§ 62. Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the restaurant of Josef Lauer, at 20, Ganton Street, Regent Street, W., a naturalised German, is the daily meeting place for at least forty enemy aliens of military age, and that German is exclusively spoken there; whether an order for the internment of Lauer has been issued, and through some influence been withdrawn; whether Lauer is the father-in-law of Paul Stulik, of Percy Street, who has lately been interned; and whether any influence has been exerted against the internment of Lauer and in favour of the release of Stulik?
Mr. SAMUELAn order for the internment of Lauer, who is, as stated, the father-in-law of Stulik, was made by me under the Defence, of the Realm Regulations on 27th October. Its enforcement has been suspended at the request of the Advisory Committee until the representations against the order which Lauer has made to the Committee have been heard and decided upon. His restaurant has been frequently visited by the police, who have been unable to find any evidence that it is, as stated by the hon. Member, a daily meeting place for alien enemies or that only German is spoken there, although a number of foreigners of various nationalities frequent the restaurant. A notice is exhibited requesting that only English be spoken. No representations have been made to me against the internment of Lauer or in favour of the release of Stulik, and I would strongly deprecate the suggestion in the question that outside influence plays a part in deciding cases such as these. Both the police and the Home Office, as well as the Advisory Committee, consider evidence as to character both for and against persons of enemy origin, but the decision is reached solely on the facts of the case.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSDoes the right hon. Gentleman say that he has had no reports from the police with regard to this particular restaurant?
§ 64. Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether the wife of Paul Stulik, an interned Austrian, whom he decribes as a British-born woman, is in reality the daughter of a German whom he himself interned last week; and how is it that this German woman, married to an Austrian interned husband, is allowed to carry on a licensed house in London?
Mr. SAMUELThe father of Mrs. Stulik is a naturalised British subject of German origin against whom an internment order has been made under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and the case is now under consideration by the Advisory Committee. Mrs. Stulik herself was born in England, and is a British subject, and must, therefore, be described as a British-born woman. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to him of 31st October.
§ 65. Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Home Secretary on what authority he states that Reichenfeldt's restaurant is frequented by French and Serbians; whether he is aware that the bill of fare is printed in German, and German and Hungarian languages are solely used; whether he is aware that this restaurant has taken over most of the customers from. Voight's hotel, which he closed some months ago; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
Mr. SAMUELMy information is based on inquiries made by the police. The police obtained a number of menu cards all of which were printed in English. If the hon. Member is in possession of reliable information which supports the allegations made in his question I will be glad if he will communicate it to me in order that I may further consider the case.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI will.
§ 66. Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Max Zeller, who, according to his information, gave up business in April, 1915, is still carrying on business in Charlotte Street; that his name is still over the door; that he constantly visits a German restaurant at 35, Charlotte Street, and there complains bitterly, in violent German, that the Home Secretary's new 391 Order for closing shops is ruining his business; and whether he will consider the desirability of interning him?
Mr. SAMUELThe inquiries I have caused to be made show that the business referred to is now being carried on by Max Zeller's son, who is a British-born subject and is about to be called up for military service, that the name Max Zeller is not, as stated by the hon. Member, exhibited over the door, and that Max Zeller himself is at present in hospital, having undergone an operation. The inquiries do not bear out the statements made in the last part of the hon. Member's question, and I shall be glad if he will submit to me the evidence on which they are based.
§ 67. Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Home Secretary whether he has further considered the case of Joseph Kraft, the German tailor of Bond Street; whether he is aware that, when he first came to this country thirteen years ago, he was a prominent member of a German Socialist Society at 107, Charlotte Street; whether he is still of military age, and boasts of his influential customers who would prevent him being interned; whether he still is definitely pro-German; and, if so, why he is not interned?
Mr. SAMUELThis case is now under my consideration in consultation with the Board of Trade. Kraft who, as I have already stated, is a Hungarian and not a German, came to this country nineteen years ago when seventeen years of age. The inquiries I have been able to make so far do not bear out the allegations made against him by the hon. Member, but I am investigating further the information he has been good enough to send me.
§ Mr. PRINGLEHas he not been in this country nearly as long as the Judge Advocate-General?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI deprecate these personal allusions to Members, present or past.
§ Mr. PRINGLEOn a question of general policy, is it not fair to refer to the case of an enemy-born subject apart from the individual menti6ned in the question?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member's question is not designed to obtain information, but to cast a slur.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI will put a question on the Paper.
§ 108. Mr. BOOTHasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what is the present position of the firm of Messrs. Kirchner and Company, of Leipsig and London; whether any Germans, naturalised or otherwise, are identified with the present management or conduct of the business; whether an examination is being made into the history of this firm; will he ascertain whether any German machines sold in London by this firm were disposed of to the Colonies; and, if so, how were they described upon the declaration forms?
§ Mr. PRETYMANAn Order was made on the 10th July requiring the business of Kirchner and Company to be wound up, and the liquidation is under the sole control of Mr. James Fraser, the controller appointed to conduct the winding-up. I have no information as to the ultimate destination of the machines sold by the firm in London
§ Sir E. CARSONMay I ask my hon. Friend whether these controllers send in any interim reports?
§ Mr. PRETYMANI have already answered questions on this point. We are in constant touch with the controllers, and obtain information from them as required.
§ Sir E. CARSONAre those reports in writing?
§ Mr. PRETYMANSometimes, if necessary.
§ Sir E. CARSONCan we see them?
§ Mr. BOOTHWill the hon. Gentleman answer my question whether an examination is being made into the history of this firm in view of the fact that the Board of Trade, in August, 1914, had a strong complaint of an ex-employé of the firm that the firm brought machines over here, painted them as British, and sold them as British, and deceived the Colonies?
§ Mr. PRETYMANI think the hon. Gentleman is aware that all these cases are considered by an Advisory Committee consisting partly of hon. Members of this House, who go into the merits of the cases without any prejudice and hear evidence on both sides and advise the Board as to whether action should be taken on the evidence then before them and on which the Board act.
§ Mr. BOOTHWhen there is an exceptional opportunity of getting at the facts as in this case when you have access to the books and evidence you could not get before, why not do so?
§ Mr. PRETYMANThe facts and all evidence are laid before the Committee. If any further evidence, as has happened in certain cases, comes before the Board and it appears certain facts have not transpired in the case I send it back to the Committee for further consideration, so that it may be judicially considered by the Committee without any passion or prejudice.
§ 111. Mr. BUTCHERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the firm of Ettlinger and Company, metal brokers, who carry on business in London, and until lately carried on business in India; whether this firm had before the War close business relations with, and largely financed, the German firm of Schroeder, Schmidt, and Company, of Bombay, who shipped large amounts of manganese ore from India to Germany; whether this firm had also before the War close financial relations with the German firm of Beer, Sondheimer, and Company, of Frankfort, who largely controlled the trade in zinc concentrates from Australia; whether he is aware that the Indian Government in June, 1915, closed down the business of Schroeder, Schmidt, and Company, and in July or August, 1916, closed down the business of Ettlinger and Company in India as being a business carried on in enemy interests; and whether the Board will take the necessary steps to close down the business of Ettlinger and Company in London in the same way as the Indian Government closed down the business of that firm in India?
§ Mr. PRETYMANI am aware of the facts stated in the hon. Gentleman's question, but the partners in the firm of Ettlinger and Company are naturalised British subjects, and the business is not within Section 1 of the Trading With the Enemy Amendment Act, 1916.
§ Mr. BUTCHERIs it not possible for the Board of Trade in this country to shut down this firm in the same way as the Indian Government shut it down in India?
§ Mr. PRETYMANI have looked into this question, and I am afraid that legally we have not the power.
§ Mr. BUTCHERWill the hon. Gentleman bring legislation before this House similar to the Indian legislation, so as to enable us to deal with such cases?
§ 114. Mr. G. TERRELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will furnish particulars of all sales which the Board of Trade or the Public Trustee have effected of enemy-owned shares in British companies?
§ Mr. PRETYMANI will lay on the Table of the House a list of the enemy-owned shares in British companies which have been sold.
§ Mr. TERRELLWill the hon. Gentleman have a copy circulated with the Papers? It would be a convenience to Members.
§ 115. Mr. G. TERRELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the declared policy of his Department, in the sale of enemy interests in British companies, to see that the shares do not get into the hands of other manufacturers with the effect of stopping competition?
§ Mr. PRETYMANYes, in cases where such action is in the public interest.
§ 116. Mr. G. TERRELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, approximately, 96 per cent. of the share capital of the Union Cable Company, Limited, is owned by the Deutsche- Kabelwerke Company, of Berlin; whether this company is still continuing to carry on its private trade in competition with British firms under the direction of its pre-War manager; whether the contracts which the company obtained last February from the corporation of Coventry resulted in a profit or loss to the company; whether the company is making any contribution to the revenue of the country either by way of Income Tax or Excess Profits Tax; and whether any attempt is being made to sell its enemy-owned shares either by private treaty or public auction?
§ Mr. PRETYMANThe share capital of the Union Cable Company, Limited, was held as stated in the hon. Gentleman's question, but the Public Trustee has now negotiated a sale of the shares to British subjects. The tenders made by the company to the Corporation of Coventry were investigated by the supervisor of the business last March, and he reported to the effect that the tenders were at a price 395 which showed a fair trading profit. The company is subject to the same provisions with regard to Income Tax and Excess Profits Tax as any other company carrying on business in this country.
§ Mr. TERRELLHas the company made any contribution towards Income Tax and Excess Profits Tax?
§ Mr. PRETYMANHow can I tell that?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat question should apparently be put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ Mr. TERRELLOn a point of Order—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThere is no doubt about it. The Board of Trade cannot know the answer to that question.
§ Mr. TERRELLIf the management of this company is in the hands of the Board of Trade, surely they must know.
§ Mr. SPEAKERHow is it possible without notice that the Minister responsible can answer a question of that kind? It is perfectly impossible. If the hon. Member attaches any importance to his question at all, the least that he can do is to give notice of it.
§ Mr. TERRELLIt is on the Notice Paper. It is the question I addressed to the hon. Gentleman. May I press the hon. Gentleman for an answer to the question?
§ Mr. PRINGLEOn a point of Order. Is an hon. Member to have no redress if a question is deliberately evaded by a Department?
§ Mr. PRETYMANThe question asked me was whether they were liable, and I distinctly answered by saying that they were liable.
§ Mr. TERRELLDoes the company make any contribution?
§ Mr. PRETYMANI said, "Yes, they were liable."
§ Mr. TERRELLWhat I ask is, whether there is any contribution, whether they pay anything?
§ Mr. PRETYMANThey are under the same liability as anybody else.
§ Mr. TERRELLMay I read the question. Whether the company is making any contribution to the revenue of the country, either by way of Income Tax or Excess Profits Tax?
§ Mr. PRETYMANI say that they are liable, and they are under the same rules as other people. I have not the exact amount they have paid, if they have paid anything. I will inquire if the hon. Gentleman will give me notice.
§ Mr. W. THORNEPut it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer!
§ 118. Captain BARNETTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the firm of A. W. Faber, London, had its head office in Berlin and factories at Stein, near Nuremberg, Geroldsgrün (Bavaria), and Newark (New Jersey, United States of America); will he say if such firm has been ordered to be wound up as an enemy firm; if so, on what date and who is in control of the liquidation, whether he is aware that the late manager of the said firm is offering for sale in the City of London the A. W. Faber specialities at the old prices and under the same trade mark, Cast ell, which is the family name of the Count and Countess von Faber-Castell, the German proprietors of the firm of A. W. Faber; and. if so, whether he will take steps to put an end to this evasion of the Trading With the Enemy Acts?
§ Mr. PRETYMANThe business of A. W. Faber carried on in this country was ordered to be wound up on the 24th February, and Mr. S. J. Field was appointed controller. The late manager is now carrying on business on his own account, and has sold rubber bands under the Castell mark which are manufactured in the United States. I am considering what further action, if any, should be taken.
117. Mr. S. BENNasked the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the stock of the British Petroleum Company was owned by Germans; if it is now vested in the Public Trustee; and why he has not the power to sell if he can obtain a reasonable price?
§ Mr. PRETYMANThe whole of the capital of the British Petroleum Company, Limited, was held by or on behalf of a German company, and is now vested in the Public Trustee. Russian, French, and Belgian interests claim to be entitled to 49½ per cent. of the capital of the German company. The question of how best to deal with the shares in the national interest is under consideration, and pending the result of that consideration I am not prepared to authorise a sale.
§ Sir E. CARSONIs it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman or of the Government in such cases as those mentioned in the question, where all the shares were owned by Germans, to prevent them using the name, British Petroleum Company?
§ Mr. PRETYMANYes; I think it is very probable that the name will be changed.
§ Mr. HUNTWill my hon. Friend see that the Belgians and French get their fair share? Is he aware that the Belgians complain very much that they are not well treated by the British Government? And I think it is probably true.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI can answer that without notice. Particular care has been and is being taken to watch their interests; and in answer further to my right hon. Friend's question, I do not think he will object to the name "British" remaining if the company becomes British by purchase.
§ Sir E. CARSONNo. My objection is to calling a thing "British" which is German.