§ 25. Mr. WATTasked the Home Secretary whether it is the policy of his Department to allow all naturalised Germans who have been ordered out of certain areas by the military and police because of their well-known pro-German leanings, conversation, and actions to take refuge in London, in the same way as is permitted to E. A. Meyer, ordered out of Westcliff-on-Sea by the police and military, who is now employed by Schiff and Company, Austrian stockbrokers in Throgmorton Street, and who daily goes in and out about his business there, getting all information from London city conversation; and, if not, will he say what he proposes to do in such cases?
§ Mr. BRACEI would refer the hon. Member to the answers given him by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the 24th April and 1st, 13th and 15th May which dealt fully with this matter.
§ Mr. WATTWould the right hon. Gentleman say why the Home Office have not taken the view of the Chief Constable, who takes a very serious view of the conduct of this man?
§ Sir E. CARSONWhy is it that a man who is driven out as being undesirable in one place is allowed to go to the very centre of the City?
§ Mr. BILLINGWill the Home Office give an undertaking not to give him Government employment?
§ 36. Sir J. BUTCHERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that businesses which at the commencement of the War were carried on by naturalised Germans in close association with German subjects or German companies, and were wholly or mainly under the control of German subjects, cannot be wound up under the Trading With the Eenemy (Amendment) Act, 1916; and whether, having regard to the recommendations of the Advisory Committee of the Board of Trade, he will at once introduce legislation to amend that Act, so as to enable such businesses to be wound up?
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Albert Stanley)I presume that the hon. and learned Member refers to cases where the outbreak of war had the effect of dissolving a partnership existing between partners in this country who are naturalised British subjects and partners in Germany. These cases have generally been dealt with by vesting the enemy interest in the custodian, in order that it may be realised by him. I am looking into the matter, with a view of deciding whether it is necessary to take further powers in such cases. I shall be glad to confer with the hon. and learned Member on the matter.
§ Sir E. CARSONWould me right hon. Gentleman also look into the case where the only remaining partner is a naturalised German, who seems to carry on the business as if it were an English one?
§ Sir A. STANLEYWe shall take that very wide view in making an investigation.
§ Sir J. BUTCHERHas the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that the Committee in their Report referred to Ettlinger and Company, and 1217 recommended that further legislation should be passed in order to enable the Committee to deal with this case and cases of a similar character?
§ Sir A. STANLEYYes; my attention has been called to that particular recommendation in the Committee's Report, and I think answers have been given in the House bearing upon it.
§ Mr. WATTWill the right hon. Gentleman avoid consulting the Home Office if he wants to get any results?
§ Sir J. BUTCHERDo I understand legislation will be introduced to give effect to the unanimous recommendations of the Committee?
§ Sir A. STANLEYMay I be excused from giving a definite answer without consulting my right hon. Friend?
Colonel LOWTHERWill the right hon. Gentleman give the House an early opportunity of discussing this question?