§ 64. Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the President of the Board of Trade whether 966 it is the case that the proprietrix of the capital of the banking house of Horstman and Company, permission to continue which was given by the Secretary of State in December, 1914, is the Baroness Deichmann, whose son is in the Germany Army and whose daughters, the holders of the loan capital of the bank, are married to two German military officers, one of whom, the Count Karl von Bismarck, is reported to be Governor of Poland; and whether, in these circumstances, special permission will be given for the continuance of a business carried on in the interest of enemy aliens.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman)The owner of the capital of this business is the Baroness von Deichman. She is a British subject of British birth, the widow of a German who became naturalised in this country. Two of her daughters are married to Germans, and I do not question the hon. Member's statements as to the son and sons-in-law, though I have no specific information on the subject. At the time when the Secretary of State gave permission under the Aliens Restriction Order, 1914, for the carrying on of the business there was a German partner connected with the undertaking, but this partnership was dissolved as from 1st January, 1915, and since that date no permission has been necessary for the continuance of the business.
§ Sir H. CRAIKIs it not the case that this business is conducted entirely in the interests of this lady and her family, whose feelings and interests rest entirely with the enemy?
§ Mr. PRETYMANI do not know what the feelings of the lady may be—I have no means of knowing that—but I agree generally with what the hon. Member says. The business has been carried on by people who do appear to have very strong enemy interests. Unfortunately, as they are naturalised British subjects, they have the rights of British subjects.
§ Sir H. CRAIKHas not the Board of Trade power to withdraw this licence?
§ Mr. PRETYMANThe Board of Trade have given no licence whatever to carry on the business.
§ Sir CHARLES HENRYWill the hon. Gentleman state that the fact that the business is carried on by German-born subjects does not imply enemy association?
§ Mr. PRETYMANNo, Sir. We went most carefully into this ease, and under the present law there is no power to deal with it.
§ Major HUNTWill the hon. Gentleman alter the law?
§ Mr. PRETYMANThat is a question for the Prime Minister.
§ Sir H. CRAIKIs it not the case that the Secretary of State, as stated by the hon. Gentleman himself, did give a licence in December, 1914, and could not that licence now be withdrawn in view of the facts?
§ Mr. PRETYMANIf the hon. Gentleman had listened to my answer he would have seen that I carefully answered that part of the question. That licence was given in December, 1914. It was only required because there was then a German partner. In January, 1915, that partnership was dissolved and there is no longer any German partner in the bank, therefore no licence is required for carrying on the business.
§ Sir H. CRAIKIs it not perfectly clear, whether there is a German partner or not, that the whole interest in this business is carried on for the enemy and for those who are fighting in the enemy army?
§ Mr. PRETYMANNo, it is not right to say that.
§ Sir H. CRAIKYes, it is. The case is perfectly clear.
§ Mr. G. FABERWho is the owner of the business?
§ Mr. PRETYMANI have answered that. It is the Baroness Deichmann and her daughters who have the interest in this bank. Baroness Deichmann is British-born and is married to a naturalised German and her two daughters are married to Germans.
§ Sir H. CRAIKThey are married to officers in the German Army, and her son is now serving in the German Army. That is what you have overlooked.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member stated that in his question; he need not repeat it.