regards aliens who are now our enemies, it may be that the British Empire may adopt the policy that a special stigma ought to be attached to the German, and that neither as an individual nor as a firm, nor as a corporation, ought he, for a time at any rate, to be admitted to commercial fellowship or to any fellowship with the civilised nations of the world.”  It need not be said that any attempt to apply this stigma in practice would be extremely difficult to carry out, would involve all kinds of difficulties and complications in trade and in finance, and that the threat of it is more likely than anything else to stiffen the resistance of the Germans and to force them to rely on their militarist leaders as their only hope of salvation.  However, the Committee points out that recent legislation shows a desire to ascertain and record the extent to which aliens are active in commerce here, and thinks it necessary to make provision to meet the requirements of the Government in case our rulers should decide to impose the restrictions which its own common-sense shows it are so undesirable.

If, it says, foreign capital is to be attracted here, it must be represented either by shares or by debentures.  “The question, therefore, is whether restrictions ought to be imposed upon the extent to which the control of the company shall be allowed to reside in aliens, either by reason of their holding a majority of the shares, or of the debentures, or by reason of their obtaining a majority upon the Board of Directors; and, if so, how disclosure of their alien character is to be enforced.”  It goes on to point out the great difficulties which present themselves in the way of securing disclosure of nationality and ensuring that aliens shall not command the control.  “The law of trusts,” it says, “is firmly established in this country.  If A, be the registered holder of a share, he is not necessarily the beneficial owner.  He may be a trustee for B. To enact that the registered holder must be a British subject effects nothing, for B. may be an alien and an enemy.  Suppose, however, that you enact that A., when his share is allotted or transferred to him, shall make a declaration that he holds in his own right, or that he holds in trust for B., and that both A. and B. are British subjects.  There is nothing to prevent the creation of a new trust the next day, under which C., an alien enemy, will be the person beneficially entitled.  Further, at the earlier date (the date of allotment or transfer) the facts may be that A. (a British subject) is trustee for B. (a British subject), but that B. (unknown to A.) is a trustee for C., an alien enemy.  The fact that B. is trustee for C. would be purposely withheld from A., and A.’s declaration that he was simply trustee for B. would be perfectly true.  To require that A. should make a declaration at short intervals (say once a month), or that A., B., C., and so on, should all make declarations would be, of course, so