Lords Sitting of 5 May 1915

Preamble
LONDON, CHATHAM AND DOVER RAILWAY BILL.
GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL.
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.
ASCOT DISTRICT GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL.
DONCASTER CORPORATION BILL.
BLYTH HARBOUR BILL.
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.

ABERDARE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS, &c.) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Read 2a, and committed for Tuesday next.
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION (TRENT NAVIGATION TRANSFER) BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

BEAMISH'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
DENNY'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

MILITARY ADMINISTRATION IN INDIA.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, the first three Questions standing in my name on the Paper all affect military administration in India. Therefore I think it will be convenient to the noble Marquess if I ask him to reply to them together. My Questions are—
To ask the Secretary of State for India whether it is true that towards the end of last year about 2,000 women and 1,400 children belonging to regiments which had been sent to England arrived from their stations in India at Bombay Dock; that no preparations had been
928
made to receive them, and no food prepared for them; that some of them had travelled for three days on rations for one day; that they sat about in the dock for more than 24 hours; that when they were put on board ship there was still no food ready for them; and, if so, what officer was responsible for these arrangements.
To ask the Secretary of State for India whether it is a fact that towards the close of last year the Breconshire Regiment were sent to garrison' Aden; that they duly arrived at Aden and found the barracks empty and waiting for them; that they were ordered to proceed to Bombay, which they duly did; and that after staying four days at Bombay they were sent back to Aden, and whether he will explain the meaning of this proceeding.
To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can inform the House of the result of the consideration by the Government of India of the complaints made by the friends of the Territorial troops in respect of the rations and pay received by those troops in India.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, the noble Earl's first Question relates to what happened to some 2,000 women and 1,400 children belonging to regiments which were sent from India to England, who had to be embarked at Bombay. The allegation made was that they were long delayed at various points, and that no proper provision as regards food was made for them. On hearing from the noble Earl that he had received representations of this kind, I was, of course, much concerned, and I telegraphed at once to the Viceroy. The Viceroy replies that he had received a number of reports very similar to those which had reached the noble Earl as to hardships suffered by families of British soldiers, and he immediately instituted a thorough investigation of the circumstances. As the result of that investigation the Viceroy tells me that there was, as a matter of fact, no lack of co-ordination, and that there was no avoidable personal hardship to any individuals. One report was that on their way down country no rations had been provided for these people. That report Lord Hardinge tells me is absolutely baseless. Further, every train which was bringing

929
women and children down was met on its arrival at Bombay. There was one case in which a party reached Bombay a day earlier than the embarkation authorities had arranged. These were, however, met at the station and taken off to the family depôt at Bombay, that being a depôt which had been arranged by the Bombay authorities for the reception of people of this kind who had nowhere especially to go. Then as regards the supply of food at Bombay, arrangements were made that they should have it either at the railway station itself, or at this family depôt, or on board the transport when they arrived. There were, however, cases in which women refused to go on board the transport to have a meal until they had seen their baggage taken on board ship. We all know that among travellers there are always some persons who particularly dislike being at all parted from their effects, and those were evidently of that kind, with the result, I am afraid, that they must have been for some considerable time without a meal. Those very likely are some of the cases of which the noble Earl has heard. There was one case of a child which died after arrival at the docks. This child had been examined by a medical officer before it started and had been passed as fit for the voyage, and I think we are entitled to say that no incident of the journey had anything to do with the death of this child. There was only one party which was not embarked on the actual day of its arrival at Bombay, and that was the one I have mentioned, which arrived a day before the scheduled day and was taken to the family depôt. The Viceroy states, quite categorically, that there is no truth in the statement that any persons arrived on board ship and found no food available for them.
The noble Earl next asks what happened to the Breconshire regiment which was sent out to garrison Aden. According to his Question, the regiment arrived at Aden and found that the barracks were unoccupied and ready for them but they were ordered to proceed to Bombay, and after staying four days at Bombay they were sent back to Aden. The noble Earl not unnaturally asks, assuming the facts to be as he stated, why this particular proceeding occurred. But it is not the fact that there was at any time an intention that this regiment should land at Aden on the outward voyage, or that any mistake
930
occurred by which it was sent on to Bombay and aimlessly brought back again. What happened was this. This regiment sailed on October 30 from Southampton. On board the same transport was the 9th battalion of the Middlesex regiment, which was under orders for Bombay, and on her return home this transport was to bring back from Aden the 1st battalion of the Royal Lancashire Fusiliers, they being relieved by the Breconshire regiment, which was the one that had the double journey. The arrangements, of course, were in the hands of the War Office, and there were three things that they might have done. They might have directed that the Breconshire regiment should be landed at Aden on the way out. The Lancashire Fusiliers were already at Aden; consequently it is not accurate to state that the barracks were empty. In that case either the Breconshires or the Lancashires would have had to go into temporary quarters under canvas until the transport returned empty from Bombay to take up the Lancashire regiment. Perhaps the noble Earl thinks that that is the course which ought to have been taken. Well, it was decided, rightly or wrongly, that to put either of these regiments under canvas at Aden would not be a convenient or desirable arrangement. The noble Earl, I am sure, knows Aden quite well, and he will realise that in the conditions of weather which usually obtain them—in fact, obtain there all the year round—a temporary camp could not be a very convenient or desirable home for a British regiment. If that was not to be done, the Lancashire Fusiliers might have been picked up on the outward voyage, taken to Bombay, and brought back from Bombay to England; but that course would have been open to the same kind of objection as that indicated in the noble Earl's Question. The third course, which was actually adopted, was that of taking the Breconshires on, bringing them back to Aden, and then embarking the Lancashire regiment. The reason for taking the last course, in the main, was that the baggage of the Middlesex regiment had to go on to Bombay and to be disembarked there, and in the absence of any special arrangements at Aden that baggage would have been at the bottom of the hold and confusion would therefore have resulted. The transport therefore sailed from England with the definite plan in view which was actually adopted. The Aden authorities would have found it possible, no doubt,

931
to dispose somehow of the Breconshire regiment had it been disembarked, and I understand they were prepared to make that arrangement; but it was not thought advisable, because it would have involved a change of plans in the actual course of their being carried out. The noble Earl, I am sure, sees that the complicated movements of these three units with a single transport, involving changes of all their baggage and the like, could only be worked out on a settled plan, and I do not think, on examining the circumstances, that any more convenient plan than that actually carried out could have been adopted. There is also this further point which I would ask the noble Earl to bear in mind, that at that time all these transports had to be carefully convoyed, and that a pause at Aden on the way out to disembark a unit would have caused some inconvenience from the point of view of the convoy. Your Lordships must excuse me for giving this rather tedious narration of what occurred, but the matter is obviously of some importance and it is desirable to state exactly what happened. I think, on the whole, the authorities may be said to have done the best they could.
Then the noble Earl asks a Question about the complaints made by the "friends" of the Territorial troops. He means, I suppose, the relatives of those actually serving in the Territorial Force, for we are all, I hope, friends of the Territorial Force.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes, I mean the relatives.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The noble Earl brought up this Question a little time ago, and I promised to consult the Government of India. I have done so, and I received a reply from the Government of India a few days ago. They say they have been giving very careful consideration to this question; they have looked into it with the utmost care; and I may say, in passing, that I shall be prepared very shortly to lay on the Table a Paper which I promised the noble Earl on the last occasion when he raised the matter to produce—namely, a tabular comparison of the different rates of pay, stoppages, and allowances of the Territorials at home and in India. That has practically been prepared, and I shall be able to lay it on the Table in a very short time. The
932
Government of India agree that the Territorials are in some respects worse off as regards their total emoluments under peace conditions in India, partly owing to the considerable outlay required there for servants, house rent, and the like—that is to say, they are in a worse position than they would be at home under the active I service conditions which they have enjoyed since they have been called out in this country; and also the men do not get the full Service rations which they got in this country. It is evident, therefore, that there is something in the nature of a grievance to be remedied. As was pointed out in the last debate, they are also, taking them as a whole, worse off than Regulars in India because of the small proportion who are in a position to earn proficiency pay; and a large number of them have to make family allotments, and, of course their inexperience of Indian methods of all kinds makes life rather more costly than it would be to those who know the country well. Various courses might have been taken. One would have been to increase the number of those who would be in a position to receive proficiency pay. Another plan would have been for the Government to undertake a compulsory family allotment. Both those devices would have been subject to the criticism that, although they would benefit many, a considerable number would get nothing at all. Therefore the course which the Government of India prefer to take, and which is now being considered by us in consultation with the War Office, as, of course, it is necessary for various reasons to have their sanction and concurrence to any change of the kind, is to make a special Territorial daily allowance to officers in the junior ranks, and to all warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and men. I will not attempt at this moment to state the precise figure which we should desire to give. That is one of the matters which is subject to consultation with the War Office. But it may be taken that an enhancement of pay of this nature will be made of a kind of which everybody in the ranks will get the benefit. The Government of India think that there is a case for making a special allowance to Territorials as distinct, from other soldiers. These Territorial units have gone out to India voluntarily, inspired by a patriotic spirit, and, as we all know, in consideration of the class from which they are drawn, in many cases at serious personal inconvenience to

933
themselves. That appears to differentiate their case from that of soldiers of the Regular Army, who come out for long periods as an incident of their regular service and their contract, so to speak, in engaging, whereas the Territorials, of course, only come out for a limited period. It must further be remembered that these particular Territorials have for the time being lost their chance of serving at the Front. That is a further consideration to which I am sure we should all wish to attach due weight. They are serving their country as honourably in forming part of the necessary garrison of India, but to themselves it is sure to be a matter of disappointment that they are not actually engaged in one or other of the centres of war. It certainly does seem unfair that a soldier serving in India should be less well off than his fellow Territorial who is serving at home. The charge involved will be a considerable one. I cannot state the exact figure, but it will be something between £100,000 and £200,000, and I should not be surprised if it is nearer the second figure than the first; but it is clear, I think, that it is a charge which ought to be met, and I hope that the action of the Government of India in suggesting that it should be incurred is one which will meet with general approval. That, I think, exhausts all I have to say on these three Indian Questions.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Marquess for the great pains he has taken to answer these Questions. I think he will admit that they were all Questions which it was in the interests of the public service should be asked. As regards the treatment at Bombay of women and children belonging to regiments which had been sent to England, the answer which the noble Marquess gave is one which we have all heard with the greatest satisfaction. It amounts to this, that the statements which the Viceroy had heard and which had reached me were untrue, and that these women and children were provided with food in the train, at Bombay, and on board ship, and were not lilt stranded at the docks at Bombay but were taken to the family depôt. That is very satisfactory, and I am sorry that such unfounded statements should have been given such wide publicity.
Now I come to the remarkable movements in connection with the Breconshire regiment. If the noble Marquess had not
934
been able to give any explanation of what had happened I think he will admit that the story was a peculiar one and one inviting comment. The conflict of evidence in this case is quite extraordinary. Yesterday I received a letter from an officer of the Breconshire regiment who is now in London, and I will read the parts that are pertinent to my Question. He writes—
"We reached Aden on November 23 and made every preparation to land, bringing up our baggage and ammunition—
Which shows that there was no difficulty about that—
"Nobody came out to the ship, and after waiting some hours we sent ashore and then learned for the first time that we were not to land but to proceed to India. We stayed on board the ship in Aden Harbour for three whole days—
Therefore the point about the time for landing and the convoy is met—
"The barracks which we subsequently occupied wore unoccupied at the time we first arrived there—
This disposes of their occupation by the Lancashire regiment—
"We landed at Bombay on December 3 and encamped until December 8, when we embarked again for Aden, where we landed at last on December 16."
It is obvious that both stories cannot be accurate.
I now pass to the question of the Territorials. I felt sure that the attention of the Viceroy and of the Secretary of State had only to be directed to the grievances of the Territorials in India, as voiced to their relations, to evoke their sympathy, and I think I am justified on behalf of all the relations and friends of the Territorials in thanking the noble Marquess and the Viceroy for the great attention they have given to this matter, and for their promise to do something substantial to make the position of the Territorial troops in India better both as regards their rations and their pay.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether the tabulated statement of allowances which he proposes to lay on the Table will include those of the medical officers. I believe that of all classes who have gone to India with the Territorials there are none who have made greater sacrifices than the medical officers. Therefore I hope that the noble Marquess will be able to tell us that they will be included.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I will make inquiry as to the particular case of the medical officers. The tabular statement which I am going to lay deals with the comparison between pay, allowances, and compulsory deductions at home and in India respectively in the case of privates. It does not touch the matter of officers at all. Therefore the question which the noble Viscount has asked is in quite a separate category.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: The noble Marquess, of course, knows that departmental officers as a rule have not accompanied the divisions to India, whereas the medical officers have been hound to go.

QUOTATIONS FROM FOREIGN NEWSPAPERS.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether it is true that the sale of German newspapers is forbidden in the United Kingdom, and that British newspapers in the United Kingdom are sometimes forbidden to quote the statements made by foreign newspapers; and, if so, what is the reason for these restrictions.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, this Question deals with two subjects, one of which I answered yesterday—that is to say, the sale of German newspapers. In the other part of his Question the noble Earl asks whether British newspapers in the United Kingdom are sometimes forbidden to quote the statements made by foreign newspapers, and, if so, what is the reason for these restrictions. I have inquired into this matter, and I am told by the authorities that as a general rule statements from foreign newspapers can be copied into newspapers in this country, and, as we all know, that is freely and frequently done; you only have to look at the daily newspapers to see that there is a great number of extracts. But there have been certain cases in which permission to print particular matter has been refused. When in the opinion of the censor matter is of a nature which would be prohibited in an ordinary publication here, there is no reason for allowing it to be printed simply because it has appeared in a foreign newspaper. The view is held that the fact of a statement or an opinion being reproduced in a British newspaper, even though only as a quotation, sometimes gives it another kind of credit, and, indeed, something of a
936
different character from that which belonged to it when it was only published in the foreign newspaper in which it first appeared. There have been, I am told, a number of cases in which statements copied in this way from foreign newspapers into British newspapers have been reproduced in hostile countries, particularly, I fancy, in Germany, as though they formed part of the opinion of the British newspaper. That may or may not be a matter of particular importance, but what I think is important is that it is only in special cases—where in the judgment of the censorship it is undesirable to reproduce these articles—that permission has been refused, and that in the vast majority of cases permission is freely given.

HERR BALLIN AND THE TIMES.
LORD HYLTON*LORD HYLTON rose to call attention to certain correspondence of Herr Ballin, chairman of the Hamburg-Amerika Line, as published in The Times newspaper of April 23.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I feel certain that many of your Lordships hold the view that in these times one newspaper article more or less cannot matter very much, and that the only thing that really signifies is a successful prosecution of the war. At the same time this article in The Times of April 23 does appear to me to disclose a rather remarkable history of duplicity and mendacity on the part of a very important man in Germany, who, it is well known, is an intimate friend and adviser of the German Emperor himself. In view of the world-wide Press campaign that is being carried on by Germany against us in neutral countries, I think it is questionable whether the time has not almost passed for our dismissing with a mere shrug of the shoulders a story of this kind. I have ventured, therefore, to put this Notice on the Paper to-day in order that the evidence may be perpetuated in some more durable form than the pages of a newspaper of what is, in fact, one of the last diplomatic cards played by the German Government previous to the outbreak of hostilities between Germany and our own country, and of a very audacious but unsuccessful attempt which was subsequently made, the card having been played, to revoke it.
I will endeavour to put the story in a nutshell. But first it is necessary that I should say a word or two as to who Herr

937
Ballin is, and I think that if I quote what was said of him in The Times article of April 23 none of his friends can complain that it is an unfair description. The Times article uses this language about Herr Bailin—
"Herr Ballin is the most prominent Jewish business man in Germany. By skill and enterprise, and with the support of the German Emperor, whose friendship and confidence he enjoys, he gradually built up the great Hamburg-Amerika Steamship Company and extended its influence throughout the world. Not content with business success he sought to acquire and to use political influence. Since the beginning of the war the Hamburg-Amerika offices in New York have been the headquarters of pro-German propaganda, in the United States."
In a book which I happened to pick up a little while ago entitled "Men Around the Kaiser," by Mr. Charles Wile, I read that Herr Ballin is looked upon by millions of his fellow-countrymen, in consequence of his great commercial and political achievements, to be perhaps the greatest man in Germany, and I have been told on excellent authority that the Emperor has repeatedly offered him a post in the Cabinet at Berlin, but that Herr Bailin has declined it up to now on the ground that he could serve the Emperor and the interests of Germany better in an unofficial than in an official position.
It was this man who on August 2 last despatched a long telegram to his chief agent in London, with instructions to get it immediately translated and inserted in The Times newspaper. The telegram was received in London, translated, and then transmitted to The Times, which did not, however, publish it; but it has been published since. I will trouble your Lordships with the quotation of only the last few words of that telegram. They run as follows—
"It must be stated again that Russia alone forces the war upon Europe, which no one hut Russia wants. Russia alone must carry the full weight of responsibility.—Yours faithfully, ALBERT BALLIN."
I should like to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that soon after Mr. Ballin, in this telegram, had endeavoured to impress upon public opinion in England that Russia was the only enemy, that she alone was responsible for the war, the German Government authorised the printing and publication by a certain firm in Berlin of a translation into English by Imperial authority of a White Book which bore precisely the same indictment on the title-page as that which Herr Ballin used in this telegram. These words appeared on the title-page—
"How Russia and her ruler betrayed Germany's confidence and thereby made the European War."
938
From that it is perfectly evident that at that time it was intended by Germany to hold up Russia as alone responsible for the war.
But very soon after the publication of this translation by the German publishing company a complete change took place. From that day to this we have had no more official and no more unofficial denunciations of Russia by Germany, and as your Lordships are aware it is now England that is the enemy and it is England alone that in the eyes of official Germany is responsible for the war. Accordingly, Herr Ballin cropped up again about a fortnight ago and granted an interview to a representative of the New York World. I will quote a few words from this interview, as reported in The Times of April 23. In it Herr Ballin sought to cast the whole blame of the war upon England, and in particular upon Sir Edward Grey.
"We all feel that the war has been brought about by England" [said Herr Ballin to his interviewer]. "We honestly believe that Sir Edward Grey could have stopped it."
After this interview was made known The Times, not unnaturally, published articles in which it contrasted the very different voices of Herr Ballin in his telegram of August and in his interview of April, and very naturally asked how he could reconcile the two. Herr Ballin, it appears, thought, as his telegram of August 2 had never been published in The Times, that it had not been received. Accordingly he seems to have thought that he was perfectly safe in repudiating it altogether. He did repudiate the telegram, and in addition he actually had an article inserted on his authority in the Cologne Gazette which was headed "The Times as Calumniator." The Times then took the course of publishing the telegram that had been received from Herr Ballin in August, and I think Herr Ballin will now find it almost impossible to maintain his reputation in any degree as a veracious man after having repudiated the telegram sent out in his name on August 2. If he was simply a prominent man in Germany who held inconsistent views as to the responsibility for the war I should not have ventured to trouble your Lordships, but I think the whole story does show, as I said at the outset, a degree of duplicity and mendacity on the part of a man who, though not a Minister, is a most powerful man in Germany, one of those "powers behind

939
the Throne" who have been known in every age and every country.
The other evening Lord Kitchener made a most stinging criticism on the conduct of the German Army, and pointed cut what an indelible blot had been cast on the honour of the German Army by their treatment of the British wounded and the British prisoners. I think the story of Herr Ballin will reflect in an almost equal degree on the fair fame and on the honour of German diplomacy. I do not know whether His 'Majesty's Government will think proper to order the printing and the distribution in neutral countries of copies of The Times article of April 23, but I think it might be an advantage that some course of that sort should be taken, because I believe His Majesty's Government are fully alive to the advisability of endeavouring to counteract in neutral countries the evil effects of the mass of literature that since the war began has been distributed all over the world, literally from China to Peru.
In that connection I should like to mention that I am not at all sure that the anti-English Press campaign of Germany does not extend to and operate in this country, for I happened to receive this morning a publication—I do not know whether your Lordships hive ever heard of it; I was not acquainted with it before—called War and Peace, containing an article headed "L'affaire Ballin: Six Straight Questions to The Times." The article is not signed, but on the face of it might certainly have been written by one of Herr Ballin's representatives in this country; and after what the noble Marquess the Leader of the House told us yesterday about the meritorious exertions of the numerous censors I think their efforts might be directed to ascertaining who is responsible for this article. I am not aware who is the proprietor or the editor of this journal. It contains only one advertisement which is immediately below the article "L'affaire Bailin," and it sets forth the qualities of a certain firm's "delicious chocolate obtainable everywhere." I will not give the firm a gratuitous advertisement. There is one rather curious point to note as regards the Press campaign of Germany, and that is the almost ludicrous contrast between their apparent anxiety to influence and to conciliate public opinion in neutral countries and their total disregard of any treaty or convention or any usage of war that has
940
been accepted among civilised nations in the past.
In conclusion I will only notice one other point, and that is that in the telegram of Herr Ballin of August 2 reference is made to a letter that he addressed to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. Of course I have not the remotest idea whether that letter ever reached the noble and learned Viscount or whether it is of a public or a private character. It may be of a public character, in which case it is possible that the noble and learned Viscount may think proper, if he is able, to confirm the point that I have endeavoured to make—namely, that from the original telegram of August 2 it was at that time the policy of the German Emperor, through his official and unofficial agents, that Russia, and Russia alone, was responsible for the war. But quite apart from that I shall be well content if I have to some extent been able to show up the methods of Herr Ballin in particular and of German diplomacy in general.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken has given your Lordships an account of a curious incident which The Times has brought to light. The Times unquestionably has been able to demonstrate complete inconsistency between two views expressed by Herr Bailin. In the first place there was a memorandum sent by Herr Bailin to The Times for publication, which The Times did not publish; in the second place there was a private letter from Herr Ballin to Mr. Walter, who, as we all know, has a historic connection with The Times, which letter Mr. Walter did not receive—it was superseded by the memorandum—but which Herr Ballin afterwards published, I think in the Cologne Gazette, as showing how wrong it was to impute to him the views which The Times had imputed" The Times as Calumniator" was, I think, Herr Ballin's expression. Well, The Times has completely vindicated itself, because it is clear that in the memorandum which has now come to light Herr Bailin did make the point, and made it very strongly, that Russia was the Power to blame for this war. The letter to Mr. Walter, dated, I think, earlier, which was published subsequently, took quite a different tone. It was a letter of a much milder type, and there was no reference to Russia.

941
All one can say is that Herr Ballin has been very unfortunate. He is a man of distinction in his Own country, and I find it difficult to bring myself to believe that there has not been some lapse of memory, some treachery of recollection in his handling of this matter, because the close proximity of the two documents and the divergence of view is a divergence of view which cannot be otherwise explained without making a great reflection on his sincerity. I myself have had the pleasure of knowing Herr Ballin in the past—not well—I have met him two or three times, and I have always thought him a man of the most interesting personality and of great eminence in his own country.
The noble Lord has referred to the fact that in the telegram reference was made by Herr Ballin to a letter addressed to myself. Well, in July, before the Serbian Manifesto, and when the political sky stretching between Germany and this country was clear and unbroken, Herr Ballin was in London and dined at my house. I did not know him well, but he called on me, and I asked him to meet certain people. The letter to which he referred was written after his return to Germany—some time subsequently—referring to the peaceful character of the occasion, and referring to the peaceful disposition of the German nation. There was nothing which remotely resembled the accusation against Russia which was contained in the memorandum. It was a private note. I have a great objection to publishing private correspondence. I think it is wrong in principle, and I think, even in the case of an alien enemy, there are some considerations to be extended to the moral right of those who wrote letters at a time when they were not alien enemies, and the letter was written at a time of peace. It is a letter which adds nothing to the matter on which The Times comments. It was a brief private communication written to me after he had dined with me in London.
I have told your Lordships all there is bearing on the matter for the purpose of making it clear that no State document, nothing of importance, is in my possession which could be disclosed and that would interest the public. Herr Ballin is a remarkable man. My personal knowledge of him is but slight. I have never had any correspondence with him on political or any other subjects. The letter I received I did not think it necessary to answer. Indeed, I
942
have had no correspondence at any time in my life with him or with any other distinguished personage in Germany on public affairs. I think it right to make that statement, because there have been suggestions, I notice from the papers, that I might be in possession of correspondence with high personages in Germany. I have never in my life had any such correspondence. On three or four occasions, which are known to the public, and when I have been acting officially as Minister, I have had intercourse with high personages connected with the German Government. All these are eases in which the communications were with the cognisance of my colleagues and in which the circumstances were known to the public. I have known Germany well, and have been a keen student of her literature during most of my life, and I have often been there, but my friends there are men of letters whose occupations are not political. The noble Lord will appreciate why I have risen to make this statement. I wish no misapprehension to be in his mind with reference to the communication to which he has referred.

BRITISH PRISONERS IN GERMANY.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they have any further information as to the present condition of the thirty-nine British officers now in arrest barracks in Germany; whether they are all at Burg, Magdeburg; and, if not, what is their present place of detention; whether His Majesty's Government can see their way to vary the circumstances under which the German submarine prisoners are now living in this country.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, my excuse for again bringing this matter to the attention of the House is that it is in my opinion an extremely urgent one. Since I put my Question on the Paper the following communication has reached me from the War Office and has appeared in the newspapers, having been sent out by the Press Bureau. It is a communiqué from the American Ambassador at Berlin, and runs as follows—
"Pursuant to general arrangement regarding visiting prisoners which is still in force here, I personally visited each of twenty-two of thirty-nine officers arrested April 27 in Burg and Magdeburg. Each officer is in clean cell, allowed baths, books, packages. Can smoke; one hour exercise morning; one hour exercise evening in prison yards; during exercise hours can talk together;

943
food good; no complaints, except that they are so arrested. German Government will follow exactly the treatment given submarine crews as soon as Page can visit prisoners, and these officers will be again treated like ordinary prisoners of war the instant I report submarine crews so treated in England. The treatment accorded officers now is that usual for German officers in arrest, and is given pending definite report treatment of submarine crews in England."
Your Lordships will notice that only twenty-two of the officers have been visited at Burg and Magdeburg, and I should like to ask His Majesty's Government, What about the other seventeen? Of course it is foreshadowed that they, too, will be visited at the earliest opportunity.
But, my Lords, I should like, without mentioning any names, to read a letter, dated April 16, from another part of Germany. This is from a gallant officer, a man who would uncomplainingly endure a certain amount of suffering. In this letter he says—
"Ten of us were moved from—on Monday night and placed in criminal cells in—(a fortress). This has been done because the Government has imprisoned a German submarine crew as criminals, and as long as they remain so there is no doubt that we shall remain here. Surely our Government will do something for us, considering we fought for our country and have never done an act worthy of this fate."
Then follow the names of certain officers in distinguished regiments in His Majesty's Service. The letter continues—
"We are locked in cells 12 ft. by 6 ft.—just the size of a billiard table—all day and all night. We are not allowed to speak to each other. Everything being sent out to me must be stopped for the present until we see what happens."
And the letter ends with this pathetic sentence—
"Pray to God the Government do something. I cannot write more, and only hope for an encouraging reply."
That, my Lords, is only one of several letters that can be produced if His Majesty's Government would care to consider them. They are dreadful reading. As yet we have chiefly spoken of the special treatment of officers in consequence of our action with regard to prisoners from the German submarines. We have not touched very much upon the question of other ranks. But I hope that His Majesty's Government—I have no reason to suppose that they are not doing so—are giving the closest attention to the question of the treatment of British prisoners in the hands of the Germans; and that we shall see light a little further on. Of course, His Majesty's Government are quite powerless if the
944
German Government are not willing to mitigate the grievous conditions in which we heard the other day the rank and file are living.
Before I sit down I should like to give my reasons for asking whether His Majesty's Government can see their way to vary the circumstances under which the German submarine prisoners are now living in this country. I do so in the first place because on the treatment of the submarine prisoners here depend very much the circumstances of the thirty-nine officers who are held in special arrest in Germany. My second reason is, having been brought up for many years to methods of strict discipline, that I consider that these submarine officers have carried out to the letter the orders of their superior officers. Their methods are not to our liking. It is possible that they were told that when they met with our shipping they were to take no prisoners. The obvious result is that those on board the torpedoed boats would be left to drown. Well, we should call that by a very ugly name. But I submit to His Majesty's Government that these submarine prisoners only carried out the orders which had been given them, and for that reason I hope a way will be found to treat them as ordinary prisoners of war.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LUCAS): My Lords, I am sure that we all recognise the right which the noble Earl has to raise this question. Speaking on behalf of the Government I can say at once that we are only too glad to give him all the information which we possibly can, which may, I hope, be of some assistance to him. I take it that he framed his Question before seeing the rather full statement which appeared in The Times and, I think, in other papers this morning. That statement does give a certain amount of important information. It gives information as to the conditions under which twenty-two out of the thirty-nine prisoners are living. It also gives a statement to which, let us hope, a good deal of importance may be attached—the statement that "the German Government will follow exactly the treatment given to the submarine crews as soon as Mr. Page can visit the prisoners." Mr. Lowry, a member of the United States Embassy here, has visited the place where the submarine crews are confined, and has sent a full statement about it; so that we have reason to hope that matters are moving in

945
the direction in which we all want to see them move, as a result of the exchange of these two telegrams. With regard to the other point on which the noble Earl asks for information—namely, where the other officers are at present imprisoned—we have reason to believe that besides Magdeburg and Burg there are some of these officers also imprisoned at Torgau, Cologne, Frankfurt-on-Oder, and Rastatt.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: I believe there is one officer at Frankfurt.
LORD LUCAS: I think those are the four places at which the remaining seventeen officers are confined. I am sure that nobody can read or listen to the reading of the letters which have been written by these officers without being considerably moved, and one can only express the hope that the conditions under which we are confining the submarine prisoners will be followed by the German Government. I think any one who reads Mr. Page's telegram will realise that in our treatment of these men we have not only followed strictly The Hague Convention in the spirit as well as in the letter, but that we have caused no undue hardship whatsoever to these men.
The noble Earl suggests that no notice should be taken of the actions of these submarine prisoners, and that we should treat them as ordinary prisoners of war on the ground that they have simply carried out the orders of their superior officers. I think one has the right to consider what would have been done in all probability in parallel circumstances on land. Of course, the situation created by these submarine attacks is entirely novel and unprecedented but I think it would be a perfectly fair analogy to the action of these submarine crews if you had a squadron of the enemy's Cavalry which, having penetrated through the lines of its opponents, had got round behind those lines and then had suddenly made an attack upon the ordinary civilian population living behind those lines, and had murdered a large number of peasants following their ordinary civilian avocation. If that had happened at any time and that squadron of Cavalry had been caught, I believe that any nation in the world would have taken those men and strung them up to the nearest trees. The question of whether they had received orders from a superior command or whether they were doing it "on their own" would not have
946
been considered. Their conduct would have been regarded as so outrageous, so against all the rules of war, that they would have received no mercy whatsoever. When you consider what has been done by these submarines in attacking ordinary merchant ships and sinking them without any attempt, in a great many cases, either to rescue the men on board or even to allow them to save themselves, I do not think that the instance I have given as an analogy can be considered at all far-fetched. Therefore I submit that we have been absolutely justified in what we have done, which has been simply to make a difference in our treatment of these prisoners, separating them from the others but treating them in every other respect in just as humane a way as our ordinary prisoners of war are treated.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I think that the doctrines and particularly the analogy suggested by the noble Lord who has just sat down are most inconsistent both with the spirit and rules of international law, and I should not like the occasion to pass without making a statement in reference to them. I copied out the other day—not for the purpose of this debate—a statement made upon this very question by what I consider the leading authority as regards rules for international law and practice. I will read it to the House, because I think it is of the utmost importance that we should safeguard our honour as a country in all matters where The Hague Conference or the rules of international law are concerned. This is the statement—
"Violations of rules regarding warfare are war crimes only when committed without an order of the belligerent Government concerned."
Amongst those war crimes, as the noble Lord will know if he has studied this question, is improper interference with merchant vessels just under the conditions which have happened as regards the German submarines; and I think I can assure him that, either in spirit or in letter, the suggestions he has made are wholly out of accord to the ordinary principles of international law. The passage I have read means that when the acts so perpetrated are under an order or commission of the belligerent Government the officers concerned have not committed any war crime, and it is inconsistent with the rules of international law to treat them when they are prisoners in any way differentially.

947
Let me bring another passage to the notice of the noble Lord, because this is a question of the greatest importance as regards the treatment of our own officers—
"If members of armed forces commit violations of the ordinary rules of war by the order of their Government they are not war criminals, and may not be punished by the enemy."
There international law lays down in the strongest terms that, under conditions such as have existed in this case, you must not differentially punish officers for acting under the orders of their Government. That is a most important principle. If you once leave that principle, as is suggested by the noble Lord opposite, you get to the doctrine of reprisals, and that doctrine leads ultimately to a competition in brutality. I want to emphasise if I may what was said by the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition, who, when speaking the other day, deprecated this theory of reprisals on every doctrine of Christianity, morality, or the true spirit and meaning of international law. I have only intervened because I consider that this is a most important subject.
I entirely sympathise with the noble Earl (Lord Albemarle). Every one who has relatives fighting abroad will agree with him in reference to what he said as regards the treatment of English officers. The lot of a war prisoner is one of the saddest we can possibly contemplate. But what is to be said of action which makes that condition even worse than it is under normal conditions? I believe that this differential treatment of officers acting under a commission is quite unjustified, either by The Hague Convention or by any other principle of international law. I think it is to be regretted, because it may be opening the door to the doctrine of reprisals; and I am sure that the noble Marquess and every one in this House would concur that nothing could be worse than a doctrine of reprisals in which, if it took place, as the noble Lord behind me (Lord Newton) said the other day, we should be outdistanced in the competition. I sincerely hope that this differential treatment will not be continued.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I will not repeat what I have already said on the vexed question of reprisals, but I wish to say half a dozen words with regard to a point which seems to me to be of some practical importance. My noble friend behind me (Lord Albemarle) made it perfectly clear that his object in bringing
948
this matter before your Lordships this evening was to press upon His Majesty's Government the necessity of doing anything that can be clone to bring about an immediate amelioration of the lot of these prisoners. I was glad to notice a phrase which fell from the noble Lord who spoke just now on behalf of the War Office. He said, if I heard him correctly, that "matters were moving" in regard to these prisoners. I think they are; and what my noble friend behind me wants is that His Majesty's Government should use every effort to keep them moving.
We have now before us—and they are a most important contribution to the discussion—the two reports that have been made by the American Ambassador in Berlin upon the conditions under which our prisoners are detained in Germany, and the report of an official of the American Embassy here as to the conditions upon which the German prisoners are detained in this country. It is impossible to read those two accounts without seeing how much more considerate and humane is the treatment which we are according to our prisoners than is the treatment which is accorded by the German authorities to the prisoners in their hands. It is quite true that so far as food and cleanliness are concerned our prisoners in Germany do not seem to have very much to complain of. But what I think does emerge clearly from these preliminary reports is that British prisoners in Germany are kept in something like solitary confinement, whereas the German prisoners in our detention are allowed very great liberty of meeting and consorting together. We are told of the British prisoners detained in Burg and Magdeburg that each prisoner is "in a clean cell," from which, apparently, he is allowed to emerge for one hour's exercise in the morning and one hour's exercise in the evening in the prison yards. Now, what is the treatment that we accord to German prisoners in this country? None of them are in solitary confinement, although they are kept in separate rooms at night—I take it that the separate room at night is certainly not a hardship—but during the day the men meet together in one mess and the officers in another mess; they are allowed servants; they are allowed to use a well-equipped gymnasium; they exercise in association, and they have the use of recreation quarters indoors as well as outdoors. There is a very striking difference, I submit, in favour of our

949
treatment of the German prisoners as against the German treatment of our prisoners.
The reason why I attach importance to that is that the American Ambassador has reported officially that the German Government would follow exactly the treatment given to the submarine crews as soon as the distinguished gentleman who represents the United States in this country could visit the submarine prisoners here. That visit has taken place, and has resulted in this report; and what I hope we may understand is that the American Government will call attention to the discrimination against our prisoners and will use every effort to induce the German Government to carry out its pledge and assimilate their treatment of our prisoners to our treatment of their prisoners. That is, I hope, the note upon which His Majesty's Government will continue to insist, and if they do I cannot help believing that the result will be one which we should all hail with great satisfaction.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Marquess who has just sat down drew attention to one of the important points which emerge from this discussion—namely, the positively different treatment which the German Government have imposed upon our prisoners in their hands from that which is imposed by us upon what are spoken of as the "submarine prisoners," in respect of whom a special treatment has been inflicted in Germany on the thirty-nine officers of whom we have heard. It is quite clear, as the noble Marquess has stated, that the treatment meted out to British prisoners in Germany is far harsher, far more of the nature of imprisonment as distinct from detention, involving infinitely greater interference with the ordinary practices of life, than that which we have imposed on these particular prisoners here. It really is not accurate to speak of these particular submarine prisoners as having been punished, which I think was the word used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor. They have been subjected to a certain measure of detention, not in its essence differing from the kind of detention which is imposed upon all prisoners of war. I dare say that some of your Lordships have visited detention barracks at some of the great military centres in times of peace, and to speak of the confinement in those barracks at ordinary times as imprisonment is a pure misnomer. If anybody who has visited one of those places compares it
950
with a convict prison or a prison in which people are receiving sentences of imprisonment with hard labour, he will see that there is no resemblance between the two places and between the lives led at each. Therefore to speak of these people as being imprisoned is, I venture to think, going beyond the mark. I shall be very glad indeed if the result of the conversations which have taken place is to cause the German Government to treat these particular officers upon whom they are exercising what they believe to be reprisals, but who are receiving treatment which goes beyond anything which could be called reprisals, if reprisals are to mean similar treatment—I shall be glad if the result of these conversations may be to bring about a speedy and large amelioration of their condition.
Lord Parmoor raised the point, upon which I do not wish to dwell at any length, as to whether or not any differentiation of treatment in respect of these submarine officers and crews was justifiable. That, of course, is a matter of opinion; but I think it is possible to overstate the extent to which the existence of orders, or of permission to perform a certain act, ought to be treated as entirely whitewashing those who perform the particular act. If you carry that argument to an extreme, the indiscriminate murders of civilians, the handing over of a town to rape and robbery, might be taken to be, if not actually commanded, at any rate authorised by the superior command. It is very hard to believe that the laws of war demand that people who are captured either obeying those injunctions or enjoying that permission ought to be treated as honourable prisoners. I do not say that the acts of which these particular officers and crews are guilty can be compared with the worst cases of the kind I have indicated, but it is, I think, at any rate arguable that the deeds which they have done, amounting in some cases to what we can only call indiscriminate murder of harmless people, are fitly met by at any rate a moral differentiation of attitude towards them when they are taken prisoners. I entirely agree both with the noble and learned Lord and the noble Marquess opposite that it is wrong and foolish to attempt to indulge in anything in the nature of reprisals. Nothing has been further from our intention, and nothing will remain further, whatever happens, from our intention. But I do not think that the canon that all acts.

951
which are enjoined or permitted by superior authority ought to leave those who are guilty of them in precisely the same position as honourable opponents who are fighting a fair fight against us, is one which it is possible to maintain.
LORD PARMOOR: May I say one word in explanation, because I should not like what I said to be carried further than I intended? There are exceptional cases which international law recognises. I was dealing with the particular case here, which I say is not treated as a war crime if committed by a commissioned officer.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I quite understand the noble and learned Lord.

LIFEBOATS ON TRANSPORTS.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether the Admiralty have taken steps to secure an adequate provision of boats and lifebelts in transports conveying British troops to or from Great Britain; whether rules exist for that purpose; and, if so, what measures are taken by inspection or otherwise to see that they are properly observed. I have placed the information upon which my Question is based, and which I have preferred not to make public, at the disposal of the noble Lord who represents the Admiralty; and, as the House will see, my object in putting the Question is to ensure that as far as possible the ships and transports which are taking our troops to or from Great Britain to different theatres of war shall be protected against the many dangers and accidents, more particularly from submarines, to which they are likely to be exposed.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (LORD EMMOTT): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the information that he has put at my disposal and on which he has founded his Question. I will see that the specific allegations which are made in his letter are investigated; but in any case I could not, of course, have replied upon them to-day. The noble Earl asks whether adequate provision of boats and lifebelts is made in transports conveying British troops to or from Great Britain. I may say, in regard to boats, that as far as possible boats are provided to accommodate everybody on board the transports, but I cannot say that it has been possible in every case to come up to that standard.
952
It would not be right that I should give any details of the number of transports that were despatched early in the war to the Eastern Mediterranean, but I may say that the number was very large, and that it was impossible to have obtained sufficient boats at that time in order to provide room for everybody on board if some accident had occurred by which the ship became totally lost. Indeed, some of those transports were so constructed that I think it would have been impossible to have had so many boats as would have been required to hold every one on board. But I may say, having stated the case frankly, that the Admiralty has had made life-rafts in large quantities which are being taken upon transports and which will greatly add to the chances of safety if any accident occurs.
I now come to lifebelts. Lifebelts are in every case, I am told, provided for every one on board. It is suggested that sometimes these lifebelts are tampered with and rendered ineffective. Possibly it is the case that the tapes have sometimes been cut off them during a voyage, but every time that the ships come home they are completely overhauled; and I am informed that they are never sent out without every lifebelt being perfectly ready for use in case of emergency. The noble Earl further asked whether rules existed for the purpose of seeing that adequate provision is made. I may say that rules do exist which embody the Board of Trade regulations in regard to this matter. Those rules are issued to the shipping companies, and are open to inspection by any one specially interested in the matter who has a right to see them.
Lastly the noble Earl asks what measures are taken, by inspection or otherwise, to see that the rules are properly observed. On that point I can assure him that every ship is formally inspected before it leaves port as to its fitness for sea, and particularly as to whether the life-saving regulations in force at the time are complied with. More than that, these transports are not only inspected before they leave port but the preparations made on board are carried out under the immediate supervision of the Admiralty the whole time. Therefore they are not only inspected, but are supervised during the time they are being prepared for sea.
House adjourned at ten minutes past Six o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.