With regard to this Motion, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary how far he intends to go and whether he means to clear off all the Government business, and whether he will state what remains to be done in these sittings?

This is only intended as a precaution to enable the House to get through the first two Orders. As regards the latter part of the question, we hope that the House will prorogue on Thursday, or Friday at latest.

Question put, and agreed to.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "it appears to the Board of Trade that."

I think the decision as to whether a business is carried on by an enemy alien is one which should not be left to the discretion of the Board of Trade, but should be taken upon the actual facts of the case. I think the Board of Trade will be very glad to get rid of this obligation, having regard to the difficulties they would have to meet in these cases. Only the other day I put down a question to the Board of Trade with regard to a particular case. The Foreign Office objected to the question and thought it desirable that it should not be put. I am not going to say what it was. By striking out these words you would leave the matter to be decided by the facts, and if it was held that it was an enemy alien who was trading the result proposed in the Bill would follow. If these words were omitted I think it would add to the strength of the Bill.

I am afraid that this Amendment would make the Bill quite unworkable. The effect of it would be that when an Order was made under this Section it would be open to anyone to dispute the facts on which it professed to be founded. It would lead to endless trouble and complication. Suppose an Order were made declaring there was enemy association or enemy control in connection with a particular firm, it would be open to anyone to take the matter to the Courts of Law. As the Bill stands, it would only be necessary to satisfy the Board of Trade and the Order would fee a good Order. I hope my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.

My hon. Friend in this Amendment raises the whole question of how much confidence we have in the Board of Trade to administrate this measure—

Indeed, no. This is only a proposal as to the machinery for the working of the Bill.

Would it not be in order to suggest that the Attorney-General should take the place of the Board of Trade in connection with this matter?

We will dispose of this Amendment first.

Am I not in order?

The right hon. Gentleman was laying down a proposition which I could not allow to go forward, namely, that a general discussion on the administration of the Board of Trade could be entertained on this Amendment.

I beg to say I did not suggest that there should be a general discussion. I said that the Amendment raised the question whether the Board of Trade was the proper authority to administer this measure, and whether we have enough confidence in them to do it. I ask again, on a point of Order, whether I am not in order in arguing that the Board of Trade ought not to be the authority, but that the Attorney-General should take its place?

The present Amendment is to leave out the Board of Trade. The effect of that Amendment would be, as the Solicitor-General has just said, to leave the matter to the Courts of Law to decide. It is to that point the discussion must be directed.

I take it that I am in order in arguing that it ought not to be the Board of Trade. Do I understand that to be your ruling?

That is the obvious effect of the Amendment.

The object of the Amendment is, I understand, to remove the Board of Trade as the executive authority in the administration of this Bill. If the Amendment were carried, the power which this Clause proposes to give to the Board of Trade would disappear, and the Board would not be the authority to initiate or decide matters of this kind. I think the hon. Gentleman's purpose would be better served by a debate on a proposal to place the power, as suggested by Lord Halsbury, in the hands of the Attorney-General. That can be moved after this Amendment is disposed of.

I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Before the Amendment is withdrawn, in order to judge whether the Board of Trade should remain in the Bill, I think we are entitled to ask what will be the attitude of the Department.

The hon. Member has asked leave to withdraw. I must put the Question.

Leave withheld.

I quite follow the point that if these words come out the matter is left to the Courts of Law; but, although a layman, I cannot understand why there is this fear about leaving anything to the ordinary Courts.

I beg to draw attention to the fact that there is no Question before the Committee.

Oh, yes; the Amendment is before the Committee.

I thought it was withdrawn.

If my hon. Friend will only listen, he will gradually acquire a knowledge of the forms of the House.

How they love one another!

Why is the Board of Trade so uneasy about the operation of our Courts of law? We have had an instance lately where one of our Courts—the Prize Court—has shown a readiness and common sense which has gained the confidence of the community. I am not sure that in a matter of this kind the Board of Trade is superior to the ordinary Court. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade used a phrase at an earlier stage which has been misunderstood. I understand that he has put it right elsewhere, but I have not seen his explanation, and he will probably be glad of the opportunity to repeat it. I hope the hon. Gentleman, who will have so much to do with the carrying out of the Bill, will explain that it will not be a reluctant task in the sense that he is not in sympathy with the measure.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity to explain. What I said on the Second Reading was that it would be the duty of the Board of Trade to get rid of the German element in the trade of this country, and to those words I adhere. I did say that it would not be a pleasant task; but that referred not to the getting rid of the element of German trade, but to the particular character of the task of dealing with many cosmopolitan firms in which there would be large British interests, where the line drawn would in many instances be rather fine, and where we shall be charged with a duty which will certainly inflict hardship on many individuals. However much we may dislike the existence of certain persons, we do not particularly like the rôle of executioner. I do not think my hon. Friends would like that particular kind of power, although we would all have pleasure in getting rid of the element of German trade as such. That is the spirit in which this Act, which I hope the Bill will soon become, will be administered by the Board of Trade. We shall naturally be open to information from whatever source it may come. We have already some information, and no doubt a great deal more will be placed at our disposal. Every case that comes before us will be dealt with on the principle I have suggested. Perhaps it will save time if I were to point out that there is an Amendment on the Paper to Clause 3 which will give the Board of Trade alternative jurisdiction in I dealing with these matters. The principle on which we shall proceed is where we are aware of a German interest in a firm of which it is desirable to get rid we can proceed either under Clause 1 to close the business of the firm altogether, or we shall be able to proceed under Clause 3 to transfer the German interest in the firm to the custodian, who can then dispose of it to British owners, either of the company itself or some other British subject. That, I think, is a very desirable procedure, and we do ask for as free a hand as possible.

As to the legal point that has been raised, I entirely share the view of my hon. Friend that we have full and absolute confidence in the Courts of this country. That was not what my right hon. Friend meant in his reply. The point is that however much confidence we may have in the judgment of the Courts we must have some regard to the procedure which is to be followed in bringing the matter before the Court. There may be a very largo number of cases—hundreds, certainly; it may be thousands—which will have to be dealt with under the Act. If every one of those cases, instead of being available for decision on their merits by the Board of Trade, under the advice of the very competent persons—who will, I hope, be shortly be able to advise them in this matter—has to be taken to a Court of law, the whole procedure of the Court would have to be followed, the enemy shareholders would be reported, and would raise all kinds of difficulties in the Court and the time occupied would nullify the effect of the Act. In war time we require a summary procedure. It is solely with that object, and to obtain as free a hand as possible, with full responsibility to this House, that these words have been inserted and the procedure of the Bill has been chosen. Although it is clearly open to some objection, there is no procedure that could be taken but might be open to criticism. Provided the House of Commons has any confidence at all in the Board of Trade—and the Board hopes to justify every confidence placed in it—in view of the consideration that has been given to the Clause as on the whole the best calculated to carry out the wishes of the House, I ask the House not to alter it as suggested.

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General tell us whether the word "company" in this Clause includes a limited company? If it does, leaving out the words the "Board of Trade" would leave the matter to the decision of the Law Courts. This would be unwise, because without some definition of the nationality of the company I do not know how, as the matter stands, any Law Court could decide the matter. Apart from the answer the Solicitor-General may give me, it is best that the determination of the nationality of a person, association, firm, or company should come within the control of the House, and that any action or decision should come under the review of the House of Commons. Personally, therefore, if it is not the Board of Trade, I should certainly desire some other Department or Officer of the Crown whose action could be reviewed by this House.

If it is left in the hands of the Board of Trade to issue the Order, the Board should be further responsible. If it is desirable that the information should be given to the Board of Trade, then there ought not to follow the expensive and cumbersome procedure of the Law Courts.

I gathered from what the right hon. Gentleman said just now that he was inclined to take powers to take over the German interests of a business conducted in England and transfer them to English owners, thus enabling him to maintain an already established business. If that is done, the danger of doing more injury to ourselves than to the enemy will be eliminated. I have in my mind the case of a firm of whose affairs I know something. It employs about 200, and is managed by a naturalised German who has been about forty years in England and is about as much an Englishman as a born Englishman. The firm has sent fifty or sixty men to the War and is paying them part of their salary. The capital, as to nine-tenths, say, is owned almost entirely in Germany. In every respect it is an English firm except as regards the absentee owners. Of course they stand to gain at the end of the War by the accumulation of the profits.

That point does not arise on the Amendment.

It is a question of the discretion exercised by the Board of Trade. If the Board have a discretionary power, I gather they will consider each individual case, and they will consider whether the business is really plainly in the hands of our enemies, in which case they will either wind it up or transfer its interests to English hands. If held on behalf of the Government, the business could be kept together with the avoidance of the dismissal of the employés, and consequent injury to our own people. There is no reason, if that is done, why the business should not continue for the benefit of this country. Any other policy would certainly tend to the advantage of certain competing people who are English, but it would really tend to the disadvantage of trade generally throughout the country.

As we all want to get this valuable and well-drawn Bill through, it is quite clear that the only possible person before the Order is made to decide the enemy firm's nationality is the Board of Trade itself. There is a feeling amongst Members that the Board of Trade may either neglect its duty or do it imper- fectly. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman may consider it well to introduce some words in the Clause by which somebody, some individual, may be able to intervene and ask the Board of Trade to consider any particular case which has been overlooked or which they consider has been imperfectly decided by the Board of Trade—with an appeal to the Law Courts if necessary. Quite apart from that, it would be absolutely fatal to the Bill if all the thousands of which we are told—firms and agencies—had their merits and demerits, and their enemy or non-enemy association or nationality, decided by the Courts of Law, so taking up the whole of the time of the judges. The Bill would be absolutely unworkable. I therefore hope that the Amendment will not be pressed, and that the Solicitor-General and the representative of the Board of Trade will be good enough to consider whether they cannot meet the feeling of some Members of the House and give the power of intervention I suggest.

I am most anxious not to impede the progress of the Bill, and I should not have interposed if it had not been for the approval of the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade to the theory laid down by the hon. Member for Haggerston (Mr. Chancellor). He said that a certain firm employed nearly 200 hands, and that was an argument why, under those circumstances, although practically an entirely German-owned firm, it should not cease its activities during the War.

What I understood my hon. Friend to say was that it would be better under those circumstances to transfer the property to British owners, and I thought it better to have that alternative.

I listened with great care to the theory put forward by the hon. Member for Haggerston, and I certainly did not understand any alternative method of procedure, but rather that he thought that if a firm employed British labour it was making good its case to go on with its activities.

No.

Then let that pass. I would only ask the Committee to consider what the right hon. Gentleman said on this point on Second Reading—

"nor would they desire that it should be merely made a means of taking sides in trade rivalry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1916, col. 826.]

That is a sentiment with which, as a general sentiment, probably everybody would agree. At the same time I think the Board of Trade ought to realise, in exercising this great power, that it is quite impossible to take action, which the hon. Gentleman said would be unpleasant in many cases, without doing something to promote the interests of a British trade rival of a German firm, and I do not think we ought to be so quixotic at this time of war, or that that sentiment ought to weigh so heavily with the hon. Gentleman in coming to his decision. I will not put it stronger than that, but I do think in leaving this control to the Board of Trade we ought to be satisfied that these sentimental ideas which governed the trade of this country in the era before the War are not going to govern the decisions of the Board of Trade under this Bill.

I would ask my hon. Friend opposite if he would make a statement with regard to what my hon. Friend has just said. It has already been quoted against him, that he has said that the Board of Trade would not act between German and English firms, and, as he has already cleared away one misunderstanding, it would be worth the time spent in clearing this one away.

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I did not think it necessary, but, as there has been a misunderstanding, probably I should have explained that phrase as well. I am sorry I spoke so loosely that my words should have caused misundertanding, but I took it for granted that every hon. Member would give me credit for the same feelings that he has himself that we want to get rid of enemy trade, and to my mind that covers the whole object. Having said that, when I said we did not wish to carry out the Bill in any spirit of persecution, or further trade rivalries, I clearly meant after we had got rid of enemy trade we should be careful not to use this Bill to give an advantage to one firm over another in which there were British shareholders, and in which there might happen to be, in both cases or in one case, an enemy element. Since I have been at the Board of Trade I have had experience of firms, no doubt honourable firms, the representatives of whom have made statements and suggested action which, I had reason to think, might, perhaps, unwittingly be prompted by some trade rivalry, and I rather felt, in taking action under this Bill, we must be careful not to act on information which was not merely to get rid of the German element, as to which I am as anxious as any hon. Member in this House, but which might promote trade rivalry by some individual firms, and to that I adhere.

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "business" ["that the business carried on in the United Kingdom"], to insert the words "either of principal or agent."

This is a small Amendment. We are all desirous of making this Bill as broad as possible, and, therefore, it seems to me that if any case arises in which it is shown a business either of principal or agent is being carried on in the United Kingdom, it should come within the province of the Board of Trade to interfere. I should be very glad if the Solicitor-General would accept this, or tell us that it is otherwise provided for.

I think my hon. Friend will see it is not quite the place to put in these words if we had the choice, because if we put them in it would be a very awkward phrase, and the meaning might be rather obscure. In any case, I do not think the words are really required. If a firm is carrying on a business in this country as agent for another firm, it is nevertheless carrying on the business, and I have not the least hesitation in saying in such a case, although the business is entirely agency business, we have the power to deal with it. May I ask the House to forgive me for being brief, but there are a large number of Amendments to consider.

After the explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "wholly or mainly" ["carried on wholly or mainly for the benefit"], and to insert instead thereof the words "to any considerable extent."

4.0 P. M.

I move this Amendment with a strong hope that it will be accepted by the Government, partly because it was so clear in the course of the Debate last week that it really is the desire of this House that the Bill should be strengthened and widened, and that every possible power should be put in the hands of the Board of Trade to carry out the intention of the Bill. That is evidenced by the fact that in this list of Amendments there is not a single one in opposition to the Bill, but all are in the direction of strengthening and widening it. My reason for moving to leave out these words is—and I think the Solicitor-General will agree with me—that it would be difficult to prove, particularly in a Court of Law, that any business was carried on wholly for the benefit, or wholly under the control, of enemy subjects. "Wholly" is a very large word, and, therefore, I think it ought to come out, because, even in the extreme cases of which we have heard, where practically all the shares are in the hands of German shareholders, there are a few British qualifying shareholders. Now comes the question of "mainly." What does "mainly" mean? It must mean that more than 50 per cent. of the interest, or the control, is in the hands of enemy subjects. It must be very difficult to prove either in a Court of Arbitration or in a Court of Law that a business is being carried on mainly for the benefit of enemy subjects. I have not had the advantage of a legal training, and therefore I speak with some diffidence on legal matters, but I have had experience as an arbitrator and as an umpire, and I have no hesitation in saying that any lay arbitrator or lay umpire would at once attach the greatest importance to the words "wholly" or "mainly," and regard them as the governing Clause of the whole matter. There can be no objection to widening the Clause in this way, because it still rests with the Board of Trade not to act unless they think it is necessary, and once it appears to them necessary it would be very much in the interests of the Government not to be tied down by these drastic words "wholly or mainly." I think there should be a discretion, which would be given by the words I propose to substitute. Of course, if the Solicitor-General has any other particular form of words I do not wish to press my words, but I do hope that the Government will see their way at any rate to accept the spirit of the Amendment, which will free their hands and enable the Board of Trade to carry out the principle which has just been enunciated by the Parliamentary Secretary, and get rid of enemy interests in this country.

I have an Amendment on the Paper suggesting that instead of "wholly or mainly" the Clause should read "wholly or substantially." One can imagine many cases in which, if the Board of Trade were rigorously tied down to the words "wholly or mainly," there might be businesses which the Board of Trade would feel, in the spirit of this Act, ought to be treated as enemy concerns, and yet it would be difficult to bring them within the strict meaning of those words. You might have a partnership consisting of two Englishmen and one German, and if the holdings were equal between the partners the control would be mainly English, but the Board of Trade, after looking into the matter, might find that the two Englishmen were merely sleeping partners, while the real control might be in the hands of the German partner. I think the Board of Trade ought to be able to treat that case as being substantially a German firm. Unless there is some objection which I cannot foresee, I think this Amendment is in the direction of widening the discretion of the Board of Trade. I do not suppose that they would use that discretion in any-unreasonable way, and it would meet the whole spirit of the Act and what the House desires to do.

I should like to put before the Committee the scheme of the Bill. The original proposal was that we should take power to deal with companies which were wholly or mainly enemy companies. Those were the words used by the late Home Secretary, and that has been throughout the main purpose which was to be attained. It was thought that the word "predominantly," used in Lord Halsbury's Bill, limited the Bill too much, but that the word "mainly" would cover all the companies originally aimed at. In this Bill, however, we have gone further. After looking into the matter we find that the word did not cover the whole ground, and there were other cases where a minority of the shareholders were, enemies or enemy subjects. We want to deal with those cases, and we thought it best to deal with them under Clause 3. That is the scheme of the Bill, and I could not accept the words proposed because they would weaken Clause 1 very much. In my view "substantially" means something even more than mainly. This particular Amendment would alter the whole scheme of the Bill, and its effect would be that a company with a quarter or even one-eighth of German or enemy shareholders must be wound-up under Clause 1, and I do not think the Committee are of opinion that that course would be wise. I think it is better to confine the obligation to wind-up to companies which are in substance enemy companies, and deal with companies which are only to a very small extent of an enemy character under the later Clauses of the Bill. I hope that after this explanation my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment.

The Solicitor-General has just said that if this Amendment were accepted it would be compulsory to wind-up companies which had a 25 per cent. enemy interest. The first Clause, under paragraph ( a ) of Sub-section (1), declared that it would be possible for the Board of Trade to

"prohibit the person, firm, or company from carrying on the business during the continuance of the present War, except for the purposes, if any, specified in the order."

I am more concerned about companies where 49 per cent. or 40 per cent., or even ⅓ per cent. of the interest is of enemy association or control, and under the wording of the Bill as it now stands it would be impossible for the Board of Trade to deal with any of those firms or companies unless it appeared to the Board of Trade that more than 50 per cent. were of enemy associations, whereas the words "to any considerable extent" would, in the discretion of the Board of Trade, represent either 30, 40, 45, or 49 per cent. I do not wish to press this Amendment, but I ask the Solicitor-General to consider between now and the Report stage whether it would not really make matters easier for the Board of Trade to deal with these companies where the enemy interest is really very large and would amount to a full 50 per cent.

I hope the Solicitor-General will adhere to the decision he has announced, and what we have just heard in the discussion ought to satisfy anybody on that point. If a company is not mainly an enemy company, then it is mainly British; and why should a company where two-thirds of the interests, are British be treated with severity or have great injury done to it? I think we should be satisfied with what the Government have said on this point, and the cases which have been mentioned can be dealt with under Clause 3.

I do not think it is quite clear that 50 per cent. would be required. At any rate, the difficulty is for the Board of Trade to prove that 50 per cent. are enemy interests, and what my hon. Friend wants to avoid is the case where there is practically no doubt that even 50 per cent. are alien enemy shareholders but there would be a great difficulty in proving it. All I think the Amendment is intended for is to make it easier for the Board of Trade in that case. If it is the case that under Clause 1 it is compulsory for them to take action, it would make this Amendment impossible, and therefore I think that this is a point worth considering.

The Board of Trade would not have to prove it; they would only have to satisfy themselves that that was the case.

I hope the Solicitor-General will adhere to his own words. There are many cases in which a patent has been sold to a company and the holding under that patent may be very largely held by Germans who may have no control, and if the Clause was varied in the way suggested by this Amendment I think it would make the matter more difficult.

I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "mainly," to insert the words "and either directly or indirectly."

I wish to press this Amendment very urgently upon the Solicitor-General, because it meets a class of case which is not met by the Bill as it stands. It is the case of a real German business with its manufactory in Germany in connection with which they have established an agency for sale in this country, probably in the form of a limited company for the sale of the articles manufactured by this German company abroad. That English company is very likely largely under the control of English shareholders. I know one case in which the whole of the board and share capital is held in England, but it is a very small share capital, and the board is mainly ornamental. They have an agent pushing the sale of this German article, and England receives no benefit from this business except the small commission which this company makes. [An HON. MEMBER: "Are they selling during the War?"] Yes, they are, for they are engaged in pushing the sale of large stocks which they have in hand. When I made an inquiry into this case I put some questions in the House, and it appears that this German company sells German pianos made at Leipsic. It is managed here by four English directors, and the whole of this small capital is in England. It has paid some small dividends, and the sale of these German pianos is very actively pushed throughout this country. I urge upon the Committee that at any rate we should insert words broad enough to meet such a case as that and then it could be left to the Board of Trade to decide whether the small interest in this country is worth preserving as compared with the great interest the German manufacturer has in the sale of this article which is in reality a German concern. I strongly urge that upon the Committee, and I believe these words will meet the case.

I can assure the hon. Member that if it were necessary to insert words to meet the case he has mentioned we should insert them. If the hon. Member will read the Clause he will see that it reads—

"the business carried on in the United Kingdom by any person, firm, or company is, by reason of the enemy nationality or enemy association of that person, firm, or company or of the members of that firm or company or any of them or otherwise carried on wholly or mainly for the benefit of or under the control of subjects of any State at war with His Majesty."

Clearly the business would be carried on not for the benefit of this country, but for the benefit of individuals in Germany. Therefore it would clearly come under the terms of the Bill.

Would not the directors say that they were carrying it on for the benefit of their shareholders?

They might say so, but I do not think the Board of Trade would think it was true.

I shall be very pleased if you will catch such a company, but I doubt if you will have the power.

We certainly shall.

I cannot see how they can be selling German pianos while the War is going on.

They have a large stock here.

This Amendment is quite unnecessary, and I suggest that the words in the Clause "enemy association" are quite sufficient to cover the case which the hon. Member has brought to our notice. The company has only one creditor, apparently, and that creditor is a German. If that is not a company of "enemy association" I should like to know what the words "enemy association" mean.

Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted," put, and negatived.

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "subjects of any State at war with His Majesty," and to insert instead thereof the words "enemy subjects."

We desire to have a short expression to cover all subjects of enemy States, and we propose to use the words "enemy subjects," taking a definition later on in the Bill to show the exact meaning of the words.

May I ask whether the words "enemy subjects" will comprise Germans who have become naturalised Englishmen?

No.

If a German becomes a naturalised Englishman and does not become a denationalised German, will he then come within the words "enemy subjects"?

No, he is a subject of the King.

At the same time he will be a subject of Germany, because he has not been denationalised. It is well known in the City that there are a great number of these people, and I think this should receive some consideration.

I should like to press this matter on the Government. It is really very important. Take the man who becomes naturalised here for trade purposes, and does not go through the form of being denationalised in Germany. He is in the position of being a subject of both countries. I hope if it is possible when we come to the definition Clause, that some words will be introduced as the hon. Member suggests. It would, of course, extend the Bill very widely indeed, but whether it would overload it or not is another matter. A German who comes over here and becomes naturalised for business purposes, but remains a German subject is really German to the end of the chapter, and perhaps all the more German. Of course, those who have been naturalised since the beginning of the War comprise another and larger section. I do not want to do anything to delay the Bill, but I do hope the Government will consider this wider extension of it.

We must treat this Bill in a businesslike way, and I must ask hon. Members to raise their points at the proper time. This is purely a drafting Amendment, proposed by the Government, to insert the words "enemy subjects" instead of repeating the phrase "subjects of any State at war with His Majesty," leaving it to be dealt with in a definition Sub-section.

Might we not get a precise answer as to the meaning of the words "enemy subjects"?

Yes, when we come to the point.

If the learned Solicitor-General would just mention now those Amendments which are going to be made, it would save a lot of time, because we should not have to raise them later on. I have an Amendment down dealing with enemy subjects, but I would withdraw it if he would tell us that he is going to make Amendments to meet the point I raised on the Second Reading of the Bill.

We do propose to meet the point raised by the hon. Member on the Second Reading. Clause 3, as well as Clause 1, will apply to enemy subjects. There are other Clauses to which similar Amendments will be made, and if we take this short expression it will make it much easier to do so.

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

Words proposed there inserted.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "for any reason," and to insert instead thereof the words "in the national interest."

We have got the Clause so far: "Where it appears to the Board of Trade that a company is obviously of enemy association, or enemy nationality, the Board of Trade shall do certain things." The obligation upon the Board of Trade to do those things, when they have once ascertained that the company or firm is of enemy nationality or enemy association, is qualified by the words of the Bill,

I can quite imagine a case where it might be inexpedient in the national interest. Let us assume a company of enemy nationality or enemy association making some particular article which it is absolutely essential in the interest of the nation that they should continue to make. It would be right to give power to the Board of Trade in that case to say, "In our opinion it is essential in the national interest, though the company is an enemy company, that we should not interfere with it at the present time." It should, however, only be in the national interest. The Board of Trade would have to convince themselves that it was in the national interest that the company, firm or person should be allowed to continue to trade. The Board of Trade, as the Solicitor-General has said, have not to prove anything in a Court of Law. They have only to prove it to themselves, and the only means we have of getting hold of the Board of Trade and of making them carry out the Act properly is by Question and Answer in this House. If we ask why they have not dealt with a certain firm, the answer could be made, "We do not think it expedient to do so." That would give grave offence to this House and to the country. If they were to say, "In our opinion it is not in the national interest," then I should have nothing more to say.

They will say that every time. They will say everything they do is in the national interest.

If they do, I am bound to admit that we cannot go behind it, but we are entitled to make the Board of Trade say that they are not going to put the Act into operation only where it is inexpedient in the national interest to do so.

There is no doubt that as the Clause stands it comes to this: "shall, if they like." That is what the other words mean. The force of the word "shall" is absolutely destroyed by the following words, "unless for any reason it appears to them inexpedient to do so." That means "shall, if they like." I admit that the discretion may be well exercised, but I think the feeling of the country, as well as of this House, is that if any business in this country is carried on wholly or mainly for the benefit of our enemies it ought not to be carried on in that way or for that benefit. That is the spirit and the soul of the Bill. We have got to remember that even the order of prohibition can be a qualifying Order. The full extent of the prohibition is not necessary, because paragraph ( a ) says

"prohibiting the person, firm, or company from carrying on the business during the continuance of the present War, except for the purposes, if any, specified in the Order."

There is, therefore, a certain degree of discretion allowed to the Board of Trade even in the Order prohibiting the carrying on of the business. I am sure that this matter has been carefully considered by the Government, but I must say, in the absence of some satisfactory explanation, that I think the soul is taken out of this Bill, if any business which is carried on wholly or mainly in the interests of our enemies can be allowed to continue.

I had better state at once the view which the Government take on this point. I do not think the hon. Member who proposed the Amendment quite appreciates the advance we have made since the discussion on the Foreign Office Bill. I have very carefully read that discussion over again. It was at first intended to provide that the Board of Trade "may" wind-up these companies. Discretion in the first instance, was to be given to the Board of Trade. But when we came to draft the Bill we thought that that would not be going far enough, because it might very easily happen that the Board of Trade did not have a company brought to its notice at all, and there would be nothing to compel them to move in regard to it. We therefore put in the word "shall," with certain qualifying words, and the effect is this: It no longer means, as my right hon. Friend has just suggested, that they shall do the thing if they like, but it means that they shall investigate every case, make up their mind in every case of which they may have knowledge, and, having done that, shall make the winding-up or prohibiting Order unless, on investigation, they find facts which render it inexpedient to make the Order.

Even if it is a business wholly or mainly carried on for the benefit of the enemy?

That is not quite an adequate account of what the Bill does. The measure makes this change. The onus is put on the Board of Trade to look into every case and to make an Order unless they find good reason to the contrary. Objection is taken to the wide discretion given to exempt companies or firms under this particular Section. Hon. Members want to tie down the Board of Trade to one consideration, and that is embodied in the words "national interest." It is not, perhaps, for me to say anything about the Board of Trade. But I may be allowed to make this observation. Having now been for some time working with that Department on this Bill, I personally am absolutely satisfied to leave the matter in their hands. They have given me, as might be expected, the greatest possible assistance in framing these powers and in making adequate provision for the working of the Bill. I do not think it is right to say of a Government Department that they will not exercise powers which this House confers upon them.

They have not done so in the past.

They have not had those powers up till now.

They have had a good many other powers.

I will not go into that now. The hon. Member thinks it right to confine the discretion of the Board of Trade to the one case of "national interest." But take the case of a small shop in some suburb—in the East of London, or even in the country, kept by an alien. It is not only enemies to whom this Clause will apply; it is enemy subjects, and it may happen that the owner of a small shop may be a subject of a State with which we are at war. Take the case of a small baker, a hairdresser, or a grocer—a shop kept by a man who has lived here nearly all his life but who is in fact a subject of Germany, or Austria, or Hungary, or some other State at war with us. There must be thousands of such cases, and it is impossible to say that to keep that man's business alive would be in the national interest.

Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to accept my Amendment which deals with those particular cases?

No. I want to deal now, however, with the Amendment before the Committee, and to show that it cannot be accepted. I say that to shut up compulsorily the whole of these little businesses would mean casting the owners and their families on the rates. It would ruin thousands of people; it would be a cruel thing to do, and I cannot see in the least what good is it going to do anybody. [An HON. MEMBER: "Their case would be covered by the words 'national interest'"] No. You cannot say it would be in the national interest to allow a small baker to go on trading. That would be a misuse of the term. This Amendment cannot be accepted, and I hope my hon. Friend will not press it. There are people, as good friends of this country as is many an Englishman, who by some chance have been born abroad. There are Englishmen in that position. There are Italians born at Trieste. There may be Greeks born at Smyrna. There may be Parsees born at Bagdad. They may all be perfectly good friends of this country and have lived here nearly all their lives, but, as a matter of fact, they were born in some enemy State which to-day is at war with this country. There are even people in that position who have sons fighting for us in the Army. There are strong cases of that kind, and they could not be brought in under the words suggested by my hon. Friend. I say that the Government should have a right to deal specially with cases like that.

I am sure hon. Members desire to come to a right decision on this question. There are cases to which none of these points apply but which nevertheless it would be better to deal with, not under Clause 1, but rather under Clause 3. We may have a minority of shareholders, loyal British shareholders, come to the Board and say, "Here is this company; we agree that it may be an enemy company, but we will make an offer. We are willing to buy out the enemy and carry on the business entirely with British capital and British labour." If you accept this Amendment, or that of the hon. Member for the St. Augustine Division (Mr. R. McNeill) you exclude the Board of Trade from dealing with that case. It would be impossible if the Amendment were accepted to deal with it under Clause 3. You must deal with it under Clause 1. I could go on at length giving instances of that kind and even then not be able to cover the ground completely. We cannot foresee all cases where it may be desirable, right and just to exempt a company from this particular Clause. If you do not trust your Government, give them no powers at all. But if you are going to trust them, then it will be wise and right to keep these words in.

There is one other point I want to deal with. My hon. Friend rather suggested that those responsible at the Board of Trade might take some general view against the Bill. I do not believe for a moment that that can or will happen. But if it is possible to make some change in the words which will render such a thing impossible, I am quite willing to accept it. Shall we adopt the words "special reason," so that the power could only be exercised for reasons special to a particular case? I have not the least objection to that.

That might do, I think.

I am quite willing, if that commends itself to the Committee, to move the necessary addition, so as to prevent the possibility of the adoption of some general policy against making these Orders, and to make it compulsory on the Board of Trade to make an Order unless some special reason applicable to the particular case is shown. I cannot accept the omission of the words proposed by the hon. Member because I think it would make the Bill very difficult to work, and would lead to considerable injustice and suffering, which might be avoided, and which could produce no good whatever.

I would like to ask if it is possible to put this Amendment from the Chair in such a form as to preserve my Amendment? My right hon. Friend has made some references to my Amendment, but it raises an entirely different point, and if I can get the opportunity I shall contend it meets very largely the cases which the Solicitor-General has named.

I cannot answer that question until I see what the prospect will be. I have to put the present Amendment down to the two words "for any." That leaves the case open for such an Amendment as has been suggested by the Solicitor-General. If the matter is settled now it cannot be reopened later by the hon. Member.

Will you allow me to make' some observations on the present Amendment and to refer to my own?

Yes.

The Solicitor-General, in defending the Bill as it stands, said that the Board of Trade had made great advances in the position they now take up. There has been plenty of room for that, and surely the point which the Committee has to determine is not whether a Government Department or the Government as a whole have or have not made an advance from some particular position, but whether the position which they have reached is entirely satisfactory. I do not think that the defence which my right hon. Friend made of the Clause as it stands represents a satisfactory state of affairs. He argues, apparently more in sorrow than in anger, that we ought to have complete confidence in the Government. I am not going to say that I am lacking in confidence, either in my right hon. Friend or in the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, or in the President of the Local Government Board. But, after all, we are all human. How long are these Gentlemen going to remain in their respective Departments? How long will the President of the Board of Trade be in his Department? It is rather a tall order to ask us to accept an unsatisfactory Bill on this subject on such a plea. My right hon. Friend is really trying to play the confidence trick on the Committee and on the country. He says, "Have confidence in us and let us do as we like."

When this Bill was before the House on the Motion for Second Reading, there was one comment which ran through every speech, and it was a comment on the extraordinary delay in introducing this legislation. We have been at war for eighteen months, and to-day we are considering a Bill which ought to have been brought in in the very first week after the outbreak of war, and under the circumstances, to tell us we must allow a weak and sloppy Clause to be put into the Bill, after all our terrible experience, and that we should have complete confidence in the Government of this country who have allowed eighteen months to elapse without producing a Bill which everybody in the House says ought to have been produced at the beginning of the War, seems rather strong. Over and above that, we are to give them complete confidence and allow them to work the Bill in any way they like! Personally, I am not prepared to repose that confidence in them. I am not entirely satisfied with the Amendment of my hon. Friend, because he wants to put in words which I do not think are sufficient to cover the cases which have been very forcibly dealt with by my right hon. Friend opposite. The words "national interest" would not really meet the case, because, as he says, there may be a small baker or hairdresser, and nobody could assert that national interest requires such a business to be closed down. Nobody wants to do that, and therefore in my own Amendment I have dealt with the two cases which my right hon. Friend put forward in defending this Bill on the Second Reading.

I propose that we should leave out the words "for any reason" ["unless for any reason it appears to them inexpedient to do so"], and specifically deal with the two cases referred to by the Solicitor-General, first, the small business which is too inconsiderable to be worth bothering about; and, secondly, the business which ought to be carried on in the national interest. I do not think that the Solicitor-General, in his observations upon this Clause, has disclosed any case which could not be brought within those two exceptions. I have no doubt that the ingenuity of my right hon. and learned Friend could produce some hypothetical case of hardship which possibly might not be dealt with under those two exceptions, but, after all, as we have been told with regard to all this legislation, hardship must be the result of the War and the urgency legislation that arises out of the War. We want to make the Bill as watertight is possible, and to leave as few loopholes as we can for slack and inefficient administration. If we provide in the actual terms of the measure for the only two exceptions which the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the Second Reading was able to adduce, and which the House accepted as reasonable exceptions, we ought not to leave this Bill merely to the administration of the wise people at the Board of Trade and the Government, but we ought to put into the Bill itself what the country and this House desire should be carried out. Whatever may be thought of this particular Amendment I hope it will be possible for the right hon. and learned Gentleman, to accept the Amendment I have put down dealing with the same part of the Clause.

I may be stupid, but for the life of me I cannot see the importance which some Members of the Committee are attaching to these particular words. It is obvious that discretion has to be given to someone. You cannot bring in a schedule of businesses which shall be exempt or to which this Clause shall not apply. As the Clause stands it is only when it appears to the Board of Trade that certain conditions arise that the question of making an Order will arise. When those conditions have arisen the Board of Trade are to make an Order, unless for any reason it appears to them inexpedient to do so. I should have thought that that would be Good enough. It is difficult to conceive that any Government Department would adopt a reason which is not in the national interest. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Is it really suggested that any Government Department would act against the national interest in making an Order?

That is a matter of opinion.