Commons Sitting of 29 October 1918

Preamble
The House being met, the CLERK AT THE TABLE informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER, from this day's Sitting.
Whereupon Mr. WHITLEY, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 23rd October, 1918, made under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
CROWN AGENTS FOR THE COLONIES.
Copy presented of Accounts of the Crown Agents' Office Funds for 1917 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    RUSSIA.

      MR. LOCKHART'S REPORT.
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now received and considered the Report of Mr. Lockhart on his experiences in Russia; for how long was Mr. Lockhart in prison in Russia; and whether any charge was made against him to justify his imprisonment?
      The ASSISTANT-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord R. Cecil): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The remainder, therefore, does not arise.

      SOVIET GOVERNMENT.
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has
      1254
      now considered the Soviet constitution adopted in July last as the Russian form of social democracy; whether the question has been discussed, or a decision taken, as to the need of suppressing this Soviet form of government so as to make the world secure for democracy; and whether it is at the wish or instigation of the Foreign Office or of any foreign (Allied) Power that copies of Lenin's pamphlet of exposition, which has no reference to the War or terms of peace, have been suppressed and confiscated?
      Lord R. CECIL: I have seen a summary of the "Constitution" referred to as it appeared in the Russian Press. The answer to the two last parts of the question is in the negative.
      Mr. KING: Is the Noble Lord aware that complete and authorised copies of this contribution are being sold in large numbers, and will he procure a copy for the benefit of the Foreign Office?
      Lord R. CECIL: I said I had seen a copy.
      Mr. KING: I think the Noble Lord said he had only seen a summary. That is very different from a full report, and is it not best to have the complete words?
      Lord R. CECIL: As a matter of fact, the word here is "summary," but the document I have seen appeared to me to be a complete copy.

      ALLIED EXPEDITIONS.
      Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether any discussion has taken place between the Allies co-operating in the Murmansk, Archangel, and Vladivostok (Siberian) expeditions as to the objectives to be gained; and whether these expeditions will be actively pressed by all the Powers taking part even if a cessation of hostilities ensues on the Western Front?
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): This is a kind of question which I must decline to answer.

      RUSSIAN FORCE (NORTH RUSSIA).
      Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary to the Treasury what is the total amount of our monthly liabilities for the pay and allowances of Russian ex-officers or men?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I understand that the question refers to the

      1255
      Russian force co-operating with the Allies in North Russia. My hon. and gallant Friend will, I am sure, realise that I cannot publish the figures for which he asks without disclosing the strength of the force in question. I shall be happy to give him such information as I have privately, if he so desires.

      COMMERCIAL AND POLITICAL PROPAGANDA.
      Mr. HOLTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether proposals have been made to British communities in China and Japan, or either of them, that they should undertake the foundation of British schools abroad, the formation of a patriotic league, the formation of chambers of commerce, to encourage any other institution tending to produce a spirit of solidarity between British subjects abroad, and the dissemination of commercial and political propaganda; if he will state what is the policy underlying such proposals; what expense, if any, in connection therewith it is contemplated should fall on the British Exchequer; and whether similar proposals have been made to other British communities abroad?
      Lord R. CECIL: No concrete proposals such as those referred to in the first part of the question have been made. His Majesty's representatives in all countries abroad have been requested to give their views on these and other similar proposals, but no definite scheme has yet been formulated.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      MEDICAL EXAMINATION (PRIVATE PARSONS, POST OFFICE RIFLES).
      Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Private G. H. Parsons, No. 372,502, Post Office Rifles, who, after being severely wounded in the left arm at Bullecourt in May, 1917, was a patient in the Dublin and Brighton Hospitals till the 12th March, 1918; whether he is aware that, on discharge from hospital, he was classified B 2, afterwards transferred to the Royal Army Medical Corps and
      1256
      then to a Labour unit, and found in each case unfit for service; that he was sent by the regimental medical officer to the discharge centre, Aldershot, with a recommendation that he be discharged; that, notwithstanding this record, he was declared fit for service overseas and sent home on draft leave; that, although attention had been drawn to the case by the hon. Member for Merioneth, the soldier was sent overseas; that, on landing in France, he was examined by a medical officer who referred the case to a medical board; and that such board found Parsons to be unfit, ordered him to hospital at Boulogne, and, after two days, sent him back to England; whether he is aware that he is now at the 2nd Western General Hospital, Manchester; and what action it is proposed to take to inquire into the conduct of the officers who were responsible for sending this soldier abroad and their fitness for the duties of their office?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I regret that my inquiries in this case, which necessitated reference to the military authorities in France, are not yet complete. As I informed my hon. Friend on Tuesday last, I will write to him as soon as possible.

      HOME POSTS AFTER SERVICE OVERSEAS.
      Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any system has been attempted by his Department whereby older men, say, over forty-two years of age, who have served for two or three years on any of the fronts and have, in many instances, sons serving also there, should be given home jobs, while younger men with easy home posts should be given the opportunity of serving abroad; and, if so, will he say for what reason such system broke down, with the result that home posts are very unequally divided?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The system suggested by my hon. Friend is already the policy of the War Office. The arrangements are of course governed by the number and quality of men at home available for replacement, and in the present state of man-power there are very few. If my hon. Friend is aware of any specific cases of men being retained at home who could be utilised as is suggested I shall be happy to have such cases investigated.

      ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS OFFICERS (INDIA).
      Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what arrangements have now been made for the relief of time-expired Royal Army Medical Corps officers who have been retained in India since the commencement of the War and have had no opportunity of service at the front?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Twenty-four officers have been sent to India in relief of a similar number time-expired, and two are awaiting passage. Until the relieved officers return home it is impossible to spare further officers for the purpose, as the system involves the loss of the services of the officers for a period of two to three months.
      Colonel YATE: How many more officers are there that will have to be relieved?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot very well say offhand. If the hon. and gallant Member will put down a question I will endeavour to give him an answer.

      SPECIAL RESERVE OFFICERS (PROMOTION).
      Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can state how many recommendations have now been received from general officers concerned for the grant of a brevet-colonelcy to lieutenant-colonels commanding Special Reserve Battalions in consideration of the good services rendered by these officers in training drafts, etc., during the last four years; and what action it is proposed to take in the matter?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I am unable to state the number of recommendations made to the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Great Britain, but such recommendations as have been submitted to the Army Council have already been dealt with. Further recommendations are expected from the General Officers Commanding-in-Chief in Great Britain and Ireland, and they will be considered by the Army Council in connection with the next New Year's "Gazette." As I stated in reply to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend on the 8th August last, the Army Council are fully aware of the good services rendered by these officers, and full consideration is being given to the due recognition of such services.
      Colonel YATE: "Have been dealt with." Does that mean that they have been given commissions or only considered?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I think considered; but if my recollection is correct, they have been given promotions.

      AGRICULTURAL SUBSTITUTES.
      Mr. GEORGE LAMBERTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if men acting as agricultural substitutes are being paid 31s. a week, but all allowances to their wives and children have been stopped; whether he is aware that it is impossible for a high rent to be paid and the family to live without much hardship; and whether he will continue some allowance to the wives in addition to the minimum agricultural wage?
      Mr. FORSTER: The men in question receive the full civil rate for agricultural labourers. Their position is, however, being made the subject of careful consideration.
      Mr. LAMBERT: When does the hon. Gentleman hope to announce a decision?
      Mr. FORSTER: I hope a definite conclusion will be reached shortly.
      Mr. WHELER: Could not the hon. Gentleman see his way to enable this class of men to be released entirely and go back to agricultural work?
      Mr. FORSTER: That is one of the elements of the problem which is being considered.
      Major HAMILTON: Is my hon. Friend aware that I wrote to him a month ago giving him a specific case and he has not yet answered my letter?
      Mr. FORSTER: I am very sorry that that should be so. I always endeavour to reply to correspondence and if I have failed in this case it is due to an oversight and not to any want of courtesy. Where we are dealing with individual cases we very often have to make inquiries, which take time.
      Major HAMILTON: I do not feel that there is any blame attaching to my hon. Friend. I am sure he is always courteous. But did he not receive a letter from me this week drawing his attention to three letters which had not been replied to?
      Mr. FORSTER: Yes; I think I did.

      WOOLLEN OPERATIVES.
      Mr. THEODORE TAYLORasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that, owing to the calling up of certain expert workmen in the Yorkshire woollen district, quantities of khaki greatcoat cloth are waiting to be milled, that machinery is standing idle for lack of labour, and that, in consequence of this, large deliveries of greatcoat cloth are in arrear which are urgently required for the clothing of our troops; and whether he will secure the return to their work of the 100 or so men whose work would immediately enable the Army's needs to be met?
      Mr. FORSTER: The War Office is aware of the position as stated in the question and has already arranged with the Ministry of National Service to suspend recruiting of woollen operatives. At the same time the Army Council has under consideration the question of the reinforcement of the trade by the release of men from the Army.

      TRIBUNALS (DISCHARGED SOLDIERS).
      Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he will state the number of discharged soldiers who have been placed on military tribunals, and which tribunals they are serving on?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Stephen Walsh): Complete information cannot be furnished without considerable inquiry, but my right hon. Friend is aware of several cases where discharged soldiers or sailors have recently been appointed to tribunals, namely: Harrogate Borough, Bridlington Borough, Eastbourne Borough, Blore Heath Rural, Blyth Urban, Market Drayton Rural, Poplar Borough, Epsom Urban, Lincolnshire Appeal Tribunal, Gravesend Borough (sailor), Acton Urban, Coventry Borough, and St. Albans Borough.
      Colonel ASHLEYasked the Minister of National Service if he will take immediate steps to see that officers and men who have served overseas are included in the composition of all National Service tribunals?
      Mr. WALSH: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the replies given to the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich on the 9th July last and
      1260
      to-day. Proposals to add discharged members of the forces to tribunals in any particular cases will receive my right hon. Friend's sympathetic consideration, but he has no evidence to show that general action in the matter is needed.
      Colonel ASHLEY: May I ask if the hon. Gentleman appreciates the point of the question, namely, that ex-Service men who have served overseas should be included in the tribunals?
      Mr. WALSH: I think the answer I have given does show that they have this particular point in mind, and that they have acted on it in a great many tribunals. There may be others in addition to those I have enumerated, and that, therefore, no general action in this particular direction is needed.

      DISCHARGED SOLDIERS AND SAILORS.
      Colonel ASHLEYasked the Minister of National Service whether, in view of the improved war situation, he will refrain from calling to the Colours time-expired discharged soldiers and sailors above the age of forty-five, so long as they are engaged on work of national importance?
      The MINISTER of NATIONAL SERVICE (Sir Auckland Geddes): I regret that my answer to this question was handed in on Wednesday last, and appeared in the OFFICIAL REPORT of that date. I will however, repeat it.
      As I informed the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme on Thursday, the 17th instant, I am unaware of any ground for relaxing our effort to maintain our forces at full strength. I might, however, refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answers given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Service on 24th June to the hon. Member for Peckham, and on 8th July to the hon. Member for Tavistock.
      Colonel ASHLEY: May I ask whether he ought not to take into the Army all the people not on work of national importance and who have not served in the Army before he takes men who have served in the Army?
      Sir A. GEDDES: I think there must be some misunderstanding. The question of a man being left in civil life is determined by his value to the nation in civil life. If men have served in the Army, as

      1261
      many of those men have, in years gone by, it is not in the national interest that they should be left out if they are doing unimportant work.

      CASE FOR INQUIRY.
      Mr. ALDEN (by Private Notice)asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Private Herbert James Flack (121, Durham Road, White Hart Lane, Tottenham), now attached to 27 Labour Co. No. 476915, formerly No. 2242, 19th Middlesex Regiment, who was discharged in 1914, and joined up again on April 22, 1915, and has served in France since August 1, 1916, has lost one eye and that the other is very seriously affected so that he is almost blind and cannot see at all at night, that he has also a compound fracture of the leg which unfits him for active service, that he has seven children at home, one of whom is paralysed; and whether he is aware that this man is under orders to leave for France on Wednesday, and what action under these circumstances he proposes to take?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Instructions have been issued that Private Flack should not be sent overseas pending a further medical examination, which will be arranged as soon as possible.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.

      ENEMY PRISONERS (EMPLOYMENT).
      Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will give the number of German, Austrian, and Turkish prisoners of war held by us; and whether he will state how many of them are employed in the country on agriculture and the number doing other work of national importance and the character of that work?
      Mr. HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): I am informed by the military authorities that there are in this country 97,060 German, I Turkish, and 1,387 Austrian combatant prisoners. It is impossible to give the exact figures of the prisoners held by us at this moment abroad; but as I said yesterday the total number taken, according to the latest returns, is 327,416. Of these 264,242 are Germans, and the great majority of the remainder are Turks.
      All the combatant prisoners in this country whom it is possible to put to work are employed on work of national importance,
      1262
      such as agriculture, road-making, quarrying, timber cutting, and the like.

      GERMAN OFFICER PRISONERS.
      Sir JOHN BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether commandants of internment camps for German officer prisoners of war are permitted to impose any punishments on those officers for breaches of discipline, disobedience to the regulations, or any other offences; whether the only process by which punishment can be imposed in such cases is to report them to the headquarters of the command and to obtain the appointment of a military court of five members to try each individual case; whether, in order to maintain the discipline of the camp and the authority of the commandant, he will empower the commandant to impose minor punishments, such as fourteen days' confinement, on offending German officers as is done in the case of offending German privates and non-commissioned officers; and whether he will state what is the practice adopted in these matters in Germany in internment camps for British officer prisoners of war?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): Under Article 8 of the Hague Convention, 1909, prisoners of war are subject to the laws and regulations in force in the Army of the State in the power of which they are. The result is that German officers who are prisoners of war in this country are dealt with in accordance with our military code, and are tried by court-martial, while British officers who are prisoners of war in Germany may, under the German code, be punished within certain limits without court-martial. I have inquired whether it is possible and desirable so to alter our military regulations as to permit of a German officer being punished by the Commandant alone for minor offences; but I am informed by the War Office that there would be great difficulty in making this change, and that in fact the necessity for a court-martial causes very little delay and makes no difference in the punishment awarded.
      Sir J. BUTCHER: In view of the fact that the Germans have persistently violated all the material provisions of the Hague Convention, is there any reason why we should show this undue leniency to German officers when guilty of indiscipline

      1263
      and breach of regulations when they do not show us any similar leniency in their country?
      Sir G. CAVE: There is no leniency at all. German officers suffer just the same punishment. They have to await trial under arrest.
      Brigadier-General McCALMONT: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware there are many restrictions that can be enforced upon British officers without trial, and cannot restrictions on liberty be applied to German officers in the same way?
      Sir G. CAVE: Certainly, Sir! And restrictions are applied to German officers.
      Sir J. BUTCHER: In view of the fact that Germans violate all the provisions of the Hague Convention, why should we adhere to a provision which protects German officers from the consequence of their action?
      Sir G. CAVE: I have just said it does not protect them in the least.
      Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Home Secretary whether German officer prisoners of war in internment camps in this country are permitted to purchase at the canteen wine and spirits and in what quantities; and whether, in view of the difficulties which our own soldiers and civilians in this country experience in obtaining even small quantities of wine or spirits, he will forbid the purchase of these articles by German officer prisoners of war?
      Sir G. CAVE: Officers who are prisoners of war in this country are allowed to purchase light wines to a limited amount if procurable from the canteen managers but not spirits. The question of forbidding the purchase of wine will shortly come under consideration.
      Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what in his opinion is a "limited extent" to buying wine?
      Sir J. BUTCHER: May I ask my right hon. Friend how much wine are these prisoners allowed to buy, and is it a fact that they have sometimes been found drunk?
      Sir G. CAVE: I am informed half a bottle a day. Our prisoners in Germany are allowed to purchase without limit.
      Colonel ASHLEY: Will the civil population in England be allowed to purchase that amount? I cannot get it for my household.
      Mr. FLAVIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware there are many small traders in Ireland who cannot get half a bottle in six months?
      Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Home Secretary whether there is any limit on the amount of money which German officer prisoners of war in this country are permitted to spend on food and clothing; and, if so, what is the limit?
      Sir G. CAVE: German officer prisoners of war in this country are limited in the amount of food and clothing which they may purchase. As regards food, a scale has been laid down, of which I will send my hon. and learned Friend a copy. As regards clothing, the instructions are that no prisoner of war shall be allowed to purchase more clothing than is required for actual use.
      Sir C. HENRY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the amount in money?
      Sir G. CAVE: I do not think the limit can be expressed in money.
      Sir J. BUTCHER: As this is a matter of some interest to people in this country who are short of food and clothing, can my right hon. Friend circulate with the Votes the maximum amount of money which they may spend on food and the amount of money they may spend on clothing, and who is the judge of the necessity?
      Sir G. CAVE: I have just said there is no money limit, but I will certainly, if the hon. Gentleman wishes it, circulate the full scale.

      DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE.
      Sir F. HALLasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the period which has elapsed before any definite action has been taken for the protection of British prisoners of war, he will arrange for definite representation on the Departmental Committee who deal with this question of the prisoners who have now returned to this country and who have first-hand knowledge of the subject?
      Sir G. CAVE: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply. I cannot admit the statement by which this question is introduced, but I am considering the suggestion which it contains.
      Sir F. HALL: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that great advantage might accrue to the Departmental Committee by placing before it

      1265
      some of those who have been prisoners of war and have returned; would the right hon. Gentleman consider the case of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Antrim (Captain C. Craig), who has just returned?
      Sir G. CAVE: I think the suggestion may be a good one, and I am giving it careful consideration. As a matter of fact, I have asked my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Antrim to sit on the Committee, but he has not yet seen his way to do so.

      ARMY TRANSPORT REPAIR DEPOT, CIPPENHAM.
      Captain CARR-GOMMasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the whole scheme for constructing a motor repair depot at Cippenham is being proceeded with; and, if so, whether he will explain why this is being done, in view of the recommendation of the Select Committee on Expenditure to the effect that it should be finished in sections?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: In accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee, labour is being concentrated on the completion of certain buildings only, but particular services, such as ran and road communications, which are necessary for the whole or any part of the scheme must necessarily be proceeded with.
      Captain CARR-GOMMasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state the names of the civil and military-experts who considered the offer of motor firms to undertake the repair of a large number of motors at a quarter the cost of the Government scheme at Cippenham; and will he give the date of their decision?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The offer of the motor firms referred to was considered by the expert officers of the Directorate of Supplies and Transport at the War Office and also by the Mechanical Transport Board. Many officials gave the matter close consideration. Nothing would be gained by publishing their names. The matter was considered during July last and a decision was reached towards the end of the month.
      Captain CARR-GOMM: Was there anybody at these conferences representing the Treasury or any Department whatsoever that had regard to public economy?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: We all have regard to economy.
      Mr. G. LAMBERT: Is it a fact that a large number of motor manufacturers offered to repair these cars at a quarter of the cost which will be entailed at Cippenham?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not think so.

      WAR OFFICE STAFF.
      Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will state in what capacities Mr. S. H. Schneider and Mr. F. C. Bovenschen are now employed at the War Office; and in what particular respects these gentlemen are indispensable; and whether he will make special inquiries to ascertain whether their places could be taken by wounded officers who have served at the front?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Both these gentlemen are employed in civil administrative positions calling for the display of capacities which can only be acquired by long War Office training such as they have had. As has been already said by my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Service, a special Committee appointed for the purpose of inquiring into such cases have approved the retention of Mr. Bovenschen and Mr. Schneider, and I am not prepared to reopen the question.
      Sir J. BUTCHER: When did that special Committee report, and can the right hon. Gentleman tell us in what sense these gentlemen were indispensable?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: This Committee reported some time ago, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for National Service stated in the House that they came to the conclusion—and they were altogether apart from the War Office—that the work these men were doing was indispensable.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Does my right hon. Friend suggest that no British-born subject was capable of doing these men's work?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Both these gentlemen are British born, and I should like to point out that they have great experience. One is a double first class, and he has been for many years in a responsible position in the War Office. It is true their names are an impediment, but there it is.
      Sir J. BUTCHER: Are there no wounded officers who have come back from the front, who could take the places of these civilian gentlemen?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not think that any wounded officers back from the front could possibly have the experience of these two men, who have been doing most admirable work for years at the War Office.
      Sir H. DALZIEL: Can my right hon. Friend say, as a result of the Committee to which he has referred, if there have been any resignations from the War Office?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot say, because I have no information, but if my right hon. Friend will put down a question—
      Mr. R. McNEILL: Is this Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Bankes?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: It is a Committee to consider the indispensability of certain members on the civil administration side of the War Office. These two men were considered. I understand one of the names will be considered by the Bankes' Committee.
      Mr. HOUSTON: What is the nature of the work these two gentlemen are performing?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot say offhand what work they are engaged in. I know Mr. Bovenschen is at the head of one of our most difficult finance branches, and I can personally say no man could perform the work he is doing with greater ability.
      Sir J. BUTCHER: Which case is coming under the consideration of Mr. Justice Bankes' Committee?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I think it is that of Mr. Bovenschen.

      SERBIAN WHITE EAGLE DECORATION.
      Sir RICHARD COOPERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many decorations of the Serbian White Eagle were asked for by His Majesty's Government; and how many of these were awarded to officers and men who had seen active service in the Balkans?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid I do not quite understand the first part of my hon. Friend's question. In no circumstances
      1268
      are decorations solicited from an Allied country. His Majesty the King of Serbia has conferred on members of the Army 424 decorations of the various classes of the Serbian Order of the White Eagle. Of this total, 145 awards have been made to officers and men who have served, or are still serving, in the Balkans.
      Sir R. COOPER: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise what a great injustice this is to our fighting men that three-fourths of these honours are given to men who sit at home?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: As far as I can make out, only thirty-five were given to men who were serving at home.
      Captain CARR-GOMM: Is it not a fact that the first issue of these orders was received for the most part by officers serving on the Staff in Cairo who had then never seen Serbia at all?
      Mr. H. LAW: Were any of these decorations conferred upon a battalion of the Connaught Rangers who has done very good service?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I assent to what the hon. Member says, that the battalion in question did extraordinarily good service, but I cannot possibly say at present whether any distinctions were given to them or not.

      ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (TERRITORIAL FORCE).
      Sir F. BLAKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a general promotion list for officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps, Territorial Force, has now been prepared and published; and whether he will state the authorised establishment of colonels, lieutenant-colonels and majors in that force, and the existing number in each rank?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: In accordance with the recommendations of the Committee on Promotion of Officers in the Special Reserve, New Armies, and Territorial Force, a seniority list has been prepared for all officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps (Territorial Force) other than the administrative and à la suite staffs of Territorial Force General Hospitals and the Sanitary Service. This list is included in the Army List. The establishment authorised is—

      Colonels

      19

      Lieutenant-Colonels

      107

      1269
      and the existing numbers of officers of these ranks are—

      Colonels

      8

      Lieutenant-Colonels

      75

      Promotion to the rank of major being governed by a time-qualifying period, the establishment for this rank is not limited. The actual promotions consequent upon the determination of the establishments to which I have referred are under consideration, and will be published as soon as possible after the receipt of the information which it is essential to obtain from the various theatres of war where the officers concerned are serving.
      Sir F. BLAKE: IS it contemplated to take early steps to complete the establishment of colonels and lieutenant colonels?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I believe so.
      Sir FRANCIS BLAKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the difference in pay, allowances, and gratuities between contract officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps and officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps (Territorial Force); and whether these two services can be placed upon an equality in these respects?
      Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will consider the question of increasing the pay of Territorial Royal Army Medical Corps officers, who are in a worse position, as regards pay, than both the temporary-commissioned officers and the Regular Royal Army Medical Corps officers?
      Mr. FORSTER: I can add nothing to my reply to a similar question on 21st February last, of which I am sending copies to my hon. Friends.

      SOLDIERS' LEAVE (PALESTINE FORCE).
      Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether leave can be granted to Driver T. W. Wealthdale, No. 612,246, 1/1 Notts Royal Horse Artillery, at present serving in Palestine, who has served overseas for over 3½ years without once obtaining leave?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my noble Friend to the answers I gave to questions which he asked on the 17th and
      1270
      21st October. I am afraid I cannot take any special action in the case mentioned, but, as I have already stated, every endeavour is made to ensure that all men are considered in turn for a period of leave.
      Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is it not a fact that the Mesopotamia Force is the only force which does not give any home leave?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The Mesopotamia Force does not give any home leave at all at present.
      Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Are not facilities given to the men of the Palestine Force to come home if the commanding officer would only allow the men to come?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: We have a great many of these men home now, but the difficulties of transport are so enormous that it is quite impossible to give leave to all.
      Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say in answer to a question lately that transport facilities were available
      Mr. MACPHERSON: In certain theatres of war, certainly.
      General McCALMONT: Could the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that if conditions should alter in the Mediterranean the earliest opportunity will be taken of increasing the transport facilities and removing this very justifiable grievance?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I quite agree that it is a grievance, but, after all said and done, leave is a question of privilege and not of right. I can assure the House that we at the War Office are anxious that men should get reasonable leave, and general officers commanding are themselves anxious that men should go.
      Mr. HOGGE: Has my hon. Friend ascertained yet whether every man has had at least a week?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: No!
      Mr. WATT: Is it not the case that officers get leave in greater proportion than they are entitled to?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: No. I saw the other day an officer who has been away three years without leave.

      OLD SOLDIERS' PENSIONS.
      Major NEWMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the case of J. Hull, Eign Hill, Tupsley, Hereford, a veteran aged ninety-one years, who served in the 44th Foot, and who has only a pension of 7s. per week and an old age pension to support him?
      Mr. FORSTER: I will make inquiry into the case to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, and communicate with him when I have done so.
      Major NEWMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) whether he is aware that the Government of the United States has recently increased the pensions of all the old soldiers of the Republic who have attained the age of sixty-two years by a substantial amount to meet the increase in the cost of living; whether it is the intention of the Government of the United Kingdom to act similarly towards ex-Service veterans in this country; (2) whether he is aware of the effect upon the veterans of the Crimean, Indian Mutiny, and China war by the recent increase of the cost of living and the amount of their pensions; is he aware that the majority of these men are endeavouring with their wives to exist on a pension of 1s. per diem and an old age pension of 7s. 6d. weekly or else on an old age pension alone; and whether, in order that these veterans should not be allowed to end their lives in hardship or dependent on charity, he will endeavour to obtain from the Treasury an immediate war bonus or increase of pension to meet their necessities?
      Mr. FORSTER: My hon. and gallant Friend is no doubt aware that an increase of 2s. 6d. has been made to old age pensioners during the War, and that the campaign pensions of Army veterans have been similarly increased between the ages of sixty-five and seventy. As regards any further extension, I would refer him to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Blackpool on the 22nd inst.
      Major NEWMAN: Have these increased pensions been paid yet?
      Mr. FORSTER: I think so. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down a question I will inquire.
      Colonel ASHLEY: Is my hon. Friend aware that the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite unsatisfactory?
      Mr. HOGGE: How can the hon. Gentleman give consideration to the increased cost of living in the case of old age pensions and not in the case of the Service pension referred to in this question?
      Mr. FORSTER: That is a question which should be addressed to the Chancellor of the Excheqer. That is the specific point with which he dealt.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

      EX-SERVICE MEN (TEMPORARY HELP).
      Major NEWMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the War Office will arrange with the Ministry of Pensions that the cases of all ex-Service men, whether pensioners or non-pensioners, who may be in need of help should be investigated and reported on by the local war pensions committees so that temporary help may be given where needful?
      Mr. FORSTER: I think my hon. and gallant Friend may rely upon the Minister of Pensions to see that local war pensions committees render all assistance in their power to any ex-soldier whose case may be brought to their notice.
      Major NEWMAN: Have the local pensions committees actual instructions to look into these cases that come before them?
      Mr. FORSTER: I should hardly think they wanted any instructions.

      KING'S FUND.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Pensions Minister whether he has received a subscription from the Prince of Wales's Fund for his King's Fund; and, if so, how much, and on what conditions?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen): A subscription of £25,000 has been received from the Prince of Wales's Fund. No condition is attached to the gift.
      Sir C. HENRY: By what authority is that made?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: It was made by the trustees of the Prince of Wales's Fund.
      Mr. HOGGE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Prince of Wales's Fund was gathered for civilian distress at the outbreak of the War, and has this House no control of the expenditure of that money?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I have nothing whatever to do with the control or management of the Prince of Wales's Fund.
      Sir C. HENRY: Was this subscription from the Prince of Wales's Fund given voluntarily?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I think the King's Fund asked for it.

      INCREASES OF PENSIONS.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Pensions Minister what increases he proposes on pensions; and whether the House will have an opportunity of discussing such increases before or after they are determined?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I cannot yet make any announcement on this matter, which is still under consideration.
      Mr. HOGGE: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman avoid the necessity of asking these questions by telling us when he is likely to make an announcement?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I think at an early date.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Before the General Election?

      "UNACCUSTOMED TO WORK" (DEFINITION).
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Pensions Minister if he will state the definition adopted by his Department of the phrase "unaccustomed to work" when applied to childless wives?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: A childless wife is regarded as unaccustomed to work if she has not been accustomed to work in the past.
      Mr. HOGGE: May I ask my hon. and gallant Friend if he is aware that this definition "unaccustomed to work" is in the new circular issued by his own Ministry, and whether the definition of "unaccustomed to work" means that the woman has been unaccustomed to do work
      1274
      out of her home or whether it applies to a woman who has been unaccustomed to work in her home; and whether he is aware it involves the question of an addition of 6s. 6d. to her separation allowance? Will he tell the House something a woman will understand if we cannot?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am quite aware it appears in the circular, but I think anybody can understand the definition I gave.
      Mr. HOGGE: I will raise this to-night on the Adjournment so that the women of this country may understand what they can apply for.

      WAR BONUS.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Pensions Minister whether he can now state what the war bonus on existing pension scales is to be?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The answer is in the negative.

      DISABLED OFFICERS (FORMER WARS).
      Colonel ASHLEYasked whether any decision has yet been arrived at with respect to raising the pensions of officers disabled in former wars to the level of those disabled in this War?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Any concession in this direction would have to be limited to the particular classes of case included in the recent Warrants for men, and it is believed that few officers would benefit under these terms, as with wounds pensions their former grants were generally not less liberal than at present. In the circumstances I do not think it is necessary to take up the question.
      Colonel ASHLEY: Do I understand from that that this increase is to be granted?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: No; the point of view is that as there really would be no practical benefit it is not worth going into the question.
      Mr. HOGGE: Where there is benefit will they have the opportunity of getting it?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: That will certainly be considered.
      Colonel ASHLEYasked the Pensions Minister whether he proposes to raise the pensions of the widows of officers killed

      1275
      in former wars to the level of the rates now in vogue for the widows of officers killed in this War?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The pensions of the widows of officers killed in former wars are, to a great extent, already on a level with present war pensions, no general revision of the scale for officers' widows having been found necessary to meet the circumstances of the present War. In this case, however, of certain of the smaller pensions the question of an increase is under consideration.
      Colonel ASHLEY: Will they receive an education grant, the same as in this War?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I must have notice of that question.
      Colonel ASHLEYasked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that there are only two surviving officers who were totally blinded in the South fact that the pensions granted them after that war were less than the pensions granted for this War, and, in addition, liable to Income Tax, he will consider placing them on the tame footing as officers totally blinded in this War?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: In the only case of which I know the officer is receiving as much in pension as he would under the Regulations for the present War. If the hon. and gallant Member will give me the names of the two officers he has in mind, I will consider whether special consideration should be given to them.

      OFFICERS' DEPENDANTS.
      Colonel YATEasked the Prime Minister whether, now that increased allowances have been granted to the wives, children, and dependants of non-commissioned officers and men, any further provision is to be made for the wives, children, and dependants of officers?
      Mr. FORSTER: This matter has been referred to the Cabinet Committee.

      SCOTTISH COAL MINES (GERMAN AGENT).
      Sir F. HALLasked the Home Secretary whether Herr August Siegel, the
      1276
      German agent who has been employed in the Scottish coal mines, is now at large or whether he has been interned; if the question of his repatriation has been considered; and, if so, what, decision has been arrived at?
      The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): The enemy alien referred to has been recommended for repatriation by the Scottish Advisory Committee and would have left with the last repatriation party from Scotland but for the fact that he was ill and unable to travel. He is now fit to move, and will be repatriated by the next available boat. I may add that no evidence has been laid before me which would indicate that the man is a German agent.
      Sir F. HALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has studied carefully the statement and the speeches that have been made by this truly British subject Mr. Siegel, and that under the circumstances—if he has looked into this—does he find the state of things is likely to lead to efficiency of work in the Scottish mines, and has his repatriation taken place in consequence of his—
      HON. MEMBERS: Order! Order! Speech!

      PROSECUTION OF NEWSAGENT, PRESTON.
      Mr. W. ANDERSONasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the prosecution, under the Defence of the Realm Act Regulation 27, of Robert Slater, newsagent, Preston, for placing outside his shop a chalked board stating that the Germans confessed defeat and accepted President Wilson's terms, and that the War was as good as over; whether he is aware that the Chief Constable of Preston stated at this trial that if people wanted to disseminate any information they should go to him for it, that he was responsible for the government of the town, and did not ask for the assistance of newspaper agents or theatres: whether this prosecution was authorised by the Home Office; and, if so, whether he proposes taking any action in respect of it?
      Sir G. CAVE: I understand that this prosecution was commenced on the authority of the Chief Constable, but was withdrawn upon the facts being explained.

      1277
      The Chief Constable informs me that the statements attributed to him in the question do not correctly represent what he said. The authority of the Home Office for the prosecution was not asked nor was it required, and I do not propose to take any action in the matter.

      LONDON MOTOR CABS (TYRES).
      Sir ALFRED YEOasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Commissioner of Police is stopping cabs from working in London as unfit for public use because they are not fitted with a steel-studded tyre on one of the front wheels although steel-studded tyres are not procurable owing to the requirements of the Government; and whether, seeing that a rubber non-skidding tyre is more efficient in the case of skidding and in order to keep the cab service of London as efficient as possible, he will permit a rubber non-skid to be used on the front wheel in place of a steel-studded tyre?
      Sir G. CAVE: The Commissioner of Police informs me that only studded tyres have passed the tests for preventing or limiting side slip, and his tests have shown that no type of non-studded tyre is really effective for that purpose. In view, however, of the present shortage of studded tyres, he is prepared to sanction the use of a rubber non-skid tyre on the front wheel in place of a studded one until the latter type is again available in sufficient quantities.

      "WOMEN'S DREADNOUGHT" (POLICE RAID).
      Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he will state the object and results of the raid made on 10th October when the police removed from the offices of the "Women's Dreadnought," in Fleet Street, a new duplicating machine costing £24 and unused paper value £6; whether any charge has been brought against the owners; and if not, whether this property will now be returned?
      Sir G. CAVE: The police made a search at the office of the "Women's Dreadnought" on 10th October in consequence of information that circulars containing untrue statements were being issued from that office. The information proved to be correct, and the duplicating machine and
      1278
      some paper headed "Russian People's Information Bureau" were seized in accordance with No. 51 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations. The question of destroying the articles under the authority of the regulation has been referred to the Advisory Committee.
      Mr. KING: Were these searches and seizures made because it was feared that the paper would be used against the Government in the coming General Election?
      Sir G. CAVE: No, Sir. That is a ridiculous suggestion.

      EX-OFFICERS (TECHNICAL TRAINING).
      Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Pensions Minister what provision is made for ex-officers who wish to take training in technical and other subjects; and what is the scale of allowances for such training?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Provision is made for this purpose under Article 7 of the Royal Warrant of 1st August, 1917, of which I am sending the Noble Lord a copy. There is no prescribed scale of allowances.
      Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say whether this training allowance is sufficient for a married man?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I think so, because the pension, or rather, retired pay, is put up to the highest scale.
      Mr. HOGGE: Is it the fact that the Pensions Ministry have not yet trained a single officer?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: No, it is not the fact.

      ARTIFICIAL LIMBS.
      Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that F. P. Storr, late No. 18025, 7th Lincolnshire Regiment, was unable to follow his employment in agriculture for twenty-one weeks owing to the delay in dealing with his artificial leg, which was sent back for repair; and whether he will consider the payment of compensation to Storr in respect of wages lost during this time?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The delay in dealing with the repair of Private Storr's artificial limb is regretted. Inquiries show that the Ministry is not wholly responsible for the delay, but my right hon. Friend will consider the payment of allowances in respect of the period of unemployment.

      DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (TRAINING).
      Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Pensions Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a discharged soldier who has been sent by the Denbighshire local war pensions com to Aberystwyth College for training as a teacher under a scheme in existence at the college for training discharged soldiers; whether he is aware that his Department have refused to sanction the allowances to cover the cost of clothing and maintenance during the college vacation being paid by the committee; will he state the reason for this refusal; and whether, in view of the fact that the training of the man in question is likely to make him a valuable servant of the country, he will now sanction the expenditure incurred?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I hope that under an arrangement recently concluded, which will apply generally to discharged soldiers admitted to the training colleges of the Board of Education, it will be possible for this man to be granted an allowance sufficient, with his pension, to give him £1 a week. As he will only have to keep himself during the vacation this should enable him to take the course.
      Mr. MACDONALD: May we take it that this arrangement will be made at once, so that this man's training may not be interrupted?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I understand that this arrangement is to come into operation immediately.

      LEASEHOLDERS.
      Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the Prime Minister whether he has received a communication from the Festiniog Urban District Council on the subject of leaseholds; and whether legislation dealing with the question will be introduced at an early date?
      Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have decided to promote legislation to give relief to leaseholders who are being called upon to make good repairs and dilapidations under war conditions; and, if so, if this Bill will be introduced at an early date?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The communication referred to in the first part of the question by the hon. Member for Merionethshire has been received. I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Dartford on 22nd October.
      Mr. ROWLANDS: Is there any chance of an early Report? A number of unscrupulous people are buying up small properties and as soon as they get hold of them are sending in exorbitant demands for dilapidations?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I recognise it is a serious question, but it is difficult to deal with. As I said on the last occasion, a Bill is in course of being drafted, but for lack of time it has not yet been considered by the Cabinet; it is hoped to consider it shortly.

    FOOD SUPPLY.

      MILK.
      Mr. WRIGHTasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to permanently control the wholesale milk trade and to establish permanent Government milk depots, or whether the alternative policy recommended by the Buckley Sub-committee to give every encouragement to the formation of producers' co-operative societies will be acted upon?
      The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): I have been asked to reply. My Department has assumed control of the wholesale milk trade as a war measure, but it would be premature to anticipate what action the Government may take in the future with regard to it. The recommendation to which the hon. Member refers is not an alternative to Government control. The present scheme of control provides for the taking over of milk depots already set up by producers' co-operative societies.
      Mr. WRIGHT: As the milk producers are being urged to combine and to erect milk depots for milk will facilities be given to them to do so; if not, do the

      1281
      Government intend to erect these depots, and will producers be given the option of taking them over after the control is removed?
      Mr. CLYNES: The form of Government control contemplated will not in any way interfere with the progress and development of co-operative effort.
      Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that at the present time co-operative effort is being almost paralysed by the Government measures of control that have been taken, and in the absence of an announcement by the Government that co-operation will be encouraged and that the control will only be temporary, are they not, practically speaking, killing agricultural co-operation?
      Mr. CLYNES: I see no signs whatever of paralysis or of difficulty when co-operative effort and State control are run together.

    RECONSTRUCTION.

      WOMEN IN INDUSTRY COMMITTEE.
      Mr. W. ANDERSONasked the Prime Minister whether the Women in Industry Committee, set up by the War Cabinet to deal with the general relation of the wages of women and men, are also considering the special case of women replacing men on munitions work; if so, whether an interim report on this matter will be issued, and when; whether two additional men members have recently been added to the above Committee; and if so, whether he will consider the advisability of appointing two additional women members?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The War Cabinet Committee on Women in Industry are not contemplating the issue of an interim report, nor would such a course appear desirable in view of the complexity of the problem and the far-reaching effects of any general principle which may be recommended for adoption. The membership of the Committee has recently been increased by the addition of Mr. J. Le B. Hammond, on the suggestion of the Minister of Reconstruction, and the Committee now consists of two women and four men, under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Atkin. It is not proposed to make any further change in the composition of the Committee.

      OLD AGE PENSIONS.
      Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister if he will give the House an opportunity of expressing their views on the desirability of increasing the old age pensions?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not prepared to give the facilities asked for in the question.
      Mr. FRANCE: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to give the facilities asked if he is assured that there is a strong feeling in all parts of the House that this whole question of old age pensions come under review?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, I do not doubt the feeling; but I think there are parts of the problem that ought to be investigated, and I promised to consider the setting up of a Committee on the subject.

    SUBMARINE WARFARE.

      COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS.
      Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to secure compensation for the dependants of all victims of submarine warfare; whether the Government propose to demand from the German Government the names of the commander and crew of the submarine which was responsible for the murder of 600 passengers on the "Leinster"; and if the Government will see that these men are brought to trial?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: As regards the first part of the question, I have nothing to add to previous answers. A register is being kept of all such claims in respect of losses due to enemy action.
      Sir E. CARSON: If a Government official on official duties is on a torpedoed boat do his family get any compensation?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I think so, but I should not like to give a definite answer without looking into the question.
      Mr. CRUMLEY: Would not the right hon Gentleman reconsider the question of giving to these people who have lost all their goods in this vessel some compensation for that loss?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member knows that a great deal has been done in connection with this problem in regard to

      1283
      previous sinkings, and as I said yesterday, special schemes are already in existence to meet the cases of widows and orphans of the officers and crew, and of the postal servants.
      Mr. FLAVIN: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that several deputations of the different Irish political parties have made representations to the Admiralty and the Board of Trade during the last two years as to the need of protection for these mail boats, and, seeing that the men at Kingstown knew that the submarines were outside, why did not—
      HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That point does not arise out of the question.

      PEACE TERMS.
      Sir R. COOPERasked the Prime Minister if he intends to take steps to secure that any agreement for peace shall in general principles be in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the Members of this House; and, if so, can he say what those steps will be?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government must, I think, be the interpreter of the views of the House and the nation in this matter.
      Sir R. COOPER: Is it the fact that the country will be committed to a secret peace agreement?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not know whether my hon. Friend suggests that the terms of peace should be put as a referendum, and I do not know any other way in which the country could be represented except by its Government.
      Mr. LEES-SMITH: Will the House have control over the terms of peace? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The question has been fully answered.

      SURPLUS GOVERNMENT STORES.
      Major Sir HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLANasked the Prime Minister whether any steps have been taken to establish one authority for the disposal of the surplus Government stores after
      1284
      the War and thereby prevent the overlapping and wastage caused by various Government Departments each disposing of their own surplus stores and property?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Steps have been taken in this direction, and the precise nature of the authority is now under the consideration of a Cabinet Committee. A definite decision will be taken immediately.

      RESERVES OF TROOPS (SIR DOUGLAS HAIG'S DISPATCH).
      Mr. WRIGHTasked the Prime Minister if he will say, in view of Field-Marshal Sir Douglas Haig's last published dispatch, why the reserves of troops which appear to have been available were not in whole or in part on the Western Front, where they were wanted, in March of this year?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: This is not a subject which can be usefully discussed by question and answer.
      Mr. WRIGHT: Will any opportunity be given to the House to receive some explanation as to responsibility in this matter?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I think something might be said, but judging from precedent, and I think judging by the question, that the point is not understood at all. Of course there will be an opportunity for discussion on the Vote of Credit.

      WAR PROFITS.
      Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the practicability of assessing capital and income derived from war profit at a higher rate than pre-war capital and income, thereby making those who have profited financially by the War pay a larger share of the War expenditure than those who have been impoverished by loss of capital values, war taxation, and war prices of commodities?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I would remind my right hon. Friend that, as regards income, what he suggests is being done already by the provisions of the recent Finance Acts, which impose the Excess Profits Duty on profits in excess of the pre-war standard, and also afford relief from Income Tax where profits have been diminished.
      Mr. LAMBERTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will explain why, although the income brought under the review of the Income Tax Commissioners has increased from £1,238,000,000 in 1914–15 to £1,890,000,000 in 1917–18, a difference of £650,000,000, the receipts for excess profits duty, which should be 80 per cent. only reached £220,000,000 in 1917–18?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The actual sums paid in Excess Profits Duty do not come under review for Income Tax purposes. So far as can be estimated, business profits assessable to Income lax have shown an increase of certainly not more than £100,000,000 as between the two years cited, owing to the operation of the three years' average and the incidence of the Excess Profits Duty. Except for this sum, the increase is unrelated to the growth of business profits.

      SOCIALIST LABOUR PRESS.
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the Socialist Labour Press in Glasgow was closed down in August; that, on an explanation being asked from the right hon. Member for Blackfriars, on 8th October, he wrote that it was due to two anonymous stories, "Young Rebel" and "The Revolution," published by the Press, and stated that if the identity of the author had been revealed the press would not have been closed; whether he is aware that James Stewart was, on 12th July, put on trial on charges connected with "Young Rebel" and admitted the authorship, and that Mr. Cook had admitted writing "The Revolution"; and whether, on review of these facts, he will restore the plant and freedom to print to the Socialist Labour Press?
      Mr. MUNRO: I think there has been some misapprehension in this matter, in which my right hon. Friend may have to some extent shared. "The Young Rebel" and "The Revolution" were not serial stories. They are the names of two monthly publications, a number of the issues of which, along with other publications emanating from the Socialist Labour Press in Glasgow, had come to the notice of the Scottish criminal authorities in connection with the Regulations for the Defence of the Realm. Neither the fact that the identity of a particular contributor to one or other of these publications
      1286
      had been revealed—assuming that to be the fact—nor the circumstance that such contributor was proceeded against as the writer of a particular articles in one of the publications in question, would have any effect in relieving the printers of responsibility. As to the concluding portion of the question, I cannot say that I am at present aware of anything that has occurred to call for reconsideration, but I will consult with my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate, under whose instructions, as Public Prosecutor, action was originally taken.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Can my right hon. Friend not consider whether some undertaking might be enforced on the printers whereby they might be allowed to resume their business?
      Mr. MUNRO: If my right hon. Friend will give me the name of the printers who are described as the Socialist Labour Press I will consider it.
      Mr. WATT: Has any warning been given to the Socialist Labour Press?
      Mr. MUNRO: I think the publication was so pernicious that it did not require any warning.
      Mr. PRINGLE: If the right hon. Gentleman received the names of the persons responsible for the Socialist Labour Press would he consider the matter?
      Mr. MUNRO: If my hon. and learned Friend will give me the names I will consider the matter.

      SECULAR INSTRUCTION (SCOTLAND).
      Mr. GULLANDasked the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the Circular from the Scottish Education Department urging school managers in Scotland to reduce the period of secular instruction to four hours daily in order to save fuel and light, whether he has made any calculation as to what economy will be effected; and whether that saving can be compared with the loss of educational facilities for the children of Scotland?
      Mr. MUNRO: The Circular in question was issued in consequence of representations made to me by the Controller of Coal Mines. I was satisfied on inquiry that in certain cases a substantial saving of

      1287
      fuel might be effected without any considerable loss of educational facilities, by the general adoption of a rearranged timetable, which is already sanctioned by the Code. This suggestion has accordingly been brought to the notice of school authorities. It is for them to make such arrangements as they may see fit in the circumstances of their districts.
      Mr. GULLAND: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it rather curious to pass a Bill to make better provision for Scottish education, and before the Act comes into operation to cut off one-fourth of the time of existing education?
      Mr. MUNRO: The Bill, I hope, will be a permanent measure, and this is only a temporary measure.

      OIL BORING (UNITED KINGDOM).
      Mr. WRIGHTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Messrs. Pearson and Sons have been appointed sole agents for the Government to prospect and bore for oil in the United Kingdom; and if he will lay upon the Table of the House the agreement under which the appointment has been made?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I have been asked to take this question. Messrs. Pearson have been appointed managers on behalf of the Government to prospect and bore for oil in certain areas in Great Britain. They have not been appointed sole agents for the United Kingdom. The agreement with Messrs. Pearson was laid on the Table on the 25th instant.
      Mr. G. LAMBERT: Is it not the fact that Messrs. Pearson have placed their whole staff and experience gratuitously at the disposal of the Government?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: Yes; and in my view and knowledge Messrs. Pearson have done loyal service to the State.
      Mr. WRIGHT: May I ask whether the effect of the agreement is not to give Messrs. Pearson a monopoly and place at their disposal £1,000,000 of the taxpayers' money without fear of loss to themselves?
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The agreement has been laid on the Table of the House.
      Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the agreement will be available for Members, and whether what purported to be a summary of it which appeared in one of the Sunday papers was substantially accurate?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: I cannot say as to the summary, for I have not seen it, but the Paper was laid on the Table on the 21st instant.

      HOLYHEAD AND KINGSTOWN MAIL SERVICE.
      Mr. LUNDONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the inconvenience caused to passengers travelling from Ireland to England because of the delay of close on two hours at Holyhead before the train leaves; whether this delay is due to the action of the Department acting through the committee of general managers or otherwise; and, if not, whether he will call the attention of the railway company to this inconvenience?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): At the request of my right hon. Friend, the London and North-Western Railway Company are in communication with the Post Office authorities with a view to making arrangements, if possible, for the train to leave Holyhead earlier and to arrive in London about midnight.
      Mr. LUNDON: May I ask now that the Board of Trade are in communication with the Post Office will they try to arrange that the 8.10 p.m. train from Euston to Holyhead will be run direct to the pier there, instead of compelling the people to loll about Holyhead for three hours?
      Mr. WARDLE: If the hon. Member will give me notice of that question I will have it considered also.

      TORPEDO BADGE.
      Mr. HOLTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, before any badge is granted to officers of the Merchant Service whose ship has been torpedoed, an inquiry will be made into the circumstances and the Admiralty and the shipowners consulted, so that the badge may be withheld from officers who

      1289
      have contributed to the loss by disobedience to Admiralty instructions, negligence, or other misconduct?
      Mr. WARDLE: The hon. Member is perhaps not aware that torpedo badges are only issued to officers and men who, after being torpedoed, have completed a subsequent voyage in a British ship. Over 9,000 badges have already been issued. It is not considered necessary in this connection to make the special inquiries suggested in the question.
      Mr. HOLT: Am I to understand that a badge of honour may be given to a man who has lost his ship by gross misconduct?
      Mr. WARDLE: There are other methods of dealing with the question of a man who has been guilty of negligence. If a case, arises where an officer disobeys Admiralty instructions, or is guilty of neglect or misconduct, such a case can be dealt with separately, so far as can be found practical and desirable, by means other than withholding the torpedo badge, which is to show that a man has been on a chip which has been torpedoed and has gone to sea again.

    GENERAL ELECTION.

      PARLIAMENTARY REGISTER (ABSENT VOTERS).
      Mr. SAMUEL SAMUELasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that a number of men on the new register of electors who have been and are being called up for naval and military service since the compilation of the register will be unable to vote at the forthcoming General Election, as their names are not on the absent voters' list; whether he is aware that registration officers are now receiving from these men the prescribed cards issued by the Naval, Army, and Air Forces, giving the particulars necessary for the insertion of their names on the absent voters' lists, but the registration officers have no authority to record their names thereon; and whether, in view of the fact that the absent voters' lists will be in process of correction in other respects up to a time immediately prior to the election, and that these men are already registered on the main register, the Government will take steps, by Order in Council or otherwise, to
      1290
      authorise registration officers to place their names on the absent voters' lists provided the necessary notifications relating to them are received in sufficient time before the election to enable this to be done?
      Mr. WALSH: Since the Debate on Thursday, in which this point was raised, my right hon. Friend has brought it before his Advisory Conference, and he hopes it may be possible to make some arrangements to meet the case of electors who have joined the forces since the absent voters' lists were printed.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this arrangement will be made before the General Election?
      Mr. WALSH: The arrangement will certainly be made as quickly as possible to take into account the case of all those who have joined the forces since 1st October.
      Mr. HOLTasked the President of the Local Government Board to what extent the estimate for expenses of returning officers at a General Election is increased by reason of the expense incurred in obtaining the votes of absent voters?
      Mr. WALSH: It is not practicable to form any reliable estimate of the expenditure to which the hon. Member refers. So far as England and Wales is concerned, the expenditure is on a scale provisionally approved by the Treasury, and will consist mainly of the extra remuneration for returning officers and assistants in connection with the issue of absent voters' ballot papers, declarations of identity, etc., and the dealing with these documents on return, but no definite figures can be stated at the present time.

      HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES.
      Colonel WEIGALLasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in the terms of the Board's Circular of 18th March last in reference to the housing of the working classes, the words the produce of a rate of a 1d. in the £ are intended to mean that, with a rateable value of £240,000, the total deficit on a scheme should not exceed £4,000, 25 per cent. of that sum being £1,000, the produce of a rate of 1d. in the

      1291
      £, or whether the words are intended to mean that the total deficit must not exceed a sum the interest on which alone in perpetuity must not exceed the produce of a rate of 1d. in the £?
      Mr. WALSH: The Local Government Board's Circular of the 18th March last does not limit the total amount of the deficit in the way suggested in the question. The Board reserves a discretionary power to increase the Grant beyond the 75 per cent. of the deficit subject to the condition that the amount of the deficit borne by the local authority shall not fall below the produce of a rate of 1d. in the £.

      INCREASE OF RENT (WAR RESTRICTIONS) ACT.
      Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he can now see his way to introduce a Bill to amend the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, in view of the difficulties which have arisen in the administration of the Act and the demand that the Act: should be made of wider application?
      Mr. WALSH: My right hon. Friend is not in a position to make any announcement on this subject to the House at present.

    INFLUENZA EPIDEMIC.

      MEDICAL SERVICE (CIVIL POPULATION).
      Mr. T. WILSON (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of National Service what steps he has taken to provide an adequate medical service for the civil population in view of the present serious epidemic of influenza?
      Sir A. GEDDES: All arrangements made in connection with the employment of doctors under the Ministry of National Service, and all withdrawals of doctors from civil life for service with the armed forces of the Crown during the past year, have been made with full regard to the contingency of a widespread epidemic disease affecting the population. Influenza has been more or less prevalent in epidemic form for some months, and the calls on the civil medical profession have consequently been heavy. Simultaneously, severe fighting on a
      1292
      great scale in all theatres of war hag imposed an additional heavy strain on our medical resources.
      In April, Parliament conferred powers on the Minister of National Service which enabled him medically to examine men of military age at any time. In view of possible emergencies this power was largely used, approximately 7,000 doctors being employed and very large numbers of men being examined.
      Concurrently, with the increase of influenza, the number of doctors employed on medical board work has been reduced, thereby rendering an increasingly large body of medical men available for exclusively civil practice. The number of medical board sessions has been reduced from approximately 3,500 to 1,000 per week. This has not affected recruiting, as the pool formed by examining men in advance has been sufficient to maintain the flow of men to the forces.
      In order further to reinforce the doctors available to attend the civil population, I have given instructions that all medical examinations in advance are to be suspended for the present. Pensions examinations and the examinations of men reporting for service will, of course, continue. Arrangements have also been made to reinforce the medical staffs available at hospitals, so far as our resources will permit.
      In conclusion, I should like to express my deep appreciation of the way in which the medical profession has co-operated with the Ministry of National Service in meeting unprecedented, and often conflicting, demands for medical personnel.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to the effect upon the existing medical service of the country by the epidemic of influenza among doctors themselves, and, in view of that, is he not prepared to suspend the calling-up of doctors for the present and thus make other doctors available for civilian practice?
      Sir A. GEDDES: I have not got any figures showing the number of medical men down with influenza themselves, but I know the number is very considerable. We have released from our call-up a very large number of medical men who are now devoting the whole of their time to civil practice. We are putting at the disposal of districts where special assistance

      1293
      is required whole-time medical men on some of the London boards. We cannot create medical men for the occasion, and we have to do the best we can and spread the resources we have got. It so happens that at the moment there is a very heavy demand, as everyone will understand, for young, fit doctors for the front. The casualties in the medical profession have been very heavy, and we are calling up a certain number of fit young men because we have nobody else to send actually to the front, and by the front I mean the real front—the fighting line. We have arranged for the Navy to come to the assistance of the Army, and a certain number of young naval surgeons are going to France and have gone. We are also doing our best to get older and less fit men made available at home, but the pressure all round is so great that it is not a simple problem of saying, "Do this," or "Do that," One has to see where any small pool of doctors can be found and to move that pool to the place where it is most required.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman not secure this, that no medical practitioner over forty should be sent out of the country now?
      Sir A. GEDDES: It would be very difficult to give a definite pledge of this sort. We cannot give pledges, but we are doing the best we can.

    GERMAN GOVERNMENT.

      BREACHES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.
      Mr. ALDEN (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister if he can state whether the German Government has kept the promises recently made in reply to President Wilson's Note with regard to breaches of International Law, both on land and sea, and if he can obtain reports from the British Army Headquarters in France which will prove or disprove the statements made in the Press with regard to the destruction of towns and villages contrary to international law; and, further, whether the losses of merchant vessels since that date throw any light on this subject in view of the German promise to change the whole submarine campaign policy?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: There is, of course, no time to obtain information in reply to this question, but I believe it is the fact that there has been a change recently in. German methods of evacuation, and there
      1294
      is apparently for the time being a cessation of submarine attacks on passenger steamers.
      Colonel C. LOWTHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if there have been any attacks by submarines last week?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes.
      Mr. R. MCNEILL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the facts, to which he has just referred indicate that the previous outrages were not merely indiscipline on the part of the rank and file of the German Army, but were done by command?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I gave my answer in such a way as to allow everyone to draw his own inferences. The inference of my hon. Friend seems to be very reasonable.

      Prison Conditions (Mitigation).
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary for the Home Department whether he will state the reasons for transferring recently a number of prisoners, under exceptional conditions, to Wakefield Prison; and whether the scheme was a failure?
      Sir G. CAVE: My intention was to grant a further mitigation of the conditions of imprisonment to men who had been in prison for two years or more by placing them under conditions similar to those which apply to prisoners under preventive detention. The great majority of them, however, refused to do the work allotted to them, and they had to be sent back to the prisons from which they came.

      Sheriff-Principal, Roxburgh.
      Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the number of cases appealed to the sheriff-principal of Roxburgh, Berwick, and Selkirk during the year 1916 was four, as shown by the Reports on the Judicial Statistics of Scotland; whether the salary paid to the sheriff-principal of these counties is £750 per annum, with permission to continue his private practice; and, if so, whether it is the intention of the Government to effect any economies in this direction in war-time should a vacancy arise?
      Mr. MUNRO: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part of the

      1295
      question, I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the answer I gave him on the 24th October.
      Mr. WATT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman is this the only war-time economy which he does not encourage?
      Mr. MUNRO: I have repeatedly pointed out to my hon. and learned Friend that the cases of appeal are only one of many duties performed by the sheriff.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Are not the other duties subsidiary to the hearing of appeals?
      Mr. MUNRO: I think not. The duties are in the Courts of first instance and consist in hearing cases, in being responsible for law and order, much wartime work, and also large duties under the Representation of the People Act.
      Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how often the sheriff visits the counties?
      Mr. MUNRO: I cannot possibly say.
      Mr. WATT: Once in five years.

      Anti-Abortine Vaccine.
      Mr. WRIGHTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether a cow or heifer injected with the Board's anti-abortine vaccine, which is supplied free to farmers who apply for it, remains a carrier of the germ of epizootic abortion, though immune herself, and liable to infect other animals; and, if so, for how long?
      The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Prothero): The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part does not, therefore, arise.

      CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL AND SEXUAL OFFENCES BILL [Lords].
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson be discharged from the Select Committee."—[Colonel Sanders.]
      Mr. KING: I think we ought to have some assurance from the Government, before we proceed to pass this Motion, as
      1296
      to whether they really mean to go on with this Committee. We all know what it is for, and—
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That would not be competent for this occasion.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Ordered, "That Sir Henry Craik be added to the Committee."—[Colonel Sanders.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.

    STATEMENT BY CAPTAIN CHARLES CRAIG.
    Colonel SANDERS: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
    General Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: In rising to call attention to the treatment of our prisoners of war, I feel that the cause of these badly-treated men might be in much more able hands than mine. Right from the beginning of the War our whole treatment of this question of prisoners of war has been most unsatisfactory. These men are mainly the finest soldiers we have got. They are those who were foremost in the attack, whose troops on either side have not supported them, but have fallen back, and they have been left in the hands of the enemy; or in holding on in a retirement, they have been the men who have held on the longest. Their friends on either side have fallen back, and they have been cut off; or they have been those men who, fighting keenly in the front line, have fallen wounded, and then, when their friends have retired, have fallen into the hands of the enemy.
    There was a feeling at the beginning of the War that there was something of contempt to be felt for a prisoner of war. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that the War Office took this line, and I am not certain that even to-day they have quite got rid of it. They had a feeling that if they did too much for our prisoners of war, our troops would be only too inclined to surrender. That tone and that feeling show that they knew nothing of the British people. There is no question that early in the War—in the first two years—there was every possible objection made, and that when they could send supplies to our men the War Office would not let them go. And to-day every troublesome little order is issued to stop supplies going to our prisoners. We treat them as if they were prisoners, instead as if they were our most gallant servants. Even to-day there is every little pettifogging order issued, and by whom? We Members of this House have never yet been able to find out who does look after our prisoners. We have asked for Courts of Inquiry, for Select Committees: we have put questions to the War Office, and we have been referred to the hon. Member for
    1312
    Sheffield (Mr. J. Hope), and he has told us over and over again that he has no authority. Then we are referred to somewhere over at the other House, to a gentleman named Lord Newton. We have asked over and over again that some responsible Minister should be placed on that bench to answer these questions, and to look after the interests of these hardly used men—men, remember, with whom you have broken every contract you have ever made. They rightly and properly greatly resent the treatment to which they have been put by this country.
    I know you cover yourself by saying you have made a Hague Convention, and that therefore you are not allowed to feed them, or to do this or to do that. That is your answer, and so you throw your soldiers on the charity of the British public. The right hon. Gentleman opposite shakes his head; but why have you not fed and clothed them? Is it because under the Hague Convention the country which captures the prisoner is supposed to feed and clothe him? That is the agreement the State has made. Every day in South Wales appears a heading, "Starving Prisoners." There would have been no starving prisoners, or going to charity, or need to have young ladies of the Bed Cross touting for prisoners up and down Bond Street, simply to feed your prisoners, if you did your duty.
    4.0 P.M.
    Of course the answer is that all this was under the Hague Convention; but have the Germans followed the Hague Convention? Even if you had made a treaty with Germany, what about the contract you made with your soldiers? You made a contract with the soldier that you would feed, clothe and pay him, and you have done none of these things. You have left it to charity. These men, some of the finest soldiers we have got, would have starved—you have said so yourself—had it not been for the noble work of numbers of men and women who throughout the country have done their best to help. Have they received any encouragement or assistance from any member of the Government? Not on a single occasion! Every possible hindrance, has been put in their way. At last we have got a right hon. Gentleman who is responsible for answering for these men. But even now there is nobody who looks after their interests. What about the armistice the other day with Bulgaria? Was there a

    1313
    demand included that the men should be returned? It was put in as an afterthought.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson)The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson) dissented.
    Sir I. PHILIPPS: I shall be glad to le disabused of that idea, because that is the general belief. Hon. Members will bear with me when I try to put forward the views that I believe to be held by these large numbers of soldiers. They have suffered untold misery. They feel very keenly the way we treat the German prisoners in this country—motor cars through the City of London, first-class railway carnages, every possible thing that you can do for them, and last, but not least, when you have brought these German prisoners wounded into Netley in the middle of the night you turn out the British wounded to make room for the German wounded. My right hon. Friend knows perfectly well that the feeling in South Hampshire when that took place was very great, and he has not removed it. In spite of the ill-treatment by the Germans of our soldiers out there, they are extraordinarily cheery, and keep their ends up the whole time. All those who come over to this country say: "Whatever you do, do not give in to the Germans and go in for reprisals." I am not here to advocate reprisals. I am against them. But our prisoners themselves would tell you that we should not treat the German prisoners in the way we are treating them to-day. All that I can say is only hearsay, but we have to-day my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Southampton (Captain Craig) who will, I am sure, add interest to the Debate, because he can tell us these things first hand, which we can know only second hand from those who come back. I feel myself that the Government is much to blame for the manner in which they have handled this matter, but the outlook to-day is such that we may have some reasonable hope that the time of their trouble is coming to an end. What we want to see now is that the Government, who have been slack in everything to do with prisoners in the past, should not be slack any more. We want to see that this matter is treated seriously by the Government when the question of armistice is considered. We want to impress upon the Government that one of the terms of the armistice should be the immediate return of British prisoners Personally, I would go so far
    1314
    as to say that I would agree to no armistice which does not give us full guarantees that all our prisoners should be back across the front line as soon as railways can be made available to transport them.
    That is not all. We have got to consider those who for the last four years have ill-treated our men. That is a question which undoubtedly raises great difficulty. But I hope and believe that some satisfactory arrangement can be come to by which we may insist, as a condition of the armistice, or that we will give notice at the time the armistice is arranged that we will certainly insist at the Peace Conference, on all those, whatever their rank or class, who may be shown to have been guilty of cruelty and of inhuman conduct to these prisoners, whereby their lives and health have been lost or injured, should be brought up to their trial, and not in a civil court—we do not want anything of that sort—but that there shall be a trial under military discipline, with no great lawsuits going on for the benefit of lawyers for the next twenty years, but a summary drumhead court-martial. That is what we want to see, and I believe that if the Government had announced definitely and determinedly months ago or years ago that they mean to deal with this question of the ill-treatment of these prisoners seriously, these things would not have happened. But no one on the Front Bench has ever taken any interest in these prisoners. Could anything be more hopeless than this last attempt at an agreement with the Germans? We, who have taken an interest in the matter, knew by the representatives whom you sent to make a treaty that it was bound to fail, and we told you so, and begged you to change the members of that Commission. But you would not do it, and the result, as we foresaw, was failure. You sent men with no sympathy with the task which they took up, who treated the matter in the other House with levity, and who, unfortunately, throughout the length and breadth of the land, are known as not being suitable in any way whatever for the task in which you employed them. We knew that it was going to fail, and it did fail, and our men have suffered. Remember that the soldier to-day knows all this just as well as any Member of this House. He does not want to be told them. He follows these things in every detail himself. It is because we feel anxiety on account of the way in which this matter has been treated in the past

    1315
    that we wish to impress on the Government that they must take a strong line in the matter and show that they are determined to support our men who are prisoners, and do their utmost to get them released at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I want, if I may, to deal more with the one question of the cruelty of the Germans towards the British prisoners rather than with the general question which has been referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend, but I would support him especially on one point in regard to the feelings which exist not merely in our Army but throughout the whole country in reference to the very good treatment which German prisoners have had from us. It is nothing short of a scandal, and when these details are coming back, when our men are dribbling back from Germany, where they have suffered diabolical cruelty, when the people of our country are really beginning to realise, as I do not think they did realise until within the last few months, what our gallant men have suffered, there is additional indignation to see how extraordinarily well the German prisoners are treated here. I am not one of those who want the German prisoners to be treated harshly, but I want them to be treated in such a way that people will realise that the Germans in our midst are prisoners. There is a general feeling that far too much leniency is shown to the type of Prussian officer in our midst, but I want specially to deal with the cruelties which have been inflicted on our men in Germany by Prussian officers, non-commissioned officers and men. I want to found my claim on the Government on the breach of international law. It has been admitted in international law for many years past that a prisoner is entitled to at least decent treatment, and that no prisoner may be wilfully, deliberately and barbarously ill-treated, as these men in Germany have been, merely because they were, as the Germans frequently said to them, "English swine." I want to be allowed to give one or two definite cases which have been recently sent to me from the Hague, in order that the House may realise the depths of cruelty which our men have suffered. I want the House also to realise that these are the men who, if any men deserve well of Great Britain, because they were the first of the old army who went out in
    1316
    August, 1914, and threw themselves—though they knew what they were going to suffer—in the path of the Germans and who, after having fought with all their might, day and night, battered, toil-worn, weary, were taken prisoners at last and then, I would almost say that it would have been better for them if they had died on the battle-field, rather than have endured the long torture which for years they have endured, and which they are still enduring to-day in German prisons.
    I will give a case which has been sworn to by two non-commissioned officers of the Coldstream Guards. The evidence was taken recently in Holland, to where these men had made their escape, and was sent over here. A sergeant in the Coldstream Guards was taken early in the campaign of 1914, and this is what he says—
    "I was standing next to Private B in camp at Schneidemuhl. A German sentry, armed with rifle and bayonet, said something which we did not understand; he rushed at B and struck him. B then ran away. He was eventually found in a hole in the ground. I should like to explain here that at that time we were only quartered in holes dug in the ground, for we had no huts in our lager, and we had to make ourselves as comfortable as we could in the open and in holes which we ourselves scooped out in the ground. A barrel was fetched in the lager by order of the German adjutant. Private B was then stripped to the waist and placed across the barrel by about six German soldiers. Each of them had a wooden post in his hand. They struck Private B over the head, bare back, and the body with these posts. He cried for mercy, but this punishment went on for at least ten minutes. Private B was practically unconscious, and had to be carried to a hut outside the lager where the Russian cooks stopped. Private B shortly after died. I would add that after he had been carried out of the lager he was tied to a post, about 20 yards from the gate, with wire round his chest, middle, and ankles; he was in a very fainting condition A German barrack inspector came up to Private B and struck him with his sword, which was in its scabbard, on his legs and chest. Afterwards he spat at Private B and called him, 'Englische Schweine.'"
    That is not, I believe, an exaggerated case. That is sworn to by one of the sergeants of the Coldstream Guards, and it is also corroborated by a company sergeant-major in the same regiment. This sergeant-major also gives another case. He mentions the case of Private S., and says:
    "On the 7th November, 1914, he was standing to attention when the German camp adjutant drew his sword, said, 'English Schweine,' and thrust his sword into Private S's left buttock. It penetrated at least 5 inches. He bled profusely, but we managed to support him. There was no medical attendance, but we looked after him for a fortnight, and were then moved to

    1317
    another lager, and he lay in my hut for another fortnight, and became paralysed from the hips downwards. He subsequently died."
    He believed the cause of his death was stated to be typhus, but this man goes on to say that it was a lie, and that he died as the result of his treatment. And so it goes on with story after story of that kind. May I tell the House the kind of treatment our men had from the doctors? Here is a case which occurred in 1917. A private had a bad foot as the result of a wound, and was very weak. A doctor called to him, and an amputation wag ordered. He lay for a week waiting for the operation, during which time his wound was only dressed once. The attention of the doctor was again called to him, as the man was gradually getting weaker. The doctor paid his visit, but nothing was done. About four hours after the doctor's visit, the man died of gangrene in the foot. That was the kind of medical attention—deliberate cruelty—which our men have had in these German camps. I will only give the House one more case. This is a case even more definite, sworn to, as it is, by twelve English soldiers, and the treatment in this case was not accidental but was deliberate from the German soldiers. This was on 18th January, 1918, at the notorious camp of Sennelager, and it is witnessed by a sergeant of the Hampshire Regiment. He says—
    "At about five o'clock on the morning of 18th January, 1918, a German soldier entered the room, and ordered eight men to draw the coffee from the camp, which is about 500 yards away from the receiving compound. Seven prisoners of war complied with the order, but as the English cannot drink the German coffee no Englishman went forward to draw the coffee for the twelve Englishmen there. The German soldier ordered Private B of the Scots Guards to fetch the coffee. Private B said that they could not drink the coffee. He ordered him a second time, and Private B again refused. The sentry then attempted to strike Private B with the butt of his rifle. Private B pushed the rifle down with his two hands. The sentry then ordered the remainder of the prisoners to the other side of the room, and then turning about he walked to the door, a distance of about ten paces. On turning about again there were two Frenchmen standing in front of Private B in the line of fire. He ordered these two Frenchmen to get over to the left. He threw open his overcoat and came to the aim. As the aim was not comfortable, he cleared his shoulder of the wercoat. He then came to the aim a second time and fired, hitting Private B in the left side, and he died in about four minutes."
    There were twelve British witnesses, whose names and regiments are in this sergeant's possession, who are prepared to swear this
    1318
    was not an accident but a deliberate thing. Then people are surprised that some of us have felt rather deeply and rather strongly on the question of the treatment of our prisoners in these German prison camps. I will not give more cases of that kind, but a grave refraction of international law is the compulsion of prisoners to work under fire of their own guns close behind the lines. The Government knows from a report which has been recently made by Mr. Justice Younger's Committee that large numbers of our men who were taken prisoner in our defeat in March, 1918, were kept working just the other side of the German lines, and have been the whole time under the fire of our own guns, and have been badly treated. Here is a Report, presented to this House by order of the Government by Mr. Justice Younger's Committee, showing that prisoners in German hands have been ill-fed—one might almost say starved. It is stated that there were some men just behind Arras who got a drink of coffee in the morning after being called at 3 o'clock. They then went out to work, and worked all day long, and, with the exception of that drink of coffee—and I take it from this Report this was not an isolated case but was a regular system—with nothing but a drink of coffee in the early morning, and some tea at 7 o'clock at night—no food at all—they had to work close behind the lines the whole of that time. They were even not allowed to get water on the march or at work. There are many other similar cases—
    "we were under fire…. There was a large dump of ammunition, and there were two or three Red Cross flags put over it."
    That is rather a well-known German dodge. But I want to remind the House that the date of this Committee's Report was 29th August, 1918, and that date I shall ask the House to remember in a minute, because I think there must have been some delay on the part of the Government in dealing with the facts set out in that Report. At a place called Salome there were from 1,300 to 1,500 Britishers close behind the lines, billeted in a church. They were not able to sit or lie down, day or night, it was so crowded The food was bad. They received no parcels, and were not allowed to write any letters. It is believed—perhaps my right hon. Friend opposite will be able to tell us and relieve the feelings of many parents in this country—that there are

    1319
    large numbers of our prisoners who are never allowed to write home at all, whose names do not come through, and are compelled to work in these conditions. Sometimes they are compelled to write postcards home, and the cards are taken to various camps in Germany from which they are posted, so as to make the parents believe the men are not working behind the lines, but are in more or less decent camps. There is one other case I must give—quite a recent one, at the hospital at Valenciennes, which we all hope very soon will be out of German hands—
    "A man named Private Ellis was in my ward with a bullet wound through his lung. He was left for some days unattended to, and was then taken to see the doctor. As he was in great pain he was calling out. The doctor hit him a hard punch on the jaw and sent him back to the ward. He came back crying, and died next morning."
    That is from a Government publication. I want to ask quite seriously—I am not desirous of making any party attack against the Government, but I do want this thing put straight once for all—why it was that the ultimatum was not dispatched until the 14th October, when the Government knew all the facts from the Government Report, and many more, as long as 29th August? They were known before this, but there is the latest Government document published on 29th August, and I want to ask my right hon. Friend what steps were taken, and by what Department of the Government dealing with the charges made in the Government Committee's own Report, and why there was, so far as we know at present, no ultimatum sent to Germany prior to 14th October? The last Hague Conference produced an admirable agreement if it could only be carried out, but it was vitiated by that annexe with regard to German civilians interned in China. When the Germans wanted to put that annexe to the Report, and declined to sign the Report without it, I want to know what steps the Government delegates took. I think my right hon. Friend was not there at the time. There wore Lord Newton and General Belfield. Did they say at once to the German delegates, "This is blackmail. This is an attempt to keep our prisoners in torture in order that you may blackmail the British Government with regard to your nationals in China, which has nothing to do with this agreement"? How did they speak to the German delegates? Did they use the
    1320
    language of Lord Newton or the language of President Wilson? I believe the Germans would have better understood language of the type used by President Wilson than language of the type that Lord Newton, so far as we know, used.
    I want to speak without any offence, but quite frankly with regard to those two-gentlemen. It was a most ill-advised proceeding to send Lord Newton to the Hague. He was a nobleman who, throughout the whole of his dealings with the prisoners, has shown a sense of cynical levity and a lack of sympathy; or, should I say, who is believed by all the prisoners' friends in England, and by the prisoners themselves, to have shown a cynical levity. It may be he is a hardly treated individual. It may be he is an excellent man, and that the charges of cynicism and levity fall wrongly upon his shoulders. But we do know this, that in his present office he objected to the internment of Germans here, and we know that in a speech in the House of Lords he condemned some of us in this House because we referred to Germans as Huns. He objected to Germans being called Huns, and that was the man whom the Government sent over to negotiate this treaty with four or five Prussian officers! I wonder if I might read an extract from a letter which appeared in the "Times" of 10th October? I do not say it is true. I have not the honour of the writer's acquaintance—
    "Lord Newton has been for several years the chief spokesman and apologist of the Department, and as such has come more prominently before the public. He has displayed in his utterances a cynical levity, and a frank brutality which prove him to be absolutely out of sympathy with the whole painful subject, and which has earned for him the reputation of the prisoners' evil genius"
    I can vouch for that. I have had a letter myself from a regular officer of the old Army who wrote me from the Hague the other day, wondering why it was the Government continued to employ Lord Newton. I have seen officers who have come back from the Hague. They tell me the whole feeling amongst our interned prisoners at the Hague, was that Lord Newton was the very last man to be appointed by the Government to represent their views and to try and get justice done at the Hague. I do ask my right hon. Friend to give us a full statement this afternoon. We, in this House, know my right hon. Friend. No one has accused him, or ever would, of levity. We believe

    1321
    he has a kind heart we believe his intention throughout has, been to do what he could for the prisoners, and I for one regret most intensely that Parliamentary business made it necessary for him to return from the Hague.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend spoke of the two delegates at the Hague. He means, I have no doubt, Lord Newton and General Belfield. I hope he does not include General Belfield in the charge of levity. I have worked for three years with him, and never found anyone less open to such a charge.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am quite satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's explanation. It is perfectly justifiable. I did not include General Belfield. I personally have had the honour of working with General Belfield in other matters. I think he would be inclined to take the old Army view of prisoners. I do not accuse him of levity or anything of that kind, but I say he would rather take the view of the War Office that the War must be got on with, and that these prisoners were rather a troublesome matter. I do not suggest anything further than that. I should not have said that if my right hon. Friend had not interrupted. What are the Government going to do? I am afraid the mentality of the Germans, particularly the highly-placed Germans, know nothing but force, and the only way to deal with the Germans, if necessary, is by reprisals—stern, as the Government have threatened. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hope) told us a week ago that if the Austrians killed our aviators for dropping pamphlets over Vienna, the Government would take stern measures of reprisals, and the Home Secretary, in his statement of 13th October, stated quite definitely that reprisals would be undertaken, and I want to assure him, as I think I may generally on behalf of the prisoners' friends, that if the Government deem it necessary—we do not like reprisals; we do not want to take them in this country—but if they deem it necessary for the protection and safety of our men who have suffered so long, to exact stern reprisals on highly-placed German officers here, they will have the unanimous support of prisoners' friends.
    Lastly, I want to enforce what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend regarding the armistice. I cannot imagine that the Government would enter into any negotiations with the German or any other Army
    1322
    without making it a definite term that all our prisoners in Germany or any other country should be immediately released. I want the Government to see, by hostages or by some other arrangements, that they are released immediately, and that weeks and months are not allowed to elapse between the armistice and the repatriation of these men who are entitled to every possible help that the country can give them. The men who have been responsible for these crimes must receive condign punishment. I know my country well enough to know that as soon as this War is over there will be a feeling of kindness and a disposition to let bygones be bygones, but this is a matter of justice, not vengeance. If we allow cruelties of this nature to go unpunished, it will be an inducement to any other nation in the future to say that Great Britain will stand anything. We demand: first, armistice; secondly, the punishment of those who are guilty; and, thirdly, if the armistice is not given, that the Government will carry out the terms of their own ultimatum and insist by such means as they think right that justice, or at least mercy, should be extended to our prisoners in Germany.
    Captain CHARLES CRAIG: I feel that the responsibility upon my shoulders is great, because I know that the House, owing to the fact that I have been a prisoner of war in Germany for two years, will receive all that I have to say with confidence, believing it to be absolutely and strictly true, and will naturally pay more attention to any firsthand statement made by me than to a statement made by any other Member of the House who has heard it from a third person. For these reasons, I desire to be as moderate as I possibly can in stating the case of the prisoners of war to-day. I regret that the first thing that I have to do when I come home, after two years in Germany, is to level as strong an indictment as I possibly can against the Government for their treatment of this prisoners of war question during the last three or four years. I wish I could tell the House that my experiences assure me that the Government have done all that they could for the prisoners of war. Unfortunately, I have to say the very reverse. As far as my experience goes, they have done little or nothing for us. I have to say, further, that they could have alleviated our lot to a very considerable extent. If they had done their duty as they ought to have done, they could have made the lives of

    1323
    those thousands of men who have been spoken of by my hon. Friends who have preceded me, I will not say happy, but comparatively easy, instead of which they have been lives of unutterable misery all these years. I was amazed, when I came home, speaking to a variety of people in trains and other places, to find that a great many of them took no interest in the question of prisoners of war, and those who admitted taking any interest in it said to me: "Surely these stories which we hear of the bad treatment of our prisoners of war are not true!" They said it in a tone of voice which showed me that they expected my answer to be "No." Why is it? God knows that we prisoners of war have done our best as far as we could to make the condition of affairs in Germany known to the people here. Yet when we come home we find that the stories that we have told are not believed. There is something wrong there. One of my hon. Friends says "No, no!" I know that it is not true absolutely, and that there are plenty of people who do believe the worst that can be told, but the general public do not believe half of the true stories that have been circulated about the condition of prisoners of war.
    Why is there that indifference of the public and that inability or disinclination to believe the truth? Where are we to look for the cause of it? I ask myself: Is it due to the old idea that a prisoner of war is a person who is not deserving of any consideration? Is it that the people of this country think that our prisoners of war in Germany, of whom I was one, have brought their own fate upon themselves, have made their own bed and must lie upon it—that they have no right to be prisoners of war at all, but ought to be dead rather than in an enemy country? Is that the idea, the old-fashioned, hard view that used to be taken a century ago—an unjust one even then? Surely at this time that is not the correct view to take of prisoners of war! Surely it is not the correct view to take of those men who have suffered most in Germany—the men who were taken in 1914, men of the old original Army, men belonging to the most distinguished regiments of the British Army, men who were taken prisoners fighting to stop the onrush of the Germans at Le Cateau and Mons! Are those men of whom it ought to be said that they allowed themselves to be taken prisoners when they might have
    1324
    fought it out to the end and have been killed? Not only have we those men, but we also have among our prisoners of war in Germany men of the Royal Navy whose ships were sunk beneath their feet, and who were picked up out of the water. Is it to be said that those men ought to have refused to have been saved? We have, too, men of the Mercantile Marine whose ships were also sunk beneath them, either by gunfire or torpedo or mine. Could those men help themselves being taken prisoners? No, Sir. Let me add a fourth class. They are the unfortunate civilians. Surely no stigma attaches to them. Poor devils, they could do nothing. They were in Germany, and were taken prisoners at the outbreak of war, and they have had to suffer, like all prisoners, very severely. I do not suppose the public believe all that. I do not believe that the view suggested is the view taken by the public with reference to the prisoners of war. I believe the public takes the view that the vast majority were only taken prisoners after they had done their utmost for their country. There may be one or two per cent. of the total who gave in sooner than was necessary, but the public does not believe that there is a greater percentage.
    While that is not the view of the public, I am perfectly convinced that it is the view of the War Office. The War Office is a corporation without a soul, and I am sorry to say that I believe they have been able to impress that view of prisoners of war upon every Department which has had to do with them. One of the first difficulties of our position has been that we have not had to deal with one single Department, but with a number of Government Departments. The Foreign Office, the War Office the Army Council, the Home Office, and all sorts of Departments have had to be consulted before anything could be done. If I am asked why I say that, I believe that is the view taken of us by the War Office.
    I can quote two—more than two, four—very significant facts which I think will bear out my contention that the view of the War Office was that when we were taken prisners we were of no further use, that the country had plenty of other things to look after, and that it was not their business to bother about prisoners of war till the War was over. The 1914 star was granted to people who took part in the early part of the War. At first it was not intended to give it to prisoners of war. Probably there was an agitation

    1325
    by some friends of prisoners of war, and at last it was agreed that it should be given to them, but it was given grudgingly. It was intimated to them that it was only provisional, it was stated in so many words—I believe in the Army Orders—that they were liable to have the star taken from them if, after the War, it was found that their conduct when taken prisoner was not correct and proper. Any soldier or sailor may be covered with decorations from top to bottom, but if he be guilty of cowardice, or if he be found to have given himself up without proper cause, every single one of his decorations and medals will be ripped off his coat. That is known to every soldier and sailor; but in this case the War Office rubbed it in, so to speak, and put it into the Army Orders that this 1914 ribbon was only given provisionally, and that it was liable to be taken away as soon as prisoners of war came back. A worse case was with regard to the chevrons granted for length of service, and I ask the attention of the House very particularly while I describe what happened. It was decided that prisoners of war were not to be allowed to count the time that they were in prison camps for the extra chevrons and this was the nice, gentle way in which the War Office made that intimation to the prisoners of war. In the Army Orders of January of this year they say:
    "The qualifying service for additional chevrons need not be continuous. It will include periods of leave up to one mouth, where the individual returns overseas at the conclusion of such leave."
    This is the part to which I want to draw attention—
    "Periods of absence without leave, in prison or detention, in hospital from sickness due to avoidable causes, or in captivity as a prisoner of war will be excluded when calculating the twelve months required to qualify for an additional chevron."
    The House will realise that the unfortunate prisoner of war is grouped together with persons who have been absent without leave, namely, deserters, persons who are in prison or detention, namely, the drunkard, or the person who has done some criminal act, and persons who are in hospital from sickness due to avoidable causes. We all know that is the man suffering from a self-inflicted wound or from venereal disease. Those are the people with whom the prisoners of war are coupled in this Army Order. I say it is a disgrace. If the War
    1326
    Office thought that prisoners of war should not have been granted these chevrons, they should have taken care to have intimated that fact in some way without bracketing prisoners of war with the people I have mentioned. There is another thing. One of the Mercantile Marine captains, to whom, as I have said before, the country perhaps owes quite as much as it does to its Army or Navy, on arrival of the tender of the hospital ship in the Wash, a few days ago, was approached by an individual in military uniform and asked: "Have you any means?" The Mercantile Marine captain very properly told him to mind his own business. The officer said: "I only ask you because if you have not any means we have a small fund out of which we can pay for your tickets from Boston to London." That means that while military officers get a free pass to London, a member of the Mercantile Marine, who has, while in Germany and Holland, been treated like any other officer, has to pay his own fare to London.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): I heard of that, and I got it altered at once.—[An HON. MEMBER: "When?"]—Within the last week or so. The Committee appointed to deal with these matters was only formed a few weeks ago.
    Captain CRAIG: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that nine-tenths of the criticisms I am making are levelled at the procedure of the Prisoners of War Committee before he became Chairman. I am speaking of the past, and the rising anger of the public has produced the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman as Chairman. Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that up to the present a civilian prisoner coming from Ruhleben had to pay his fare the whole way, or give a written undertaking that he would pay it back to the Government.
    Sir G. CAVE: The Committee has also altered that rule.
    Captain CRAIG: I know this has been going on for six months or more, and I am pleased to hear that it has been changed. I quote the incident to the House to let hon. Members see how these matters have been attended to in the past. I think I have shown quite plainly that what was said by my hon. Friend below me is right—that the War Office looks upon

    1327
    prisoners of war as people worthy of no consideration, and they have been able to impress that view on other people.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My Department does not deal with that.
    Captain CRAIG: If it has nothing to do with the right hon. Gentleman's Department, then I address my remarks to the Department to which it does relate. A Committee was appointed to safeguard and look after the affairs and interests of prisoners of war, and when that was announced the friends of prisoners of war naturally said: "At last the Government has recognised the necessity of doing something. A Committee has been appointed, and no doubt the interests of prisoners will now be properly safeguarded." It is quite true that the Committee was appointed, but of whom did it consist? One of the most important members of it was the representative of the War Office (General Belfield). I am not going to say anything particular about him further than that he was the representative of the War Office, and I have not the slightest doubt that he was sent with specific instructions to look at every point strictly and solely from the War Office point of view, and I have indicated what I think is that point of view. I am convinced that is the view General Belfield held and put forward at every meeting when anything came up for discussion on that Committee. Another most important member was Lord Newton, of whom we have already heard. With regard to Lord Newton, I do not want to say anything offensive. I have already indicated that I have not much confidence in the Committee, and that remark applies to Lord Newton as well as the Committee.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): To what Committee does the hon. and gallant Member refer?
    Captain CRAIG: I am referring to what we prisoners of war have known as the Prisoners of War Committee, which was supposed to look after our interests at home, and we looked upon it as consisting of Lord Newton, who was the head of it, with General Belfield as one of its principal members.
    Mr. HOPE: If my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to the Prisoners of War Department, General Belfield was
    1328
    not a member of it. It may be some other Committee, but I do not quite follow which it is.
    Captain CRAIG: I am sure the House will understand my difficulty. If I am not right in my description of these Committees I will change the name and speak of it as the Government. I have only been back a short time, and I have not been able to solve the intricacies of these Committees and the various Departments which are supposed to look after our interests, but at the top of them all is the Government. We know that whatever Committee the Government set up, General Belfield and Lord Newton were members of it, and they were very important individuals from our point of view. I have already described what we thought General Belfied was—that is, he carried out strictly the views and instructions of the War Office. Lord Newton, we thought, was a man who took an entirely wrong view of the nature and mentality of the German. He thought that the German was a humane and ordinary gentleman, and we prisoners of war look upon him as a brute. He apparently thought the German could be brought to reason by ordinary methods and means, and by corresponding with him as one gentleman or one honourable enemy would do with another. We found out that that was not the right way to approach a German, and that the only logic and argument which a German understands is the argument of the big stick, which he has very often applied himself when it was in his power, and it is an argument which, I am glad to say, we are applying to him at the front at the present time. Our complaint is that that argument was never used in our interests.
    This brings up the question of reprisals. I have had many arguments on that subject. I have been told, and shall probably be told again by those who speak on behalf of the Government, that they have consulted numerous prisoners of war, and that they have invariably been told that prisoners of war are not in favour of retaliation or reprisals. I can say most authoritatively that the vast majority of prisoners of war with whom I have discussed the, subject—and the question has been discussed thousands of times in Germany—would be willing and ready that reprisals should be taken against prisoners of war in this country at once.

    1329
    There is nothing which goes to the heart of a prisoner of war in Germany more than the fact that he has to suffer all these indignities, cruelties, and barbarities—those which have been mentioned by my hon. Friend (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) are a mere fraction of them—than the fact that he knows nothing has been done here in regard to this matter except a polite request through the Dutch or Swiss Ambassador from our Government to the German Government to discontinue these practices. Surely after three years our Government ought to have known that these methods were of no use!
    Things went from bad to worse even after the Hague Agreement of 1917 was passed, at which resolutions were adopted that the conditions of prisoners of war should be improved. Even after that, from the beginning of 1917 to the time I came out of Germany, the condition of prisoners of war got worse from day to day, as far as their treatment was concerned. One of the conditions of that agreement was that interned people who had served eighteen months in Germany were to be sent to Holland. The way that was carried out shows that the prisoners of war were treated with the utmost callousness and want of feeling. That agreement was passed on the 14th of July, 1917. Naturally prisoners of war, and especially those who have been in prison since 1914, were overjoyed, and they said, "How long will it be before we get out of this country?" They gave the Government two and a half months, and we agreed that it would take until the 1st of October. That date came, and actually a number of prisoners who had been longest in prison were removed from the camp I was in about that time. They all thought they were going to Holland. The remainder remained behind for a fortnight, and we were then removed to the same camp. I remember in the train the older prisoners of 1914 were betting freely as to whether the first party of fifty prisoners had gone to Holland, but when we arrived at Holzminden they were there. There they remained, eagerly scanning the papers from day to day and week to week, for three months before the first of them was sent to Holland
    5.0 P.M.
    To prove that it was not an unreasonable assumption that two and a half months would be the time required to make the necessary preparations, some of those committees at home who had been in
    1330
    the habit of sending parcels wrote to a number of these officers saying that they had stopped sending parcels, because before they were likely to arrive the prisoners would be in Holland under the agreement. May I inform the Committee that it was the 1st of January before a single one of those prisoners got to Holland, and it took six solid months to carry out an arrangement for transferring 7,000 men and 700 officers to Holland? You may say that the reason was that you had great difficulties with the Navy and the other people in fixing up a port from which the Germans were to sail. That may be, but if we had bad, as we have now, a responsible head of the Prisoners of War Department, then these negotiations could have been got through in one month or six weeks. Owing to the fact that you had the Navy objecting practically to every port being used for the purpose, and you had difficulty with other Departments, the Board of Trade probably making objections about railways, and so on, the result was that it took six months to do what might easily have been done in two months.
    I further blame the Government because when they knew that this time was going to be occupied, they did not inform the prisoners of war that it was likely they would be detained until the beginning of the new year. I can assure the House that the last three months which these officers spent in Germany had more effect upon their health than the whole of the three and a half years they had spent in Germany before. That is an instance of the want of feeling the authorities at home have for the prisoners of war. They have no conception of what it means to a man to be a prisoner of war in Germany for four years. I was there only for two years as compared with four years spent there by other people, but I know the mental anxiety through which one goes, especially when the time is approaching for release to Holland is very great, and when I know that these poor people had been there in the early days, two years longer than I had been, and when I remember that in the early days the condition of the officers' camps were much worse than they are at the present day, I am confident that if the public had only known of the mental anguish which these officers, non-commissioned officers and men had to go through at that time, they would have risen, and told the Government that this

    1331
    transfer must be carried oat at once and must not be left hanging over the prisoners of war for months.
    I do not want to go into details of bad treatment. If I did I could keep the House quite easily for another hour; but I can assure them that all the extracts from the cases which were quoted by my hon. Friend who spoke before me are typical of thousands of others which have happened in the past in Germany, and are happening to this day. There was no exaggeration among them These cases actually happened. I have determined, however, to read one case to the House for the simple reason that, although it was an old case, it was what one might call an unsolicited testimonial, and it only arrived on the 14th of this month from a non-commissioned officer who is at present in Switzerland. It was written to an hon. secretary of a Relief Committee. He says:
    "Just a few lines to you in answer to your kind and welcome letter dated 16th September, which I am afraid was delayed somewhere; but better late than never. You ask me how I was treated on the Russian Front. I think, myself, it was beyond all records. I left Munster, Westphalia, on the 6th May, 1916, a strong able-bodied man. My weight was then 13 stone 6 lbs., and after doing eighteen months in and behind the German lines I returned to Germany a complete wreck. My weight was then 10 stone 6 lbs. Our work consisted of road-making and railway-making from six in the morning to any time at night; in fact, we never knew when we were finished. Our parcels used to come once a month and we were fifty miles from the nearest railway station, so we had to pay the Russian people, to go and fetch them up on their sleigh. That used to take three days' journey there and back, and perhaps when they were sorted there would be none for you or perhaps there would be one, and when you opened it half the contents would be missing. One night on the Russian Front we were ordered to the German first line of trenches to put barbed wire up under shell fire the whole time, and if any man refused he was shot dead on the spot, which happened to several. After we were finished they took us to a place called Mitau and put us into small tents, where there were 3 ft. of snow and ice, kept us there all night, and when they had a roll call in the morning they found there were several men frozen to death and about eight with severe frost-bite, while some lost their legs and others their arms, etc."
    That is an unsolicited testimonial, and I say so because I know that some people assert that for the purpose of making our case we go out of our way to get hold of these cases. That is not so. There are thousands of cases, and the Government have the fullest details of these cases in their possession. In fact, I understand
    1332
    that they boast that they know a great deal more about the condition of prisoners of war than any single prisoner of war can possibly do. I believe them, because they have the fullest details of all the cases.
    The question is, what is to be done? The War has taken a turn now. That may improve matters very much; but we have had many false alarms in the past. We thought two or three years ago that the War could not possibly last another year. If I was sure that the War was going to end now and an armistice was going to be accepted by the Germans, I might say that to some extent this Debate would be useless. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Perhaps not for the purpose of punishment afterwards, but for the purpose of alleviating the condition of the prisoners of war, if an armistice comes sooner, then I fear our discussion this afternoon may be more or less useless. However, we have no guarantee of any sort that that is to be the case. We do not know that the War will not last for another year. We do not know whether the military leaders in Germany may take hold of things, and say that in any case they are done, that whatever happens they will have to go, and therefore they will fight to the bitter end. If that be so—and there is great probability they will do so, the War may go on for another year. During that time food will become scarcer in Germany, conditions will be harder for the Germans themselves, and it is safe to prophesy that the condition of our prisoners of war will be very much worse rather than better, unless we take a very strong line.
    There are two things to be done, and we must do both of them. We must make it quite clear in our armistice or by public statement that the fullest, I will not say vengeance, but justice must be done to those inhuman wretches who have created so much trouble, and who have treated our prisoners in such a vile and barbarous manner. At the same time, I submit that we must let them know that if these things do not instantly stop, we will take reprisals. I am glad to see that the Government has intimated that to a certain extent. I want them to be firm on the subject, and not to repeat the fiasco into which they were forced in the early part of the War when they tried reprisals on the unfortunate crews of the U-boats. I remember that incident, and I was very grieved about it

    1333
    in the first instance because I thought they could not have chosen a worse case in which to begin reprisals. We showed our hand at once to the Germans and showed them that we were not prepared to carry these reprisals through. It stands to reason that if you are going to go in for reprisals you must carry them through. There was a soft, silly sentimental feeling in this country—at least those are the adjectives which I apply to it—that reprisals must under no circumstances be resorted to, that they were not British and Christian. That, I think, is absolute nonsense, and I guarantee that if hon. Members who express views like that were prisoners of war in Germany for a short time, they would very soon get rid of such feelings. If you are prepared to send your sons, your relatives and friends to the War—and they have been shot down in their thousands—you ought, when you know that your own people are being done to death in Germany, to say, "I will take the Germans we have here, and for every man you kill in Germany we will kill one German here." That is only common sense. In times of peace all these other ideas of Christianity are all right, but now they are out-of-date. As long as these Germans are cruel and kill thousands of our men in Germany, I maintain that justice demands that precisely the same treatment should be meted out to Germans here.
    I hope the Home Secretary when he replies on the whole subject will reassure us on this matter, and will make the whole country and the Germans quite confident that the most severe reprisals will be employed by us to protect, our people from the enemy. That should be done now. He will probably tell us that it was impossible in the past, because the Germans thought they were winning, and reprisals would have no effect upon them. That is not the case now. We are winning the War. The Germans know it and they know they cannot last much longer. Therefore we can do as we like in regard to this matter, and I press the right hon. Gentleman very strongly to make such a statement that the Germans will have no doubt whatever as to our intentions. I may say that the criticisms which I have made were not directed at the right hon. Gentleman. They were directed at the Government's conduct before he accepted the position of Chairman of the British Commission at the Hague. I would leave the interests of the prisoners of war very
    1334
    gladly in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman if he had to look after those interests alone, and had no other work to do; but I say that with the multifarious duties which he has to attend to as Secretary of State for Home Affairs—aliens, police, and a hundred and one different questions with which he must deal every day—no single man is capable of properly attending to the prisoners of war when he has all this other work to do. However, apparently, we cannot hope for that. We cannot hope that he will become Minister for Prisoners of War alone. But I am sure he will do his very best, and I have the utmost confidence on that point. I cannot sit down without expressing my disappointment at the Government that when they were appointing a Minister who would be supreme on this question, they did not appoint a Minister of great powers like the right hon. Gentleman, and one who would be able to give the whole of his time to this very important question.
    Captain STANLEY WILSON: The House has listened to a very interesting speech, and I am sure hon. Members will congratulate the hon. and gallant Member on his return to this country and to this House. I have no intention of making any such strong attack upon the Government as has been made by preceding speakers, although at the same time, as one who has suffered from capture in the hands of the enemy, I entirely agree that the Government has done very little for the prisoners of war.
    Take my own case. I was offered in exchange for a full year, and then was repatriated by the generosity of the Austrian Government. I had intended this afternoon to have referred at some length to the position of British prisoners in Austria, but this morning's news appears to make it unnecessary for me to make any long speech with regard to their situation. It appears from the morning news that Austria has capitulated, and I earnestly hope one of the first things we shall see is the return of our prisoners from there. Undoubtedly the Government are aware that there are a considerable number of military officers now at the camp at Salzburg, at which I was a prisoner. The last letter I received from that camp stated that the number now amounted (in August) to thirty-four military officers. What number of men is in Austria at the present moment I have no knowledge at all. But if there were that number of officers there must be a considerable number of men in

    1335
    captivity there. As my hon. Friend the Member for the Central Division of Sheffield (Mr. Hope), who may reply on this particular point, is aware, there are some twenty-five merchant ships' officers at that camp. Their captivity has been from one and a half to two years in length, and only one of these merchant seamen has been repatriated on account of his age. It is in regard to these men that I particularly wish to call the attention of the House this afternoon. More than one-half of these merchant seamen officers are over military age, and they are being kept in captivty for one reason, and one reason alone—and that is, because the Central Powers, Germany and Austria, maintain that these merchant seamen are combatant officers and because we maintain that these men are civilians. Now the Austrian Government sent a message back by me when they repatriated me to this country, saying that they were perfectly ready to negotiate for the exchange of these officers. I suggested that if the British Government allowed these men to give their parole—the men over military age—that they would not take up a ship again for the duration of the War, they should be repatriated to England, and perhaps younger men under military age might be sent to Switzerland. The Austrian Government asked me to tell the Government that they were prepared to negotiate for the return of these men on that basis.
    I have begged the authorities in the fourteen months since my return to do something to get these men out of their captivity, and they have said they will do nothing because the Austrians consider them combatants, and I have asked if it is not possible to exchange them on some terms and argue about their status when the War is over or at some other time. There are three Departments to deal with these merchant captains and other officers: the Board of Trade, the Prisoners of War Department, and the Admiralty. I have been to both of the first two, and they both always promise to do their best to get these men exchanged in the manner I have suggested. But they have always told me that I should find my stumbling-block at the Admiralty. That is quite correct. The Admiralty have always refused since my return to do anything for these men until the Central Powers recognise that merchant shipping officers are civilians. So these unfortunate men, because of this dispute, have
    1336
    been kept in captivity and are there still. A few days ago I received a letter from the Prisoners of War Department informing me that at last the Department has seen fit to telegraph through the Spanish Embassy to Austria saying that they were willing to exchange all the Austrian merchant ships' captains and men we hold prisoners in this country for all men of a similar category in Austria. All I can say is, that it is a very great pity it has only just been done. If it had been done a year ago we should have been able to negotiate a satisfactory settlement for these men. The latest letters I have received from the camp show that these officers are all suffering from considerable privations. That is easily to be imagined, because when I left, fourteen months ago, there was very little to eat in Austria and we were practically dependent on the parcels we received from home, and they arrived in a very badly pilfered condition. But now with the large increase of Army officers there it is very difficult for these merchant ships' captains to help them over there until their parcels begin to arrive from this country. I say, as I have said since my return, the Austrians have done their best for the English and French prisoners of war. They have perpetrated no deliberate cruelty on any of them, and have given what they can in the way of food. I believe they have given prisoners of war as much as their own people had, but the Government has to remember that the Austrians themselves for two years past have been on the verge of starvation.
    Now, if the officers at the Salzburg camp have been suffering, the men must have been suffering a great deal more, and I therefore take this opportunity of most earnestly begging the Government that, should any armistice be arranged with Austria, as everything points in the morning papers, in the course of a few days, or possibly a few hours, one of the first conditions of the armistice should be the immediate release and return of all our prisoners of war in that country. Nobody can realise the horrors of captivity, whether one is well treated or not, until he has been a prisoner of war himself. For a very long time the Government refused to take up any exchange of any sort or kind. I mentioned my own case, when the reason given was that they would agree to no individual exchanges. Had they agreed to individual exchanges earlier in the War there would have been

    1337
    a great many officers at liberty who are still languishing in captivity through this unfortunate attitude of the Government. With the great news we have before us to-day, I am quite confident in a very few weeks we shall be able to welcome a great part of our prisoners back from captivity, not only, I hope, from Austria, but from Germany as well.
    Sir ELLIS HUME-WILLIAMS: I am sure everybody who has followed this Debate must have been struck first and foremost with the terrible recital we have had at first hand of the cruelty of the Germans, and I think, after what we have heard, we can accept those facts as being true, and sorrowfully let them pass for further consideration. Beyond doubt our men have been tied to stakes standing on stones, the stones have been kicked away, and they have been left hanging at their stakes. They have been kicked, insulted, shot. Officers have been treated with a refinement of cruelty of which only a German is capable. I have seen myself in Switzerland commanding officers who have been put to clean out drains, and every indignity that German ingenuity can devise has been inflicted on our men, and is continuing, alas, to this minute. This is common ground of our discussion, and the question arises, what are we to do now? If the Hague agreement had gone through it would without doubt have been a great advantage to these British prisoners in Germany. Unfortunately, the Home Secretary was called back to his duties here before the agreement was actually signed, and when it came to be signed, I believe what actually happened was that the German representatives chronicled their own opinion—it was not a condition of the agreement, that ought to be said for the credit of those who attended—these German representatives put on record their individual opinion that it should not be adopted by the Germans unless something were done with regard to the Germans in China, I do regret that when the Government published that agreement, as they did in this House and saw the general rejoicing that its terms naturally gave rise to over the country, they did not state that these conditions had been attached by those who signed it, and that there was, if not a probability at least a possibility, that it would not ultimately be adopted by Germany. If that had been done we might have been spared some of the disappointment and sorrow with which the failure of that
    1338
    agreement has been treated in so many families in England. However, it was not done, and there is an end of it.
    It brings us to the question of the bottom of this Debate and constituting its usefulness; what can we do in the present unique opportunity to ameliorate the condition of our prisoners in Germany, and as I shall say in a few moments, also in Turkey, I confess I am wholeheartedly in favour of the armistice which one hopes is now being initiated, being conditional upon the immediate return of English prisoners. I know what will be said. It will be said and has been said, that you cannot introduce in an armistice all the conditions you are ultimately going to make part of your terms of peace. Ton for ton, ship for ship, questions of compensation, these will remain for the peace conference afterwards. But I contend this question of the cruel treatment of prisoners is on a different footing altogether. Here you have active, actual continuing cruelty on the part of the Germans, and it is much more like, if I may press this on the attention of the Home Secretary for a moment, it is much more like the question of the submarine warfare and the burning and devastation of houses which President Wilson's own answer stipulated must cease before an armistice was considered at all, than it is on a par with the ultimate conditions of peace, such as ton for ton, ship for ship, and so on, which we shall discuss when we come to peace terms. Therefore, to my mind, it is no answer to say we cannot as a part of an armistice stipulate for a return of prisoners of war, and that it must be left for the time when the peace conference assembles. It is urgent, it is pressing, and it ought to be just as much a condition of peace as the cessation of submarine warfare. The Government have publicly announced that they are going to entertain the question of reprisals. I should very much like the Home Secretary to explain what he really means by the term. What reprisals does the Government really contemplate? You cannot, if you try, induce British soldiers to shoot German prisoners in the back, to starve them, to crucify them or to whip them. Nothing approaching the German system of cruelty is possible. It is foreign to the English temperament. I have no objection to reprisals being carried into operation if it can be done effectively, but I suggest that we do not have a second fiasco, and that we do not make the same

    1339
    mistake that we did on a former occasion in the matter of reprisals on those who had been taken prisoner in submarines and adopt a policy and then drop it. If we are going to have a policy of reprisals, for goodness sake let us have a cut and dried plan before we put it into operation, and, if possible, and if it does not prejudice the case, let us know now what is in the mind of the Government.
    Then comes a question which I consider of the greatest importance, and that is the punishment of those who are personally responsible for the ill-treatment of our prisoners. It is a practical question. I know it is new, but the cruel treatment of prisoners is new. I do not suppose in any war that history records there has been the deliberate, systematic, devilish cruelty to which our prisoners have been subjected by the Germans during this War. I think the procedure should be this. Immediate steps should be taken to collect, from prisoners and those who have given evidence before Sir Robert Younger's committee, the names of those who are accused of personal cruelty to those in the camps, whether they be commandants, officers, under-officers, or whatever their position may be, and to know the persons whom we are going ultimately to accuse. Let that be done quietly now, let the evidence be collected, and let a committee be appointed ad hoc.
    Sir G. CAVE: That is being done.
    Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I am glad to hear it. Then in concert, if possible, with the Allies, because I think it should be an international question, let Germany clearly be made to understand that these men's names are known, and that it will be a condition in the very forefront of the peace terms that they are given up for trial—I care not where it is—by international court-martial at the Hague; I do not care where the court is, as long as it is a properly constituted court of officers and men who understand the question with which they are dealing, and that punishment will follow and will be carried out upon those who have so brutally behaved to Englishmen. A bully is ever a coward, and I think the idea that he can be made personally responsible for his own acts of cruelty will be as startling to the German as it undoubtedly will be new. The effect, I believe, will be immediate. Every man will say to himself, "It is possible that I may come on
    1340
    this Black List, and at any rate, in the future, my behaviour will be improved towards the prisoners under my care." That is, of course, on the assumption that we are unable to secure the return of prisoners as a condition of armistice.
    Two further small points I make really on behalf of the Department with which I am associated. I should like an assurance from the Home Secretary that the Admiralty will be able to provide ships during the coming winter to take our parcels to Holland. There are now 150,000 British prisoners. Each has to have three parcels a fortnight, and that means a good deal of space. The ordinary service will soon cease, and I should like, on behalf of my Department, an undertaking that proper ships will be provided to take this large number of parcels. There is another vital question on which I should like an assurance. I should like, if it could possibly be arranged with the German representatives while negotiations are going on, that every Help Committee in the prisoners' camps should be given quick and free communication with the Central Prisoners of War Committee in London and with the Bread Bureaux in Copenhagen and in Berne. There are a great number of men who, we know, have been taken prisoner and we are unable to discover the camp that they have gone to, or their names. A short time ago there were as many as 25,000 whom we knew to have been taken prisoners and whom we could not trace to any camp, and as parcels had to be individually addressed we could not get parcels to them. At present there are 8,000 prisoners of war to whom we are unable to send the personally addressed parcels which are essential to their existence. A large store is kept at each camp, but if the Help Committee in each camp could be allowed by the Germans to communicate the number of men in the camp and their names as soon as they arrive it would very much facilitate the sending of parcels to them.
    The treatment of our prisoners in Turkey is one of the darkest pages in the history of this War. Nearly half the English who surrendered at Kut have died of want, starvation, and neglect. The treatment to which those men were subjected on their march from Kut to the camps in which they were interned and the treatment they received in those camps is, as far as accounts have been allowed to come through to us, horrible and blood-curdling reading. I

    1341
    hope Mr. Justice Younger's Committee will collect, with the same care that they have devoted to the collection of evidence from Germany, evidence as to the treatment of prisoners in Turkey.
    Sir G. CAVE: They have done so.
    Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: And that it will be published soon, so that we have an end to this fiction that the Turk is a gallant enemy who is fighting reluctantly against the English. The treatment of prisoners in Turkey is one of the saddest episodes of the whole War. It is very difficult to get parcels to them, as they have to go through Austria, and they have not received food. The Turkish Agreement was turned into a mere farce. Nothing has been done under it to the present day, although I am glad to hear that a ship has ultimately really sailed. It came to be looked on and talked of as the phantom ship to bring back the thousand prisoners of war it was agreed to exchange and now if, as we all hope and believe, Turkey is going out of the fighting arena, I beg of the Home Secretary to see that the very first stipulation is the immediate and unconditional return of every British prisoner in Turkey. Let there be not a moment's delay. Do not let us be told that there are difficulties of transport and that the Admiraly is sympathetic but unable to oblige. Let the ships be made ready now. The information, if it exists, is within the possession of the Cabinet. My right hon. Friend properly knows much more than anyone in the House what are the real chances of the prisoners coming back soon, but if it looms in the immediate future, do not let an hour be wasted in making the necessary preparations, so that when Turkey surrenders the very first thing to happen will be that the British prisoners will be dispatched to our shores.
    I should like to emphasise the necessity of appointing one man of Cabinet rank to deal exclusively with the question of prisoners of war. If my right hon. Friend could be appointed as the man in sole charge of this question the country would welcome with unrestrained joy the fact that he was the man of all others who was going to take over the job. But, unluckily there is no busier man in or out of the House. It is the penalty of his ability that he has so many occupations that I should think he has scarcely time to remember them all. There is not a man in the Cabinet who is harder worked. He is
    1342
    always put into the greatest number of jobs that require tact, ability, and perseverance. In this case, of course, he has exceptional knowledge of the subject, because he had assisted at the Conference, but it is unfortunate that the man above all others whom we want for the job is the most occupied member of the Cabinet, and, strive as he may, conscientiously and patriotically, to give his best services to the cause, it is impossible for a man to be doing half a dozen things at the same time, although it is really essential that there should be someone to take sole charge of the question. There is the Central Prisoners of War Committee, there is the Department at 18, Carlton House Terrace, there is Lord Newton, and there is the War Office, to which you always have to turn, the War Office quite reasonably taking the view that that with which they are alone concerned is the successful conduct of the War. Of course, every man who is taken prisoner ceases to be an asset for the conduct of the War. The Admiralty has to deal with constant demands for the provision of ships. I do not say there is friction, but things would run a great deal more smoothly if all these Departments were connected and controlled by one man of Cabinet rank, who could say "Go," and lie would have to go and "Come," and he would have to come to every man, and whose orders would be obeyed if he had power and authority to carry out quickly that which all these hard-working, well-meaning Departments want to do but are often unable to do.
    One last word to point out how very serious this question has now become. Undoubtedly the feeling has grown amongst some of our prisoners, more particularly in Germany, that they have been neglected and forgotten The Germans have assiduously propagated that idea. They have neglected no opportunity to instil into British prisoners' minds the idea that their interests have been overlooked and forgotten in England. It is not true. Not only are they not forgotten by those to whom they are dear, but they have never been forgotten by the people of the country. Nothing has moved the people of England to more horrified indignation than the devilish treatment meted out to prisoners. The day of reckoning is at hand. Outraged humanity can only be satisfied by the punishment of those who have broken every law of God and man. Meantime, now that the opportunity

    1343
    offers, let us see that all that is possible is done, and done now, to obtain the release of these British prisoners from the misery which they are still undergoing.
    Captain FOXCROFT: I rise to associate myself with the remarks which have just fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman, and, in the first speech that I have the honour to make here, to suggest that there should be no armistice without the repatriation of our prisoners and no peace without punishment for the criminals. Supposing peace and an armistice are for the moment impossible, might it not be possible for His Majesty's Government definitely to tell the German Government that any fresh acts of criminality will result in an automatic increase of indemnity, besides, of course, the personal punishment of those responsible? As other hon. Members have said, it is apparently impossible, as we all believe, to teach the Hun humanity unless you hammer it into him. I personally fear that unless some drastic and definite action is taken, our British prisoners when they return from the front—those who do return!—will form an unfortunate estimate of the gratitude of the nation and the energy of the Government, which certainly does not err on the side of harshness towards the German prisoners in our midst.
    Sir G. CAVE: I am afraid I shall have to make a considerable draft upon the patience of the House. This, however, is a matter of grave and immediate importance, and I am sure the House would prefer that I should make a full statement upon it. May I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath on having made his first speech in this House upon the very important subject of the British prisoners of war. In the first place, let me say that my first-hand knowledge, and my personal responsibility in this matter, as the House knows, extend over only two short periods of about one month each. The first was in June last, when I was sent on a mission to the Hague to negotiate an agreement, from which mission I was recalled before the agreement was made; and the second was during the present month of October, at the beginning of which I was for the first time asked to undertake responsibility in connection with our prisoners of war, and was appointed Chairman of an Interdepartmental Committee on prisoners of war. As the composition of that Committee
    1344
    is probably not very well known, I may say that it is composed of representatives of all the Departments which are concerned with prisoners of war. The Prisoners of War Department is one. Over that Department my Noble Friend Lord Newton presides. The War Office is another. There is also the Admiralty, the Home Office, the Colonial Office, and the India Office, which are all represented. There is this safeguard about the proceedings of the Committee, that in the ultimate resort, if any of the Departments disagree, I have the power then and there to decide the question. That is a new feature which has tended and will tend to increase rapidity and efficiency in connection with this work. I would just add this in answer to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw said just now, that when, at the request of the War Cabinet, I undertook this duty—for I could not refuse it—I made up my mind that I would find time enough to deal with the prisoners of war. I decided that if I ever found that my duties at the Home Office made it impossible for me to give proper time to the prisoners of war I would give up either one or other of the posts, but that I certainly would not allow my duty to the prisoners to suffer in any way. I think I am entitled to add that since that time I have worked pretty hard in both offices, and I do not think the interests of the prisoners have suffered for one day, or even for one moment, by reason of my other duties. Though I am new to this work, I have made myself acquainted with the main facts relating to prisoners of war, and I think I can give the House a fairly clear account of what has been going on. I must leave certain details to be dealt with by my hon. Friend who is associated with me, and I will only deal with the broader aspects of the question.
    In all times of war the position of the prisoner of war—the gallant man who through no fault of his own has found himself subject to the forcible direction of the enemy—has been one of the greatest hardship, but I think that has never been more true than in the present War. All countries have striven in times gone by to alleviate the condition of the prisoners of war. Their charter—the charter of prisoners of war—is found in the Geneva Conventions of 1864 and 1906, and in three Articles of the Hague Conventions of 1899

    1345
    and 1907. I will just quote part of these, because they are not long. The fourth Article says:
    "Prisoners of war are in the power of the hostile Government, but not in that of the individuals or corps who captured them. They must be humanely treated. All their personal belongings, except arms, horses, and military papers, remain their property."
    The sixth Article states:
    "The (enemy) State may utilise the labour of prisoners of war, other than officers, according to their rank and capacity. Their tasks shall not be excessive, and shall have nothing to do with the operations of war."
    The seventh Article states:
    "The Government into whose hands prisoners of war have fallen is bound to maintain them. Failing a special agreement between the belligerents, prisoners of war shall be treated as regards food, quarters, and clothing, on the same footing as the troops of the Government which has captured them."
    When the history of this War comes to be written I think it will be said that these rules of international law, which are also rules of humanity, have been observed in this country. I am sure it will be said that they have been over and over again deliberately broken by all our enemies, with the exception, perhaps, of Austria-Hungary. In Germany particularly our British prisoners have been underfed, overworked, robbed, and cruelly handled.
    An HON. MEMBER: And murdered:
    Sir G. CAVE: The treatment by Germany of the prisoners of war compares with her other war crimes—the deportation of women and children, the sinking of passenger and hospital ships, and the murder of those who were endeavouring to save their lives in the lifeboats. I have had special opportunity of learning at first hand the truth about some of these outrages. I was at the Hague when some of our exchanged prisoners came from Germany to that country. Indeed, I had the unforgettable pleasure of being present when my hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Captain C. Craig), with some of his fellow officers first came to Holland, and of hearing him hail me by my name. I made it my business, as the hon. and gallant Member knows to see as many as I could of our exchanged prisoners from Germany. I had from the lips of some of them what they had gone through. I think, perhaps, the most poignant story of all which I heard was the story of the treatment of those who had been at the punishment camp, to which my hon. and
    1346
    gallant Friend referred. No one who has seen the men who suffered can ever in his life forget it or fail to do what can be done to bring the perpetrators to justice.
    6.0 P.M.
    It is, of course, important to be sure of our facts, to understand them clearly. It is natural when our feelings are engaged that we should tend to emphasise the darker side of things, but for all that it is a mistake, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself said, to overstate your case, not only because you may afterwards be confuted by rebutting evidence, but also because to state, for instance, that all prisoners of war have been ill-treated is to give needless distress to the relatives of these men. Therefore let me say shortly how and where these enemy cruelties have been committed. The facts have been very carefully collected. The Prisoners of War Department, presided over by Lord Newton, of whom I will say a few words a little later, has for years past made it one of its duties to ascertain from returned prisoners all the facts bearing on this question. These have been carefully taken down and recorded. They have been examined and tested by the Committee over which Mr. Justice Younger presides, and the facts and evidence and names are available for use the moment they are required. Let me take first the camps—I mean the permanent camps—in Germany. These differ very much. It is a peculiarity of the German system that the Camp Commandant claims to be, and—so far as I can ascertain—really is, subject only to the Army Corps Commander, and he is independent of all Government Departments, even of the War Ministry. He claims to be subject only to the Emperor himself. The result is what you might expect. The camps differ very much, according to the character of the Commandant and of the Army Corps Commander. Some camps are, at all events now, reasonably well organised, letters are reasonably well delivered, and, what is most important of all, the parcels are delivered with reasonable celerity without anything being taken from them. That is so in some camps, and I have seen hundreds of letters from our men in those camps which bear out that statement. There are other camps where the conditions are, to me, unspeakable: the cruelty, inhumanity, and brutality going on almost passes the belief of any human being. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) referred to some

    1347
    of these cases, and others have been published. I will not repeat what has been said, but I may say that these things are going on to-day, according to the evidence which has come in from lately-returned prisoners. Let me give the House one statement as to the camp at Langensalza:
    "About the end of April last, about 5,000 British prisoners of all ranks, including officers, arrived at this camp in a terrible condition, having travelled there in cattle trucks for three days without anything but water during the whole journey. Quite half of the men were wounded, some very badly, but they had had no dressing whatever. On arrival they were crowded into very dirty barracks, and for six days had no medical attention at all. Then a few of the wounded were picked out and put into hospital, where thirty died, partly from starvation and partly from neglect. As there were no medical stores the medical attention was quite inadequate. Twenty British non-commissioned officers volunteered to act as orderlies, but were not allowed to do so."
    Then there follow some words almost unreadable, and the statement continues:
    "Many of the British, with open wounds, were compelled to work in pigstyes, among diseased pigs. The sanitary arrangements were perfectly awful."
    As to another camp—Sprottau—it is impossible to quote to the House what we are told of the torture inflicted there; but our witness estimated the number of deaths which had taken place in this camp, since November, 1916, at more than 2,000. That, of course, includes prisoners of all nations. This statement is based on the fact that a man in the East Yorks Regiment, who died early in January, 1918, bore the registered number 1762.
    Mr. HOUSTON: What time does that cover?
    Sir G. CAVE: From September, 1916, to April, 1918—about eighteen months. Now I come to the working parties sent out from the camps to factories, mines, and elsewhere. The men in the working parties are exposed not only to the caprice of a Commandant but to the brutality of uneducated and perhaps vicious foremen and others working with them, and the record of some of these working parties is very black indeed. The men are beaten, they are bruised, they are tortured, they are made to work when injured, they are underfed, they are overworked, and everything is done to break their spirit. Thank Clod, in most cases, it is not broken! Let me quote only a few cases, because I want the House and the country to understand
    1348
    what it is that we have to deal with. Here is one account relating to Westerholt, a coal mine:
    "A number of British prisoners, who escaped from there in January last, after having been interned for at least a year, have given evidence as to their treatment. They were knocked about by the sentries, both on the surface and in the mine and also in the camp, with rifles and rubber tubes kept for the purpose. They were put inside a dungeon full of vermin and rats, and on one occasion a private in the Gordons was set upon by six foremen, his head was split open, he lost a lot of blood, and they made him stand for eight hours as a punishment. There were several cells under the bath attached to the mine, extremely hot by reason of the hot pipes near them; the prisoners were kept there four or five days at a time, and suffered terribly from the heat. Several prisoners complained of being bitten by dogs. The medical treatment was bad. There is one other coal mine—Grube Bismarck-Poley. Each man here was expectd to pick, load, and run thirty waggons of 15 cwt. each in a daily shift of twelve hours. If this task was not completed, which often occurred owing to the men's weakness, they were forced to do an extra six hours. The under-officer in charge, who stood at the gate as the prisoners returned from work, was in the habit of striking them in the face or setting his dog at them. The compound was greatly overcrowded and swarmed with rats, and the bedding was filthy. Sick men were never allowed to see a doctor. So bad was the treatment that nine men purposely drove picks into their feet in order to get away from this working camp. A private was given three days cells for complaining to the German inspecting officer."
    I want to give next the case of a salt mine, a case of the greatest cruelty—
    "A lance-corporal in the Gordons, who was at Ehmen Einigkeit from September, 1917, to February, 1918, states that his daily task, Sundays included, was to break up the salt and fill and run away thirty-six trucks in eight hours, and if the task was not completed the man had to remain another eight hours. As the salt is hard, it was usually impossible to complete the task in the time required, so that taking into account the time consumed in going to and from the mine the prisoners only got about four hours' sleep. The sentries and civilian foremen continually beat them with big sticks. The food was uneatable. The accommodation consisted of one hut, 40 yards to 20 yards, to hold 300 men. The straw was never changed. There was no water to wash with or drink, and the men were always covered with boils caused by the salt. The only treatment was the application of caustic and the prisoners were sent back to the mine before their wounds were healed. There were ten men who were kept working at the mine for three years."
    I will now take one other case of a salt mine, Grasleben—
    "A prisoner in a Middlesex Regiment who was at this place fell sick and asked to see the doctor. He was beaten with rifles and a bayonet by an under-officer and four German soldiers until he was unconscious. When he regained consciousness he was sent to work again. He asked the German sentries to shoot him,

    1349
    but a German who produced a revolver was prevented firing at him by other German civilians on the spot. He was placed in solitary confinement and was subsequently court-martialled at Hanover for striking a German sentry and sentenced to eighteen months' hard labour. When he was brought back to the place he was made to work from 3.45 in the morning and did not get back till 4.30 p.m., and from eight on Saturday night until eight on Sunday night he was kept in solitary confinement. Three of the prisoners in this mine who had broken limbs were forced to work by the German under-officer although excused work by the German civilian doctor."
    Sir I. PHILIPPS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what was the date of that?
    Sir G. CAVE: I cannot give the date, but I think the statement was taken some time this year. Mr. Justice Younger's Committee has made its investigation and settled its Report on the work in mines, and we hope it will be published in a very few days. Now I have a few words to say about the factories. Here, again, it is almost impossible to read some of the things which have occurred. As to Honingen,
    "A repatriated prisoner who was there for six weeks up to March, 1918, says the place was filthy and swarmed with lice. The prisoners were compelled to work ten hours a day, including Sundays, and the punishment consisted of forcing men to walk up and down carrying sacks filled with sand and very heavy stones, making them drop down every two or three yards and then raise themselves with these heavy weights. The prisoners were knocked about, the chemicals used were very dangerous, and if a prisoner's hands got wet and touched them the flesh immediately swelled and the flesh became rotten."
    There are other details of the kind which I will not read to the House.
    Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: Will Mr. Justice Younger's Report contain the names of the managers and superintendents guilty of these outrages?
    Sir G. CAVE: No, and I will tell the House why.
    Sir E. CARSON: But are the names known?
    Sir G. CAVE: Yes, the names are known. There is a camp at Doberitz where similar events occurred. I believe no words can be too strong to characterise or describe the treatment of our men in the working parties, in mines, and in factories.
    Now I come to the treatment of British prisoners behind the fighting line—that is, before they are taken to the camps
    1350
    in Germany itself. In the spring of 1917 it was agreed between the two Governments, the German Government and our own, that all prisoners should be withdrawn thirty kilometres at least behind the firing line. This agreement has been steadily kept by ourselves, but has been steadily broken by Germany. The House will find evidence of that in Mr. Justice Younger's first Report, where the matter is very carefully gone into. I remember that we raised it at the Hague as the first item, because I insisted before we went into negotiations on bringing before the Conference the question of the treatment of our prisoners. I remember I put in a formal protest on this point. What happened? The German delegates communicated with headquarters, and they produced next day a telegram signed by General Ludendorff, stating that the prisoners should at once be withdrawn from the thirty-kilometre radius. That promise has not been carried out. The second Report of Mr. Justice Younger shows that up to the present time men are being kept in and indeed marched into the thirty-kilometre radius, and are put to work there, sometimes within range of our shell-fire, and are set to carry munitions of war and do other work which no prisoner of war ought to be put to.
    General CROFT: Have no reprisals been taken for that, and is it still going on?
    Sir G. CAVE: I will come to reprisals in a moment. Apart from the question of thirty kilometres, there is the unpardonable treatment of our men behind the fighting line. The prisoners of war are collected in working parties. They are abominably housed, or are not housed at all but made to lie out in the open; they are robbed, they are starved, they are forced by stick and bayonet to do more work than any man ought to be asked to do; their capture is sometimes not notified for weeks and indeed for months. One can imagine the agony of suspense that causes to the relatives in this country. Their letters are sometimes not sent, sometimes they bear fictitious addresses—the address of the camp to which the man was perhaps destined, but which he will not reach for months afterwards, and the parcels on which their lives may depend accumulate and sometimes rot far away behind the lines in Germany itself. There is evidence of these facts in the Report of the Committee to which I have referred, and very much has been added since. I

    1351
    am going to read two passages. A sergeant in the Royal Army Medical Corps says:
    "The prisoners who have been working behind the German lines are concentrated prior to transfer to internment camps in Germany. The prisoners arrived from behind the lines generally in rags, half starved, and verminous. They were often covered with sores and thoroughly exhausted.
    On 18th June, that is this year, this witness, with a party of 900 prisoners, started their journey to Stendal, which occupied four days. They were shut into goods wagons, many of which had no light or ventilation. There were no sanitary conveniences. One man died on the journey, and, in many instances, had to be lifted from the train on arrival at Stendal. The food on the four days' journey was 200 grammes of bread before starting, 200 grammes at Minden, and soup every fifteen hours. The party arrived at Stendal at midnight, 21st and 22nd June. They were pat straight, without food, into barracks. Many of the prisoners had no blankets, and remained without covering for four or five nights. On sick parade the following morning, 200 out of the 900 were passed sick by the German medical officer. The sickness was due to pure exhaustion and dysentery in various forms. Some of the prisoners were still suffering from the effects of dysentery, contracted in working-camps behind the German lines in the previous May. By the end of July, out of the original party of 900, 134 had died, sixty of pneumonia and the remainder of dysentery and exhaustion."
    I will give another passage from a competent witness who had seen some of these men last week. This witness says:
    "The treatment behind the lines has, if anything, deteriorated lately. Indeed, the treatment there and in the mines are the two black spots in our prisoners records. Could you have seen, as I did, the waxen faces and shrivelled bodies of men captured in the spring offensive and frequently kept at work for several months behind the lines, and repatriated to this country last Thursday, you would realise how terribly hard the lot of our prisoners is made by the fact that they do not receive their parcels in the occupied districts?"
    I hesitate to give further details, but I think it is useful and necessary that these facts should be publicly stated, because Germany has a debt to pay and Germany ought to be made to pay. [An HON. MEMBER: "She will be made!"] These cases are not the only ones. There are others, even in the hospitals, where, surely, humanity ought to reign. No doubt there are many humane doctors in Germany, but there are others who make a cruel distinction between British prisoners and other prisoners of war, and even among nurses many are found who, far from helping suffering prisoners, have stooped to inflict insult and injury upon
    1352
    them. The hospitals, as is shown by the condition of our men who are arriving in Holland and Switzerland, are in a very bad state and our wounded do not get proper treatment. The House knows that some of the civilians have been transferred from Ruhleben to what is called a punishment camp at Havelberg; and among the civilians the merchant seamen have suffered no less than other prisoners. Some of the older seamen, obviously past work—men of nearly seventy, and in some cases over seventy years of age and who are entitled under our agreement to return to our shores—have been refused to us and are still living—or perhaps dying—in Germany.
    Sir E. CARSON: Agreements are no use.
    Sir G. CAVE: As regards Turkey, I agree with what my hon. and learned Friend has said. Turkey has shown herself in this matter a fit ally of Germany. It may be true—I am anticipating in this matter something which will be published in a few days—it may be true that the lack of proper treatment in Turkey is largely due not to deliberate cruelty but to neglect and incompetence, but the result is the same. The effect is that our men have died and that we shall only get back from Turkey a proportion of those who went to that country as prisoners.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: What percentage?
    Sir G. CAVE: I should not like to say.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Twenty per cent.?
    Sir G. CAVE: More than that, I hoper but I should not like to give the percentage without very careful consideration. As to Bulgaria, we have also considerable cause for complaint: indeed, there is one case where we have already asked for the punishment of the man chiefly concerned. I will not go at length into the sufferings of our prisoners there. They are over, and the prisoners are being rapidly brought out of the country.
    Mr. R. MCNEILL: What does my right hon. Friend mean by "asked for"?
    Sir G. CAVE: We have insisted upon it.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Are we going to do it ourselves?
    Sir G. CAVE: I need not go into that. We are doing all we can to bring that man to justice. We have required and insisted upon it, following in that respect the

    1353
    example which Germany set us in the case of a Roumanian who was said to have maltreated German prisoners.
    I have dwelt long enough on the facts. They should be known and insisted upon. I think it is our duty not to hide these things at the present moment, but to let them be known to everyone, so that they will become not only an element in the-proceedings which are to follow immediately, but part of the history of this War, and a story which will be remembered for generations to come. The important matter is what remedies are we to take? We have had no lack of suggestions. The problem is, as we all know, a difficult one. I have sometimes felt like a man outside a fortress whose friends he knows are being maltreated inside and who is anxious to relieve them. Of course the best way to reach them is to take the fortress. That is in the hands of Field-Marshal Haig and Marshal Foch. But at all events we have endeavoured to make sure that when hostilities cease, whether by peace or by armistice, it shall be an essential and primary condition that our prisoners of war in the enemy countries shall be immediately released. It happens that when I was first entrusted with this matter Bulgaria was on the point of surrendering. On the day after my appointment I asked that a telegram should be sent both to General Milne and through Paris to General Franchet d'Esperey to make sure that it should be a condition of any armistice that our prisoners should be at once unconditionally released. That telegram was sent without a moment's hesitation. A telegram also went to General Allenby instructing him, if there should be an armistice with Turkey, to make the same condition. As regards the Central Powers, of course it is impossible for me to discuss the terms of peace or of armistice, but I have the best reason for believing that in any armistice either with Austria or with Germany the same condition will apply, and that this object will be secured.
    Sir J. SIMON: The right hon. Gentleman used the word "released." Does he wish us to understand by that that they will be repatriated and come home here, or does he only mean that they will be interned in some neutral country?
    Sir G. CAVE: It means that they will be repatriated.
    Mr. DUNCAN: Will that include British, prisoners now imprisoned in Germany?
    Sir G. CAVE: I have not considered that point.
    Mr. J. HENDERSON: Will the prisoners who are interned in neutral countries also be released?
    Sir G. CAVE: That surely follows as a matter of course.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Is it suggested that we shall give up our prisoners to them in exchange? I hope not.
    Sir G. CAVE: I am being asked to go into the terms of peace, and I would rather not. I have gone as far as I can. I am speaking as to what will happen to the British prisoners. That, I think, is the first matter on which the House wishes to be reassured.
    Mr. PETO: By prisoners does the right hon. Gentleman include merchant seamen who are in Germany?
    Sir G. CAVE: Certainly, combatant and civilian prisoners; and among the civilian prisoners we reckon merchant seamen, notwithstanding the contention of our enemies, who treat them as combatants. That, I think, is the first way out of the difficulty. There is, of course, another way, and that is by agreement. It is a mistake to suppose that agreements are of no value. The agreement of 1917 has proved of real value; and the agreement of 1918, if it had been ratified, would have been of still greater value. It provided for the exchange of all combatant prisoners of war who had been eighteen months in captivity the eighteen months being either then completed or to be completed before the summer of next year. It provided also for the humane treatment of those who remained, and gave power to the prisoner to complain either himself or through the Help Committees to the delegate of a neutral Power in the enemy country, and it gave the representative of a neutral Power authority to inspect the camp. I think that such an agreement, if carried out, would have been valuable to our prisoners. An attempt has been made to throw blame upon Lord Newton and General Belfield because the agreement has not been ratified. I think it is unfair to blame them for that. They concluded a reasonable and valuable agreement. There was no reservation in the agreement itself.

    1355
    I understand, though I was not there, that the Germans at the last moment declined to sign the agreement unless they were allowed to express their personal opinion that the agreement should not be ratified unless Germany had obtained a trade advantage in China. They had raised the point before, and had been told it could not be discussed, and it was only at the end that they were allowed to add a reference to it after their signatures. I might have been better not to concede this, but I feel sure that even if the note had not been added the point would have been raised by the German Government.
    Some very hard things have been said about Lord Newton. May I say this about him, that he has worked for years past as head of the Prisoners of War Department, and that Department, under his control and direction, has done a great work in collecting information, in discovering and protesting against the ill-treatment of prisoners, many times with effect, and in other ways; and although this agreement has not been ratified, still our prisoners of war owe him a great debt of gratitude for what he has done. [An HON. MEMBER: "There is no proof of the benefits!"] No one who has not gone through it could realise the mass of work which that Department has had to perform. It has been very heavy indeed. Lord Newton and General Belfield have given their time month after month and year after year to this purpose, and I do not think it is fair because this particular agreement has not been ratified to use the language which has been used in this House about them. Some of my hon. Friends have said that Lord Newton in some of his speeches has been sarcastic. [An HON. MEMBER: "Deliberately!"]
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: And cynical!
    Sir G. CAVE: He may have spoken sarcastically about some of his critics, but he never said a word that could be said to be cynical or flippant when dealing with the prisoners of war themselves. I think that ought to be remembered.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Has the right hon. Gentleman read or heard of the speech Lord Newton made about the released prisoners at the Hague? Ask anyone of them what they think about it!
    Sir I. PHILIPPS: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will read that speech, and if he does, I do not think it will justify what he stated just now.
    Sir G. CAVE: Let me add one other fact about the agreement of 1917. That was an agreement under which thousands of men have been got out of Germany. It was made by Lord Newton and General Belfield, and many of our prisoners have cause to thank them for it. Let me conclude this part of the subject by saying that our last message to Germany is as yet unanswered, although, if their answer is such as has been foreshadowed in recent Press announcements, there is little chance of the agreement being now ratified. I come to my last point. Setting aside a German surrender and setting aside agreements, have we not some other steps which we could take? Is there not some way by which we can bring Germany to reason—can compel her to bring about some improvement in their treatment of our prisoners? If there is any way we ought to take it and take it at once. I think something can be done by publishing the facts, and that is one reason why I have spoken so plainly to-day. Germany is rather sensitive to world opinion.
    Sir E. CARSON: What is the evidence of that?
    Mr. HOUSTON: They did not think much of it when they sunk the "Leinster."
    Sir G. CAVE: I was rather amused when at the Hague to find that one of the first requests which the Germans made was that we should ask the English papers not to go on criticising the German treatment of the prisoners. That showed that the opinions even of Englishmen had some effect on their minds. I believe, especially now when they are trying to make their peace with the world and are looking to the future, that they will pay some attention to what is said of them not only in neutral but in enemy countries. At any rate it is worth while to make the facts public, verified and tested as they have been by Mr. Justice Younger's Committee. Secondly, I agree strongly with what has been said that the guilty individuals ought to be punished. It is no good talking about people who do things of this kind. You have got to get them by the throat if you can, and let the punishment you give to

    1357
    them be an example for generations to come. I hope with all my heart that we shall got these men. We may even get some of them in the course of the War, but in one way or the other we mean to do all in our power to get hold of these men and get them punished. We know their names. I have a list of them which I could publish to-morrow, but I am not going to do so because the result would probably be that they would keep out of our hands. But we are keeping a record and we are taking steps, with skilled legal help, to get the evidence into shape so that it may be available when the time comes. That is the second step, and possibly as important as any. We have already declared to Germany—I am quoting the exact words—
    "That the British Government will hold Germany responsible for the unlawful and cruel treatment of British prisoners in their hands, and will take all steps in their power to ensure that the persons responsible for these outrages shall be punished."
    There is one other resource which we have, as to which there is plainly some difference of opinion in the House, as I have no doubt there is in the country—I mean the resource of reprisals, Reprisals are an expedient recognised by all civilised countries. For myself, I have always believed in them, not of course as a method of punishment, but as a means of compelling the enemy to keep to the rules and to cease from the crimes which he is committing. It is prevention and not punishment. If reprisals are limited to that, my conscience, at any rate, makes no protest against them. We must not, of course, use reprisals so as to injure our own men. That is the first thing to remember. It is no use saying "the Germans are starving or overworking our prisoners and therefore we will shoot a few Germans." Those who say that are men who have no son in Germany. The first, thing that would happen if we took such reprisals would be that revenge would be taken on our own defenceless men in German hands. When I say that, I do not say it of cases like the threat of the other day to shoot our airmen simply for dropping leaflets. There, I think, we were right to say "If you snoot a British airman for that we will shoot two Austrian airmen." That is another matter, and I believe, our threat had its effect; but to say that we will take a step like that because there is improper treatment of our prisoners in German camps would be only to harm our prisoners themselves.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: Has any responsible person ever suggested such a step?
    Sir G. CAVE: I believe no responsible person has suggested it, but I have heard it suggested by irresponsible persons. Apart from that, there are still reprisals which we can take. I ain not sure that I should be wise to detail them, but we are entitled to say that the Germans have great regard for the position, the dignity, and the comfort of their officers and of their more wealthy civilians. If they do not treat our men, our privates, properly, we are entitled to bear in mind the fact to which I have just referred. We have treated German officers very well, and I do not deny that they have treated many of our officers just as well. We have treated German officers very well, even better than we were bound to do by the laws of war, and I think that if we get no response to the demand which we have addressed to Germany, we shall be entitled to take reprisals within the limits which I have described, and this House may be sure that if it depends on me, that step will be taken. One word in conclusion. Complaint has been made that under the Agreement of 1917 we have felt bound to give notice before reprisals begin. I am not sure that it may not turn out that the delay so caused is useful after all. If reprisals had been taken at the beginning of October or the middle of October without notice, then, human nature being what it is, I think counter reprisals would have ensued at once. I may be wrong, but I think so, with some knowledge now of the German disposition and of what I am told.
    Colonel C. LOWTHER: Why the delay?
    Sir G. CAVE: Because the delay is stipulated for in the Agreement of 1917.
    Colonel C. LOWTHER: Have the Germans kept that agreement?
    Sir G. CAVE: Yes; as far as I know, and the Government felt bound to observe it. I was saying that if we had taken reprisals without notice I think that counter-reprisals would certainly have followed, but I think it possible that during the period of notice our enemies have become either more ashamed of what they have done, or perhaps more prudent, and may think it wise to concede our demands. Our demands are clear and are reasonable.

    1359
    We have asked for nothing which a civilised Government would not give without the asking. If they are agreed to, well and good; if they are rejected, we will do our best to give our gallant men in Germany all the protection that we can, and so far as our power goes, to avenge their sufferings.
    General CROFT: The speech we have just listened to from the right hon. Gentleman in many ways, I think, must be satisfactory to everyone who is interested in this question. We all recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has only for the last few weeks been concerned in this work; but I must confess, after his speech, that had it not been so, it would have been a very grave indictment of the Department to which he now jointly belongs, and it would have caused us all to wonder really how anyone could defend such a policy. That we have heard this evening this terrible tale of four long years of suffering, that we have heard these words that have moved everyone in this House, first from my hon. and gallant Friend, who speaks for so many gallant comrades, and then from the right hon. Gentleman himself, that these facts should be, seems to me the greatest reason why we have a right to criticise the work of this Government Department during the last few years. When this question was first raised, and it was decided that this Debate should take place, I understand that two War Committees of the Unionist and Liberal parties met together to discuss what form their Amendment, if any, should take in this House; and I noticed the Resolutions in the newspapers to-day, all of which appeared to be wholly admirable. I determined to put down a slight Amendment adding a fourth point, which would suggest that there should be instant reprisals in the event of any further cruelty or brutality towards our prisoners of war. But this Debate has been taken on the Motion for the Adjournment, and one must therefore limit oneself to what one feels in regard to this subject. One thing which pleased me above everything else in what the right hon. Gentleman said was that he thought it was desirable that the whole truth should be told. What many of us want to know is why it is that the whole truth has not been told to our countrymen during the last three or four years when these facts were
    1360
    known. I cannot imagine that any tactical or political reasons should have deprived our fellow-countrymen of the whole truth regarding the terrible wrongs which have been inflicted upon our prisoners.
    The Government, as the right hon. Gentleman has told us, has had a great mass of evidence before it. We have heard a few eases this evening, but they are only a few cases out of thousands, and the Government has had this evidence all the time. Not only have they kept the truth from the people, but I believe I am right in saying that the War Office, or some other authority, has compelled "escapers" and exchanged prisoners to promise that they will not tell the truth about this question on the platform or in the newspapers. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I have been told that by at least a score.
    Sir E. CARSON: Is it true or not?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am informed it is not true. The Wittenberg Report was published two years ago.
    General CROFT: I fully admit that there have been official Government Reports; and I know that two special escaped officers were selected who might tell the story on the public platform; and am I not right in saying that escaped officers and men were definitely told that they must not tell these facts on the platform or in the newspapers? (Mr. MACPHERSON indicated dissent.) Well, I shall be very glad to give the right hon. Gentleman several cases of officers and private soldiers which have been brought to my notice. The fact remains that until recently the full story had not been told to the people of this country; and we have also the instances of where influence has been brought to bear. Does the right bon. Gentleman suggest that in regard to Mr. Pite's book an effort was not made by Lord Newton to see that that book was not published?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not know anything about that.
    7.0 P.M.
    General CROFT: I do, and I think it bears out that the general principle had been adopted that the people must not know these facts. I have tried hard to find a single good reason for that, and I have been told by officials that they adopted this policy advisedly. I have

    1361
    been unable to find a single good reason why these endless crimes of our enemies should not be told to our people, and should be covered up and hidden. The only argument that I could gather from those who were in the know apparently, and whose motives, I am sure, were kindly and good and right from their own point of view, was that of the fear that the Germans might inflict worse cruelties upon our men. In fact, that has been told, to my certain knowledge, to returned prisoners, military and civilian. This has been the view of Lord Newton.
    Sir E. CARSON: Told by whom? The hon. and gallant Gentleman states that officers, returned prisoners, have been told that at they must not do so-and-so, because it might be worse for our men who remained behind as prisoners. Who said that?
    General CROFT: I cannot tell my right hon. Friend who was the actual official but I can say that I think altogether I have had seventeen different cases in which the officer who had been a prisoner certainly had that impression given to him by the War Office.
    Sir E. CARSON: By whom?
    General CROFT: I understood that it was by the War Office.
    Sir J. D. REES: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give any name?
    General CROFT: I will be very glad to find out, but I thought that the fact was such common knowledge that it would never be disputed.
    Sir E. CARSON: Could the hon. and gallant Gentleman give us some indication of the name of the officers or the position of the officers, or something of that kind, because these things are very harmful unless they are substantiated, and, if they are substantiated, the War Office ought to be brought to book about it.
    General CROFT: I shall be quite prepared to inquire from these officers whether I can put the facts before the right hon. Gentleman, and I will go further than that. I will give a list of definite cases which I can put before him, with the conversations as they were told to me. But I will certainly ask the officers. I think that most of them are so angry about this that they are quite willing to let the right hon. Gentleman know.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am only sorry that my hon. and gallant Friend did not make these inquiries before making this statement in the House. I should be very glad if he makes these inquiries now.
    General CROFT: In several cases officers, men on whose integrity I can rely, have told me that that is so. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman is it not a fact that Major Fox and Captain Gilliland were the only two officers to whom sanction was given to go about and speak in this country?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not know. These facts are new to me. I am astonished at my hon. Friend making these definite statements without instituting proper inquiries and investigations beforehand. I know that Major Fox has not got any instructions.
    General CROFT: I do not make any suggestion about instructions, but I know that he has never been hauled up. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will say?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Major Fox has lectured on the present position in Germany, and, as my hon. and gallant Friend has just said, so far he has not been stopped.
    General CROFT: I am not referring to the instructions given him, but it was commonly known to all officers interested in this question that these two officers were permitted to speak on certain branches of the subject. The right hon. Gentleman will find no difficulty in finding many officers—I certainly could find him officers—who admit that they have been under the impression that they were not permitted to speak anywhere in this country on this subject. It may be under the military regulations, but the fact remains. The only argument that one could possibly find as to why these facts were not permitted to get to the public is the fear that Germany would inflict worse cruelties on our men who are still there. I can give the right hon. Gentleman two names of men closely associated with him—I do not think that I should give them in the House—men associated with the question, who certainly have held that view, and I think the objection in the right hon. Gentleman's speech was that the Germans might be more harsh in their treatment if the whole of these facts were made known. I rather gathered that impression. The drift of the right hon. Gentleman's speech is that the policy is

    1363
    altered, that publicity is now the thing, that the people of this country are to be told the truth about these facts. This is also a fact: Lord Newton, in the House of Lords, made out that it was in the interest of our prisoners that not too much should be done in the way of making things public or of reprisals. I can tell him—and I am very glad that my hon. and gallant Friend bears it out—that at least 80 per cent. of the escaped prisoners and exchanged prisoners, according to the evidence which I have received, not only desire, but desire passionately that the whole truth with regard to prisoners' cases should be made known in this country and given the widest publicity. Assuming say that the German treatment will be worse, they would prefer to run that risk rather than that their countrymen should not know what they are suffering at Germany's hands, and many of them say that they feel their treatment could not be worse, and their one wish therefore is that the whole of the facts should be placed before the whole of the people.
    Lord Newton, in a speech in the House of Lords, also suggested that so long as we have not got a clear majority of prisoners—I think that that was gathered from his speech—we could do nothing. Is is not a fact that we had a majority of prisoners in 1917? And look at the question from this point of view: When he realised that the resources of the British Empire were available, and that the United States had come into the field, what really heartless ineptitude to say "We will do nothing because the Germans might be able to retaliate on a greater number of prisoners than we have here." There are some remedies which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned this evening. If we are told the Germans quite clearly, apart altogether from whether the policy would be right or wrong, in 1914, 1915, 1916 or 1917, that if they were going to continue this treatment all enemy aliens would be immediately interned, that was undoubtedly a weapon which could have been used at once. Lord Newton went further in his speech. He made reference to the time when the Germans were winning, and asked what could we do then. What a comment this is on the champions of our prisoners of war that Lord Newton had that frame of mind, that the Germans were winning! It seems to me that little men of little faith on this question were not the type of men
    1364
    who ought to have had in this country the sacred trust of the care of our prisoners in Germany. If Lord Newton considered that we were going to lose I could understand his policy, but if he had been a German or a hyphenated Briton in this country the mind that he displayed in that speech could not really have been more fatal to our policy in dealing with this question.
    I may give a few more facts in reference to our prisoners in German prisons which are personally vouched for by many officers. I expect that the right hon. Gentleman has also many such facts in his possession. When the prisoners arrive in Holland from Germany rarely have their wounds been dressed for two days. Frequently their wounds have not been dressed for a week, and in very many eases when they arrive in Holland the stumps of their wounds are simply black. In this connection I should like to say, though it is not relevant to this discussion, that when they are handed over to the Dutch authorities their impression is clearly that the Dutch have done everything in their power, and it has been a very wonderful change to come under the Dutch medical authorities. We have all seen these various facts, and the most terrible tales are being told at present to me of the evidence against this race of German people which Lord Milner seems to think differs in character from its rulers. We have heard this evening from the right hon. Gentleman, and the evidence is overwhelming, that these feelings, which are attributed by some only to the military caste at the top, or to officers, are shared by camp commandants, camp adjutants, feldwebels, unteroffiziers, doctors, and by private soldiers, and even civilians who are working as foremen over our prisoners in salt mines and other places. All through these different ranks there are many Germans who have the same joy of torture and the same lust of hate wherever a British soldier was concerned. We have heard this evening of the calculated policy of the enemy in employing very large numbers of British soldiers behind the lines actually in the shell zone. These men are suffering in many cases from wounds and even death from their own shells.
    There is an almost greater agony than that. That is the fact that day by day and month by month these compatriots of ours have been forced to load up the munitions which are going to kill our men.

    1365
    That has been going on consecutively in the case of a very large number of men even in 1918. There are many of us who are ready to testify to what the right hon. Gentleman said on that subject this evening. I also believe that he will find—and I am sure he has got evidence of men who are ready to swear to it—that while men were on this work they were starved deliberately, and not allowed sometimes to have anything to drink all day, even though a krug of water was near where they were working, and they were allowed to work on until they were ready to drop. What was public opinion doing in Germany all that time? This was going on in 1918, and it will strengthen the hands of the Government, in all conversations which they have with our Allies as to what the peace terms are going to be, to realise that in this year, 1918, the year of the change in the spirit of the German people, when democratic ideals were making such progress, they tolerated this kind of thing? Here is a case in May, 1918: There were 250 men in Stendahl Camp, and their condition was horrible. They were in rags, filthy, verminous, and starving, like wolves. These men were seen snatching at preserved meat tins in order to scrape out the remnants from them. In three days, I am informed, there were ten deaths from dysentery. No German medical comforts were provided. The only things were chance supplies which came from the British Red Cross Society, and there were cases, evidence of which the right hon. Gentleman has in his possession, where these men were so verminous that the seams of the coffins in which they had been for a very short time became white with lice.
    I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has told us some of these stories to-night, because we must realise these facts. It is monstrous that the people of this country have not had the whole facts long ere this. In one camp I have heard from two different men that the deaths daily are from twelve to seventeen. I believe in that camp they were not all British soldiers; in fact, they were mostly Russians and Serbs, but British soldiers were there. In that camp was what was called a sanatorium, and men supposed to be recovering from other illnesses were kept in a building within a very few yards from tuberculous patients. In February, 1918, at Sennelager Camp, two British soldiers were killed because they would not stop talking. At another camp conditions
    1366
    were even worse. Here, so far as we can gather, the treatment was simply awful, and the neglect to the wounded was even worse than anything that could be imagined. There were scores and scores of cases of men who died through sheer neglect, who might have been saved if they had had any possible chance whatever. But the great danger is that we may imagine that because we hear in certain of the big camps open to neutral inspection that the treatment is improving, that is general in cases where men are sent to work in mines and quarries. I believe I am right in saying that there is no neutral inspection there, and it does seem that we ought to do something more than merely talk in order to see that their treatment is bettered. After the battle of Arras there were 300 wounded prisoners taken to this camp. They were made to sit in the sun for three hours on their arrival, and fifty men of this party died, nearly all out of sheer neglect. In the same camp, in 1917, all the non-commissioned officers were given fourteen days' punishment because they had refused, thank God! to do work which might help the German military caste. They had to stand in a snowstorm with no overcoats from nine to twelve in the morning and from two to five in the afternoon, solely because they refused to do work to help Germany in the War, and one of these non-commissioned officers was bayoneted in three places at this time. This was reported to the commandant, and the reply was brought back to the British soldiers who made the report by the company officer, who said it was the sentry's duty to use force, and that all English swine needed strict discipline.
    The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned that it is undesirable to name any of these commandants in these prisoner camps. I am rather at a loss to understand that myself, because it seems that, having given the warning that those camp commandants who have been brutal are going to be punished, they all know now, so that I do not think there is very much to be feared from that. At any rate, I assume there is no harm in mentioning again this afternoon a name which has, I believe, been already mentioned, but I shall not name others, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. But one of the worst offenders was Hoffmann Alexander, who comes from Nottingham, and, I believe, is a German Jew, a lace manufacturer in

    1367
    peace-time. I have no doubt he will make every effort to return to Nottingham after the War—[An HON. MEMBER: "No!"]—unless you bring in legislation very quickly to put a stop to that, and there is no evidence of that yet. This man has behaved always as a brute. When talking to British prisoners about his friends, who happen to be high dignitaries of the Church, he has permitted this brutal treatment to go on.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I ask the hon. and gallant Member what is his authority for ascribing this ruffian to Nottingham?
    General CROFT: I apologise to the hon. Member. Three non-commissioned officers have all said that he comes from Nottingham.
    Sir J. D. REES: That will not suffice.
    An HON. MEMBER: It is quite well known.
    General CROFT: This man also mentioned to his various prisoners that he had two daughters, who are evidently amongst those friendly aliens who are permitted still to inhabit seaside resorts in this country. I think we have heard enough to-day from all sources to emphasise the fact that every man, woman and child in the country ought to know these full facts, and, knowing them, ought never to forget them. I want to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman what, I believe, is the remedy, and the only remedy. First of all, I agree with him that it is advisable to announce the fact that all the commandants against whom you have got evidence will be punished. That is very good, and some hon. Gentlemen seem to consider it is sufficiently adequate. I understand the Unionist War Committee and the Liberal War Committee met yesterday, and are very much in favour of this question of punishment. Unfortunately, I do not belong to either of those bodies, and was therefore unable to attend. But I can only suggest that those two committees are very peaceful in their decision. It seems to me we want a little more than threats to Germans that they may be punished at the end of the War. There seems to me only one way of dealing with these German crimes, and that is by what some people call reprisals, but which I call deterrent punishment. It is really a deterrent you want to introduce. We have been lectured recently by Lord Milner that nobody must talk of vengeance.
    1368
    There is a very great deal of difference between vengeance and justice. There even may be some Christians who may say that you should not punish as a deterrent, but I reply that if you know your fellow-countrymen are being slowly murdered by your enemies, is it not criminal, is it not unchristian to neglect to use any weapon you possibly can, which is not an evil weapon in order to save them from death at the end of this treatment? The German, it will be generally admitted now, is a bully, and some of our authorities all through the War have been too slow to realise the fact that the German does respond to the treatment which the bully deserves. We have, in consequence, seen all this pampering of the German prisoners here, and we see them treated with every comfort, while our men are suffering, as I think will be admitted, no men have suffered since the early Christian martyrs.
    What I want to make clear—and I believe I speak for most of those who believe in reprisals—is that we have no wish whatever to imitate the vile crimes of our enemies on this question. But there are ways and there are methods by which we can very quickly bring the Germans to reason. Conditions amongst prisoners here are very superior in every respect to what they are for prisoners in Germany. I believe if you had interned Baron Schroeder, who, in 1914, was sending a telegram to his "august Sovereign," the Kaiser, shortly before being made a British subject, it would have an instant effect, and precisely the same with other big German barons and people at large in this country. If it failed you could have interned every German in this country, and I believe the mere fact would have brought the Germans to reason. As has been indicated to-day, the people who the Germans care far more about than anyone else are their officers, and had you reduced the officers' rations when you found this treatment was going on you would have moved the enemy very quickly. If we reduced the rations of the German prisoners to the standard they are giving our men in Germany at the present time could anyone say that is unchristian? There is nothing that could be called vengeance there. It would be simply descending to equality of treatment. I want to quote something from what Lord Newton said in the House of Lords the other day. Speaking of our prisoners, he said:
    "They had been half-starved, half-clothed, and exposed to the inclemencies of the weather. They

    1369
    had been made to work actually within range of our guns, and systematically prevented from communicating with their relatives. They had been allotted nominally to camps, the inside of which, in all probability, they would never see at all."
    He goes on to speak in much the same terms as the right hon. Gentleman did to-day, and he concluded on this particular point by saying:
    "It was ony right that he should state that the Cabinet had always been anxious to avoid reprisals so long as it was possible."
    My case is—and I believe a great many people agree—that the Government has delayed far too long, and that if we could have saved life we ought to have made the effort long ago to see that the treatment was different. There has been some doubt, perhaps, as to the view of officers. I should like to read a letter I received to-day from an officer I have never met. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman would demand his name. He says:
    "As you have interested yourself in the prisoners of war, and have already achieved so much by publicity as to their shocking treatment, I venture to write a letter to you on the subject. Lord Newton's recent speech, in the 'Times' of 17th October, is the reason for my addressing you. He stated therein that British officers and men, prisoners of war, were against reprisals. I was taker prisoner in August, 1914, and was in Germany until February, 1918, being repatriated later from Holland. I was in eight different camps in Germany, and being a Regular officer of many years' standing, may perhaps be considered to have some small knowledge of the trend of opinion amongst prisoners of war on the reprisal question. I unhesitatingly say that for every officer against reprisals, 100 expressed themselves in most emphatic language in their favour. The general opinion amongst officers and men was that the Germans could not possibly treat us worse than they did, short of starving us to death. A German officer said to me, 'We know the British treat their prisoners infinitely better than other nations do. Personally, I cannot understand why your Government do not institute reprisals to get your treatment improved to a respectable level. You are in an unassailable position to carry them out.' On the subject of pay and allowances, British prisoners of war were, and are, generously treated. On every other subject we feel that the Government has let us down and neglected us in every possible way. The British prisoners of war, rightly or wrongly, blame Lord Newton and General Belfield for this. In my opinion, they have been extraordinarily unsympathetic and unfortunate in their handling of this problem. Their removal would be welcomed by all of us with great satisfaction."
    I believe that is the common view taken on many sides. The hour is late. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke with such effect to this House as an exchanged prisoner asked us to accept a word of warning. He pointed out that we might think we need not do anything
    1370
    now because the War might be over. We must not take that line. We must place ourselves in the position that if there is a single case of brutality we will insist on the Government taking immediate reprisals in this country as the only possible means of ending this torture which our friends have had to endure so long.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I intervene in this Debate only for a few moments. I think the House will agree that it has been an appalling story of outrage, cruelty, and cowardice that we have heard to-day. Some of the independent Members of this House were aware and have been aware for three years of some of the things we heard to-night, and we tried to do our duty and to get them remedied. Three years ago we pressed upon the Government, and the records will prove it, that there should be a Minister of Cabinet rank to deal with this important question. The Government have been too slack in regard to this matter; they have never really, in my opinion, recognised the importance of it. It has been one Department's duty to do one thing and another Department's duty to do another thing, and it was almost impossible to make any headway in order to carry out a certain policy. Here let me say while I am criticising others that I should like to pay a compliment to the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. J. Hope) who has shown throughout great sympathy in regard to this matter and readiness to carry out any request that was made to him, coupled with the desire to do everything in his power in the interests of the prisoners. I think the House and the country are indebted to him for that. But this is a question of higher policy even than the Department of my hon. Friend. The whole question has been mishandled since the beginning of the War, grossly mishandled, and the proof we have to-night that after four years a Minister of Cabinet rank has been appointed, and that he is able to do so much and is going to do so much in the future proves, I think, the necessity for the action which we have been urging for a very long time.
    Mistakes have been made. The first was in not having a Minister of high Cabinet rank whose duty it would have been to look after the comfort and welfare of our prisoners. If that had been the case, does anyone with human instincts think that those records would have been left in a safe and that the Home Secretary would only have got them this morning? They

    1371
    are years old, and have only reached the Minister responsible this morning, because he has not been long in office. How could the officials who knew that these documents were in their offices go out day after day without doing something in order that these grievances might be remedied by a Minister responsible? The next mistake was when we refused the German offer to exchange man for man. I raised that matter in the House at the time because I thought it was a wrong action. I thought of the cruelty these men would have to suffer and the terrible privations they would have to go through owing to the domestic state of Germany as the War went on. That offer was made by Germany and we turned it down. I have never been able even up to this moment to discover who was responsible for that decision. The War Office, we are told to-day, deny responsibility. It was stated in the House that military reasons made it impossible. Was it the Foreign Office? Was it the Prisoners of War Committee? There was no real War Cabinet at that time.
    Mr. J. HOPE: Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to the episode that occurred four years ago, in October, 1914?
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I am referring to the episode when Germany intimated she would be willing to exchange man for man with this country, and we stated in this House that we could not accept the offer.
    Mr. HOPE: That was in 1914.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Yes, I think it was. That makes it much worse. That was near the beginning of the War. That is an offer which I think ought to have been accepted. It may have been that the numbers would have told against us in the exchange, but what was that compared with the sufferings and the torture that has been going on in Germany all these years? I submit, therefore, that it was a fatal mistake when we did not accept that offer. The third mistake was the official approval of the conspiracy of silence that has been going on in regard to the sufferings of our men in Germany. As my hon. and gallant Friend (General Croft) has said, we cannot confirm this personally. Certainly all my information has been to the effect that it was useless to try to induce any prisoners to tell any of their experiences, because they were under the belief that it was not possible
    1372
    for them to make any statement. That has been my impression, and it has been the impression of a very great number of friends of mine who ought to know whether this was well-founded or not.
    Mr. R. MCNEILL: The hon. and gallant Member for Southampton (General Sir Ivor Philipps) definitely confirms that. He received that instruction.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: If it had not been so you would have seen more interviews in the Press, and the fact that you have seen very few is a sufficient answer. I think we have had to-night a very satisfactory statement from the Home Secretary considering the short time he has been in office. As I understand it, we are not going to agree to any armistice with the Central Powers until all our prisoners have been released, and allowed to return home. That is a very important point. I hope my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for War will, when he sees the Home Secretary, impress upon him that he ought to-night to communicate with the Prime Minister in Paris, and tell him that the opinion of this House is unanimous that that condition must be insisted upon. I do not think the House of Commons and the country will ever entertain any armistice of any sort or kind unless that condition is carried into effect.
    The only other point is the question of the punishment of the guilty for the crimes committed. I welcome the statement of the Home Secretary, and I hope that he will not weaken in regard to the declaration he has made. I think we owe it not only to the men who are alive to-day, but to the men who have died in the enemy's hands, that the guilty men should, if possible, be brought to justice. I interrupted the Home Secretary when he was speaking in regard to Turkey. My information is that of the original prisoners in Turkish hands only 25 per cent. are alive to-night.
    Mr. MACPHERSON Mr. MACPHERSON was understood to dissent.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I am glad if that is not so. My information, however, comes from a tolerably good source. My right hon. Friend will not deny that thousands and thousands of our men have been allowed deliberately to die in Turkish hands, and while they have been dying they have been looked upon without any attempt to give them assistance. These

    1373
    things must be brought home to the officials in Turkey, as well as to the officials in Germany. I hope that now, after four years' agitation, a Cabinet Minister has been appointed with responsibility for prisoners of war, there will be a little more brightness for our unfortunate men in the hands of the enemy.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Perhaps the House would allow me to intervene at this point to deal with one or two questions which have been raised. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Dalziel) complained that there was no Cabinet Minister actually responsible for over four years for prisoners of war. I always had great sympathy with that view, and since I have occupied this position and have had to be responsible for a great many questions dealing with the War I have felt that it was unfortunate that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. Hope), and perhaps two or three other Ministers of the Crown, have never known until the very last moment who was responsible for a certain question. I am glad to say now that what I pressed upon the War Cabinet is a realised fact, and that my right hon. Friend and colleague, the Home Secretary, is now before the House of Commons and the whole world primarily responsible for any questions about prisoners of war that may be put to him. While I am speaking on this point may I add to the general congratulations which have been offered to my hon. Friend and colleague the Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. Hope) because of the able way in which he has answered in this House all the questions put to him, and the very courteous and assiduous manner in which he has performed has tasks. In regard to the second point, the exchange of prisoners, I may say that when my right hon. Friend (Sir H. Dalziel) spoke to me about it I had forgotten the incident, which I think occurred in October, 1914. A debate took place then, and my right hon. Friend did point out the desirability of an exchange of prisoners. At that time, I believe, there were very definite military reasons for not doing so, because the German prisoners we had at our disposal were very highly trained reservists, and we thought it well in the national interest not to make any exchange at that particular moment. As things have turned out, it was unfortunate that we did not effect that exchange, but at the time
    1374
    we had all sorts of ideas as to the length of the War. We did not realise that the War would last four years, or that the dreadful conditions about which we have heard to-night would be enforced upon our prisoners in Germany.
    I am going to deal with one or two points which were raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Antrim (Captain Craig). I should like to say how glad we all are to see him present, and on behalf of myself and the Department which I represent I should like to congratulate him upon his gallantry in the field. He had, I think, two complaints against the War Office. First of all, he said we did not allow prisoners of war to wear the 1914 Star. My hon. and gallant Friend will remember that there are certain strict rules in the Army Act in regard to prisoners of war. Every prisoner of war is assumed, as it were, to be guilty, and in theory if not in practice he must appear before a Court of inquiry before he is entitled to any of the rewards to which he may be entitled. That is the law as it stands, and has it has been passed year after year by this House. A short time ago I had the opportunity of showing that we were quite prepared so far as we could to relax that very grievous law. I was asked a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Durham as to chevrons for wounded soldiers, and I was enabled to say almost immediately that I would have the matter looked into, and I am now in a position to state that prisoners of war who were wounded, or have been wounded, are now entitled to chevrons. There is one other point which was raised in the earlier part of the Debate by the hon. and gallant Member for Southampton (Sir Ivor Philipps). He was very indignant, and properly so, if the facts were as stated, that German wounded prisoners of war are ousting our gallant and wounded soldiers from Netley Hospital. It is well that I should state the facts. We have more wounded German prisoners at the present time in this country than at any other time. Heretofore the Germans we captured were very slightly wounded but on this last occasion we have had to provide accommodation almost immediately for 15,000 German wounded prisoners of war. Naturally enough the War Office had to find out where this accommodation could come from temporarily, because our intention was to erect hospitals in the internment camps. Therefore a telegram

    1375
    was sent out to the various hospitals in the Southern Command, and amongst them to Netley, and they replied, "We are prepared to take 100 men." The matter was very urgent and the Commandant of the hospital, quite properly in my judgment, made up his mind that he would provide such accommodation at once. It happened that the accommodation was got ready whenever he got the telegram to remove those patients into the marquee. These men were discharged three days afterwards, and then he removed the others into a neighbouring ward under the care of nurses and doctors. He might very well have put Germans in that ward along with the others, but the British wounded would not associate with them in the same ward. So that ward with this slight manipulation was utilised with no desire to injure our own wounded at the expense of the German wounded, simply and solely to have them put in a ward alone and apart from our own men. I had a deputation sent down to look into the facts, and I understand that the local people were satisfied with the explanation given by the Commandant. I do not think any other point has been raised, and I will try to get what particulars I can about the statement which has been made by my hon. and gallant Friend, and if I am wrong I shall confess that I am wrong.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Of all the calculated cruelties and develish barbarities perpetrated by the Germans in this War there are few which have stirred the public mind as their treatment of our prisoners. It is quite clear to anyone who has been in this House this afternoon that this is a matter upon which Members of this House feel very deeply with one remarkable exception. The Members of these pacifist bencher, have been conspicuously absent the whole day. They are quite ready to come here to utter pro-German speeches and make pro-German suggestions, but when it is a question of endeavouring to alleviate the sufferings and save the lives of our prisoners in Germany there is not one of them who raises his little finger to help or who ventures to come into this House to help us. I trust that is a point of which the outside public will take note. We have heard this afternoon the most deplorable and lamentable accounts of the condition of our prisoners, not only in Germany but also in Turkey. The Home Secretary has most properly in the most public
    1376
    manner called attention to some of those cases, and I feel he has only given a very slight example of the cases which come under his notice. I am glad he did so, and he was right in so doing. The public have a right to know these things, and when they do know them I do not believe that they will ever forget the nation which perpetrated these infamous crimes.
    The question that immediately interests us to-day is, What are the remedies to be applied? We all know it is no use trying the ordinary means of redress which you would try with civilised nations, because the Germans do not respond to such a feeling, and they have answered our appeals in the past either with silence or with lying charges as to the treatment of their prisoners in our hands or they have put us off with promises. The time for German promises is past. What we want of the Germans is some action that proves that they are really willing to alleviate the sufferings of our men. I was exceedingly glad to hear the Home Secretary to-day, who practically accepted the principles which have been formulated by the Joint Committee of the Unionist War Committee and the Liberal War Committee yesterday, namely, of reprisals, punishment of the criminals, and the repatriation of our men. As regards reprisals, I congratulate him upon the fact that I think that he is going to touch upon a weak point in Germany, namely, their pride or the regard they have for their officers, and if we are going to take any reprisals I am glad to know that they will be taken upon the German officers who are responsible for many of the crimes that have been perpetrated in Germany on our men.
    As regards punishment, I welcome the announcement of the Home Secretary that he will notify Germany at once that these men should be tried, convicted, and adequately punished for their crimes. I think that would be a double advantage. It will to a certain extent come home even to the dense mind of the German, if he knows that punishment is going to follow upon his crime. There is a further advantage. It will serve to emphasise the sanctity of that international law which the Germans have up to now sought to degrade and to treat as non-existent. If the Germans find, as a result of their crimes and violation of international law, that they are liable to be punished, it will serve to some extent to re-establish the rule and the sanctity of those laws of

    1377
    international conduct in time of war by which up to now all civilised nations have been governed.
    I want to say a word upon the question of the repatriation of our prisoners. I was delighted to hear the Home Secretary say that it would be made one of the absolute binding conditions of an armistice that all our prisoners should be repatriated as soon as possible, and that guarantees would be taken that this was done. I would like to suggest to Ministers that there are steps which can be taken at once,—at least two vitally important steps can be taken before this armistice is granted in connection with this question of repatriation. The first step is this: Let Germany be told that she must immediately, without delay, send back to the parent camps all prisoners of war now in Germany. See the effect of that. It will at once bring all these men from the coal mines, the salt mines, and from the positions behind the enemy's lines and remove them from their miserable quarters in occupied territory to parent camps. That would relieve them of a large amount of misery and torture from which they now suffer.
    I know that some of the parent camps are not models of comfort, but it would be an immense improvement upon the conditions under which they now live behind the firing lines. It will enable these men to be fed, because, speaking generally, parcels of food do reach the parent camps, and they do not reach these places in the occupied territories and the places behind the lines, or the mines where these men are employed. Therefore, if you send them back to the parent camps, you will, to some extent, relieve them from their sufferings and enable them to get their parcels of food. I put it to the Government that that should be insisted upon as a condition preceding the Armistice. It could be done within a reasonable time and before the armistice is granted, and it would have this enormous advantage, that you would be able to get immediately this improvement in the prisoners' lot, which would not depend in any way upon German promises.
    There is one other step which I think the Government might take at once. They might insist as a condition of the armistice that the agreement which was arrived at last year for the repatriation of our prisoners should be immediately ratified and carried out by Germany. We could then begin immediately to get those unfortunate
    1378
    soldiers who were captured in the early period of the War back again, and I think that should be done before we discuss the question of the armistice at all, and it should be carried out before the armistice is granted. It is obvious that the Germans want this armistice and they are prepared to concede almost anything in order to get it. If we insist that this agreement should be carried out before the armistice we should be doing a great deal for our prisoners. I urge those two points upon the Government, and while thanking my right hon. Friend for the deep interest he has shown in this matter, and for the important announcement he has made this afternoon, I would suggest to him that in these two respects he should insist upon the Government taking immediate action, which I am sure will be of real benefit to our prisoners.
    Sir J. D. REES: This Debate has hitherto naturally and properly dealt with our own prisoners who are our dearest care, and so far as they are concerned I will content myself with expressing my sincere sympathy with their sufferings and my fervent hope that their brutal oppressors will shortly fully expiate their crimes. As an old Civil servant it behoves me to express my sympathy with our gallant Indian soldiers who have suffered so severely in captivity in the cold climate of the uplands of Mesopotamia, and whom the hon. Member for Sheffield is now endeavouring to supply with that warm clothing which they require to bring them through the winter. I sincerely hope with my hon. and learned Friend who has just spoken that the release of these prisoners, British and Indian, will be one of the first articles in any armistice made with the enemy.
    8.0 P.M.
    During the Debate, as is natural, reference has many times been made to the treatment of German prisoners in this War. I think it becomes a Member of this House who, although he is in no way responsible for the administration or discipline of the camps in which enemy prisoners are confined, has visited some eighty of them, and is thoroughly well posted as to the procedure and as to what goes on, to refer briefly to the charges of pampering which have been made against the authorities. No such charge can be sustained. The discipline of those camps is quite satisfactory, and the fare given is sufficient without being luxurious. The guards which are supplied are sufficient for all practical purposes, escapes are rare, and

    1379
    the fugitives are invariably recovered, and if, acting upon complaints made from time to time in the House of Commons the War Office were to put on the extra guard demanded, the result would be that an army of some 50,000 men would be required to guard about 100,000 prisoners in the United Kingdom. Either that or these prisoners could no longer be allowed to work in agriculture and forestry and in quarries and in other ways in which they are made use of, which I think we all agree should be the policy to pursue. I sympathise with our prisoners in Germany as deeply as any Member of this House, and, while indigation, Heaven knows, is excusable at the brutal treatment to which they have been exposed, I wish to dissociate, myself entirely from the statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who opened this Debate that the Government sent two men who were bound to fail to negotiate an agreement with the Germans at the Hague. In the course of my duties under the Hague Convention I have frequently been brought into contact with both General Belfield and Lord Newton. They are both humane and honourable men, and I believe they feel the fact that they were not able to bring their agreement to a satisfactory ratification more acutely than they do any criticism to which, under some misapprehension, they have been exposed in this House to-day. No doubt Lord Newton is a man who sometimes speaks freely, but we must look at his labours on behalf of the prisoners of war and at his successes rather than at his failures, which, like all men, he has also made. The balance will show that he has deserved well of our prisoners. If the attitude taken up with respect to these gentlemen were at all justifiable, it would not only be accusing them of a want of humanity and sympathy, but it would be accusing the Foreign Office which employs the one and the War Office which employs the other; more than that, it would also be accusing the Colonial Office, the India Office, and the other offices. If this charge were sustainable, the whole of the Government would really stand convicted of inhumanity, and that is a position which I think upon reflection neither the hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Bench nor those who supported him in the same spirit from the benches behind would be prepared to sustain.
    1380
    Of course the way in which the enemy prisoners of war are treated here reacts upon the treatment of British prisoners in Germany. My own Department, in carrying out its duties—the care of the records and the property, and so on, of all these prisoners of war—has never yet made a single arrangement in favour of any prisoners of Germany imprisoned here without insisting upon similar facilities being given to our own prisoners in Germany. That principle of reciprocity has guided my Department all through, and, although we modestly keep in the background, and being connected with enemy prisoners, are naturally not a popular proposition, we claim that we have not only endeavoured to serve, but that we have been successful in serving the British prisoners of war in many ways. We have succeeded in getting earlier information, and we have succeeded in many ways, I hope and believe, in serving the interests of British prisoners of war. The charges do not affect me, because I am not responsible for discipline or administration, but, knowing how these camps are managed and hearing these charges brought against the War Office, which is responsible for administration, it would be somewhat mean of me if I sat here throughout the Debate and did not answer from the point of view of a perfectly independent person, in no way subordinate to the War Office, the charges made against it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Christchurch (General Croft), who, I think, depended very much upon hearsay and rumour, spoke about the Hun prisoners drinking champagne behind wire. All this is sheer nonsense. In point of fact, if enemy prisoners of war may get a pint of wine a day here, it is also the case that our officers in Germany may not only do that, but may also have as much beer as they like—not only half a pint a day.
    Mr. HOPE: There is no champagne.
    Sir J. D. REES: No; it is light wine and very poor stuff indeed. Then accusations are brought that the prisoners of war here are overfed. On the other hand, the farmers who desire to get these prisoners to help them with their harvest complain that they do not get enough to eat. The odds are that a pretty satisfactory mean is struck between too much and too little, and I think the War Office may very fairly claim that, without pampering the prisoners of war, they succeed in giving them sufficient food to do their work and no

    1381
    more than they require for that purpose. Other hon. Members have criticised the fact that these prisoners are very often driven to their work. It occurred to me, when I saw them going in lorries from Mill Hill to Hendon, that it looked very luxurious, but if these men have to walk three or four miles to their work and back again at night you cannot get so much work out of them as if they are landed where their work has to be done. Consequently, the perfectly rational system is followed of letting them walk where their work is sufficiently near and letting them be taken by the farmer in his cart when their work is not sufficiently near. The procedure is so elastic that it enables the person who employs them to get the most out of them. I submit that is not pampering. There is no pampering of these men. They get sufficient, but not an excessive ration. Many people, in fact, have told me that they are not allowed enough to enable them to work properly. I deny that. The fact is they very often take out very little with them for their midday meal. They are allowed to distribute their rations over the day in whatever proportions they please, so much for breakfast, so much for lunch, and so much for dinner. The consequence is that they very often take out very little for their lunch in order to be able to work upon the feelings of the kind-hearted farmer, who says, "I do not like a man working for me on an empty stomach," and who gives them a dinner, so that when they get back they have their own dinner as well. That is what happens, and it is at the bottom of this charge of pampering the enemy prisoners of war while our own prisoners of war are treated, God knows, with the utmost cruelty and brutality in Germany.
    I see no harm in reprisals. You can only argue with the Germans with the big stick. I have no sympathy with the bishops and clergy who like to point out that it is an un-christian proceeding. They had much better leave the matter to soldiers. There is this in it. It has been extremely difficult to arrange for anything like satisfactory changes, and this, to a large extent, goes to the root of the failure of the efforts that have been made. It is very difficult to negotiate an exchange when one tide does not care. Turkey does not want sent back any prisoners that we have got. They say, "Let them stay where they are, well fed at someone else's expense." That is very much the case with the Germans. I do not think they want their
    1382
    men back, and therefore they do not take any particular interest in returning our men to us. I am thoroughly well aware that to say any word at all on this subject other than denunciation of the Prussian oppressor, which I am sure is their due, and in which I would indulge if it had not been sufficiently indulged in today, is not a popular proposition; but, being concerned with these camps and knowing a great deal about them, though in no way responsible for what goes on there, I think it my duty to make these few remarks. I know that the management, the discipline, and the administration by the War Office of these camps are good. I believe that is the information of all those who have personal knowledge of them, and, from what I know of the officers who are concerned, while they are humane and while they would do everything they could to get our prisoners of war out of captivity, they are not more than humane to the enemy prisoners in this country, but treat them with proper firmness and endeavour in our common interest to get all the work that they possibly can out of them.
    General McCALMONT: I feel that some of the remarks that have fallen from the hon. Member for Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) should not pass unchallenged. I believe, from what I have seen on the roads, that the German prisoners are not treated with that strict discipline to which they are accustomed in their own army, let alone the discipline to which our people are accustomed in their camps. I believe, certainly without doing anything against humanity, that a great deal remains which could be done well within the four corners of the Hague Convention, and that it is very largely due to the difference in the methods of the various officers in various parts of the country that there are these complaints. I am told when one asks, "Do you know the local commandant?" that you get the reply, "No, he is an old woman, and that is why the prisoners are allowed to do exactly as they like." A great deal more supervision is necessary, and in many cases the right men are not in the right place. I would like to quote one instance. Within the last few days there has appeared in the daily papers a report about a serious loss of potatoes in a certain district. The local farmers got together and laid in wait to see if they could catch the people, and they turned out to be a party of German prisoners

    1383
    from the nearest internment camp, or gang of workmen. They were challenged and they all tried to run away. I was glad to read that one farmer brought one down with his gun. Another surrendered, and those two men were brought before the local magistrates. That has been published freely in the Press. I cannot believe that men who can go about at dead of night with sacks and dig potatoes can be properly looked after in their camps, or gangs, or wherever they are expected to live.
    Sir J. D. REES: Where was this?
    General McCALMONT: The place, I think, was Portmadoc, and the case has been freely reported in the Press within the last few days. I would like to give one other story. I am assured by an eyewitness that so bad was the behaviour of certain German prisoners in a railway station—I think it was at Wellington, in Shropshire—not very long ago, that a wounded soldier, who was jeered at out of a train by a German prisoner, took the question of discipline into his own hands. He got into the carriage and gave the man a jolly good hiding, there and then. Then, again, I maintain that there is a very serious lack of proper supervision if prisoners are allowed at any time to jeer at anyone in this country, and least of all at our own wounded soldiers. I did not quite gather from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary whether he has any control over the War Office with regard to the question of the control of prisoners in this country. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he was the chairman of a Committee representing very many Departments. It is a very important matter, and we should know whether or not he has any power in regard to the treatment of enemy prisoners in this country or whether the matter of their discipline is entirely one for the War Office.
    Mr. J. HOPE: I can answer that at once. Primarily it is a matter for the War Office, except as regards civilians, which is a matter primarily for the Home Office. If any question arises, and if either the Home Secretary himself or any Department takes a different view from the War Office, the Home Secretary has an overruling power given by the Cabinet, subject, of course, to an appeal to the Cabinet itself.
    General McCALMONT: I am very grateful for that explanation, because that enables us to know the right channel through which we may put the numerous complaints which reach us from time to time on this subject. If something could be done simply to make the life of the prisoners a little bit more like what they are accustomed to at home, where they are accustomed to drastic discipline from the officers, and if more officers were employed in looking after them, their behaviour would be a little bit better. You would not see them slouching along and laughing and smoking at times when even the British soldier is not allowed to smoke. I have heard of plenty of instances of this kind. I have actually seen one in which a large party of prisoners was walking along a road and smoking and behaving very badly. An officer came up, and the whole party put out their cigarettes and stood at attention. They did that because they were accustomed to do so in their own country and it was a matter of discipline. If the officers can cause that, then the sooner we employ more of our officers, of whom there are many in this country only too anxious for the work, the better it would be for the discipline of the prisoners in this country, and the more the enemy would recognise that he cannot take liberties with our prisoners without the risk, not of reprisals, but of strict treatment under the Hague Convention.
    Colonel Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have remained in the House, and I now rise to speak because of certain remarks which have been made about General Belfield, who has had charge of the matter of the prisoners of war. It is a tradition of this House, which has not been observed in this Debate, that no public servant should be attacked, on the ground that he cannot defend himself, but that those who are responsible to the House, and whose removal can be brought about, are the ones, if any, to attack. That tradition has not been carried out. I speak of General Belfield as an old colleague of mine at the War Office, who has had, and has shown all his life, and especially during this War, the greatest sympathy for our prisoners of war. He has done his best, and if various delegations that have gone to the Hague, of all of which this distinguished officer has been a member, have failed, it has not been his fault, as he has acted up to the full to the instructions which have been given him. It is no fault of his, or of

    1385
    any military member of the delegations, if the agreements come to have not been drastic enough in terms or carried into effect when signed by ourselves. I would remind the House that one of the most distinguished Members whom we have in the Army to-day—Colonel John Ward—who has done as much as any hon. Member of either House to bring the House of Commons into close and intimate contact with the War, owes his commission to General Belfield. More than that—I speak now from personal knowledge—when a certain military cabal endeavoured to get rid of John Ward, General Belfield supported him and maintained him in his position, and made it possible for the hon. Member to remain to do the splendid service which he has done for his country and for the credit of the House of Commons. So I think that this soldier should have ben left alone, and the heads attacked, if the heads must be attacked, in accordance with the tradition of the House which might well have been maintained. I think that the Government—all Governments—have failed in not handing the prisoners of war question over to a man of great position and personality. The hon. Members who have been responsible for the prisoners of war business have, of course, every sympathy, being humane English gentlemen, but they have no power; they are subordinate; they are junior. They have not a commanding position from which to enforce their views, however humane they are; and the long, sad tale of the treatment of the prisoners of war in Germany is due to the apathy or the indifference of successive Governments, and not to those gentlemen who have worked hard and done the best they could—and more than one could fairly expect from them—and who are responsible for carrying out the instructions or the lack of instructions from the heads of the respective Governments. I would like to ask the hon. Member for Central Sheffield for rather more details about the commission of skilled lawyers which was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. The hon. Member will remember that yesterday a large meeting of the Unionist and Liberal War Committees passed a resolution asking that a Commission should be appointed to get the evidence on which could be founded charges and, as we hope ultimately, convictions and punishments against these particular camp commandants and other
    1386
    officers, high and low, who were particularly responsible for the mal-treatment of our prisoners.
    Mr. HOPE: I do not understand the word "Commission," but a Committee exists already, which takes all the evidence, I think, from escaped or recaptured prisoners. They have gone on with their work for years; they have a full record, all the evidence is there, and has been sifted. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already said, the names of the guilty German commandants and other officers are already recorded and evidence against them is there.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am fully aware of that Commission, but I think the Home Secretary referred to another committee or commission, and I wanted to find out if it had been appointed, as I think it might well be appointed, by the Attorney-General or some head of the law to inquire particularly into the evidence. We all know that every returned prisoner is carefully examined, and there are thousands of thousands of dossiers of returned prisoners of our own filed. I hope these will be inquired into and the evidence prepared. All I wanted was further information on the point. I hope that these returned prisoners of war, who have suffered, as many of them have irreparably in health, owing to their bad treatment, will receive special compensation, and that this compensation will be one of the first charges made upon what I trust will be a drastic and justifiable indemnity from the German people or from other enemy people responsible for this bad treatment. Leaving aside Mr. Justice Younger's Commission, did I understand the Home Secretary to say that another Committee or Commission had been appointed by him, or by the Attorney-General or the Lord Chancellor or anyone else, to secure evidence in order that we may try, convict, and punish, if found guilty, those responsible for the bad treatment of our prisoners of war in enemy countries?
    Sir G. CAVE Sir G. CAVE was understood to indicate assent.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: There is that second Committee?
    Sir G. CAVE: Yes.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I understood my right hon. Friend to say so, and I am very glad indeed to hear it We should consider the Government remiss in its duty

    1387
    if it had not prepared these matters so that immediately the time arrives we can secure the person of those German or other enemy brutes, the trial may at once commence, and punishment may be meted out to them before the world forgets, if it ever forgets, the horrors suffered by our prisoners of war. Compensation should especially be granted to these people, and should be one of the first charges on an enemy indemnity. I profoundly regret the neglect of successive Governments in dealing with prisoners of war, for the bad treatment of prisoners has built up a feeling of resentment among our prisoners which will be felt in a most pronounced manner when they return to this country. I hope I am wrong here, but I have met many returned prisoners, and I am convinced they feel they have been neglected. Personally I think more might have been done. I hope now, at any rate, every step will be taken to reassure these men who are still in captivity and those who are in internment camps that they can look forward not only to just but to generous treatment on the part of the Government of the day, and that they will not be treated according to the old miserable tradition of the Army, as set out in the Army Act, as if they were cowards and had no business to surrender, which is the old tradition of the Army, but will be treated as men who have done their best for their country and have suffered because, after having done their best, nothing remained for them but captivity.
    Sir N. HELME: I am sure the House and the country will have heard with the deepest satisfaction the statement which has been made by the Home Secretary in respect of the determination of the Government to demand the immediate return of prisoners of war as a condition of armistice. After the recital of the awful treatment to which they were subjected it is satisfactory to know there is a reasonable hope that the perpetrators of these enormities will be brought to justice. I would suggest that simultaneously with the obtaining of an armistice there should at once be a commission appointed to visit the camps abroad so that evidence up-to-date and on the spot may be taken from the unfortunate prisoners who are there before they come home, and there may thus be an opportunity of securing direct evidence which would lead to the trial and the bringing to justice and ultimate punishment of these men who have been exercising
    1388
    an authority of which they were unworthy. It is satisfactory to know that whereas in the past our men have felt that they have not been treated as well as they had a right to expect, they will no longer send home such messages as those we have received, "For God's sake let the Government do something to get us out of this Hell." That is the spirit in which many prisoners have recorded the conditions in which they have been confined, and when we contrast the surroundings in which they have been compelled to live with the conditions in which the German prisoners have found themselves in this country, it is certainly a matter on which we can challenge comparison in every detail, for the manner in which we have treated the German prisoners will stand out in marked contrast to anything which has been done abroad. I have had evidence myself of ill-treatment which has been meted out in Ruhleben, and only this week I have had a letter stating that parcels which are sent regularly to an officer there he has been unable to obtain, and sometimes when the parcels have been received they have been pilfered en route, and he has only received two or three articles when perhaps ten or a dozen were included. I feel sure the statements which have been made by the Horne Secretary will give the deepest satisfaction and now that there is a prospect of an armistice, which we trust may lead to an honourable peace, and one in which our interests will be thoroughly protected at every point and the objects for which we have fought would be established, I trust we shall soon see an end to this terrible fight and then the events which we are discussing will pass away and be merely an unhappy memory of the conditions of which we have to complain.
    Mr. C. PRICE: I am sure the statement made by the Home Secretary will give very great satisfaction. In Edinburgh there are, unfortunately, a very large number of people who have relatives who are prisoners in camps in Germany. Many of them have told heartrending stories of the treatment to which they have been subjected. When they read the speech to-morrow it will give them very great satisfaction. It is a great pity that the action which is now being taken was not taken earlier, because there is no doubt there is a feeling amongst the great mass of people that we have not done all we might have done. I wish very specially to call attention to a matter which I was

    1389
    asked to raise by a deputation which waited on the Members for Edinburgh on Friday. There are a number of sailors from Edinburgh and Leith who have been interned in Germany for a considerable time, and there is a feeling that these men have not had the consideration given to them which might have been given. I do not want to balance the sailor against the soldier or the soldier against the civilian, but a number of these men have been interned for over four years. That is a very long period, and I am quite sure if something could be done to obtain their release it would give intense relief. I am informed, for instance, that there are many civilians who are between sixty and seventy years of age, and their confinement for a period of four years must have a very serious effect upon their health, and those who have had such a long internment should have a preference over those who have been there a less time. I have been asked by this deputation, representing the Edinburgh and District Association of Civilian Prisoners of War, to bring their case before the House. I sincerely trust these two points will have the first consideration of the Government.
    Mr. HOPE: In reply to my hon. Friend who has just spoken I may say that the case of the seamen has been only too painfully before the authorities dealing with it. The special difficulty arises from the fact that we regard these men as civilians whilst the Germans insist upon regarding them as combatants. We cannot admit that the captain of a merchant ship, which is armed for its own protection, thereby becomes a combatant, and the Admiralty are quite unable to allow that contention. Various ways of surmounting the difficulty have been suggested, and only the other day a proposal was made to the Germans. Unfortunately that proposal has not succeeded. The seamen's case will have to be borne in mind in the general steps contemplated by my right hon. and learned Friend. Then, as to the elderly civilians, I should have thought on medical grounds that they ought to have come out under existing agreements. I fully sympathise with the position of the seamen, and anything more that can be done shall be done. My right hon. and learned Friend is seised of the whole case and certainly he will not let their unhappy lot be forgotten. I think there is not any other Member who wishes to speak, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion for Adjournment.
    Question, "That the House do now adjourn," put, and negatived.

    SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.— [Progress, 28th October.]
    Considered in Committee.
    [The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir Donald Maclean) in the Chair.]

    SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.— [Progress, 28th October.]

      CLAUSE 1.—(Superannuation Allowances to Teachers.)
      (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act (including any rules made thereunder), the Board of Education (in this Act referred to as "the Board") may grant such superannuation allowances as are hereinafter mentioned in this Section to any teacher who—

      (a) has attained the age of sixty years, and has either—

      (i) been employed—

      (A) for not less than thirty years in recognised or qualifying service; and

      (B) for not less than ten years, or, if he was employed in recognised service at the commencement of this Act, for not less than the prescribed number of years, in a Grant-aided school or in service which has been recorded by the Board before the commencement or this Act under the Act of 1898; and

      (C) for not less than the prescribed period after the commencement of this Act in recognised service; or

      (ii) being a teacher to whom the Act of 1898 applied at the commencement of this Act, been employed in recognised service for a period equal in the aggregate to not less than half the number of years between the date on which he became a certificated teacher and the date on which he attained or will attain the age of sixty-five years; or

      (b) having completed ten years of recognised service and been employed in recognised service within the prescribed period before the date on which he applies for a superannuation allowance under this Section, has, in the opinion of the Board, become permanently incapable through infirmity of mind or body of serving efficiently as a teacher in recognised service.

      (2) The superannuation allowances which may be granted under this Section are—

      (a) an annual superannuation allowance of an amount not exceeding one-eightieth of the average salary of the teacher in respect of each completed year of recognised service, or one-half of the average salary, whichever is the less; and

      (b) by way of additional allowance a lump sum not exceeding one-thirtieth of the average salary of the teacher in respect of each completed year of recognised service, or one-and-a-half times the average salary, whichever is the less.

      (3) In the case of a woman teacher, who after ceasing in consequence of marriage to be employed in recognised service has subsequently returned to recognised service and satisfies the prescribed conditions, twenty years shall be substituted for thirty years as the qualifying period of service.
      Mr. COTTON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert
      "or
      (c) has been a certificated teacher whose certificate had expired before the commencement of this Act, provided that in such case any condition with respect to employment after the commencement of this Act shall not apply.
      Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act certificated teachers who were at the commencement of this Act in receipt of any superannuation or disablement allowance under the Act of 1908 shall cease to be entitled to such allowance, and in lieu thereof shall be entitled to all the benefits under this Act.
      I should like to call the attention of the Committee exactly to what point it was upon which we were engaged last night. I was drawing attention to the case of the teachers who would normally retire before 1st April, 1919, which is the "appointed day" for this Bill to come into operation. I desire to know from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education whether he will be prepared to extend the certificates of those teachers so as to bring them within the operation of the Bill? The London County Council are making an application to that effect, and I understand that in the case of some other local educational authorities the same application is being made. What I am anxious to get from the right hon. Gentleman—
      The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): Is this germane to the Amendment?
      Mr. COTTON: Is not that rather a matter for the Chairman, who has not ruled me out of order? It arises because these teachers will have retired, and the object of my Amendment is to bring within the operation of the Bill those teachers who will have retired before the Bill comes into operation. Therefore, I should like to repeat, that I should be glad to know from the President whether he will be prepared to take that step, which certainly some local education authorities are pressing upon him. I want to come to some actual facts, which will exemplify the very disadvantageous position occupied by teachers who have retired as compared with those teachers whose certificates will, happily for them,
      1392
      not expire until after 1st April, 1019. It will be found that the teacher who takes his pension on 1st April, 1919, is eligible for four times the amount of pension of the man or woman who retires, say, on 1st January, 1919. If I may take the case that was put by the right hon. Gentleman himself in the Debate on the Second Reading, the teacher with a salary of £400 a year, who retires from service under the London County Council under present conditions, has a pension of, roughly, £50 per year. If he remains in the service until the Act comes into operation his pension would be at the rate of £200 per annum, with a lump sum, by way of gratuity, of £533 13s. 4d. It is hardly necessary to point out the enormous difference apparent in the two cases. The two teachers would practically have paid as much towards their pensions. Future teachers will pay much less. New teachers will pay next to nothing. The teachers already pensioned have also been receiving far smaller salaries than the teachers who will come into the service in the future. In the amount of interest the sum invested for annuities has been calculated at, roughly, 2 per cent. per annum. With the increased value of money it might have been expected that the pensions would have been increased from this fund. As I understand it, however, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take over the principal sum that has accumulated, and the result seems to be that you are going to take away from the man who has nothing the very little that he has.
      Wages have greatly increased during the War. At the same time the purchasing power of the sovereign has greatly declined, so we see in all directions war bonuses given to the workers. How can existing pensioners possibly live on their small pensions? As I was explaining last night, eases have been brought to my notice in which teachers outside London have been retiring on pensions of £27, £32, and £41 per year. These are pensions which you would hardly like to offer to a crossing sweeper on his retirement from professional life. Why not increase the pensions of these pensioners? After all, they are men and women who have done good, strenuous work in the past, and the cost of remedying the injustice—and it is an injustice—would not be very great. The age of retirement has been sixty-five. In future it is to be sixty. The expectation of life at sixty-five cannot be more than nine years; and when it is borne in

      1393
      mind that the ages of pensioned teachers vary from sixty-five to eighty, the average expectation of life can hardly be more than four years, so that the cost of doing justice to teachers who are already on the pension list would be comparatively small. I want to put it as strongly as I can that the retired teachers have a substantial claim to be included in the benefits of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, in the Debate on the Second Reading, said he desired that this concession or boon to the teachers should be given in a large-handed way. I can hardly think that his expectation will be satisfied if the class of retired teachers is ruled out. Their exclusion is bound to create a feeling of injustice and of irritation, especially amongst those who by the accident of a few months are excluded from the benefits of what admittedly to those who will be brought within its operations is a very generous Bill.
      Mr. FISHER: The effect of this Amendment is to provide that teachers? who have already received superannuation allowances and disablement allowances under the Act of 1898 should have those allowances increased up to the scale contemplated in this Bill as from the commencement of the Bill. The broad principle of the Bill is that it is an attempt to make the condition of the teaching profession attractive, and to bring into the profession more teachers in the future. The Bill is founded on broad considerations of public policy, and it has for its purpose the securing of a certain definite public advantage. It is not designed to give benefit to individuals unaccompanied by service of public advantage. Consequently this Bill is not concerned with those who have already left the service in Grant-aided schools, and who will never return to the service, cither because they have migrated to other occupations or because they have retired from active work. The hon. Member invites us to depart from that broad principle. He invites us, in fact, to convert a Teachers Superannuation Bill, framed upon considerations of educational policy, into a Public Assistance Bill, and he invites us to do this by drawing attention to what no doubt is a very lamentable fact, the fact that a number of ex-teachers, most deserving men, men deserving of great consideration, are at the present moment in very depressed financial circumstances. The
      1394
      hon. Member has alluded to the bonuses which have been given as a result of the War crisis to persons who are suffering from the effects of the War. But that involves an altogether different set of considerations, and if we are once to go outside the general principles on which the Bill is framed, if we are to consider granting eleemosynary aid to individuals, then we are departing very widely from the sound principle of this Bill. If we are to do that, I submit that the hon. Member's Amendment is not the best way of doing it.
      After all, what does the hon. Member propose? He proposes to come to the assistance of the class of teachers who least need that assistance and to withhold it from those who most need it. Certificated teachers under the Act of 1898 at any rate have their superannuation and disablement allowances, inadequate or insufficient as they may be. But the Amendment does not apply to those who have neither superannuation nor disablement allowances, and it does nothing for the teachers of our secondary and technical schools, although their needs are far greater than the needs of the certificated teacher, because during their lives they were not in a position to make provision for old age and no provision was made by the State. The question whether the pension should be increased at the cost of the State in order to cover the increased cost of living, is one which affects other Civil servants and other classes of pensioners, and it will not be claimed, I take it, that the certificated teacher should receive preferential treatment as compared with other pensioners simply owing to the accident that a Bill giving greater pensions to future teachers happens to be introduced at the present moment. The hon. Member said that hardship was inflicted on the teachers who retired before the date at which the Bill comes into operation. It is certainly true that the position of such teachers does compare unfavourably with the condition of teachers who will receive the benefits of the Bill, but after all, the benefits must be given as from a certain date and wherever you place that date, there will be a difference between the teachers who come under the benefits of the Bill and those who stand outside. For these reasons the Government feel itself unable to accept the hon. Member's Amendment.
      9.0 P.M.
      Mr. BRUNNER: I gather from the speech of the President of the Board of

      1395
      Education that he considers the case of teachers who are retired deserves consideration, but that it ought not to come under this Bill, but rather under some general law which will take into consideration all the pensions which affect them. I want to bring before the right hon. Gentleman the case of those teachers still in service and whose service expires before the Bill becomes law. I am afraid that in a good many cases there may be a differentiation between one teacher and another under the different authorities. Some authorities may be very kind to their teachers, and extend their certificates beyond the 1st April. If they extended them to the 1st April would be sufficient, I think, to bring them under the Bill. There may be, however, other education authorities who would think that was not playing the game, and would not extend the period. That would create a difference between teachers at present teaching and other teachers. Let me bring one case to the notice of the President of the Board of Education. I got a letter a day or two ago from a teacher, who writes:
      "I was due to retire in May, 1917, but at the request of the local authority I continued head teacher, and my certificate has been extended to the 31st December. If the Bill passes in its present form and my certificate expires on the 31st December next, I would receive a pension of £67 7s. 6d. per annum, after forty-six years' service, of which forty-three have been spent as head teacher; but, if I come under the benefits of the present Bill, I would have a lump sum of £390, and an annual pension of about £140."
      If we could get from the President a promise that teachers who are now teaching could have their certificates extended for a month or two only, so that they might come under the Bill, it would remove all sense of bitterness. These men who are to-day teaching see this Bill before them which gives the teachers which come under it nearly three times the pension at present given, I certainly think that the right hon. Gentleman should give instructions, or, if he cannot do that, should give an assurance, that he will not look unfavourably upon the extension of certificates till the 1st April. That would ease the minds of the teachers very considerably.
      Mr. FISHER: May I draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman to Clause 13, Section 2, which says:
      "Notwithstanding anything in paragraph (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section one of Act of 1898 (which relates to teachers' certificates), the
      1396
      Board may in any case in which they think proper so to do, continue in force until the commencement of this Act, any certificate which would otherwise expire in the period between the passing and the commencement of this Act."
      "or
      I think those words meet the hon. Gentleman's point.
      Mr. BRUNNER: I am very much obliged.
      Mr. TYSON WILSON: I should be extremely glad if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to accept this Amendment, or offer something in the place of it. Under the Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament, teachers who are retired before it comes into operation, and who have contributed to the superannuation scheme of 1898, would only get about half as much, under that scheme, as the teachers will receive who are retired under the new Act, when it comes into operation. I think there should be some recognition of the services rendered by these teachers who have contributed to the superannuation scheme. I am given to understand that many of the teachers who will benefit by this Bill have not contributed to that scheme of 1898, and yet they are going to be far better off under this Bill than the men who have contributed to the fund. I suggest that the least the Government can do is to take over the whole of the funds that have been raised and put the teachers who have been retired under the superannuation scheme of the Act of 1898 on the same footing in regard to pensions as those who will come under the operation of the new measure. In my own neighbourhood I know of three teachers who have been retired one after forty-one years' service, another after forty-two years, and another after forty-three years' service. They rightly complain bitterly that in spite of what they have done to help the superannuation fund, they are going to be worse treated by the Government than the men who have subscribed nothing whatever to that fund. I am fully aware that wherever the line is drawn there will be cases of hardship, but it has struck me, as it has struck other people, that a great number of teachers, getting on for sixty-five years of age, have been retired very recently, and it makes one rather suspect that somebody had got some information of what the contents of this Bill were going to be. We are told that there is a great dearth of teachers, yet, in spite of that, these men, though

      1397
      still fit, have been retired, so that they will not come under this Bill. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give some consideration to the suggestion I have made, that those teachers who have retired after long service, and who have paid to the superannuation fund, should come under the provisions of the Bill. Surely men of over forty years' service, and with an extremely good record, might have the period of their certificates extended for a year or even for four years, so that they might enjoy some of the benefits which is to be given under this measure. I submit that the Government should give further consideration to this matter, or if the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept that upon his own responsibility, perhaps he will leave it to the decision of the House of Commons.
      Mr. FISHER: I am not prepared to make the concession which is asked for, and I think my hon. Friend labours under a misapprehension, as to what the facts are. Let me remind him that during the War there has been a quite abnormal amount of extension of teachers' certificates. A great number of teachers who would have been retired have been kept on, and had their certificates extended, and consequently the grievance, if grievance there be, is very much less at the present moment than if this Bill had Teen introduced at any previous time.
      Mr. WILSON: That makes the thing worse, for certain individuals have had their certificates extended, while others, compulsorily retired, will be deprived of the whole benefit of the measure.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr COTTON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words,
      "Provided that an annual superannuation allowance under paragraph (a) of this Sub-section shall not in any case be less than fifty-two pounds."
      The object is to provide that no superannuation allowance shall fall below the sum of £52, and thus to make it clear that poorly-paid teachers shall receive, at any rate, some sort of adequate pension. I have some cases here which I select out of a good many. The first is from Essex, and is the case of a certificated teacher with about thirty-eight years of service to her credit. She is paid according to the scale of supplementary teachers, and her average salary
      1398
      is about £51. Therefore unless the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment her pension will be about half that sum, or even less. An obvious comment arises here with regard to the injustice of paying certificated teachers as if they were supplementary, but I do not dwell on that point now. Although the teachers in the better paid areas will undoubtedly benefit considerably by this Bill, yet it will do very little materially to improve the case of the poorly-paid teachers in rural areas. This Bill is rightly acclaimed, and I do not dispute the fact, as a very large-minded and generous Bill, but the prospect of a teacher retiring on a pension of £26 or £27 per year does not sound particularly attractive. The second case is also from Essex, and is that of a school with 110 children, in which the head master has taught for thirty years. He has not been allowed by the local education committee to have a certificated teacher in addition to himself. His wife, although she is a trained and certificated teacher, has been teaching in that school as an uncertificated teacher. Her pension will be somthing like £36 per year, with a lump sum of about £90, and her husband will have just about double, so that the two together will have to exist on less than £110 per annum. It is to obviate such cases as that that I have ventured to propose my Amendment, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman at any rate to be a little yielding and to accept it.
      Mr. FISHER: I am afraid that here again I must show myself hard-hearted. What does the hon. Member suggest? His proposal is that the superannuation allowance, whether on attaining the age of sixty years or on the ground of permanent incapacity should not be less than £52. I quite agree with him when he says that £52 is not an excessive pension, and that a pension less than that for the full period of service is undesirably low. But the hon. Member has not, apparently, observed the scheme of the Bill. A superannuation allowance is earned by ten years' service in a Grant-aided school, and if we were to accept his Amendment it would be quite competent for a young man who entered the elementary school service at twenty to remain there until the age of thirty and retire, and claim a pension at the age of sixty. Under the Amendment his pension would be £52 instead of the pension of about £15 which he would

      1399
      receive under the provisions of the Bill. In other words, he proposes that if a young man has spent ten years in a Grant-aided school that he is to receive three times the sum he would be entitled to when he comes to the age of sixty. The effect of that on those ten years in the service would be to induce them to go to some other occupation, and I think it would be very foolish to accept such a proposal, and, therefore, I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I was very much interested in the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, and to my mind the arguments used by him are not reasons for rejecting the Amendment but for mending it. The object of the Amendment is perfectly clear, however difficult it may be to express it in correct drafting form. The object, as I understand it, is to get rid of the scandal of the teacher who has served the full period of, say, thirty years and often more, and who has then retired on a pension which may be only something between £30 and £40 per year. I rise to support the Amendment, because I have had submitted to me very serious cases showing how the Bill will work unless such an Amendment is accepted. I have had placed before me case after case of underpaid women teachers in rural districts. The point we are now discussing is one which is continually connected with underpaid women teachers. As the Committee well knows, there is a sex discrimination in the salaries of teachers, and a woman doing the same work as a man gets a smaller salary. It is in the interests of underpaid women teachers that an Amendment like this is necessary. I suggest to the President, who expressed a certain degree of sympathy with the object aimed at, that he could very readily alter the wording of the Amendment, so as to make it certain that the minimum pension of £52 will only apply to those teachers who have served the full term, or practically the full term of service. A compromise like that will, I hope, be accepted by the President. The Bill offers a very strange anomaly. On the one hand, an appeal is being made to the President to include teachers in wealthy private schools which neither receive nor require any State Grant. Under the Amendment which the President himself proposes to make we shall be
      1400
      giving pensions to masters and headmasters who may be getting as much as £5,000 a year. That is one side of the question. On the other, the Committee has before it what I cannot describe as otherwise than this scandal of women teachers retiring after a lifetime devoted to the cause of education on a miserable pension of £30 a year. We ask that where the full term of service has been given, which practically means the lifetime of the teacher, the minimum pension should be £52. I earnestly hope the President may see his way to accept the spirit of the Amendment in the revised form that I have indicated.
      Amendment negatived.
      Motion made, and question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I understood that the President was going to say a word in reply, and perhaps he might find the question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," a fitting opportunity on which to do so.
      Mr. FISHER: I need hardly say that I sympathise with the fate of the underpaid women teachers, and it is because I have so much sympathy with their position that the Board did quite recently fix a minimum salary, both for the certificated and for the Uncertificated women teachers—£90 for the certificated and £65 for the Uncertificated women teachers—and I believe that at the present moment no salaries below that minimum are being paid. But I would like to point out another factor in the situation. Under the new scheme of elementary school finance the local education authority has a direct incentive to be generous in its salaries, because it receives 60 per cent. from the State. The scheme of this Bill is that the pensions are adjusted to the average salary of the last five years of service, and I believe that the best way of attaining the object of my hon. Friends is to begin at the salary end, and that, on the other hand, if you start by fixing a minimum pension of £52, you will tend to keep the salaries lower. I believe it is very much better for the Board to exercise continuous pressure in the direction of raising the salaries, in which case the pensions will follow after, than to begin by fixing a minimum pension.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      CLAUSES 2 (Gratuities in cases of short service) and 3 (Death gratuities to legal representatives of deceased teachers) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

      CLAUSE 4—(Disqualification for benefits under Act.)
      The following teachers, that is to say—

      (i) persons being or having been certificated teachers whose certificates had expired before the commencement of this Act, or who were at that date in receipt of any allowance under the Act of 1908; and

      (ii) teachers who enter on recognised service for the first time after the commencement of this Act, and do not satisfy the Board in the prescribed manner of their physical capacity; and

      (iii) certificated teachers who give notice in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time that they do not accept this Act;

      shall not be entitled to any benefits under this Act.
      Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, in paragraph (i), to leave out "1908" and to insert instead thereof "1898." This is merely a correction of a misprint in the Bill.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

      CLAUSE 5.—(Re-employment of Teachers.)
      (4) If a teacher in receipt of an annual superannuation allowance is employed in any Government employment or in the service (otherwise than as a teacher in a grant-aided school) of a local education authority, then, if the salary and emoluments received by him in respect of the employment are not less than his salary at the date on which he ceased to be in recognised service, the superannuation allowance shall be suspended during the employment, and if they are less than that salary then only so much of the allowance shall be paid to him as with the salary and emoluments of the employment is equal to that salary.
      For the purposes of this Section the expression "Government employment" means any employment the remuneration of which is paid out of the Consolidated Fund or out of moneys provided by Parliament.
      Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, in Subsection (4), to leave out the word "service" ["or in the service"], and to insert instead thereof the word "employment." This is merely a drafting alteration. The term "service" has a special definition in the Bill, which ought not to apply for the purposes of this Subsection.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      CLAUSES 6 (No claim to superannuation allowances or gratuities as of right) and 7 (Payment and assignment of allowances) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

      CLAUSE 8.—(Payment without Probate in Certain Cases.)
      Where any sum not exceeding one hundred pounds is payable under this Act in respect of a superannuation allowance or gratuity granted to a deceased teacher or of a gratuity granted to the legal personal representatives of a deceased teacher, probate or other proof of title of the legal personal representatives may be dispensed with, and the sum may be paid or distributed to or among the persons appearing to the Board of Education to be beneficially entitled to the personal estate of the deceased teacher, or to or among any one or more of those persons, or in the case of the illegitimacy of the teacher or of his children to or among such persons as the Board may think fit.
      Mr. FISHER: I beg to move to leave out the words "of Education." This is again merely a drafting Amendment. The Bill says in Clause 1 that references to the Board mean the Board of Education. Consequently, the words "of Education" are superfluous in this case.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      CLAUSES 9 (Provision as to allowance payable to persons mentally disabled), 10 (Provisions as to refusal, reduction, or suspension of allowance or gratuity), 11 (Penalty for false representation and fraud), 12 (Provisions with respect to deferred annuities under the Act of 1898), 13 (Amendment of Elementary School Teachers Superannuation Acts, 1898 to 1912), and 14 (Provisions with respect to local pensions schemes) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

      CLAUSE 15.—(Power to Make Rules.)
      (1) The Board may, with the consent of the Treasury, make rules for carrying this Act into effect, and those rules may in particular provide—
      (f) For allowing any such service as may be recorded in the case of a certificated teacher by virtue of the provisions of the Elementary School Teachers (War Service Superannuation) Act, 1914, to be treated in the case of any teacher as recognised or qualifying service for the purposes of this Act, and for determining what salary a teacher is for the purpose of computing the average salary to be regarded as receiving during any such service:
      Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (f), to insert,
      "(g) For determining what, salaries teachers are to be treated as receiving for the purposes of this Act during any periods of absence on sick leave and how far such periods are to be treated as service for the purposes of this Act."
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

      CLAUSE 16.—(Interpretation.)
      In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:—
      The expression "service" means such service as is determined by the Board to be full-time service, but does not include service after the age of sixty-five years unless the Board in any special case allow such service to be treated as service for any of the purposes of this Act:
      The expression "recognised service" means such service as is recognised by the Board for the purposes of this Act—

      (i) in the capacity of a certificated or uncertificated teacher, or a teacher of a special subject, in or in connection with a public elementary school or a school certified under the Elementary Education (Blind and Deaf Children) Act, 1893, or under the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act, 1899:

      (ii) in the capacity of a certificated teacher or of a teacher of such other kind as may be prescribed in a school certified under Part IV. of the Children Act, 1908:

      (iii) in the capacity of a teacher in any other Grant-aided school:

      (iv) in the capacity of a certificated teacher during any period before the commencement of this Act in any service which in his case was recorded by the Board under the Act of 1898, and, in the case of a teacher who was employed in such service at the commencement of this Act, in the capacity of a certificated teacher in such service during any period after that date:

      (v) in the capacity of a teacher in any school, not being an elementary school or a school certified under Part IV. of the Children Act, 1908, which though not Grant-aided at the date of the service was Grant-aided at the commencement of this Act, or becomes Grant-aided within five years after that date;

      (vi) subject to the prescribed conditions, in the capacity of a teacher during any period before the commencement of this Act in any other school, not being a school conducted for private profit, so, however, that not more than ten years service in any such school shall be recognised for the purposes of this Act:

      The expression "qualifying service" means any employment, whether in the capacity of a teacher or otherwise, which the Treasury, on the recommendation of the Board, may declare to be qualifying service for the purpose of calculating the period qualifying for a superannuation allowance:
      The expression "Grant-aided school" means a place of education (other than a university or university college) in receipt of a Grant, or in respect of which a Grant is made, out of moneys provided by Parliament from or by the Board or from or by any public department whose place has been taken by the Board:
      The expression "average salary" means the average amount of salary (exclusive, unless the Board otherwise direct, of fees or other emoluments) received by the teacher in respect of his recognised service for the five years of recognised service (whether continuous or not), next preceding the commencement of an annual superannuation allowance of the grant of an additional allowance or gratuity, or if the teacher has not been employed in recognised service for five years, then the average amount of salary exclusive as aforesaid during the period for which he has been so employed:
      The expressions "certificated teacher" and "uncertificated teacher" means respectively a teacher who is recognised under the regulations of the Board for the time being in force as a certificated teacher for public elementary schools, and a teacher who is so recognised as an uncertificated teacher for such schools:
      The expression "the Act of 1898" means the Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1898, and includes a reference to that Act as amended by any subsequent enactment:
      The expression "superannuation allowance" means any annual superannuation allowance, or additional allowance, payable under this Act, and the expression "gratuity" means any gratuity or any death gratuity payable under this Act:
      The expression "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under this Act.
      Mr. COTTON: I beg to move, in paragraph (i), after the word "teacher" ["or uncertificated teacher"] to insert the words "or a supplementary teacher."
      The object of this Amendment is to bring in a very ill-paid, and on the whole a very deserving class of teachers, the teachers known as the supplementary teachers. We have, happily, very few of them in the London area, but they are to be found in the rural areas, and I am afraid that they ought really not to be found anywhere at all if you proceeded on the principle that the worker is worthy of his or her hire. They seem to have sprung into existence because, firstly, it has been found so hard to obtain certificated assistant teachers for village schools, and secondly, because local education authorities, as far as I can make out, have taken the opportunity of getting cheap labour. The only qualification that is required is that they shall be women of respectability and above the age of eighteen. Very often it happens that the want of technical qualifications is due to

      1405
      no fault of the teacher. It also happens in a great many cases that excellent work has been done by these supplementary teachers, but they are entitled to no pension and no retiring allowance, and the salary which they receive is so inadequate that it is impossible for them to put by anything for old age. I have here a letter from an association of supplementary teachers in Preston, Lancashire, which states,
      "Our maximum salary is £65 per annum, and after paying for the necessities of life I can assure you we have nothing to put away for old age."
      The last statement is almost an axiom. In ordinary circumstances, in normal times, it would be very hard to put by a sum of money from a salary of £65 a year; it must be an absolute impossibility in existing circumstances. As the Bill stands no provision is made for the case of these teachers, and, so long as they exist, inspectors will find themselves in the unenviable position of being asked to report as to the fitness of supplementary teachers, knowing that if they send in an adverse report it means the workhouse for that teacher. If we are going to confer a benefit upon the teaching profession, and elevate it to its proper position, we ought not to leave out of account those who are at the bottom, who are badly paid, and yet are doing excellent work in the great majority of cases. I hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to accept this Amendment.
      Mr. BOLAND: I desire to support this Amendment for a special reason, which will make it unnecessary for me afterwards to move my Amendment lower on the Paper. In a great number of non-provided schools there are teachers who are classed as supplementary who, for some technical reason, are not called either certificated or uncertificated teachers. In a great many cases these teachers are women who have passed the Irish King's Scholarship examination, but as that certificate is not recognised here in the same way as the English and Scottish King's Scholarship examinations are recognised, these teachers are not put down either as certificated or uncertificated teachers. I trust that the President will consider their case particularly, and if he cannot do it on this particular Amendment I would ask him to consider whether, in revising the code for the coming year, he will not see that the Irish King's Scholarship examination
      1406
      is taken as the equivalent of the King's Scholarship examination in this country. When we look at the list of examinations which qualify teachers in this country to be either certificated or uncertificated, we see that there are fifteen or sixteen sorts of examinations, including the Oxford and Cambridge local certificates. In the case of the Irish girls who have passed the King's Scholarship examinations in Ireland it was only because there was no room for them in the training colleges they are unable to get a position in Ireland. They come over here in response to advertisements, they are given positions in schools, they give full service, and they are classed as suppelmentary teachers. Therefore, if they do not come under the Amendment now I trust that the President may give me some assurance that he will consider the position of these teachers in revising the regulations.
      Mr. FISHER: With reference to the point which has been raised by the hon. Member for Kerry, we are always ready to consider claims in reference to any particular class of teachers and we shall always recognise Irish teachers with qualifications equivalent to those required from the teachers who are brought under the operation of this Bill. With respect to the Amendment itself, I am afraid that I cannot accept it for a very simple reason. Supplementary teachers occupy a position very different from that of other persons who are pensionable under this Bill. All pension systems are based on the existence of an established service, into which qualified persons enter for the period of their active life, and from which they are seldom removed, except for misconduct. Persons who come under a pension scheme are nearly always appointed on a proof of their qualifications, and it is assumed that they are capable of doing the work which they may be called upon to do. The supplementary teacher is the woman over eighteen years of age of satisfactory physique, employed in teaching young children in schools, in which the circumstances appear to the Board to justify the employment of supplementary teachers. These teachers are required to pass no examinations but are specially approved by His Majesty's inspector as possessing the requisite aptitude for the particular work in which they are engaged. Recognition may be withdrawn any time if the circumstances of the school or the teacher appear to demand it. Since 1914

      1407
      the employment of these teachers has been confined to rural places. Is it to the public advantage or the advantage of the teaching profession that these teachers should have pensionable rights? I think that it is desirable that these teachers should be encouraged to qualify as either Uncertificated or certificated teachers, and if you grant them pensions under this Bill you are removing one of the great incentives to improvement which are held out for these teachers. I think that it would be a very bad educational policy to accept the Amendment, and I hope therefore that the Committee will reject it.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendments made: In paragraph (i.) leave out from the words
      "or a school certified under the Elementary Education (Blind and Deaf Children) Act, 1893, or under the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act, 1899."
      At the end of paragraph (ii.) insert the words,
      "under the Elementary Education (Blind and Deaf Children) Act, 1893, or under the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act, 1899."—[Mr. Fisher.]
      Mr. A. ALLEN: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (ii.), to insert the words,
      "or in a certified institution under the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913."
      I have been asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for North St. Pancras to propose this Amendment on behalf of the Board of Control who are anxious that it should be inserted. I raised the point on the Second Reading of the Bill. I think that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board is acquainted with what the point is. As he knows, there are a certain number of institutions under the Board of Control where there are children who have to be educated, and it is desired that in those institutions teachers of some ability should be employed, and of course it is impossible to get teachers into those institutions if they have to give up their pension rights by going into them. There are many cases at the present moment, and they will increase, I think, after the War, when the Act of 1913 is seriously put into force. Therefore I do hope my right hon. Friend will see his way to accept this Amendment, or, alternatively, to accept the Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division (Mr. Leslie Scott), who is chairman of the Central Association
      1408
      for Mental Defectives, and who is equally anxious that something of this kind should be inserted in the Bill.
      Sir N. HELME: I have pleasure in supporting this Amendment, because of the fact that so many of the children—
      Mr. FISHER: I should be very glad to accept this Amendment, but I would prefer it in the form to be moved by the hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division.
      Mr. ALLEN: I will ask leave to move it in that form.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Further Amendment made: At the end of paragraph (ii.) insert,
      "(iii.) In the capacity of a certificated or Uncertificated teacher in a certified institution under the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913."—[Mr. Acland Allen.]
      Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (v.), to insert,
      "(vi.) In the capacity of a teacher during any period after the commencement of this Act in any other school being a school which is of such kind as may be prescribed and which satisfies the prescribed conditions."
      This Amendment is introduced for the purpose of enabling pension aid to be extended to schools which are not in receipt of grant aid under such conditions as may be hereafter prescribed. The Committee will readily agree with the proposition that the grant of a State pension to the teachers in a school is in effect the grant of a State subsidy to that school, and I think there will be no dissent to the further proposition that such a subsidy should not be granted to a school unless the public is in a position to have security that the school is efficiently conducted, that it plays a useful part in the scheme of national education, that it is not conducted for private profit, and that it is deserving of encouragement from the public funds. The question then arises as to the form in which that security may be most conveniently given In the Board's Secondary Schools Regulations the acceptance of Grants is made dependent upon a number of conditions which are designed to safeguard the public character of the school and the freedom of the teacher, and among those conditions is the acceptance of representative local control. Now there are a certain number of schools to whom the form of public control laid down in the Regulations is inappropriate. These are the non-local secondary

      1409
      schools, many of which are admirably conducted and rank among the most efficient and vigorous secondary schools of the country. These schools realise that the conditions attaching to the Grant are inappropriate to them, however appropriate they may be to the thousand and odd schools which accept Grant, and the question therefore arises whether a secondary school, non-local, not run for private profit, efficient, submitting, as it may readily do, to the inspection of the Board, playing a part in the national scheme of education, should be compelled to accept Government Grant and local control as a condition of securing a pension for its masters. I confess that I should be glad if some means could be found consistent with public policy whereby such a result might be avoided.
      An hon. Member in the course of the Second Reading Debate asked the very pertinent question whether, in order to give the benefit of pensions to teachers in a school, it was necessary to insist that the school should take Government money. On the face of it that does not seem a very economical proposition. The important point really is not the acceptance of the Government money, but the acceptance of some adequate form of security which would give the taxpayer a guarantee that his money would be wisely and properly spent. I do not think it is altogether a very easy task to devise a scheme of Regulations which would be suitable to schools to whom it might be expedient to provide pension aid at the cost of the State. I doubt, for instance, whether the Committee will ever consent to grant pensions to well endowed public schools, many of which have pension schemes of their own. I doubt whether the Committee would grant pensions to private schools and preparatory schools managed for private profit, and I doubt whether it would see its way to grant pensions to a theological college or to a central labour college. Consequently I have drawn my Amendment in very wide terms. It is intended to keep the door open for consideration of this class of school. The Government is not in a position to pledge itself to extend pension aid to schools which cannot accept the conditions attaching to the Grant, but it is very anxious to explore the situation and to provide, if possible, conditions which may enable teachers in non-aided and non-local secondary schools to be brought within the compass of the Act.
      1410
      While it would probably be the wisest course to leave a very wide discretion to the President of the Board of Education and the Treasury to settle the Regulations which should accompany the Grant of pension aid, I think the Committee would desire me to indicate the kind of conditions, both positive and negative, which we should certainly have in view in framing such conditions. I think the Committee will agree that schools conducted for private profit, which are not open to inspection, and schools which, after inspection, are pronounced to be inefficient, should be excluded. Again, I very much doubt whether the Committee would desire that theological colleges should be included. I think it will probably be held that the Grant of pension aid, which, after all, is a Government subsidy, would be inconsistent with the government of schools by close bodies. I think also that the Committee might reasonably desire that schools in receipt of this form of subsidy should be required to perform some kind of definite function in relation to the general system of State-aided public education, such as the admission of scholars sent by a local education authority, the conditions and pay of the teacher, the adoption of a system of secondary school examination, training for teachers intending to work in secondary schools, and the adoption of a proper standard of admission. I am not prepared to say at this moment what the prescribed conditions would be, though I have mentioned some of the points which I have in mind and which will have to be discussed. I do not think it will be in the interests of the schools at present, in view of the great complexity of the problem, that we should attempt to narrowly define the conditions in the Bill. I do not say this because I desire to have a wider authority, or because I desire to have the responsibility of settling the Regulations. For my own part, I should very much prefer to have the responsibility taken from me by the Committee now. It would be simpler if we could, here and now, define quite narrowly and precisely the particular conditions to which these schools would have to conform, but, after thinking over the matter very carefully, I have come to the conclusion that we should get a better system of secondary school regulations, and rules more adapted to meet the complexity of the situation, if we leave there matters to be settled hereafter. I hope that this indication of the

      1411
      kind of consideration which will be present to the mind of the Board in framing the rules and regulations for Pension Aid will in general commend itself to the sense of the Committee and to the community at large. My object in putting down the Amendment is to secure that the admission of non-aided schools to pension aid should not be prejudiced by the present measure. I hope it may be possible to bring to a certain number of non-aided schools the pension aid without compelling them to accept and to conform to a type of regulation which is not in reality appropriate to their situation.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The manuscript Amendment which has been handed in by the hon. Member far the London University (Sir P. Magnus) seems to me to be in substitution of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, and he ought to move it as a fresh Amendment. If he attaches any great importance to it, perhaps he had better speak on the Government Amendment.
      Sir P. MAGNUS: It was stated yesterday that the proposal, of the President of the Board of Education required further definition and that my Amendment which I had moved was too wide. I was quite prepared to admit that it was too wide, and I put down an Amendment to the proposal of my right hon. Friend in order to indicate to some extent the extent to which I thought the proposed Amendment should be limited. The Amendment which I suggested was that all the words after "which" in the President's Amendment should be omitted and that other words should be substituted. My reason for that was that I had hoped within the ambit of this Bill to provide conditions in which these schools might be included within the scheme. As an indication of one of the conditions which I proposed to attach I suggested inserting after the word "which" the words "is inspected by the Board or by a British university and is certified as efficient by the Board, and provided further that the teacher is registered and his pensionable salary is limited to £500." It seems to me very desirable that some of the conditions indicated by the President might be included in his own Amendment. Personally, I do not expect that the teachers in a school receiving very large salaries, such as those indicated by one hon. Member, should receive these pensions. The right hon. Gentleman, however,
      1412
      has indicated a large number of conditions to be attached to these non-Grant-aided schools which I believe would exclude practically every one of the schools which might desire to be admitted. I do hope, therefore, that the President will be prepared, on the Report stage of this Bill, to deal with this matter, and that a sufficient time will elapse between the Committee stage and the Report stage in order that opportunities may be afforded to hon. Members of seeing what these conditions are. I hope he will be able to formulate those conditions so that we may have an opportunity of considering them. What we desire is that it shall not be left altogether to the Board of Education to draw up regulations which may be of such a nature as practically to exclude all those large and small schools, the teachers of which certainly ought to be included in a Bill of this kind. I caused a circular to be written to a large number of schools to ascertain whether they wished to be included in this scheme, and whether they were prepared to join a deputation to the Board of Education to induce the President to assent to the proposal which I made yesterday. Having consulted some of those schools I find that there are 100 of them willing to be inspected, and which at the present time receive no Grant, but which nevertheless desire that their teachers should receive pensions. I will place this list in the hands of the President so that he may see it.
      I would also like to repeat what I said last evening, and that is by granting pensions to schools of this kind you are not increasing in any way the cost to the State or the Treasury. If these schools are induced by means of Grants to be Grant-aided schools they conform to the uniform conditions laid down in the regulations of the Board of Education, and it seems to me they would receive large sums which they do not ask for by way of grant, and the pensions to the teachers would be considerably less than the amount of Grants they would receive from the State. Therefore instead of being an additional cost to the Treasury, the acceptance of my Amendment would really decrease the amount of the Treasury Grant which would have to be paid to these schools if they are excluded from the pension-aid scheme.
      10.0 P.M.
      It seemed to me in listening to the speech just delivered by the President that the complexity of this problem has been somewhat exaggerated. I feel quite certain if the Board desire to include these

      1413
      schools within the scheme of the Bill as is most important, the problem might be considerably simplified and there will be very little difficulty in placing upon the Paper the essential conditions under which such schools might be admitted to the scheme. It might be said that the salary of no teacher should exceed £500. It might be thought desirable to exclude schools carried on for private profit, but having regard to the fact that according to the proposed Amendment which I put on the Paper all these schools will be inspected by the Board of Education or by the university and would be pronounced efficient. That ought to satisfy the public that the schools to which these pensions would be given would be of a satisfactory character. I think the guarantee would be quite sufficient if the schools were inspected in the way indicated. I would add the further condition that every teacher who is pensionable should be placed upon a register of teachers and should belong to the great profession of teachers. I shall, of course, accept very willingly anything I can get from the President with a view to obtaining the inclusion of these schools within the scheme. I believe it would be a great blot upon the scheme if these schools are not included. You will be creating the great division between teachers who ought to belong to one united profession, and that can be avoided without any cost to the Treasury by accepting my proposal. All I desire now is to obtain from the President the promise that on the Report stage of this Bill, which I suppose will not be taken immediately, he will consider the conditions, which ought not to be so complicated as he has suggested, under which the schools to which he and I refer might be brought within the scheme. If this is not done, I feel certain there will be a sore feeling created among the 200 schools of the sort I have described, 100 of which have already sent in their names as willing to be represented upon the deputation. It seems very undesirable that when introducing a generous scheme of this kind supplemental to the great Education Act which we passed not long ago that we should leave behind a sore of this description by which vast numbers of people will be left without the pensions which are given to other teachers, and will be absolutely separated from the profession as a distinctly lower class of teachers. This is
      1414
      my last appeal, and I trust that the President will take into consideration what I have said, and indicate on the Report stage the precise conditions under which those schools can be included.
      Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: I think there is a good deal of force in the appeal which has just been made by the last speaker. I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman felt that this proposal was making rather a large draft upon the confidence of the Committee, but I think we are quite prepared to extend that confidence. I am afraid, however, the President cannot answer for his successors. These Rules are to be prescribed and laid before Parliament, but one cannot be quite sure how they might be altered or varied by an Education Department of the future, and although they will be presented to Parliament we all know that this procedure does not give very much control by the House of Commons. I think that probably we cannot push the matter any further to-night. I do not think we could conceivably set to work to draft the conditions at the present time. That is quite impossible, and the matter has not been considered for a very long time. I thought my right hon. Friend was right in arguing that if public money is given by way of these superannuation allowances to schools you might fairly ask that they should fall in with the public service, and that some regulation such as this might be fairly demanded of those schools. That I think is fair, and I should like to have known what is the feeling of the President towards the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Liverpool in reference to some limit being applied. I think a case might fairly be made out on those grounds. Perhaps we should be doing right to leave the matter as it stands for the present and ask my right hon. Friend on the Report stage to bring up a, clear and harder outline of the conditions which he has in his mind. He has gone a very considerable way to deal with a difficult problem and to give a somewhat greater definition of the condition. I think the Bill will be improved by such admission of the teachers in this school as he contemplates.
      Sir J. YOXALL: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not respond to the advice which has been given to him and bring up the conditions on the Report stage. If one can judge from what appears in the public Press, this Session is not likely to be very prolonged, and I should like to think that

      1415
      this Bill, which will certainly benefit education in a thousand secondary schools, will have consideration in itself and for itself and will not be jeopardised by long Debates upon the Report stage concerning the interests of a hundred schools which apparently are not willing either to accept public grants or public control. I think the President's Clause as it stands goes further than the Committee as a whole might be willing to accept if there could be a Debate. I am quite sure that those who in the past championed the cause of public control and public representation in connection with public grants would have a great deal to say against the Amendment proposed by the President of the Board of Education, and such a Debate upon the Report stage might be so long as perhaps to jeopardise the Bill. The right hon. Baronet, I think, would therefore be wise to accept what has been already granted, and not stipulate for more precise conditions. It might mean a long Debate upon the Report stage and perhaps imperil the Bill.
      Mr. RAWLINSON: I quite agree that it would be highly undesirable in any way to jeopardise the Bill, but I would remind my hon. Friend that though he had an opportunity of discussing its provisions throughout the long vacation, the representatives of the schools to which he refers have not had that advantage, and it is therefore no fault of theirs that they have been unable to put their case so clearly as he has been able to put the case of the teachers for whom he speaks. We have ample time before eleven to discuss this Clause this evening, and there will be ample time on the Report stage to discuss any necessary Amendment. We are extremely grateful to the President for having introduced the Amendment, which will certainly be extremely useful to the interests of education. If the State can get schools to do their work according to a high standard of educational efficiency, then it is better economically that they should do it at their own cost rather than the Government. The Bill as it stood before the Amendment would have had the effect of forcing practically all schools into a Government Grant-aided scheme which would have been expensive, and, I think, educationally unsound. This Amendment would at all events leave some of them out, and the more you keep out so much the better economically for the
      1416
      State. I welcome this Amendment, but at the same time I support the appeal that something definite should be brought up upon the Report stage. Once the broad principle is kept in mind, there is not very much difficulty in drafting a Clause which will give the right to a pension to the teachers of any school doing efficient educational work to the satisfaction of the Board of Education or any tribunal it might be desired to set up. That would sufficiently safeguard the public money from being wasted. The right hon. Gentleman has indicated various conditions which might be necessary to put into the regulations. Surely some Amendment had better come up on the Report stage. He has stated that schools which are run for private profit could not come within the scheme. I have no views myself one way or the other upon that point, but surely it is a matter which ought to be decided by the House, or by the Government putting it into the Bill. If it is right to exclude those schools, let us say so here. If it is not, let them remain in. Again, there is the suggestion that theological schools should have the Grant. There are, of course, theological secondary schools which receive Grant-aid at the present time, and they would be entitled to pensions even if this Amendment were not carried. There are many other theological schools which would be entitled to pensions, and it is very desirable that they should have them. There is the Leys School at Cambridge.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: It is not a theological school, it is a public school belonging to a denomination.
      Mr. RAWLINSON: Do not think that I wish to say one word against these schools. I have the highest possible opinion of them. That shows the advantage of making these things plain. I understand the right hon. Gentleman when he said that you could not possibly give it to a school of which the governing body was a corporation to mean such a school as the Leys School at Cambridge, which is an excellent school with a denominational qualification, to use a neutral word. Is it intended that a school of that kind should be deprived of pensions? It would be an educational calamity if such a school were excluded from the benefits of this Bill. Therefore I agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. Chancellor) that when the right hon. Gentleman used the expression "theological," coupled with the next phrase, he could not have meant to include a school

      1417
      of that kind; but I was rather frightened that it might include such a school and that there might be some difficulty in allowing other people to come upon that Board and take part in the management. It is important that it should be made clear in the Bill itself that such a school might take advantage of the Bill. Then, again, he gave examples and said that there would be free places in certain schools. It would be unwise to make that a hard and fast rule. There might be many schools doing good work in regard to which it might not be necessary to make such a condition. Be that as it may, I wish to press the point that if a school is doing good educational work and can satisfy you of that by any test of inspection or efficiency that you choose to make, then it should come within the purview of this Bill. It hardly becomes necessary to raise the old controversy about public control, and so forth, to which my hon. Friend referred, because you certainly have sufficient control over the schools, either by inspection or in some other way, to make full control of the public money certain. Again I thank the President, and I hope on the Report stage that he will be able to put into this Bill some charter upon which these schools may rest, rather than upon a mere expression in this House of what the intentions of the Board of Education may be in the future.
      Mr. KING: I should like to assure the President of the Board of Education that though I have put down no Amendments on this stage of the Bill, and though, so far, I have not ventured to intervene in the discussion, yet I have been watching its procedure and the course of this Debate very anxiously. I must intervene at this stage to warn the right hon. Gentleman against this Amendment, which I think is ill-timed and unnecessary. He said, on the Second Reading of the Bill, that the Bill had as its object the unification of the teaching profession. Now that would be a very good object if it were possible, but do not unify them by offering them all pensions. Unify them by bringing them into some definite relation to the Board of Education and public authority. As I understand this Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman is going to make it possible for he or his successor—whom I hope will be a long time coming—to issue rules by which a certain number of teachers, over whom he has got no control, will be entitled to get pensions. Who will
      1418
      be the sort of person who will be pressed forward as entitled to have a pension? First of all, there are a great number of teachers who own their own private schools and who make large profits out of them—who make even large fortunes, I would say. Preparatory schools for Harrow and Eton; coaching schools for the Army. Why, the people who have this sort of school have amassed great fortunes and have become landed proprietors. I think they have even become peers; certainly they have become Members of Parliament. Why should they have pensions given to them by the Board of Education for their great services to the country? In the interests of economy, and in the interests of unified education, which ought to proceed, not upon the basis of giving pensions, but of maintaining and imposing control, I protest against this Amendment. It is altogether ill-timed. It has not occurred to me to put down here the number of other sorts of teachers who would be entitled, if the Board of Education is as generous as it ought to be and has a wide idea of what the teaching profession is, to come in under this Bill. There are people who carry on now motor drivers' schools. I suppose teachers in that sort of school would be included?
      Sir P. MAGNUS: Might I ask if the hon. Member considers that that school would be regarded as efficient by the Board of Education?
      Mr. KING: We are going to have very revolutionary methods after the War, and very revolutionary persons in power. I want to guard myself and my country against their depredations upon the public purse. Then there are secretarial colleges where they train young ladies to get good posts in munition or business firms or in other very good national service work at the present time. Why should these teachers be unified on the basis of being entitled to pay? Then there are some schools which carry on their teaching entirely by correspondence. I suppose there are thousands of scholars and pupils who are members of correspondence colleges, carrying on their education worthily under the circumstances, sending up answers to questions, reading books and replying on examination papers submitted and getting them corrected, and so forth. The variety and scope of this sort of teacher is unlimited. I must warn the President of the Board of Education that he is opening a door

      1419
      which he will find it hard to shut. He will want to shut it, but it will be too wide, and it is too vague altogether. In the interests of public economy and also of the ideal of a profession which shall be unified, but shall not be an omnium gatherum of all sorts of teachers and all sorst of conditions, and all sorts of schools, I really hope the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Amendment. Let him think it over if he likes before the Report stage, but let him withdraw this, and even if he cannot think of a better formula by the Report stage let the Bill get through without it. He will have a year or two probably before he is turned down with the rest of the Ministers in which he can bring in another Bill. Let him try again.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The Amendment really places the Committee in a somewhat extraordinary position, in which it is quite impossible to discuss the proposal because it is not clear what the proposal is. The President takes power in the Amendment to extend the pension aid to any school which is outside the State-aided schools, and when he uses the term "Secondary schools outside any State aid" he includes not only the great private schools but the great public schools. He includes Eton and Harrow and Rugby, and schools of that class. As I listened to the right hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Baronet (Sir P. Magnus) no condition was proposed upon which this pension aid would be given to schools outside the State-aided system which would exclude the great public schools, which may not be in need of any aid whatever, and which are quite wealthy enough to provide for their own teachers. The Committee is entitled to ask whether it is proposed to include in the pension scheme the great endowed foundations?
      Mr. FISHER: No.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The fact that the school has an adequate endowment would itself rule it out. That is the point. The President, as I understand his interruption, has no sympathy with the proposal to pension the masters of the great endowed foundations. Then that point ought to be made clear in the Amendment, because whilst that may be the personal view of the President it is in no way binding upon his successors and the Amendment is drafted in such a wide form that a successor
      1420
      to the right hon. Gentleman to-morrow, with the assistance of the Treasury, could extend the pension scheme to Eton, Harrow, Rugby, and other public schools. I do not want to be misunderstood. I have every sympathy with the desire to aid certain schools which are outside the State system, certain of which are doing a public service and doing work which, if they failed to do it the State would have to do, and I understand it is this class that the President has chiefly in mind in this connection. That is another reason why the type of schools and conditions as to public control, and so forth, should be stated in the Bill, because the Department is not bound, and the successors of the right hon. Gentleman are not bound, by what the President now does. The Amendment is so drafted that the whole policy that has been outlined by the President may be upset by his successors at the Board of Education. I want to put this practical point—and I desire also to put it to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson), whose fairness in argument I have always acknowledged—I want to put this serious objection, which I think is a fatal objection, to the Amendment in the form in which it is drafted. The President may decide that a school where the headmaster, or masters, is receiving £1,000 or £2,000 per year is a school of such a nature that the staff are entitled to the benefits of the Pensions Act—
      Mr. FISHER: I am prepared to move an Amendment to meet that point.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I am very glad indeed, and will say nothing more, except to point out that the President realises that he has no power under the Bill, as drafted, to reduce the rates of pension in the Bill. Therefore when you take a wealthy housemaster or headmaster getting a big salary, he would have to be paid a very heavy pension indeed, which might amount, at present rates of salary in the schools indicated, to £1,000 a year. The President sees that, and he is going to meet it; but I would suggest that the type of school that is sought to be benefited should be clearly stated in the Bill either at this or on the Report stage. The matter ought not to be left to these vague terms which will lead in the future to constant wrangling and discussion and will stir up all kinds of dissension in the profession.
      Amendment agreed to.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There are two other manuscript Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Rowlands) which have just been handed in. The point he deals with was thoroughly discussed yesterday. It is a question of the administrative staff qualified for pensions. We cannot have that Debate all over again. The hon. Member can move his Amendment if he wishes to do so, but I cannot hear the arguments yesterday addressed to the Committee repeated to-night.
      Mr. ROWLANDS: I beg to move at the end of paragraph (vi) to insert the words—
      "In any employment, whether in the capacity of a teacher or otherwise, which the Treasury, on the recommendation of the Board, may desire to be a recognised service."
      I am sorry that I could not give my Amendment on the Paper. It is intended to give a wider scope than is in the Clause or in any of the several paragraphs in regard to what is a recognised service. It is intended to meet the point which was stated to some extent last night by the President. It is not re-opening the whole case that was debated last night. I see the hon. and learned Member for Camarthen also has an Amendment down on somewhat similar lines. What I want to secure is this: Supposing there is delay with regard to a scheme, the Board should have power to recognise the services of a person as coming within the scope and definition of "recognised service." From cases which have come to my knowledge, I am quite sure that the concession which was granted last night is not anything like so generous as the right hon. Gentleman imagined it to be. I have had a case brought to my notice of a director of education who at the present time is getting over £1,200 a year salary. His pension under the concession granted last night for the period of time he was a teacher would amount to the magnificent sum of £15 per year. I have been informed of another case, that of an inspector in London, who for the seventeen years he was teaching before he went into what is considered to be a higher grade of the profession would be entitled to a pension of £35 a year. Having made the concession last night, I think a case is made out for an extension on the lines I have indicated.
      Mr. FISHER: This subject was very fully debated last night, and I then gave the decision of the Government in regard
      1422
      to it. Nothing has occurred to make me alter my view, and I cannot therefore accept the Amendment.
      Amendment negatived.
      Further Amendments made: In paragraph dealing with "average salary." after the first word "of" ["amount of"], insert the word "teacher's."
      Leave out the words "received by the teacher."—[Mr. Fisher.]
      Mr. FISHER: I beg to to move, at the end of the same paragraph, to insert the words,
      "Provided that the Rules under this Act prescribed for the purpose of calculating all superannuation allowances or gratuities under this Act on the salary or average salary of teachers or any class of teachers, or in any schools or any class of schools, shall be treated as not exceeding such amount as may be prescribed."
      Mr. RAWLINSON: This is hardly a drafting Amendment. It is something more. It puts restrictions on the amount upon which he shall grant the allowance. There is nothing to prevent it restricting it to salaries of £1,000 or £500.
      Sir J. YOXALL: Does this apply to all schools dealt with in Clause 16?
      Mr. FISHER: Yes. It is drafted widely. It gives power to the Board to limit the salary in respect of which the superannuation allowance is calculated. It is clear that at this moment it would be ridiculous for the Treasury to go into the question of fixing a maximum sum, because of the fact that a very great part of the salaries are already so low that the question of fixing a maximum does not come in.
      Sir J. YOXALL: This Amendment might be attended with lamentable consequences when schools outside are brought in. Suppose any teacher has more than £500 a year, is he to receive a pension? That arises out of this Amendment, which covers the whole ground and affects all the schools. That is an effect which was never contemplated. Surely this Amendment is applicable to some particular class of school which the Amendment of the hon. Baronet is intended to bring in. If that is so, let it apply to that class of school which comes under Clause 15. To bring up an Amendment of this kind at this stage is surely an unheard-of thing, and to my mind it goes very far to affect the whole Bill in a most unsatisfactory way.
      Mr. FISHER: I am quite prepared to meet the hon. Member so far, if the Committee accept this Amendment now, and I will put anything in on Report which will limit this power to certain schools.
      Sir P. MAGNUS: I wish to ask whether, if large schools like Harrow or Eton choose to become grant-aided schools, they will come within the scope of the Bill and will receive pensions in addition?
      Mr. FISHER: That could be discussed on Report.
      Mr. KING: May I put it to the President of the Board of Education that it is really not quite fair to the Committee to introduce an Amendment of this kind without having consultation? Let me say that apparently he had hoped to get it through without explanation, and it is only because someone behind me saw that it was very important that a Debate has arisen, though we have not the words of the Amendment before us. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment, and put it down for the Report stage. That is really the fair way.
      Mr. FISHER: May I suggest to the hon. Member that there is a good deal of substance in what the hon. Gentleman says? It is of course an important Amendment, and if it meets with the views of the Committee I will bring it up on the Report stage, and withdraw it now.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 17 (provision for Expenses) ordered to stand part of the Bill

      CLAUSE 18.—(Extent, Commencement and Short Title.)
      (1) This Act shall not extend to Scotland or Ireland.
      (2) The Board may, with the consent of the Treasury, make Orders extending any of the provisions of this Act, subject to such modifications as may appear to the Board necessary or desirable, to the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands:
      Provided that no such Order shall be made unless provision is made to the satisfaction of the Treasury for the payment out of moneys other than moneys provided by Parliament of such portion of any allowance or gratuity as is in their opinion attributable to service in the Isle of Man or Channel Islands.
      (3) This Act shall come into operation on the first day of April, nineteen hundred and nineteen.
      (4) This Act may be cited as the School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1918.
      Brought up, and read the first time.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt) to leave out in Subsection (1) the words "Scotland or." That proposal is outside the scope of the Bill, and the way to deal with that point would be by moving an Instruction.
      Mr. HOGGE: Are we not entitled to move that certain words restricting the application of the Bill shall not be in it. I have seen these words moved out and inserted, and I would ask that you should allow the Amendment to be moved so as to debate the matter. It will not take up much time as it will only mean a question and an answer, and will not prevent the right hon. Gentleman getting a stage of the Bill to-night.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Bill is obviously not intended to apply to Scotland, and the only way in which the Committee could deal with the matter is by an Instruction. That is the ground on which I base my ruling, and I am sorry I cannot transgress it even to facilitate the progress of the Bill to-night.
      Mr. HOGGE: I shall oppose the rest of the Bill.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not proposed, I understand, to take any further stage of the Bill to-night.
      Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      New Clause (Exemption from the Provisions of the National Insurance Act, 1911).
      The employment in recognised service of any person who is entitled to benefits under this Act shall be deemed to be included among the excepted employments specified in Part II. of the First Schedule to the National Insurance Act, 1911.—[Mr. Herbert Lewis.]
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
      This Clause is moved not to alter but to apply the provisions of the existing law, and to deal with a position which was not contemplated when the National Insurance Act was passed. Now that a wider class of teachers come under a new scheme, it follows that the exceptions in the original Act should be extended to that wider class.
      Mr. HOGGE: I object to going on with the Bill without having this new Clause put down on the Paper. It is most objectionable that Ministers who have plenty of

      1425
      time at their disposal, and who are not concerned with the conduct of the War, should come down and propose a Clause of this kind when it is not on the Paper. There was ample time to do so, as they knew there would be a discussion on prisoners of war. The Clause has not been communicated intelligibly to us. We are referred in this Clause to something concerning the National Health Insurance Act. I should like to ask the President what is the precise relation to the National Health Insurance scheme? Under the scheme there are certain provisions by which teachers, like others, are exempted from insurance under certain incomes.
      Mr. FISHER: I should be quite willing to fall in with my hon. Friend's suggestion and bring this Clause up on Report.
      Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House."
      Mr. HOGGE: I should like to draw your attention to the fact that this Bill leaves out the question of Scottish teachers and Irish teachers altogether.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not debateable on the Question before the House.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday next.
      The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

      SEPARATION ALLOWANCES.
      Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
      Mr. HOGGE: I want to put a question which was not answered at Question time, in connection with the increase of the new separation allowances. It is within the discretion of the Ministry of Pensions to give to a childless wife an extra allowance on three conditions. One is that she is unable to work; the second is that she is unaccustomed to work, and the third is that she requires to change her residence in order to obtain work, Nos. 1 and 3 are
      1426
      old rules and do not require any explanation. The new rule is that which applies to a woman who is unaccustomed to work. I put a question on the Paper in order to get a definition of that from the Ministry of Pensions, and what I want to know is a very simple question, but although simple it affects probably 500,000 or 1,000,000 women in this country. A woman who is unaccustomed to work is a woman, in my view, who has never done any work. I want to know from the Ministry of Pensions whether it means a woman who has been unaccustomed to work outside her home or a woman who has been unaccustomed to any kind of work whatever? If the representative of the Ministry will say at once that it means a woman who has not done any outside work, and that therefore in those circumstances she will get the extra grant, this Debate need not continue any longer.
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen): I really do not quite know what I can add to what I said this afternoon. It is laid down in a circular which has been issued by the Ministry of Pensions that if a woman is without children, is physically unfit or unable for other reasons to obtain employment, an allowance shall be granted of 6s. 6d. a week.
      Mr. HOGGE: That is the old regulation.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: No, it is the new regulation.
      Mr. HOGGE: I might quote from the answer given in this House by the Leader of the House, in which he said that, as a matter of course, those women would get it on the three conditions that I have laid down.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: If my hon. Friend had only waited, I would have explained that I am reading a circular which has been just issued by the Pensions Ministry to the local committees in reference to this new regulation. The circular proceeds to explain and define the conditions of the grant—
      "The test of inability to earn will be interpreted as before, that is to say, a wife who is unaccustomed to work should not be required to do so now, nor should a wife be expected to change her residence because suitable work is riot available within reasonable distance of her residence."
      Those are the words of the circular which my hon. Friend has probably not seen,

      1427
      because it has been only issued to-day. There is nothing to explain in the words. I clearly showed in my answer this afternoon that "unaccustomed to work" means precisely what it says. If a woman in any way whatever, whether in her house at home or outside her house, has not been, as a matter of fact, accustomed to work, she will not be required to work. In other words, she will get the grant under the new regulation. We leave the matter without any further definition to the local committees to decide, and expect them to deal with the matter in a liberal and generous spirit.
      Mr. HOGGE: Suppose a local committee had the problem as to the wife of a workman who had been accustomed to work all her days inside the man's house, and she fell within the category of a woman accustomed to work? Does it refer to domestic employment of women or apply to employment outside her home?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I cannot lay down any definition as to where the work is to be done. The point was, Was the woman accustomed to work or not? There are, I think, 400,000 soldiers' wives, who had been married during the War. The great majority of these women were in work before, and there is no reason why they should not go back. But there is a certain number of women who, possibly owing to their social position or for other reasons—it may be owing to ill-health—have never worked either in their homes or outside them, and in such cases where it is clear they have not been accustomed to work, they will be entitled to the allowance. We do not think it wise to lay down any more precise definition, but leave it to the local committees to interpret the matter in the most generous way.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at Five minutes before Eleven o'clock.