there was no alternative but for him to complete his sentence; and in regard to the hon. Member's question as to whether he will be sent to a civil prison, it has been frequently stated in this House that a sentence of detention cannot be served in a civil prison.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for War whether Private S. Turner, of the 10th Reserve Battalion, 5th London Regiment, stationed at Teignmouth, Devon, a conscientious objector to military service, has been sentenced to a second term of imprisonment for disobeying orders; whether he is aware that Private Turner is now in a detention barracks; and whether he will secure this soldier being sent to a civil prison, in accordance with Army Order 10.
    Mr. FORSTER: If the soldier is situated as the hon. Member describes he will be committed to a civil prison.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for War if he will make inquiry into the treatment meted out to Harry Brewer, a conscientious objector, attached to 43rd Loyal North Lancashire, C Company, at Aisne Barracks, near Farnborough, who, after being sentenced to fifty-six days' imprisonment by court-martial, instead of being sent to a civil prison was kept at the barracks and brutally treated by non-commissioned officers and compelled to do certain work; and why he was not immediately sent to a civil prison after sentence, and where he is at present?
    Mr. FORSTER: This case had previously been brought to the notice of the War Office by the hon. Member for Stockport, when inquiries were instituted, and it was ascertained that the man was tried by court-martial on the 10th November, sen-enced to fifty-six days' imprisonment with hard labour, and committed to Wormwood Scrubs on the 13th. I would take the opportunity of informing the hon. Member that the period which elapsed between the date of his conviction and his committal to civil prison was considerably less than that which usually obtains. Inquiry established the fact that he was not brutally treated.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Thomas Sidney Overbury, a conscientious objector, was handed over to the military on 2nd October, 1916, court-martialled on 9th October, and sentenced to twenty-eight days' imprisonment, which he served in Wormwood Scrubs; that on the expiration of his sentence on 6th November he was sent to Fulham Military Hospital, and will he say if he is still in that hospital; if he has been on hunger-strike practically the whole time since his arrest; if he has been forcibly fed; and if it is intended to let the man die rather than give him the exemption from military service to which the Central Tribunal has decided he is entitled as a genuine conscientious objector?
    Mr. FORSTER: This man has been discharged under paragraph 392 XVI., King's Regulations.

    CANADIAN ARMY (DISCHARGES).
    Sir CROYDON MARKSasked whether a man who has been given his

    135
    discharge in this country from the Canadian Army is liable to be called up for further military service in the British Army, while men who returned to Canada to take their discharge there are considered to be exempt from further military service?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is not intended to call up for service with the British Army a man who is in possession of a discharge certificate from the Canadian military authorities on the ground of ill-health or disablement from the Canadian forces.

    ABSENTEES.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for War if he will stop the practice of the recruiting officer at Kingston-on-Thames of advertising the names and addresses of alleged absentees from military service of men whose present whereabouts are well known to him and of men who are known by him to have certificates of exemption?
    Mr. FORSTER: If the hon. Member will quote specific instances, in which the recruiting officer concerned advertised the names of alleged absentees, well knowing the whereabouts of the men, or that they held certificates of exemption, inquiries will be made.

    BILLETING RATES.
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he? can now announce his decision about billeting rates?
    Mr. FORSTER: I hope to be in a position to make an announcement very shortly.

    LANARKSHIRE APPEAL TRIBUNAL.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the case of Andrew Torrance, the sole proprietor of a business on which the support of his family exclusively depends, and for the carrying on of which in his absence it is impossible for him to make arrangements; whether he is aware that his appeal for exemption was rejected by the Lanarkshire Appeal Triunal, not on the ground that he had failed to prove that serious hardship would ensue on account of the above circumstances, if he were called up, but on the ground that, in the opinion of the sheriff, the business, that of credit
    136
    draper, was not of national importance, and all the goods could be bought in shops; whether he is aware that a decision on such grounds is contrary to the instructions with regard to the sole proprietors of businesses issued to the tribunals; whether he can state what has been the result of the appeal to the Central Tribunal; and whether he proposes to take any action to secure the carrying out of the instructions?
    Mr. TENNANT: My attention has been called to the case referred to by my hon. Friend, and, after inquiry, I see no ground to suppose that the Lanarkshire Tribunal did not act in accordance with the instructions. The grounds of the Appeal Tribunal's decision were not as stated in the question, but were that the tribunal were not satisfied that a case of serious hardship, owing to business or financial obligations or domestic position had been established, or that the carrying on of the business of credit draper by the appellant was of national importance. I am informed that the Central Tribunal has sustained the decision of the Appeal Tribunal and dismissed Mr. Torrance's appeal, and in the circumstances I do not propose to take any action in the matter.
    Mr. SCOTT: When a man makes an appeal on one statutory ground of business hardship and domestic hardship, is it competent for the tribunal to reject his appeal because he does not conform with another statutory ground?
    Mr. TENNANT: No; I do not think it would be; but my hon. Friend is misinformed as to what the Appeal Tribunal did actually do. This is the actual position in the case. The Appeal Tribunal gave the man temporary exemption from 1st September, and gave him leave to apply for exemption again. That application was not entertained, but a recommendation was made that he should be exempted until 30th November, that was three months further. That went before the Central Tribunal, which did not grant the exemption, but recommended that the man should not be called up till the end of the year, so that he has not been treated very hardly.

    WHITE BRITISH SUBJECTS.
    Commander WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether arrangements will be made to make service in the Army

    137
    compulsory on white British subjects of military age in India, Egypt, Ceylon, and the Crown. Colonies?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. I am advised that there is no reason to think that the adoption of this suggestion would add any appreciable number of men to the Army, and I am, therefore, not prepared to recommend the necessary legislation to the House.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of compulsory service for British subjects in France and elsewhere where they are shirking, and give so bad an impression to our Allies?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The question refers to the Crown Colonies and British Possessions.
    Colonel YATE: May I inquire whether Ceylon has not already introduced a Compulsory Service Act?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Compulsory service has been in operation in, I think, two Crown Colonies.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Cannot the authorities give every encouragement to those of military age in the service of the Crown Colonies to join, and not prevent them when they are anxious to do so?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: We have, if anything, made the other mistake of allowing too many who wished to go to leave, with the result that the Service in some cases, to my own knowledge, is somewhat disorganised.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the Empire is of more importance than the government of a Crown Colony?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, indeed I do; but I think it is absolutely necessary that the government of the Crown Colonies should be carried on.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Could the work not be done by older men? In some of the Crown Colonies has not leave been refused to the men who were anxious to join?
    Mr. BONARLAW: To individuals?
    Sir H. ORAIK: Yes.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Certainly, because the men could not be spared; for no other reason.
    Mr. FABER: Were not other men available?

    CHINESE LABOUR CORPS.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that, according to the "London Gazette" of the 14th instant, Lieutenant-Colonel B. C. Fairfax, Reserve of Officers, has been appointed to command what is described as a Chinese labour corps; and whether he will inform the House where this corps is to be employed, when it was recruited, and what are the wages, hours, and conditions applicable to the men, and whether the corps is under military discipline?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend on 23rd November to the hon. Member for Hanley.

    COLOURED LABOUR.
    Mr. WALTER ROCHasked the Prime Minister the decision of the Government with regard to the employment of coloured labour in this country and the conditions of such employment; and whether the House of Commons will be given an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the subject?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is that no decision has yet been reached. With regard to the second part of the question I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on this subject last Tuesday.

    ACCOUNTANTS OF MILITARY AGE.
    Mr. COWANasked the Minister of Munitions whether the supply of suitable accountants ineligible or unfit for military service became exhausted some months ago; and, if so, whether he is aware that highly qualified accountants over military age are at present employed as junior clerks in certain Government offices; and whether, in view of a recent official statement that the Ministry of Munitions are still appointing accountants of military age, he will invite applications from accountants employed in Government work of a less important character who are over military age?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Dr. Addison): The answer to the first part of

    139
    the question is, I believe, in the affirmative. As to the second, I have no information. Wherever suitable accountants not qualified for military service are available, the Ministry of Munitions is only too glad to appoint them; but, having regard to the immense importance of the work, it is absolutely essential that only those men who are thoroughly efficient and well qualified should be appointed.

    REJECTED MEN.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Minister of Munitions if it is by his instructions that men finally rejected for the Army and men who have been discharged from the Army are being dismissed from the works of Loders and Nucoline, Albert Mills, Hammersmith, and their places taken by women at a lower wage; and if, this being a controlled establishment, he will put a stop to this practice?
    Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend has issued general instructions to controlled establishments that wherever the nature of the work permits female labour should be substituted for male labour in order to leave the latter available for work of a class which cannot be performed by women. In this case, eleven men and nine boys were released and twenty-five women employed to do the same work. I understand that four of these men had been rejected for military service, and for these employment can be found by the Ministry of Munitions. None of the men concerned appears to have been discharged from the Army. The wages paid to the women taken on are in excess of those prescribed in Circular L2, which regulates the wages of women on munitions work of a class customarily done by men, and the aggregate of the wages paid to the women is greater than that paid to the men for whom they have been substituted.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    SOLDIERS' DEPENDANTS, DUBLIN.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Secretary for War if, in the event of new increased separation allowances to soldiers' dependants, he will see that their dependants in the Dublin Metropolitan area will be placed on the same scale as is paid to dependants in the London Metropolitan area?
    Mr. FORSTER: Dependants are not paid upon a fixed scale, but on the basis of the contribution they actually made to their families, whether in Dublin or elsewhere.
    Major Sir CHARLES HUNTERasked the Secretary of State for War if, considering the number of hard cases now arising of dependants on those joining as officers or on men after enlistment, he will consider the advisability of granting the same scale of pension or allowance as in pre-war enlistment cases?
    Mr. FORSTER: This is a matter which will, no doubt, engage the early attention of the Pensions Minister.
    Major Sir C. HUNTER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a question which brooks no delay? A great many widows, having spent all their money on the education of their sons, who have been killed, have now no means whatever?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes. I hope that there will be no delay.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is the duty of the Statutory Committee, and that therefore it does not depend on whether a Pensions Board is set up or not?
    Mr. FORSTER: What I have said is that I hope that this will engage the attention of the new Pensions Board.
    Sir HENRY CRAIKrose—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the hardships existing among dependants of soldiers who were either unable or unwilling to establish pre-war dependence on such soldiers; and whether, in the circumstances, he can see his way to relax the rigid rule which obtains, with the exception of post-war dependence, in regard to change of circumstances in considering separation allowances?
    Mr. FORSTER: The War Department is bound by the rule of pre-war dependence set up by the Select Committee of this House. In recognition of the hardship which such rules may occasion in particular eases, the Statutory Committee has since been set up to deal with them on discretionary lines.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the hon. Gentleman say if, and when, the Statutory Committee

    141
    are going to deal with the change of circumstances in regard to these payments?
    Mr. FORSTER: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I am responsible for a good many things, but I am not responsible for the Statutory Committee.
    Sir E. CARSON: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is very important that this matter should be dealt with?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is not this a reason for bringing the Statutory Committee under a Pensions Minister?
    Mr. FORSTER: I hope that before very long the hon. Gentleman will be enabled to see what our proposals are.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether in the case of a man who has been separated from his wife and who has been ordered, under the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895, to pay her a weekly allowance, the War Office, if the man has been in arrears with his payments at the time of his enlistment, refuses to pay a separation allowance to the wife, even if he has made an allotment in her favour; whether, before making any allowance, the War Office insists on receiving a declaration from the soldier that he intends to cohabit with his wife in the future and after the War; and whether the War Office will reconsider its policy in this respect and recognise the legal obligation of maintenance as expressed in the magistrate's order and refrain from insisting that persons who are legally separated shall resume cohabitation after the War?
    Mr. FORSTER: Separation allowance is not claimable where there was no pecuniary loss to the wife by enlistment. It is, nevertheless, granted as a concession, and without always requiring formal declaration, when there is reasonably conclusive evidence of the intention to live together after the soldier's return to civil life. While there are good grounds for the general rule, I am inquiring further into the circumstances of the particular case to which the hon. Member has drawn my attention.
    Mr. SCOTT: If the wife has a magistrate's order against the soldier for a definite weekly payment, is not that evidence that she was dependent on her husband?
    Mr. FORSTER: It depends upon whether or not the husband was making a contribution in respect of it.
    Mr. SCOTT: If he ignores his duty and legal liabilities, and she has a magistrate's order for payment of the money, is not that definite evidence that she was dependent upon him?.
    Mr. FORSTER: I do not think that is the question. The question is whether or not the man was making a payment under the order?
    Mr. SCOTT: Or, if he was avoiding it.

    TATE GALLERY (CONDITIONS OF WORK).
    Mr. COWANasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the conditions under which persons are employed by the War Office at the Tate Gallery; whether he is aware that there are no adequate provisions for heating or ventilating that building which, having a glass roof and no windows, receives its only supply of fresh air through the open outer doors, and that these conditions have recently resulted in a large amount of sickness among the members of the staff; and whether he will take steps to have these conditions immediately remedied or, if that is impracticable, arrange for the transfer of the persons employed in the building to more suitable premises?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): I am well aware of the difficulties at the Tate Gallery which arise because it has been necessary in war time to accommodate staff in a building designed for ah entirely different purpose, and to increase the staff far beyond the figures at first contemplated. I hope to be able to move the whole of this staff to some more suitable building before next summer.
    Mr. COWAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it right to leave men who are serving their country in such conditions during the winter months?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I cannot accept the description of existing conditions which is on the Paper: I do not think that there is any difficulty about heating. I imagine that the real difficulty is about cooling in the summer.
    Mr. COWAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman visit the Tate Gallery, and see what are the conditions?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have visited it.

    ROUMANIA.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for War whether, before the end of August, 1916, the military and political position in Eastern Europe, and especially of Roumania, was reported on by the Intelligence Department of the War Office; if so, whether such Report held out the prospect that an adequate supply of material of war was secured for the Roumanian Army, and that sufficient Allied support was forthcoming with which the Roumanian Army could meet any possible enemy attack; if so, who was the officer responsible for this Report; and what steps are being taken to restore the military position of our Roumanian Ally?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is not advisable to give information on this point in answer to a question.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Prime Minister if he will say at what date the War Council decided to give the utmost assistance possible to Roumania; and whether there are any reports or minutes, the substance of which he can give to the House, which were made by the advisers of the Government as to the policy which should be followed in support of Roumania?
    Mr. BONARLAW: It would not be in the public interest to answer the questions put by the hon. Member, but he may rest assured that every assistance possible is being given by the Allies to Roumania.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Would it not be possible to have a Secret Session in which we could get full information on this point? [HON. MEMBERS:"NO, no!" and "Hear, hear!"]
    An HON. MEMBER: It would not be secret.

    FIELD PUNISHMENT.
    Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether the form of punishment known as "crucifixion" is inflicted upon soldiers training in this country as well as upon soldiers on
    144
    active service; (2) if he has yet obtained particulars of the circumstances under which twelve men were recently sentenced to field punishment No. 1, and one of them died in consequence of the punishment, as mentioned in a statement made by General Childs, the Director of Personal Service; for what offences these men were punished; and (3) whether he has yet obtained a report with regard to that form of field punishment which is known as "crucifixion"; and whether he will take steps, in view of its character, to have it abolished?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Complete reports have not yet been received. As I stated on 21st November, I do not think it would serve any useful purpose to-discuss the question until the replies have been received.
    Mr. MORRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the replies are likely to-be received, and, considering the fact that this punishment does in many cases amount to torture, will he see that it is discontinued until full investigation has been made?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is perfectly true that in certain conditions it might be. It depends entirely on how it is administered. It might be administered in such a way as to be very cruel torture. When properly administered, as it is in the vast majority of cases—I doubt if there are any exceptions I do not think that it is torture; but I am looking into the matter and I am communicating not merely with the Commander-in-Chief, but with other parties, to find out what the discipline is in similar cases in the French and Italian Armies, and it will be some time before they can reply. I can assure my hon. Friend that I am taking a personal interest in the matter, because I quite realise that you must have some method of discipline in the Army, because an army becomes a mere mob unless you have discipline, and the best method of maintaining discipline-is a question that if well worthy of attention.
    Captain DOUGLAS HALL: Is it not a fact that the chief punishment is the ridicule, the justifiable ridicule, of the other men?
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that a degrading punishment loses its-usefulness?
    Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Would not the best way of maintaining discipline be for the military authorities to provide a proper detention camp where the men can be kept?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am afraid that in many cases that would be an encouragement rather than a deterrent. There are other methods in the French Army which are well worth examination as to whether they are not more effective. They are worth looking into, and that is what I am doing at the present moment.

    JUDGE ADVOCATE-GENERAL.
    Major HUNTasked whether German spies captured at the Front and prisoners in this country who grossly misconduct themselves are tried by courts-martial; and, if so, are the sentences of courts-martial subject to revision by the Judge Advocate-General; and is there a branch of the War Office which investigates alien connections and sympathies; and, if so, was this branch consulted before the recent appointment of Judge Advocate-General was made?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. and gallant Member must by now, I think, regret that he ever put this question on the Paper. It is a question which cannot in any sense make for the public interest or contribute anything towards the proper prosecution of the War—an object which he presumably has at heart. Indeed, it serves no useful purpose whatever that I have been able to discover.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Gentleman was for many months in the trenches?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes; he volunteered although he was above military age. He was in a position of great danger for months. He did not voluntarily come back, but was sent for to do this work. He did it voluntarily for months, and he was engaged in that task at the request of Lord Kitchener. When I came to the War Office, seeing that he had been doing this work for the whole of this time, I thought, when there was this vacancy, it was the proper thing to do.

    INCOME TAX (ARMY PENSIONERS).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked if discharged soldiers in receipt of temporary pensions
    146
    are subject to Income Tax at the unearned income rate upon the amount of the pension; and, if not, why have the Commissioners of Taxes at Poole sent notices of assessment of Income Tax amounting to £2 15s. 6d. upon a pension of a shilling a day to H. J. Davis, of Poole, and a similar notice to F. Invett of an assessment of £3 4s. 1d. upon a pension of £28 10s. for the loss of an arm?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. No, Sir. Temporary pensions of discharged soldiers are not subject to Income Tax at the unearned income rate. The reduced rates of Income Tax for earned income are applicable to these pensions. I am having inquiry made into the cases referred to, and will communicate the result to my hon. Friend as soon as I am in a position to do so.

    MR. BERTRAND RUSSELL.
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Mr. Bertrand Russell has now delivered the full course of lectures in Manchester which he was prohibited from delivering in Glasgow and other places owing to the Order of the Army Council; and whether he will now consider the Order made against Mr. Russell?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not aware, nor is it the fact, that Mr. Bertrand Russell was ever prohibited from delivering in Glasgow a course of lectures which he has now delivered in Manchester. As I explained on the 18th of October, an. Order issued on the 31st August, not by the Council, but by the competent military-authority, prohibited Mr. Russell from entering any probitited area. It is not possible to base on this fact any argument for the reconsideration of an Order-that was not made to prevent Mr. Russell lecturing on philosophy.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: I beg to give notice that I will raise this question on the Adjournment.

    MESOPOTAMIA (MILITARY DISTINCTIONS).
    Mr. BUTCHERasked whether the-recommendations for military distinctions-made by the brigadier-generals and divisional generals serving in Mesopotamia

    147
    under Lieutenant-General Aylmer and subsequently under Lieutenant-General Gorringe were duly received by the Indian Government, and were forwarded to the military authorities in London; and whether steps will be taken to give effect to these recommendations?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The recommendations made by Lieutenant-General Aylmer and Lieutenant-General Gorringe have been received, but it does not follow that all recommendations made by divisional generals and brigadiers are included, as the General Officer Commanding only sends forward such names as he thinks deserving of consideration. With this reservation, the answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

    ROYAL ARMY CLOTHING FACTORY, PIMLICO.
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether at the Olympia depot of the Royal Army Clothing Factory, Pimlico, goods coming inward and going outward are still being conveyed by carts and motors from stations four or five miles distant, or is use now being made of the railway and railway sidings which abut on the building?
    Mr. FORSTER: The investigation of this question is not yet completed, but, as I informed my hon. Friend a week ago, I hope a decision may be reached very shortly.

  FOOD SUPPLY.

    POTATOES.
    Mr. LUNDONasked whether any potatoes were purchased in Ireland since 1st October on behalf of the War Departments of Great Britain, and, if so, how much; and what price was allowed to the agents who carried through the purchase?
    Mr. FORSTER: Three thousand nine hundred tons of potatoes have been purchased by the War Department in Ireland since 1st October. The merchants add 14s. per ton to the declared price paid to the producer to cover the cost of collecting, storing, sorting, bagging, and other expenses and to allow a margin for profit.
    Mr. LUNDON: Are the War Office at this moment, through their agents, purchasing potatoes in Ireland?
    Mr. FORSTER: In view of the shortage we are not purchasing any more potatoes than we can help, and we quite understand the difficulties of the position.

    SUGAR.
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to a printed statement issued by the Maypole Dairy Company as to the conditions on which small purchases of sugar can be made and as to trade with Holland; whether any Government supervision is exercised over the publication of statements of this kind; and, if so, whether the Censor or other proper authority saw this print before its issue and authorised the same?
    Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as regards the second part, there is, as my hon. Friend is aware, a Government censorship over statements which it is proposed to publish in the Press, and the publication in the Press of the circular in question was forbidden.
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether in the limitation of the supply of sugar to the public, and to certain industries requiring sugar to carry on production, consideration has been given to the industry of rhubarb growing; and whether, having regard to the fact that such an industry is mainly carried on by growers with small capital, arrangements will be made to allow the public to purchase an extra amount of sugar where it can be shown that such is required for the treatment of grown rhubarb?
    Mr. McKENNA: No special consideration has been asked for, or has been given, to the industry of rhubarb growing. But rhubarb would be entitled to the special treatment that is being accorded to homegrown fruit, where its preservation is carried out as a commercial industry.

    HOME-GROWN FOOD (ORGANISATION).
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture when the Government williay before this House details of a well-considered scheme for so organising our home-grown food supply that the largest possible quantities may be available for consumption at the earliest possible date?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): Questions are being now considered, particularly with regard to labour, between the Government Departments concerned in order to supplement and improve the various schemes now in operation, but I cannot say when it will be possible to make a statement.

    LAND CULTIVATION.
    Commander WEDGWOODasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Food Dictator has the power to take land that is not being used for the period of the War and six months thereafter to let to such approved persons as will cultivate it for the production of vegetables; and, if not, whether he will take steps to give him such powers?
    Mr. LUNDONasked whether the Food Controller will have any power to direct the cultivation of land with a view to the production of Home feeding-stuffs?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. Prety-man): I am not in a position at present to forecast what powers will be necessary to confer upon the Food Controller in the direction indicated by the questions.
    Sir E. CARSON: Can the hon. Gentleman say when we will have an announcement as to what are the powers of the Controller?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am unable to answer that question.

    CREAM.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he proposes to curtail the use of cream as a luxury in order to increase the production of butter and cheese?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The point raised by the hon. Member will not be overlooked.

    FOOD CONTROLLER.
    Captain C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the name of the Food Controller; and whether the latter will in any way control the home-production of food, as well as its use, distribution, and sale?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am unable to make an announcement to-day, but I may say that the powers that will be exercised by the Food Controller will certainly be wide.
    150
    The existing powers are being actively exercised in the meantime by the Board of Trade and Board of Agriculture.
    Captain BATHURST: Does the word "wide" include the production of food?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I have already said that I cannot make a definite announcement on that point at present.
    Mr. WARDLE: May I ask when this appointment is going to be made?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: It does not rest with me.
    Mr. WATT: Will the hon. Gentleman say how many applications he has had for this post, and will he put a box in the Lobby?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I can answer that question. I have not received any.

    WINTER CROPS (IRELAND).
    Mr. F. MEEHANasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he is aware that, owing to the wet autumn, it was impossible for farmers to get in any winter crops; whether he will state what steps the Department purposed taking to encourage more tillage; and whether they will consider the advisability of supplying seeds to small farmers or granting bonuses?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): The Department of Agriculture in Ireland are aware that the sowing of wheat has been delayed by the wet season. A considerable area has, however, already been sown, and sowing is still proceeding. Catch crops were got in while the weather was favourable. The staff of instructors employed under the Department's agricultural schemes throughout the country are making special efforts to promote the increase of tillage by means of lectures, visits to farms, and Press notices. Suitable leaflets have been issued in large numbers by the Department, and advice is furnished to all inquirers. The question of general seed distribution is a measure for the relief of distress, and would come under the purview of the Local Government Board and not of the Department, who have no funds applicable to the purpose; nor have the Department funds for the granting of bonuses to farmers for increased tillage, a course which in any event the Department do not consider desirable.
    Mr. SCANLAN: May I ask whether the various Departments having charge of land in Ireland, such as the Estates Commissioners, the Congested Districts Board and the Local Government Board, are at the present time applying themselves to the question of whether more land can be brought under tillage in Ireland? I believe all those Departments are doing that. [An HON. MEMBER: "Are they working together?"]

    HORSES (ARMY PURCHASES).
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office how many horses have been purchased in Canada and the United States for war purposes, and the average cost per head of same when landed in Great Britain; what number of horses have been purchased in Ireland, and the average cost per head when landed in Great Britain; are purchases still being conducted overseas; whether there has been any slackening off in the purchase of horses for Army use in Ireland; and will he say from past experiences whether Irish horses are better able to stand the wear and tear of war work than foreign-bred animals?
    Mr. FORSTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Canterbury on 31st July. Though I cannot afford him detailed information, I am happy to be able to assure him that the Irish horse, as was only to be expected, still continues to retain its well-known reputation, and there is no slackening off in the purchases made in Ireland.

    PAPER.
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the wish of the Government that Stock Exchange speculation should meantime be curtailed and of the desirability of economy in the use of paper, any steps can be taken to curtail the issue of more or less useless advertisements, and in particular of the circulais of bucket shops?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am obliged to the hon. Member for calling attention to this matter. I fear it would not "be practicable to take steps of the kind indicated in the question. I would, however, point out that, under the Temporary Regulations for the reopening of the Stock
    152
    Exchange, time bargains and dealings in options are prohibited; and the Treasury have recently again drawn public attention to the importance of observing the spirit of these Regulations in all transactions in stocks and shares, whether carried out through the Stock Exchange or through outside channels.

    EXCESS PROFITS TAX.
    Mr. COWANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a home timber-grower trading in his products, either by himself or in partnership with a merchant is liable to assessment to Excess Profits Tax?
    Mr. McKENNA: If I understand my hon. Friend's question aright, the trader would be within the scope of the duty, but without further information I could give no definite indication of its exact application to his profits.
    Mr. THOMASasked what amount has been received up to date from cooperative societies by way of Excess Profits Tax?
    Mr. McKENNA: No information is available as to the incidence of this tax in the case of the various classes of taxpayer; and, in view of the labour involved in the preparation of detailed statistics not required for revenue purposes, I am unable under present conditions to promise that there will be such a classification as my hon. Friend appears to have in mind.

    UNITED STATES LOAN.
    Major HUNTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will say why, in view of the fact that Sir Ernest Cassel was born in Germany of German parent age, and has received the Order of the Crown of Prussia and the Order of the Red Eagle of Prussia, and has a controlling interest in the National Bank of Turkey, of which Sir Henry Babington Smith, one of the Commissioners, sent out to America to negotiate the Loan, is the president, he was allowed to accompany the Commission with the approval of His Majesty's Government; and why he was allowed to subscribe £1,000,000 to the loan in spite of the fact that an official announcement deprecating investments in this Loan by British subjects was issued) by the Treasury?
    Mr. McKENNA: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on the 8th November; and as regards the second, to the replies I gave to the late Member for the Mansfield Division on the 16th November and 1st December, 1915. The hon. Member will see that Sir Arthur Markham took the opportunity on the occasion of his second question of stating that he had unwittingly done Sir Ernest Cassel an injustice.
    Major HUNT: Is it not the fact that there was an official announcement that British subjects were not to subscribe to this Loan?
    Mr. McKENNA: That they were not to subscribe to this Loan with funds in this country. I do not remember that they were discouraged from subscribing with funds which they held in America.
    Major HUNT: Was not this depletion in Sir Ernest Cassel's holdings made good by advances from his British holdings?
    Mr. McKENNA: No; I understand it was not. It was because Sir Arthur Markham was satisfied on the point that he stated that he had unwittingly done Sir Ernest Cassel injustice on the point.
    Major HUNTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the suggestion that Sir Ernest Cassel should accompany the Commission came from himself or from any member of the Government?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am unable to say at this distance of time from whom the suggestion came.

    ENEMY BANKS AND BUSINESSES.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state what reason, if any, exists for not paying British creditors of the head offices and of branches outside this country of the Deutsche Bank and other enemy banks either out of the assets of the English branches of those banks, respectively, or out of the assets in this country belonging to the head offices or to the branches out side this country of those banks, respectively?
    Mr. MCKENNA: The question of the position of the creditors of the head office of the Deutsche Bank and its branches other than the London agency was carefully considered in connection with the
    154
    original closing of the London agency on the outbreak of war, and it was decided that no difference could be made between those creditors and the creditors of any other enemy institution in an enemy country. Perhaps I may add that if the hon. Gentleman desires it I can give him a long statement on the subject which it is impossible to explain in the course of an answer to a question.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider the question whether the customers in the English branches should not claim to be paid in priority to the British creditors at the head office?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am very unwilling to answer a question on an isolated point in this very complicated subject, but I will be very glad to give the statement to the hon. Gentleman covering the whole subject.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked if there are assets in this country belonging to the head offices or to branches, outside this country, of the Deutsche Bank and other enemy banks, either in the hands of the Public Trustee or of the English branches of these enemy banks; and if he can state the approximate amounts of such assets?
    Mr. McKENNA: There are, no doubt, a considerable number of securities in this country belonging to the head offices or to branch offices outside this country of the Deutsche Bank and other enemy banks. Notice of the possession of these securities has been given to the Public Trustee in cases where he is not already in possession of them. It is, however, difficult to give any figure which would be even an approximate value of these securities in present circumstances; and no figure could give any information as to the value or bulk of the securities which would be of any use as a guide to creditors in this country of the head offices or foreign branches of the banks, inasmuch as it is impossible to ascertain whether the securities actually belong to the head office or branch or belong, as in most instances would be the case, to customers of the head office or branch.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Will those securities be vested in the Public Trustee?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes; all enemy securities will be vested in the Public Trustee. I admit I would prefer to have notice of any question.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that, notwithstanding the Government's repeated statement that the enemy banks are kept open solely for the purpose of liquidating outstanding engagements in this country, they have transacted and are still transacting new business in remitting money both to and from enemy countries for the use of prisoners of war and parties interned; what is the total turnover of such business transacted by the enemy banks in this country since the outbreak of war; and whether, seeing that such business is done at a profit, he will direct that all operations of this nature should in future be done either through British banks through neutral countries or by the neutral banks having branches in this country?
    Mr. McKENNA: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The work of getting money from Germany to this country for German prisoners of war and interned Germans in this country and of distributing the money to the commandants of camps has, up till lately, been transacted under special authority through the Deutsche Bank. The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in inferring that this work has been done at a profit; it has been done at a considerable loss to the German bank. Immediately the work of collecting the assets and paying the non-enemy debts of the Deutsche Bank was completed, arrangements were set on foot for transferring the work to a committee and the account to a British bank—it is hoped, the Bank of England.
    Colonel IVOR PHILIPPSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will say what steps, if any, have been taken to establish a clearing house in this country where British companies, firms, and individuals, being creditors of enemy firms and individuals, can receive payment of their debts from the moneys belonging to enemy firms now in the hands of the Pubic Trustee irrespective of whether the particular enemy debtor firm has assets in this country; and, if no such steps have yet been taken, whether he proposes to take any steps to form such clearing house or whether the Treasury take up the attitude that they cannot be burdened with the realisation and distribution of enemy
    156
    assets amongst British creditors or that the only remedy for such British creditors is to sue in Germany after the War?
    Mr. McKENNA: The suggestion made in the question has frequently been considered, but the establishment of such a clearing house has been found to be impracticable while the War continues. Unless it is proposed to confiscate the property of individual enemies in this country for the benefit of creditors of other enemies—a step which would undoubtedly lead to reprisals and to the further complication of the situation—any scheme of the character proposed would require the consent of the parties, and probably also the assistance of the enemy Governments; it would also he-cessitate a considerable amount of intercommunication between commercial interests in this country and in enemy countries, which would obviously be undesirable under existing conditions. So far, however, from its being the policy of the Treasury that the only remedy for British creditors of German firms should be to sue in Gemany after the War, the main object of the public control of German assets in this country is to secure that proper treatment may be obtained for all claims, both public and private, against enemy Governments and persons.
    Colonel IVOR PHILIPPSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether a list of British creditors of enemy firms has been compiled, together with the amounts due to such creditors; to what does the total of such enemy debts amount; and (2) if he can state the total approximate value of enemy assets now vested in the Public Trustee?
    Mr. McKENNA: All debts returned by British creditors of enemy firms under the Proclamation of the 7th September, 1916, are being recorded by the custodian. The returns at present number some 17,500, amounting to £79,000,000. Returns are still daily being received. The approximate value of enemy assets now vested in the Public Trustee is £10,000,000.
    Major HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the contradictory principles adopted by the different Government Departments, and particularly the Colonial Office and the Board of Trade, in regard to the carrying given to the controllers of enemy businesses, and for the purpose of relieving the Government Departments of this

    157
    pressing public question, he will take steps to set up a special tribunal principally composed of representative business men unconnected with official Departments to deal with all questions relating to enemy property and enemy businesses in British hands and British property and interests in the hands of our enemies, with power to that tribunal to hear and deal with all claims by British subjects against enemies?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir; I see no necessity to adopt this suggestion.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the President of the Board of Trade, if the instructions given to the controllers of enemy businesses are to the effect that the company as well as the trade must come to a speedy end; and whether he will consider the fixing in each case of a time limit or guillotine beyond which the controller's services will not be required?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I have already laid upon the Table of the House and am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the memorandum of instructions sent to controllers for their guidance, and designed to ensure all possible dispatch in completing the winding-up of the business concerned. It would in my opinion be impracticable to fix a time limit in each case beyond which the controller's services would not be required.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the expediency of appointing an inspector?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The inspector is appointed first and the controller after-wards.

    SCHOOL TEACHERS (SCOTLAND).
    Sir GEORGE YOUNGERasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the petitions which have been addressed to the school boards throughout Scotland by the teachers for a war bonus to supplement their salaries which, owing to the rise in prices during the War, are inadequate to maintain them in a condition to perform their duties satisfactorily; whether any of the school boards have communicated with him on the subject, and have stated their willingness to make better provision if the Treasury will share the cost; and whether he has yet been able to make any arrangement with the Treasury on the subject?
    Mr. EUGENE WASONhad given notice of a Question (No. 55) in precisely similar teems.
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Tennant): The reply to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the last part, I am at present in communication with the Treasury.
    Mr. SCANLAN: May I ask whether, in considering this question of representations on behalf of the school board teachers, he will also take into consideration the question of the salaries of teachers in the denominational schools in Scotland?
    Mr. TENNANT: I could not separate the two.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Have any war bonuses been granted by any of the school boards?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not think so, but. I should like notice.
    Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the position taken up by the Treasury in this matter and when he expects a final answer from them?
    Mr. TENNANT: I cannot obviously give an answer to that question, but if the hon. Gentleman repeats it in a day or two-perhaps I will be able to do so.

    DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. SUTHERLANDasked the Secretary for Scotland if he can state what facilities now exist in Scotland for the training of discharged soldiers for-forestry work; and whether any steps are being taken to develop or increase these facilities?
    Mr. TENNANT: A start has been made in the development of such facilities at Craibstone, in Aberdeenshire, and it is-proposed to utilise the Borgie estate, in. Sutherlandshire, in the same direction. Similar proposals have been under discussion elsewhere in Scotland, and the matter is engaging constant attention.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can my right hon. Friend say now whether he is able to give us the Report he promised?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have dealt with that matter.
    Mr. HOGGE: Has it been published as a White Paper; it has never reached any of the Scottish Members.
    Mr. TENNANT: My hon. Friend should inquire at the Vote Office for it.
    Mr. HOGGE: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say he would send it to us?
    Mr. MORTON: I inquired in the Vote Office for it, and could not get it.
    Mr. TENNANT: I would like to clear this matter up. I presented the Report, I suppose ten days ago. If there is any fault, it rests with the printers, not me.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that copies of the Report are sent to the Scottish Members?
    Mr. TENNANT: No; I think hon. Members ought to get it in the usual way.
    Mr. MORTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no Order has been made by this House that this Report should be printed? A copy—I give this information to the right hon. Gentleman—can be seen in the. Library.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Has the right hon. Gentleman, in fact, given instructions to print it?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, I have—ten days ago.
    Mr. HOGGE: Have you a copy yourself?
    Mr. SUTHERLANDasked the Secretary for Scotland what arrangements have been made for the training and employment of discharged soldiers in Scotland, and under whose control these arrangements will be?
    Mr. TENNANT: No single authority is in control of the arrangements referred to. As my hon. Friend is aware, various Departments and organisations, including the Statutory Committee, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and the Employment Exchanges, are concerned in this work, according to the circumstances of discharge and the varying requirements of the case.

    GERMAN PRISONERS (AFFORESTATION WORK).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether any arrangements are being made for the employment of German prisoners on affores-tation work in Scotland?
    Mr. TENNANT: German prisoners have been employed in cutting timber. No arrangements for afforestation have as yet been concluded, but I am in communication with the War Office on this matter.
    Mr. SCOTT: Are there any German prisoners in Scotland?
    Mr. SCOTTasked the Secretary for Scotland what is the total area of woodland in Scotland on which the timber has been cut since the outbreak of war or which has been scheduled for cutting?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not at present in a position to give this information; but a Return has been called for.
    Mr. WATT: Has any application been made by the right hon. Gentleman to the Treasury for a Grant to replant timber in the place of that which has been cut down?

    CEYLON (RIOTING).
    Mr. LEIF JONESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Mr. P. H. A. Silva, of Ceylon, was arrested after the rioting at Rambukkana in May, 1915, and imprisoned at Kandy, without trial, for nearly three months; whether he is aware that Mr. Silva was not at Rambukkana while there was rioting, but was during the whole time staying with a friend at Galle; whether he is aware that, after his release, Mr. Silva was rearrested and deported to Trincomalee, where he still is; and whether the Government will now either bring him to trial, or withdraw the Order of deportation and compensate him for the loss and suffering to which he has been subjected?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have received no official report on this case. As I have already stated, the Governor of Ceylon is prepared to investigate any grievances arising out of the suppression of the riots which may be brought to his notice; and the proper course for the complainant is to address himself to the Governor in the first instance.
    Mr. JONES: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Governor is really making any progress in the investigation of the cases arising out of the riots?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I know he is making progress, but I have not yet received any report

    GERMAN EAST AFRICA (SLAVERY).
    Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, prior to the outbreak of war, it was officially stated in the German Reichstag that the slaves in East Africa numbered 185,000; and whether he will consider the advisability of issuing a proclamation on behalf of His Majesty's Government that slave-holding and slave-trading will not be tolerated under the British flag and that all slaves appealing for freedom will be granted their manumission by the British authorities, and that the severest penalties will be attached to all acts of slave-holding and slave-trading in those parts of German East Africa under effective British administration?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I had not previously heard of the statement referred to. I will ascertain from the Administrator of the occupied districts, as soon as he arrives, what the facts are, and my hon. Friend may rest assured that I will issue any instructions which may be necessary.

    POSTAL SERVICE (LEARNERS' PAY).
    Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to the low rates of pay received by learners in the Post Office who are performing, largely as a result of war conditions, full-time adult duties; and whether this question will be or has been referred to the Civil Service Arbitration Board recently appointed?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Joseph Pease): I have had this matter under consideration for some time, and I hope I may shortly be able to convey to the hon. Member my decision.

  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

    FRONGOCH CAMP.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if any orders have yet been issued to transfer the commandant at Frongoch; if he has applied to be sent to France; will he say on whose recommendation Colonel Lambert retains the post of commandant at
    162
    Frongoch camp, and what are his qualifications; and whether he proposes to remove the commandant or the unarmed Irish prisoners before any further trouble arises?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As to the second, I have no information. Colonel Lambert was appointed commandant by the War Office, who considered him a suitable officer for the post. The answer to the last part is in the negative
    Mr. BYRNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man's conduct is likely to provoke a riot in the camp: is he aware that he has stated to the prisoners that he would have discipline even if there were dead bodies?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member ought to put a question of that kind on the Paper.
    Mr. DILLON: I wish to ask the Home Secretary the question which I handed to him yesterday, and which I think, perhaps, he will be able to answer to-day, namely, whether his attention has been called to the refusal of the Governor of Frongoch Camp to allow reporters to be present at the court-martial held on Irish prisoners on Saturday, and whether the Governor stated that this refusal was based on express instructions received from the Home Office, and whether that statement was well founded, and whether the court-martial was obliged to adjourn its proceedings to a locality outside the precincts of the camp in order to comply with the law regarding that it should be an open Court, and whether he will give immediate directions to the Governor to allow the court-martial to sit as an open Court in the precincts of the camp?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have ascertained that it had been arranged for the Court to be held inside the camp. The Regulations forbid the admission of newspaper reporters to internment camps. The President of the Court desired that reporters should be present at the hearing, and the Commandant of the camp telegraphed to the Home Office for instructions. In reply a message was sent by telephone, not that reporters should be excluded, as the hon. Member has been informed, but, on the contrary, that they should be admitted. Meanwhile, the Com-

    163
    mandant had already arranged for the Court to sit in a room outside the camp, and the reporters were present.

    INTERNED LADY. PRISONERS.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Home Secretary if any orders are yet issued for the release of Miss Helen Moloney and Miss Carney, the only two remaining Irish lady prisoners in internment; why they are being detained; and when they are likely to be released?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers which I gave him to questions about these two ladies on the 22nd and 26th June last, 6th, 12th, 17th, 20th, 24th, and 31st July, 7th, 15th, and 22nd August, 12th October, and the 9th, 16th, and 21st of the present month.
    Mr. BYRNE: Are the circumstances, in the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, the same to-day as then? Have no other circumstances arisen?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir; the circumstances are the same.

    AIR BOARD.
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the Prime Minister if he can now fix a day for the discussion of the powers of the Air Board?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope to take this discussion on Tuesday.
    Mr. BILLING: Shall we have access to Lord Curzon's Report, or any part of it, before the Debate takes place?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Certainly not! A report circulated to members of the Cabinet is not intended to be for circulation to anyone else.

    BARONESS DEICHMANN.
    Sir H. CRAIKasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of Baroness Deichmann, with whose business position the Board of Trade is unable to interfere owing to the fact of her being the widow of a naturalised German, but who is now carrying on a banking business in London, although she is closely in touch with enemy aliens and has a son in the German army and two daughters married to German military
    164
    officers; and whether, in view of the danger which is thus involved, he is prepared to take any steps in regard to this person under the Defence of the Realm Act?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The case of this lady, who was a British subject by birth, is well-known to the proper authorities, who-have no reason to think that any danger is involved.

    JUDGE ADVOCATE-GENERAL.
    Major HUNTasked whether Mr. Felix Cassel, who has Lately been appointed Judge Advocate-General, was born in Germany of German parentage?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The answer is in the affirmative. Mr. Cassel was naturalised in 1892, having been brought to this country in early childhood and educated in England.
    Major HUNT: Will the Government see that in future such appointments are given to men who are British born of British parents?
    Mr. SAMUEL: That question should be addressed to the Department connected with the appointment.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM.

    PROSECUTION OF MR. ARNOLD LUPTON.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that on the 2nd March, 1915, the Attorney-General, speaking on behalf of the Government in a Debate on the Defence of the Realm Amendment Bill, gave the Committee of the House a definite assurance that the Government would not prosecute persons for statements of opinion, however foolish, but only for prejudicial and in jurious misstatements of fact; that, on the 7th November, 1916. the Public Prosecutor obtained the conviction of Mr. Arnold Lupton under the Defence of the Realm Act for publishing and circulating a pamphlet headed "What are we fighting for?" notwithstanding that no misstatement of fact was charged or alleged; that the prosecuting counsel's speech was merely critical of phraseology; and that no evidence was called to show that the pamphlet in any way contravened the Defence of the Realm Act or the Regulations; will he say if the defendant has

    165
    given notice of appeal; and, if so, whether, having regard to the assurance given for and on behalf of the Government, the Government will withdraw from the prosecution and ask the Appeal Court to allow the appeal?
    Mr. SAMUEL: As an appeal by Mr. Lupton is pending I can make no statement with regard to it, but I may say that I cannot accept either the hon. Member's version of the late Attorney-General's speech or his description of the pamphlet which was the subject of the prosecution.

    SUNDAY TRADING.
    Mr. MORRELLasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the increase that has recently occurred in Sunday trading; and if, in view of the present shortage of labour, he will take steps to check it?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the question on this subject asked by the hon. Member for Western Carmarthenshire on the 8th instant.

    INTERNED CIVILIANS.
    Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Treasurer of the Household, seeing that long internment is having a serious effect on the mental condition of civilian prisoners of war in enemy concentration camps and that their fighting value must now be slight, whether arrangements will be made for the free and unconditional exchange of all civilian prisoners, seeing that the possible disadvantage would be balanced by the fact that some thousands of Germans would leave this country probably never to return?
    Mr. HOPE: The mental and physical effects of long internment have been fully recognised in our negotiations for the ex change of civilian prisoners over forty-five years of age, and also in the further negotiations which are pending with regard to certain classes of invalid prisoners under forty-five years of age. The proposal to effect a general exchange of all civilian prisoners, however, would, on account of the respective numbers involved, result in a military disadvantage to this country so great as to forbid its adoption.

    MINIMAX CONSOLIDATED, LIMITED.
    Mr. COWANasked the President or the Board of Trade whether the Board of Trade have found that the War Emergency Enactments did not give him sufficient powers to order the winding-up of Minimax Consolidated, Limited, a concern enemy-owned, controlled and managed from Berlin; whether he could indicate in what direction the Board's powers were insufficient; whether the company in fact is now being voluntarily wound up; and whether any strengthening of the existing enactments is contemplated?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: No order has been made; to wind up the business of Minimax Consolidated, Limited, under the Trading With the Enemy Acts, because the investigation into the company's affairs showed that no business was carried on in this country, the company's operations having been conducted entirely in Germany. The only assets in this country consisted of the equity of redemption of certain shares in Minimax, Limited, which were pledged to secure debts, and in these circumstances no objection was raised to the company being placed in voluntary liquidation.
    Mr. COWANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a Minimax concern in Berlin is announcing in neutral countries that certain assets of Minimax Consolidated, comprising an interest in the German manufacturing Minimax concern and in Minimax, Limited, of London, had been transferred to the satisfaction of the Berlin Courts to a certain W. Graaff, of Berlin, in November, 1914; and whether he could state the extent of the interest of Minimax Consolidated, Limited, in Minimax, Limited, and the extent of any other direct or indirect interests of enemy subjects in Minimax, Limited, including enemy interests, if any, held in trust by shareholders or others, or held for the time being by the Public Trustee?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am not aware of any announcement that Minimax Consolidated had transferred an interest in Minimax, Limited, to W. Graaff, of Berlin, and no such transfer has been made. I have seen a judgment of a Berlin Court in which it was stated that Minimax Consolidated had transferred its interest in two undertakings in Germany to W. Graaff. If these transactions have

    167
    taken place they have been carried out in Germany and I have no reason to believe that anyone in this country was in any way concerned. Minimax Consolidated holds no shares in Minimax, Limited, but is at present entitled to the eqiuty of redemption in 15,009 shares pledged to secure loans which will be sold by the Receiver appointed by the Court. Twelve thousand additional shares are held by enemies and will be sold by the Public Trustee.

    COAL PRICES.
    Mr. HASLAMasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take means by which the prices charged for coal at the pits will be fixed by the Government both with regard to coal for export and for home consumption; and will he consider the desirability of fixing such prices as will settle the questions of exorbitant profits and fair wages in the South Wales coal districts?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The prices at the pits of coal for inland consumption are limited by the Price of Coal (Limitation) Act, and those of coal f.o.b. for France and Italy by agreement. I do not think a limitation of prices for other coal would in itself achieve the object that my hon. Friend has in view.
    Mr. HASLAM: Might I ask whether Government prices might be fixed and arrangements made so that any increase on the market price could be paid to the Exchequer?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better hand in his question.
    Mr. F. MEEHANasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether, having regard to the war prices now being paid for coal and fuel and the danger of a fuel famine, he would consider the advisability of having expert advice on the capabilities of the Irish mines, especially those of Arigna and Glenfarne, county Letrim, where there are large supplies, with a view of developing them for home and export trade?
    Mr. DUKE: The Department of Agriculture in Ireland already possess a large amount of expert information regarding the coal resources of Ireland, especially in regard to the Arigna district, and they will be glad to answer any specific inquiries on the subject which may be addressed to them by persons interested.

    RAILWAY PASSENGERS' LUGGAGE.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the quantities of personal luggage it is the practice of some people to take with them on railway journeys; whether he is aware that with the present depleted station staffs the handling of this luggage results in delaying trains; and whether he will advise the Railway Executive on the necessity for imposing some restriction on the quantity of luggage per passenger in order to facilitate traffic?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: This question has already received the attention of the Railway Executive Committee, and I am considering certain proposals on the subject.

    BRITISH PETROLEUM COMPANY.
    Mr. LUNDONasked whether, seeing that charges and attacks have been made, both in the House of Commons and outside it, during the past year and a-half, against the British Petroleum Company, on the pretext that portion of its shares are held by aliens, he will take care in dealing with such charges that of those who make them, as well as the newspapers which lend their columns for such objects, are not actuated by a desire to promote the interests of other petroleum companies; and, in sifting and inquiring into such charges, will he see that private and financial interests be not allowed to interfere with those to whom the task is entrusted?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the public interest is being and will be alone considered in dealing with the British Petroleum Company, Limited.
    Mr. SCANLAN: May I ask whether it is a fact that at present this company is under the control of a Public Trustee?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Yes, Sir; the whole of the estates of the British Petroleum Company are vested in a Public Trustee, and are being managed by gentlemen specially appointed by the Board of Trade to see that the whole operations of the company are conducted in the public interest.

    WOOLLEN TRADE OPERATIVES (WAR BONUS).
    Col. Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BEIMTINCKasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the facts that Sir George Askwith, in his recent award to the woollen trade operatives, gave an equal war bonus to males and females earning less than 20s. a week, and that the Board of Trade arbitrator awarded the women tramway conductors of Leeds the same war bonus as the men after twelve months' service; and, in view of the fact that the principle of an equal war bonus is thus established for the industrial workers, whether he will now raise the war bonus of the female Civil servants in Great Britain, particularly as he has already given the women teachers in Ireland a bonus similar to that given to the men?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: My attention has not previously been drawn to the facts stated in the first part of the question, but I do not think an analogy can properly be drawn from them with the case of female employés in the Civil Service, whose standard of remuneration, both as regards initial pay and subsequent increases, and conditions of service generally, compare, I believe, favourably with the prevailing rates for similar work elsewhere. The payment of the full war bonus to women teachers in Ireland was agreed to on representations from the Irish Government that their low rates of pay made their position entirely different from that of women Civil servants.
    Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Does not the same sort of thing hold good in the case of a very large class of female Civil servants in England?

    TRADE UNION CONFERENCE (BELFAST).
    Mr. DEVLINasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the conference held in the Central Hall, Belfast, on the 11th instant, and which included representatives of trades unions, labour organisations, friendly societies, and other bodies interested in the food question, and to the statements made on that occasion by various speakers; whether he is aware that, in consequence of the advance in food prices
    170
    and of the low wages earned by thousands of male, and especially female, breadwinners in Belfast, that city is threatened with actual starvation amongst sections of its workers and their families this winter; that, whilst employers are making unprecedented profits from the manufacture and sale of war material, the condition of many of the workers is described as a disgrace to civilisation and a clanger to the community; that the sufferings of the female workers are aggravated and rendered all but hopeless by the fact that those of them who are called unskilled have little or no organisation amongst themselves, and are at the mercy of employers; that mothers had had actually to watch their children starving and were powerless to help them; and what action he proposes to take in this matter?
    Mr. DUKE: My attention has been called to the meeting to which the hon. Member refers. As the result of exhaustive inquiries I am glad to be able to assure the hon. Member that there is no foundation for the statement that sections of the workers of Belfast and their families are threatened with starvation. My information is that there is no unusual poverty in Belfast and that, generally speaking, the poor in that city are as well, if not better, off than they have been for many years. The percentage of pauperism is, I am told, the lowest in the United Kingdom. The prospect of the workers this winter are stated to be better than the normal.
    Mr. SCANLAN: In view of the authoritative character of the statements made in the question, will the right hon. Gentleman cause a special inquiry to be made by the Board of Trade into the circumstances and the facts set out in the question?
    Mr. DUKE: Misrepresentations are often given of an authoritative character, which impose upon people who are not on the spot to know the facts. As I stated in my answer, the conclusions I have laid before the House are the result of exhaustive questions, not merely from official sources, but personal inquiries amongst people very familiar with the conditions of Belfast.
    Mr. SCANLAN: What sources have provided the right hon. Gentleman with his information as to the condition of things in Belfast.
    Mr. DUKE: I have obtained my information from the various official sources at the

    171
    disposal of the Irish Government and from personal inquiries amongst gentlemen well acquainted with the conditions in Belfast.
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: May I ask whether these questions and similar ones are not put for political purposes to blacken the character of Belfast?
    Mr. WARDLE: Does "official sources" include the trade unions in Belfast?
    Mr. DUKE: I think part of the information which was before me was derived from inquiries among people connected with the trade unions in Belfast, but having regard to the question which has been put to me, I will take care to have a direct inquiry made from the trade unions, and if the hon. Member will put a question down it shall be answered.
    Mr. PATRICK MEEHAN: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that starvation in Belfast is normal?
    Mr. DUKE: I do not think anyons who knows the conditions of Belfast believes anything of the kind.

    AIRCKAFT RAIDS.
    Mr. GILBERT(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for War whether he could give the House any information as to the enemy aeroplane raid on London today; and whether it was an aeroplane disguised as a British one or a captured British aeroplane?
    Mr. FORSTER: Between 11.50 a.m. and twelve o'clock six bombs altogether were dropped on London by an enemy aeroplane flying at a great height just above the haze. Four persons were injured—one, a woman, seriously. The material damage was slight. I am afraid that I have no information with regard to the further points which my hon. Friend has put to me.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: May I ask the hon. Gentleman representing the Air Board if he has any information to give to the House as to the air raid last night?
    Major BAIRD(representing the Air Board): I have not received any notice of this question, but I think that I can answer it. I have no further information which can be given beyond that contained in the last of
    172
    the two communiques published in the papers. Two Zeppelins were certainly brought down.
    Mr. BILLING(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any further information with regard to the enemy air raid on London to-day?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question has been already answered.
    Mr. BILLING: On a point of Order. A raid took place at twelve o'clock, and at twenty minutes past I sent the right hon. Gentleman notice of this question.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It so happens that another hon. Member has sent precisely the same question, and it has been asked and answered.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    CAPITAL DEPRECIATION.
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, what capital depreciation, in addition to the approximate sum of 3,000,000 sterling as at 31st December, 1915, has taken place since that date in the funds of approved societies invested in public stocks; and whether the whole of this depreciation will be made good out of the revenue of approved societies?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS (Comptroller of the Household): The value of the securities at the current market price is approximately £25,500,000. As regards the second part of the question, any capital loss on realisation will be met out of the reserve referred to in my reply of 15th November.

    MEDICAL CERTIFICATES.
    Mr. O'GRADYasked whether, having regard to the scarcity of qualified doctors owing to the War, senior students in their final year will be allowed to sign medical insurance certificates on behalf of their principals?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am afraid that certificates of incapacity would be of little value-to approved societies if the responsibility for giving them were in any way divorced from the responsibility for diagnosis, and this latter responsibility is one which, as my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, a medical practitioner is professionally debarred from delegating to, or sharing with, an unqualified man.

    RESERVE VALUES (CENTRAL FUND).
    Mr. CURRIEasked the number and the monetary value of the reserve values credited to the Central Fund for those members of approved societies who have gone out of insurance up to 31st December, 1915, and up to the present time, showing separately, if possible, the respective amounts and number for each of the National Commissions and for the Joint Commission?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I regret that I am not in possession of the information desired by the hon. Member as to the amounts due to be credited to the Central Fund referred to in the question. This information could only be collected by obtaining statistical returns from approved societies which are not essential to the current work of administration and for which therefore the Commissioners have not thought it right to press in view of the serious difficulies which reduction of staff, consequent upon the War, has imposed upon societies.

    Metropolitan Police (Membership of Societies).
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Home Secretary whether membership of the Freemason Order comes within the same prohibition as membership of any other society as affecting the Metropolitan Police?
    Mr. SAMUEL: There is no special exception for the Order of Freemasons, but the prohibition does not apply to provident associations or to societies such as the Freemasons.
    Mr. BILLING: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take any action against any officers of the force who are members of the Freemasons' society?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir; certainly not.
    Mr. BILLINGasked whether four constables of the Metropolitan Police have been dismissed from the service for advocating the right of forming a union among the policemen; whether these men on joining took any oath not to join any society; and, if so, whether there is any thing in the instruction book given to these men whilst in the police preparatory class which forbids them joining a society?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The oath taken on joining the force contains a declaration that the constable will discharge the duties of
    174
    his office according to law. The instruction book lays down that a constable must readily and strictly obey the orders of his superiors in rank in the police. One of the orders of long standing and well known to the force has been that the members of it are not permitted to be also members of a union. My predecessors and myself have repeatedly stated that a disciplined force like the Metropolitan Police, in view of its special responsibilities for the peace and order of London, can no more be conducted on the basis of trade union recognition, such as prevails in ordinary industry, than could the Army or Navy. A special instruction with reference to this matter, which included a warning that any violation of it might result in dismissal, was brought to the notice of every member of the force in December, 1913, and since then every new recruit has had his attention specially drawn to it. The Commissioner recently found it necessary to dismiss four constables who had deliberately contravened the explicit orders which had been given on this subject, and while I greatly regret that the occasion should have arisen, I entirely endorse the action which he has taken.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the exact maximum number of police officers who may congregate together to discuss their grievances?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Perhaps the hon. Member will give notice of that.
    Mr. BILLING: I will.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Major Sir EDWARD COATESasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the additional amount of 2s. 6d. a week to be paid to old age pensioners under certain conditions is now being paid; and, if not, can he state the date when such payments will be made?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): As I stated in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bethnal Green, on the 23rd instant, in cases where additional allowances have already been granted payments are now being made. Over half a million pensioners have already applied for allowances, and some time must necessarily elapse before the pension authorities can

    175
    decide the whole of them. But this will not affect the date from which the allowances, where granted, will be payable.
    Major Sir E. COATES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware feat meanwhile the old age pensioner is almost starving?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that 500,000 applications must take a little time.
    Colonel Sir CHARLES SEELY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of giving the old age pensioners a definite allowance for two or three months of the winter, during which they are suffering special hardship, and during the time these numerous applications are being considered?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: May I ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what the business will be for to-morrow?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The business tomorrow will be the Government War Obligations Bill, Committee.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the business will be for Thursday, because it is very inconvenient to be only told a day in advance?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I quite admit the inconvenience. It is hoped to be able to take the Committee stage of the Pensions Bill.
  Mr. DILLON: How long does the right hon. Gentleman expect the business which he has mentioned for to-morrow will occupy the House, because it appears to me to becoming the practice to have business to occupy the House only for a couple of hours?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot tell.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, if the Pensions Bill is not taken, what other business will be taken?

REGISTRATION OF BUSINESS NAMES BILL [Lords.]
As amended, considered.
REGISTRATION OF BUSINESS NAMES BILL [Lords.]

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Misleading Business Names.)
  After Clause 13 (Removal of names from Register,) insert the following Clause:—

  (1) Where any business name contains the word "British" or any other word which, in the opinion of the Registrar, is calculated to lead to the belief that the business is under British ownership or control, and the Registrar is satisfied that the nationality of the persons by whom the business is owned or controlled is at any time such that the name is misleading the Registrar shall refuse to register such business name or, as the case may be, remove such business name from the Register, but any person aggrieved by a decision of the Registrar under this provision may appeal to the Board of Trade, whose decision shall be final.

  194

  (2) The registration of a business name under this Act shall not be construed as authorising the use of that name if apart from such registration the use thereof could be prohibited.—[Mr, Tretyman.]

  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Prety-man): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The House will remember that on the Committee Stage of this Bill the suggestion was made and was supported by several hon. Members that a Clause should be inserted to prevent the word "British" or any kindred word which was calculated to lead people to suppose that a firm or individuals trading in this country were of British nationality being assumed by a firm which was not really of British nationality. That, broadly, was the proposal that was made, and I undertook between then and now to consider the suggestion, and, if possible, to introduce a Clause to meet the obvious wish of the Committee. The Clause upon the Paper is designed to fulfil that object, and if hon. Gentlemen will read it they will find that it does fulfil it. There is this difficulty about the matter. If we were to apply the test which was suggested in Committee, and if the Board of Trade were to have the liability of deciding in different cases whether the word "British" or any kindred word could properly be allowed to be used, it would greatly impede the registration. There may be hundreds of thousands of firms to be registered. Under the Bill the process of registration consists in sending to the Registrar by the firm or individual who has to be registered certain particulars. Thereupon registration is automatically carried out by the Registrar merely by the insertion of those particulars in the registration files. The House will see that any one or every one of those hundreds of thousands of cases might have to be referred to the Board of Trade to know whether actually they had the right to the name which they proposed to register or not. That would involve complication and a great deal of delay.
  There are certain firms already in existence with a certain goodwill in their title, and the question whether this regulation was to apply to them or only to firms who came newly into existence after

  195
  the passing of the Act was another difficulty. There was a third point of very considerable importance indeed. No provision of this kind would be at all effective unless it dealt, not only with persons seeking to be registered but also with persons already registered, and in which case the ownership might change. A firm might very well be registered as British and be British, and the owners might afterwards part with the whole or some of their interest to those who are not British. Those are the three difficulties, and I think the House will see that they are really met by the Clause, which, instead of saying that no firm may be registered unless its title corresponds with its constitution, places upon the Registrar, and not upon the Board of Trade, the duty in the first instance of ascertaining whether the title of the firm is a proper one. When he receives particulars for registration if he has reason to believe that the title contains words calculated to deceive as to the nationality of the firm, he may refuse registration. It is part of his ordinary duty. But what is more important, and what I think covers all the points I have laid before the House is that the Registrar, after a firm has been registered, if at any time he has reason to believe that the title is calculated to deceive as to the nationality of the firm, may require the name to be changed. By that means we get over the principal difficulties and are able through the direct action of the Registrar to ensure that no firm will remain on the Register which assumes the title of "British" or any kindred word when either the ownership or control of the firm is not really British. That is the proposal of the Clause, and I hope that it will meet the wishes of hon. Members who suggested the change.
  Mr. LLOYD: Is the Registrar's decision final?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: We have left an appeal to the Board of Trade. The House will see that the Clause is mandatory. If in his opinion the name is calculated to deceive, he "shall." The effect of the Clause will be that if the name in his opinion is calculated to deceive, he must remove it, but if there is any dispute on the point then there will be reference to the Board of Trade, whose decision will be final.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I took some interest in this question on the previous
  196
  stage. Assuming that the Registrar, in the first instance, has been satisfied that the use of the word "British" is not improper, and supposing some outside person has good reason to think that it is-not a proper use of the word, can he apply to the Registrar to exercise the powers given him by this Clause to remove the business name from the Register, without necessarily going further and appealing to the higher authority? Is that quite clear?
  Mr. LOUGH: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has considered the difficulties likely to arise in the future in connection with the use of the word "British." A private individual might take the name without having any British place. The suggestion of the Clause is that its object is to prevent the use of the word "British" in order to mislead people into thinking it is under British ownership or control. I do not desire to throw any difficulties in the way of the hon. Gentleman. I believe he has endeavoured to meet the objections we have raised as far as possible. But this is a word which, perhaps, requires a little more careful consideration. There may be something deceptive about its use on occasion, and I shall, therefore, be very glad to have an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that the point has not been overlooked.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I think the Government are to be heartily congratulated on the proposal before the House. It constitutes a great improvement on the Bill as it stood, and I am indebted to the representative of the Board of Trade for his proposal. There can be no doubt now, it any company controlled by German influence is trading under a name which suggests it is a British company, it can, under the Bill, be dealt with by the Registrar. There is no doubt about that. But do not let us ignore the fact that at this moment there are companies trading under British names and using this very word "British" which are controlled by enemy influence. We had a case only the other day, "The British Art Needlework Company," which the Government themselves have put in the hands of a Controller. That is a German controlled company, and it is. I am glad to say, being dealt with. But it is only one of many throughout the country who adopt this title, in order to mislead, and that is one of the reasons why people have

  197
  been so slow to wake up to the fact that enemy influence has been so strong. With regard to the future use of the word "British," I think that is rather outside the scope of this Bill. We are only dealing with names which are accepted as British, and the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lough) might, I think, be considered on another occasion. I repeat I am very glad to see the action which the Government have taken in regard to this important matter.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: As I had the honour of moving the Amendment, I desire to join in the congratulations of my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir H. Dal-ziel), and to thank the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill for having dealt with it so fairly. I think the right hon. Baronet who last spoke is under a misapprehension. This Clause does not deal with companies.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: It will apply to firms.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, to firms, but not to companies. When we discussed this matter last, the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill promised to consider whether or not another Bill should be brought in to deal with companies in the same way. I hope we shall have some assurance that there is an intention on the part of the Government to deal with companies in the same way as they are now dealing with firms. But there is one point I should like to put. My original Amendment was to the effect that the word "British" should only be used if all the individuals in the firm were British. The right hon. Gentleman has not gone so far as that in this particular Clause. I am rather sorry to look a gift-horse in the mouth, but we must go very carefully into this matter. If the Registrar is satisfied that the nationality of a firm by whom the business is owned or controlled is such as to be misleading, then the word "British" or any similar word may not be used. The suggestion there is that the nationality must be misleading, and I am rather afraid that the hon. Gentleman has converted the term "all British" into "all German." I suggest he might insert the word before "owned" the word "mainly," so that the sentence would read "the nationality of the person by whom the business is mainly owned."
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Wholly or mainly owned. I am quite willing to accept an Amendment to that effect.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Then, if the Clause is read a second time, I will move the insertion of those words.
  Mr. BUTCHER: There is one point raised by the right hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) which I hope will be carefully considered by the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. He has said, and I think no doubt it is true, that it will be the duty of the Registrar, when a name is presented to him for registration containing the word "British," to consider whether or not it is misleading. I have no doubt the Registrar will carry out his duty. But suppose by inadvertence he is not aware of the fact, say, that some of the persons in the firm are of foreign extraction or foreign nationality. Would it not be desirable to give some power to somebody outside to intervene and to suggest to the Registrar that the title is, in fact, misleading? No doubt it will be said that the Registrar is a civil person who will be willing to listen to anyone. But still I would ask would it not be well to give some statutory authority to same person outside to make suggestions to the Registrar? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will consider this point either now or when the Bill goes to another place.
  Mr. J. HENDERSON: I may point out that, according to Section (2), the registration of a business name is not to be construed as authorising the use of that name if, apart from such registration, the use thereof can be prohibited.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: I would like to ask as to the case of a British company originally bona-fide owned by British persons, the control or ownership of which, through death, or inheritance or some other cause, partially or predominently passes to a foreigner. Would it be necessary in that case for the British part of the name to be struck out or would it be possible to continue the business under the old name? I am dealing now with the case of established businesses which up to the date of the change I have suggested were really British owned.
  Mr. WING: I should like to refer more especially to the case of small businesses or companies to which this Bill will apply.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The Bill does not apply to companies.
  Mr. WING: But there are lots of small firms who call themselves companies often in order to hide their personal identity.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I think they more usually use the words "and company." They are not companies.
  Mr. WING: I know lots of them which purport to be companies.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: If they are not actually companies they come under this Bill.
  Mr. WING: Whether they use the word "British" or not?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Yes. In regard to the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) and the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Butcher), I may say it certainly is our intention, and I think it is clearly stated in the Bill, that the Registrar may at any time receive suggestions. To my mind this is really a very valuable part of the proposal, because I think it will be extraordinarily difficult, and in fact impossible, for a Registrar having to deal with 200,000 or 300,000 names to make sure that the name registered does not infringe this Clause. Therefore we provide at any time he may remove a business name from the Register. That indicates that the Registrar would be competent to receive communication, which could come from any source, as to whether a name in which a firm registered ought to be dealt with under this Clause. As my hon. Friend the Member for York, who is learned in the law, has raised the point that it possibly may require consideration before the Bill goes to another place, I will bear it in mind. But, after all, it is merely a matter of technical alteration. As the House knows, the Bill has been brought on somewhat earlier than was expected, and I have not therefore, at the moment, the assistance of my right hon. Friend the Solicitor-General, but I hope he may be here later to deal with these legal points. I agree with my right hon. Friend behind me (Sir H. Dalziel) that the point raised by the right hon Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) hardly conies within the scope of this Bill. What we have to do in this Bill is to see that the firms registering do not register deceptive names. That is really the object of the Bill, and
  200
  obviously we cannot now deal with a question such as the right hon. Gentleman has raised. The object of the Register is to enable persons to know who the people are with whom they are doing business, and it would be going outside the scope of the Bill if we were to deal with the wider and more general question raised by the right hon. Gentleman. That brings me to the point mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) He asked me whether I intended to bring in a further Bill dealing with companies. I am having that question examined. I have hardly had time to get an answer to it. Immediately after the Debate I sent the matter to the advisers of the Board of Trade who deal with this particular subject, and instructed them to examine the question carefully and report to me at the earliest possible moment. That is as far as I have been able to get. In reply to my hon. Friend (Mr. Chancellor), I have to say that certainly if a company originally British comes by death or other means wholly or mainly into foreign hands, clearly it would have to change its name. If the firm were registered as British, then clearly the Registrar would be bound to have the name altered. I think that is right, and it certainly is the intention of the Bill.
  Mr. DENNISS: I have never yet been able to understand what the word "British" covers or includes. Certainly under this Clause it may be held to include "English," and by a stretch of imagination "Irish." But does it also include such words as "Imperial" or "Royal" which have the same effect in connection with businesses in this country, and refer, of course, to the British Empire or to the United Kingdom? I think it is necessary there should be some definition of the word "British," so that it shall include such words as "Imperial" or "Royal," besides such words as "English" or "Irish."
  Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "is" ["the persons by whom the business is owned"], to insert the words "wholly or mainly."
  I understand that by hon. Friend accepts this Amendment.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I accept it and beg to thank my hon. Friend for suggesting it. The words are certainly much wider, and the words as they stand might be taken to limit the Sub-section. As to the words "Imperial" or "Royal." they were considered, and it was thought that perhaps they might have a limiting effect, therefore we adhered to the- word "British" or any other word calculated to convey the impression that the business was under British ownership or control. There are already limitations on the use of the word "Royal" imposed by Acts of Parliament.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to be added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Offences by Corporations.)
  Where a corporation is guilty of an offence under this Act every director, secretary, and officer of the corporation who is knowingly a party to the default shall be guilty of the like offence and liable to a like penalty.—[Mr. Pretyman,]
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."—[Mr. Pretyman.]
  Sir F. BANBURY: Could the hon. Gentleman give me any interpretation of the word "corporation"? I am sorry there is no Law Officer present. We have been told several times that this Bill does not cover companies. The word "corporation" is used several times in the Bill. Does it include a company, or does it not?
  Sir H. DALZIEL: This subject was mentioned in the discussion on the previous Clause. I think I am correct in saying that the ordinary man in the street would interpret a corporation to mean a company, consisting of shareholders with limited liability. I am sure some of my City friends will agree. A corporation is very generally regarded as covering a limited liability company. I suppose what is intended by the Bill is a firm.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Perhaps I had better explain the Clause.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: If we include the word "corporation," I am afraid it would be the subject of a long discussion
  202
  as to the interpretation of what it really means. It would be necessary to have a definition Clause if the word "corporation" is to be kept in. I stated just now that in certain circumstances a company might be dealt with. In Clause 2 you find this:
  "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."
  Anyone reading that Clause without any further information cannot be blamed for supposing that it applies to a limited company. I hope we shall have some statement on behalf of the Government in reply to the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) so that we may understand exactly what the word "corporation" implies.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I think I can explain the matter. If the House will look at Clause 1 (a) they will see that a firm may include a corporation who are members of the firm—that is to say, a corporation is only brought into Clause 1 and therefore into all the Clauses of the Bill which depend on Clause 1 where it is in partnership with an individual or another firm. That is the point. It is only subject to the Clauses of the Bill as a partner, not as a principal. That is the exact position. It may commit an offence. There are offences under this Bill for which secretaries and directors of companies as such are made liable to penalties. That is only where they are acting as partners with others and constitute an element in a business or firm which is brought under this Bill. I believe I am correct in saying that that answer applies to every Clause in the Bill except Clause 2. My right hon. Friend (Sir H. Dalziel) is right when he points to Clause 2 in that connection. I am rather at a disadvantage in not having any legal assistance and in having to deal with this matter alone. I therefore speak subject to correction.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Are there any cases where companies are in partnership with private individuals?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Oh, yes! In drafting Clause 1 I went into this important matter very carefully, and I was advised that there were many such cases. Therefore, we must bring in a corporation where it is a partner. As to Clause 2,

  203
  it does seem to me that the word "corporation;" may have to be taken out, otherwise it would be outside the Bill. Perhaps I may be allowed to reserve that point.
  Mr. J. HENDERSON: This Bill is a very unfortunate Bill, and is very roughly drawn. The only remedy is to bring in a Bill which will include private firms and limited liability companies. There are, of course, all sorts of corporations—statutory corporations created by Acts of Parliament, civil corporations and limited liability companies. Therefore this word "corporation" includes a limited liability company. My hon. Friend admits that Clause 2 speaks of a corporation having a place of business in the United Kingdom. The Clause does not say that it carries on business in partnership, or as a partner.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Clause 2 does not apply to this.
  Mr. HENDERSON: The Amendment we are discussing says:
  "Where a corporation is guilty of an offence under this Act, every director, secretary and officer of the corporation who is knowingly a party to the default shall be guilty of the like offence and liable to a like penalty."
  I think that is taken from the Companies Acts. It pre-supposes that a company has to register.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: No.
  Mr. HENDERSON: Then I do not understand it.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The company has not got to register, but it may have to be registered. The position is this: that you may have a British firm, not a company, and therefore liable to be registered. A large proportion of the interest in that firm may be owned by a German company. What we want to secure is that particulars of that share in the business held by the German company should be registered, and that if particulars of that German company holding are not registered by any default of theirs, they are to be liable.
  Mr. HENDERSON: You refer to Clause 2.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: No; I propose to take the word out of Clause 2.
  Mr. HENDERSON: If you have a German corporation which has a large holding in a firm in this country, how are you going to make the directors and secretary of the German company in Berlin liable to the penalty?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: They have to register the business here. There must be a place of business here.
  Mr. HENDERSON: I can see in this Bill the most awful confusion.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: No.
  Mr. HENDERSON: I shall have something to say about that later. Let me say here that limited liability companies are the concerns in which enemy interests are held in the greatest number. They do not mix up very much with private firms. There may be a few, but the great majority cover themselves, very naturally, by means of limited companies. In a limited liability company the liability is limited, and when a man takes shares in it he knows the extent to which he is involved. If he becomes a member of a private firm his liability is unlimited. I am perfectly certain that limited liability companies will include more enemy interests than private firms; therefore, unless my hon. Friend is going to bring in a Bill to cover or so amend this Bill that it will cover limited liability companies as well as other corporations, I think it wants a great deal of consideration.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: According to the Amendment Paper this new Clause is to be inserted after Clause 19. I do not know 0whether that is a misprint. Clause 19 says:
  "There shall be paid out of moneys to be provided by Parliament such remuneration in respect of the duties performed under this Act as the Treasury may assign."
  Does not the hon. Gentleman mean that this Clause should come after Clause 9, which deals with the penalty for false statements?
  Mr. SPEAKER: There was no question put as to where the new Clause should be inserted. The Amendment Paper is obviously wrong, and this Clause will be put in its proper place.
  Mr. GRIFFITH: Assuming for the moment that this new Clause comes in after Clause 9, these words are rather curious:

  205
  "Where a corporation is guilty of an offence under this Act, every director, secretary, and officer of the corporation who is knowingly a party to the default shall be guilty of the like offence."
  The corporation is not yet guilty of any offence, nor does the Bill make them guilty of any offence. If you strictly construe it and say that the secretary, officer and director are guilty of a like offence, if they are charged with an offence, they will say, "We are not guilty of a like offence. There is no like offence of which we should be guilty." This is not a technical point, but a point of substance, and I think there is something in it. It would be worth while taking it into account in another place. I do not wish to call further attention to it now, but it is a matter worthy of investigation.
  Mr. FELL: I think I can give an explanation of this Clause which has not yet been given. If a British limited company registered under the Companies Acts takes an interest in some establishment or concern which has foreigners interested in it and is trading under some other name, it is the duty of that firm to register and supply the proper particulars and all the parties who do not register are guilty of an offence. But if you have a corporation which has an interest in a foreign firm, there is no one you can make responsible under this Bill unless you have some such Clause as this, which provides that the secretary and directors shall be equally liable. They are made equally responsible with the other persons interested in the business which has not been registered but ought to be registered. Then it makes the directors who had an interest in this responsible with the other people. I think that is the explanation, that it is not a German firm, but an English company which takes an interest in a firm which should be registered but is not.
  Mr. CUIRRIE: I think the Board of Trade in passing the Bill in its present form in some respects is taking a good deal of responsibility, and I very much doubt whether it will work smoothly. The chambers of commerce have been asking for a Bill of this kind for years and should have got it years ago. But that does not alter the fact that as things have turned out—possibly my hon Friend is not in the least to blame for it—the consideration which chambers of com-
  206
  merce have been able to give to this Bill at the last moment is really most inadequate. I have had several communications with chambers with which I correspond.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It seems to me that those observations are relevant to the whole Bill on the Third Reading, but not to the Clause.
  Mr. CURRIE: I will make no more observations of the same kind. I think I have made my meaning plain to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think Clause 19 is a mistake.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: It clearly ought to be Clause 9.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It should come as an Amendment to Clause 9. It is better to withdraw the Clause.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  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.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I beg to move to leave out the word "as" ["or as agent for any firm"], and to insert instead thereof the words "acts as general."
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Is the hon. Gentleman going to provide on this Clause for the case to which he referred of corporations?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Yes. This refers to corporations. What Clause 2 does is different from the whole of the rest of the Bill. Clause 2 applies to registration

  207
  for agencies. Clause 1 is the main operative Clause of the Bill, stating what firms are to register. Under Clause 2 firms having an agency are to register, and it appears to me that the word "corporation" ought to be taken out there. I think that point should be reserved. It is quite a simple point.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: When will you deal with it?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: In another place. It is a legal point. The effect of the Amendment is that the word "agent" standing by itself goes rather too far. If we say "every person who is acting as agent for any foreign firm," that might mean an agent in an individual transaction, and obviously a firm which only acts in individual transactions for a foreign firm should not be required to registeron that account. The expression "general agent," I believe, meets the case. I understand the legal definition of "general agent" is "one who has authority arising out of and in the ordinary course of his business or profession to do some act or acts on behalf of a principal in relation thereto or one who is authorised to act on behalf of the principals generally in transactions of a particular kind or incidental to a particular business." We require here that anyone who acts as a general agent, and is therefore habitually acting as agent, for a foreign firm will therefore have to be registered, but not if he is merely acting in one particular single transaction.
  Sir F. BANBURY: My hon. Friend proposes to leave out the word "corporation" in another place. I am not familiar with the rules of order in another place, but is it not a fact that all that will go back to another place are the Amendments made here? That would be the custom here.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: And in the other place.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Then all that will go back to-day are the Amendments which have been made in this House. If that is so, how can you alter the Bill itself? If it is necessary to leave out this word, it can only be done by recommitting the Bill.
  Mr. DENNISS: As I brought this question forward in Committee I thank my
  208
  hon. Friend for making this Amendment, which I think will meet the views of commercial men generally. A general agent acts generally in all matters of business for his principal, but a special agent, of whom there are hundreds of thousands in this country, may only act for one and in-one particular transaction. By limiting: it to general agents you will reduce the hardship that the business community feel in this matter. With regard to the word "corporation," I have looked at it very carefully, and it strikes me that it ought to come out.
  Mr. WATSON: Do I understand that this Clause does not purport to make any addition to the firms which are required to register, but is merely intended to insist on additional particulars being furnished in the case where the firms bound' to register under Clause 1 act as agents generally for various firms or come within the purview of the Clause—in other words, that the Clause does not make any addition to the firms which are required to register under the Act? That is entirely-contained in Clause 1.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: No.
  Mr. WATSON: Then there may be a reason for corporations being added. That is what I want to get at. If Clause 2 does not add to the firms which. require to register but merely says that in the case of firms which are required to-register under Clause 1, but who act as-agents or nominees for other firms, they must give certain additional particulars, the word "corporation" seems surplusage. Take a firm which is really only a nominee for a German firm. It would require to register under Clause 1 surely. They are under it already. They are carrying on business in this country and? will require to register.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: No, not if they are-trading under their own name. Clause 1 says that people who are trading under any name other than their own true name have to be registered. Then Clause 2 says that people who are acting as general' agents for other people have also to be registered.
  Mr. WATSON: That shows how very-much wider this Clause 2 is going to be, and it is very important surely that we should know whether corporations are intended to be brought in. It is really very much wider than Clause 1, which is to

  209
  enable people to say what their true name is, whereas Clause 2 is to make them, where they act as agents for someone else, not disclose the true position of the firm, but disclose whom they really act for. Surely it is vital that the House should realise what the purpose of this Clause 2 is. It seems to me now it is something very much wider and quite different from Clause 1. Clause 1 is to disclose the constituents of your firm, what their nationality is, and so on. Clause 2 is to disclose agency, or another firm altogether, when the first firm is really only a nominee. It is different altogether. Clause 2 as it stands would undoubtedly include corporations of every kind whatsoever—limited, joint stock, or otherwise—and it is very important that we should know whether that is what is intended or not.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir G. Cave): I was not here when the discussion began, but I think I have heard enough of it now to enable me to offer some observations on the point. So far as regards Clause 2 as it stands, it plainly includes corporations of all kinds, including limited companies, and the object of it is that where anyone, whether an individual or a firm, carries on business here as agent for a foreign firm they shall register under the Act and give the proper particulars which are specified in the Schedule. To that I apprehend there can be no objection. There can be no reason why a company which carries on business as agent for a foreign firm should not be required to give particulars under this Act as well as to comply with the ordinary Companies Acts.
  Mr. DENNISS: Except that the Bill does not refer to companies at all.
  Sir G. CAVE: It refers to companies in Clause 2, the point I am dealing with, and there is no reason I can see why it should not. Therefore, so far as I can understand the matter, I do not see any reason for amending Clause 2. But there is the objection which is taken, I think with justice, that if a company has to register under Clause 2 it may then become subject to the new Clause which the House has just adopted. It may become subject to have its name changed by the Registrar, or rather it may enable the Registrar to require the name to be changed. There I see a difficulty because the question of changing the name is
  210
  always dealt with by special procedure under the Companies Acts. As to the-point being dealt with in another place, this will go to another place as a new Clause and there any Amendment may be made in the new Clause. Therefore it is right that you should leave Clause 2 as it stands and consider between now and the return of the Bill whether any Amendment is needed to the new Clause just passed.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I point out the position we have got into. If two Germans come here and trade in the ordinary way as Jones and Brown they must register under the Bill. If they trade as Jones and Brown, agent for someone in Germany, they must register. But if these two same men register themselves as Jones and Brown, Limited, although, their real names may be German, they do not have to register under Clause 1, and all they have to register under Clause 2, in spite of what the Solicitor-General has-said, is their firm's name. Sub-section (f) of Clause 3 says, "Where the registration to be effected is that of a corporation, its corporate name and registered or principal office."
  Sir G. CAVE: No. Clause 2 refers to-registering something else. There are particulars in the Schedule.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The particulars in the Schedule only refer to the person for whom they are acting as nominees. What we want to find out is whom we are dealing with here. If Jones and Brown as a firm, being really two Germans Schmidt and anything else you like, are-trading here they have to register their names. Christian names, nationality and everything else. But if they form themselves into a limited company, if they are acting as nominees, they only have to register so far as they themselves are concerned. We want to know who Jones and Brown are and not for whom they are acting, and Jones and Brown as a limited corporation acting; for nominees under Clause 2 merely have to register their cororation name and their address, which everyone knows. They simply register as Jones and Brown, Limited, acting as agents for someone in Germany for whom they were nominees. The Bill gives no indication as to who Jones and Brown, Limited, really are, but if they are not limited the Bill gives full protection to British purchasers,

  211
  dealing with them. That is a slip, and, while I do not quite see the way to put it right at present, I ask my right hon. Friend to consider it, and see whether there is not some slight slip in the Clause.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. BUTCHER: As I understand it, Clause 2 states that corporations have to register under certain circumstances, and the circumstances, under which a corporation must register is when it is acting as agent or nominee for someone else. In that case it has to register. The things they have to state are set out in the Schedules, namely, the names and addresses of the persons for whom they are acting as agents. My hon. Friend says, "Yes, but they have not to register particulars of their constitution." The answer to that is, if they are a limited company you will find out all that at Somerset House. The really important thing is to know who is behind them. We do not so much care what their name is, or what is the name under which they are carrying on business as a corporation. What we really want to know is, who is behind them; what is the name and nationality of the persons for whom they are acting? Under the Schedule of the Bill you get all those details. I think that is the scheme of Clause 2, and it seems to me quite a wise scheme.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Solicitor-General raised a point of very great interest and importance. I am afraid in doing so he has rather confused some of us. I would like one point made clear, and to ask for his guidance on this subject. I know of the case of an alien, I will not say an unfriendly alien, whose name is, we will say, J. B. Something or Other, and who has converted himself into? a limited company under the name of "So-and-So, Ltd.," omitting one of the Christian names. His identity is quite effectually concealed by the fact that he has omitted one of those Christian names, which happens to be a distinctively foreign one. Under this Bill will that firm, calling itself "So-and-So, Ltd.," which is not trading under its true name, but under a more or less assumed name, have to register, or will it be able to escape by the fact that this gentleman has partly abbreviated the name?
  Sir G. CAVE: That company would not have to register under this Bill. It is under another Act altogether. Most of the speeches we have just listened to deal with matters that come under the Companies Acts. We are not able in this Bill to amend the Companies Acts That matter is deferred for later consideration. I think it is a great pity that we should mix up two matters.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: I tried to get it made clear.
  Mr. HENDERSON: With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), I would point out that Clause (2) says that:
  "Where a firm carries on business as agent for any foreign firm," and adds that "there shall be furnished and registered the particulars mentioned in the Schedule to this Act."
  The Schedule of the Act says:
  "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."
  I take it he would be called upon, if he is carrying on business for any foreigner, to give the name of that foreigner. I think when you come to the Schedule you may be able to put in a word or two, namely, "the enemy," "an individual," instead of the words there. In other words, I think the law is right.
  Amendment agreed to.

  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;

  213

  (d) Where the registration to be effected is that of a firm, the present Christian name and surname, any former Christian name or surname, the nationality, and if that nationality is not the nationality of origin, the nationality of origin, the usual residence, and the 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, the nationality, and if that nationality is not the nationality of origin, the nationality of origin, the usual residence, and the 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 busines is commenced after the passing 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.
  Captain BARNETT: I move to leave out "(c) The principal place of the business," and to insert instead thereof "(c) All the places in the United Kingdom where the business is carried on."
  This Amendment is not only one of substance, but even, I venture to think, one that is vital to the efficiency of this Bill. It seems to be assumed that the registration of the principal place of business is a sufficient protection. Only last Wednesday my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, in dealing with an Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Denniss), used the words:
  "I quite sympathise with the object of the Amendment, but it would be impossible to carry it out within the principle of this Bill. The matter has been very carefully considered whether it is to be a local or 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."
  When the hon. Gentleman said that, it struck me that it was not a very good argument against a local Register, but that it was a powerful argument in favour of
  214
  registering all the places where a business is carried on. Let us test the efficiency of the Bill as it stands to-day. One can always test these things better by taking a concrete case. Let us imagine the case of two gentlemen with foreign names and of unimpeachable British nationality. Let us say they are called Messrs. Potzdammer and Dachshund, and that they wish to trade in names that do not appear to suggest a German origin. Those gentlemen are to carry on business all over the country, let us say as tea merchants. What is their obligation under this Bill? Their obligation is to register either at London or in Edinburgh, or in Dublin, or wherever their principal place of business is. I suggest that that is not sufficient protection. It is only necessary for these two gentlemen to take a thoroughly British or Welsh cognomen. Let them call themselves Jones Bros. I am taking Jones Bros. because there are eighteen Jones Bros. in the London Directory, and none of them happen to be in the tea trade. Suppose, then, these gentlemen with the foreign names call themselves Jones Bros., and make their principal place of business in Scotland or Ireland. They can be registered in Edinburgh or Dublin. Imagine that they have shops all over Great Britain—all through England and Wales. A consumer who goes to deal with these people is, when he buys tea, dealing with Jones Bros. There is nothing whatever to show him that this firm has got other surnames. There is nothing whatever to put him on his guard. The probability is that if he began to inquire he would find that the firm of Jones Bros. was registered in London, that another firm of Jones Bros. was registered in Edinburgh, and that a third firm of Jones Bros. was registered in Dublin. What on earth is there to connect the firm of Jones Bros. with whom my hypothetical purchaser is dealing at Leicester or Bristol with these firms who are registered at Edinburgh or at Dublin? There is nothing whatever, and I do suggest to the hon. Gentleman that at this point any intelligent person could drive the proverbial coach and four through this Bill.
  It is absolutely essential that not only the principal place of business but all the places of business in the United Kingdom where the firm operates should be registered. What are the practical difficulties? There is no difficulty of public expense

  215
  here. There is a little extra difficulty-thrown upon the firms who carry on business in a great number of places. The vast majority of firms, I believe, carry on business in one place, but suppose that a certain amount of extra work is thrown upon a limited number of firms. You get an enormous extra publicity owing to the fact that on the Register is every place in the United Kingdom where the business is being carried on. Someone has said that the power to make a good index is the root of all organisation. You cannot have a good index unless all the essential facts are at your hand to make the index. I suggest that these places of business all over the country are essential facts which ought to be registered, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept this Amendment.
  Mr. DENNISS: I beg to second the Amendment. I do so principally because it removes the objection to an Amendment I moved in Committee. I asked that copies of the Register should be filed at the offices of the county councils. I was told that that could not be done because the Register that we propose to make will only contain the address of the principal place of business, and that therefore you could not have a local Register, you could only have a central Register, with one place of business only mentioned in that Register I will not repeat the arguments which have been so ably put before the House by my hon. Friend. It is quite clear that it would be an advantage to know that Jones Bros. had these different places of business in Edinburgh and elsewhere, and also that Jones Bros. was Bernstein and someone else, who were carrying on business at York, Manchester, and all over the country as Jones Brothers. Unless that is to be disclosed the persons dealing with them at Ealing or elsewhere will have no idea that they are dealing with a firm which is not registered under its true name.
  Mr. WING: What about Clause 17?
  Mr. DENNISS: I shall move an Amendment to that presently. That which would put people on to making an inquiry is not in the Bill yet. It may never get in. Clause 17 does not help the least bit in the world, because you have only to put the name on business letters. As the Clause stands at present you have not to put the name on invoices, which are not business letters. We have been told by the Secretary to the
  216
  Board of Trade that it does not apply to billheads and invoices and things of that kind, but only to letters. There is an Amendment in the name of the Secretary to the Board of Trade which would enlarge it to a certain extent, and there is an Amendment of mine which would bring about a totally different state of things, namely, it would put the word "registered" on to the name as the word "limited" is put on to "limited liability company." But these things are not in the Bill yet. I should like to have a local register. Some day, perhaps not now, I should like to have a local register in every county council office or every County-Court office, to which people can go and see with whom they are dealing.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is not the Amendment before us. The Amendment before us is that all the places in the United Kingdom where the business is carried on should be registered.
  Mr. DENNISS: I was urging that one of the objects of that was in order that local registers might be formed. I think I have made that clear. I think it would improve the Bill very much, and it will not do much to increase the size of the Register. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the Amendment.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I have great sympathy with the object of this Amendment, but it means that we come back to the old question whether we are going to do more to effect the main object of the Bill or to damage and cause trouble and difficulty to the trade of this country in regard to this Register. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved this Amendment really appreciated the effect his words would have. If you had to register every place in the United Kingdom where the business was carried on you would clearly have to register every place where a temporary business was carried on. There is no possibility that I can see of correctly drawing a line between temporary and permanent businesses. It is obviously impossible to register the place of business of every traveller who, on behalf of his firm, is carrying on business from the hotel at which he happens to be staying. There is one firm which I take it will have to be registered, Messrs. W. H. Smith and Sons-I take it they will have to be registered.
  HON. MEMBERS: No!
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I take it they will.
  An HON. MEMBER: They are not an enemy firm.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Ninety-nine per cent. of the firms that will have to be registered under this Bill will be purely British firms.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: They are not a limited company.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: They are not a limited company, but I have information about this case, and it is one of the very points which is material to this Amendment. Messrs. W. H. Smith and Sons would have to register under this Amendment every bookstall in the United Kingdom and every bookstall at every underground station in London. The thing is not practicable. I believe my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir G. Cave) will support me when I say that one of the questions which troubles the Law Courts of this country is the definition of what is a place. One Law Court decided that a lady's lap was a public place. I recollect that case. We have in the Bill the principal place of business. That is pretty clear. The moment we leave the term "principal place of business" and get into the general region of every place where businesses are carried on we get into a difficulty. I have every sympathy with the object of this Amendment, and I quite understand it, but I think it would be well not to accept it. If we could find words which would carry out exactly what we all want, well and good, but I submit to the Committee that we should really go too far if we accepted this Amendment. The firm of Jones mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member really does not exist. If we register the principal place of business people will be able to get the information they want through the particulars we propose to put in the Register.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: I agree with a great deal of what has been said by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. There is a difficulty about the question of place, and for that reason I have put in a manuscript Amendment, in which I suggest that, after the word "business" we should add the words "and any branches thereof." That is perhaps the sort of Amendment that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) is looking for. It is quite true that when you use the term "any place" that would include the place where a commercial traveller may he doing business or the place where some
  218
  temporary business was going on. If we use the term "branch" and the firm has a branch, everybody knows what the branch is. A branch means a permanent establishment, a shop, an office, or something of that kind. My Amendment would entail a little extra trouble on the firm, particularly such a firm as W. H. Smith. But we all know that hard cases make bad laws, and if we consider the question of the convenience of one particular firm and out of consideration for that we avoid doing the right thing in the great majority of cases, we shall be legislating badly. The thing to do is to do what is right for the generality of businesses, and I maintain that for the generality of businesses the right thing to do is to provide that when they register the particulars of registration should convey a true picture of the scope and extent of the firm and show where the firm has its branches. I beg to move that.
  Mr. SPEAKER: We have already got one Amendment before the Committee.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: I think this Amendment is utterly impracticable. There are a number of firms in the country with large numbers of branches, firms such as the International Tea Company, the Maypole Dairy Company, the Home and Colonial Stores, and others, and if they have to put all these particulars on every piece of stationery and every circular sent out—
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: It is not proposed that they should do that.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: If they had to put this information on every piece of stationery and to state every place where they carry on business they would find it impossible.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: The hon. Member has misunderstood what I said. I never suggested that these particulars should be put on every piece of paper, but that it should be done in one registration when the registration is made.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: I am dealing with the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Barnett).
  Captain BARNETT: With the permission of the House I will withdraw my Amendment and support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Pennefather).
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: I beg to move in paragraph (c) after the word "business," to insert the words "and any branches thereof."
  After what I have said, I will simply move my Amendment with the addendum that it does not apply to notepaper or anything of that kind. It applies merely to the one registration.
  Mr. DENNISS: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: What I was trying to say on the previous Amendment applies exactly to this Amendment unless it does not come under Clause 17. Under Clause 17 all this registration information has to be circulated with a memorandum sent out by the firm, and I assume that means every advertising medium. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] If it does not mean that, I should like to have an explanation. If it does apply, then it means that all this information is to be put upon trade circulars and trade catalogues, which I presume would include advertising circulars and business letters. If you had to put the whole of this information on trade circulars you would have no room for anything else, and it would be quite impossible to carry on the large amount of advertising that is done by these firms who have branches in different parts of the country. Many of them only want to advertise in one particular town at a time.
  Mr. DENNISS: Clause 17 only relates to name and nationality.
  Mr. HENDERSON: I hope my hon. Friend will not accept this Amendment. This is an irksome and troublesome Bill in all conscience, and it is absurd to make a man register in every town where he has a branch.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment does not suggest that. All it suggests is that in the town where the principal place of business is situated when the Register is made, the firm or individual shall register the principal place of business and any branches thereof.
  Mr. HENDERSON: I misunderstood the purport of the Amendment.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I think this Amendment is very much preferable to the other one, but it will involve the registration at every place of business of W. H. Smith and Son. I am afraid it would further involve temporary businesses. It often
  220
  happens that there is a great deal of temporary business done where some show or other is being held and people set up a temporary business. Is that a branch or not? W. H. Smith and Sons may set up a bookstall at a particular station for some special circumstances and then it may be withdrawn. [An HON. MEMBER: "That would not be permanent!"] What is permanent? have been considering the question of a permanent branch, but how can you define a permanent branch-legally? I feel some hesitation about this Amendment. I have great sympathy with the Amendment, but, on the whole, I think it is more desirable to leave it out. I think the balance of advantage is to-adhere to the Bill.
  Mr. RENDALL: It is forgotten by many hon. Members that this Bill is going to-apply to 99 per cent. of English firms, consequently all these extremely irksome Amendments will be a very serious burden upon English traders. Having regard to the fact that we are now at war, and are likely to be at war for some time, and that every business firm has enough to do to carry on its business, I think it would be a great mistake to put these extra duties upon these firms. I am glad to know that this Amendment is not to be accepted, and I hope we shall try to curtail other-Amendments which are made by people who are quite friendly to the Bill, but who are trying to bury it under a mass of details which are unworkable and unnecessary.
  Mr. CURRIE: I sympathise with what has been said that we should not penalise and worry 99 per cent. of our own firms, but it is just because I am anxious to secure protection against a certain class of firm that I think if the Board of Trade would really pin their faith to a thorough process of registration in the first place, a great many of the difficulties and hardships would be overcome. As to the distinction between a temporary and a permanent branch, I cannot conceive that there will be any trifling prosecutions allowed. If it came to a question of compelling a firm like W. H. Smith and Son to register branches by the hundred once a year, I do not think that is such a great hardship that it should be held out as a reason for rejecting this Amendment. I think the risk of its not being possible to identify certain firms is rather serious. I admit there will be some inconvenience in dealing with this Amendment, but I think

  221
  if we had an Amendment which would define what is meant by permanent, it would meet the case.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I realise the difficulties regarding this Amendment. One does not desire to make the Bill irksome to English traders, and, having regard to the fact that the Government have met very frankly those who have tried to improve the Bill from our point of view, I would appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw this Amendment. Perhaps the Government may consider the matter, and if it is found to be necessary another Amendment can be brought in.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: With that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLAUSE 4.—(particulars to be Signed by Persons Registering.)
  The statement required for the purpose of registration must in the case of an individual be signed by him, and in the case of a corporation by a director or secretary thereof, and in the case of a firm either by all the individuals who are partners, and by a director or the secretary of all corporations which are partners or by some individual who is a patner, or a director or the secretary of some corporation which is a partner, and in either of the last two cases must be verified by a statutory declaration made by the signatory: Provided that no such statutory declaration stating that any person other than the declarant is a partner, or omitting to state that any person other than as aforesaid is a partner, shall be evidence for or against any such other person in respect of his liability or non-liability as a partner, and that the High Court may on application of any person alleged or claiming to be a partner, direct the rectification of the register and decide any question arising under this Section.
  Amendment made: After the word "Court" ["the High Court"] insert the words "or a judge thereof."—[Mr. Prety-man.]

  CLAUSE 5.—(Time for Registration.)
  The particulars required to be furnished under this Act shall be furnished within fourteen days after the firm or person commences business, or the business in respect of which registration is required, as the case may be: Provided that if such firm or
  222
  person has carried on such business before the passing of this Act or commences such:. business within two months thereafter, the statement of particulars shall be furnished after the expiration of two months and before the expiration of three months from the passing of this Act.
  Amendment made: At the end of the-Clause, add the words:
  "This Section shall apply, in the case where registration is required in consequence of a change of name, as if for references to the date of the commencement of the business there were substituted references to the date of such change."—[Mr. Pretyman.]

  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 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.
  Amendment made: After the word "in" ["in manner and within"], insert the word "the."—[Mr. Pretyman.]
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I beg to move to leave out the words "Provided that no-such proceedings shall be instituted under this Section except by or with the consent of the Board of Trade."
  This is a rather important Amendment. There was considerable debate on this point in Committee, and it was suggested, I think, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel), that the Board of Trade ought not to have this discretion, and that as a compromise we should leave out these words in Clause 7 and retain them in Clause 17. I am disposed to adopt that course, and I hope that it will meet with the approval of the House.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: On behalf of the hon. Member for York I desire to thank

  223
  the hon. Member for accepting the Amendment moved in Committee. We quite approve of the suggestion which he has made.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 8.—(Disability of Persona 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 made or entered into by or on behalf of such defaulter in relation to the business in respect to the carrying on of which particulars were required to be furnished 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, may grant such relief either generally, or as respects any particular contracts, 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 if any party to the contract proves to the satisfaction of the Court that, if this Act had been complied with, he would not have entered into the contract;

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

  (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, nothing herein contained shall preclude the defaulter from enforcing in that action or pro-
  224
  ceeding, by way of counterclaim set off or otherwise, such rights as he may have against that party in respect of such contract.

  (2) In this Section the expression "Court" means the "High Court":
  Provided that, without prejudice to the power of the High Court to grant such relief as aforesaid, 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
  Mr. HENDERSON: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
  On this Clause may I draw attention to the fact that limited liability companies are bound to register their list of shareholders every year, hold meetings, and do a great many other things, in default of which the Government may impose a fine upon them? Here we have the same thing with regard to private firms. A private firm is bound to register, and, if it does not, the Government can impose a fine upon it. But if a limited company fails to do what it is bound to do it is fined by the Government, but there is nothing in the Companies Acts which enables any outsider to take advantage of the breach of duty by the company. The fine lies between the Government and the offending company—I am speaking of the Companies Acts as existing now—and the secretary, directors, and so on are all personally liable to pay the fine. But in no case is an outsider entitled to take benefit from that and to plead that as a justification for getting rid of some contract which he does not like. If any favour is to be shown it should be to the private firm and not the limited company, and for this reason: The members of a private firm embark every penny of their fortune in it. They are liable for its debts to the last penny of their wealth. In the case of a limited company this is not so.
  In the case of a limited company no right is given to take advantage of any default which may be committed. But under this Clause you put private firms in this position. Suppose that, at the beginning of the year, a clerk or somebody is taken into partnership by a firm, and that through some oversight they fail to register. A customer has at that date a forward contract for delivery running over the next six months at so much a ton. Meantime the market goes down,

  225
  and he finds that the firm did not register this partner, and uses that fact to get out of his contract. It is true that they can go to that Court and say that here was some oversight, that somebody forgot to do his duty, and then they may get relief. But why should the firm be forced to do this to get relief? If you are going to give an outsider the right to take advantage of default to get rid of a contract which he does not like, the onus ought to be put on him to go to the Court and prove that if he had known this man was a partner of the firm he would never have entered into this contract. Instead of that you put the onus on the firm to go to the Court and get the waiver of the contract by the outsider rectified. That is not fair. The duty lies on the firm to register. The penalty lies with the Government to inflict, if the firm does not register. In the ease of the limited company it is the same thing. I submit with the greatest confidence that it is a mischievous thing to give an outsider the power to repudiate a contract on the ground that some little technical thing has been omitted.
  If you are going to bring in the outsider at all you should say to him, "If you wish to get rid of your contract go to the Court and satisfy it that if you had known that this man was one of the partners you would never have entered into the contract." He would have very great difficulty in satisfying any Court that that was really true, because it is a falling market that is the trouble. Therefore, I submit that the Clause ought to be left out altogether. You may say that a firm may not suffer, that it can go into Court. A man may go into Court, and it may cost £30 or £40, and the man who made the contract may say, "If you reduce the price £1 a ton, I shall not repudiate the contract." This is not fair to the private firm. It puts it in a very much worse position than the limited company. The object of all legislation should be to avoid litigation. This Clause bristles with the prospect of litigation. This Bill is intended, I believe, to catch long firms. Some of my hon. Friends who are leading in the German hunt took hold of it and manipulated it in this way that it goes far beyond the original scope, and that in order to catch one German trader you worry about 10,000 respectable firms who are trying to carry on their business in the ordinary way. This Clause cannot do any justice, and
  226
  may do a great deal of injustice by enabling some people to take a mean advantage of some technical defect.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to second the Amendment.
  The hon. Member has made a very strong case against this Clause. As the Bill now stands, it not only imposes a penalty in the ordinary sense for default or for breach of its provisions, and a very heavy pecuniary penalty that is, but under this Clause a further penalty of an indefinite kind may be imposed on a firm at the instance of a private individual who himself will benefit considerably by the imposition of that penalty. That is a very false principle to apply to legislation. I think that for breach of a statutory condition contained in this Bill the penalties imposed in the Bill itself should be quite adequate. But this Clause goes far further than imposing a penalty which can be ascertained under this Bill. It may be a penalty which is quite unascertainable. You may have, for example, a contract very nearly completed in which one of the contracting parties has obtained nearly all the benefit which he could possibly obtain under that contract, and he may then seek, owing to a slight breach of the provisions of this Bill, to get the whole of the benefits of the contract without performing any of his part. It may be said that it is possible for the firm affected to obtain relief from the Court, but a man may not be successful in obtaining the relief, and, even if he is ultimately successful, he will have to face the cost and the worry in connection with the steps which he may take to obtain such relief, in addition to paying the penalty. In all the circumstances the penalties provided in the Bill are sufficient to secure observance of the provisions and to deter people who may seek to evade these provisions, and it is therefore both unfair and unwise to seek, in addition, to impose penalties so difficult to ascertain, and which might be altogether out of proportion to the offence committed.
  Sir G. CAVE: This Clause came down to this House from another place, where it had been inserted in consequence of evidence given before the Select Committee, and on the advice of the chambers of commerce throughout the country. Of course, that does not dispense us from the necessity of examining it for ourselves, and what we have done in this

  227
  House is to limit the Clause. The point which my hon. Friend puts is whether the Clause as it is now limited ought to stand. I have never denied, and I think that I said in Committee, that this Clause does impose a heavy penalty upon those who fail to comply with the Act, but, of course, the whole object is to compel people to register. It was the intention to make it the interest of the firm not to make default, so that they shall take every possible care to get on the Register in good time. Of course, the penalty is confined in two ways. It is confined to contracts arising out of the business in respect of which registration is required, and it is confined to contracts entered into while the firm or person is in default. And the principle of the Clause is that if people enter into contracts with a firm which ought to be and is not registered, then the burden lies upon the person in default to show that he did not mislead the other party to the contract. I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen that the effect of it is really to shift the onus; that is, it imposes the burden not upon the person who is seeking to repudiate the contract, but upon the person who is in default, to show that there was some reason in consequence of which default occurred.
  My hon. Friend said that if you put the burden on the shoulders of the other person he would never be able to discharge it. It is almost impossible to go into another man's mind, and to prove that if he had known that the law had not been complied with he would have taken a different course. Therefore this course is taken, and the man who has done the wrong has the burden thrown upon him. If the default is willful, surely the person who is responsible for the fault ought to suffer. If it is not willful, if it is accidental, or an inadvertency, or if there is some other fair, reasonable and equitable ground for granting the person relief, then the Courts have power to grant that relief. There are numerous similar provisions, as my hon. friend knows, in which certain kinds of contract, which are not registered, become void and cannot be enforced at all. I agree that the penalty is severe, but I think it ought to be severe, and I believe it was the general view in
  228
  Committee that there ought to be a severe penalty, and that the effect of it would be that a company, before entering into a contract, would see that they were registered and had complied with the law. I think that a provision of this nature is very desirable.
  Mr. HENDERSON: It would be long before they would get a decision, and in six months the contract may have gone to pieces.
  Sir G. CAVE: I do not think it would take so long as that; the point would not arise until proceedings were taken to enforce the contract. I am quite frank with the House when I say that I think the penalty is severe, but I think it is a case where it is desired that the law should be observed, and the general view of the House in Committee was that the penalty would tend to effect that object.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I am glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is going to adhere to the Clause. The penalty is severe, but, for the purposes of the Bill and for the purposes of this Clause, we ought to assume the worst possible case, and a severe penalty is the only kind of penalty which the German will understand. A German firm, with perhaps the whole organisation of the German Empire behind it, probably seeking to kill a British industry, would not be disturbed by a few days' penalty of £5 a day. In all other eases I have not the smallest doubt that the wide powers of the Court will prove amply sufficient for the purposes of the Bill. This provision is by no means without precedent. There are similar requirements of the law in other cases. In regard to the formalities of registration, or in cases where a man has lost, by efflux of time, his right of action, and it is incumbent upon the defendant to raise the Statute of Limitations, if he thinks fit to do so, the Courts have ample powers; and where there is a gambling consideration, or an immoral consideration, they can deprive the plaintiff of his rights under the contract. I am glad that the Government have put this Clause in the Bill, and I hope they will adhere to it.
  Sir FREDERICK CAWLEY: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down spoke of a German firm with the whole of the German Empire behind it, but I would

  229
  point out that there are various ways in which a company can be formed. A private limited company, which has not to publish a balance sheet, could be established. What is to hinder any private persons forming themselves into a limited liability company? This whole Bill is really unjust, and is almost impossible, from the very fact that you cannot include these limited liability companies, with their hundreds and thousands of shareholders. Although the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade says that they are going to try to bring in a Bill to apply to these companies, I do not think he will be able to achieve that object. I do not think it is possible to frame a Bill that would affect these limited liability companies. I think that this measure is unjust, and that this Clause is especially unjust. The Solicitor-General says the Bill is such a good one that he wants to make the penalty very high. I am not against having a penalty with a view to enforcing obedience to the law, but why bring in a third person? The law ought to be between the State and the man who breaks the law. Why bring in a third person and give the outsider the opportunity of blackmailing a man, and perhaps getting a reward? The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire put forward the point of the man who makes a bad bargain. It may be that a new partner has been taken into the firm, say, on the 1st of January, and the person concerned makes a contract on the 2nd of January. Then he finds that the name of the new partner has not been registered, and, where it is to his advantage to do so, he can use the opportunity of this default to break through his bargain. He makes use of the fact that the name was not registered within two or three days after to get out of his bargain. I think it is absolutely unfair to bring the third party in at all. Why not have the penalty as between the person who breaks the law and the State? I am myself against legislation which brings in a reward for an informer, and that is really what is being done. I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen that the boot ought to be on the other foot, because it is a very hard thing for a firm to be put to the trouble to prove that a mistake has been made. I am opposed to this Clause altogether.
  Mr. WATSON: The chambers of commerce for a good many years have been calling for a Bill of this character, and
  230
  one of the chief reasons, as I have always understood, is that it is only fair that nobody should be led to deal with a firm who do not disclose the names or character of the partners, in order that people might judge of the credit and standing of those partners. This is one of the great objects of this Bill, and one of its great advantages to the trading community. There are three ways in which there may be a failure in keeping the Register. One is the failure to keep a Register at all, when the firm commenced or at the beginning of the Act coming into operation; another is a return of false particulars, which is a default; and the third is any failure to register a change in the firm under Clause 6. As regards the latter, if the Board of Trade can be satisfied that the default was through inadvertence and not willful, then this Clause would not operate and there would be no hardship in that case. The worst case, of course, is where false particulars have been given, and there surely it would only be fair that the party who has entered into the contract on the face of the false particulars given in the Register as to the constitution of the firm should not suffer. In that case it seems to me that this Clause is absolutely necessary, and it is only fair. I am glad to hear that the Government are going to stick to it. As regards original registration, which is the only other step, there again surely willful failure is the only thing which would really enable this Clause to come into operation. The cases of innocent failure will be very few, and cases are more likely to arise where there has been failure to register the company or firm at all. Under this Clause the plaintiff, or the pursuer as he is called in Scotland, would apply to the Court for relief, and if he had a proper case for relief he would undoubtedly get it and no harm would be done. It seems to me therefore that in the case of failure to register originally the matter would work itself out, and in any event few cases would be likely to occur. It is one of the main objects of this Bill to give protection in cases where people do not disclose the true character of the firm on the face of the Register, or give a false return, or willfully fail to notify the dropping out of a name, by the death or otherwise of a member of the firm. I do not think it is a case of bringing in a third party; it is a case of protecting the party who would suffer as a result of such a failure; it is a case of dealing with the party who gives

  231
  false information, and of affording protection to those who are likely to suffer. I am very glad that the Government have put in this Clause, and I hope they will adhere to it.
  6.0 P.M.
  Sir WALTER ESSEX: I was extremely sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill state that he intended to adhere to this Clause and refuse the Amendment. I could not help noting as the right hon. and learned Gentleman was giving his reasons the frequent cropping up of the statement that the penalty was a very severe one. That seemed to harp like a refrain to an uneasy conscience. The penalties are severe, but it is conceivable that the damage done to persons and trade generally might be very severe. Why I object to this Clause and intend to vote against it is that I have the greatest horror of an unlimited penalty. It may fall on a small person. You may say that that small person may get out of it if he can prove that he has acted in good faith though somewhat careless. I know he can, but an unlimited penalty seems to me to be a wholly improper method of proceeding. We ought to make the penalty, even if it were as high as Hannan was hanged, a definite one, and not have it unlimited with the effect possibly of crushing out the small beginner. Whether it applies to little or to large firms the principle is wrong.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: This Clause really is for the relief of people who deal with firms which refuse to register under the provisions of the Bill. Take a case, say, where I enter into a contract, say, with the firm of Messrs. Rothschild. It might be that one or two of the leading partners might have died or gone out of the business, and their capital with them, and that I have entered into the contract with the firm which has not got the backing which I assumed it had, and that that firm has not taken the steps which the law obliges it to take to enable me to have that information which I am entitled to have in going into their contract. This merely gives me the option of saying that I have been misled as to the people with whom I had to deal. Surely that is perfectly fair. Their obligation is to disclose fully to me with whom I am dealing.
  Mr. HENDERSON: It is one-sided.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: If I am a firm which does not carry out my obligations
  232
  I am exactly in the same default, and I cannot enforce my contract. As to what the hon. Gentleman has just said about the penalty, everybody knows there is no public prosecutor in this country whose duty it is to prosecute in all these cases. For instance, there are scores of companies which are in default in making their returns year after year, and it is only when things become very bad, or where somebody chooses to call the attention of the Registry Department to the default, that proceedings are taken and a penalty is enforced. We have not as they have in Scotland a Procurator-fiscal to enforce penalties of this kind, and in ninety cases out of a hundred the penalties under the Act will not be enforced. Therefore, the only real protection which honest traders have is that afforded to them by this Clause of being able to say, "We have been willfully misled by the firm with whom we have contracted, they have not told us who the partners are as they have not registered, and we have the right to say that we will not go on with the contract."
  Colonel Sir C. SEELY: I think the last speaker and other hon. Members really misunderstand the size and scope of this Bill and the large number of people to-whom it will apply. Large firms like Messrs. Rothschild have their lawyers and their cashiers and their corresponding-clerks, and there is no risk of such firms-not having all their registration properly completed and every provision of the Bill completely complied with. I think the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. Henderson) was perfectly correct in saying that this Bill will apply to an enormous-number of very small people who have very little knowledge of legal matters and who may easily make, quite unintentionally and unwittingly, small mistakes in their registration, or omit to register some points so that they would be deemed to have failed to comply with the provisions of the Bill. Are they, under those circumstances, when a man who has made a contract by which he is perhaps losing and wishes to wriggle out of it, to be put to all the great difficulties, which in such cases would be very great indeed, of proving that their mistake was purely an accidental one? That would seem to me to expose them to-a risk of blackmail and trouble which I do not think the House would wish for a moment to impose upon them. I think I am correct in saying, subject to the opinion of" the learned Solicitor-General, that if any—

  233
  one willfully misleads any man with whom he is making a contract as to the position -of his firm, or as to particulars of the partners in it, then under the existing law he will be able to obtain relief from the penalties of his contract. I think, therefore, there is no real necessity for this Bill from that; point of view, and that it will impose very great trouble and serious hardship on a number of very small people, and particularly on small firms. For these reasons I trust that the Government will consider the desirability of leaving out this Clause, because the other penalties are, I think, quite sufficient to attain the object they desire, and, otherwise, quite unintentionally and unwittingly they may be causing very considerable hardship in the country.
  Mr. WING: There is another point of view to be considered in this matter. A commercial traveller may have made a contract to sell certain goods, and the firm may be called upon to deliver the goods to a firm which was not registered and to whom they do not wish to deliver the goods. This matter acts in both ways. I really hope that the Government will stand to this Clause, because it is the soul of the Bill so far as protecting the trader is concerned.
  Mr. DENNISS: I hope that the Government will adhere to this Clause. It only comes into operation in case a person who is not registered has to take legal proceedings to recover something under a contract. The debtor can then say in Court, "I would not have dealt with you
  if I had known that you were not registered, and you cannot recover." That is a very fair position to take up. Then in the same proceedings the unregistered person can say to the Court, "I am extremely sorry I was not registered, but it was due to an accident, to inadvertence or some other cause, and I have got a just and equitable right to relief, and therefore should be allowed to go on with the action." If he prove those things he would go on with the action. All the arguments used in this case against this Clause were used in the moneylender's case. If a moneylender did not register himself he could not recover the money he had lent. A great many people, like the hon. Member, said that that was very hard on the moneylender, that it was a new principle, one-sided, and so on.
  Mr. HENDERSON: I never said that in the moneylender's case.
  Mr. DENNISS: Is not the case of the fraudulent German, or even the fraudulent Britisher, as bad as that of the moneylender, and some moneylenders act straightforwardly. The moneylender can-not recover under any circumstances if he is not registered, but in this case a man can get relief, so that this Clause is less severe than that which was passed in the case of the moneylender.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out down to the word 'Court' stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 206; Noes, 31.

  Division No. 65.]

  AYES.

  [6.15 p.m.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Fell, Arthur

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Bull, Sir William James

  Ferens, Rt. Hen. Thomas Robinson

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Butcher, John George

  Field, William

  Alden, Percy

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Finney, Samuel

  Archdale, Lieut, E. M.

  Cator, John

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Barnett, Captain R. W.

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Clough, William

  Gardner, Ernest

  Barrie, H. T.

  Clynes, John R.

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Bathurst, Col. Hon. A. B. (Gleuc., E.)

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Gilbert, J. D.

  Bathurst, Capt. C. (Wilts, Wilton)

  Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

  Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Cory, James Herbert (Cardiff)

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Craig, Col. James (Down, E.)

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

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hanson, Charles Augustin

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Currie, George W.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

  Bird, Alfred

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

  Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

  Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Bliss, Joseph

  Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

  Helme, Sir Nerval Watson

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

  Henderson, Rt. Hen. Arthur (Durham)

  Brace, William

  Edge, Captain William

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Higham, John Sharp

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Hill, James (Bradford, C.)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Stanton, Charles Butt

  Hinds, John

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Steel-Maitland. A. D.

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Nuttall, Harry

  Stewart, Gershom

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

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

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Hops, John Deans (Haddington)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Sutton, John E.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Sykes, Col. Alan John (Ches., Knutsf'd).

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph (Rotherham)

  Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

  Hudson, Walter

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

  Philipps, Maj.-Gen. Ivor (Southampton)

  Thomas-Stanford, Charles

  Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

  Phillips, Sir Owen (Chester)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Tickler, T. G.

  Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcilfle)

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

  Tootill, Robert

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Kenyan, Barnet

  Radford, Sir George Heynes

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  King, Joseph

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

  Wardle, George J.

  Layland-Barrett, Sir F.

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

  Watson, Hon. W.

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Wedgwood, Commander Josiah C.

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Macmaster, Donald

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

  M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Williams, Thomas J. (Swansea)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Mallalieu, Frederick William

  Robinson, Sidney

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Manfield, Harry

  Rowlands, James

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Rutherford, Sir John (Lanes., Darwen)

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

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Meux, Hon. Sir Hedworth

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Millar, James Duncan

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Younger, Sir George

  Morgan, George Hay

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Morrell, Philip

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Walton)

  Edmund Talbot and Mr. Gulland.

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

  NOES.

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Boland, John Pius

  Haslam, Lewis

  Partington, O.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Reddy, Michael

  Byrne, Alfred

  Keating, Matthew

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Seely, Lt.-Col. Sir C. H. (Mansfield)

  Doris, William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  Du Pre, W. Baring

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Whitty, Patrick Joseph

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Nolan, Joseph

  Fitzpatrick, John Laior

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr,

  Gretton, John

  O'Malley, William

  J. M. Henderson and Mr. Pringle.

  Hackett, John

  Bill read a second time: and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Jams Hope.]

  Amendments made: In Sub-section (2), after the word "Court" ["High Court"], insert the words "or a judge thereof."
  After the word "Court" ["power of the High Court"], insert the words "or a judge thereof."—[Mr. Pretyman.]

  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 ex-
  236
  ceeding three months, or to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words,
  "Where a corporation is guilty of an offence under this Act every director, secretary, and officer of the corporation who is knowingly a party to the default shall be guilty of the like offence and liable to a like penalty."
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think that the end of Clause (9) is the right place for this Amendment. My hon. Friend below me raised that point some time ago-

  237
  Clause (9) relates to penalties for false statements only. This really ought to have been put in, not as a new Sub-clause to the Clause we are discussing, but as a new Clause relating to penalties under the whole Act. You cannot put it in as an Amendment of this particular Clause.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Perhaps it would be better as a new Clause. Mr. Speaker suggested that it should be introduced as a Sub-clause and I did not perhaps appreciate exactly the effect of it, or that the operation would be limited to the previous words in Clause (9).
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: On a point of Order. It must be so. In this new Subclause we are discussing the penalties to be placed on corporations for any default they may make in the Act, whereas if you add this new Amendment to Clause (9) it is only relating to penalties for certain particular false statements, and has nothing to do with the penalties in Clause (7)—default in registration. I think it must be a new Clause applying to the penalties under the Act.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think it need be put forward as a new Clause. It is rather a matter of correct drafting. It does not merely refer to the other words of the Clause, if it goes in as a separate Sub-section; but the marginal note will have to be altered. Its action need not be limited to any words in the first Sub-section. Perhaps, however, the Solicitor-General will give us his opinion on the matter.
  Sir G. CAVE: I was going to suggest exactly what you suggest. It is a mere point of drafting, and I hope the House will put the words in at this stage as we cannot go back to the new Clauses. We can in another place easily separate the two subjects.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: As the Solicitor-General said, we cannot go back to Clause (7), but we can put the words in as the first instead of the second Subsection of Clause (9).
  Sir G. CAVE: Yes, I think that would even make it more clear.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: As the first Sub-section?
  Sir G. CAVE: Yes.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not want to be persistent and I do not mind where
  238
  the Amendment conies in if my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will continue his undertaking to separate the two in another place and not consider the matter to be finally dealt with.
  An HON. MEMBER: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said so.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Solicitor-General moves it as the first Subsection.
  Amendment 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 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 particular, 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 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.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "Act" ["should be registered under this Act"], insert the words "or an alteration made in the registered particulars."
  In Sub-section (2), after the word "Act" ["ought to be registered under

  239
  this Act"], insert the words "or an alteration ought to be made in the registered particulars."—[Mr. Pretyman.]

  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 filed, and he shall send by post or deliver a certificate of the registration thereof to the firm or person registering and the certificate shall be exhibited in a conspicuous position at the principal place of business of the firm or individual.
  Amendments made: After the word "certificate" ["and the certificate shall be exhibited"], insert the words "or a certified copy thereof."
  After the word "be" ["certificate shall be exhibited"], insert the word "kept."—[Mr. Pretyman.]
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words "and if not kept so exhibited, every partner in the firm or the individual, as the case may be, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds."
  Mr. WATSON: Would not corporations come within this particular provision of the Bill?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: If partners of a firm, they would come in.
  Mr. WATSON: Where a corporation is an agent for another corporation or firm, they have to furnish particulars. Should not this Amendment apply to them as well? Sir G. CAVE: This Amendment does apply to them. It is only when partners in in the firm that they make that return.
  Mr. WATSON: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will look at Clause 2, there is the case where a corporation carries on business as nominee for some other firm or person. There the corporation makes the return qua corporation, not qua partners of a firm.
  Sir G. CAVE: I think it better that we should not use here the word "individual," but "person," which, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, will include "corporation." If I may be allowed, I will move it in that way.
  Amendment made to the proposed Amendment: Leave out the word "indi-
  240
  vidual" ["in the firm or the individual, as the case may be"], and insert instead thereof the word "person."—[Sir G. Cave.]
  Words proposed, as amended, there inserted.

  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 prescibed 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 exceeding 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 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.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (3), leave out the word "will," and insert instead thereof the word "may."—[Mr. Pretyman.]

  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 direct, any person may inspect the documents filed by the Registrar on payment of such fees as may be appointed by the Treasury not exceeding one shilling for

  241
  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 200 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, be received in evidence.
  Amendment made: Leave out the words "the Treasury may appoint" ["or extract such fees as the Treasury may appoint not exceeding two shillings"], and insert instead thereof the words "may be prescribed."—[Mr. Pretyinan.]

  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 name 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 the 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.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) after the word "all" ["shall, in all trade catalogues"], to insert the words "letters and cards containing any offer or invitation to transact business."
  Mr. CURRIE: I regret to have to object again to this Clause as it is now proposed to be amended. The hon. Gentleman has modified the position since the other day, and I particularly regret to have to raise the point again, in view of the fact that I had a conversation with him, and I am afraid we were at cross-purposes, for which I dare say I am to blame. I do not suggest the hon. Gentleman is to blame at all. This proposal that the names of all partners in a firm, even the smallest firm, shall be placed upon every sheet of notepaper which may bear the signature of the firm is no part of any request the chambers of commerce have ever made to the Government. I know what has taken place in the last ten days. I know it has been put to the provincial chambers whether they will take the Bill with this Clause or lose the Bill. That is practically what it comes to. I know they have said they will take the Bill with this Clause. At the same time, they have not had an opportunity of considering it properly. I admit that if a firm keeps two kinds of notepaper, and writes two kinds of letters, and always distinguishes one from the other, there is a little to be said for differentiating between one kind of letter and another, and if it were practicable to earmark letters as dealing with trade advertisements, canvassing matters and letters to fulfil somewhat the function of a trade catalogue, I do not know I could object to the course proposed. But that is not practicable, and I think the chances of trouble arising from this Clause as proposed to be amended are really far too great. I hope- before the Bill is passed, or before it is considered in another place, the chambers of commerce will bestir themselves and really express their views upon it.
  A great deal would depend upon what interpretation was placed on the words "containing any offer or invitation to

  243
  transact business." Supposing a grain merchant wrote to one of his customers: "With reference to our talk yesterday over the telephone, we see that wheat has tumbled to so-and-so this morning. We can still get you those three cargoes, and we advise you to go ahead." That read strictly would be an invitation to transact business, and yet can anyone think of anything more ridiculous than that such a firm should be pilloried? Take the case of a solicitor who might write to a client: "We see your shares in such-and-such a company have risen to such-and-such a price. Please authorise us to carry out the transaction we were talking about the other day." Take the case of any ordinary business man away from home who might sit down in an hotel, and, perhaps on the back of an envelope, send a message confirming some arrangement come to, and saying he will write in a day or two. The business might be extremely important. The signature or initials of that firm would appear, and an offence would be committed. This is undiluted inquisition. The chambers of commerce never asked for anything of the sort, and I think it monstrous that every small trading concern in the country—my own Constituency is full of them—should be in this position. Take a case of three old women making five, shillings a week out of Berlin wool, or brothers carrying on business as partners—I think it monstrous that people like that should be chivied and prosecuted in this way. I have been working on this for years with chambers of commerce. I do not want to wreck the Bill, and I do not want to press the Amendment if it is regarded as wrecking the Bill; but I protest against this sort of thing, and against any idea being allowed to get abroad that the chambers of commerce in this country have ever asked for anything of the sort.
  Sir F. CAWLEY: I hope the Government will not press this Amendment. There is a later Amendment down in the name of the hon. Gentleman to leave out the words "and business letters." In this present Amendment he is going to whittle away the concession. Without this Amendment the Clause would read, "shall, in all trade catalogues, and trade circulars." I think that is quite enough. Anything further is an irritation to tradesmen, and is putting all sorts of hindrances in their way. I can easily imagine a man of business dictating to a typewriter a
  244
  good long letter, and then wanting to put something about some transaction, such as, "You will be well-advised to buy So-and-so." If he were to put that in, it would scrap his whole letter. Two lots of stationery would have to be required by every firm, and it would really tell very hard on business people. It is really putting hindrances in the way of business. As I understand, ships sometimes have fresh partners for every voyage, and if there is occasion to write, are they to put the names of everybody on their notepaper if they want to sell some of their cargo? If the hon. Gentleman will excuse my saying so, it is rather a paltry Amendment. If he sticks to the words "in all trade catalogues, and trade circulars" I think that goes quite far enough, and anything further would cause irritation to business people.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I admit that this is a very difficult point, but if we consider the object of the Bill and the Debate which took place in Committee, I think it will be realised that what the House desires is that, on the initiation of any busines, the person who is asked to transact that business should have his attention called to the identity of the people who are desiring to trade with him. That is really what we want to get at, and we further want to arrive at that object, so far as it can be obtained, without imposing an undue burden on the ordinary traders of the country. This question was very fully debated in Committee, and the Committee generally agreed to the obligation placed upon registered firms to place their name and nationality, and I hope the House will bear in mind very clearly that they are not asked to put upon the paper all the particulars they are obliged to register, because, of course, that would be quite an undue burden. All they are asked to put upon their stationery is their name and nationality. We have cut it down to that point, and in the case of a firm, the name and nationality of the partners. That is all we ask. That was the limit to which the House, I think, agreed.
  Let me come to the other side of the question. It having been decided what is to go on the stationery, the question remained what should be included in the stationery. By an Amendment in Committee it was suggested that a great deal of stationery should be subjected to that

  245
  provision, and invoices, and many different kinds of communications and statements. I see an Amendment on the Paper to include "show cards." As for invoices, they are clearly at a subsequent stage. The contract is completed before an invoice is required. A man does not give an invoice until he has undertaken to buy, and therefore I think it is rather a needless burden to include invoices. We did insert in the Bill, as originally drafted, "business letters," but very strong objection was taken to that by several hon. Members. I considered it very carefully, as I undertook to do, and came to the conclusion that we might take out business letters generally, and confine the obligations to "letters and cards containing any offer or invitation to transact business," and really this is not an extension, but a very considerable limitation, of the obligation which was imposed in the original Clause. For instance, take the ease of professional firms. Professional firms very rarely send out invitations to transact business. Their ordinary business correspondence would not be affected at all, and, as to the point of having two different kinds of stationery, it is quite easy to put a stamp on a particular letter where this is required. It seems very easy for a firm to have one kind of stationery where the nationality, if foreign, can be inserted, and there can be no real objection to that. I do not think the case brought forward of those very small firms and people entering into small partnerships arises. I think it is hardly conceivable that in any of these cases, and certainly in very few, will there be trading under a business name at all. I do not think the old women doing a wool business, which was referred to by the hon. Member opposite, trade under a business name at all, and therefore they will not have to be registered.
  Mr. CURRIE: But very often they do trade under a business name.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Not as a rule, and very seldom.
  Mr. CURRIE: Yes, they do. The name may have been their mother's name.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: A Bill of this kind is bound to impose some disabilities and hardships, and we cannot pass it without putting some people to some trouble. Unfortunately, we have to deal with this kind of legislation; the innocent must suffer with the guilty and be given some
  246
  trouble which they would not otherwise have to undergo. We are only doing this because we gain a greater national advantage than the measure of the burden put upon these people. From that point of view I think it is reasonable to ask people who are sending letters and cards containing any offer or invitation to transact business to do what we are asking, in order to prevent a person from writing to some wholesale firm inviting them to do business and to send goods and when they are sent to him both the man and the goods disappear. What we propose would oblige this person to give these particulars, and the Contract Clause would clearly enable that firm to examine the Register. If a person sent for goods without giving these particulars he would commit an offence under this Clause, and he would have to use his real name. I think we can hardly do less than that. I propose to meet my hon. Friends who object to business letters, and I think this is a very great improvement. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not very much!"] Of course hon. Members cannot have it both ways. I know they are entitled, if they desire it, to omit business letters altogether, but as far as my action is concerned, representing the Board of Trade, I propose this Amendment as meeting hon. Members in their desire to omit the words "business letters." I may say that the hon. Member for Leith Burghs (Mr. Currie) is quite wrong when he says that chambers of commerce have not asked for this Amendment. I submitted this Amendment to the Central Chamber of Commerce and they circulated it at, once, and approved of it.
  Mr. CURRIE: I know that process was gone through. My point is that perforce it was gone through in such a hurry that the chambers of commerce of the country were not able to apply their minds to the point.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: That argument would have had great force if they had sounded an uncertain note, but practically unanimously they approved the Clause without hesitation, and there was hardly a dissentient voice—or, at any rate, not one dissentient was brought to my notice.
  Mr. CURRIE: There has not been time yet.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: There has been plenty of time to say "Yes," and I do not know why on a matter of this kind it should take-longer to say "No." As a matter of fact

  247
  they said "Yes." This is not a commercial question of a legal or a remote character upon which a chamber of commerce would require a great deal of consultation. They considered it, and distinctly said that this ought to be done. I hope my hon. "Friend will not press his point.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I do not wish to take up a strong line about the particular words in this Amendment as regards letters. But even as regards letters I think the hon. Member for Leith Burghs is going a little too far when he claims to have the whole of the chambers of commerce in his pocket. My own chamber of commerce, so far as instructions have reached me in regard to the present Amendment, do not ask me to consent to the withdrawal of these words, but, on the contrary, they ask me to put in words carrying the obligation still further, namely, to other matters. What I wish to say with regard to these words is that it seems to me it ought not to be beyond the resources of draftsmanship to limit the words to letters initiating business in some shape or another, and if you can-snot do this, there are dangers in those words. I hope the hon. Member who represents the Board of Trade will not, because letters are attacked, drop the rest of his Amendment. I also have an Amendment down relating to show cards, and his Amendment is even more generous towards my desires, because it is not confined to show cards, but to cards of all kinds. I hope the hon. Member will not drop cards, because I wish to hit a particularly rascally kind of transaction, under which cheap scissors are tied on a card, and, by an ingenious manipulation of names, they evade the penalties which attach to a false trade description under the Merchandise Marks Act. In this way they humbug the consumer, and this is an illegitimate incursion into the field of British trade. For these reasons I hope cards will not be dropped out of this Amendment.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: I happen to be a member of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, which represents practically all the provincial chambers of commerce, and, speaking from inside knowledge, I can confirm what has been said by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. The great majority of the provincial chambers of commerce are in favour of the general lines of inserting
  248
  these particulars on business papers. Various Amendments have been entrusted to me by the Associated Chambers of Commerce, and if there had been any Amendment antagonistic to that moved by my hon. Friend I should have taken notice of it and put down an Amendment on behalf of the Associated Chambers of Commerce. Not having had any notice of that kind, I can support the view that the opinion of the chambers of commerce is in favour of the view put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, and not of the view expressed by the hon. Member for Leith Burghs.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: With regard to chambers of commerce, personally I think it would be a very grave mistake to legislate on the representation of any particular body in this country. In a very large number of cases to my knowledge the chambers of commerce do not represent all businesses, and there are hundreds of businesses outside the chambers of commerce, which generally represent one or two leading firms in a particular district. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is not so!"] We must all say what we know about chambers of commerce. It may be all right for Sheffield, and this looks as if we are going to have another Trade Marks Bill in this particular measure. We know quite well that Sheffield has been after this kind of legislation for years, but I repeat that chambers of commerce do not represent the actual business of this country to the extent which has been claimed, and I think we ought to be chary in saying because they want certain things that what is asked for is going to be to the advantage of those engaged in a particular business. Do I understand from thi6 Amendment that cards or any post cards sent out containing any offer or invitation to transact business must contain upon it all the information asked for in Subsections (a) and (b) of this Clause? I ask any person who has read these two Subsections, how is this to be done on a post card or card sent out which contains any offer or invitation to transact business? It is provided in the case of an individual that the Christian name or the initials thereof and present surname must be given, and 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 of origin of all the partners in the firm. How can all that be put upon a business letter or a post card

  249
  or a card sent out by a business firm? I am quite certain that when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament and contains this new Amendment a very large number of Members of Parliament will get into trouble for passing such legislation as this, which constitutes a great interference with the ordinary transactions of business and which, in my opinion, is a complete absurdity to put into an Act of Parliament.
  7.0 P.M.
  Sir W. ESSEX: I sympathise with the desire of the Government to secure a complete knowledge, as between a buyer and a seller, of the persons involved in a contract, but I cannot help feeling that the whole machinery of this Clause is so cumbersome and involved that it will break down by its own weight and become inoperative. I do not share the fears of the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. J. Samuel) who thinks that we shall get into trouble by passing this Amendment in its present form. We shall find, in my opinion, that inasmuch as the bulk of the operations of this Clause will be confined to comparatively small firms, those fears need not arise. As hon. Members know a very large amount of business is done "on the nod," in which no transactions of the character of writing is entered until the cheque passes. This is what will happen if this Clause is insisted upon. A man will either do more business "on the nod" in the way I have described, and in the way of trusting one another, or it will mean an enormous transference of the free and open business methods to the protection afforded by the registration of limited liability companies. Is it suggested that every bit of stationery that is sent out by a firm will have to be encumbered with all the various items that are here insisted upon? I see one hon. Member goes to the extent of suggesting that it should be put on cheques and advertisements, but I think that will expose us to ridicule. If we do this we shall miss our aim, and encumber hopelessly the small trades of the country. I regret that we have not taken the course generally adopted by large numbers of traders, who put down the particulars of the business transacted on a printed form which is given by one and received by the other. A commercial traveller, for instance, if he represents a respectable house and does not do his business"on the nod," invariably has his books printed with the name and
  250
  style of his firm and probably his own private name and address, and he enters the bargain that he has made and the details of the goods that he has sold, and hands it over to the purchaser. The purchaser keeps it, and it is a witness between the two as to what they have done. You might easily attain your end by making such a document obligatory upon everybody and insisting that all these particulars should appear upon it. It is only in one of those two ways that you can proceed. I would like to see the whole of this Clause swept away, and the simple business-like arrangement made that persons doing business should exchange documents giving details of the contract, such document bearing the name and the particulars which this Bill seeks to procure.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: It seems to me to be a storm in a teacup about these business letters. Ninety-nine firms out of one hundred already put the names of their partners on all their business correspondence. I have a large number of business-letters, and even old-fashioned professional firms have long since adopted the ordinary system and put the names of their partners at the top of their writing paper. My hon. Friend opposite puts this Amendment forward in the light of a compromise, but I do not think that we can at all accept the compromise to leave out the words "business letters." They were an essential part of the Amendment inserted in Committee, an Amendment which was very carefully considered, which was put in by the Government, and which was down in the names of several hon. Members. That is what we want. We do not want it whittled down merely to that particular type of letter which contains an invitation to do business. I quite agree that would involve two different kinds of stationery, and when dictating a letter to your typist you would have to consider whether you ought to put it on paper bearing the names of the partners to the firm, or on paper without those names. Whoever heard of legislation reduced to such an absurdity. The object of this Bill is to secure that everybody shall know with whom they are trading. All these objections of persons who want to do business on the nod would not apply if only they would trade in their own name and not in a name other than their own. If they do so trade, then our contention? is that they should put on their business correspondence, as is now done by nearly every respectable firm, the name of the

  251
  firm and the name of the partners in the firm. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend, whose Amendment has not been received with much favour by those who object to the Bill or by those who, like myself, support the Bill very strongly, will withdraw it.
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: This seems to me to be rather a half-hearted compromise, and I would suggest either that the names should be on all communications or that they should not be on any. It is very difficult to determine what is a letter containing an offer or invitation to transact business. When does the invitation begin, and who is to interpret it? Take the correspondence from its very earliest date and read it through. Who is to say when the correspondence contains an invitation to transact business or whether the names of every partner should be on the correspondence from the beginning or only at the end of it? I would suggest either that all the corrspondence should contain the names of the partners or that it should be omitted from all, and should appear in the contract itself. Personally, I should have thought that would be satisfactory. I do not think you want to put all these names on all your printed invitations if you are quite sure that at the time the contract is entered into the parties know who are the partners of the firm and with whom they are entering into the contract. Let me point out some of the difficulties which are likely to arise. You have got to put not only the name, surname, and Christian name of every partner of the firm, but, supposing one of the partners has changed his name, you have got to put in his former surname. The object of that is to stop a man who is in reality a German changing his name from Schmidt into Smith and concealing the fact. That has my entire sypathy, as it will have of everyone in the House, but it is likely to go further. Let me give a case which came under my notice a short time ago. A man whom we will call "B" was the head of a large firm. He had no son, and he wanted someone to follow him. He had a sister who married a man called "A," and who had a boy. "B" adopted this boy, educated him, and trained him for his trade on the one condition that he should take his name, and that boy is now, as "B," at the head of a large and important firm. Is ho to put on every com-
  252
  munication that he makes "B, née A," or "Brown, nee Jones"? Surely, if the change of name is from one British name to a second British name, and if the British nationality is clear, there ought to be a certain amount of time within which a man may be allowed to change his name! Otherwise this unfortunate man may be prosecuted, go to prison, have all his contracts made void, and have to pay £5 per day, owing to the fact that he did not disclose the fact that, although born "Jones," he had been "Brown" all his life. That is the kind of thing that is likely to arise. I hope that the Board of Trade will retain the exercise of discretion as far as this particular Amendment Soes. It is a half-hearted affair, and I do not believe it will work. It is not practicable, and I appeal to the Government to make up their mind one way or the other and to let us have either all the names on all the communications, or none of the names on any of the communications other than trade circulars.
  Sir STEPHEN COLLINS: I should like to explain that when I cheered the hon. Member's phrase, "A storm in a tea-cup," I was referring to the discussion generally on the Bill. The Bill for all intents and purposes is just what it was. There has been no material or serious alteration, and we have been discussing trivial matters for over three hours. We have made very little progress in the way of altering the Bill, and I suggest that we soon get through it and get on to some other business.
  Mr. FELL: I have an Amendment down simply to make it necessary that all letters from any firm should bear the names of the partners in that firm. Of course, if a man was Rosenthal before and is now called Rose, he would put "Rose, formerly Rosenthal," and it would be no more difficult than to put one's telephone number and telegraphic address, as is done on all business communications as an absolute matter of form. I get many letters from solicitors and other firms in Canada, where they have a great many partners, and in every case there is the general name of the firm and underneath every one of the names of the partners. I should like to see the man who would convict such a person as my hon. Friend mentioned for putting down the name by which he has gone since he was an infant and not some other name by which he has never been known. One of the main points in

  253
  the Bill has frequently been put in the form of a question to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and he has always replied sympathetically, but said that he has no power to compel people to put on their letter paper the name of the firm arid their previous German name. This Bill seeks to give that power. I do not mean with regard to those little slips of paper which are filled up on one buying a small article in a shop and which are more like a ticket than anything else, but when a firm writes it should write in its own name.
  Sir NORVAL HELME: I am bound to express my regret that the Board of Trade should think it necessary to insist that the names of all the partners, with all the particulars that have been mentioned, should be put on the post cards. It is almost too trivial, and I can scarcely think that the Associated Chambers of Commerce ever intended that it should be done. I would appeal to my hon. Friend whether, in view of the opinions expressed, he could not do away with this faulty regulation, that would certainly break down in working.
  Sir G. CAVE: The Debate has been rather interesting, and the arguments have been directed, not only against this Amendment, but against the Clause as a whole. So far as I can see, the Amendment is objected to, both by those who support the Clause because they desire that all business communications shall disclose the names of the partners, and by those who oppose the Clause because they object to any words of this kind being inserted. I think that is a little unreasonable, and those who oppose the Amendment from the point of view of opponents of the Clause must understand that if they ask us not to insist on this Amendment we must keep the Bill as it stands. That meets, I think, with general assent on both sides. May I remind the House that this Clause was the subject of a long discussion in Committee, and I think the general view then was, as it is to-day, that where a firm is not trading under its own name there ought to appear on all business communications some intimation of the fact, so that persons dealing with that firm may know the names of the partners in it? There is no great hardship about that. As the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) said, nearly all firms of professional men adopt that course without any compulsion at all. The letters I receive from solicitors
  254
  at any rate do usually bear the names of every person in the firm, and that is done because they like their clients to know with whom they are in communication. Surely the motives which govern those firms in giving their names might also move traders to give their names. At all events, it is the general view amongst traders in the country that persons who trade under a name not their own, for whatever reason, really ought to submit to the slight inconvenience of putting their names on their business papers. We have considered the best course to follow in this matter, and we have come to the conclusion it is better not to insist on this Amendment, but rather to leave the Bill as it stands, and the effect of that would be that postcards would not require the names to be inserted. My hon. Friend stated, in Committee, that he did not desire the provisions to apply to the ordinary postcards. Under these circumstances I ask the leave of the House to withdraw this Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I beg to move in Sub-section (1), after the word "catalogues" ["in all trade catalogues"] to insert the word "show cards." I take it there are two kinds of cards which come under the phrase "show cards." The one would be the regular printed pictorial card, in which a firm holds itself out to the whole world. There would be no hardship in regard to that. The second kind of card, also called a show card, is the actual vehicle whereby goods are put on the market, and the appeal is made to the public. Take the sort of card used in connection with tools and scissors. These articles are usually bound together with a name on the top, a name which may be specious and entirely misleading by suggesting some quality or origin which the articles have not. In these cases it surely is not at all a hard thing to insist upon this requirement if the goods are from a foreign firm or a firm not of the kind suggested by the words used on the top of the packet, and in that case we contend that they should be compelled to disclose the true names of the partners. This practice is in its essence an appeal for business in an insidious form, which, if it injures anybody, injures either the humble consumer or the workman by depriving him of employment which otherwise he might obtain.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: There are many show cards used because the purchaser desires that the name of the manufacturers shall not appear at all, as they desire to attract customers to their own shops. On these the origin of the goods is not disclosed. This provision would interfere with a very large number of these persons and would divert trade from one quarter to another.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I should like to understand what is the real intention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: There is no other intention than that which I stated.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Let me give a case to illustrate my point. I will take the instance of knives or scissors. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to tell me that any person who goes into a shop to buy such an article will look at a show card having printed on it the names of all the partners in the firm before they will buy? I say that that suggestion is ridiculous. You had better have the names of the partners on the scissors or the knives themselves. Anyone acquainted with business in shops, and I have some knowledge on the point, will say that people never look at the show card. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes, they do!"] Excuse me, they never do. They simply go into a shop to buy the article they require. The show cards are really for the purpose of advertising in general and not in particular. They are not for advertising a particular firm. I should like to point out the injury this sort of thing would do. Some years ago I sat on a Committee upstairs which dealt with the provision made on a demand put forward by the Sheffield manufacturers that the words "Made in Germany" should appear on all articles made in that country which were offered for sale here. The late Sir Charles Wilson, of Hull, in giving evidence before that Committee, described how this provision had dislocated the trade of the country.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: Is this in order? It is totally foreign to the Amendment.
  Mr. SAMUEL: I know it is out of order, but I am stating it as an illustration to show that you are proposing to do a very great injury to trade. What the people want is a good article at a reasonable
  256
  price, and if a Sheffield manufacturer, or any other manufacturer, can offer it at a reasonable price people will buy it. They do not care whether it is made by Brown, Jones or Smith. I agree that in the future they may want to know that the firm is a British firm, but to insist on putting on the card the names of the partners and the origin of each, and all that tomfoolery which has been referred to this afternoon, is simply absurd. If we are going to insist on all these particulars appearing on these show cards, then I advise the Sheffield manufacturers to put the information on the articles themselves.
  Sir TUDOR WALTERS: I think the hon. Member who spoke last has completely misunderstood the proposition of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Stuart-Worhley). He has been telling us his experience. I should suggest, in connection with miscellaneous articles sold in shops, it may be mustard, blacking, or glue, and he suggests that all the customer is concerned about is getting a good article. But my right hon. Friend has in mind an entirely different set of conditions and circumstances. It is not true to say it does not matter a bit who has made the article. If my hon. Friend knew anything about the quality of steel—I doubt if he does—he would know that the name on the scissors or razor, or on any article made from steel, is the only guarantee the ordinary purchasing public possesses of the quality of the article. There is associated with the names of people who make the best qualities of steel articles a very considerable goodwill, and this is recognised by unscrupulous people in the trade, who consequently trade under some name not their own, but under a name which sounds very much like the name of the genuine maker of the article. They choose their trade names accordingly.
  I could give dozens of instances in which that is done, and we want the show-card in order to fight against that. We want the show cards which are sent round by the wholesale trader for the purposes of the retail trade to show the real name of the maker, because it may be a German who is trading under a name which sounds very much like a well-known Sheffield name, merely with the addition of "and Co.," the name having been adopted with the idea of imposing on the public. Where a man is trading under a name which is not his real name, then we ask that his real name shall be disclosed on

  257
  the card, and I suggest that that is absolutely essential. I do not see what objection there can be to it. I can only say that the members of my firm are anxious to put their names on our business papers, in order to show that they are associated with me in the business. There may be no such inducement perhaps in the ordinary trading community, but I say that wherever a man is trading under a name which is not his own name, his show card should give his actual name. Hon. Members who are opposed to this Bill altogether have tried to justify their opposition by suggesting that there may be a dozen partners in a firm, all of whom may have changed their names and that therefore it may be necessary to put twenty-four names on the card. I say that that is absurd. In the vast majority of cases this simply means that if a man adopts some other name than his own, for the purpose of having a name which sounds like that of a well-known trading firm—and as a rule he does that in order to impose on the credulous public—then his show cards should give his real name as well as his business name. If the Government cannot accept the Amendment of my right hon. Friend and colleague I hope they will at any rate agree to adopt it in a modified form.
  Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTH: I should like to say a few words in support of the Amendment. Early in the War the Board of Trade held a number of little exhibitions of foreign made goods for the purpose of showing English manufacturers how to compete in certain branches of business with aliens. I visited several of these exhibitions, and nothing struck me more than the ingenious and elaborate attempts made by the alien manufacturer to imitate in every possible way British show cards and advertisements by the use of every kind of patriotic device and British name. The evident intention was to mislead the British public, and I am quite sure that such businesslike people as the Germans would not nave gone to all that trouble if they had been of the opinion of the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Samuel) that the British public never troubled to look at the show cards. This is a most important Amendment. I hope it will be accepted, and that the Government will not allow the Clause to be weakened in any particular.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: This Amendment does not raise the question of weakening
  258
  the Clause as it stands, because we propose to adhere to the Clause as it stands and include these particulars in all business letters. This Amendment proposes to apply the same particulars to show-cards. I have great sympathy with it, but my difficulty is that it is not perfectly certain what a show card is. So far as I am aware there is no legal definition of a show card, and the House will agree that it is rather a dangerous thing to impose a liability upon people when there is no actual definition.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEYmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: That is not the point. Show-cards may be held to include things we do not want to include. I am perfectly prepared to accept the spirit of the Amendment, but I do not feel sure that the word "show cards" is exactly the right word to use. I think I am entitled to say that in view of the fact that this Amendment has only been upon the Paper for a day. Had my Amendment been accepted, this would have been covered. That being the case I did not give this point that particular consideration I should otherwise have done. It is only since my Amendment was withdrawn that this one has come into prominence. You cannot expect the Board of Trade at a moment's notice to accept words of which they do not quite appreciate the full meaning. May I point out to the House that this was a new Clause inserted in this House, therefore it can be amended in another place. I am quite prepared to give my right hon. Friend an undertaking that we accept the spirit of his Amendment. We may find that the word "show card" is a limitation. It must be examined with a little more time than we have yet had. We do not want to impose unnecessary burdens upon people. Perhaps I may be allowed to leave it in this way, that I desire to accept the Amendment, and if the word "show cards" is found to be the right word and does not require any limiting words it will be inserted in another place, but if limiting words are found to be necessary it will be inserted with such limiting words.
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I venture to hope that the Government will include what nine men out of ten understand by the word "show cards," namely, cards to which are fixed samples of the articles or cards on which are painted illustrations

  259
  of the articles. If you are going to put the names on the catalogues, you ought to put them on the cards advertising the goods. At the present time foreign goods can be passed off as English goods. We want to stop that illegitimate trading.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I would rather not have my Amendment negatived. I accept the undertaking given by the hon. Gentleman, and thank him for giving it. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. MORTON: I beg to move, to Subsection (1), after the word '"circulars" ["catalogues, circulars, and business letters"], to insert the words "invoices, statements."
  I am aware of the great interest taken in this Bill in the City of London, a part of the country which, perhaps, is more interested in it than any other. Our anxiety is to make the Bill effective and useful and as strong as possible in order to achieve our object. There is a great desire at the present time to get at and control these Germans who trade with British names. I ask the House to give a fair consideration to this proposal in the hope that I shall receive the support of the Government. If I do not, of course I cannot help it. I do not deny that there will be a little hardship connected with the proposal, but there will be hardship connected with the carrying out of any Bill of this sort.
  Mr. WATT: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. I have already given reasons for not including the word "invoices," and the word "statements" is far too wide.
  Mr. MORTON: If the Government do not agree, I am not going to put the House to a Division and therefore ask leave to withdraw.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. SPEAKERcalled upon Mr. Penne-father—
  Mr. DENNISS: On a point of Order, I have an Amendment down to leave out the words "business letters." It also stands in the names of the Parliamentary
  260
  Secretary to the Board of Trade and the hon. Baronet the Member for Elgin and Nairn (Sir A. Williamson).
  Mr. SPEAKER: We disposed of that in the discussion on a previous Amendment.
  Mr. DENNISS: May I point out that that Amendment was not accepted, and simply left the Bill as it was. I submit that gives me the opportunity of moving out the words "and business letters," in order to insert an Amendment I have down to insert a new Sub-section providing that" Every individual and firm required by this Act to be registered shall add to its registered name in legible characters the word" registered "in all business letters, notices, advertisements, bills of parcels, invoices, receipts, letters of credit, bills of exchange, cheques, and orders for money or goods wherever the registered name appears thereon."
  Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member will move his Amendment.
  Mr. DENNISS: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "catalogues, to insert the word "and."
  It will be necessary later to leave out the words "and business letters." The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade desired to leave those words out for one purpose, and the hon. Member for Elgin and Nairn and myself wished to leave them out for another purpose. That purpose is twofold: first, we think it is not necessary that these particulars should appear upon business correspondence generally at all, and, secondly, sufficient notice that the name of the individual or the firm under which he is trading is not his true surname, or name would be given, if after the name of the firm or the individual name the word "registered" was put just as the word "limited" is put after the name of a company which is registered under the Companies Acts. I argued this question in Committee, and I am putting the matter before the House now, first, because the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade sympathised with the Amendment, and said he would like to adopt it, and, secondly, because, since I moved it in Committee many Members have said they think it an Amendment worthy of consideration, seeing that it would avoid all the difficulty of having all the names on any documents whatever except such documents as catalogues, trade circulars, and show cards

  261
  The person receiving the communication, offer of business, cheque, bill of exchange, promissory note, invoice, or bills of parcels would know that the name written there was not the true name of the person carrying on the business. All he has to do is to write to the Registry Office and get the particulars of those persons if he wishes to do so. He may not wish to do so in numbers of cases because he would know them already. If he is a stranger to the firm all he has to do is to write to the Registry Office. We were reminded in Committee that 99 per cent. of the firms in this country are not German but British firms, and it would be a great infliction upon them, especially the smaller ones, if they were compelled to put all these details upon their business paper. I will not go again into the illustration of the three maiden ladies who keep a lodging house or of the fisherman who has a smack for a voyage or the fishermen who are partners for a voyage. We should save the traders of this country the trouble of putting all these things upon their stationery if they simply have to use the word "registered" as the word "limited" is used under the Companies Acts. In my proposed new Sub-section I have taken the actual words of the Section of the Companies Acts, and instead of the word "company" I have used the words "every individual and firm," so that my new Sub-section reads:
  "Every individual and firm required by this Act to be registered shall add to its registered name in legible characters the word "registered" in all business letters, notices, advertisements, bills of parcels, invoices, receipts, letters of credit, bills of exchange, cheques, and orders for money or goods wherever the registered name appears thereon."
  The word could be put on with a rubber stamp or written on with pen or pencil, so long as it is in legible characters. The reason I put this forward is that in future representations may be made to the Board of Trade by either the chambers of commerce or the business men of this country that they would rather use the word "registered" than have to put all this printed matter upon their business letters. I should like the matter to be ventilated and considered, in case there is any feeling outside the House after the Debate that occurs, and after any alteration that may be made in another place, and also that that which the business community
  262
  most desires may be put into the Bill, the consequences of which they have not yet had time to understand.
  Captain BARNETT: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: This question was very fully debated in Committee. I then pointed out that if these particulars are not on the letter paper, then all that is put on the letter paper does not disclose the nationality of the firms, which is what people want to know. It would involve an application to the Registrar to ascertain the facts. The matter was referred to the chambers of commerce—although this is not a matter which solely concerns them, it does affect them—and they unanimously, or by a very large majority, rejected this proposal. It was rejected by the Committee, and I cannot accept it now.
  Sir F. CAWLEY: This was fully discussed in Committee, and I certainly thought at the time that the Government was prepared to leave these words out. I am strongly of opinion that it is really superfluous for all the names of the firm to be put on the business letters. My hon. Friend (Sir A. Williamson) felt very strongly about it, because his firm, a very eminent one, has fourteen partners. It is not very acceptable to have to put the names of all the partners on all the stationery and on every letter that is sent out. Not only that, but many large firms like his take partners in for a limited time, and they do not want to be always-changing the names of the partners and putting them on all the stationery. The advocates of this measure advocate it principally because it may stop German people coming and trading here, and no one knows who they are. But a German has only to make himself into a limited liability company. He has no need to publish any balance-sheet. It may be a private company of only two members. If a German really wants to masquerade under some English name he has only to call himself Brown, Jones, and Robinson, Limited, and he is an English firm and has no need to register himself.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: Yes, he has, at Somerset House.
  Sir F. CAWLEY: As a limited company. I think this is handicapping private firms very much. This is really a Bill to encourage people to turn themselves from

  263
  private firms into limited liability companies, and I do not think that is a very desirable end to obtain. It is very much better, perhaps, to have old firms still remaining in their capacity as individuals who are responsible to the last penny they possess for all the debts of the firm. Instead of that, if they have all this irritation, I think it will tend to make these people turn themselves into limited liability companies. That is what I should do if I were in their place, and it is certainly what any Germans will do if they want to deceive the public. For that reason I propose to leave out "and business letters," and then the only invitations to do business will be in the shape of catalogues and trade circulars where all the names will have to be given. In those cases it is very desirable that all the names should be given, except in cases where you are inviting people to do business with you and to buy. The putting of names on letters is absolutely unnecessary.
  Sir N. HELME: With regard to the use of the word "business" it really involves such an amount of difficulty that I think it would have been well if the Government had relieved the trading community from that obligation. Letters pass between departments altogether independent of the members of the firm who are dealing with contracts resulting in the trade. There is an enormous amount of detailed work done every day between the subsidiary departments of concerns which have nothing to do with the question of who it is who buys or sells, and I submit that this is putting great difficulty in the way of trading, and it is quite unnecessary, in order to protect the principle which is approved by the House generally, that it shall he open to every firm to know the nationality and the character of the people with whom they are doing business, that when you advise the dispatch of so many packages of goods or so many returned empties, to bring the thing to a reductio ad absurtdum,, all the names of the partners shall be given. It is carrying it too far. We all, as a trading community, desire to support the Government in the essential condition that trade shall be honestly carried on between firms which understand who it is that sells and the nationality they represent. But these details really go too far—far beyond the purpose that is at the back of the Bill.
  264
  When this proposal first came up, it was that a firm should be registered so that it should be known of whom the firm consisted. We have now got, through this German scare, into a position which is really unworthy of the great commercial interests which are represented by this House.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: My hon. Friend (Mr. Denniss) and the two hon. Members who have supported the Amendment have really travelled over ground which was fairly well covered when this Clause was in Committee. I intervene lest it should be thought that those of us who are opposed to the Amendment have been in any way shaken in our views by the speeches which we have heard. I think the hon. Baronet opposite very much exaggerates the inconvenience which may be caused by these words remaining in the Bill. The only argument which has been adduced in favour of the Amendment is that great inconvenience may be caused in some cases, and the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Cawley) cited the case which was brought up in Committee by another hon. Baronet of a firm with a dozen or so partners who would be greatly inconvenienced. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment pointed out that the word "registered" can be affixed very easily by a rubber stamp, and it would be equally easy in the case of a dozen partners to have the names upon the paper in small print. Apart from that question, what reason is there against these words remaining in the Clause? The hon. Baronet says his only other argument is that it will drive people to give up being private firms and become companies. He says he would do that if he were in a *similar case. I do not think that would be the result To begin with, this Bill is only a beginning of legislation, and I think we have had something in the nature of an assurance, at all events we have had an expression of opinion from the Government, that it will be necessary to deal in some fashion on these same lines with limited companies.
  Sir F. CAWLEY: I do not think the hon. Gentleman went so far as that. I think he said he would give the matter his honest consideration.
  Mr. McNEILL: At all events, my own view is that some such legislation as that will be necessary. We certainly look forward to doing it in that way. The hon. Baronet says this is all a sort of German scare. I entirely repudiate that view.
  Sir F. CAWLEY: I did not say that.
  Mr. McNEILL: I understood the hon. Baronet to say that. At all events, his view was that you would do no good by forcing people to disclose their names in this vexatious way. I ground my view of this matter on a very simple principle, and a very wholesome one, which it will be of very great advantage to introduce into our commercial life, and that is that people should know with whom they are dealing. To take the case of the firm of the hon. Baronet (Sir A. Williamson), a most eminent firm, I think everyone who deals with them is quite entitled to know who the twelve partners are, if there are twelve partners, and apart altogether from the question of naturalised Germans or anything of that sort, I do not think there is any grievance, and it is a perfectly intelligible, honest, and wholesome principle. It is on that perfectly plain, simple ground, and not with any idea that this provision will reveal some German spy, that I hope the Government will withstand this Amendment.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: I notice that nearly all the advocates for the addition of these names to every letter heading are in the law. They do not seem to know anything at all about business. Very many business firms use their headings as an advertisement of their business. They often give pictures of their business premises and describe various departments of their businesses, and you are going to add to that a great deal of other information which can easily be obtained elsewhere—through catalogues and other publications in which you are compelling them to give the information. It would be perfectly easy, in order to enforce this, to obtain all the information as to the people with whom you are dealing, and it need occasion no delay whatever on the part of those who are transacting business. I presume that the object of letter headings is to convey information on business matters. In the case of solicitors, however many partners there are, practically no space is taken up; but in the case of many businesses—engineers, ironmongers, all kinds of businesses—a considerable amount of space in the nature of advertisements is used at the top of the letter heading, and a further curtailment of the space utilised for the purpose of communication means a great waste of paper. It is quite unnecessary and undesirable, and we can attain the purpose
  266
  for which the Bill has been introduced without bringing in every letter and every note heading.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. C. HARMSWORTH: I think my hon. Friend opposite has destroyed the Amendment. He has shown the House, as I proposed to do before he spoke, that it is the habit of business men to exhibit at the top of their business paper a number of details connected with their business, and in many instances pictorial representations of factories and other business premises are given, together with a considerable amount of detailed information. Surely it can be no hardship in such a case as that that a small amount of printing, occupying far less space than any of these other details which he mentioned, should be added to the business notepaper of firms and private individuals. I suppose there is not a Member of the House who does not receive every day, whether from business firms or great charitable enterprises, notepaper giving at the top a very great deal of information connected with whatever enterprise it may happen to be. I think, for the purpose of the public at large, it is absolutely necessary that these details should be put on business communications. If they attach any importance to it at all the public at large can apply to the Registrar to know who are the component persons of any given firm. I should like to say I quite agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. McNeill) and other speakers that this Bill must inevitably be followed at once by a Bill dealing with companies, otherwise the value of this measure would be almost nugatory. Although I have heard a number of Members, including my hon. Friend in charge of the Bill, say it was a very difficult matter to include companies, I have never heard any Member of this House give any explanation of that difficulty. Speaking for myself, I cannot understand why it should be more difficult to include limited liability companies in legislation of this kind—unlike some hon. Members who have been referred to I am not a lawyer and have had some experience of business—and I cannot conceive how it should be more difficult to frame a measure, perhaps not quite on these lines, dealing with limited liability companies than it is to frame a measure dealing with individuals and firms.
  An HON. MEMBER: What about the names of shareholders?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am asked whether we should put the names of shareholders—a preposterous proposition. It would not be in the least necessary.
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I rather thought the House had determined to leave the Bill in the form in which it stands at present, and it is consoling to know, after the speeches which we have heard, that any amount of information can continue to be supplied to a gratified public in the future, any amount of illustrations of the goods which are to be sold, as well as the names of the partners who sell them, including even portraits of the gentlemen; but what I really wanted to say was that I do not at all agree with the Amendment that has been moved by my hon. Friend behind me. It seems to me that if you simply add to the firm's name the word "registered" at the end without saying anything else, those people who do not read Acts of Parliament—and there are still a few of them—will come to the conclusion that the firm in question has got some form of State sanction, that it is registered, and therefore one which they will be perfectly safe to deal with. The only way in which you can meet the purport of the Act would be to say that it has been registered as a firm, the total number of whose names do not appear, a firm which comprises Brown, Jones, and Smith, whose names are not on the note-caper.
  Mr. DENNISS: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "United Kingdom" ["to any person in the United Kingdom"], and to insert instead thereof the words "British Empire"
  I shall not detain the House more than a moment in explaining the object of the Amendment. The intention of this Clause is to benefit the citizens of this Kingdom, and my suggestion is that we should not be so selfish as to confine those benefits to citizens of this Kingdom only, but that we should extend any benefits which are conferred to our fellow citizens in the Empire beyond the seas. I think probably the hon. Member in charge of the Bill will see that the insertion of
  268
  the words "British Empire" instead of "United Kingdom" is an improvement, and will certainly do no harm and may do some good, and therefore I shall defer any further remarks in the hope that he will see his way to accept it.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I should like to ask what is the purpose of this Amendment, which appears to me to be very far-reaching. I understand the purport of the Bill to be the restriction of trading with foreigners in this country. It has this object, that every firm or every individual in trade must give a list of the names -of the partners, and so on, and the object is to try to prevent people in this country trading with a person who is an alien. Do I understand my hon. Friend or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to wish that all this information should be sent broadcast throughout the Empire, with a view to showing those with whom we trade throughout the Empire that every firm is British—that is to say, that the component parts of the firm they are going to trade with are British persons? I can see myself that that may be somewhat detrimental to the persons doing trade in this country. I do not suppose any Member of the House on the other side objects to sell throughout the Empire, whether to enemies or aliens, or not. The idea is to sell. An hon. Member for Lancashire has spoken. Now to keep the business of Lancashire factories going you must sell 72 per cent. of cotton outside the country. Suppose now you put the names of all the firm on your business letters and so forth, and before you transact any business you must divulge what you are. Suppose if people were to say, "Well, these are all Britishers; we will not buy from them"'? In our district we have a large number of orders coming from different parts of the Empire for steel rails, or plates, angles, and so on. Do I understand that the object is to try to restrict the sale of these to individuals throughout the Empire who may happen not to be Britishers, who may be aliens? If that is the object, it is to try to restrict trade. I should like to have some definition as to what the object is. I understood from the hon. Member for St. Augustine's (Mr. R. McNeill) that this is only the precursor of another great Bill. What is the object they have in view? If it is to try to induce

  269
  people in the Empire not to buy from anybody unless they are Britishers, it may act in the other direction, and it certainly would have a very detrimental effect upon our trade, because we are bound to export—whatever we do inside the country to keep our factories going—a very large proportion of our trade, and for these reasons I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as I understand he is going to accept the Amendment, what really is his object and the intention underlying it.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I think the hon. Member who has just spoken is under some misapprehension, both as to the object of the Clause itself and of the Amendment. The object of the Clause is to give information to persons in the United Kingdom of the true character of the people with whom they are trading, and my hon. Friend says that if this is to be an advantage to traders in the United Kingdom why should it not be made an advantage also to traders in the British Empire outside the United Kingdom? If it be a benefit for us here, surely it ought to be extended throughout the British Empire. That is the sole object of the Amendment, and I cannot see myself what objection there can be to it, but I gather that my hon. Friend opposite suggested that if persons in the Dominions beyond the seas saw on the face of these letters that they were trading with British subjects it might injure British subjects' trade. That is a very singular view and very extraordinary, that people in the Dominions would prefer to trade either with an unknown firm, as to whose composition they knew nothing, or with a firm they knew to be German. If that is the suggestion, all I can say is that I do not believe it. When persons throughout our Dominions find on the face of their business letters that they are dealing with British subjects in this country, I think they would be far more likely to do more trade with them in consequence. If, on the other hand, they find by the disclosure on the business letters that the persons who seek to trade with them are really Germans or some other persons trading under some fancy name or cloak by which they seek to conceal both their identity and their nationality, I think the traders in the other parts of the British Empire beyond the seas would be very thankful that they had been informed of the true facts, and would prefer to trade with British subjects.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I am quite prepared to accept this Amendment, not only for the reasons that have been given, but for another reason, and that is that we usually leave to the Colonies—certainly to the self-governing Colonies—the right to legislate for themselves, and we do not interfere at all, and where they can protect themselves by their own domestic legislation it is not our business to do it for them; but in this particular case they cannot, because they clearly cannot enact laws binding on people in this country, and therefore they cannot protect themselves even if they wish to do so. When we are passing legislation that people here should know with whom they are dealing, it seems only right that British subjects throughout the Empire should have similar knowledge, and I really cannot see that in extending it we are inflicting any undue burden upon anybody.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In Subsection (b), at end, insert the words "or, in the case of a corporation being a partner, the corporate name."—[Mr. Pretyman.]
  Captain BARNETT: I beg to move, after the Amendment last inserted, to add the words
  "(c) the principal place of business of the individual or firm."
  The object of this Amendment is to make it easier for a person dealing with a registered firm to ascertain whether the formalities of registration have been performed.
  Mr. DENNISS: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. We do not want to overload the information which has to be put on the stationery. These particulars are in the registration form, and can be ascertained there. I know it is difficult to say how much will go on letter paper and how much in the registration—where one should begin and the other end—but I think the House has generally approved the principle that on the stationery we should have the name and nationality, and confine it to that, and that anybody who wants more should go to the Registrar.
  Captain BARNETT: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (2) after the word "shall" ["Provided that no proceedings shall"], insert the words in England or Ireland."—(Mr. Prelyman.]

  CLAUSE 20.—(Interpretation of Terms.)
  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:
  "Christian name" includes any forename:
  "Business name" shall mean the name or style under which any business is carried on, whether in partnership or otherwise:

  SCHEDULE.

  Description of Firm, &c.

  The additional particulars.

  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 stale the fact that the business is so carried on, specifying the countries in which such foreign firms carry on business.

  Amendment made: After the word "as" ["carries on business as agent"], insert the word "general."—[Mr. Pretyman.]
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  "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.
  Amendment made: After the word "forename" ["includes any forename"], insert the words "'Initials' includes any recognised abbreviation of a Christian names."—Mr. Pretyman.

  CLAUSE 21.—(Application to Scotland.)
  (1) 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 bank ruptcy":
  "Receiver or manager appointed by any Court" includes "judicial factor": and
  "Joint tenants" and "tenants in common" mean pro indiviso proprietors.
  (2) The provisos to Sections 7 and 17 shall not apply.
  Amendment made: Leave out Sub-section (2).—[Mr. Pretyman.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMERGENCY PROVISIONS (No. 2) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMERGENCY PROVISIONS (No. 2) BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Calculation of Amount Payable in Respect of Pauper Lunatics, etc.)
  (1) The amounts payable or transferable by a county council under Sub-section (2)

  273
  of Section 24 of the Local Government Act, 1888, on account of pauper lunatics in respect of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and seventeen, or any subsequent year, may, if the council so agree with the guardians of the Poor Law Union or the council of the 'borough as the case may be, instead of being calculated in manner provided by paragraphs (e, f) and (g) of Sub-section (2) of that Section, be the amount payable or transferable in accordance with the said paragraphs in respect of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixteen, or if so agreed, the average amount payable or transferable in accordance with the said paragraphs in respect of the three years ending on that date.
  (2) This Section shall be construed as one with the Local Government Act, 1888.
  (3) This Section shall apply to county borough councils in like manner as to county councils, but shall not apply to the London County Council.
  Sir N. HELME: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "may, if the Council so agree with the guardians of the Poor Law Union or the council of the borough, as the case may be," and insert instead thereof the word "shall."
  In this Bill the object is to deal with the payment of the Grants for pauper lunatics, which are known as the four-shilling Grants. In this Amendment it is proposed to adopt the arrangement which was come to by the Government in the first Local Government Emergency Provisions Bill, which became law a little time ago. In that Act the London County Council, in Clause 9, had powers given to it which we now seek to obtain generally by this Amendment, As it stands, the Bill proposes that a voluntary agreement may be made between the county councils and the boards of guardians to secure the end that was obtained in favour of the London County Council under the previous Act. The Amendment proposes to make the basis of calculation obligatory, so as to relieve the local authorities of a great amount of unnecessary bookkeeping at the present time. A little while ago a conference was held in Westminster between the County Councils Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the Association of Poor Law Unions, the County Accountants' Society, and the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and
  274
  Accountants, to consider the advisability of extending to the whole country the principle laid down in Clause 9 to which I have alluded. That conference came to the unanimous Resolution:
  "That, in order to save the large amount of clerical labour involved by the present system of calculating the pauper lunatic Grants, it is most desirable that a Bill should be passed without delay extending the provisions of Section 9."
  Although that resolution was unanimously adopted, the representatives of the Association of Poor Law Unions desired it to be understood that, while they approved the resolution and recommended its adoption, they had no authority to pledge their association to its acceptance. Since then a meeting of the Association of Poor Law Unions has been held, and I have had a letter from the secretary informing me that it was resolved that the association should oppose the Bill in its present form and urge the Government to withdraw the words giving it a permissive character, the association being of opinion that a general consensus of opinion exists in favour of a measure for stereotyping pauper lunatic claims, and payments thereof during the War throughout England and Wales. The Bill proposes that this should only be enforced during the time of the War or within twelve months after, as may be decided by the Local Government Board. I think under these circumstances there can be no doubt that the Government in accepting this Amendment would be yielding to the wish, expressed after careful consideration, of the great rspresentative authorities of this country. I therefore ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board to be good enough to take into account the very strong and unanimous expression of opinion which I have quoted, and by so doing he would save a great amount of book-keeping in calculating pauper lunatic Grants, and he would render uniform the system, that has been adopted already in legislation.
  Sir J. SPEAR: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I do so in the capacity of President of the Poor Law Unions Association of England and Wales and at their request. The Poor Law Unions Association is a body to which 557 boards of guardians are affiliated. At a meeting in London last Thursday, which was attended by between 400 and 500 guardians, a resolution was passed asking the Government to make this measure compulsory instead of

  275
  permissive. I promised to put down an Amendment to that effect. The reasons for the Amendment are that having regard to the reduction of the staffs of boards of guardians it would be extremely difficult for those bodies to make the detailed returns necessary to present to the county councils and the borough councils which are requisite in order to secure the Grants, It is felt that while the War lasts these bodies should be spared this unnecessary labour. It is laid down that the Grant may be on the basis of the money received from the council for pauper lunatics for the previous year or the average of the three previous years. I think that is a very fair proposal. If the Government make this compulsory, it would be more satisfactory to have a uniform system throughout the country, and all boards of guardians would be affected accordingly. If it is left permissive a few boards here and there would prefer to go on the old system, but I do think that with the evidence which has been brought before the Government from a body such as the Poor Law Unions Association, representing 557 boards of guardians, it is manifest that the majority desire that this proposal should be made compulsory. I do not think that any injustice will be done. True, in some unions, the cost of pauper lunatics will have increased, but in others it will have been reduced; but I do not think that there is anything to prevent the Government feeling that they are doing absolute justice in accepting this proposal. The Poor Law Unions Association in supporting a stereotyped Grant by no means abrogate their right in normal times to again press upon the Treasury the justice of giving from the Imperial Exchequer a larger sum towards the cost of these poor afflicted people. We know that it is a national responsibility and that the Grant which is handed over from the county councils from the Exchequer contribution Grant is inadequate to meet the present cost of pauper lunatics. For the time being, during these abnormal times, we are content to accept the payments that were given in the previous years or the average of the three previous years, but we shall make it quite plain that in normal times we shall continue to press for a larger Grant from the Imperial Exchequer for these local bodies in connection with their work of caring for these poor people.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): The special point of difference in this matter is as to whether the arrangement which the Local Government Board proposed shall be made between the various county councils or the county borough councils on the one hand and the various boards of guardians on the other shall be by agreement or shall be mandatory. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment and my hon. Friend who seconded it seek to make it mandatory. They quote the example of the Act which we passed last year by which we compelled boards of guardians in the Metropolitan area to come to an arrangement with the London County Council under which, instead of working out all the minute and complex calculations, according to which grants are given by county councils to Poor Law unions in respect of pauper lunatics, they should take a standard year and therefore dispense with all those calculations until the end of the War or the year after the War by which the payments made to the various Poor Law unions shall be standardiised. The difference between the position of the London County Council and that of the various councils in the provinces is that we were able to bring all the chief representatives of the Metropolitan Poor Law unions into conference with the London County Council authorities. At that conference, which was, I think, held in the Local Government Board offices, an agreement was come to so that we were not forcing upon any body anything to which that particular body had not agreed. When the Bill went through the House some of my hon. Friends said, "If this is a good system for London why should it not be a good system for the provinces?" I raid that it might be, but I had had the great advantage of having had an agreement between the London County Council and the Metropolitan Poor Law unions, and I had not heard of any conference or any agreement between the various county councils and the Poor Law unions within the areas of those Poor Law unions. But I said that if such a conference were held and an agreement was come to, such as was come to in the case of London, then I thought there would be a very good reason indeed for an Act of Parliament by which the same economy might be enabled to be practised by the various provincial authorities as was practised in London in reference to pauper lunatics.

  277
  My hon. Friends have now satisfied me that such a conference has been held, and that it was very representative. At that conference resolutions were come to which I understand met with the support of the County Councils Association, the Borough Councils Association, and, most important perhaps of all, my hon. Friend opposite, who is, I think, himself the president of the Association of Poor Law Unions, assures me—and I am assured also by my hon. Friend behind me—that the great body representing that association is now quite Willing that this should not be a permissive Act, but a mandatory Act, so far as that is concerned. If we Have all that weight of testimony in support of making this mandatory instead of permissive—and I know of no views expressed to the contrary in the House of Commons, and I have received no communication which would indicate that there is any large body of opinion among Poor Law authorities opposed to it—then I think that I should not be justified in opposing the appeal which has been made to me by men who are so reresentative in local matters. Therefore, I shall willingly accept the Amendment which they have proposed to this measure, which is undoubtedly a measure of economy, feeling sure, in view of the position taken up by local authorities all over the country that this measure of economy will be certain of complete adoption; and I cannot help thinking it will be of some value in saving time and money and possibly may help in the solution of the great problem which troubles us all—the distribution of manpower.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Sir NORVAL HELME: I beg to propose to leave out the words "or, if so agreed, the average amount payable or transferable in accordance with the said paragraphs in respect of the three years ending on that date."
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I am willing to accept that Amendment. These words do not appear in the original Act; we thought that possibly it might be a good thing to give an alternative, but I do think that it might lead to more calculation than is desirable.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 2 (Short Title and Duration) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

  SAILORS AND SOLDIERS (GIFTS OR LAND SETTLEMENT) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  This Bill is at the same time a very small one and, in possibility, a very large one. It enables the Board of Agriculture or local authorities to accept gifts of land for the purpose of the settlement or employment of men who have served in the Army or Navy. That was necessary because it is a principle of general acceptance that public Departments and authorities are not allowed to do anything which they are not particularly and expressly enabled to do by statutory authority, and there was some doubt as to whether the Board of Agriculture were enabled to accept gifts of this kind and act as trustees for carrying out trusts in connection with such gifts, and therefore it has been thought right to settle the matter by allowing the State or public authorities to accept gifts of land of that nature. So far the House will agree the matter is a small one. But it has within it large possibilities. We know already of one case in which a public-spirited man who wishes to give, as a memorial of his son, some land, so that other soldiers who have had the good fortune to return will be able to settle on that land and make a living out of it. And this gentleman would like the Board of Agriculture to see that his wishes in that respect are carried out. I have no permission to give the gentleman's name, therefore I do not give it, but it is my hope at any rate, and I think it will be the hope of hon. Members who happen to be here, that other persons may be inspired in the same public-spirited way to give as a memorial of their sons or other relatives grants of land for this extremely practical object. I have always felt that a grant of land for settlement by soldiers who have come back from the War, and the building of cottages and the provision of gardens around the cottages, would be the finest possible war memorial which the villages up and down the countryside could possibly make.

  279
  For the landowner who has lost a son or near relative to give a piece of land, and for the local builders to contribute in building, and labourers to give their labour in building and in preparation of the gardens and so forth, seems to me a finer war memorial than any number of clocks, or crosses, or things of that sort so often erected in these cases. If other persons possibly notice it, and if they follow the example which has been set, and in this way commemorate the splendid deeds of cither their own relations or people of their own village, this Bill may have considerable consequences in making it possible for them to secure that the land they offer is properly used, and that their wishes that there should be a permanent memorial of the patriotism of the people whose deeds are a rich memory will be properly carried out. It is not proposed in this Bill that either the Board of Agriculture itself or the local authorities who are prepared to accept these gifts shall contribute funds out of the rates or out of the funds at the disposal of the State to maintain this land that may be handed over to them. The maintenance of the trust will come out of the funds of the trust, and therefore there is no charge on the ratepayers or the taxpayers. The Bill, as I said, is simply to enable owners to hand over land to the local authorities for the purpose of settlement and use by members of His Majesty's Forces, and I hope the House will be willing to give the Bill a Second Heading.
  Captain BATHURST: I would like to offer a word of welcome to this little Bill, that had its origin in the very generous and patriotic offer made to myself by Mr. Robert Buchanan, of Bosbury, in Herefordshire, in order to commemorate the death of his only son, who fell at the front some three or four months ago. I was rather shocked to find, when the offer was made, and which I at once transmitted to the Board of Agriculture, that in this country alone, I should imagine, amongst the countries of the world, there was no power in any Department of the State to accept a gift of land from any of its subjects in this country, to be held in trust for a definite purpose of public utility, of providing, by means of a gift, the financial requirements for carrying it out. The Board of Agriculture have wisely, in my judgment, decided to render possible, not only in this case but in any
  280
  other similar cases, during the War, for any patriotically-minded person to constitute a trust in the hands of the Board of Agriculture for this desirable purpose of settling ex-soldiers and ex-sailors upon the land of the country for which they have fought so bravely. I welcome this Bill, and I only venture to hope, with the right hon. Gentleman, that this gift of land will prove to be, the first case, not the only case, but the first of many similar cases, where public-spirited citizens are prepared to constitute, a war memorial of the kind to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred.
  Sir J. SPEAR: The right hon. Gentleman said that this was to constitute a trust, and I wish to ask whether I am to understand that the person who gives the land, be it a large or a small quantity, any erection of offices or buildings would be carried out by the donor or by the Board of Agriculture? It might be that an owner could afford to give a piece of land, but could not afford to erect buildings upon it. Will it be a trust in the hands of the Board of Agriculture to give full effect to, or to take advantage of the value of the gift, for the purpose of providing homes for soldiers and sailors? I do not quite understand what is the position, and I want to have it made quite clear that the donor of the land will not be responsible for the maintenance of the trust. Do I understand that to be the purport of the right hon. Gentleman's speech"
  Mr. ACLAND: No. The idea is that all these should be trusts in perpetuity; therefore, the particular donor would in the nature of things not be responsible, at any rate except for the duration of his own life. Undoubtedly under trusts of this kind any money accruing must be used for the benefit of the trust; and, therefore, if a man handed over two or three farms, on which to build cottages, and to be divided up into small holdings to help discharged soldiers and sailors, the rent accruing would have to be used for that purpose; it could not be appropriated for any other purpose; and it is always our duty to use the income of the trust for the purpose of carrying out the intention of the trust.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  INCOME TAX (EXCESS PAYMENTS).
  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."
  Sir STUART COATS: In times such as the present I certainly have no desire to cause needless trouble for any Government Department, and since my election as a Member of this House no one can accuse me of having unnecessarily occupied its time. But the very unsatisfactory nature of the response to my appeal to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for information showing monthly, from the beginning of this year, the number of claims for a refund of Income Tax paid in excess, which were then unsettled, and his subsequent refusal to state the number and amount of such claims pending and unsettled on the 31st October, have made me feel that I must draw the attention of hon. Members to the present situation in this connection, and to protest against its continuance. It is a notorious fact that in almost every case where application is made for refund of Income Tax overpaid, weeks, if not months, elapse before any attention is paid to the claim by the Department of Inland Revenue. That is a state of affairs which to my personal knowledge has existed for some years past, but the present rates of taxation have caused it to become an intolerable grievance to a large section of the community. Take a man with an income of £150 per year, and an Income Tax refund due to him of £15, £20 or £30. Any one of those figures constitutes a very serious percentage of his total income. Considering the very high rates of present taxation, and the excessive cost of living, the hardship becomes manifest. The grievance is no imaginary one. I have been asked by one of my Constituents to raise this question, and I do not feel inclined to let the matter drop until we have something definite in the way of a promise of relief in this direction.
  I will mention various examples illustrating the hardship to which I refer, and at the same time it must be borne in mind, as payments of refund are only made semi-
  282
  annually to some individuals, in several of these cases some months must be added to the periods to which I shall draw attention. There is the case of a well-known hospital in London which made a claim for refund of over-paid Income Tax early this year, and some months elapsed before it received payment of same, although all the time its wards were taxed to the utmost capacity in nursing the wounded, and a great strain was put upon its funds. Take a second example of a gentleman whom I know, a manufacturer engaged exclusively in the manufacture of munitions for the Government, the prices for same having been cut down again and again by the Government until it is very difficult to make any profit. This gentleman applied for a refund over six months ago, and he could get no satisfaction until he threatened to have the matter brought up in this House, whereupon he promptly received part of the payment due to him, and the balance is now under consideration. Thirdly, there is the case of a well-known lawyer. He made his claim, and had no satisfaction for five months, and he tells me that it was only as the result of two or three communications, and finally of a sharp letter on his part to the Inland Revenue Department that he succeeded in getting the claim paid at all. Fourthly, is the case of a man who some months ago entered upon a position which placed him in close touch with Ministers. His claim for a refund was accompanied by a certificate from Parr's Bank as to the amount of interest paid on a loan along with the counterfoil of a dividend warrant showing that Income Tax had been paid in excess of the amount claimed. Thus the whole of the evidence required for immediate settlement of his claim was in the hands of the Board of Inland Revenue, and there was no reason why that claim should not have been settled within a week. After waiting for ten weeks, and no attention paid to the claim, he went to the Surveyor of Taxes in his district and informed him that while he did not wish to use his official position to forward his own personal interests, at the same time he did not propose to endure the present state of affairs any longer, and that unless he received the cheque promptly he was going to make himself unpleasant in the matter. The cheque which I saw was received within forty-eight hours.
  The fifth case is the most aggravated to which I shall refer, and comes from the

  283
  Wimbledon constituency, as have most of those to which I have made reference. It is that of a trustee of a trust for some young ladies, among whom he divides a small annuity from which Income Tax has been deducted. This gentleman states that as far as his memory serves him, in the last few years he has never had that refund paid to him within a year of the time he made the claim, and that on one occasion it was almost eighteen months before he received the cheque due under this trust. Moreover, he called one day at the Inland Revenue Office and was met by an official who told him that there were hundreds of other claims such as his, and that he would have to take his turn. That is curiously paralleled by the experience given in a letter under the signature of a small landowner which appeared in the "Morning Post" of 7th October as follows:
  "I have a case in point of a spinster lady, a relative on whose behalf my solicitor makes claim for refund in respect of an annuity of £110, and I have never known the money returned in less than eleven or twelve months, and it is not for want of reminders, which are only met by a short, curt printed reply from the {Secretary of the Inland Revenue that the matter is still under inquiry. I venture to assert that the inquiry could be made in four days, or, allowing for the slow inefficient methods of the department of Inland Revenue which deals with these claims, in tour weeks instead of twelve months."
  Just think of the position. This year Income Tax at the rate of 5s. in the £ will be deducted from this annuity of £110, amounting to £27 10s., and probably this lady will not receive that large portion of the income for a period of twelve months. What can justify the continuance of such a state of affairs as that? I could go on multiplying examples from England and Scotland, but I have given sufficient to show that I am drawing attention to a widespread abuse which causes severe and increasing hardship to fall upon a large and not the least deserving section of the community, whose resources are now strained by the increased cost of living, and very heavy taxes, and whose incomes are frequently reduced by the fact that dividends have been reduced, or suspended, owing to the present state of affairs. I am sure that there are many hon. Members who can corroborate what I have just said, and who feel the injustice, as I do, to be of a peculiarly cruel and unnecessary character. It is idle to say that the necessary assistance cannot be obtained to cope with the arrears of work. I have made inquiries, and I am informed that there are plenty
  284
  of female and elderly male clerks to be had, and if there had been any genuine desire to do away with the present situation, matters could have been rectified long ago. The Department of Inland Revenue has no more right to take the funds of the taxpayers and lock them up for months or for a year than the treasurer of a large industrial concern would have to take the funds of his company and receipts turned over to him and deposit them in his own private banking account, pocket the interest on same, and turn them over to the company of which he was an officer at any time from three to eighteen months, whichever happened to suit his own convenience. In saying this, I do not wish to be understood as doing it in any spirit of hostility to the Government. If any evidence should be brought forward either that there is an improvement being effected now or contemplated in the future, I shall be glad; but I do wish to emphasise most distinctly that this is a very serious grievance, crying for an immediate remedy. I therefore urge upon the Financial Secretary to the Treasury not to put us off with any platitudes about "the country being in a state of war," but to take up the matter at once and give us satisfactory evidence that a state of affairs which is a distinct reflection upon the conduct of one of our great Departments is done away with once and for all, and that such injustices as these shall not be allowed to recur in the future.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The hon. Baronet the Member for Wimbledon has brought before the House a lot of cases, of none of which he has personal knowledge, and of some of which he has read in letters in the newspapers It is perfectly impossible for me to deal with those cases. If the hon. Baronet desired the cases he has brought forward to be investigated, there was a very simple-method, and that was to call the attention of the Inland Revenue Department to the cases, with names and particulars.
  Sir S. COATS: It is quite useless.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: There is not the least evidence in regard to any one of those cases that the particulars are as stated. The only way in which I can deal with the matter is to lay before the House the general facts, for hon. Members will appreciate the fact that I cannot deal with

  285
  the particular cases of which I have had no notice, which were anonymous cases, and of which the hon. Baronet himself seems to have very little personal knowledge. What are the facts? The hon. Baronet said that he regretted to have given any trouble. I regret very much that it is necessary to have had special research made into this matter, because all the time taken for this special research has been taken from the work of dealing with the repayment of Income Tax—and necessarily had to be so taken. Let us look at the general facts. I think the House will see that the gloomy picture painted by the hon. Baronet is far removed from the facts. Since 1st January, 1916, the Department which deals with the repayment of Income Tax has dealt with 661,000 claim forms. How many of those are unsettled? Fifteen thousand two hundred and fifty. Of these fifteen thousand 5,400 are out of the last fortnight's list of claims, which amounted to 14,000, so that the total number, looked at from that point of view, of the claims undisposed of out of 661,000 is 9,850, or l½ per cent. of the total. What an appalling figure! But there is a great deal to be taken off that 1½per cent. A number of these claims come from abroad, and therefore many cases require a longer time to deal with. There are other reasons of a special character which affect those claims. There is one very common reason which probably would account for most of the cases which the hon. Baronet has brought before us, and that is that the people, in filling up these claims—and we all recognise that all forms for claims and other forms are difficult things to fill, easy enough when you have done it once or twice, but difficult when you come to it fresh, very difficult for an unlettered person, and, indeed, for an educated person—have omitted necessary particulars or have given erroneous particulars quite innocently. I think it will be found on investigation that the principal cause of delay has been either that some question of technical difficulty was raised by the claimant or the necessary particulars were omitted. Surely those figures I have given and which I regret to have had to get out specially, though it was necessary in view of the hon. Baronet's proposal to speak on the matter, do not justify the lamentable picture painted by the hon. Baronet. They are altogether inconsistent with his statements. I can only myself say that for
  286
  some years past I have given assistance to persons who were unaccustomed to business—mostly elderly ladies of limited income—and I have never had an experience like that. Perhaps I knew how to fill up the claims. A delay of a few weeks is the most that has ever occurred. It is no-use putting forward anonymous particulars which one cannot investigate and then on them basing a general charge against a hard-working and very successful Department. What are the facts?
  Since the War broke out, 55 per cent. of the trained men in this Department have been lost to it. Their places have had to be filled by untrained men, and the work of the staff has been very greatly increased. The hon. Baronet referred to the fact that the Income Tax is at a very high figure. That fact has led to the extension of the principle of graduation of Income Tax, which necessarily adds more work, and more complexity, in dealing with these cases. Besides that, in order to meet the hardships which undoubtedly would have occurred if the tax of five shillings had been deducted, and the owner of property had had to wait the whole year, various arrangements were made by the Treasury to assist persons who were entitled to abatement. In the first place, when a person is in receipt of earned income subject to direct taxation, and also has unearned income, the tax of which is deducted at the source, the arrangement was that the abatement would be given by way of deduction from the duty to be collected under the direct assessment. In the second place, in the case of income from rents of property, provided that the owner lodges all the particulars early in the financial year, it has been provided that the lower rate may be deducted by the tenant and the owner in that way does not stand out of the full amount and is not obliged subsequently to claim an abatement. Another thing has been done. There has been enormous hardship in the case of a person all of whose income was unearned income derived from investments from which the tax was deducted at the source. If the bulk of the income was of that character, that is from investment, it was felt a great; hardship that they should wait a year, and that the person with an income perhaps not taxable at all should have to do without a quarter of his income for the whole year. Therefore, it was provided for the first time, that at the end of six months, when

  287
  the income for six months had been received, a claim could be made and repayment is made by the Department. In those cases where they are dealing with claims which they had before, the Department do not look at them at all severely if they are in accordance with the claims they have been accustomed to receive, and they are passed very rapidly. They are passed rapidly, because at the end of the year the whole matter will be gone into, and it will only have been probably six months since the matter was gone into before. There have Been 14,000 of those claims received, and how many are outstanding to justify the awful picture painted by the hon. Baronet? Eight hundred! I do not think he can claim that that is an extraordinary proportion. Eight hundred out of 14,000 of those claims are all that have now not been disposed of.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: After how long?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Those claims are being constantly received. That is all that is outstanding. It is not a question after how long; the question is that there have been 14,000 claims, and in all 13,200 have been disposed of, so that there cannot be any great delay. But of course the delay usually occurs through some error in particulars furnished to the Department. Here you have a Department, that has lost more than half of its experienced and trained people, which has to deal with a much more complicated system and with a much larger mass of work. I think some credit should be given for the effort that has been made to meet the case of those who suffer from this heavy taxation. I think if you look at all the circumstances of the case, instead of censuring the House would congratulate this Department of the Inland Revenue for having dealt with that enormous mass of work with so much expedition as they have shown. When you look at the broad facts, the charges of the hon. Baronet fall necessarily to the ground, and the only regret that I have in the matter is, not that the question has been raised, because I think it is a good thing that these facts should be known to the public, but that I had to take away overworked officials from work in which, I think, they would have been better employed.

  MR. BERTRAND RUSSELL.
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I gave notice at Question Time to-day that, in consequence of an answer of the Secretary of State for War, I should raise the subject of the prohibition of the Government against Mr. Bertrand Russell going into prohibited areas. It has already been discussed in the House, but there is this peculiarity about all the answers given on this subject, that a different story is given by the Government every time they speak, and I think when they circumscribe the liberty of a very distinguished man they should at least know why they do it. To-day the Minister for War said:
  "It is not the fact that Mr. Bertrand Russell was ever prohibited from delivering in Glasgow a course or lectures which he has now delivered in Manchester."
  That is the present answer of the Secretary of State for War. On 18th October the right hon. Gentleman told me:
  "We had information from a very reliable source that Mr. Bertrand Russell was about to engage in the delivery of a series of lectures which would interfere very seriously with the maiming of the Army."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 18th October. 1916, col. 589, Vol. LXXXVI.]
  It was those very lectures which at that time were given as the reason for prohibiting Mr. Bertrand Russell from going into about half of England. I suppose the Government found that that excuse would not hold, because as a matter of fact they very soon heard that although Mr. Bertrand Russell was not able to deliver his lectures in his own person at Glasgow, the first lecture he had proposed to deliver before the prohibition was delivered for him by Mr. Robert Smillie before an audience of 1,000, who afterwards passed a motion of protest because Mr. Bertrand Russell was not allowed to come there himself. They did not prosecute Mr. Robert Smillie, because they were afraid of popular discontent in Glasgow. This excuse for stopping the lectures, therefore, would not hold any longer, so the next time the Home Secretary spoke he gave a different excuse. He said that Mr. Bertrand Russell's liberty was being circumscribed because of a speech made at Cardiff which was "vehemently anti-British." I shall have something more to say about that in a moment, but I wish to call the attention of the House to this speech of the Home Secretary. What he said was accompanied by a series of inaccuracies, the most serious of which was this: He was speaking of the reason why Mr. Bertrand Russell had not been allowed to go to America to deliver a series of lectures at Harvard College on

  289
  mathematics and philosophy—nothing whatever to do with polities or the War—and the Home Secretary said:
  "He was asked whether he would give an undertaking, if he were given a permit to go to America, to give lectures at Harvard and not to engage in anti-British propaganda—propaganda which might reasonably be regarded as hostile to or as hindering and hampering the efforts of this country in the prosecution of the War He refused to give that undertaking,
  Commander Wedgwood: Was that in writing?
  Mr. Samuel: I do not think there was any correspondence. It was done verbally as far as I remember."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th October, 1916,. col. 880, Vol. LXXXVI.]
  There was not a single word of truth in the whole of that. It was pure fabrication by someone who informed the Home Secretary wrongly. Mr. Bertrand Russell was never asked for an undertaking either in word or in writing, and he never even asked for a passport to go to America, but Harvard asked that this distinguished man might have a passport, and was abruptly refused by the Foreign Office. Really I should like the House to take this case seriously, and not with any prejudice with regard to Mr. Russell's opinion, because his treatment, as I know from many of my friends who do not agree with either him or me, is seriously shocking many people in England who do not agree with him in politics, and, what is more, his treatment is resounding through the world. America does not hear of the treatment of conscientious objectors. The Censor takes care of that. But the Censor cannot take care when a distinguished man who wants to lecture at Harvard is prevented from going there because of the prejudices of the Foreign Office. That is the way a Grey now treats a Russell! As a matter of fact, it is rumoured, fairly circumstantiallv, that the Harvard chair of philosophy is likely to be offered to Mr. Bertrand Russell in retaliation, or rather to show the resentment of Americans at his treatment. Why is he treated in this way? The last excuse by the Home Secretary is that he made a "vehemently anti-British" speech at Cardiff. It was so anti-British, and it was so bad, that the Home Secretary could not read it out to the House. It would give too much advertisement to such wickedness. But he sent me the passages which. I suppose, he thought worst in this speech. Of course, I am not going to read them out to the House, but I think I was right in showing them to Mr. Bertrand Russell. Mr. Bertrand Russell has been condemned, according to the Home Secretary, on this speech. He had never been shown this speech. It had never
  290
  been published in any paper. That is the worst of spy-reporting. Any sneaking sort of distortion may be made of what a man said, and it is not possible to correct it. Mr. Bertrand Russell flatly denies that he said a good many of these things. You have not given him the chance of saying whether he did or did not utter them, but you said that what he said was anti-British. It is quite true he was arguing against a good many of the actions of the British Government. Who does not? Are you so popular that you think anything that is anti-Governmental is anti-British? Is that your creed? Was that the creed of the right hon. Gentleman throughout his career? Anti-British, indeed! Mr. Bertrand Russell was saying that it is anti-British to conceal foreign policy. He was attacking the concealment of foreign policy before this War, and during this War, and he said some strong things, I agree. He said—and I am going to quote this because it is so quoted in a newspaper in Wales—
  "We knew so little about what the real policy of the Government was with regard to the War and its commitments at Constantinople and elsewhere that the Government might be pursuing an infamous policy."
  I wonder whether the Secretary for War has never said that a Government might be pursuing an infamous policy. That is not the same thing as saying a Government is pursuing an infamous policy. There might be something to be said for requesting men of education, and presumably discretion, not to say that the Government is pursuing an infamous policy, but there are a great many people in this country who think that if the Government are committing themselves to certain lines of policy and continuing indefinitely the War for certain purposes who would be ready and glad to say that it would be infamous. I was reading a passage the other day from a letter from Lord Lore-burn in which he denounced the secrecy of the Government and criticised them. He did not say it was infamous, but he said it might be bankruptcy to the nation if we pursued such courses. Mr. Russell was criticising, as any free Briton has the right to criticise, the past and present policy of this Government, and according to the Home Secretary that is why he has only to be allowed to enter half of England, as if he were a German spy. That is the sort of liberty there is in England at the present time. I have attacked my right hon. Friends for this, but I want to say that I do not believe either the Home

  291
  Secretary or the Secretary for War initiated this attack on Mr. Bertrand Russell. I believe they have been making excuses for someone else, as they will go on making excuses to the end of the War for more infringements to our liberties, unless they stop at an early stage. I believe this attack was initiated by a soldier without, probably, the Secretary for War knowing very much about it, and the right hon. Gentleman thinks it necessary to defend what that soldier has said. It is the general who issues orders and decides if a politician has gone past the point he thinks justifiable. This letter was written to Mr. Russell when he asked to be allowed to deliver his lecture on "Social Reconstruction" in different parts of the country. A general wrote to him and said:
  "The subjects on which you wish to speak could, I think, with little difficulty or loss of interest be treated without any direct or obvious reference to the controversies of the day. On the other hand, they might not. Such topics as the sphere of compulsion in good government' and 'the limits of allegiance to the State' would in particular seem to require very careful handling if they are not to be mistaken for propaganda of the type which it is desired to postpone till after the conclusion of hostilities."
  What we are to talk about is to be decided by a general, and he is to decide what we should postpone to the conclusion of hostilities. Under a Liberal War Minister we are to be directed by a general as to what we are to discuss, and he is to tell us what our political philosophy is to be. The general tells us that Mr. Russell is not to discuss "the sphere of compulsion in good government." That is not to be discussed, but we do discuss it. The Secretary for War may go down to Manchester and may explain the new Liberalism to the world, and say that compulsion is the essence of democracy. The right hon. Gentleman may do that, but there is danger if Bertrand Russell does it, there is danger in him saying that there is not enough liberty and that compulsion is perhaps an evil. If he were permitted to say that, the sleeping souls of Liberal associations might wake up to understand that Liberalism means liberty if that sort of thing were talked. In these and other actions of the Government our liberties are rapidly being lost. I think it is very regrettable that men with the record of my two right hon. Friends, the Secretary for War and the Home Secretary, should be the people who defend this sort of thing. Remember that from a Liberal point of view, at any rate, these things
  292
  are indefensible. They may rejoice the minds of many hon. Members opposite, but there are masses of men who do not agree with us about the War who do not like this sort of thing. I say, as one who dislikes this War, and as one who thinks that we ought to try to end it, that there is no reason why the people's liberties should not remain the same now as they were before the War, and these two right hon. Gentlemen ought to have been the guardians of those liberties. I regret that they should defend subordinates, generals, or officious chief constables who have done stupid and impolitic things. I do say that this case which the Secretary for War is going to defend now is a bad thing for him to defend before the Liberals of the country to whom I suppose he feels he still owes some allegiance.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Lloyd George)made a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. TREVELYAN: You do not.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Who said so? What right has the hon. Gentleman to put such an interpretation as that upon what I said.
  Mr. TREVELYAN: What did you say?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: First of all, the hon. Gentleman ought to understand what I did say before he makes a remark of that kind and it only shows how unscrupulous he is.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member had better address the Chair.
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I apologise for an implication which I uttered in the heat of the moment. I say that the right hon. Gentleman, as a Liberal, might really consider a paragraph in a leading Liberal weekly, written in regard to a book which Mr. Bertrand Russell has just published. These are the words of a review published in the "Nation" only the other day:
  "At length the" War has given us a much bigger and deeper book of prophecy, and the man who has written it is the ablest and most unpopular figure in contemporary England. It will outlive the War by many a year and decade. It will be translated, if we mistake not, into the chief languages of Europe. It will be for foreigners the supreme joke of the War and for Englishmen the supreme shame, that its author is the man whom our universities and our Government singled out for their pettiest persecutions."
  That is the man who is not allowed to speak through half of Great Britain.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This, I believe, is the second or third occasion on which this question has been raised. I have no complaint to make of that and I am only making that statement to show that I can merely repeat exactly the reply which has been given on the first two occasions. To talk about Mr. Bertrand Russell as a distinguished mathematician who wants to go about the country to lecture on mathematics or some equally harmless topic is really to try and delude the House of Commons. Why was this main fact suppressed by the hon. Member who has just spoken in the name of Liberalism—that Mr. Bertrand Russell has been prosecuted on his own admission for publishing and organising the distribution of a pamphlet appealing to the people of this country not to carry out the terms of the Military Service Act? [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] I simply state the fact that he was tried in Court and convicted.
  Mr. MORRELLmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That means that the hon Gentleman does not accept the verdict of the Court.
  Mr. MORRELL: Hear, hear! Nor does anyone.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. His very distinguished colleagues in the University of Cambridge who knew Mr. Bertrand Russell, and know the facts full well, accepted it, and the vast majority of the people of this country also accepted it. The gravamen of the pamphlet was not that it described the sentences inflicted upon conscientious objectors and complained of them, but that it ended with an appeal to others to do the same and to resist the operation of the Military Service Act. That was the reason the pamphlet was proscribed. Those are the facts.
  Mr. MORRELL: That was the Home Secretary's statement of the facts.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Those are the facts as accepted by the Court.
  Mr. L. WILLIAMSindicated dissent.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman is the last man in the world who ought to challenge the Courts of Justice in this country. He sits in a Court of Justice himself, and if every person who was
  294
  tried and sentenced by him were to say "Well, it is a travesty of justice," then I should like to know where justice would be in this country. There is no suggestion except on the part of two or three Gentlemen here that Mr. Bertrand Russell did not get a perfectly fair hearing, and after that perfectly fair hearing he was found guilty, not upon the evidence of a sneaking spy, but upon his own testimony and upon a document which he himself admitted that he had written, and which contained an appeal which, if it had been responded to by the majority of people of military age in this country, would have left us without an Army to face our foes.
  Mr. MORRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman quote a single word from that document?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman has already given his opinion upon the subject. I am giving mine. It is not merely my opinion. It is also the opinion of a Court of Justice which sat upon the subject and delivered that verdict. I am prepared to accept it until it is proved to me that it is the flagrant travesty of justice which I am now told it is. Here is a gentleman who is convicted of writing and distributing a pamphlet which would have the effect of making it impossible, if he succeeded in his appeal, to carry on the War at all, and we are told that he is simply a gentleman who wants to deliver harmless lectures in Glasgow and in areas where there is a good deal of inflammable material of that kind. The hon. Gentleman was good enough to describe the report which we had of the meeting at Glasgow as the evidence of a sneaking spy. How does he know who it was who gave the evidence? Why should he so describe a person who is as reputable as himself and far more patriotic in this War? How does he dare describe a reputable journalist known in Cardiff and who in the pursuit of his profession attended that meeting as a sneaking spy?
  Mr. TREVELYANrose—
  HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: May I just say that he was not sent by the Government. He did not represent the Government. He was there in the pursuit of his profession representing his newspaper.
  Mr. TREVELYAN: There was no publication of the report.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Why does the hon. Member make a statement of that kind? He has no right unless he knows it. I tell him that the gentleman who gave that information to the Government was a Cardiff journalist who was there in pursuit of his profession, and the editor refused to print the report because it was too bad to print. "What business has he to call a gentleman of that kind, a professional man, an honourable man who is earning his living by his profession, a sneaking spy? He comes here. Let him dare go outside of Parliament and make that charge.
  HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
  Mr. TREVELYAN: That is exactly what I want to do. Of course, with regard to that matter I withdraw.
  Mr. BARLOW: I thought you had not the pluck to say it outside.
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I wish to say that the implication that there is no publication of the speech and that the Government punished a man—
  Mr. R. McNEILL: Do not make it worse.
  Mr. TREVELYAN: On a speech which is reported to—
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have only a little time. I allowed the hon. Member to get up to withdraw.
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I withdraw it.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: And apologise, I hope.
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I do not withdraw this, that the way in which the Government got the information was as from a spy. I withdraw it with regard to the gentleman entirely.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: And apologise.
  Mr. TREVELYAN: And apologise to the Gentleman, certainly.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Very well, I have nothing more to say. This is not a sneaking spy. This is a journalist who did not represent the Government but his own newspaper and who took the report in shorthand and sent it to the newspaper. The newspaper refused to publish it, and if I do not read it now it is exactly for the same reason that the editor of that paper refused to publish it. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying, "Let the hon. Gentleman name any single one of
  296
  those gentlemen who are quoted here tonight and who do not agree with him or Mr. Bertrand Russell, but who are indignant at his treatment, and I will show him this document." Let him say then if this is the sort of speech that in the middle of a great war upon which the life of this country depends we can permit this gentleman to deliver in prohibited areas? It is full of statements of a most scandalous character, attacking the country and attacking the motives with which the country has gone into this War—[An HON. MEMBER: Attacking the Government!] I beg pardon, not attacking the Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes!"] An hon. Gentleman tells me to read a passage.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Hear, hear!
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Has he read the passage about Belgium? There is not a word about the Government there.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Why not read it?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: About the breaking of the Treaty, and about it being more dishonourable to enforce it. Is that attacking the Government? The hon. Gentleman talks about his Liberalism. This is the Treaty of Mr. Gladstone, and he was prepared to go to war in order to enforce it. Mr. Gladstone was probably the greatest Liberal this country has ever seen. That is not an attack upon the Government. It is an attack upon the whole honour of this country, when this country has gone to war in pursuance of a Treaty to defend a small nationality. I thought that the defence of small nationalities was a Liberal principle.
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I do take—
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman has had his time.
  Mr. TREVELYAN: It is not about Belgium at all.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This Liberal who wants free speech does not like it when it is administered to him. I listened to his free speech, to his suppression of facts which are most material. The hon. Gentleman is a pacifist. He is against the War. He has been against the War right through, and so has Mr. Bertrand Russell. They do not want the Military Service Act or any other Act. They do not want an Army to fight the battles of this country, but they want to

  297
  go about delivering lectures, persuading people not to join the Army, persuading them to keep away and become non-combatants, and not to fight. These are the men they are prepared to fight for. These are the men they attack Ministers for preventing from delivering poisonous speeches to paralyse the action of the land at the moment it is fighting for dear life and honour. I have not a word to say about Mr. Bertrand Russell. I have not seen him since the War began. But that makes no difference. There is only one thing that does matter, and that is whether the action of Mr. Bertrand Russell, or any other man, will be to interfere with this country achieving a victory upon which, in my judgment, the whole future of humanity will depend for generations to come.
  Mr. MORRELL: The right hon. Gentleman has made one of his usual speeches. He has defended his case by raising prejudice against those who are opposed to him. He has made an attack on Mr. Bertrand Russell in respect of a pamphlet which, I venture to say, the right hon. Gentleman has never read, and which he could not quote correctly to this House. He has also stated that Mr. Bertrand Russell at this moment would be delivering not lectures on mathematics but poisonous lectures all about the country, if it were not for the Government. The facts are exactly the opposite. The Government stopped him going to America. They stopped him from accepting the invitation of Harvard University. Why did the right hon. Gentleman not deal with that point? Why did he not tell us on what ground the Government had dared to stop at distinguished mathematician going to America? Is that the way to make good feeling between us and the United States? Why did he leave that subject out of his speech altogether? He knows full well that if it had not been for the idiotic action of this Government in making orders against this man Mr. Bertrand Russell would to-day be lecturing on mathematical logic in Harvard University.
  Mr. BARLOW: Talking treason like Whitehouse.
  Mr. KING: Is an hon. Member of this House in order in charging treason against another hon. Member?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is not in order for an hon. Member of this House to charge another hon. Member with treason, but I did not hear any such charge made.
  Mr. KING: I beg to inform you that the hon. Member for Salford did make that charge against the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse), and under these circumstances I would ask if I am entitled to call upon that hon. Member to withdraw and apologise?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I did not hear the charge, and it appears to me that the matter might be allowed to drop.
  Mr. MORRELL: Not only did the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to raise prejudice with regard to a pamphlet which he did not read to the House, but he also proceeded to make an attack on Mr. Bertrand Russell with regard to a speech which again he did not quote. What is our objection to the action of the Government? It is simply this, that they chose, instead of allowing a distinguished man to make a speech and prosecute him if necessary, they chose to adopt Russian methods of making administrative Orders against him on a speech incorrectly reported, without allowing him—the accused—to know the charge brought against him and without hearing what he had to say in his own defence. They make these Orders simply as administrative matters, endeavouring to silence this man. These are not the sort of liberties which we entered into this War to defend. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that he has put up a defence to an action which is contrary to the whole traditions of Liberalism and liberty in this country. He knews perfectly well the action taken by the Government has been taken without giving the man a fair hearing, and has been taken in a manner which is worthy of autocratic and despotic government, but utterly unworthy of a Liberal Government.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: May I ask the hon. Member whether Mr. Bertrand Russell is willing to give an undertaking that he will not deliver his lectures in support of the propaganda against the Military Service Act?.
  Mr. MORRELL: Mr. Bertrand Russell claims the liberty to deliver his lectures without giving undertakings to the War Office as he is now expected to do. He claims he is perfectly entitled to give his lectures in the way he thinks right without having to justify his action to a general in the War Office. As a matter of fact, what the Government has done has been to prevent him from delivering

  299
  a lecture in Glasgow which has been delivered in his name by Mr. Robert Smillie, and it is of such a character that they dare not prosecute Mr. Smillie for having delivered it. They have prevented him going to America to lecture on mathematics, his own subject. At the same time they prevented him lecturing in some towns in the United Kingdom, although he has delivered before an audience in Manchester the lecture which he would have delivered in Glasgow if the Government had given leave. I say that the criticism of the "Nation" newspaper is perfectly justified, because the Government have subjected this man to a series of petty persecutions utterly unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government he represents.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I am greatly surprised at the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman has taken up. I had not intended to take any part in this Debate, and would not have done so but for his attack on Mr. Bertrand Russell, and for his defence of the arbitrary action of the War Office. That not only surprised me, but it so dismayed me that I think it necessary to enter a protest. He called in the name of Gladstone, the greatest of our Liberal leaders, to support his argument. But I think one of the very last things Mr. Gladstone would have done would have been to call in the name of Liberty to defend such arbitrary action as the
  300
  right hon. Gentleman is now defending. May I ask why no action was taken against Mr. Bertrand Russell and other speakers in connection with this propaganda in the days of voluntary recruiting or against those who were actively engaged in trying to defeat voluntary recruiting? Why was it that no action was taken against people who would not put Lord Kitchener's advertisement in their newspapers? The right hon. Gentleman is talking as if Mr. Bertrand Russell was the only man who ever attempted to prevent men going into the Army, when men, in order to shackle this country with Conscription, were doing all they could to prevent them voluntarily going into the Army. In those days the right hon. Gentleman never lifted up a finger against them. Yet those were the vital days of the War. It was in the early spring and summer of 1915 that men were most required for the Army, but nothing was done at that time. Yet now, when the Gentlemen on the Front Bench have been overwhelmed with popular discredit, they are resorting to methods of tyranny which are utterly unworthy of a Liberal Ministry—
  It being one hour after the conclusion of Government business, Mr. DEPUTY- SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd February.
  Adjourned at a Quarter before Ten o'clock.

WAR.
  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.
    REBUILDING LOANS.
    REBUILDING LOANS.
  COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY (SHORTHAND WEITER).
  COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY (SHORTHAND WEITER).
  SCHOOL TEACHERS, IRELAND (WAR BONUS).
  SCHOOL TEACHERS, IRELAND (WAR BONUS).
  EGG TRADE (IRELAND).
  EGG TRADE (IRELAND).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  RAILWAYMEN RELEASED.
  RAILWAYMEN RELEASED.
  APPEAL TRIBUNALS (TRAVELLING EXPENSES).
  APPEAL TRIBUNALS (TRAVELLING EXPENSES).
  FARM HANDS (SUBSTITUTES.)
  FARM HANDS (SUBSTITUTES.)
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  RETIRED MILITARY OFFICERS (RE-EMPLOYMENT).
  RETIRED MILITARY OFFICERS (RE-EMPLOYMENT).
  ARMY CLOTHING CONTRACTS.
  ARMY CLOTHING CONTRACTS.
  ARMY PAY OFFICE, DUBLIN.
  ARMY PAY OFFICE, DUBLIN.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  ARMY ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT (WAR BONUS).
  ARMY ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT (WAR BONUS).
MUNITIONS.
  DROMAHAIR BUILDINGS.
  DROMAHAIR BUILDINGS.
  SHOPS (EARLIER CLOSING) ORDER
  SHOPS (EARLIER CLOSING) ORDER
FOOD SUPPLY.
  CHEESE.
  CHEESE.
  IMPORTED WHEAT FLOUR.
  IMPORTED WHEAT FLOUR.
  MILK.
  MILK.
  ARTIFICIAL VINEGAR.
  ARTIFICIAL VINEGAR.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
  DISCHARGED SOLDIERS AND SAILORS.
  DISCHARGED SOLDIERS AND SAILORS.
  COLONIAL SHIPYARDS.
  COLONIAL SHIPYARDS.
  MAIL SERVICE (DRUMSHAMBO).
  MAIL SERVICE (DRUMSHAMBO).
  BEER AND POTABLE SPIRITS.
  BEER AND POTABLE SPIRITS.
  MARCONI WIRELESS TELEGRAPH COMPANY.
  MARCONI WIRELESS TELEGRAPH COMPANY.
  LAND RECLAMATION (MEMORANDUM).
  LAND RECLAMATION (MEMORANDUM).
  INTOXICATING LIQUORS (RESTRICTIVE LAWS).
  INTOXICATING LIQUORS (RESTRICTIVE LAWS).
  BELGIUM (DEPORTATIONS).
  BELGIUM (DEPORTATIONS).
  OCHTA EXPLOSION.
  OCHTA EXPLOSION.
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Intermediate Education (Ireland).
  Intermediate Education (Ireland).
  Leeds Training College.
  Leeds Training College.
  Child Mortality.
  Child Mortality.
  Great Northern Railway (Ireland).
  Great Northern Railway (Ireland).