asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that a meeting called by the Irish transport workers at Dungarvan to consider the question of an increase of wages was proclaimed; and if he will state whether it is the policy of the Government to proclaim meetings called by trade unions in Ireland?

I am informed that the secretary of the association was told that the meeting would have to be prohibited unless a permit was applied for, and he stated a permit would not be applied for and that the meeting would not be held if objected to. The answer to the latter part of the question is in the negative.

asked the Prime Minister whether Mr. Felix Cassel, K.C., has resigned or intimated his intention of resigning the position of Judge Advocate-General, to which he was appointed in 1916; and, if so, whether, regard being had to the fact that the Judge Advocate-General is the President of the Judicial Department of the Army and the sole representative of the Government in all military proceedings before general courts-martial, maintaining the interests of the Crown and prosecuting, either in person or by deputy, in the Sovereign's name, and that all matters arising out of the administration of martial law, including the examination of the sentences of courts-martial and the reporting thereon to the Crown, come under his supervision, the new occupant of the position of Judge Advocate-General will not, whatever may be his qualifications, be a person of enemy alien birth or origin?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part, therefore, does not arise.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that having a gentleman of alien origin and alien birth in full judicial command of the Army courts-martial is an insult to every soldier and officer in His Majesty's service?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that, will he take into consideration the fact that many of his political opponents have only increased regard for this gentleman in consequence of his most patriotic service and the admirable way in which he carries out his present duties?

As the House knows, the Committee appointed will deal with all such questions, and I think my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Donegal (Mr. MacNeill) will not have forgotten that the Judge Advocate-General, at so much beyond the age at which that is generally done, has served in the trenches in a junior capacity for a great many months during the War.

May I say that I have no feeling of unkindness towards him—quite the contrary; but I do hold to the principle—once a German always a German.

If I may be allowed to say so, it is precisely to deal with questions of that kind that the Committee has been set up, and I think the Committee may be trusted to carry out its duties in a proper way.

Will the Judge Advocate-General come under the purview of that Committee.

I believe so.

If those persons who feel otherwise, and that a man can, in spite of his origin and connection, still be loyal to the highest interests and the high ideals of this country, make representations, will they be considered?

I do not think, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, we can discuss this by question and answer. Clearly, since this Committee is appointed it is a case where I am sure the House of Commons can rely on the matter being properly dealt with, and I am sure the Committee will not forget what I have said as to this Gentleman having risked his life on behalf of his country.

Will the Committee apply the same principles to men of humble origin as to millionaires?

I hope so.

Then why do they hunt the hairdressers and protect the millionaires?

asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to a dispute of about 300 clerks in Leeds, affecting twenty firms; whether the dispute turns on the right of departmental heads to belong to a trade union; whether he is aware that a number of operatives have in consequence been thrown idle; and whether he will take steps to arbitrate as between the employers and the National Union of Clerks?

My right hon. Friend is unaware of a dispute of the nature indicated by the hon. Gentleman at Leeds. But if he is referring to Leek, not Leeds, attention has been called to the dispute, and recent information appears to indicate that an early settlement may be reached. Further inquiries are being made.

I beg to move, after the word "company" ["business of the company to be wound up"], to insert the words "or individual."

This Bill deals with the winding up and liquidation of banking businesses, but I submit that it is necessary that we insert the words in my Amendment, and I think a mistake has been made in omitting them from the Clause. Of course, I do not for a moment say that a banking business should not be conducted by an individual. In mediaeval times Shylock undoubtedly conducted a banking business, in one small room. Nowadays we still have Shylock, but he is not content with carrying on his business in one small room or two small rooms. He has a place with plate-glass windows, and calls himself the "Universal Discounting Company," or something similar; but his is really a one-man business, though it may be called a company, that company consisting of his mother-in-law, a brother-in-law, the office boy, or the stenographer, perhaps, as shareholders. If he thought he could escape the meshes of this Bill by turning himself back from a bogus company, of course he could do it quite easily. I do not want the modern Shylock to escape the meshes of the net, and, unless some such word as I suggest is inserted, he may escape. I have merely dealt with the case of bank businesses, but the Bill later on deals with all businesses, and with clubs and similar institutions. Perhaps the Government draftsman was rather hurried in drafting this Bill, and overlooked this proviso which is made in Clause 1 of the Non-Ferrous Metals Act, which says "that it shall not be lawful for any company, firm, or individual," etc. The words "firm or individual" have been omitted in the Bill, and, therefore, I move to insert the words "or individual." I notice that there is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. Pennefather), who proposes to insert the words "person or firm," and, if that is thought better, I am willing to withdraw my Amendment in favour of my hon. Friend's.

I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Bill which we have before us is really based on the principal Act of 1916, the Trading With the Enemey (Amendment) Act, and I suggest that it would be much more convenient if in this Bill we followed, as far as possible, the actual phraseology used in the principal Act. In the very first Clause of the principal Act the words are "person, firm, or company." In the Bill before us the words "person or firm" have been left out. I believe that is an omission, unless I am mistaken and my hon. and gallant Friend is mistaken. The present Bill is to give extended powers, but they would not be applicable to the "person or firm." Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can satisfy us on this point.

I think I can satisfy the two hon. Members. There is no error in the drafting of this particular Clause, which is inserted to correct an obvious, not mistake, but omission in the principal Act. The object of this Clause is to give the Board of Trade power to wind up a company as distinguished from the business carried on by that company. We have in the principal Act ample power to deal with businesses carried on by firms or individuals, or companies, but we have not power to wind up a company which carries on a business, and that has to be done by application to the Court. It is to simplify procedure that this Bill seeks to remedy the omission. I can assure the hon. Member that we have ample power to deal with the particular point raised in this Amendment.

Of course, in view of the very definite assurance given by the President that the Board of Trade have ample power to wind up the business of a firm or individual just as the business of a company, I will not press the point.

I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "During the period of five years immediately."

The effect of that may appear rather startling, but later on I move some further words, so that if the two Amendments were accepted Sub-section (1) would read, in substance, that "After the termination of the present War no banking business shall be carried on within the United Kingdom by enemy companies, firms, or individuals set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) unless licensed by the Board of Trade." Under the present Bill it is provided that no enemy bank shall be allowed to carry on banking business during the five years after the termination of the War, whereas my Amendments provide that no enemy banking business can be carried on here at any time in future unless licensed by the Board of Trade. The reasons for my Amendments are drawn very largely from the important speeches we heard on Second Reading from the President of the Board of Trade and the hon. Baronet who represents the Department of Overseas Trade. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade said

"it would be a great mistake for us to allow these banks to be re-established after the War."

He also stated that these banks are "a real menace to this country." He further observed that "it is very expedient and desirable that we should take steps to prevent these institutions from being re-established," and not allow these businesses to be carried on here, "not in the interests of British subjects," but "as part of a deliberate national policy of commercial and political penetration." Those words in themselves are a full justification of the Amendment I now move. For if these banks ought not to be re-established after the War, if they constitute a real menace to this country, if it is expedient to take steps that they should not be re-established, and if they are part of a deliberate national policy of commercial and political penetration, it seems to me quite clear that we should not limit the period to five years after the War, but that we should take permanent steps to regulate them. I think that is enforced by what was said by the hon. Baronet who represents the Department of Overseas Trade. He pointed out that these great banks are great instruments which exploit London as a financial centre. Five years, as mentioned in the Bill, are a mere moment in the national life. They will be gone very soon, and then, according to this, these banks may be set up. It is far better to take the present opportunity to deal effectively with the matter. An opportunity can scarcely recur after the War. It would be infinitely easier when our hands are comparatively free to take what lines we like in this matter. It would be much harder after five years at peace with Germany to ask that we should take the same measure that we are enabled to take now. Therefore, if I reject the proposal of the Bill so far as the five years are concerned, it is incumbent upon me to propose an alternative plan, and this I do all the more as I am able to base myself, in part, on the Report of the Committee of Lord Balfour of Burleigh, which reported in December last. That was a very influential Committee indeed, and it went very carefully into this subject. Speaking of agencies or branches of foreign banks in this country, it said:

"It is desirable to guard against the danger of their being used for political or other purposes not strictly connected with trade."

They recommended, therefore, that they should be required in the future to take out annual licences, for which a small fee should be paid to cover the administrative expenses.

Is my hon. Friend in order in speaking now on the point of the second Amendment? He is treating the two Amendments as one. There is a substantial point in this, as personally I should be in favour of one against the other, and I think the discussion of the two ought to be separate.

Reading the Notice Paper, I took the two Amendments as necessarily part of one proposition—that, instead of the absolute prohibition during the period of five years, there should be substituted a system of licence. That is how the Amendment has been argued.

On that point of Order. May I mention that I myself had intended to put down an Amendment to omit the words "During the period of five years immediately"? I noticed that the hon. Member had an Amendment to that effect, and I, therefore, abstained from putting down an Amendment. I overlooked that he had a subsequent Amendment, which he is now treating as consequential. I am entirely in favour of the Amendment now before the Committee, and would like to second it, but I am opposed to his other Amendment.

It is impossible for me to decide what Amendments hon. Members may support or oppose. The Mover is entitled to put his case, and for the time that is what is before the Committee.

Of course, he is entitled to put his case; but is he entitled to argue the two Amendments as one in a way that would prevent other Members from supporting one and opposing the other?

He must put his case on its merits.

I base myself, then, upon the Report of the Committee. I might draw the attention of hon. Members, perhaps, to the fact that this was a most influential body. The chairman was Lord Balfour of Burleigh. I venture to think that the opinions these gentlemen expressed will carry considerable weight with the House. But further, I think, in fact, that the system has an advantage of its own, whereas the plan under the Bill is limited to five years. Under the proposal I put forward there is no limit of time. Further, we have this advantage, if we look at what may occur at the Peace Conference at the end of the War, when a proposal is brought forward by the German negotiators, they might very well raise this issue, and if we accept the five years now we shall only shut the door for five years and may have to open it. If, however, we adopt now the principle of licensing—which, by the way, we might also apply to our own banks—there will be no question of differentiation as between German banks and other banks, and the Germans will have no power whatever to raise this issue at the Peace Conference.

There is one objection certainly to the plan of licensing which I ought to mention—that is, that it puts a great deal of power in the hands of the Board of Trade. At the same time, however, I think that the answer to that is to be found in a Clause of the Non-Ferrous Metals Act which was carried in an earlier part of this year, and in which it is provided, in Clause 1, Sub-section (2), that no licence shall be issued unless the Board of Trade are of opinion that the grant of such licence is desirable. That is the very principle that I propose by my further Amendment. I do not propose to discuss any of the major issues involved in this question. I touched upon them in a few words when I addressed the House on the Second Reading. I propose to confine myself strictly to the Amendment, which really does raise a matter of first importance. I feel that under a system of licensing we shall be able to have the whip hand over our opponents, whereas if we act upon the principle laid down in the Bill we will show our hand now by limiting our action to five years. In conclusion, I would suggest that this proposal of five years, though it has an appearance of strength, is in reality a weakness. Under the cover of exclusion it only means that at most, after a few years, the Germans will be on exactly the old terms. I venture to substitute for the proposal in the Bill—which I will not characterise more strongly than to say that it seems to be of doubtful efficacy—a proposal which from all points of view is, I submit, the better one.

I am entirely in favour of the Amendment that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has just moved, though, as I have already intimated, I shall not be able to support the Amendment which he moves later to substitute another system. I would very much prefer that we should strike out the limitation of five years without more ado, and, at any rate, that is the particular question immediately before the Committee. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade on what grounds this proposal to limit the period has been put in? Why is the right hon. Gentleman taking any steps whatever to get rid of German banking businesses in this country after the War? For what reason? Is it intended to be punitive? Is it intended to inflict some penalty upon Germany for her conduct in plunging Europe into war? If that is the reason, then I can understand it, though it might be arguable whether it was the suitable way of doing it, to say that for five years, at all events, we will punish her in that way, just as you may inflict a fine of £500, or 5s., as the case may be, so you fine Germany for her offence against the world and against civilisation by saying that she shall not carry on banking businesses in England for five years. I do not believe that is the ground on which the right hon. Gentleman and the Government are proceeding. I cannot believe it.

What the right hon. Gentleman and the Government have in view is a mulch more wise principle, with which I entirely agree, which is that it is to the disadvantage of this country, commercially and industrially—and I should also say in other ways as well—that these banks should be allowed to carry on business. But will the right hon. Gentleman explain why they will be less objectionable after five years? What has led him to suppose that after this particular quinquennial period all the objections which he and the rest of the country sees to this penetration going on will suddenly disappear? I cannot imagine it is likely to disappear at all. At all events, if it does disappear, if the conditions are so altered that we can, without danger to our own prosperity, admit the German banking businesses into this country, surely no one can say when it will be less dangerous! It may be three or it may be twenty years. Obviously the right course for the Government is to say that the banking businesses shall be put a stop to, and to leave Parliament in the future, or any Government, surveying the circumstances of the time, to say, "We have now come to the conclusion that, without any disadvantage to this country, we can revert to the conditions which obtained before the Great War, and we can allow the Germans to restart business in this country." That is an intelligible policy, and rests upon perfectly sound principles. It is rather arbitrary to say that the objection disappears in five years. There is another reason why I would press this point upon the Government.

Under the Parliament Act the legal period for the duration of Parliament is five years. We do not yet know when peace will be declared, but it might very well be that this period of five years would coincide with the period of the General Election which might come a few months after that time. The result would be, if this provision stands in the Bill, that you run the danger of having a great agitation of having this question made an election cry. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not want to prolong the sort of suspicion of Government Departments and the kind of agitation which is going on now, and he does not wish all that to be revived five years hence, or that the Government should be pressed by various associations and leagues got up to ensure that this five years period should be prolonged by another Act of Parliament. We should be told that this Act is going to expire, and that the moment it does we shall have all the German banks back again, and candidates would be asked, "Are you going to bring-in a new Bill to prolong this period?" It is obvious that that will happen and you would have all that sort of agitation. I hope, therefore, that under the circumstances the right hon. Gentleman will consent to the deletion of these words altogether. I do not know whether it would be better now for me to follow the example of the Mover of the Amendment and express my reason for dissenting from the second part of this proposal or whether that would be more appropriate when the hon. and gallant Member moves his next Amendment. I quite, see from his point of view that it is necessary that his whole scheme should be laid before the Committee at one time. My objection to the proposal for licences is quite separable from my support of this Amendment. Subject to anything you may say, Mr. Chairman, I propose to strongly support this Amendment and reserve to myself the right to oppose the subsequent Amendment.

The hon. Member is quite entitled to take that course.

I have listened very carefully to what has been said not only upon this Amendment, but also upon the following Amendment, which I feel really is consequential upon the Amendment now under discussion. This Amendment raises two very important questions, and one is the extent of the time that this Bill should be operative, and the other is a question of licences. I quite agree that if the time limit were completely withdrawn and you had with that some system of licensing, it might perhaps apply not only to the banks this Bill is intended to prohibit, but also to all the banks and institutions of the country, and there might perhaps not then be the same objection to it. I think it is quite clear that if any system of licensing was established it would be necessary that there should be some guiding principle upon which the Board of Trade could act with respect to the issue of those licences. There are two objections to the system of licensing, and one is that the Board of Trade does not desire—and I am sure the Committee will agree with me in this—to take any discretionary power with respect to the establishment of any financial undertaking in the United Kingdom which is carried on wholly or mainly for the benefit or under the control of subjects of the present enemy States.

1.0 P.M.

What this Bill provides is that if any undertaking permits any breach of this Act we shall have power to wind it up and inflict punishment upon those who commit the breach. There should be no discretion with regard to that particular aspect of the question, and the Bill as it stands, and as it is now drafted, should stand. On the question of extending the time beyond the period of five years, first of all in that regard we copied the Non-Ferrous Metals Bill, which makes provision for a period of five years, just as this Bill does. It occurred to us when we drafted the Non-Ferrous Metals Bill, and also in connection with this Bill, that this would be a reasonable period to take, and that these banks should not, for the reasons which have been so ably put forward by the hon. Member for St. Augustine's (Mr. McNeill)—that they should not be allowed to be re-established under any circumstances during that period. I doubt whether anyone would be prepared to prophesy as to what will happen after the War. It may be that the German people or the German Government will have a change of policy and adopt methods more consistent with the principles adopted by the civilised countries of the world. If that change takes place, and their methods are such as we can accept, they might then be admitted to some commercial association with this country. However, that is a matter to be best decided when the time comes. If, on the other hand, Germany has not altered her methods, and it is still thought desirable that this prohibition should be continued, then it does seem to me that there would be no difficulty in leaving it to the House of Commons to determine what further prohibition should be established at that time. I feel that there is great advantage in having a definite period in regard to a matter of this kind, which is of great importance, during which the question can be brought forward for discussion, rather than leaving it indefinite, so that it may be brought forward at any time after the Act has been passed. It will be in order, under these circumstances, for a discussion to be raised any day, whereas under this Act it stands the law for that period of time.

There is only one other point in connection with a system of licensing. I would remind the hon. Member who has moved this Amendment that it is not proposed under this Bill to limit the prohibition to what are commonly known as banks. We propose to take a very wide interpretation of that word and to include all financial undertakings. I am sure that the hon. Member will realise that, that being so, it would place upon the businesses of this country, I suggest, a real difficulty and make it very difficult indeed to administer any system of licensing which would have to take so wide a field and bring into the system such an enormous number of businesses. I think it better that if there is to be any question of licensing banks in this country—and I feel there is a good deal to be said for that—it should take the form of some Act dealing with our banking laws, rather than it should be inserted in a Bill of this modified character. I hope, with the explanation I have given and the assurance that this question of our banking laws will be considered, that this Amendment will not be pressed forward.

I listened with great interest to the right hon. Gentleman's very important remarks on the question of licensing banks. My first intention was to draw my Amendment so as to provide for the licensing of all banks, but I quite recognise that would have been outside the scope of the measure. I am glad, however, to hear that the right hon. Gentleman will consider in future the question of licensing all banks. As regards licensing, he said that the Board of Trade did not desire to exercise any discretionary power, but it seems to me that when we were discussing the Non-Ferrous Metals Bill the Board of Trade did desire to exercise such power. I must say that I abandon with great reluctance my Amendment so far as leaving out the limitation of five years is concerned. Still, with those observations, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

I wish to say very shortly why I object to the withdrawal of the Amendment. The hon. and gallant Member (Major Peel) has had considerable experience in these matters of winding up banks in Egypt, and he stated irrefutable arguments why we should wipe out this period of five years and make it for all time, leaving Parliament to make what alterations it likes in the future. My hon. and gallant Friend stated the argument in a way which could not be improved, and I do not think that the President of the Board of Trade answered it. The right hon. Gentleman said that there may be a change of heart on the part of Germany in five years, but this is a question of business more than of military methods. I have never known a bank established in this country by Germany that had not got the backing of the German Government. That fact has been strengthened during the War, and, whether Germany becomes a non-military nation or not, I think it is very undesirable that we should allow German banks or financial undertakings to be established in this country. If the time does come when we see a complete change of method and of heart on the part of Germany, why then Parliament, in its wisdom, can bring in a measure to that effect.

I do not think that the argument addressed to the Committee in support of the Amendment has been fully dealt with by the President of the Board of Trade. I cannot imagine anything reasonable in this period of five years, because after that period we may have a recurrence of the same questions with which we are now confronted. I understood the President of the Board of Trade to say that these measures were to take a wide scope and were to be applicable to businesses other than banks.

I did not intend to convey the idea that we were proposing in this Bill to take these powers with respect to other businesses as distinct from banking businesses, but we do propose to take a very wide view of banking. We propose to include financial undertakings, but we do not propose to go so far as the hon. Member has indicated.

If no banking business is to be carried on in England which is under enemy control, or by a firm or individual who has some relation with an enemy country, why should we not put that principle in an Act of Parliament? It seems to me that as a general principle it should be clearly stated, and therefore I am entirely of opinion that the words which the hon. and gallant Gentleman proposes to exclude should be omitted, and that we should be left with a perfectly free hand, having simply made the declaration, "We will not permit a bank controlled by enemy influence, whether that enemy be German or any other nationality, to be carried on in this country." I also have great doubt about licensing. I think it is well to take the general principle, so that when we go into a conference we may not be embarrassed by the limitation of five years. If we omit these words we can say, "No; we have declared the principle that we will not permit any banking business that is controlled by enemy influence to be carried on in this country."

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider very carefully before he refuses to strike out these words. I am sure that the general feeling, particularly among business people, is that it is unwise to hold out in this Bill the suggestion that at the end of five years enemy concerns, in the absence of a definite Act of Parliament, will be able to resume business in this country. That suggestion would go down very badly with the country. If the period of five years remains in the Bill, then these enemy concerns will automatically be able to restart operations in this country providing no definite Act has been taken to the contrary by Parliament. On the other hand, if we strike out this period and have a completely free hand, the position is exactly reversed, and these enemy concerns will not have power to restart unless and until the people of this country, through their representatives in Parliament, have signified their view that the change of heart to which the right hon. Gentleman referred has actually taken place and that the privilege of restarting business in this country can with safety be given again to enemy subjects.

I do not see that there is really very much difference between us on the question of policy. The hon. Member for St. Augustine's (Mr. R. McNeill), when arguing in favour of this Amendment on its own merits, apart from the consequential policy of the hon. Member for Spalding (Major Peel), himself contemplated the possibility of reviewing the position, and the question is therefore what is the best method of allowing for that possible review. Is it a good thing to have your policy brought up at the end of five years, or are you going to allow yourself freedom to review it at any time during the five years or after? There is a good deal to be said on both sides. I am well aware of that. In the first place, Parliament is perfectly free in either case.

But not so free.

At any rate, there is not a great deal of difference between us, and I think the wiser course is to follow the precedent we have set in the Non-Ferrous Metals Bill of actually bringing it up for review at a given period. I do not see any great drawback in that, and there is a good deal to be said for uniformity in such a policy. There being so little between us, I hope my hon. Friends will not press their Amendment. The hon. Member for St. Augustine's made another point. I admit that five years is an arbitrary period, but if there is to be a period, and if you are going to take this method of review in lieu of a continuous measure, any period you may fix upon must be arbitrary. The hon. Gentleman will realise that no one can foresee that five years will coincide with the period of a General Election. No one can foresee that at this moment, any more than it is possible to foresee it at any other period. If everybody knows that at a given period the policy of the Government is coming up for review, it is less likely that there will be sporadic endeavours during the interval to raise the question. But it is just a question which on the whole is the wiser course to take. I do not think that the country manifested very much interest in the case of the Non-Ferrous Metals Bill, in which the period of five years was inserted.

I admit that the country on the whole evinced very little interest in the Non-Ferrous Metals Bill, but it is taking a much greater interest in the question of German banks.

With regard to the banks, I admit, the country does take an interest, and so do many lion. Members, but at the same time, if we get a policy of review at the end of a definite period, I think the balance of advantage is in favour of adopting that course. I repeat, there is no difference in the principle underlying the attitude we are adopting, and I therefore hope hon. Members will not insist upon their Amendment.

There is a point arising out of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to which I should like to draw attention. Under the Clause as it stands there is to be a revision of policy at the end of five years, but may I point out there is no guarantee that Parliament will have an opportunity of reviewing it at the end of that period, because the Bill says that during the five years immediately after the War no banking business shall be carried on. What will happen will be this: When the five years has elapsed Parliament may be engaged on other things, and the Government of the day may not be willing or able to give an opportunity of reviewing the situation. In that case the German banks could start again without any interference of any sort or kind. Therefore, it is not a question of words or form, it is a question of substance. If we were absolutely certain that the matter would be reviewed by Parliament at the end of five years, it might not matter very much, but if Parliament is not given the opportunity at the end of five years of saying there shall be no more banking business of this nature, then the German banks will spring up like a phoenix from its ashes. Will the right hon. Gentleman introduce some words which will make it absolutely certain, so far as he can, that Parliament shall have this opportunity of reviewing the whole policy? Probably the easiest way of doing that would be to leave out the five years, and then, if Parliament did want to intervene, it could do so. That is really the simplest way of doing it, and it will be open to Parliament then at the end of five years or ten years, or any other period, to review the position. If Parliament thinks that the circumstances of the case have entirely altered, if the German nation has turned into a very different nation from what it is now, in character, in Government, and in ambitions, then it would be quite possible, and it might be right for Parliament to intervene and say that these restrictions shall go. But if the Bill is allowed to stand in its present form, we may at the end of five years find ourselves in the very same difficulties as we have been during the last two or three years, namely, of desiring legislation and not being able to get it. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider this point of substance?

I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) that there is really not a great deal of difference in principle between us. Indeed, he himself has pointed out that it is only a difference of method. He thinks the plan laid down in the Bill the best, and we think our proposal is a better one. But I want to emphasise the fact that he himself admits there is very little difference between us. Obviously under these circumstances it is impossible for the Government to put on the Government Whips if we go to a Division. It would be ridiculous to have the machinery and power of the Government exerted on a matter on which there is so little difference between us, although it is right to do so when some great question of principle is involved. The Committee should be left free to decide which of the two methods before it is the better. I do not think anyone who has listened to the Debate will contend for a moment that either of the two right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken for the Government have really met the arguments in favour of this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Steel-Maitland) has admitted my point, that it is a perfectly arbitrary period, but neither he nor the President of the Board of Trade have given us the smallest reason to suppose there will be changed conditions at the end of five years. This is not a political question. It is a business question. These methods of penetration were going on before the War, and no one in this country apparently had any objection to them. Indeed, they were supported by large bodies of opinion in this country, and I would ask, Is there any reason to suppose that at the end of five years that opinion may not operate again? In view of what has been said since I spoke, I want to emphasise how very arbitrary it is to take this period of five years, and say that all the objections we are now legislating against will disappear at the end of that time. It is obvious that you ought to leave it to a future Parliament when the time comes. There is no difficulty whatever in a future Parliament dealing with it. In view of the difference of opinion, certainly some of us on this side will take the opinion of the Committee, and I hope, for the reasons I have given, that we shall not be confronted with the Government Whips put on against us. As a strong supporter of the Government, I very much regret that they should go into the Lobby at the present time in support of a proposal the only purpose of which is that it will now, in advance, facilitate German banks reopening in five years.

Neither on this nor on any other question which I can foresee at the moment, should I oppose the Government at the present time. There does not seem to be much in this question, and I would ask the President to consider whether he cannot meet the views expressed by various speakers. To do so would not impair the principles of the Bill. It is the kind of Amendment he could easily accept. I cannot follow my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Butcher), who puts this question rather on the basis of the conduct and character of the Germans—I would rather say the Prussians—five years hence. I would suggest that five years after the War they would be quite as capable of being for a purpose as mild as milk and as soft as silk. They will still be dangerous competitors. They would come here to strangle us financially and economically. That is what they have done before, and that is what they will do again. I have no faith in their reformation in any conceivable circumstances. The canker of sentiment ought to be cut out of this question, and that makes me wish that the five years should be eliminated from this Clause. If there is a Division I shall not oppose the Government upon it, because they have more wisdom collectively than I have individually, and I shall support them. I ask them, however, whether it is not worth while to consider the acceptance of the Amendment, seeing that many hon. Members present think it would improve the Bill, and that it could hardly, from any point of view, be said to impair it.

I am afraid we are too optimistic in speaking of it as certain that we shall keep German influence out for five years. There is a stronger case in favour of the Amendment. What will happen at the end of five years? It does not mean that a German bank will come here and open their own new branch; it means that they will come here and buy an existing institution. For two or three years prior to the date when there is a possibility of purchase, institutions will be playing the game in order to be saleable when the five years expire. Therefore for two or three years you will have institutions cultivating trade with German houses in order that, when the five years have ended, they may be saleable to German banks or institutions. We take the wrong view if we think that by this Bill we shall keep them out for a generation. We should abandon the illusory protection of this five years' limit. I do not know whether the Government propose to retain it. If they do, I do not think we are safe, because we know that a five years' limit does not mean more than half that time. Therefore when half the period is over we shall find institutions altering their character and catering for German support in order to get a thumping price when we come to the end of the period.

The point of difference between some hon. Members and ourselves is that while it is agreed that Parliament must deal with this question at some future time, however the Bill may be drafted——

Not necessarily.

It is very probable—I will put it at that—that at some future time the question will have to be considered. The only question between us is whether that time should be fixed by the Bill or whether it should be left an open question for discussion at any time.

We believe it probable that such time might never come at all. We do not believe that anybody is likely to raise the question of introducing the German banks unless you enable them to do so by this Bill.

It may be that the time will never arise. If that be true, this Bill does not make that position an impossible one. It can be dealt with at any time even under this Bill. I cannot quite agree that there is no probability of this matter ever being raised for consideration later. I cannot help feeling that there are some provinces and some sections of enemy country in regard to which we should not desire that this embargo should be a permanent one. It may be that one part of any enemy State or some enemy States may be permanently debarred, but I doubt whether the embargo would apply to all of them permanently. However that may be, this matter can be brought forward later on by Parliament or, if it is thought desirable that the period should be extended, there would be no difficulty in doing it. I should be quite prepared to make it quite clear in this Bill and to introduce words at a later stage which would make it imperative that this question should be brought forward for consideration and decision and not leave it so that if, by any accident new legislation was not introduced, these banks would automatically be allowed to establish themselves after this period of five years. That goes a long way towards meeting the point that has been raised. There is another reason why I think it is desirable that there should be some limit placed upon it at this stage. As I mentioned before, the whole question of the banking laws of this country requires careful consideration, and we are proposing to deal with that matter as soon as we have an opportunity of doing so. This question of enemy association must be brought forward in connection with the general question of the banking laws of this country. I submit with respect to the Committee, in view of these suggestions, which we have most carefully considered before this Bill was drafted, that they should not go to a Division.

The right hon. Gentleman has intimated that he will make some Amendment which will make it necessary that Parliament should reconsider this question at some future date. Would he be willing to put it in this form, that the banking business of the Germans should be prohibited in this country until Parliament otherwise determines. If he does it in that way he will avoid any specific period, which is what we chiefly object to. I think the argument of the hon. Member (Mr. Booth) is a very forcible one. If you name any specific period it will be a notice to the world that at the end of the period German banking may be recommenced, and that will have effects upon institutions in this country. If Parliament is to reconsider it, what none of us can understand is what is the in superable objection to Parliament doing it one way rather than another. It is not such a terrible business to pass an Act of Parliament, and if you have to pass an Act, why do you want to tie down a future Parliament? Why can you not leave it to the future Parliament to determine when the time has come for reopening these banks? It is only a matter whether the Act of Parliament is to be directed to the affirmative or the negative. If the right hon. Gentleman will say he will make this prohibition last until Parliament otherwise determines, I shall be quite content. It is not my Amendment, and I cannot say what my Friends will do, but my own view is that that will be satisfactory.

May I make one alternative suggestion to that of my hon. Friend? If the Government wishes to keep in the period of five years, and at the same time ensure that at the end of that period Parliament shall have the power of review, you can do it in this way: "During five years immediately after the termination of the War and thereafter, unless Parliament shall otherwise determine." That would ensure that the banks would be shut up for five years, and the restriction would go on indefinitely unless Parliament should think fit to put an end to it.

If the hon. Member will agree to withdraw the Amendment I will undertake to consider words at a later stage which will afford full opportunity for debate upon this point, and it may be that in that way we shall expedite the Bill.

I understood it was not necessary to negative the Amendment. It was going to be withdrawn.

The hon. Member asked leave to withdraw, but the hon. Member (Mr. McNeill) refused leave. The question is therefore bound to be decided.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "no" ["no banking business shall be carried on"], to insert the words "bill broking, insurance, reinsurance, financial agency, or."

It is not only banking businesses under enemy control which are a great danger to this country. There are other businesses closely allied. One is bill broking, That, very likely, will be dealt with under another Clause, as being practically banking. Another business financially very closely allied to banking is the business of insurance and reinsurance, particularly marine insurance and reinsurance, and this matter has been up before the Commercial Committee of the House several times, and the greatest importance has been attached to the danger of continuing our former system of reinsurance. Before the War the reinsurance of marine risks was very largely done with Germany, with the result that Germany knew about every ship we had and about every cargo. There was not a detail in connection with cur shipping which did not naturally pass into enemy hands in connection with that business of reinsurance. A great deal or that business was, I believe, of a highly dangerous nature, and the suggestion we want the right hon. Gentleman to consider is whether he should not include in this Bill at a later stage, in the same category with banking, these other businesses, such as bill broking, financial agencies, insurance, and reinsurance.

I had some little doubt about this Amendment, but I confess I am not sufficient of a financier to say where banking ends and insurance begins.

In resisting this Amendment I do not desire the hon. Member to assume that there is no degree of sympathy with respect to what he has in mind, but I suggest that we should not attempt to go beyond the scope and intention of this Bill. The object to be secured by it, as far as banking is concerned, is to deal definitely with that aspect of commercial penetration in this country by our present enemies. But there is a wider aspect, which has been rightly raised by the hon. Member, and that is whether other businesses, perhaps equally important with that of banking, should not also be brought within the prohibition. I suggest that this is not the appropriate time for the consideration of that very big question, and I trust, if I give him the assurance that the wider aspect of the problem of dealing with enemy associations in business generally in this country after the War is engaging the serious attention of the Government, he will not, at this stage, press the Amendment.

I should like to supplement what has fallen from the hon. Member (Mr. Pennefather) with regard to marine insurance. I think the Chairman was right in allowing the Amendment, because you cannot have a banking centre without it being an insurance centre. If marine insurance moves, to a large extent banking facilities will follow it. I also want to understand from the President that in this larger scheme he will not confine it merely to marine insurance. I think fire is particularly dangerous. The big tariff companies in this country refuse to reinsure with non-tariff companies on the ground of giving them information. They pass their business over to a German firm which has twenty-three or twenty-four fire companies. The consequence is that in Germany, just as with regard to ships, they have a complete dossier of all the big business premises in this country derived from the fire insurance companies. I warned the House before the War about this German octopus of fire insurance, and it must be plain that when they have maps and schedules of the stocks of all the large business premises in this country they have an amount of information which would be very useful to them in the event of invasion. Really, the Germans do not need as many spies as we think, because we have poured out information to them and they are very clever at classifying it. I investigated this question when I was over there and I saw a room where they had 100 insurance clerks at work. We have nothing of that sort here. They were all classifying information from England in regard to insurance and docketing the information. When the President of the Board of Trade comes to deal with it I hope he will give closer attention if possible to industries of this kind where information goes to the enemy, because it is not merely a trading operation which is ended when the transaction is ended. If you, pay a premium of a few pounds from one country to another it is not a little transaction, because it may imply thousands of valuations and schedules of properties. The contract may be for a period of years, three or five years, and in that time thousands of properties may be scheduled in Berlin. It is not merely a question of marine insurance. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will have regard to these points.

This question does not refer merely to marine insurance. I merely mention marine insurance as being one of the kind of insurances affected. As an ex-director of one of the largest fire insurance companies in this country I can appreciate all that the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) has said; but in view of what the President of the Board of Trade has said I certainly ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "be" ["business shall be"], to insert the words "engaged in or."

This is one of the Amendments which I have put down designed to tighten up the Clause in the Bill, and I think in some ways it is necessary. When this Bill becomes an Act we shall be dealing a very heavy blow, the biggest blow yet dealt at German trade, especially finance in this country. We are engaged in doing something which undoubtedly will make the average German squeal. When we have done it it will be perfectly obvious that in placing this embargo against the Germans that when that embargo is removed we shall be admitting the Germans into something very valuable. Therefore, they will look forward very eagerly to the day when this embargo is taken off at the end of the five years after the War. They will be anxiously awaiting the day when they can recommence banking and other businesses, and they will do it in various ways. They will do it subtly, and they will do it overtly. There is no earthly reason why on 1st April, 1925, when the embargo is removed, a man cannot go into a German bank and take out his reinsurance, and German firms will have their business generally established and have their name-plate ready to put over the door. They may not have been carrying on, bat they may have been engaged in business and be there ready to do business. They would be able, say, to offer a discount of 4 per cent. or 3½ per cent. on business. Therefore, I suggest that we should do something to meet that. We want something to prevent these enemy aliens engaging in business in this way. We do not want them to be ready to begin.

In view of what I have said previously on one or two Amendments, perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will not press that this Amendment should be inserted in the Bill. If I understand him correctly, what he has in contemplation is that it shall be made clear, if it can be made clear, that these subjects of enemy States are not to be placed in the position of being able to do business in this country immediately the time for which this Bill makes provision has elapsed. These particular words in the Amendment will not, in our opinion, meet that particular point; but, apart from that, in view of what I have said this afternoon on previous Amendments, that we are considering the wider aspects of the problem of dealing with enemy associations and businesses in this country generally after the War, perhaps the hon. Member will agree that this Amendment should not be pressed.

I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, a), to leave out the words "Non-Ferrous Metal Industry Act, 1918," and insert instead thereof the words "this Act."

The object of this Amendment is to meet a criticism which was made upon this Bill during the Second Beading Debate. The criticism was with respect to the form in which the Bill is drafted, which requires reference to another Act in dealing with a particular definition. We agree that it would make it much easier if the definition is incorporated in the Bill, and that is the reason for the Amendment.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), at the end of paragraph (b), to insert,

"(c) By a firm or individual if the business is one with branches in more than one country which, whether overtly or not, are conducted and controlled by one and the same person, firm, or company, and of which one such branch was carrying on business in an enemy country on the declaration of hostilities."

This is an Amendment to which I attach some importance, and it raises a big point. It raises the whole question of what I may call national finance and world rings. I may be wrong, but I do not think that for a good many years after the five years immediately following the conclusion of hostilities, despite what a great many pro-Germans say in this country, that we shall have Germans, with German names, or obvious German names, carrying on business in this country. I do not think that we shall have any aggressive Teutonic names associated with business for a great many years more than the five years, whether it be banking or any other business, in any part of the United Kingdom. But what we shall have, undoubtedly, is the cosmopolitan financiers and money lenders. We shall have a man whose father comes from Frankfurt-on-Main. He himself perhaps lived there as a boy. He and his father wont from Frankfurt-on-Main to New York or Buenos Ayres, and came to England or elsewhere. To put it plainly, but not offensively, the majority of these cosmopolitan financiers are men of Jewish birth and origin. I do not say that a Jew who lives in Great Britain cannot be an excellent citizen, and a man who will fight bravely for the country in which he is living, equally as a Jew living in Germany will fight bravely and be an excellent German citizen. But all the time, though he may be a Britisher nominally or a German, he is also a Jew, and back of his mind must always be this one thought, "I am a Jew, and the outside world Gentiles." Therefore you must always have something in the nature of his allegiance by which he cannot be absolutely true to the country in which he is living. Therefore as a cosmopolitan financier he has his own interests primarily at heart, and he will serve the master who treats him best.

Undoubtedly at the present moment the nation which treats the cosmopolitan financial interest best is the German nation. The State there is behind the banks. It does everything it can for thorn. It gets orders for them, it sees the banks and supports them in case of difficulty. Therefore undoubtedly the average cosmopolitan financier, if you look into his antecedents, has German interest at heart far more than any other interest. I could give a great many instances of what I am endeavouring to combat in my Amendment. One notable instance which does not deal exactly with banking was given, I think by Mr. Hughes—the instance of Merton and Company. Merton and Company are an English firm nominally. Actually they are an English branch of the German Metallgesellschaft, the great German combine with branches all over the world. No doubt if we went to New York we might find them trading perhaps under the title of Myer and Company, and probably they have got a branch in Spain, and another in South America. They are a great combine with branches all over the world. The centre of that combine is in Germany. My Amendment would give power to the Board of Trade to close down Merton and Company.

They have it.

If we have it already, obviously my Amendment is useless. But though we may have it in cases like the business of Merton and Company, yet it may be different in a case like this. Suppose that we have got a banking business with a branch here called Smith and Company, and another branch in New York called Oppenheimer and Company, and another branch in Madrid, and another in Germany, and it can be proved that Frank-fort-on-Main is the head of that banking system. If you have got the power to close the branch, Smith and Company in this country then, of course, I will withdraw my Amendment, but if we have not that power, I suggest that we should get it. Clause 11 of the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1916 is perhaps the Clause which the right hon. Gentleman has in his mind when he refers to the powers possessed by the Board of Trade, but the case provided for in that Clause is not quite the same, because this particular Clause makes it obvious that what is meant is a business in the United Kingdom with branches elsewhere. My case is where the central establishment is in Germany, or perhaps in New York and a branch is in this country. I do not think that that is exactly the same thing. It may be that the Board of Trade think this Amendment rather too drastic. If that is so my Amendment might be qualified by some such words as "Unless licensed to do so by the Board of Trade." That would give the Board of Trade and the Government power to close down these businesses where they thought they were dangerous, and at the same time it would not perhaps be a cause of offence to the United States or some of our Allies, and we might get co-ordination with the United States, who might like to close down a German business with a branch in America, and might not like to do it without the concurrence of their Allies.

So far as I can gather from what the Mover of the Amendment has said, with one possible exception the Board of Trade already possesses the power to deal with those cases to which he has referred. He laid particular reference on a firm established in this country and also in Germany, but where, shall we say, the principal firm was located in Germany, and a branch or a smaller part of the firm located in this country. Clearly the only conclusion one can come to in dealing with a case of that kind would be that the branch or smaller part of the undertaking established in this country was under the control of Germans, and that being the case we have the power to-day, and do exercise it, of winding up that sort of business. As regards Mertons, we rely upon the Non-Ferrous Metals Act to deal with that particular firm. But one point which the hon. and gallant Member mentioned, as to which I am not quite clear, is whether we have the power, or whether it would be desirable that we should have the power, to deal with the case of an undertaking having establishments in this country and in Germany and in, perhaps, two or three other countries besides. He rather referred to it as a sort of international institution. It would depend entirely upon how the business of that undertaking in this part of the country were carried on and how it was controlled. Clearly if it was controlled by subjects of an enemy State we have power to wind it up. If there is an enemy partnership in that undertaking in this country we have the power to vest the interest of that enemy partnership in the Public Trustee. Let us assume that there is a British business in this country which has a branch in Germany and another in a neutral country. Obviously, there can be no reason whatever, after the War, why the business in this country should be wound up. That, I suggest, would be very unfair, and I am sure has never been contemplated. The German branch of it has been closed down by the War, and the English institution is prevented, of course, from carrying on during the War with the enemy. If I have correctly interpreted what its in the mind of the hon. and gallant Member by this Amendment, he would require us to wind up their business in this country.

I am inclined to support the underlying principle of the Amendment. The point which appeals to me is that of a concern which has a branch in this country and a branch in a neutral country——

I have an Amendment dealing with that point later on.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "Where" ["Where any banking business"], to insert the words "it appears to the Board of Trade that."

I accept that.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "is" ["is carried on"], to insert the words "or has been."

This Amendment is really to get information as to the Clause, which reads

"Where any banking business is carried on in contravention of this Section, the Board of Trade may order the business to be wound up."

The case which I have in my mind is that of a small German bank in which a correspondent of mine was interested before the War. Soon after the War this bank was put into the hands of a controller or custodian. He writes

"I do not know what the end of that business is going to be."

Here was a small banking business which was undoubtedly carried on in enemy interests by people of enemy origin. It is in a state of suspended animation, and has been for more than two years, and may remain so apparently for a further indefinite time. Such a thing is conceivable. It has been doing nothing for a couple of years, and, therefore, I move this Amendment to ask the Board of Trade what the position would be where a business is dormant for two years.

The case which the hon. Member refers to is one which has already come up. The hon. Member will see that this Clause really refers to prohibition during a period after the War. I can assure him that there is no difficulty about it. I would only say that the Amendment, if he presses it, would cause a great deal of trouble, and the insertion of these words would have a very unfortunate effect. There might be a case of a firm which had had enemy associations, but which had afterwards entirely purged itself of that taint. It might not be desired to touch a firm of that kind, but these words referring to the past would compel the Board of Trade to act in a strict manner in regard to it. I do not think that is desired.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "may" ["the Board of Trade may"] and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."

I take it this is not a mere matter of form and that it is a change from permissive to mandatory. I remember a discussion about the words "may" and "shall" a few days ago. It was very confusing, and I remember the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson) was asked by a fellow-Member what was the real difference between "may" and "shall," and he said that you have to have twenty years' education to understand it properly. If it is so very difficult as that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will excuse my asking him to explain the Amendment.

I am not sufficiently a legal authority to give an answer to the hon. Member who has just sat down. But, in any event, this Amendment does make it quite clear that the Board of Trade has no discretion in this matter, and that it is a duty.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words "such subjects as aforesaid," and to insert instead thereof the words "subjects of an enemy State."

Can we have a definition of the words "enemy State"?

It is defined by a later Amendment.

What I had in mind by the expression "enemy State" is a State with which His Majesty is at war. Take the case of Finland at the present time. If the Bolshevik Government declared they were at war with us on the ground that we had landed on the Murman coast, then I suppose Russia, from that point, would come under the scope of the Bill. Would that include Finland?

This Amendment is purely a drafting one, and it is on the new Clause dealing with definitions that the hon. Member should raise his point.

Is not this the only chance we have of making an alteration?

This alteration is absolutely drafting—to leave out the words "such subjects as aforesaid," in order to insert the words "subjects of an enemy State." I think the proper place for the hon. Gentleman to raise it is on the new Clause.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), to leave out the words,

"Provided that any Rule so made shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next twenty days on which that House has sat, after any such Rule is set before them, praying that the Rule may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the Rule and it shall thenceforth be void, without prejudice, however, to the making of any new Rule."

This Amendment is to do away with the paragraph which gives the right to any Member of Parliament to prevent the Board of Trade making a Rule defining what a banking business is if an Address is presented to either House within twenty days. That means delay. I take it the Board of Trade will make their Rules defining what a banking business is, in consultation with the Treasury, during the next two or three weeks. When Parliament reassembles some time in October, if any Member sees fit to disagree with these particular Rules, he can hang them up for twenty days in either House, and that means a very dangerous delay. I do not know why that particular proviso was put in at all in the drafting of the Bill. It seems apparently to have been copied from the Non-Ferrous Metals Act, in Clause 6 of which power is given to the Board of Trade to make Rules and to carry the Act into effect, provided that all such Rules are laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and that if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House within the next forty days they may be annulled. But that is quite different from what we are doing here. The really important part of this Bill is to define what banking is and is not, and until that is decided, and the Rules are made, it cannot possibly set the Act in motion, and therefore, to give anyone in Parliament the power to delay those Rules is a very serious thing. The Board of Trade are given very wide powers in the Non-Ferrous Metal Industry Act—the same sort of powers as I contend they ought to be given in this Bill—and Clause 9 of that Act says:

"The metals and ores to which this Act applies are zinc, copper, tin, lead, nickel, aluminium, and any other non-ferrous metals and ores to which this Act may be applied by Order of the Board of Trade; the expression 'metal' shall not include metal which has been subjected to any manufacturing process except such as may be prescribed; and the expression 'ore' shall include concentrates, mattes, precipitates, and other intermediate products."

That is perfectly clear. There the Board of Trade have absolute power, within the scope of that Clause, to deal with the question of what are non-ferrous metals and what are not, and they are not tied at all. The restrictions imposed on them are comparatively small and do not deal with the main subject of the Non-Ferrous Metal Act at all, and I suggest that we ought to follow that precedent in this Bill and either give the Board of Trade and the Treasury a blank cheque to define what banking business is and is not, or else between now and the Report stage the Board of Trade and the Treasury ought to put down some general Rules on the subject which we can discuss on Report.

From the point of view of the Board of Trade, we should have no objection to allowing these words to be left out, but I really think, looking at the matter more from the point of view of this House as a whole, that it is a right that this House should have of seeing these Rules and being able to criticise them and to determine whether the definitions of banking and other similar allied businesses are such as can be approved. These are usual words, following the ordinary form, and are intended not to arrogate too much power to the administration but to allow time for criticism to be raised in either House of Parliament. I do not think there will be any delay such as the hon. Member apprehends, because after all the businesses with which we are to deal are German banks and their institution here during the five years after the War, so that we are legislating here for a time that is coming, we hope soon, but not so soon that at any rate these Rules will not appear and be considered without delaying what is the operation finally of the Act. I hope the hon. Member will leave the words as they stand.

We hear that doctrine of the right of the House to criticise these Rules preached, and it would be perfectly true in normal times. I quite appreciate the consideration for the House which has been shown by the right hon. Gentleman, and I think the words should remain in, but they are no good at present except to the House of Lords, and if we were going to be permanently under a régime of this kind, as far as we are concerned, it would be waste paper. However, before the five years are out it may be a valuable provision, and I think the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment mistook the opportunity he thought he saw in it for obstruction. The provision will give an opportunity to question a Minister, and I doubt if we want much more in this case. If any hon. Member does not like a definition he has got twenty days in which to act, to put a question to a Minister, to ask him for an interview, or even to speak on the Motion for the Adjournment.

I hope the words of the Clause will be allowed to remain as they are. I look with great suspicion at the increased powers which have been given to Government offices in so many directions. I think we ought to do all we can to maintain the supremacy of Parliament, for there is too great a tendency on the part of Departments to make rules and regulations without coming to this House.

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), after the word "annulled" ["rule may be annulled"], to insert the words "or amended."

I have further Amendments in the same Sub-section which are consequential coming after the words "annul" and "void." My point is that the Bill as it now stands gives the Government power, or the Board of Trade and the Treasury, in consultation have power, to define what a banking business is, and to make rules that are to be laid upon the Table of this House. Then the position seems to be that this House or the other House has to swallow those rules. Neither this House nor the other House under the Bill has the right to suggest an Amendment or to enforce an Amendment. If the rule defining what a banking business is laid before this House, there is no machinery under this Bill by which that rule may be amended and tightened up. It is true that the House could petition that it should be annulled, but there is no right to make any Amendment. If the Amendments which I have referred to are adopted, when the rules are laid before the House, Members of the House could point out in what respect these rules are deficient, and suggest Amendments which would have the effect of tightening them up.

This is really a small and technical point, and it really means that the rule is either accepted as a whole or else it is sent back, and a new rule is laid before the House. It is not as though it were a stage of the Bill which might be lost or altogether withdrawn, but it is a case where the amendment of the rule is effected by a new one being laid on the Table. I think, therefore, that it really makes no difference. After all, these matters are dealt with in consultation with the Minister, and in the event of any difficulty a new rule can be laid before the House, and precisely the same object attained as that which is sought to be achieved by the hon. Member in his Amendments. The only reason why I ask him not to press his Amendment is that this is the regular way in which a matter of this kind is brought forward; it is the common form and has always been found satisfactory and really not open to objection.

I always endeavour to agree with the hon. Baronet and am reluctant to do otherwise; but, with all due deference to him, I cannot agree that this is a small point. The point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Newman) was with the object of maintaining a certain amount of control in this House which, in itself, is no small thing. I do not think the machinery embodied in this Clause has been quite correctly described by my hon. Friend. While I do not want to press the point unduly I would ask my hon. Friend to consider if any harm would result from adopting these Amendments, which he describes as very small. If they are small and purely technical, then no harm can be done by leaving the House with a little bit of liberty and control over these matters.

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (4), to add the words

"and provided that the owners of any banking business, which the Board of Trade has ordered to be wound up after the termination of the present War, shall have the right of appeal to the High Court for consideration and report."

This is a war measure, if it is anything; yet it is to apply in times of peace. In ordinary times of peace no such power as that contained in the Bill would be given to any Department without appeal to the Courts of the country, where justice could be done. I do not say that justice is not done in this House; sometimes it is and sometimes it is not. When the War is over and when we are in times of peace you will schedule in your rule and close up certain businesses, and in doing that you may commit very grave injustices from insufficient knowledge of all the facts, and from want of sympathetic consideration of the facts, by shutting up businesses without reference to a Court of law. I can quite understand giving these powers to a Department in war time, but these are powers which are going to be exercised in peace time; therefore, I think, that any of His Majesty's subjects, whether naturalised or not or men who have been alien enemies, but who have ceased to be enemies and have become ordinary citizens, have the right, if they feel that a grave injustice is being done, a right which belongs to every civilian at the present moment, to appeal to the ordinary Courts of the country.

Perhaps the hon. Member will not wish to press this Amendment, because I am afraid we really cannot accept it. If the Board of Trade were to act in abuse of their powers under the Bill, then probably any firm or company whose business it was proposed to wind-up could apply to the Court to restrain the Board of Trade from so acting. Therefore, I am sure the Committee will agree that more than this is really not necessary under the present circumstances, and, as we think there is protection against really unjust treatment or misdirection, I hope my hon. Friend will not ask for any further protection.

It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that they would have this and that, but he knows very well that in a Court of law you cannot cite the speeches of right hon. and hon. Members on a Bill. My hon. Friend says a man would have power to go to the Court if there were an abuse of power. I do not think he could under this Act. He would have no remedy in the Courts; he is shut out. The power of the Courts to restrain the Board of Trade is a form of procedure of which, in a long experience, I have never heard. It is certainly very uncommon, and I do not think the President of the Board of Trade can point to a single case where the Courts have restrained the Board of Trade from exercising a complete power given in any Act. Therefore, I say, in justice and fairness to the people of the country, you ought to allow an appeal to a Court of justice who will look at the whole facts, and have the opportunity of bringing out facts which the Board of Trade have not had before them, or which having had before them they rejected, whereas a Court of law might think them very important and very pertinent to the point. Of course, in this small Committee, and with the enormous backing which the right hon. Gentleman has got, I do not wish to press this to a Division, but I would seriously ask him whether between now and the Report stage he cannot do something to increase the protection of innocent people in peace time—not war time; you can do what you like with them in war time.

I very much hope the Government will not accept this Amendment. Appeal to the Courts might mean more delay. The protection of the Rules, which have to be laid on the Table of the House, can be used by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire in defence of any people who think they are being unjustly treated. The people concerned are pretty litigious, and therefore do not let us give them this temptation of obtaining delay by appeal to the High Court.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "on the outbreak of war became," and to insert instead thereof the words "have become."

This Amendment is of some importance, and, I am sure, will meet with the approval of the Committee. It means that if any subject of any enemy State has become naturalised, and, through the action of this Government, becomes denaturalised, that ipso facto brings him, or the business with which he is connected, under the provisions of this Bill. I think it is desirable, in addition to dealing with those who are now subjects of enemy States, that we should also bring into the Bill those who were formerly subjects of present enemy States, and, having become naturalised in this country, through the operations of the Aliens Bill are denaturalised.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the next Amendment in my name on the Paper?

No.

I put this and the next two Amendments down as consequential upon the one which the right hon. Gentleman has accepted. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks they are not necessary, I will not move them.

I think they would really have the effect of weakening the Clause, and I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend does not want to do that.

Further Amendments made: In Subsection (2), after the word "may" ["may make an Order"], insert the words "and shall be deemed always to have had power to."

In Sub-section (4), after the word "Act" ["Section one of this Act"], insert the words "and the other provisions of this Act which relate to Orders made under Section one of the principal Act."—[Sir A. Stanley.]

I beg to move, after the word "company" ["members of the company"], to insert the words "not being enemy subjects."

I do not suppose that the assets will be distributed amongst other than British subjects. Certainly the Clause means that the enemy alien does not get his share of the distribution. I suppose there is some previous Clause, or some previous Clause in some other Act, dealing with this subject.

The object of this Clause is simply to regularise something which has already been done, and not something which takes place in the future. Therefore, the point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot arise.

I beg to move, at the end, to add the words,

"Nothing in this Act shall be construed as limiting the powers of His Majesty's Government by Proclamation to prohibit any transaction or business which is not prohibited by this Act, or to licence and permit any transaction or business which is so prohibited."

These words are taken from those giving power to the Board of Trade by the Trading With the Enemy (Amendment) Act, 1914. It seems to me you may well insert this proviso in this Act as well as in the other. The Board of Trade have certain powers which they can use, and which perhaps they ought to use, and as Parliament only a short while ago gave this Department similar powers in a similar Act I do not see why we should not extend those powers to this Act.

This Amendment has just reached me, and I have not had an opportunity of considering and seeing just exactly what it means. I would, therefore, suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend that he should agree to withdraw his Amendment. I will very carefully consider it, and see whether the words can be introduced, if necessary, at a later stage of the Bill.

The Government in this matter, I think, ought to have proceeded under the Defence of the Realm Act or by Orders under that Act. These powers have already been inserted in Acts, and the present proceeding is as much as to say that the Government have been wasting time all along in bringing in these trading with the enemy Bills. As they claim the right to interfere with the liberty of the subject under the Defence of the Realm Act they need not have been so squeamish in dealing with enemy subjects. They ought to have dealt with enemy rights, and enemy rights of property all along, either by Proclamation or the Defence of the Realm Act. This is quite unnecessary.

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

I move this Clause to give the power suggested to the Board of Trade or the Advisory Committee appointed by the Board. The Advisory Committee in the past has had considerable difficulty in determining whether a business falls under the description of a business contained in the Act of 1916, which the Board of Trade is empowered to wind up. At present they have no power to summon any witnesses, or to call for documents. That has hampered them very much in finding out the real character of the businesses submitted to them for consideration. I am informed by those who have practical experience of this Advisory Committee that it would be a very great help if they had powers of this sort. As my right hon. Friend will see, in order to exercise this power of summoning witnesses, they have to go to the Court and say, We want this witness or that document, and, of course, the Court would not summon that witness or order such and such a document unless it was shown to be necessary. Therefore, the interests of anyone affected would not be prejudiced in any way because the Court would have to make an Order.

I accept this new Clause.

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

Its object is to secure that where Germans were carrying on business at the commencement of the War, and in order to evade the operation of the Act of 1916, or for any other purpose, transferred their business to some other persons to hold it in trust for them to ensure, that operation should not be successful. I think this Clause carries out that object and will prevent the operation of what has been merely fraudulent transference of businesses for the purposes of evading the operation of the Act.

I think this Clause will serve a very useful purpose, and I propose to accept it.

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

This proposal appears to me to be necessary on account of the adherent weakness of Clause 1 of the principal Act. As I read Clause 1, the Board of Trade can only make an Order where a business is carried on wholly or mainly for the benefit of or under the control of enemy subjects, and that means that the enemy interest or control must be over 50 per cent. If the enemy interest is only 49 per cent., then the Board of Trade have not power to make an Order under Clause 1, and it is in order to strengthen that power under Clause 1 that I make this proposal.

I greatly appreciate the suggestion made by the hon. Member who moved this Clause that additional power should be given to the Board of Trade, but I respectfully suggest to him that the powers which we now have under the principal Act are quite adequate to meet all the cases in which we desire to take action except those which are provided for in this new Bill. Take the particular instance mentioned by the hon. Member about concerns having 49 per cent. of their capital controlled by aliens and 51 per cent. by British subjects. The mere financial control in itself is not the determining factor, and there are other considerations which are taken into account in determining whether the business should be wound up or whether the interests owned by the enemy should be vested with the Public Trustee. There are instances where the enemy interest is considerably less, where we have taken power to vest that interest in the Public Trustee, and we may go further and wind up the business. How the business was conducted before the War is also a very important factor in deciding what course should be taken. While I am grateful to the hon. Member for his suggestion, I suggest that we have all the power that is necessary under the circumstances.

Do those remarks apply to all enemy controlled corporations also?

Yes.

Then I understand there is ample power to deal with enemy controlled corporations, and that it is not necessary to give the Board of Trade extended powers?

Extended powers is a very wide term, but the determining words are "to any substantial extent." The Regulations in force up to the present have proved satisfactory in meeting all the cases which arise, and to alter the words now and substitute something else would require further definition. I trust the hon. Member will accept my assurance that the principal Act will meet all the cases.

I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.

I beg to move, in paragraph (b), after the word "where," to insert the words "it appears to the Board of Trade that."

I understand that the Board of Trade do not offer any objection to this and to the following Amendment which really give a slightly added power to the Board.

I think that this is a very unfortunate time to pass this Bill, just when we are trying to arrange for the liberation of our prisoners of war who have suffered so many years of imprisonment and hardship in Germany. There is no doubt that it will affect what they will say in Berlin when they are considering the ratification of the terms which have been agreed between the representatives at The Hague. This Bill can do no good. It divides itself into two parts. It tries to hasten the liquidation of certain foreign banks, and, if liquidation does not give satisfaction, it provides for dissolution—immediate dissolution, whatever that may involve. There are three principal German banks in Great Britain—the Deutsche Bank, the Dresdner Bank, and the Discontogesellschaft. These banks transact nine-tenths of the German business in this country, but they are all branches, and you cannot dissolve them. You cannot dissolve a company which is-not incorporated in this country. What can you do? You can seize their property and close them up, but that you have done long ago. You have got all the assets. Here is a list of 5,000 which have been in the hands of the Public Trustee since 1916. The only effect that this Bill can possibly have will be to force realisation and to waste the assets. You will have a series of companies picking up these securities from the Public Trustee at a cheap rate and holding them until the markets are better and commercial relations are resumed with foreign countries. It takes many years to wind up any bank in this country, and when you come to consider that the bulk of these assets are in Germany, Austria, or Turkey, and, in fact, spread over the world, you will see that you are not hastening the realisation by one single day.

Our forefathers a century and a half ago were not content with hanging a man, but the judge solemnly ordered that he was to be drawn and quartered. I never could understand that, because if you hanged a man I thought you had finished with him, and that the poor thing could not suffer any more indignity by hacking away at his body or dancing on him. Now I understand what it was. The feelings of the community had been lacerated, and nothing would satisfy them but this piece of stupid vengeance. That is precisely the case here. It would occur to any sensible man in cold blood that if you had got all the assets and had shut up the premises you did not want to go any further. Not at all; you want to dance on them and to dissolve them. In that sense, perhaps, the Bill is necessary. A great deal of excited and lacerated feeling has been shown by several Members of this House, and a great many of the public have been worked up to this angry feeling of vindictiveness by the Press. I suppose we must consider these people and do something to assuage this unfortunate state of mind into which they have got. If this Bill would do that, I would not offer it any opposition. With regard to the five years after the War during which you are not going to allow any banking transactions whatever with Germany by any banking agent in this country, well, that again, may satisfy certain anxieties and indignation, but it will do no good. You cannot by this Bill anticipate or provide for the terms of peace which will be ultimately arranged. If the terms of peace include an economic boycott of Germany, Austria, and Turkey the Bill will be all right, but if there is no economic boycott, then it will be useless. Why put the Bill on the Statute Book at all? Why not wait? If the feelings of the Allies are sufficiently strong at the end of this War to desire and to promulgate an economic boycott, all I can say is that that will be no peace at all. An economic boycott carried on for five or ten years can only mean war, for you cannot have nations boycotting nations in the transactions of their inhabitants without keeping at boiling point the desire for war. It will then naturally be waiting the opportunity to carry the economic war into military war. That must be so, and why should we have gone out of our way to say that for five years, or such time as Parliament may decide, we shall have no bank or any house conducting anything approaching a banking business? Why they stop at banking business I do not know, because if you have other businesses you must have banking businesses. If you have dealing in commodities you can only carry it on through banks. Why should you go out of your way to say we feel so angry now that, no matter what be the terms of peace, we will have five years of immunity, and will not have any connection with those foreign countries with whom we are at war now, but with whom we will be at peace when peace comes? So far as the five years are concerned, I and my hon. Friend look upon them in the same way. Both parts of the Bill are soothing and softening down a number of hon. Members who have been greatly excited, who wish to close everything and to shut out everything, and, now that they have got this Bill and those feelings are allayed, may I suggest to some of them—and some of them are big, hefty fellows—that they might go to the front and have a real shot at the Germans and not worry them in this silly way. Let them go and shoot a few of the enemy and then they will come back perfectly happy. As to this Bill, I offer no objection, but it is not worth a snap of the fingers.

I should like to be allowed to say one or two words to thank my right hon. Friend for the Amendment he introduced to satisfy the wishes that some of us expressed earlier in the day. I am extremely glad the original limitation has disappeared, and that these banking businesses will not be re-established in this country until Parliament definitely takes the matter into consideration. That is a very great improvement to the Bill, and, unlike my hon. Friend who has just sat down, I think the Bill will have considerable value. My hon. Friend made nearly the same speech as on the Second Reading, with one exception. I do not intend to make the same speech as I made in reply to his on that occasion, but he did not remind us, as he told us then— which, I think, is a significant circumstance—of those German bank shares still reposing in his bank safe on behalf of clients of his.

Why not? Would not you like to have some?

No, I do not want any of them, thank you. I have not the slightest doubt his anxiety to get rid of them is very genuine, but I do not think he will dispose of them to me. All I want to say with regard to his speech—and I have no doubt he represents a certain measure of opinion in this House and in the country—is that there are a certain number of people who live in an atmosphere of assets and profits and can never get beyond that.

Do not the gas people who had your support make profits and dividends?

Certainly. I am not objecting to profits; only I say there are occasions when you should think of something else, and I only complain about my hon. Friend on a Bill of this sort when principles are involved which appeal to the dominant sentiment of the country—and, I think, a very justifiable sentiment—that these ideas are absolutely out of place. I do not complain of that speech he made for the second time, and I am thankful he has had a very small measure of support from this House. I am glad this Bill is going to become law, and I renew my thanks to the President of the Board of Trade for the way he has improved one particular point.