§ LORD SYDENHAMMy 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 SOMERLEYTONMy 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 SYDENHAMI 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.