Lords Sitting of 7 November 1918

GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.
Read 2a.
PORTSEA ISLAND GAS BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
PARLIAMENT (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
TITHE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

LICENSED STOCKBROKERS (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I will explain in a few words the object of this Bill. It appears that stockbrokers in Ireland charge commissions which were laid down by Statute in the year 1799. This rate of commission is now obsolete. All other stockbrokers in this country and elsewhere are allowed to charge higher rates. This Bill proposes that the licensing of stockbrokers shall be carried out by the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland. These licensees will be required to give securities for their good conduct and the proper management of their business, and the Bill also provides that the sum of two shillings and sixpence per centum should be the maximum commission chargeable by a licensed broker on his dealings, with a penalty if excessive charges are imposed. As I say, in England stockbrokers are liable to no such limitations as exist in Ireland, and representations have been made to the Irish Government, which considers them just, that the antiquated Statute of 1799 should be amended. The request seems reasonable, and I submit to your Lordships that the Irish stockbrokers should be placed in a
1106
position equivalent to that occupied by stockbrokers in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BURGHS GAS SUPPLY (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

ALIENS AND NATURALISATION.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the Questions standing in my name—viz.:

1. If a licence under the Non-ferrous Metals Act has been granted to the firm of A. Strauss and Company, of which one partner is a Hessian naturalised in 1884, and the other, described as a Swiss, was naturalised in 1912.

2. (a) Whether the partners in the firm of Benjamin Bros., of Bermondsey, are Ludwig Benjamin, naturalised as Louis Benjamin, in December, 1914, and Albert Benjamin, a registered enemy alien. (b) Whether Albert Benjamin has been interned this year, and since released. (c) Whether a largely signed petition for the winding-up of this German firm was presented in 1916 without result. (d) Who were the sponsors of Ludwig Benjamin when he was naturalised four months after the outbreak of war.

LORD SOMERLEYTON: My Lords, in answer to the first Question I may say that a licence under the Non-ferrous Metal Act, 1918, has been issued to A. Strauss and Company. The senior partner in the firm, which is of high standing and in a large way of business, dealing more particularly in tin and copper, is Mr. A. Strauss, born in Hesse and naturalised in 1884. Mr.Strauss was M.P. for the Camborne Division 1895–1900, and has been M.P. for North Paddington since 1910. His partner, Mr. H. Hilty, was naturalised on May 24, 1912. He was born in Switzerland. The company, which was established in 1874, have tin smelting works in Cornwall and Lancashire (Bootle).

1107
There is nothing to suggest that they had any close relations with any of the important metal organisations in enemy countries. Two sons of Mr. Strauss have served in the British Army, and one has been killed. The Non-ferrous Metal Act Committee, in their report to the Board of Trade, drew attention to the date of Mr. Strauss's naturalisation and to the facts just mentioned.
I now come to the noble Lord's second Question. Part of this Question comes within the province of the Home Office; but by request of my noble friend who usually answers here for that Department, I will endeavour to reply to the whole. The reply to (a) is that at the date of inspection of the business in April, 1916, the partners were reported to be Louis Benjamin, born in Hanover, who was naturalised as a British subject in December, 1914, and Albert Benjamin, born in Hanover, registered as an alien enemy, but who claims to be a British subject on the ground that he was born at the British Legation at Hanover in September, 1863, his father—born in February, 1795—being a natural-born subject of George III. In February, 1917, an agreement was entered into by the partners under which Albert Benjamin purported to retire from the business, but he was to be employed as an assistant of Louis Benjamin.
With regard to the point as to the winding-up of this concern, a petition, largely signed by members of the hide and leather trades, urging the winding-up of the business was forwarded to the Board of Trade in August, 1916. The case had previously been referred to the Board's Advisory Committee, who reported that jurisdiction under Section 1 of the Trading with the Enemy Amendment Act, 1916, would not arise unless the nationality of Albert Benjamin were determined to be enemy subject. Steps had been taken to apply to the Court for a declaration of nationality, but the application has not been proceeded with owing, it is stated, to the present impossibility of obtaining evidence from Germany. The interests of the two brothers in the partnership business appeared, however, to be equal, so that, if Albert Benjamin had been regarded as clearly an enemy subject, it could not be said that the business came within the scope of the provisions of the Act of 1916 so as to enable a Winding-up Order to be made.
Albert Benjamin was exempted from
1108
internment on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee in 1915. In accordance with the decision announced by the Home Secretary in the House of Commons on July 11 last, that all exemptions from internment or repatriation were to be carefully reviewed and drastically revised, his case was referred to the Advisory Committee for reconsideration, and in accordance with their recommendation he was interned in September last, and is still interned, and there is no intention of releasing him.
It is not the practice, I may say in reply to the last Question, to disclose the names of the referees who vouch for the loyalty and respectability of an applicant for naturalisation. In accordance with Section 3 of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1918 (which received the Royal Assent on August 8 last) which provides that where a certificate of naturalisation has been granted during the present war to a person who at, or at any time before, the grant of the certificate was the subject of a country which at the date of the grant was at war with His Majesty, the Secretary of State shall refer the question whether it is desirable that the certificate should be revoked for enquiry by the Committee appointed in accordance with the provisions of Section 1 of the Act. Before naturalisation Ludwig or Louis Benjamin was a subject of Germany. This Committee, which is known as the Certificate of Naturalisation Revocation Committee (under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Atkin) is now engaged in reviewing certificates of naturalisation in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and the case of Louis Benjamin has been referred to the Committee, and is now under consideration by them. As the case is thus sub judice, it would not be right to make any further statement in the matter.
LORD SYDENHAM: I beg to thank the noble Lord for his complete answer. As regards the referees, I think he is aware that their names have been published in the Press, but I agree with him that it is much better that they should not be disturbed.

EMPLOYMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether arrangements cannot be made to facilitate the employment of prisoners of War; and to call attention

1109
to some of the difficulties that are now put in the way of those desirous of employing them.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, owing to the rapid march of events since I put this Question on the Paper, its subject-matter is perhaps going to disappear very soon, and it might hardly have been worth while asking it. But since I put it on the Paper I have received a letter from another noble Lord which shows that I am not quite alone in my experience. He says—
"I have experienced considerable difficulty. This time I applied for prisoners of war to cut cord wood and clean up after timber felling as soon as they could be spared from harvest. I asked for six and got three, but after a few days they were taken away, and I am still without any. It is impossible to employ prisoners of war if they are to be taken away at any moment, and if one is only to get a few days work at any time."
That was my personal experience too. I was told that I could have prisoners of war by applying for them. Sure enough, without any difficulty, six prisoners and an escort were provided. I procured several extra tools to enable them to do the work, and they worked for one week. After that they disappeared, and I have never been able to get them again, nor have I been able to obtain any real explanation why I could not get them. I was ultimately advised to write to the Colonel of the district, and he merely said that they were not available. As a matter of fact, I fancy that in West Sussex—the county of which I am speaking—there were a good many German prisoners of war, but I do not know whether they were all employed or not. So much for my own experience.
I also have had experience of another matter where it seems to me that prisoners of war might have been employed if it had been possible to find out how to get them, and to get over the serious difficulties that there seem to be in having your applications considered by anybody responsible who can give you a reason why you can have them or why you cannot. I am referring to the tin mining in Cornwall. The Government are anxious, I understand, to get tin, particularly to get tin produced in this country, but in the particular mine with which I happen to be connected we have never been able to get German prisoners. I am told that we could get them if we applied in the proper way, and further efforts will be made.
What I thought when I put the Question down, and what I could not help feeling, was the fact that there were several thousands of prisoners of war in this country who were merely a charge on the Government instead of earning money for the Government, as they would be if employed. I have, however, been assured that this is not so, and if all prisoners of war fit to work are employed that really satisfies me. I am indifferent whether they are employed by me or someone else so long as they are profitably employed, and that is really the point I wish to make. But there seem to be extraordinary difficulties in knowing who to apply to, or how to get the prisoners of war. It is also very awkward, as the noble Lord who communicated with me put it, if you are left in a state of uncertainty as to how long you are to be allowed to keep the prisoners when you get them. It makes it difficult to allocate work, and to carry it on with regularity.
THE ASSISTANT UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, as the House is aware, it was a very longtime before prisoners of war were employed upon any extensive scale in this country. I think that I am within the mark when I say that the war had lasted for something like eighteen months before there was any regular employment of combatant prisoners of war here. I remember very well, long before I had any connection with prisoners, visiting a prisoner's camp and finding, to my astonishment, men who had been imported from a great distance carrying out some perfectly simple work at the camp at very high wages which should have been performed by the prisoners themselves at a nominal charge. As the noble Earl and the House are aware, this difficulty in the employment of prisoners did not arise from any reluctance on the part of the Government Department, but on account of the decision of the trade unions and of the general dissatisfaction on the part of private individuals. It is an open secret that the employment of prisoners was strongly opposed by the various trade unions. This opposition has to a great extent now disappeared. Moreover, every private individual in this country was under the impression that because a man was a prisoner of war he was a dangerous anarchist whose first object would be to cut the throat of his employer and destroy any machinery or anything under his

1111
charge. People have now realised the groundlessness of those fears, and there is a considerable demand for the employment of German prisoners of war.
I may add, to confirm what fell from the noble Earl, that all German combatant prisoners of war in this country who are capable of being employed are employed at this moment, or, if they are not employed, they will be very shortly. As I explained the other day, the only combatant prisoners of war who are not employed at the present moment in this country are non-commissioned officers, who, as the noble Earl knows, cannot be employed against their will under The Hague Convention. The noble Earl's complaint seems to me to refer not so much to the difficulty in obtaining the employment of these men, but to the difficulty of keeping them when they have once been allocated. I understand from the War Office, in cases where men have been taken away at very short notice, that they were only allocated for temporary work, and that if prisoners are allocated, so to speak, permanently to any employer, there is no danger of anything of the sort happening. I do not know whether the noble Earl requires any further information on the subject, but I should like to reiterate that all prisoners of war who are capable of being employed are now employed, and that the War Office is only too glad that their services should be used in the most useful capacity.

BRITISH OFFICERS AND GERMAN REPRISAL.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask whether His Majesty's Government have decided to recommend some compensation, or some form of recognition, in the case of thirty-nine British officers who underwent a period of fifty-two days detention in solitary confinement in a German gaol as a reprisal in respect of the treatment by the British Government of German submarine prisoners in this country.
The noble Earl said: Your Lordships will notice that in my Question I have made no mention of other officer prisoners or men who have been treated in the same way—namely, by reprisals in solitary confinement.
1112
I prefer to treat this as a test—if His Majesty's Government is willing to give us one—of the procedure that they intend in regard to the thirty-nine officer prisoners who were placed in solitary confinement at the time that the policy of the Government was to treat German submarine prisoners in this country in a different manner from other prisoners of war. I should like to remind your Lordships that these particular thirty-nine officers suffered indignities which would not have been resorted to even in the time of Frederick the Great, or Frederick William, his predecessor. On the first night of their incarceration and solitary confinement they were put on the same floor in a German gaol with prostitutes and thieves. British officers and gentlemen, my Lords! I hope that the Government will remember the indignities offered on that occasion. It was not until days later that the condition of these officers was somewhat ameliorated—I can hardly call it by the name of amelioration—and the only exercise that they had during the fifty-two days they were in prison was in a poultry yard about the size of this House.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, this Question only appeared on the Paper this morning, and it must be perfectly obvious to the House that a matter of compensation for maltreatment of prisoners is one which will have to be considered as a whole by the Government. I am quite unable to make any statement with regard to the particular officers mentioned in the Question, but I desire to draw my noble friend's attention to this fact—that, however much we may sympathise with the officers whose treatment he has just recounted to us, there are very much graver and more serious cases of maltreatment, more especially among the men, with which this particular instance hardly bears comparison.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: I apologise to my noble friend for giving such short notice—perhaps it was rather too short. I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks that I had not taken any notice of other officers or other prisoners who have suffered indignities.
LORD BERESFORD: I think the answer is a very unsatisfactory one. Why, because there are men who have had worse treatment, should not these officers be

1113
considered? I hope the noble Lord will say that they will be considered.
LORD NEWTON: I think my noble and gallant friend has completely misunderstood me. I said that this is a question which will have to be considered as a whole. It is perfectly impossible to consider the question of these thirty-nine officers apart from the general question.

A MONDAY SITIING.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn. I suggest to your Lordships that we should meet on Monday next, at the usual hour.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at five minutes-before five o'clock.