§ 39. Sir H. CRAIKasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) what prevents the application to this country of the arrangement ratified between France and Germany, with regard to prisoners of war of more than eighteen months' standing, for the internment in Switzerland and in certain cases for the repatriation of such prisoners?
Mr. J. HOPESo far as I am informed, no such arrangement as that suggested by my hon. Friend has been concluded between France and Germany, though I understand that negotiations on this and other points are proceeding. The very-large number of prisoners involved makes it unlikely that an unlimited agreement on this point will be ratified.
§ Sir H. CRAIKIs my hon. Friend aware that statements to that effect have appeared more than once in the French Press that the matter is being considered?
Mr. HOPEYes, I have seen those extracts, but they do not appear to be founded on the facts as at present known.
§ Sir J. D. REESMay it be safely inferred that the arrangements the Germans make with the French will also, as a matter of course, be made by them in the interests of the English?
§ 40. Colonel BURNasked whether there is any possibility of an agreement being arrived at with the German Government for an exchange of the British prisoners who are now confined at Ruhleben?
Mr. HOPEAs I have already informed the House, the War Cabinet have decided that a general exchange of British and German civilians is impracticable, and against the interest of the State, owing to the exorbitant conditions attached to such a proposal by the German Government.
§ Colonel BURNIf my hon. Friend aware that conditions under which these prisoners at Ruhleben have to live impose a greater strain almost than the human frame can bear, and is he also aware that at present they are suffering very much from hunger, that parcels sent from England do not reach their camp—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. and gallant Gentleman should give notice of those questions.
§ 41. Colonel Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked whether, owing to the fact that the Government has refused the offer of a general exchange of the prisoners of Ruhleben, it will grant a regular weekly allowance to needy relatives in England who are dependent upon prisoners interned at Ruhleben on the same lines as a separation allowance is granted to the wives and families of soldiers?
Mr. HOPEIt is not the fact that the Government has rejected any proposal for a general exchange of British prisoners at Ruhleben for the same number of German civilian prisoners in England. I am afraid that I can only say at this stage that the suggestion of my noble Friend will receive consideration.
§ 42. Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) why the regulations of the Postal Censor as to clothing Permitted to civilian prisoners allows friends and relations to send to Ruhleben a pair of trousers and coat but no waistcoat, collars but no neck-tie, boots but no bootlaces, and if he will take steps to remedy these matters?
Mr. HOPEThe regulations were drawn up by a Committee at the War Office. They have already been modified to a considerable extent so as to allow pyjamas to be sent to civilians, also more socks, handkerchiefs and towels. The omission of waistcoats from the regulations is due to a clerical error; they are invariably sent with trousers and coats, as also are neckties when required. Bootlaces were regarded a? too trivial to be specifically mentioned and they are also sent except when made of leather.
§ 44. Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked what was the total amount expended by the British Government upon the British prisoners at Ruhleben from 1st April, 1916, to 31st March, 1917?
Mr. HOPEI would refer my hon. and Noble Friend to my reply to his question of 6th March last. It is not yet possible to give the figures he asks, but it is anticipated that the total for the year ending 31st March, 1917, will prove to be rather less than £48,000.