I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

I think that it would be for the convenience of the House that I should state shortly the effect of this Bill. As hon. Members know, its object is to amend the Trading With the Enemy Acts, and particularly to deal with registered companies having a large number of enemy shareholders. Those companies may already be dealt with under the existing Acts by the appointment of inspectors, or supervisors, or controllers, and the profits which may come to enemy shareholders cannot be remitted abroad, but have to be paid to the custodian of enemy property. But it still remains the fact that these companies may continue to carry on their businesses in this country in time of war. In that way the goodwill of a company which belongs wholly or mainly to enemies is maintained, and it may even be increased in consequence of certain war profits coming to the credit of this company. In the second place, the profits continue to accumulate in this country to the credit of the enemy shareholders, and in that way a fund is being set aside which at the end of the War may possibly be of great use to enemies of this country in that economic struggle which must, as we all know, ensue for them at the end of the War, and indeed the effect is not confined to post-war time, because by both these matters, the increase of goodwill and the accumulation of profits here in the name of the custodian, a certain amount of credit accrues to enemy shareholders, which may even during the War be used to the detriment of this country and to the benefit of its enemies abroad.

Then in reference to British ships, the position is certainly most extraordinary. A British ship, as hon. Members know, cannot be held in the name of an alien at all, but two aliens may by the simple process of registering themselves as a limited company, and so becoming a British entity, become the owners of a British ship. So that if before the War two German subjects registered themselves as a limited company, say Hans and Fritz, Limited, that company may well be the owner of a British ship, and it seems to-day that nothing can be done to deprive them of that ownership. That position has always seemed to me to be in certain respects impossible, and, indeed, intolerable, because the effect is that, under the mask of a British company, enemies of this country have the benefit of the protection of our laws, and of the trading facilities that are given to traders in this country, and that they may even take a share of the sums expended in supplying our demands during the War, and by these means may actually be forging weapons which may be used against this country during and after the War. Such a state of things ought not to be allowed to go on, and some remedy must be found. What I have said of companies applies perhaps in a less degree to individuals who may be, and to firms which may have shareholders who are, enemies. The same remedy may no doubt be applied to individuals and to firms as to companies, with certain modifications.

With regard to the remedy to be applied, we have carefully considered the Bill which, through the energy and public spirit of Lord Halsbury, was introduced in another place. This Bill no doubt, if passed, would have considerable value, but it does not appear to us to cover the whole ground. The effect of that Bill would be that anyone would be authorised to apply to the Privy Council in respect of a company of predominantly enemy character, and might have that company declared an enemy company. No doubt that would have a good effect, but there would have to be a separate application in respect of every one of these companies, of which there are no doubt very many in this country. That would involve a loss of time, considerable expense, and a preliminary investigation in each case. There are other points arising on that Bill to which I need not refer specially. It seems to us that the best way of dealing with the matter is to entrust a Government Department with the power by Administrative Order to deal with these matters in a summary way. For that purpose the proper Department is no doubt the Board of Trade. No doubt the Board of Trade would make proper inquiries and would listen to all proper representations. Subject to that being done, the proposal in the Bill is to give the Board of Trade special powers which are set out in Clause 1 of the Bill. The effect of Sub-section (1) of that Clause is that when the Board of Trade are satisfied that a business carried on in the United Kingdom is, by reason of the enemy nationality, or the enemy association of those who carry it on, carried on wholly or mainly for the benefit of subjects of enemy States, then the Board may, and indeed shall, unless they think it inexpedient, make an Order either prohibiting the carrying on of that business during the present War or directing the business to be wound-up. Of course, it is desirable to give the option either of winding it up or of prohibiting the carrying of it on, because there are some businesses which are not worth winding up, and perhaps have nothing at all which requires dealing with in that way, and also because it would be no doubt the case, with regard to certain companies or firms, that while the bulk of their business may be unnecessary, some part of it may be useful for national purposes.

It is desirable, therefore, to give considerable freedom as to the form of the Order which is to be made. I think that it would not be a wise thing to pass the Bill in a form which would make it imperative that everyone of these businesses shall be closed up. It is absolutely necessary to give some discretion to the Board of Trade. For instance, in many cases it may happen that the business under consideration is carried on mainly for the national benefit, and is performing some work which it is desirable, in the national interest and for the purposes of the War, should go on. In that case it would be absurd to suggest closing down. Or, again, there may be cases where the business is too small to be dealt with under this Bill. Take the case of a small baker's trade, or that of a small hairdresser, or something of the kind, carried on by a subject of one of the enemy States. Possibly the owner himself is interned, and his wife, who may be an Englishwoman by birth, is carrying it on, and keeping herself out of the small profits. It would not only be cruel, but I think that it would be foolish, to compel the Board of Trade to close down businesses of that kind, and so to throw those who live out of them for the moment upon the rates while the War continues.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that he thinks it necessary to continue the firm or continue the business?

What we propose to do is to see that primâfacie every enemy business shall be closed down, and to give the Board of Trade the discretion to continue it if they think it is expedient to do so. In that case, if they exercise their discretion in favour of the trader, the business will go on, and the persons who now live upon it will continue to live upon it. These are some of the questions where discretion is allowed, and of course there are others. For instance, there may be the case of an insurance company. It may be undesirable that a foreign insurance company should go on trading in the sense of getting new persons to insure, but it is sometimes desirable that they should carry on their business to the extent of receiving premiums, so that the premiums already paid by British policy holders may not be entirely lost.

Is that permitted at the present time? Is it permitted to an English policy holder to transmit money in payment of premium to a German office?

Not to a German life office, but to a life office in this country which may have German shareholders. That, of course, is possible to-day. There is no machinery to-day for closing down a business of that kind, although it may be put under inspection. I think I have said enough to show that it would be unwise to make the obligation to wind-up these businesses of universal application. Therefore we feel that the Board of Trade ought to have discretion in special cases. Perhaps I might further mention that in the distribution of the assets of a company which is to be wound-up under Clause 1 it is provided, I think in accordance with the law which obtains in other countries, that preference shall be given to British and friendly creditors over those who are enemy creditors. It is provided that regard shall be had to the fact, if it be a fact, that the company has assets in an enemy country which presumably will be first applied to paying off the creditors and shareholders in that country, and in the distribution of assets here credit and preference shall be given to British shareholders in that respect. I think that is a very wise and very just provision. So much in regard to Clause 1.

Of course, there are other cases to be considered. For instance, the case where a minority of shareholders, or perhaps only a few shareholders, in the company are enemies. The same observation applies in that case as in the other, only in a less degree. There is this further observation, that in such a case the company, though having only a few enemy shareholders, suffers, and not unnaturally suffers, in the public estimation, and the British shareholders very often desire, if they can by fair means, to rid their company of these enemy shareholders, so that the entire holding may be British. That is a case to be dealt with, and we deal with it in the Bill.

There is also this point to be considered, that enemy shares, if I may call them so, and other property belonging to enemies in this country ought, it seems to us, to be in some way kept in safety until peace comes, and until we find how British property in enemy countries is being dealt with. We are told—of course it is impossible to test all these statements now—that British property in Germany is being dealt with in a very highhanded way. Here is one case, among many, of a gentleman who was in Germany at the outbreak of War, and in business there, and was interned at Ruhleben. That gentleman has now been released and has come to this country, and his account of the treatment of his business in Germany is this: He says that his business was placed under a controller at the beginning of the War, and he himself interned. In January he was informed that he had now nothing further to do with the business, that it had become a German one, but that he was, as manager, personally responsible for any of its liabilities. A somewhat unfair distribution of assets and liabilities. He was also informed that the controller had announced that the firm was now German, and had circularised all the customers to that effect; that all the profits would be devoted to War purposes, and they were actually placed to the account of the controller in the Reichsbank, and in due course invested in War Loan. That the policy to be followed was as far as practicable to "work out" the business during the War, and to leave as little as possible of the goodwill or connection remaining. The controller also told the employés in conversation that there was no intention of permitting the British company to resume its property or business after the War.

Does he say whether he was the proprietor of the shares in the War Loan, or whether they had confiscated it absolutely?

No. He believes that in regard to his property nothing will be left for him after the War. We have other cases of that kind. Of course, it is impossible to test all these statements, but at all events there is reason to believe that British property in Germany is not being fairly treated or even kept safe to be restored to its owners after the War. There is no desire in this country to confiscate enemy property here. It has never been our practice in this country to do that. But we think it is desirable that the hand of the State should be placed upon this property, and that it should be kept safe and held until we see what happens, and then when the question arises of dealing with the property of our subjects abroad, we may, at all events, be able to secure that fair treatment should be given to our subjects abroad, or they may be compensated out of the funds of the enemy which we hold here. Clause 3 of the Bill is intended to deal with that matter. The proposal is that the Board of Trade shall have power to vest in the custodian under the Trading With the Enemy Act any property, real or personal, belonging to or held or managed for the enemy. Subsequently, the custodian shall be at liberty to sell or deal with that property, and the proceeds shall be dealt with as he now deals with funds which he holds under the Trading With the Enemy Act. We have inserted a special provision at the end of Sub-section (3) of Clause 3 which has this effect, that where shares of an enemy are vested in the custodian, and he sells them, they may be sold to the company itself. The effect of that is that if the enemy is bought out on fair terms the company is freed from that particular class of shareholder.

These are, perhaps, the two principal Clauses, but there are others of which I will briefly mention one or two. Clause 4 deals with patents, and makes it possible to grant a patent in which an enemy is interested to the custodian of enemy property. The position now, I understand, is that where there are applications for patents on behalf of enemies they cannot be sealed or granted. There is no one to whom such a grant can be made at present, and the result is that no one can deal with the invention.

Is there provisional protection?

Yes, there is provisional protection in the meantime, but no one can grant licences to utilise the invention, and the object of this Clause is that the letters patent may be sealed and granted to the custodian. He can then grant licences or deal with them in the proper way. I think the House will think that is a wise provision. Then Clause 5 is of importance. As matters now stand there are, of course, restrictions on trading with an enemy or dealing with enemy property and making remittances abroad of money belonging to enemies, but the moment peace is declared these restrictions will fall and the result will be that large remittances may at once be made abroad before there has been time to investigate and to consider the treatment of our property in the hands of the enemy, and the object is that that shall not take place just in that way, but that there shall be an interval during which the whole position of property here and abroad can be considered and adjusted. The proposal is that before this general release of property can take place there shall be an Order in Council, which, of course, may be made at any moment and so soon as matters have been really adjusted. Under Clause 8 there is power to refuse the registration of companies with enemy subscribers. There is a special power in Clause 9, where it appears that a company registered here is carrying on enemy business abroad, that the Board of Trade may apply to the Court to wind-up that company. That case, I am sorry to say, has occurred, and it is thought desirable to protect that power. These are the main proposals which are contained in the Bill. I confidently recommend them to the House, and I hope the House will accept them.

This Bill constitutes a great and, in my judgment, a notable advance in the policy of the Government in dealing with affairs of the character dealt with by the Bill, and I heartily congratulate them on having taken this step and brought in what appears to me to be a bold and comprehensive and most necessary measure. Up to now the Government has thought it sufficient to place these companies' affairs under inspection, supervision, or control, with the object of thereby ensuring two main objects—one, that these firms and companies should not trade with persons or companies in enemy territories, and, the second, that profits arising from the trading in this country should not be paid over during the War to persons in enemy territory, but should be accumulated in the hands of the custodian, with the result that they might be handed over to the enemy at the end of the War, and in the meanwhile might form for him a valuable source of credit which would be to the advantage of the enemy. I think the policy pursued up to this time was wholly inadequate. In the first place, it permitted enemy firms—and I use that phrase in the general sense indicated by the Bill—to carry on business in this country, to keep up and sometimes to extend their goodwill and connection, with the result that they would be handed back to their enemy owners at the end of the War as going concerns with at least the connection that they had before the War, and in some cases a largely extended connection. But that was not all, because the effect of this policy was also to permit these enemy companies and firms during the War to trade in competition with firms and companies of purely British association and ownership, to deplete the already restricted labour market to the prejudice of British firms, to employ labour which might be more advantageously used for our purposes by British manufacturers and owners, and, further than that, to make profits out of the employment of British workmen which would either be paid over to German enemies in this country or in neutral countries during the War, because that is permitted at present, or which would be handed to the custodian to be paid over to the alien enemies abroad in enemy territory after the War.

Even that is not all, because in some cases these companies have pursued this policy, of which I have had cases brought to my attention. They say, "This company consists entirely of alien enemies living in Germany. Whatever profits we make during the War will not be paid over to these shareholders, therefore our best policy is to undercut British traders and manufacturers, to lower prices, to make no profits during the War, but by a system of undercutting prices in this country to extend our connection and goodwill so that at the end of the War our business may be extended and our connection and goodwill be handed over to the enemy." That is a most objectionable procedure and not an imaginary one, because I know cases where it has been done; and that method of procedure should be brought to an end with all possible speed. I am glad to think the policy pursued up to this time by the Government has been definitely abandoned and that a new, sane, businesslike and common-sense method of dealing with these firms and companies is embodied in this Bill. The Solicitor-General has called attention to the precedent set up by the Germans, which for this purpose is peculiarly appropriate. I do not suggest for a moment that we are going to follow all German precedents. God forbid that we should! In matters of humanity and so on we have our own standard of ethics, but in matters of business of this sort it is perfectly fair for us to say to the German Government, "You deal with British businesses in Germany in a particular way. We will, consistently with elementary principles of justice, deal with German companies in this country on somewhat the same lines as those you have laid down." The Solicitor-General gave us a case as to the mode in which the Germans deal with British businesses in Germany. I have many other cases, but I think the one which he has quoted is a sufficient illustration of the German methods which, as I understand, consist in this, that unless it is specially to the interest of the German Government or people that a British business in Germany should be carried on, that business is to be brought to an end with all speed to the greatest advantage of the Germans and the greatest detriment to ourselves.

The policy embodied in this Bill is a strong one, but I think, under the circumstances, not too strong. It has introduced a change, not too soon, perhaps. But let us not forget that, since the War public opinion in these matters has also undergone a change. Before the War there were some in this country—perhaps too many—who realised that the vast growth of German financial and trading concerns was a menace to our national industry, and a menace in two ways, not only that it caused grave injury and interference with British enterprise, but that it established a strangling network of malign German influence which constituted, as events have proved, a public danger. Before the War, as I have indicated, though the view was not universally held, some people thought perhaps that it was an advantage to have friendly Germans flourishing and prospering in this country, and, by Judas kisses, appealing for support, and in some respects the affection of our people. That state of things, I think, has passed away. We have learned something during this War, and the view of what was once, perhaps, only a section of the community as to this German peril, has now become the settled opinion of the vast majority of our people.

We now know something by experience, the bitter experience of this War, of the effects of relying, as we have been wont to do too much, on Germany and on German enterprise for articles of which we stand in great need in this country. We know that we have learned to rely far too much on German enterprise in trade for the production of such things as dyes, chemicals, electrical apparatus, and a host of other things which are necessary for us in peace, but tenfold necessary, as events have proved, in time of war. More than that, by her persistent, her calculated, and inhuman barbarities during this War, Germany has, in my judgment at any rate, placed herself definitely outside the pale of human society and civilisation. We, and our Dominions and our Allies, are resolved that at the end of the War, and so far as we can before the War ends, to free ourselves from all dependence upon and trading with Germany and those associated with Germany in this War. We must divert the channels of trade and commerce into new directions for the benefit, not of Germans living in our midst or elsewhere, but for the benefit of ourselves, our Dominions, and our Allies. The truth is that the old theory that trade is a friendly rivalry between individuals, irrespective of nationality, has entirely broken down, and we now know, and I think realise, that the bonds of friendship and alliance which have existed and do exist in this War must continue, after the War, as bonds of friendship and alliance in time of peace, and, just as unity of action between ourselves, our Dominions, and our Allies during this War will bring us victory for our arms, so united action when peace comes will bring us prosperity and success in commerce.

It would be ungracious to say too much about the delay that has occurred in bringing in this Bill, but may I point out incidentally that our Dominions have not delayed as we have? Our Dominions have given us a lead which we might well have followed. Take the case of Australia. Australia has not only been magnificent in fighting power and valour during this War, but she has set an example in matters of commerce and trade legislation which I think we might have followed at an earlier date. I will not go into details now, but I would only remind the House that as early as 14th November the Commonwealth of Australia passed an Act to very much the same purport and effect as the present Bill, though I agree not so comprehensive in its provisions. It is an Act which has the effect of preventing trading in the Commonwealth by those very firms and companies of the same character as are dealt with by this Bill. Since the Bill was promised at the end of December last year I have received, like many other Members, no doubt, very large numbers of illustrations of the kind of companies and firms which ought to be aimed at and brought to an end. I will only bring to the notice of the House one illustration. I will not refer to the British shipping case, which is so well known to us that it is perhaps hardly necessary to repeat that illustration. I will, however, just remind the Solicitor-General of the iniquity that under our present law the German Emperor and his son might have formed themselves into a British company, and might have bought British ships, and there is nothing in our law at the present moment, if the German Emperor and his son had formed this shipping company—nothing in our law that I know of—to prevent them from owning British ships, flying the British flag, if they thought fit, and trading with those ships, so far as they could trade, for the benefit of Germany.

There is only one other illustration which arises under a very strange Clause in the Proclamation issued with reference to trading with the enemy on 9th September, 1914. The Clause provided that when a German living in Germany is running a business, or the branch of a business in this country of a German firm, that this branch in this country should be allowed to trade in this country just as freely as though it were a British company or firm. I have asked presumably wise men as to what brought that Clause into the Proclamation, but I have never found anyone wise enough to tell me, and I can only assume that there is no reason for it. I know a firm at this moment in England which makes certain articles which can be perfectly well made and are being made by British firms in England at present. That firm is owned entirely by a German living in Germany—Herr von Wulfing. The business belongs to him, and the profits, which may be hung up for the moment, will belong to him after the War. He is allowed under the Proclamation, on these terms, to run his business entirely for his own benefit, in competition with British firms manufacturing the, same product. I asked a question in the House why this was permitted, and the Clause in the Proclamation was given to me as a satisfactory answer. I hope that will not go on much longer. May I suggest to the Solicitor-General that it would be extremely desirable to withdraw that Proclamation and to publish it in a new form with that most extraordinary and highly objectionable Clause deleted?

I say that the Bill is a good one, but I think that there are certain points which will have to be raised in the Committee stage. I do not very much like the very great and wide discretion which is given to the Board of Trade in the first Clause. The effect of it is that the Board of Trade shall, unless for any reason it appears to be inexpedient to do so, make an Order stopping an enemy company trading or winding it up. I say that those words are too wide, and I think they ought to be limited. My reason for saying that is partly owing to the nature of the facts and partly because of the pledge which was given by the late Home Secretary in December last as to the nature of the Bill which it is proposed should be brought in and which is now before us. That pledge was given on the 16th December of last year. The late Home Secretary was questioned by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) and others as to the exact character of the Bill which was about to be brought in. He said: hon. Member for Mansfield said, and I am still quoting from the OFFICIAL REPORT:

Would the hon. and learned Member read on and give the reference to the Board of Trade?

If there is anything I will.

It is in the passage immediately following.

The passage reads:

"How you would treat any given case would depend on the facts, and I think the Board of Trade is the proper Department to have the responsibility of investigating those facts and dealing with that given case."

Was there anything else?

No.

I quite agree. I think the Board of Trade should have the discretion of saying whether or not it is in the public interest particular firms or companies should be allowed to go on. I do not think, if I may say so, that the passage which I have just read really qualifies the general principle which the late Home Secretary laid down and in accordance with which the Bill is drafted. Therefore I would suggest to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for his consideration whether, when the Bill comes on in Committee, it will not be desirable somewhat to limit the very unlimited discretion given to the Board of Trade so as to make the Clause read somewhat in this way: primâ facie the principle upon which the Board should act should be that the firms and companies of this character should be brought to an end.

1.0 P.M.

I welcome this Bill as a great and very significant step forward and as a step in the right direction. If it is properly worked—and I hope and believe that the Board of Trade are prepared to work it strongly and strenuously—it will be productive of great benefit to our commercial interests and will stimulate British enterprise, and, I hope, will strangle German trade financial influence. It will ensure better conditions of trading for the British owners of capital, and for British workmen, and it will enable us at the end of the War, by our increased commercial activities, to repair, or go far to repair, the ravages of the War, and to make good those great sacrifices which we are at present making and are prepared to make in order to ensure final victory.

I desire to join with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Mr. Butcher) in offering a cordial welcome to this measure. I am glad that after eighteen months of agitation inside and outside this House the Government have at last recognised the necessity for its introduction. The learned Solicitor-General stated that in his opinion that the grievance which it is brought forward to deal with was an intolerable grievance. I quite agree with him, and I can only hope and wish that he had been in the Government eighteen months ago, and this intolerable grievance would then, no doubt, have been removed much earlier. I think it is desirable to put on record the history of this Bill. This Bill was not brought forward even after eighteen months as a recognition by the Government of that intolerable state of things described by the Solicitor-General. It is the work of private Members of this House. It would never have been introduced at all but that recently the Government brought in a Bill which, unintentionally, applied to this country. It was intended only to apply to enemy traders abroad, but was so drafted that it applied also to enemy traders in this country. As a result of that Bill being held up by private Members the Government finally consented to deal with the problem of enemy traders in our midst, so that therefore the Government have really had to I be pressed in this matter, as they have had to be pressed in so many matters, to take action. There can be no doubt, in my opinion, about the absolute necessity for the measure. I think it is a very grave reflection on the whole manner in which the War is being conducted, that action has not been taken before. I think it is monstrous that we should stand by and nurse and protect German firms in this country in order that they may make money for distribution among German shareholders or for carrying on trade war after the War is over. We have had illustrations of what it is possible to do. It is possible, as we know, for a German firm, consisting of Germans entirely, with probably one or two British clerks put in, to actually compete with our British manufacturers here in any industries to which that company happens to devote its attention. It is true that we have supervision, but that is only nominal. The supervision in this country is entirely different from that in Germany. The controller that we put in in this country practically devotes himself to seeing that money is not sent abroad at the present time for the benefit of enemy shareholders, but he in no way controls the actual business carried on. He is practically a broker's man at the head office of the firm, while the Germans themselves are still running the business just as if it belonged to them. One result of that is very important from the British manufacturers' point of view. We tell these firms that they are not to get the profits at the present time; therefore what they do is in some cases to make as little profit as possible. How do they do it? By underselling British manufacturers. The result is that all this time, if they are strong enough to do it, and most of them are, they are really competing in markets in this country which ought properly to belong to British manufacturers. If they do not do that, they will have the money after the War to be used against British manufacturers then.

I welcome this Bill, not so much as a legislative proposal as a declaration of a new public policy. There have been many delusions about this War. There are many to-day. I think the greatest delusion is that we are going to return to the status quo after the War is over. Those who think like that are, I believe, in a fool's paradise. I think the condition of things after the War will be entirely different from what they were before the War. Is it conceivable that British manufacturers are going to sit round a table and meet those whose hands are dripping with the blood of Miss Cavell, or converse with those merchants who organised processions to celebrate the sinking of the "Lusitania"? It is inconceivable. Therefore I welcome this Bill as the inauguration of a new policy in regard to the war on German trade. The war on German trade must be continued after the War more energetically than during the War. This Bill, if properly used, will be a very important factor in defeating German trade after the War. The Solicitor-General alluded to the Order in Council which might be issued under this Bill after the War, after the adjustment of profits and so forth had been made. I hope that is not the only consideration that will weigh with the Government of that day as to the date on which the Order in Council shall be issued. Under this Bill it is impossible for Germans to trade in this country in future, subject to the approval of the Government. It may be made entirely unnecessary for the Order in Council to be issued. I think when that day comes many of us, if we are here, may have something to say as to whether the Order in Council shall be issued at all. I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Butcher) mentioned the action of Australia in this matter. Australia has set a splendid example. Australia goes much further than we do in this country. I have here the Proclamation issued by a late Member of this House, the right hon. Sir R. Munro-Ferguson, in which the very first paragraph prohibits entirely any dealing with enemy firms. There are a large number of well-known German firms which are, and have been for some time, absolutely prohibited from doing any business in Australia. We have this remarkable result, that some of these firms are actively doing business in this country at the present time. That is a sufficient indication that the Colonies have been more active in this matter than we have.

There are one or two suggestions I should like to make. I am disappointed that the Bill does not declare the legal status of enemy companies in this country. Unless that is put in the Bill will not be as strong as it ought to be. According to the law at present, enemy firms are allowed to sue and to be sued. That surely is not the intention of the Government. I do not think they intend that the whole machinery of our judicial system should be at the disposal of an enemy firm to sue British firms in this country. We have the opinion of perhaps the two greatest lawyers of to-day on this matter—Lord Lindley and Lord Wrenbury, who was, I believe, Lord Justice Buckley—who declare that in a matter of this kind public policy ought to dominate the action of the Government. I would therefore ask the Solicitor - General to give his attention to that matter, and see whether he cannot introduce a Clause dealing with the status of enemy firms in this country. It is not right that private persons should have to go to great expense in order to get the law declared. Another matter which would strengthen the Bill is that the Board of Trade should be compelled to tell the British public who these German firms are. There are, I understand, over 600 of them now being controlled on behalf of the Government. Why should not British traders know when they are dealing with an enemy firm? It seems to me that there is no complete answer to that. The Solicitor-General said, quite rightly, that in some cases injury might be done to British interests, as there are British shareholders in some of these enemy firms. But those Britishers have been aware of the fact for some time, and it is for them, if they have not got out before now, to take any damage that might come to their interests. I am speaking of cases where enemy interests predominate. I know the subject is a very difficult one, because in some cases you have companies with all German shareholders, while in others there are perhaps one-third German shareholders and the rest British, and so forth. I think the Government ought to make up their minds to find a way out for the British shareholders. The public in this country ought to know who are the 600 firms that are presumed to be of enemy origin or enemy association, and I do not think they will be satisfied until they do know. No case has been made out for secrecy, and I think we ought to know in the interests of justice and fair play.

I think, too, that something might be done to stop the importation into this country of German goods at the present time. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is aware that German goods are being offered in the City and in the provinces—goods manufactured since the War broke out. I had a case only yesterday in regard to a quantity of silk. I will give one case out of many that I might give. Here is a letter from a very important firm:

Belgium?

I regard Belgium as an enemy territory.

Of course it is.

If my hon. Friend opposite thinks it otherwise, I should like to agree with him; but at present Belgium is being run for the benefit of the enemy, and we ought to regard it as enemy territory. We have to be prepared for the most extraordinary efforts by German firms to defeat this Bill, or any other Bill. Another case I heard of the other day was that of an important German firm with interests in this country up to the beginning of the War. I believe action was contemplated in regard to it. This firm offered, in the case of liabilities of considerably over £100,000, to pay the creditors from Germany in British gold, and they were prepared, if it had not actually been delivered, to pay that £100,000 in British sovereigns. I suppose some of our Friends who believe we are going to end this War by taking the gold out of Germany would rejoice at such a proposition. I do not agree. It only shows to me that they have abundance of reserves of gold, and are quite prepared to use it, where necessary, in the interests of keeping their trade in this country. I confess that my only doubt about the success of this Bill is the fact that the Board of Trade are going to be given so large a discretion. A Department which has not taken action in this matter before because it thought it was not necessary does not hold out much encouragement to me that the provisions of this Bill are going to be carried out with that vigour that it ought to be carried out in the best interests of this country. I wish the Bill had been more mandatory. I wish it had compelled the Board of Trade, and had not given them so large discretion. Of course, I recognise that a certain amount of discretion must be given. I can only rejoice that we are going to show more determination and less tenderness than we have done in the past with regard to the enemy alien, and I welcome this great and important new step on the part of the Government.

I desire to associate myself with the chorus of approval on both sides of the House. I also desire to associate myself with what the right hon. Gentleman has just said in regard to the Board of Trade. We hope—and I think we must almost say we shall insist, when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament—that the Board of Trade shall carry it out with much more force than they have carried out the existing Act. I think most Members of the House know that by the existing Act the Board of Trade had the power either to appoint a supervisor or a controller. I have not the latest figures in mind at the present time, but the appointment of a supervisor who has almost a negligible control over the affairs of an enemy company have been carried out in some hundreds of cases, and the appointment of a controller, who really controls, has only been carried out in some ten cases. In other words, the Board of Trade has put into operation the Section in the Enemy Trading Act which gives them the least power over enemy companies, and has not put into operation any Section which gives them the greatest power. We shall have to ask the Board of Trade, when this Bill becomes an Act, to pursue it, not harshly, but with full vigour, so as to see that these enemy companies are really dealt with as they can be dealt with under the provisions of the Act. I do not quite agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said that the provisions of the Bill, so far as they relate to companies in which there are enemy shareholders, are sufficient. I think that the Clause enabling the Board of Trade to wind-up the company and sell up the whole assets of the company, lock, stock, and barrel, is sufficient. There is, however, one very important point that I want to submit to the right hon and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General. All through the Bill I find the terms "enemy," "enemy shareholder," "enemy traders," "enemy firms," and so forth. What does that mean? The whole success or otherwise of this Bill turns upon the interpretation of these terms. I find that the term "enemy," up to the present, does not in the least mean what everybody in the course of this Debate assumes to be its meaning.

That is not—

Speak up!

That is not the intention at all. Clause 1 refers to a subject of an enemy State.

It does not mean a naturalised alien?

No, Sir.

In other parts of the Bill we find the term "enemy," and I think that the term needs to be made perfectly clear. Up to the present it is not, and the blame for it I place on the head of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's predecessor, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow (Sir J. Simon), who was Attorney-General at the commencement of the War. We passed the Trading With the Enemy Bill in September, 1914, dealing with this very question, and we left it to Proclamation to say what was an enemy. Up to the present moment the only definition of an enemy is to be found in this particular Proclamation (Trading With the Enemy, No. 2). There the expression enemy means "any person or body of persons of whatever nationality resident in or carrying on business in an enemy country." That might include, and does include, an Englishman carrying on business in Germany. Up to the present moment an enemy person, a German, may carry on business in England or in any of our Colonies, except in so far as their law may not allow it, in neutral countries, and he may trade and hold property. That is a point I want to be made perfectly clear in regard to this Bill. There are to-day over 30,000 enemy aliens interned in this country, and there are also—we had the figures last week—over 12,000 male enemy aliens, Germans and Austrians, uninterned in this country. All these people, both the interned and the uninterned, are at liberty to carry on their businesses here. There is no doubt about it! It is not merely a question of the enemy country. That is a different and important question. A far more important question is the ordinary individual trader, the German or the Austrian, carrying on business here for the time being. I want it to be quite certain that there is a definition Clause put into this Bill to make it clear that Clause 1 really relates to every single alien enemy carrying on business.

Read the Clause.

Let me read the first Clause—"by reason of the enemy nationality." I assume that does mean that the Board of Trade may stop any firm or any company trading in this country if that firm or company is of enemy nationality, or the company contains any enemy.

The important words are later on "for the benefit of or under the control of subjects of any State at war with His Majesty."

I quite agree. Then I want to see that this is extended throughout the Bill. I do not think it is. I do not think that throughout the Bill there is a very full definition of an enemy trader. In the Bill you get the term "enemy," but to get an interpretation of the term "enemy," "enemy shareholder," and so on, I think you have to go back to the original Trading With the Enemy Bill and to that Proclamation (Trading With the Enemy, No 2). I am fortified in my opinion by the remarks of Lord Lansdowne in another place yesterday. His Lordship was interrogated in regard to this very grave question of trading with the enemy. He laid it down there that a determined effort to close those thousands of German businesses—not merely companies—which are going on all over the country. There is no English business that I know of being carried on in Germany to-day for the benefit of an English resident there. In fact, so far as my information goes, I do not think there is any Englishman allowed to reside in Germany to-day without being interned in Ruhleben or some other internment camp. But in some of our internment camps to-day Germans are allowed to carry on their business here from those camps. Cheques are sent in to them, and they are allowed to sign those cheques in order to carry on their business, which is being done by British managers in the name and on behalf of the German owner who is interned. That must be put a stop to. We have allowed it to go on for eighteen months. There has been no stronger condemnation of the Government during the last eighteen months than the various speeches made on the Treasury Bench. I need not trouble to quote other speeches, but even the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself to-day told us that these things ought not to be allowed to go on. If they ought not to be allowed to go on after eighteen months they ought not to have been allowed to go for more than the first month or two of the War.

With regard to the discretion vested in the Board of Trade, I take with gratitude my right hon. and learned Friend's statement— primâ facie every business should be closed down. That is the real line to go upon. Every alien business in this country, whether carried on by a bogus shareholding firm or by a firm or an individual— primâ facie every business should be closed down. The only two exceptions I would allow, and I gather from my right hon. and learned Friend's speech those are the only two exceptions he would allow, are the minute businesses, the small barber or small baker, on the ground, I suppose, that the law does not take notice of small things. Perhaps it would be impossible to bring the whole power of the Board of Trade into effect to crush these small businesses. The only other exception is that a business should be carried on in the public interest. I know businesses in this country carried on by German firms who have contracts with one or other of our Government Departments to-day, and in particular I know of one quite recently where an order had been issued to intern members of the firm, and an outcry was raised because they had a Government contract. On inquiries, however, of the Government Department, it was found, "No, it was not necessary, and we can get these same things from English firms, but the Germans were trading here and offered to supply, and"—in effect—"we did not care whether we got them from a German firm or did not." That is a case which has occurred within my own knowledge within the last three weeks. There must be, if I may say so, no nonsense of that kind. There must be definite evidence brought to the Government Department that it is absolutely essential that they should continue to trade, and only under such circumstances should any enemy alien of any kind be allowed to carry on business.

In conclusion, I want entirely to concur with what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Mr. Butcher) has said with regard to trade after the War. I want this House to realise that all this trading going on is merely preserving an enemy alien nucleus in our midst, to carry on a commercial war with us after this War is over. These 30,000 men who are now interned will come out after the War and will go back to their businesses, which up to this moment have been reserved for them. They will go back to them with embittered feelings towards England, and with their organisation intact, unless this Bill is thoroughly carried out; and after the War, instead of having destroyed German trade as we are legitimately entitled to do, and as Germany has been trying to destroy our trade, we shall find, on the contrary, that German trade has been scotched but not killed, and is there to raise its head. I see the representative of the Board of Trade is here, and I do ask him to give us an assurance that this Bill is going to be carried out with an entirely different policy behind it from those Bills which have been passed during the course of the War. The Bill is a good Bill, and we are very grateful to the Government for bringing it in, but we want the driving force of the Board of Trade behind which believes in the war against German trade, and then only shall we have the Bill fully carried into effect.

I venture to throw myself on the kindness of the House in making my first speech, and my reason for venturing to address the House is because I have some personal knowledge on this matter. I think this is a question of the very greatest importance to British trade, and I rise to criticise, if I may, the Bill brought in by the Government, because I do not think it goes quite far enough. Clause 1, as I understand it, leaves to the Board of Trade the power, or the discretion, of making Orders upon the firms or companies concerned. The point that I would like to put is that I think the Board of Trade ought to take further powers in order that they might know all the firms that are trading in this country which belong to alien enemies, because I think it is quite a well-known fact that there are numbers of firms in this country which are trading under British names, and of which the partners are alien enemies, or naturalised Germans. I think, therefore, it is very important from the point of view of British trade that we ought to have in some way or other a complete register of all such firms, no matter whether they are trading under German names or British names, and I think if the Board of Trade would venture to make an inquiry they would probably be very greatly surprised by the number of firms under British names which are owned and controlled by alien enemies.

Another phase of this question which I do not think is dealt with in this Bill is the question of firms the proprietors of which are naturalised Germans, or naturalised alien enemies. There have been a considerable number of cases of firms of that kind who before the War, or up to a few months ago, were trading under their original German names, but since the War have changed their names into British names, and to-day are trading simply as British firms. In the City there is a very strong feeling against this kind of thing being allowed. To-day you can go to certain City streets and see firms, which a few months ago were trading under quite well-known German names, are now trading under British names as if they were British firms. This is a point I hope the Government will consider, and see if anything can be done in order to stop continuance of this practice. Certain public bodies with which I am connected in London have taken the line that firms or companies which are controlled by alien or German capital shall not have contracts given to them. Both the London County Council, of which I am a member, and the Port of London Authority having made that rule, we have inquired into the constitution of several of the firms, and it has been quite amazing to find the number of firms and companies which were trading under purely British names, but which were entirely controlled by German or alien capital. There is a well-known case of one of the petroleum companies which traded under a purely British name, although it was entirely controlled by German influence and German capital. The same thing applies to shipping companies. There is the well-known case of an English shipping company trading under an English name where the proprietor was a naturalised German, and at the commencement of the War he was prosecuted for trying to trade with the enemy. In connection with the question of these German or alien firms, I think the Board of Trade will find that there is a good deal of business carried on in the way of goods manufactured in Germany which are sent to firms in this country trading under a British name, and those goods are made up and boxed and sold in this country as British goods. That is a phase of trade which I hope the Board of Trade will look into.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) referred to Belgian trade which was being done in England to-day, and this is a serious matter upon which we ought to get some more information on this subject. The same hon. Member also referred to the question of marble tops. There are a great many other goods coming from Belgium like marble tops, and they are goods which are really not necessary for British trade at all. I am told on very good authority—in fact I have seen some of the correspondence with the Board of Trade—that these goods are allowed to come into this country under what is known as a blocked account—that is, the money is paid into an English bank or a London bank under the term of a blocked account, and that money is not to be removed to Belgium until after the War. These goods come from Belgium, mostly from the Dutch ports of Amsterdam and Rotterdam, and the money is paid by the British firms to an English banker into a blocked account, and I am told that what happens when the voucher which the firm receives here from the English bank for the money which has been paid in is sent to Holland, is that there we find that the Dutch bankers are prepared to advance a fair amount on that voucher, and in this way these moneys are finding their way to Germany. The Solicitor-General referred to the way in which English firms have been treated in Germany since the War, and I should like to endorse what he has said. There is another point, and that is the way the English firms have been treated in Belgium. I have a constituent who had a depot in Antwerp connected with the shipping trade, and he told me that the Germans have commandeered all his stock, shut up the place, and he has no knowledge at all as to what has become of his book debts or stock. If the Germans are treating Englishmen at Antwerp in this manner in a place which was not German territory before the War, it shows the necessity for us taking very severe action in this country against German trading. These are a few personal matters upon which I have ventured to address the House. I hope what I have said will help the discussion on this Bill, and I thank hon. Members for kindly listening to me.

I thank the Government for having brought in this Bill, but I associate myself with what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy said, that this measure has been some time in coming. If anybody cares to refer to the Debate which took place on the 24th November, 1914, he will see that this is really a very long step in advance of the opinions held by the Government at that time. I will not bother the House by reading extracts from speeches of hon. and learned Members, but I would just like to say that even the Solicitor-General himself at that time seemed inclined to throw his mantle of protection over German traders in this country, and it seemed to me, after listening to that Debate, that the impression was that we were engaged in a sort of comfortable family lawsuit with Germany instead of fighting for our lives. I hope that the Government have now really departed from that bad principle, which probably agitated them out of a sense of high charity and under the impression that it was the duty of the Government to keep German nests warm and let them have a jumping-off place for their commercial activities after the War. The doubt in people's minds is as to whether the Board of Trade really mean business. I have not the slightest doubt that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Prety-man), who is going to reply, is thoroughly sound, but he may be succeeded by others who are more benevolent towards our enemies than I think he is, because I know he has a healthy preference for his own people. Nevertheless there are possibilities of the Board of Trade becoming indifferent over this point and not taking the energetic action that many of us would like them to take. I have never yet heard a legal exposition of this particular point, but I never could understand why there was any reason against us annexing German property in this country. If it is legitimate for us to annex a German ship within 50 yards of Dover Pier, why is it not a proper thing to annex German property 50 yards down Dover Street? We must adapt ourselves to the new surroundings. There are a few lines from a speech made by the right hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke) on this point which I should like to quote, words which were used when a much less drastic Amendment was proposed in regard to dealing with German property than this Bill proposes. He said:—

"But I cannot follow the hon. Member in the course he proposes, which is that we should so transform the commercial life of this country—that, because we are at war with Germany at the present time, we should make it impossible for any German private citizen to possess any interest in a British company. That is an act of war upon the individual citizen of the enemy country which transcends anything I believe that has ever been done, at any rate, since the Middle Ages."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th November, 1914, col. 1071, Vol. LXVIII.]

We are now in a new era altogether, because international law has been destroyed by Germany, and we have to adapt ourselves to present conditions. I would like to draw the attention of the representative of the Board of Trade to the question of goodwill. Take the case of the firm referred to by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Butcher), the Sanatogen Company, earning a profit of between £400,000 and £500,000 a year out of the British public. If that business were closed down and sold no doubt a very large sum of money would be obtained and the goodwill would probably count for a good deal. The goodwill of these businesses in England is, of course, dependent upon the goodwill of the British people who produce that goodwill by buying the goods. Would it not be a just thing in the event of the sale of a business of that kind to value the plant, machinery, and the land on which the business is carried on, and if the business fetches at an auction a very much larger price than that, could not the extra amount be earmarked for the benefit of the British public? The goodwill belongs to the public, because they make it, and I do not see why it should be passed on to the German owners of that business. I would also like to emphasise what has been said about the British keeping secret the names of the German firms and German sympathisers in this country. Before now I have asked the Board of Trade to publish in their "Gazette" the names of certain firms here known to be trading with the enemy, and I was told that it was not advisable that this should be done. Now they have taken the healthy step of bringing in this Bill they might reconsider that question and let the British public know who are our friends and who are our enemies. I congratulate the Government on having brought in this measure, which, although it is satisfactory, is still capable of improvement.

I would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Newington (Mr. Gilbert) on his valuable contribution, to which I am sure we all listened with great satisfaction, and to say that we look forward with pleasure to his taking part in our proceedings for some long time to come. I also desire to congratulate the Solicitor-General on having had the privilege of introducing a Bill which I believe will meet with more universal consent than any measure brought before Parliament since the commencement of this War. The only matter for surprise is that the Bill was not introduced long ago. It must have been apparent to the Government, and especially to the Board of Trade, that there has long been a demand for this Bill and that, during the War especially, this country should be purged from an anomaly which no one can possibly justify. Reference has been made to the action pursued by this country up to the present compared with that of Germany. I know from personal experience the drastic measures that have been taken by Germany in connection with anything that savours of English personality in firms or businesses. It must not be forgotten that whereas in this country we are flooded with Germans who have become naturalised Englishmen, in Germany there are only very few Englishmen who have become naturalised Germans. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that for every Englishman who has become a naturalised German there are 500 Germans who have become naturalised Englishmen.

A thousand!

My right hon. Friend says 1,000, but I do not wish to exaggerate. That makes a great difference, because German methods have dominated and permeated several branches of commerce in this country. There is no doubt of the fact that these German methods have been the determining factor. Germany in order to obtain business have no regard for conventionalities or esprit de corps. They are out to obtain the business of this country, and they do it by methods that would be strongly resented by British firms acting towards British firms. Reference was made by the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Butcher) to the action of Australia and other Colonies, but especially Australia. From my own personal knowledge I know what has taken place in Australia. The Prime Minister of Australia (Mr. Hughes) is now on his way to this country, and I would respectfully suggest to the Board of Trade that when he arrives they should consult with him as to the procedure he has adopted with regard to German firms, not only in Australia, but also in this country. In Australia at the present time you cannot ship goods, if they are going to be diverted, not only to a German firm, but to any firm which has a German atmosphere. If it is known that a firm consists largely of men who were originally Germans, and who are now naturalised, the Australian Government bars transactions with that firm. I would therefore like, if I possibly could, to get some wider explanation as to what we are to understand by "enemy association." Personally, I do not draw a very great distinction between a man who is a non-naturalised German and a German who is a naturalised Englishman. I say, and I believe this is the opinion of most people, that if by some chance I had been obliged to live in Germany and became a naturalised German I should remain a Britisher, and I believe most of those Germans who are naturalised are Germans to the core. Does "enemy association" apply to a firm which, although it may not at present have German capital, was started with German capital which has been transferred to men who although of German birth are now naturalised British subjects? It is that class of men who are doing injury to the trade of this country. They are here absolutely for the purpose of trade, their patriotism is very doubtful, and their methods are much to be deprecated. There is a point which has been referred to and on which I lay great stress. The names of those firms who have been or who may be placed under a supervisor or a custodian should be made available for the public. I do not see the object of hiding them, and I think the public are entitled to have those names.

What names?

The names of those firms who are being carried on at present under supervisors or who will be carried on under supervisors when this Bill comes into operation. My hon. Friend knows that there are such firms at the present time, and I think the public should have that information made available to them. I see no reason why they should not have this information. It is a matter which is of interest to the commercial and financial community. They like to know with whom they are trading, and under what conditions they may trade. Then I would like to have some information with regard to Clause 3, Sub-section (3). Under that Sub-section there is power given to the custodian to sell shares forming part of the capital of a company which are held by enemy subjects. If the custodian were to sell such shares, and the enemy interest was in consequence eliminated, would it follow that the custodian need no longer carry on the affairs of that firm? It may be when this Bill comes into operation or when its provisions become known that certain firms will endeavour to get rid of their German shareholders, and transfer their shares perhaps into names which are of a nominal character, thereby seeking to evade the provisions of the Bill. I want to make certain that this Bill should apply to firms in which at the commencement of the War the majority of the shares or any proportion of the shares were held by enemy subjects even although they have been since transferred. That is absolutely necessary, otherwise some of the provisions of the Bill may be defeated. On the whole—and I am certain I am voicing the opinion of the commercial and financial community—I welcome this Bill with intense satisfaction. It has been too long delayed, and I join with previous speakers in the hope that the Board of Trade will administer this important measure drastically and energetically. I am also very gratified with the provision that is made in this Bill that it shall not come to a conclusion at the end of the War, because at that time, in my opinion, we may have more chaos and more difficulties to contend with than even at the present moment. I consider this Bill is one which is necessary to be kept in operation after the War just as much as it is required at the present time. I am certain that the Government, although to a certain extent it has under pressure brought in this Bill, will find that it is hailed with considerable satisfaction.

I want to direct the attention of the Board of Trade to Clause 4 of this Bill, which is intended to vest, in this country, in the custodian, any patents which have been or are about to be granted to an enemy. I would like to suggest we should grant no patents at all during the War to an enemy; that we should prohibit sending from this country to Germany any applications for patents, and the receipt from Germany in England of any such applications. It may not be generally understood that we are sending every week hundreds of pounds to Germany for the purpose of maintaining patents in that country. That money goes directly to the Crown, and is, of course, used against us. The amount of money that comes from Germany to this country for patents is very small, much smaller than the amount which we send there. I have never been able to understand, nor have I ever met anyone who can understand, why, while we prohibit all trade between this country and Germany, we are allowing Germans to come over here and secure monopolies by means of patents, permitting as a quid pro quo a Britisher to get patents over there. What it means is that we allow Germans to come here with an invention, which hereafter is going to be the sole property of the Germans, and you are going to tie up our industry in the future for the benefit of a man who applies for the patent at a time when his country is seeeking to destroy our own. The advantage which we get by sending to Germany is very small. The amount of money we receive is small compared with the sum sent, while the difficulties in Germany are very great.

Any person applying for a patent in Germany at this moment has to send a very large amount of information, quite outside that which is necessary, to obtain a patent, and it is information which may be of great use to the enemy at the present time. I know of my own knowledge inventions that will and can be used against us, and in respect of them patents have been applied for by citizens of this country in the hope of subsequently securing trade. These patents will probably not be granted, because of the difficulties which the German Patent Office is creating, rather than let them go through. We have to send full information to support all applications—information such as is not required here, and at the same time we are giving the Germans the benefit of experiments which are being carried out for the advantage of our own subjects. Ultimately we shall probably find the German authorities will come to the conclusion that they will grant no patents at all. At the beginning of Clause 4 I find these words: ipso facto be granted to the trustee, and it shall not depend on the issue of an Order of the Board of Trade for it to be so granted. At the present time it is extremely desirable that steps should be taken to seal patents which are not now sealed, because the moment they are sealed they can be suspended. If anyone is seeking to get advantage from the patent during the War, they cannot get the advantage if the patent is sealed and in a state of suspense. This is a great power given under this Bill, but I wish the Clause to be extended a little further so as to prevent any further dealings at all with patents of either country. I want them to remain in a state of suspense, so that at the end of the War we can say that an invention which has not been patented in either country can be so patented by arrangement subsequently, rather than that the protection should be granted now

2.0 P.M.

If this period of suspense could be provided without prejudice to anybody, we should not be losing any trade and, on the other hand, we should be giving away no secrets which could be used against us during the War and which will be subsequently detrimentally used against us when business may be restored, not, perhaps, to the normal conditions, but which will be conditions prejudicial to us when they are restored. I welcome the Bill as giving an opportunity to those who are now looking to obtaining the benefit of foreign trade to understand that conditions are going to be put upon the trade which has already been done and is being done by Germany in order to help them in the efforts they are making. Our manufacturers have to learn many lessons. You have only to look at some articles made by British manufacturers to replace some of those made by Germans to know that when the War is over they never can be sold if they have to come into competition with those made by the foreigner. One great lesson they have to learn is that of specialisation in connection with the things they make. Take small toys as an instance. If anyone seeks to buy a Noah's ark in London to-day he probably will find that he cannot purchase one, but he will be shown an English one which will cost 7s. 6d. against that made by the German costing 1s., and the 7s. 6d. one is a toy which a child would throw on one side as not being so attractive as that made by the foreigner. The toy industry is a very large one. We are losing it, and we shall not hold it unless we specialise in a way in which we have not. hitherto specialised. Therefore, while this Bill gives us the opportunity, I hope the opportunity will not cause our manufacturers to neglect the lessons that are needed before they can capture German trade.

On behalf of the chambers of commerce, I should like to welcome this Bill as far as it goes. The only criticism I have to offer upon it is that Clause 1 does not go as far as we were led to hope it might go when we had Debates on this subject on the 15th and 16th December. I quite agree with the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Butcher) in his remarks when he drew attention to the broad general principle that was laid down at that time. I quite admit that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General was correct when he pointed out that certain operations were to be left to the Board of Trade, but the broad principle which was laid down at that time was very definite and far-reaching, and Clause 1 of this Bill hardly carries that principle out as fully as it might be carried out. The general principle laid down by the Noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was this:— of Trade greater powers than those for which they have asked. It is, perhaps, somewhat unusual for a Government Department to come to this House to ask for less power than the House has already practically agreed to give them. In this case they might have asked for the full powers which would be given to them by the House with the enthusiastic and strong support of the country. I therefore hope that Amendments will be put down to increase the powers of the Board of Trade under Clause 1, and that those Amendments will be sympathetically considered by the Government, even if the Government do not see their way in the meantime, which would be the much better course, to introduce Amendments of their own which would extend the Clause to cover the principle laid down and accepted already by this House.

I should like to say a word in support of the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) with regard to the publication of the lists of persons who come under the operations of the Orders which have been issued or are to be issued. The Associated Chambers of Commerce of the United Kingdom sent a letter, as no doubt the right hon. Gentleman is aware, to the Board of Trade, pressing very strongly that, in the interests of the public and in the interests of the traders, such a list should be made public. So far the Board of Trade have not seen their way to do that, but I hope that they will soon be able to publish such a list, and certainly to publish a list of all the Orders made under the Bill. I may point out that we in this country are in the position that we can ascertain the names of enemy firms in Egypt who are treated accordingly, but we cannot ascertain the names of such firms in England. We have only to go to official sources and we can get a list of enemy firms in Russia, but we cannot get a list of the enemy firms in London. If we can get those particulars in other parts of the world, it would be only logical that we should at least be able to get them in regard to our own part of the world. I do not see in this Bill—it may be I have not appreciated it—any provision for getting rid of the directors of companies who are nominees of alien enemies. In many cases it may not be necessary to prohibit a company from trading or to wind it up, but it may be advisable to get rid of the directors, who are really nothing more or less than the nominees of firms in Germany. There are many such. I would invite the Government to consider that point, and, at the same time, to consider the fact that it is at the present time apparently impossible for an Englishman who has a German partner to get rid of him. That is a very important point. It may be dealt with in the Bill.

It is in the Bill.

I can assure the Government that nothing I have said is intended to be hostile to the measure, but is purely friendly, and has been said with a desire to improve and strengthen it.

I regard this Bill as of the highest importance. It has been with a feeling of deep dismay that I have seen how tenderly and protectively alien enemies have been dealt with in this country, especially those who are trading here. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last, and others who have spoken, have pressed upon the Government the desirability of having a register prepared giving the names of the firms trading in this country who are under supervision or control. I go much further. We ought also to have, if possible, the names of firms trading under British names who have any enemy shareholders. Further than that, I should like to see, not only a list of firms and alien enemies, but also a separate list of firms the members of which are of enemy race but who are naturalised. I do not hesitate to say that I view with some suspicion naturalised British subjects of enemy race, because I cannot but recognise that it places them in a position of greater freedom in this country if they become naturalised, and it does not follow that after they become naturalised, they are not in full sympathy with our enemies, or as much in sympathy with our enemies as those in this country who are unnaturalised. There is no question that the German economic system has been worked hand-in-hand with the German military system, and looking to the future, the problem before us is as to how far, without injuring the commercial interests of this country, we can make changes which will have the result of lessening our dependence upon Germany in a trade sense, and manufacturing those articles that we have hitherto drawn from Germany which we can equally well manufacture in this country. In fact, our object ought to be, after the War is over, to prevent the economic rehabilitation of Germany and make it less likely that she will be in a position, working, as she does, her economic and military system together, to again break the peace of the world and plunge us into the horrors of frightful war. I cannot imagine that British traders will be willing to resume trading with the Germans after the War is over just as though we had never been subjected to the awful crimes and outrages that Germany is perpetrating. It is perfectly true that in some particular things that we require in this country for our trade and commerce we may have to go, after the War is over, to Germany, but certainly I hope we shall not go to Germany for one single thing that we ought to produce in this country for ourselves, and we ought, after the frightful experience we are passing through, having regard to the great sacrifices our Allies are making to-day along with ourselves on behalf of the cause of humanity and human freedom, to lessen our trading relations with our enemies and to increase and cultivate in every possible way our trading relations with our Allies. I am perfectly certain that there are enormous possibilities in this direction, and that we have enormous possibilities in the development within the British Empire of works and industries to give us what we need so that we shall become practically a self-contained Empire. But in addition to that, my sympathies go out strongly to increasing our trade with our Allies for our mutual economic benefit, so that they, along with ourselves, may make the most rapid economic recovery after the War is over, whilst at the same time we all unitedly, by such trading arrangements between ourselves as it is quite possible for us to make, at the same time pursue a policy which, whilst it tends to strengthen us economically, will tend at the same time to make Germany weak economically. After our experiences in this War I would not trust the Germans not to break peace again at the earliest moment. We do not know when the War is going to end, but whether it be ended at an early date or prolonged, I am extremely sorry the Government have so long delayed the introduction of this Bill. But it is no use entering into recriminations. We are grateful to the Government, and grateful especially to the Solicitor-General for the excellent drafting of this measure and for his most lucid exposition of it. I am glad, indeed, that he is in charge of the Bill, and when it is passed finally into law, with certain alterations, I believe it will be of the greatest benefit to the trade interests of this country, and will promote the rehabilitation in an economic sense of this nation and of our Allies.

The importance of this Bill will entirely depend upon the way in which it is administered. It is almost a gigantic task that the Government has set itself. We have to look at the reason why the Bill has not been brought in before to see whether or not the circumstances are such that in all probability it will be properly administered. Before it was introduced it was unlawful for an Englishman to trade with a German in Germany or with an Englishman in Germany. The Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs quite recently brought in a Bill to make it illegal to trade with certain persons of enemy association or nationality in neutral countries. Those two measures the Foreign Office was quite capable of carrying out—making a Black List, and preventing Englishmen in this country from trading with persons of enemy nationality or enemy association in neutral countries. It has the staff, and it is not so overburdened as the other Departments. Why was not this Bill, preventing an Englishman from trading with a German in this country in competition with his own countrymen, not brought in before? All sorts of insinuations have been made as to pro-German influences in the country. I do not believe them. What I believe is that the Department which will have to administer this Bill when it becomes an Act, the Board of Trade, is so absolutely overweighted and overwhelmed with work that it felt it dare not undertake such a gigantic task. This House is now going to put that burden upon the Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade is incapable of carrying it out, and under these circumstances, I am very much afraid the Bill will not be carried out in the way in which the country desires that it should be. See what happened just before the Bill was brought in. It was in answer to a challenge of mine to the late Home Secretary that he promised to bring it in. It was on the Committee stage of the Trading With the Enemy (Extension) Bill, which was to prevent Englishmen trading with alien enemies in neutral countries. He interrupted me, and promised to bring in a Bill. What was the promise that he made the next day? When I was interrupted I had said that the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs had said that only those firms which were useful to this country should be allowed to trade here, and the Under-Secretary to the Foreign Office said:—

"I said only those enemy firms,"

and I said:—

"That is so."

Therefore, the Under-Secretary to the Foreign Office intended that only those enemy firms which are useful to this country should be allowed to trade here. Most of us thought, as the late Home Secretary agreed to that in principle, that that would be in the Bill which he was going to bring in. On the next day he said that what they intended to do was that the Board of Trade might, after proper procedure where the national interests required it, instead of authorising the business to go on, make provision for a business to stop. All the powers that he was going to take were permissive, and it was intended that the powers given in the Bill should be that the Board of Trade should investigate such cases as they pleased, or as might come to their notice, and one by one deal with those which they thought ought to be shut out. This Bill is a very different Bill. This Bill says they shall. I know the Board of Trade is opposed to it.

indicated dissent.

I am quite sure it is.

If the hon. Member will look at the names at the back of the Bill, he will see that they support it.

I am very glad to hear that from the Solicitor-General. I know they were opposed to it a little while ago. I feel sure that now, having brought it in, they will do their best to carry it out. But how can they possibly carry it out? There is only one way in which this Bill can be properly administered by the Board of Trade. There are many thousands of companies and private individuals—as, I believe, we were told by the Solicitor-General himself who are trading, whose affairs have to be investigated, and also the nature of their business, and they have either to have a licence to trade or they have to be wound up or they have to be prohibited from trading. There is only one way in which this can be done effectively, and that is by relieving the Board of Trade of a large amount of that work which at present weighs it down. The Board of Trade has failed entirely to deal with the great shipping interests in this country. It is a scandal that they should not have been able in eighteen months to devise any scheme by which the freights on necessaries brought to this country can be limited. It is a scandal, and I think it is to a great extent due to the fact that the Board of Trade is overweighted. This Bill will add to their labours enormously. There ought to be a Ministry of Industry and Commerce, which would relieve the Board of Trade of half its labours, and then it might be able to undertake the gigantic task of carrying out this new duty that is to be put upon it. I think a Ministry of Industry and Commerce ought to be formed at once during the War. It is called for in all quarters by all chambers of commerce in the country, and by every individual who has devoted himself to considering the economic position in which we stand. I do not pretend to pursue that further.

I would remind the hon. Member that we should never get on with the consideration of the Bill if hon. Members were allowed to bring in other subjects.

I do not intend to pursue this particular point any further. There is, however, one other matter which I should like to refer to. I was going to refer to it when I was interrupted the other day by the late Home Secretary. I want to give an illustration of the kind of company which I am afraid the Board of Trade will be unwilling to deal with drastically under this Bill, and it is perhaps the most important class of company that exists at the present time. I will give one instance, and it is of a company engaged in making a composition which is very useful for merchant ships and the Navy. Some years ago a German came over to this country and formed a company to make this composition. It is also made by other companies in England who make paint, varnish and things of that kind. The first thing they did when they had formed their company with a title, the first word of which was "British," was to proceed to persuade the manager of a most successful firm which made composition of this kind to leave the service of his employer—an old-established firm—and to enter their service at, I suppose, an increased salary. Having got him, they built up a large trade. Every one of the shareholders, every one of the directors, and every person in the company, with the exception of the English manager, are of German nationality, only five of them being naturalised, while nearly all of them live in Germany. As soon as the War began they placed in the headlines of their advertisement, "British So-and-so, contractors to the Admiralty. All our stuff made in England at such-and-such a place," giving the address. Then they sent in their tenders to the Admiralty, and they put them at a price that no English firm could possibly put them at, although they had been previously selling this composition at the same price as the English firms were selling it, and occasionally at a higher price. However, this firm quoted at such a cutting price that the other firms could not compete. Then they put upon their headlines, "Contractors to the Admiralty."

Is this sort of company to be allowed to carry on competition with English companies in that unfair manner, suggesting falsely to the British public that it is a British company, saying, truly, that it is a contractor to the Admiralty—for the purpose of making its British character more apparent to unsuspecting persons dealing with them—putting their goods at such a price that no English firm can do it, and doing this simply for the purpose of keeping their company alive during the War and preserving its goodwill so that they may be able to compete when the War is over on equal terms with English companies? That is one class of company which the Board of Trade ought to be most careful in investigating. May I ask for some assurance from the Board of Trade that they will have sufficient staff to deal with these matters? Unless they have sufficient staff and sufficient energy the Bill will be a failure and the British public will be bitterly disappointed. In that event it will happen that on every Motion for the Adjournment the President of the Board of Trade or the Secretary to the Board of Trade will have to be present and we shall be bringing forward lists of names of firms which have not been dealt with as we think they ought to have been dealt with, and the life of an official of the Board of Trade will be a very laborious one. If, however, they have a sufficient staff, and if they have a sufficient department which will deal thoroughly with the matter, this Bill will be a great success. I do suggest to the Board of Trade and to the Government as a whole that it is time, in order that the Board may have the ability to deal with the business that they already have to deal with, and with, the duties which this Bill is to put upon them, to consider the advisability of estabblishing a separate Ministry of Commerce and Industry to relieve the Board of a part of the duties which overwhelm them.

I desire to thank the Solicitor-General and the Government for having introduced this measure. I welcome the measure and I think it will be of great benefit to the country. The introduction of the Bill indicates a new spirit on the Front Bench, and a spirit that we are delighted to see. As an indication of that new spirit, may I be allowed to make a reference to something which occurred in this House in July last, which shows the former spirit which characterised the Front Bench? I put a question to one of the Ministers as follows:—

"Whether his Department is at present getting delivery of tool steel.… from a Sheffield firm. If so, whether he is aware that the managing director of that firm is a naturalised German with pronounced German sympathies, and that the staff of the company embraces several Germans who have never been naturalised. …"

The answer to that question was as follows:—

"An order for tool steel has been placed with this firm by the Superintendent of the Waltham and Enfield factories. … Nothing is known as to the alleged German connections, but if there are Germans on the staff of the company they could not be better employed than in meeting our requirements in this respect."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July, 1915. cols. 2262–2253. Vol. LXXIII.]

It is almost incredible that the War Office could give a reply in this House to that effect—that Germans in this country could not be better employed than in making munitions of war for the War Office. I say that spirit has now gone. We are having a new spirit introduced, and this measure now before us is a concrete example of that. There is only one other point I desire to make before I sit down, and it is one that has not been mentioned by any of the former speakers. When a similar measure came before the House I ventured to air this point. It did not meet with much sympathy, but still I consider it my duty to air it again. It is the position of British traders under this measure. These firms we are dealing with are to be prohibited during the War from doing business, and, ex hypothesi, these firms are in a large way of trading. The Solicitor-General said he did not desire to deal with small firms, but that he was only dealing with firms in a large way of business. When these firms come to be prohibited from dealing and carrying on trade, there will be a large body of contracts with British mercantile firms of all sorts. What I desire to ask the Solicitor-General—or perhaps I should say the Board of Trade, because they will issue the Regulations—to deal with is that these merchants who, bonâ fide, have entered into large contracts with these companies that are suspended, should not have hanging over them all the time of the War the liability to fulfil these contracts. That is a very serious matter for these traders in the country, and they should either be told that the contracts are cancelled and have come to an end, or some certainty should be given to these men as to how they stand. It is a very serious responsibility, with the extraordinary variations of markets that are now going on in war time, that these firms should have hanging over them during the currency of the War, which may be another eighteen months for all we know, this liability to fulfil their contracts. I say that these men, ex hypothesi, have in no way failed in their duty as citizens because they have assumed these firms with whom they were dealing were friendly firms, and they should not be penalised in this exceptional way when these firms are suspended from doing trade. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary for the Board of Trade (Mr. Pretyman) will indicate in the reply which I believe he is going to make how these contracts are going to be dealt with. All the mercantile world needs, so far as I am aware, is to know how they will be placed and how these contracts will be dealt with.

I will not deal with the observations of the hon. Member for Glasgow, who has just spoken. I do not see where that question about contracts hanging over British traders or manufacturers comes in under this Bill at all. Of course, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to deal with it in his reply, well and good, but it appears to me to be quite foreign to the questions, which properly come under the Second Reading of this Bill. Any lawyer, of course, knows that you cannot, by any proceedings of a British tribunal, relieve these people of any liability they are under to a foreign Court. Something partial may be done, but I leave that question, because, as I say, I do not think it is material to the present Debate. I am not going to attempt to deal further with the question of the alleged shortcomings of the Board of Trade before the introduction of this Bill. I know they have had plenty of difficulties to deal with, and I acknowledge that some of the difficulties have been exceedingly well dealt with. There have been difficulties, and more difficulties have been discovered, and I welcome this Bill most cordially as a way of greatly strengthening their powers to avert evils similar to those which undoubtedly exist. I do not share in the apprehensions of either the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) or the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Denniss) that there will be any great difficulty in dealing with the matter under the provisions of this Bill. Certainly I do not think that the difficulty about defining an enemy comes in at all, because I think the first paragraph in the Bill, referred to by the hon. Member for Brentford, is a model of drafting in that respect. It does not necessarily postulate that anybody comes within the definition of alien enemy. It says, "by reason of enemy nationality," which seems to me to cover every possible case. Moreover, it says, if the business operations in this country operate for the benefit of any subjects of any State at war with this country—and I cannot imagine wider words. I do think this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will give the Board of Trade power to deal with all the cases of difficulty which have been suggested on the other side of the House, and I have no doubt they will execute it.

There is another point which I should like to mention, although I do not intend to do like many hon. Members in this House have tried to do, to anticipate or prophecy what is going to take place after the War. It may be that our feelings will be very strong. It will depend on what will take place before then, and unfortunately I am old enough to recollect when very strong feelings were raised in this country against an enemy, or possible enemy, and in the enemy against this country. I do not think, however, that the prophecies very widely made, at that time have been fulfilled at all. However, that may be, there is one anticipation, touched upon very eloquently by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Butcher) and the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel), which I think is very serious, and that is the danger, both under the law as it stood before the introduction of this Bill and to a great extent under this Bill, that you will in effect be nursing and protecting a foreign trade which, on the termination of the War, or even before, will compete with the industries of this country. That, I think, is very serious. I am not going to deal with it now, but I have looked through the Bill to see where I think the powers of the Board of Trade may be strengthened or altered in that respect. The first thing—and that is a Committee point—is that under Clause 1 it might be wise to prohibit part of the business of some of these companies or firms without interfering with the other part. These are Committee points, and the other, which seems to me very important, and raised questions which go a very long way, is the reference in this Bill, and for the matter of that in the previous legislation, to the subject of patent rights. It is for the vital interest of this country that we should not be thwarted, or in any way impeded, in making the fullest use of any inventions that may come to our knowledge. There is too great a habit of treating a patent as a piece of property. It is not a right to make a thing, but to prevent other people from making it, under the old statutory monopolies. If you look back from the time of James II. down, I think, to 1847, you will find that, with the usual state of mental inertia which characterises Parliamentary draftsmen, they got hold of a precedent and treated the assignment of a patent just as if it was a piece of property. Throughout the history of patent law they have to a great extent lost sight of the fact that a patent is not a right to make a thing, but to prevent other people from making it. I ask why, when we are at war, should the country maintain, under any circumstances, rights for the benefit of the subjects of an enemy State or anybody interested, which prevent the fullest use of foreign inventions by manufacturers here? I think that is a point which really does want looking into. If I mistake not, before the introduction of this Bill, there existed under the Amendment Act of 1914 the power to suspend but not destroy the rights of the alien inventor, and the only right in this Bill, is to obtain control, and then grant licences to make money out of it immediately. Possibly they would not do it unless there was a large number of British shareholders or owners in the firm, which would entitle them to do it. We should have no impediments to the full use of these patents. I speak warmly on this subject. I have listened to debates and have also attended meetings of those who are negaged in trying to get the Gov- ernment to organise scientific work so that we may get the full benefit of anything the country can produce in competition with Germany; or, without any question of competition, to improve our own trade and enable us to supply our own wants. In this country we have looked too much to the idea of immediate benefit, and have not been willing to make sacrifices with the purpose of developing new inventions to the utmost extent. I could not make this point the subject of an Amendment in any way because, as the right hon. Gentleman has just observed, they have power to take the course recommended. I have made these remarks in the hope that we shall get an assurance that the powers of the Board of Trade will be used to prevent and remove impediments to our fullest use of these inventions.

I am sure the House, and I hope the Solicitor-General, are in entire agreement with the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken. The question of patents, of course, is only germane to this Bill to a very small extent, and is limited to the granting of any new patents. But other questions the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to deal with the whole subject of the enmeshing and upsetting of British trade by the elaborate misuse of the patent laws. That question is one of the most vital which have to be considered in taking up trade policy in this country after the War. I will not follow the hon. and learned Member further in that direction. My object in rising is to point out to the Solicitor-General one or two points which absolutely, as it seems to me, apply to the whole essence of this Bill. First of all—I see the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy in his place; I would like to add my word to what he said—it seems to me that the one thing we have to regret about this Bill is that it is brought up for Second Reading on the 21st January, 1916, instead of at least a year ago, or probably longer, if we had followed the patriotic precedents of some of the Dominions in this matter, by legislation against alien enemies during the War. It is something of a coincidence that it is exactly a year ago that the decision of the Appeal Court was given in the Continental Tyre case. It was reported in the "Times" of 20th January, 1915, and it seems to be a complete substantiation of what the right hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Dalziel) said, that the Government have only moved in this matter after a great deal of pressure, not only from private Members, but public opinion outside, and that we have to realise that it has taken a whole year to deal with a question which was brought prominently to the notice of the Government and the whole country in that momentous decision of the Court of Appeal, a decision which has never yet been reviewed by the House of Lords. The right hon. Gentleman opposite complained that there was no Clause in this Bill dealing with the underlying legal principle of the judgment to which I have referred. The learned Solicitor-General said that Lord Halsbury's Bill in another place did not deal with the whole subject. I think his words were that it "did not cover the whole ground." It is equally true that this Bill does not cover the whole ground which Lord Halsbury's Bill covered. They deal with two perfectly separate questions. This Bill seems to accept as a fait accompli the decision of the Court of Appeal, and only takes steps as are possible that no enemy company in effect shall exercise its lights under the law of this country. The Solicitor-General says that the Bill provides that no matter whether a company has got those rights or whether it has not, steps will be taken to wind them up. But I submit that until this decision is reversed by a higher Court the law, as it stands, will remain nothing short of a national scandal. Under our law any two Germans who choose to form themselves into a company have, in fact, all the rights of British citizens, subject, of course, to any legislation that may be passed either through this Bill or in other ways. I hope that we shall have a decision at an early date by the final Court of Appeal on that question; and, for my part, I would suggest that it would be well to obtain the decision of the House of Lords on the question of principle before requesting the Government to extend this Bill at the present moment, and ask them to go into the subject of obtaining a reversal of a decision of the law which has no higher sanction than the decision of the Appeal Court. The hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Butcher), I may incidentally remark, should be regarded as the parent of this Bill, for undoubtedly it would never have been introduced if it had not been for his bringing his acute legal judgment to bear upon another Bill, to which reference has been made, and to which he put down a series of Amendments that put the Government in the position that they either could not pass their Bill before the Christmas adjournment or else had to give some guarantee that they would introduce legislation at an early date. I welcome the late arrival of this Bill after eighteen months of war.

The whole question of what is the real utility of this Bill lies in the words of the first Clause as to the powers of the Board of Trade to grant exemptions in any particular case when for any reason whatever it appears to them to be desirable to do so. I am in agreement with other hon. Members that those powers ought to be limited strictly in accordance with the terms of the pledge given to the question of national advantage.

There really was no pledge about that.

I will not put it so high as that. It has been referred to as a pledge, but perhaps I had better say in the outline of the Bill given by the Foreign Secretary and the late Home Secretary. It is a legitimate matter for debate in the Committee stage. I should like, in justice to the draftsmanship of this Bill, to point out that it is extremely difficult to very closely limit the power of the Board of Trade in granting exemptions. In order to make good that point, let me mention one particular case which has come to my knowledge. There is a man at the present moment interned in this country. He has lived here for thirty-five years. Like a good many other young men—and I make a present of the suggestion to those who do not favour Conscription—he left his country in order to escape the Austrian military system. He came here and established himself in business, and at the present moment his eldest son is fighting for us. He has two more sons born in this country, of course, who are just upon military age, one of them being about eighteen. So disastrous might be the effect of the knowledge that the father is interned on the son who is fighting for us they have not communicated that to him. On the point of this Bill I would say that there is not the remotest chance in such a case as that of a single penny of the profits ever going to Austria. The man has been here for thirty-five years, and he has no more intention of going to Austria than I have, and the money would remain absolutely in this country.

3.0 P.M.

May I give another case in the opposite direction to show how wide are the differences in cases. I had my attention called to a company which, like the Continental Tyre Company and many others, consists entirely of German shareholders. The company is manufacturing a bare-faced imitation of what is called "Tommy's Cooker." That company is selling those cookers under cost price in order to drive the British manufactured article out of the market. Of course, the reason is obvious. Profits cannot be transferred to Hanover and Berlin during the War, so the best thing for them to do is to establish themselves, so that they may be able to carry on this business, though, of course, on a smaller scale than the war scale, but still on a substantial scale, after the War, with no competition from any English firm. Who are the shareholders? There is Wilhelm Huch, of Hanover, holder of 1,348 shares, and Jacob Strumpf, of Berlin, operating in this country at present, and a discharged bankrupt who has never taken the trouble to take out naturaliastion. He holds 497 shares. The next is H. Oppenheimer, I do not know whether of Hanover or Berlin, who holds 499 shares; and then we have the usual two shares, or three, owned by people with English or Irish names. I have here also a list of the shareholders of the English firm doing business in direct competition, and whose business is being more or less destroyed. I see the name here of either the hon. Member for St. Augustine's (Mr. R. McNeill), or one of his family, as a shareholder in the English firm which manufactures "Tommy's Cooker." I also notice the names of the hon. Baronet the Member for Swansea (Sir A. Mond), Lady Sydenham, of Combe, Lady Muir Mackenzie, and others. It seems to be more or less a patriotic company formed to manufacture something which is essential for our troops. I cannot imagine what the Home Office have been doing. I understand that every facility has been given to Jacob Strumpf to go to all our military camps, and to get orders from the canteens, or wherever he can secure them, for this "Little Kitchener" There cannot be any military necessity in question, because a better article, the original article, the article which a patent has been applied for, is manufactured by an English company with entirely English shareholders. At the present moment the manager is on his way across the Mediterranean to Egypt in order to arrange for plant to be put down there for the more complete manufacture of this absolutely essential article for cooking in the field. I do say, if we are to leave these wide powers in the hands of the Board of Trade, we should require some kind of guarantee that they will be effectively used, and that people of that kind are not to get permission or licence from the Home Office, or any permission, tacit or otherwise, from the Board of Trade to carry on business in this country, simply because they are manufacturing something or other for which in some cases they may be in receipt of orders from the War Office, or, as in the case I have quoted, because they are manufacturing something which may be used in the conduct of military operations. We must consider whether the thing they are making is essential to the conduct of our military operations, and whether it neither is now, or cannot be made by people of British nationality, in which case the profits would remain in this country both now and after the War. I am sure it is not beyond the powers, and I hope it will meet with the approval, of the hon. Member for York and that he or someone else who is capable of doing it, will draft an Amendment to this Bill which will ensure what the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) wants to take place, namely, that when we pass this Bill, leaving these powers of discretion to the Board of Trade, the House shall have some knowledge, not only of the number and names of those alien firms that exist at present in this country, which I think is a demand essential to be met, but also that we shall know from time to time at reasonable intervals what is the operation of this Bill. Otherwise we may be simply, as it were, dropping a pebble into the pond. We will see the ripple, and then the matter will go into, the Department of the Board of Trade. I do not think that hon. Members will be doing their duty if they lose control of this Bill, without having a provision within the four corners of the Bill by which they will know from time to time what practical use is being made of the powers given to the Board of Trade. That is my suggestion, and possibly the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will consider whether it can be carried out. Certainly it would give throughout the country a great sense of assurance that this Bill is in no sense going to be a dead letter. We have had a good deal of delay and trouble in getting it introduced; we do not want it to be an addled egg now at last the Government have laid it.

I welcome this Bill, but at the same time I wish to express my well-known view that we must not depend too much on pieces of paper called Acts of Parliament. How often in times past have well-meaning sentimental Members of this House thought they could reform their native land and make people do things entirely contrary to their previous habits by spending an hour or two on a Friday afternoon fabricating some meddlesome legislation. I have much more faith in determination and vigour on the part of the Government than I have in any mere discussion of machinery. I hope the Government will take the warning of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto), and assure the House that they mean business. I am certain that the Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Pretyman) has not crossed the floor of the House in order to be led by the nose by some clerk in Whitehall. We expect him to leave the stamp of his individuality on the conduct of the Board of Trade. I do not know any suggestion to which I would sooner give my support than that he should vigorously administer this Bill. It will not be easy; but I am sure he will not be blamed by any Member on either side of the House, for possible mistakes. What we want is activity, as the position is serious.

I do not follow the Solicitor-General in thinking it will be difficult to deal with the matter of insurance. He suggested that insurance companies of German origin must be allowed to go on collecting premiums, I presume in order that the policy holders may be sure that there will be enough to meet their claims. I am not entitled to speak on their behalf, but I know the minds of managers of leading companies, and I am perfectly certain that the Government could easily get the assistance of most of the highest paid men in the country, apart from bank managers, to help them without any charge, and to suggest a way whereby any business of that kind could be wound-up by English or Scottish companies of the highest repute. I believe they would take over any business of that kind and wind it up without profit for themselves, and if there was a margin of profit I am certain they would be willing to hand it over to the State. There is no reason why these companies should eke out a lingering existence and so by chance be living entities when the War ends. Some insurance policies are for three years; sometimes there is a condition that if the policy holder does not have a claim for a certain number of years he is entitled to a free policy for the following year. It would not meet the wishes of the House that, because a few policies of that kind were in existence and the rest of the business concluded, these companies should be allowed to remain in corporate existence and become active competitors again when the War is over. I think the Board of Trade would find their work very much simplified if they invited the co-operation of leading insurance companies in winding up that part of the business.

I thank the Government for this belated attempt. I do so sincerely, because the two Ministers in charge of the Bill are not great sinners in the matter; they have been in office only a few months. If the previous Government had been as diligent we should have had this Bill at least a year ago. What did the Germans do with a similar problem? A personal friend of mine had a store in Berlin, as well as in St. Petersburg, London, and New York. He was a British citizen. What did the Germans do with this store in Berlin? In the first week of the War they not merely boarded his place, but stopped the whole of his business. They had no concern at all whether his firm was living or dead. As a matter of fact, they murdered him afterwards, as he was on the "Lusitania" when she was sunk. I had a long conversation with him and got all the particulars before he set sail on that ill-fated steamer. I only regret that, owing to that terrible proceeding, I am not able to furnish the House with the actual papers. What did the Germans do? He had a seven years' lease, of which only one year had run. He had a long banking account, as he had lately been very successful in making large sales of some of his valuable commodities. They charged him, first of all, with six years' rent for the unexpired portion of the lease. They charged for dilapidations, then for local rates, then for State taxes, making estimates of the various amounts for the remainder of the lease. They then, went into the wages of the staff, most of whom had gone to the War, but some of whom had contracts; they gave them liberal terms of notice. By the time they had finished there was not a penny left in the bank; it was all appropriated by the Germans. Thus they did away with any difficulty on that account. Has there been a single instance in this country to compare with that? You may say that the Germans are thorough. I believe they are. They did not want a long correspondence with neutral countries, or even to consult their lawyers upon it; they put their hands upon it, and did not trouble about clauses, agreements, schedules and phrases. They wanted the goods and the cash, and they collared them in the first week.

That shows the difference in our method. Here we are almost apologising because after eighteen months of War we are bringing in a Bill which will enable the Board of Trade to enter premises and see what is going on. The plain business man has been toddling along, watching the Budgets, incurring debts, anxious to do his best, but getting weary of the supine-ness of the Government and of this House. The Government are themselves wholly to blame if unthinking people make personal charges against officials. I know they do make such charges. There is scarcely a week passes but Members of this House have people coming to them with details of business transactions, firmly convinced in their "own minds that there is some friend of Germany in the Government offices. We have to try to reassure them. We know that it is unthinkable, but it is only natural that people who have not the same confidence in Whitehall that the Back Benchers in this House are supposed to have should imagine an explanation and come to the conclusion which seems to their minds to be the only one possible. Having failed to find any business or political reason, they are driven to a personal motive. We are behind our Colonies in this matter. We are lagging behind Australia. The terms of this Bill are not so strong as those of the Australian legislation. I cannot give the names of perhaps more than five or six firms of enemy association in this country, but I could give twenty in Australia, because they publish them there. You can find lists in the newspapers of firm after firm in Australia. I hope there will be vigour shown in the administration of this Bill.

I want to emphasise the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt). The Government will have to face the question of existing contracts. As to firms who have made contracts since the War with any of these companies, I have no sympathy whatever. I do not care how strict the Government are with them. I am perfectly certain they will be more tender to them than the majority of the Members of this House would be. I am not pleading for these. I have no sympathy with the Manchester merchants, personal friends of my own, amongst whom I have been brought up, who have been continuing business with well-known persons of the sort referred to. They do not deserve very much sympathy from us—although I quite agree that the Government must act justly to all subjects of the realm. But take a firm which had a contract before the War. Some contracts of this kind were placed in Germany because British firms refused them, or were too busy, or too careless, or not diligent enough to deal with them. British firms, too, in some cases, would not take the trouble to study the wishes of the customers. They made certain goods, and said, "Take them or leave them." If the goods were wanted in some different form or quantity the British firms were apt to leave you to go about your business. Many firms under the circumstances found it necessary to get urgent work done abroad. The War came, and the contracts in consequence were interfered with. I do not think the problem presents any great difficulty, provided someone is given authority to settle it. But the position should be made quite clear. Business men would then be able to adapt themselves to it. This would be far better than leaving the whole thing in doubt and chaos.

I feel perfectly certain, at any rate, that upon this point the Board of Trade is fully competent to come to an impartial and fair decision. British firms should be set free. This is not a case in which it is impossible for them not to be set free. I do not think it is right that firms where members, young men, and sons of the partners, have gone to the War and risked their lives—and in some cases lost them—should be held to a continuation of business relations with the enemy. Such a policy will not succeed. You cannot make money in business out of quarrelling, out of people whom you hate and despise, and whose motives you suspect. You cannot ask British firms, in view of the bitter experience we are going through now at the hands of Germany, to resume friendly business relations against their will. I think it would be far better if the Board of Trade would take courage and end these businesses. I do not suggest that British traders should unfairly take advantage of the position. I am at the present time connected with a firm where a certain amount of money was held up. I have pointed out before in this House, and I am sure hon. Members will agree, that an individual trader has no right to ask the Board of Trade when a contract ends under this Bill to take steps to see that he should be a financial gainer when so many of his fellow countrymen are heavy losers because the debts in Germany are intercepted; nor do we want the Government to compensate traders who have been heavy losers through not being able to collect debts in Germany. But it is important that the thing should be determined. You do not want to divert the energies of the heads of businesses into settling complicated things like this. Let them get on with their business, and not be worried about political and legal matters of this kind, because the strain of the business part of this country will increasingly grow as the War proceeds. Therefore I take up the attitude to-day that the Government should come to a decision; should be bold and courageous. I have made myself familiar with a number of the critics in this House. We may be very severe. We may be considered obnoxious people if the Board of Trade does not do anything. But if we are convinced that they are doing their best we do not, I think, take an ungenerous view of any slight mistake.

I am quite sure that the Government have no cause to complain of the reception which this Bill has met with at the hands of the House. Hon. Members who have for a very long time urged this question upon the Government like to suggest that this Bill has not been introduced as soon as it ought to have been. They would not, perhaps, expect me to admit that the Government ought to have introduced the Bill sooner.

Why not?

I need not answer that. What may be about true is to admit that it was quite time the Bill was introduced. I think I may be allowed to go as far as that. To the hon. Member for Old-ham I would say that when the Bill, which, as I hope, will shortly become law, is through the House, the President of the Board of Trade and myself are likely to spend a good deal of time here on the Adjournment of the House every night. I hope, however, that will not be necessary. I entirely agree with the spirit of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, that this Bill must be administered by the Board of Trade in a firm and at the same time just spirit. Certainly I am perfectly prepared to give an undertaking that this Bill shall not be a dead letter so far as we are concerned. I thank my hon. Friend and those who have spoken for the expressions they have used, and the wish to give us reasonable opportunity of creating the machinery to which the hon. Gentleman opposite referred. He spoke of the difficulty there would be. I think he suggested that a new Ministry-should be created for the purpose. I do-not think we are prepared to go as far as that.

We have officials at the Board of Trade who are thoroughly conversant with this subject, but their hands will certainly need strengthening, and we propose to adopt, the course which has been adopted in similar cases by Government Departments, to keep the direction of our policy and proceedings in the hands of the officials who are thoroughly competent to deal with then, and to strengthen them with outside help brought in for the purpose. That is the procedure which we propose to follow and enforce; that is the procedure and the only procedure under which we can ensure that this Bill will be properly administered. I cannot say—I think the House will admit it—that this will be a. pleasant duty. It must be to anyone a most unpleasant duty to administer a Bill of this character; but it is a duty from which we shall not shrink, because we recognise that it is a necessary duty. Still that does not make it any more pleasant. I am sure the House will not wish that this Bill, however firmly it is administered, to be carried out in any spirit of persecution, nor would they desire that it should be merely made a means of taking sides in trade rivalry. That we have to avoid. What we have to do is to get rid of the German element in our trading affairs, as far as we possibly can, and the method adopted in this Bill is to put that responsibility upon the Board of Trade with very full and free powers. There has been some criticism as to that. I think that, perhaps, is the main point to which criticism has been directed.

On the general question it is very germane to remember that this is war legislation and not peace legislation. I do not think any hon. Member in this House has been a stronger advocate than I have of the principle that this House should legislate, and that the duty should fall upon the Courts of Law in this country to interpretate that legislation; that it should not be with regard to legislation in peace time the duty of public Departments at the same time to make laws and administer them. In war legislation, however, I venture to say that the exact opposite principle applies, and that it is only possible to carry out this kind of war legislation by giving the power to some State official, or authority, appointed by this House—the source of the whole power must be this House—to delegate and to give official authority. That authority should be as wide as possible, and those entrusted with it should be called to account for the way it is administered. It is perfectly impossible in such an intricate matter as this, and in view of the enormous variety and kind of cases with which we shall have to deal, that this House should attempt to lay down definite lines, even by introducing the words which have been suggested, nor that we under this Bill should not give the full discretion suggested in Clause 1 to the Board of Trade, but that it should be laid down that we should have to exercise that power, whether we possess it or not, whenever it is in the public interest. I am not a lawyer, but I think I shall be supported by hon. and learned Members in this House if I say the effect of that would be to leave the power in the hands of any firm or company which we considered should be brought under this Act to take us into a Court of Law to discover whether it would be in the public interest or not that it should be done. That would be very undesirable. I say we want this to be a live Act, and for us to have power to proceed under the Act, and not to have to go into Courts of Law to discover whether we can proceed or not. If the House desires to free us from that it must give us a free hand, and not bind us by words which, while intended to strengthen our hands, would have exactly the contrary effect, by defining the action to be taken much too closely, and, therefore, requiring us to defend our action in the Courts of Law to ascertain whether it comes exactly within the terms of the law or not. That is my answer to the suggestion that the Clause should be, as hon. Members suggest, broadened, but, as I think, narrowed, by the addition of words on the lines suggested.

There was one other very important issue raised, and that is as between the application of this Bill to an enemy, as the term has been defined in previous legislation, and its application to enemy subjects. Of course, I need not tell the House that the difference is very great. An enemy is a person of enemy nationality residing in enemy territory. An enemy subject is the subject of an enemy Power, or a person of enemy nationality wherever he may reside, and obviously legislation may affect differently those two bodies. In this Bill, Clause 1 deals with the latter class—that is to say, an enemy subject wherever he may be: in this country, in an allied country, or in a neutral country. There is no limitation in Clause 1 at all to the definition of enemy, and that, I think, answers the objection that Was made by the hon. Member for Brentford, who suggested that these firms could only be dealt with if they were resident, or, rather, the interest in them was vested in persons who are resident, in an enemy country. That is not so. Clause 3, which deals with the question of the sequestration for the time being of enemy property, the vesting of it in a public trustee, or public custodian, and the right to sell and dispose of that property, does not deal with enemy subjects, but deals with enemies, and I understand the suggestion to be made that that ought to be extended to give the Board of Trade power to deal with enemy subjects as well as enemies. That is a suggestion upon which I do not think I should be expected to give a direct answer now, but I can only say it will be carefully considered in Committee. It opens up rather wide considerations. I certainly do not now propose to shut the door to that suggestion, and it will certainly be considered in Committee.

I think the House will agree that Clause 5 is perhaps one of the most important Clauses in the whole Bill. I certainly think myself that nothing could be more unfortunate or mischievous than that all our hold upon enemy property in this country should be immediately relaxed automatically upon the day that peace was declared, and may I say further that would introduce a most difficult element, because who is going to say when the War does end I Most wars end by a temporary truce, which may last for months before final peace is declared, and, therefore, to legislate for a period terminating at the end of the War may obviously create great difficulties. But, quite apart from that, it is clearly necessary before we quit our hold of enemy property that we are honourably holding, so that at the end of the War we would do as we are done by, instead of that property automatically going back, whereas our enemies retain their hold on the property of British subjects. Obviously that would be an undesirable position, and, therefore, I personally think Clause 5 is one of the most desirable Clauses in the whole Bill.

There were one or two points raised on the question of patents. My hon. Friend behind me raised a question as to Clause 4. I think the Clause does not carry its object on the face of it, and my hon. Friend naturally supposed that its object was to enable an enemy subject to obtain a patent. That is the apparent meaning of the Clause and that is what it does do technically, but the object is to enable us to do what we cannot otherwise do, and the very thing he was asking for, namely, that British manufacturers should be able to use that patent. The reason is this: There are many German inventions, some of them of great importance, for which preliminary protection has been taken out in this country, but for which the patent has not yet been completed. Under existing legislation those inventions, although of great value to us, could not be licensed for use by British manufacturers.

Without this Act you could suspend any patent under the original provision.

That, I think, is rather a different point. As the law stands now, any German patent can be licensed by the Board of Trade for use by any British subject, but there are some of these inventions which have not reached the point of being sealed, and becoming German patents, and, therefore, we are unable under existing legislation to put them at the disposal of British subjects. The object of this Clause is to complete the patent, not for the benefit of the German owner, but in order to place the use of the invention at the disposal of the British manufacturer and British subject.

My point was this: If there is no patent and you cannot go on with it, anybody in this country may use it.

I am afraid that is a different point, outside this Bill. That is a very large question The whole question of patents is very complicated and difficult, and I may say the same applies to the point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow about contracts.

I gather from what the hon. Gentleman has already said as to the distinction between enemy and enemy subjects that this Clause will not deal with a patent taken out in this country by an enemy alien resident in this country.

Not at all—not necessarily. That is not necessary, because that can be completed, and you cannot complete with an enemy in this country. That is a different point, which I do not think arises. The hon. Member for Glasgow raised it on the question of contracts, and, if it is possible in Committee to deal with the question of contracts, so far as it is concerned with the matters in this Bill, we shall certainly be open to consider it; but the whole question of contracts, for the reasons I have stated, is a very difficult and complicated one. There is one principle which we shall apply, I hope, in this Bill, as we have tried to apply it in all war legislation, and that is that we must not, in our anxiety to remove enemy trade from this country, take any action which will injure British shareholders and British industry more than it injures the enemy. That we have to take care of, and it is not really a good deal easier to propose drastic action in this House on questions of that kind. If there is no doubt whatever that drastic action is absolutely necessary, that is one thing; but it is quite a different thing to have to administer an Act like this when you come to those particular cases where the line is finely drawn, and where you are going to do more harm to the British trader than to the enemy. When you get to that dividing line you are bound to arrive at a point where there is a difference of opinion, and that is unavoidable. Some hon. Members seem to think that in certain cases we have come to a wrong decision, and if we have that it is our duty here to defend our position. I undertake that the Bill shall be administered in the spirit desired by this House. A suggestion has been made by several hon. Members as to the list of names of these firms. That question divides itself into two parts. One suggestion is that the Board of Trade should publish a list of all enemy firms in this country, but I cannot undertake to do that. We have already given that suggestion very careful consideration. It must be remembered that when you come to these firms where there are a certain number of British and German shareholders it is extremely difficult to say how far you are justified in transferring your administrative responsibility to the public by holding up those firms. I believe it is more manly and wiser in regard to these firms to take the action we are now empowered to take and deal with them under this Bill, and so far as that part of the case is concerned we are absolutely bound to report to the House exactly what we have done at frequent intervals, and furnish this House with the names of any firms dealt with under this Bill. But that is a totally different matter.

Will the Government give us the list of names of those firms now under supervision or control?

I cannot undertake to do that.

Will the hon. Member say why?

For the reason that I have just given, that in a very large number of cases those firms will be dealt with under this Bill. In that case it will be necessary to publish the list which we deal with administratively under the power which the House has conferred upon us, and that is better than simply publishing lists as suggested. I do not think I am wrong in suggesting that before this Bill was introduced there was a very much stronger case for the publication of such a list than there is now. There was more reason to ask for the publication of such a list when we had no power to deal directly with those cases, but now that we have that power to deal with objectionable firms I think there is less force in the request that we should publish a list of the firms we are supervising. Let me refer to Clause 3 in that respect. In many of these firms where a supervisor has been put in there may be a majority of British shareholders, although there may be considerable German control. We do not want to hold those firms up and destroy their business by publishing the fact that they are German firms. Under Clause 3 we want to put their share in the hands of the Public Trustee or the custodian and let him dispose of them, and thus allow those firms to become wholly British and in that way maintain those industries in purely British hands. It is a better way of dealing with them under this Bill than it would be to publish their names. I thank the House for the reception they have given to this Bill, and I hope hon. Members will give some assistance to the Board of Trade in commencing to carry out the difficult duties which will be thrown upon us, and I will undertake that we shall carry-oat those duties to the best of our ability and in the spirit desired by this House.

I am sure the: House heard with satisfaction the announcement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade as to the intentions and spirit with which they intend to administer the powers under this Bill. Unfortunately there has been some doubt as to whether the Government and the Board of Trade administration feel inclined to act in the spirit which the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken indicated. There are circumstances connected with the introduction of this Bill calculated to give the impression that its introduction is the result of a kind of cornering by the hon. Member for York, and that it has not been introduced with any desire to have the powers which this Bill actually does confer. It appears to me that unless this Bill is administered in a proper spirit as part of a general war against Germany it will be no good whatever. If it is only going to be exercised during the War in deference to public clamour it will be of very little value. It must be a part of the whole scheme of our action which is to last after the War and not merely during the War. What we want to do is to kill German trade. I am sorry to hear from the hon. Gentleman that he did not think the Board of Trade should enter into the question of trade rivalry. Surely this is a Bill directly against the trade rivalry of Germany with the trade of Great Britain. I hope, on reconsideration, the hon. Member will modify his view on that point. It appears to me that this Bill to be any good must be a part of the general trade rivalry of Great Britain with Germany, and therefore I am afraid that the Parliamentary Secretary does not quite see the force of this demand for a publication of lists. It appears to me that it is very essential that we should have these lists, because many of these German firms masquerade under English names and the public do not know them, and consequently they go on trading by hundreds and thousands, and their goods are being bought in this country under the belief that they are British productions when really they are German productions. You cannot disabuse and clear the mind of the public of that misconception unless you do publish this list of names which the Board of Trade is in a position to give to the country. We want by this legislation to destroy the goodwill of these German productions. Many of these firms go on existing now, and, as far as I can see, they may still go on existing under the Board of Trade administration of this Bill, because it may be said that it is inexpedient in the immediate interests of this country to bring them to an end. I believe that in the long run it would be for the interests of the trade of this country if almost all these firms were wound-up. I know something of very great international firms which at this moment continue to exist, and which are doing an immense business abroad—in America, and in the Colonies, and so on—under the name of the British branch which is allowed to exist under the supervision of the Board of Trade. If they had not the power of doing that, their goodwill would come to an end. They are not able to do their business from Germany, and the result would be that their productions would cease to be known to the world, whereas they continue to be known to the world from the mere fact that the supervised branches in England are allowed to exist. That is the kind of thing which I am sure the House and the country want to bring to an end, and unless the Board of Trade fully realise that, and unless they administer the Bill in that spirit, we shall not be able to get out of it the benefits which otherwise we might be able to obtain.

I want to call attention to Clause 3, which I do not think covers a case of importance. There are at present chemical works in this country which are without doubt entirely enemy businesses and which are being supervised and controlled. One or two of them are of great importance. They are still working under supervision and control, and they are making very large profits. It would be to the great advantage of this country if they could be acquired legally, and I think it could be done legally, though I do not see anything in Clause 3 that would allow the Government to go so far as that. I suggest that powers should be taken which could be used, if deemed advisable, to cover such cases as I have indicated. There are in the North of England industries such as I have described doing very important business and making big profits, which, as the law stands, go to the controller, and which will eventually have to be handed over to the German share-holders. I suggest that power should be taken to acquire these works. I do not know how far international law would interfere with this, but I know enough of the subject to realise that it would be of an enormous advantage to this country if we were able to buy out the German interests and use these works as part of the industrial system of this country. They came here largely to evade the patent laws of the Minister of Munitions, and they are doing a large business. They are operating to-day, and making large quantities of chemicals and dyes, and they are entirely enemy undertakings. They are being supervised and controlled, but in spite of that they are not British works; they are still German works, and presumably at the end of the War they will be returned to their German owners. They would be most valuable, for instance, in the system of dyes—

My hon. Friend has surely not heard the whole of the Debate!

I have not.

If the hon. Member had, he would know that this Bill deals with these cases fully.

You take power in Clause 3?

We take ample power in Clauses 1 and 3 to deal with these cases.

I should like, on behalf of those who have felt keenly on this subject, to offer my earnest congratulations to the Government on having had the courage and the industry to introduce what I consider to be an exceptionally strong Bill, if it can be carried out. I want to say a word on a question which seems to be considered by hon. Members of considerable importance, namely, the publication of the names of the firms which are to be dealt with under the Bill. I dare say the fault is mine, but I do not quite appreciate what hon. Members have in their minds. I supose the intention in publishing the names of the incriminating firms is to stop dealing with them by the public. If the public Department has sufficient information to publish the names, it also has sufficient information to act under the Bill, and the first thing it would do would be to appoint a supervisor to take charge of the business. It it were a business carried on entirely for the advantage of Germans it would be wound-up and come to an end. Therefore there would be no object in publishing the list. There may be cases to be dealt with under the powers conferred by this Bill in which a certain amount of the shares, held by aliens, will be sold by the supervisor and the undertaking thus become purely English. In that case the company would be carrying on its trade for the advantage of England, and the last thing you would want to do would be to stop its trade. You want to capture its trade for the English, and to do away with the German interest. You by no means want to shake the confidence of people dealing with that firm. Therefore, if the Bill is really properly and effectively carried out, I do not see the good of having the list at all. If the firms come under its purview, they will be dealt with; and if they are firms whose trade it is desired to conserve, then the last thing you want to do is to black-list them and destroy the confidence of the public in them.

I remember, in one of the Bills that came before the House in the earlier period of the War, I put down an Amendment raising in bald terms the question whether or no existing contracts should ipso facto cease owing to the War. The terms of the Amendment were perfectly simple. They were to the effect that on the declaration of the War all contracts with enemy subjects should ipso facto cease. I was met at once with objections from all parts of the country. It was pointed out to me that there were a great number of contracts existing which were very much to the advantage of Englishmen, and which the English trader did not want to have an end put to at all. The last thing be wanted was that a contract which he considered favourable should ipso facto cease and that he should not have the advantage after the war of making a profit to which he legitimately looked forward. I confess, weighing the question with such care as I could command, I came to the conclusion that every individual contract required so much examination that it would be really impossible to lay down any hard-and-fast rule to the effect that all contracts should come to an end under this Bill. If the Department wound up a company, then, of course, all the contracts entered into would, ipso facto, cease. If the contracts of a firm are favourable for that firm, I suppose even the supervisor would like to keep them going. Therefore, I suggest that, difficult and thorny as the subject is, the best way is to leave it at this, with the remedies which are now open in the Courts of law and with the further remedies which are provided by this Bill. The question could be left in such a position that those who have to determine whether the contracts which exist shall or shall not be put an end to, will consider the merits of each particular case and decide upon which side the advantage lies. Simple and practical as it may seem, legislation providing that all contracts shall ipso facto cease would not effect that which we all desire, namely, to put an end to anything which is to the advantage of the enemy.

One other point occurs to me, and I venture to utter a word not of warning but of hope in connection with it. Sub-section (2) confers the power on the Board of Trade to appoint a species of supervisor, who might more properly be called an investigator into the affairs of a firm whose enemy relations might be suspected, but of which at the time there was no actual proof. I cannot help hoping that that power will be exercised with some caution, because, desirable as it is that the power should exist, it would undoubtedly be extremely annoying if, say, some large bank like the London and County or the National Provincial Bank suddenly found its affairs in the hands of a species of Government detective who said he had reason to believe that part of their funds were passing into the hands of the enemy, and who would consequently have a right, under the Bill, of thoroughly investigating the affairs of the bank aad examining their books. I am quite sure the power will only be exercised when there is real cause to suspect a firm of having enemy associations, and also when there are no other means of obtaining information. It is a proper power to give. I am not suggesting the Bill should be altered in that respect, but I am recommending that the power should be exercised with some caution, as it might obviously lead to extreme friction with English firms, which is the last thing one would desire. I propose to give the Bill my earnest support. My only regret is that it was not produced earlier, but now it has come the best thing we can do is to pass it as rapidly as possible.

4.0 P.M.

Clearly the Bill does not satisfy all the demands which are advanced with regard to trading with the enemy. But I may say at once I am most anxious the Government should be given all the powers they wish. When the Bill of 1914 was under discussion I brought forward two Amendments: One was with the object of having denned in the Act of Parliament itself who or what is an enemy, instead of it being necessary to go to the Law Courts to get a definition. The other point I raised was as to the determination of contracts, and, in the Clause which I proposed, I suggested that the Board of Trade or the Secretary of State should have power to decide what contracts should be determined. The difficulty was that if you went on and fulfilled the contract you were making yourselves liable to penalties in this country, and that if you did not do so you were making yourselves liable for damages in the Law Courts after the War had ended. I do not know whether it is possible to get an Act of Parliament to settle all these difficulties for us, but it would be very fortunate if we could do so. I shall, at the proper time, put down my Amendments again, and I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of the Bill will take a better view of them than his predecessor did when I brought them up before. I do not want to delay this Bill for a moment. I only want, in the interests of the trade and traders of this country, to get the powers defined as clearly as we possibly can and so save the expense, trouble, and annoyance of going to the Law Courts to find out what the Act of Parliament means.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[ Mr. Walter Rea. ]

I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether this applies to neutrals as well as enemies? I understand that the only power taken in the Bill is to substitute notice in the "London Gazette" for notice by post, which I suppose would be given in times of peace.

It applies to all cases where there is reason to suspect that the goods are of enemy origin.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2 (Provisions as to Declarations as to Ultimate Destination of Exported Goods)

ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Action in Anticipation of Restriction of Exports.)

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

I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he is certain that lines 14 and 15 do deal with the case I was speaking about just now, as to requiring an enemy business to be transferred to a British interest or firm to be worked in the same way as before?

I am afraid my hon. Friend has got hold of the wrong Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 4 (Penalty for Attempting to Ship Goods in Contravention of Order under 39 and 40 Viet., c. 36, s. 139) and CLAUSE 5 (Short Title and Construction) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Application of Section 6 of the Customs (War Powers) Act, 1915.)

Section six of the Customs (War Powers) Act, 1915, shall apply to all goods which at the commencement of this Act are under detention as being of suspected enemy origin, notwithstanding that they were originally detained or imported into the United Kingdom before the commencement of the first-mentioned Act.—[ Sir G. Cave. ]

Clause brought up, and read the first time.

I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time."

I move this new Clause because of a difficulty which has arisen. Section 6 of the existing Act gives power to seize imported goods, but, with regard to goods actually in this country suspected to be of enemy origin, the point has arisen whether the power to seize applies to those goods. The intention was that the power should apply to all goods, and the effect of this new Clause is to make that clear.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause accordingly read a second time, and added to the Bill.

Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

Perhaps I may explain the reason for this Bill. It will be remembered by hon. Members that in March of last year we passed a Bill called the Army (Suspension of Sentences) Act, 1915. That gave power to the Commander-in-Chief in the field to alter and suspend sentences passed upon military prisoners. The object of this Bill is to give the Army Council similar powers. It has been found in practice, owing to the large number of men who have been sent home either sick or wounded, that when their cases are up for periodical review it is inconvenient for us not to be able to deal with them at the War Office. We should have to send them either to France, or, what is still more inconvenient, to the Mediterranean or other fields of action for review and to get a decision upon them. This is a proposal to which I think the House will readily agree. The only other point in the Bill is that in the original Act appear the words, We want to substitute for them the words

So far as I read the Bill, it only deals with soldiers guilty of offences. Where do the wounded men come in?

In this way: Where a man has been sentenced to imprisonment that has been commuted by the Commander-in-Chief in the Field, and the sentence has not been carried out, the man is a sort of ticket-of-leave man serving in the ranks. He has been brought home wounded and is in hospital here. The sentences come up for review at regular intervals to enable us to see whether the man is deserving of further commutation or not.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into Committee on the Bill."—[ Mr. Walter Rea. ]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.