HL Deb 31 July 1917 vol 26 cc93-108

LORD GAINFORD rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are able to make any statement in regard to agreements relating to prisoners of war concluded between the British and German delegates who recently met at The Hague.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, members of your Lordships' House will have read with a great deal of satisfaction the statement made in another place on Friday last in regard to the improved prospect for many of the British prisoners of war who are now in Germany, and I think that your Lordships will feel that the labours of Lord Newton have already met with considerable success, and that the gratitude of the country at large, of the next-of-kin, and, above all, of the prisoners themselves, will go out to him. I believe that they would like and appreciate an expression of gratitude going forth from your Lordships' House, not only to Lord Newton himself, but to Sir Robert Younger and to Sir Herbert Belfield, who accompanied the noble Lord to The Hague, for the success that has attended their efforts. In connection, however, with any arrangement made by the present Government in Germany, it was difficult to accept that arrangement without some feelings of reserve; but I trust that in such a humane concern as this, relating both to German prisoners in this country and to British prisoners in Germany, we shall not be disappointed, and that the German Government will carry out, not only in the letter but in the spirit, the arrangements recently entered into at The Hague.

I should like to ask the noble Lord a few questions with regard to the provisions which have been already announced. The first provision mentioned in another place was that "all existing agreements for direct repatriation shall be resumed." What exactly are those arrangements? I have in mind the arrangement which was entered into at the beginning of the year and which undertook to allow an exchange, or repatriation, of the civilian prisoners in the Ruhleben Camp who were over military age. Some 500 to 600 individuals have been, I believe, very much disappointed, and have been waiting for a safe sea transport to this country. I understand that this arrangement is one of those referred to. I would ask the noble. Lord whether there is any other arrangement that he has in his mind in connection with the first provision. I should also like to ask whether the German Government have undertaken to give a safe sea transport from one country to the other to the prisoners who will be returned to their own countries.

The next question is. What are the exact arrangements to which reference is made in the second provision? That provision alludes to arrangements already in force between France and Germany in connection with qualifications on medical grounds both for repatriation and internment in a neutral country. I ask this question because I have not in my possession—and I do not suppose any of your Lordships have—information as to exactly what those arrangements are. Then I should like the noble Lord to tell us, if he can, how many prisoners he anticipates will be repatriated from Switzerland, how many will remain in Switzerland after these arrangements are carried out, and how many will remain in Holland? Further, can the noble Lord inform the House, with regard to the 7,500 for whom places are to be found by the Dutch in Holland, whether each country will receive a moiety of the prisoners of its country, or whether the 7,500 will be divided into different proportions between German prisoners and British prisoners?

Then with regard to the 6,500 who are going to be interned in Holland and who have been undergoing prolonged imprisonment in German camps, I should like to inquire why the provision has been made for the benefit only of commissioned and non-commissioned officers to the exclusion of the men. It seems to me that it would be fairer between man and man if the rankers could be included in this arrangement. There is no doubt that the men in the ranks and also those interned at Ruhleben are suffering from mental trouble as well as from other things, and they should receive the benefit of any arrangement made in the connection to which. I have referred. I have here a letter which I have received within the last few days in which a prisoner alludes to the length of time he has been in detention and to the great loss of mental condition which has been caused not only to himself but to his companions. However, as statements such as this have been so often read to your Lordships I will not now trouble you with another extract.

With regard to the last provision that was announced in another place, can the noble Lord explain exactly what that refers to? The last paragraph of the statement says— No future reprisals shall take place except on four weeks' notice, and the execution of all sentences for offences committed by combatants or civilians between the date of capture and August 1 shall stand over till the conclusion of peace.

I do not understand whether it is anticipated that when the conclusion of peace arrives all those sentences will be commuted, or whether it is suggested that they shall be carried out subsequently. What is the reason for including sentences of that nature in the arrangements which have been arrived at?

I have only two other questions to ask the noble Lord. They refer to the distribution of parcels to prisoners. I recently sat with other members of your Lordships' House upon a Joint Committee dealing with this matter of parcels, and in one paragraph of our Report we say— Besides these delays in transit, there is evidence that in some camps the German authorities have adopted the practice of distributing the parcels at long intervals instead of immediately on their arrival; while the distribution of the prisoners into working parties, at a distance from ' the parent camp,' a practice which had much increased in the last winter, has also contributed to delay.

Parcels are going out regularly to prisoners abroad; three parcels go every fortnight. Therefore if the parcels are not distributed to the various camps the fault lies with the authorities appointed to carry out this function, and cannot lie at the door of people in this country. Can the noble Lord inform the House whether arrangements have been entered into which will enable parcels to be distributed on a much better system? It has been suggested that one of the reasons for delay in this connection has been the censoring of the parcels; but now that the regulations are so complete with regard to the prohibition of forbidden articles, it seems to me that a modification of the existing censoring arrangements in Germany might be possible. I feel sure that such a course would contribute very much to the more regular delivery of parcels to the various camps in Germany.

My last question to the noble Lord is whether means have been secured for more prompt intimation of the names of prisoners and the places to which they have been sent on capture. In the Report of the Joint Committee this paragraph on the organisation of parcels occurs— There seems to be no regular system for securing the early record of the arrival of new prisoners in the various prisoners' camps. The first information usually comes from the prisoners' letters to their own relatives or regimental authorities…The regular regimentallists which are issued by the War Office every three or four months are usually too late to be of much use. The average time taken…to get into touch with a new prisoner of war is about two months. As parcels in bulk, which used to be sent to the prisoners' camps to tide over this interval, have now been stopped, it is increasingly important that early information should be obtained of any new captures.

I trust that the noble Lord will be able to inform the House that steps have been taken to secure a more rapid intimation of the capture of prisoners and of the places to which they have been taken. The prisoners who are now captured have to undergo two months imprisonment on rations which, in my judgment, are not fit for human diet, and which are most repulsive to those called upon to subsist upon them until their addresses are known, when decent food can be sent to them.

THE ASSISTANT UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD NEWTON)

My Lords, a White Paper is about to be presented, and a statement has been made already in another place with regard to the agreements; but I shall be happy, if the House wishes, to give a summary of the agreements arrived at. If the noble Lord opposite will follow what I say when giving this information, I think he will find that all his queries will be answered, more or less to his satisfaction.

In the first place, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, all existing agreements are to be resumed as quickly as possible, and the present disgraceful state of things—discreditable to both Governments—will, I hope, shortly come to an end. The noble Lord asked me to what these agreements with regard to exchanges referred. They are roughly three—the exchange of civilians over the age of forty-five; the exchange of invalid civilians; and the exchange of totally incapacitated combatants. I trust that those exchanges will be resumed without any delay.

In the next place an agreement was arrived at with regard to more lenient schedules of disabilities with regard not only to exchange but to internment in a neutral country, and pending the conclusion of these more lenient schedules the schedules adopted between the French and the German Governments will be utilised for the purpose. Additional prisoners are to be sent to Switzerland; but as the number of prisoners that Switzerland can accommodate is necessarily limited, it is obvious that provision must be made for the new arrivals by repatriating a certain number of men from Switzerland. Therefore I hope that without delay steps will be taken by our representatives to bring back to this country all the men who are entitled under any agreement whatsoever to be repatriated. The number of places available in Switzerland is not large, and, as I have explained, accommodation will have to be provided largely by the repatriation of men already there. I am unable to give to the noble Lord the exact figures as regards the number of men who will be accommodated in Switzerland; but I think it would be unsafe to count upon more than a few hundred.

Other agreements arrived at related to punishments. One question which has occupied a good deal of the attention of both Governments has been the punishments awarded to prisoners for attempting to escape, and it was eventually agreed that these punishments should be very much diminished. For an ordinary attempt to escape it was decided that the punishment should be only two weeks, and in aggravated cases that it should not exceed two months. Further, as it was the case that reprisals had been exercised upon British prisoners of war on the alleged ground that excessive punishments had been awarded to German prisoners in this country for attempting to escape, the German delegates undertook to release at once all British prisoners confined under this particular provision, and we have reason to believe that this has been carried out.

It was further agreed—and this is a point on which the noble Lord asked for information—that all punishments inflicted upon either civilian or military prisoners prior to August 1—that is, to-morrow—should be remitted until the conclusion of the war. I venture to think that this is an extremely valuable agreement, and one which will give very great satisfaction to this country, because many British officers and men have been awarded extremely heavy sentences, and these men will now be liberated. I announced the other day that orders to liberate such German prisoners in this country had been given already. I refrained from mentioning the exact date because there was the possibility that if prisoners realised that their punishments were to end on August 1 they might in the meanwhile take the opportunity to commit fresh offences. However, there is now no danger in mentioning the date.

Other agreements had reference to reprisals, and upon this point, both parties were agreed that reprisals ought to be avoided as much as possible. The opinion, in fact, was expressed that reprisals were perhaps more objectionable in the case of defenceless prisoners than in any other; and eventually it was agreed that reprisals should take place only after at least four weeks' notice, that notice to date from the period when the Note was handed in either at Berlin or at London. It was further agreed that in cases of great urgency or importance a personal meeting should be arranged at The Hague, if necessary.

Further agreements related to the question of parcels. On this point both military administrations have undertaken to ensure the speedy delivery of parcels. The British delegates having formulated many complaints with regard to failure to distribute parcels and to the great amount of delay that had occurred, it was explained by General Friedrich, the principal German delegate, that much of the delay arose from the necessity of extremely strict censoring. It was stated by the German delegates that in many parcels sent to prisoners of war—not necessarily British—were found what are known as instruments of sabotage, and it was represented to us that in consequence of this practice it was necessary to exercise a strict censorship, and this censorship naturally caused considerable delay. In order to obviate this in future both Governments have agreed to issue in their own Press and in the foreign Press a notice deprecating any such practice, and as soon as the form of words is agreed upon by both Governments the German Government have undertaken that the censorship shall be largely relaxed. I may say in this connection that our form of words has been already despatched.

Another complaint raised by the British delegates was in regard to the delay which frequently occurs in Germany in bringing prisoners to trial. Having listened to our complaints, the German delegates assured us that such a practice was irregular and contrary to the German custom; and they added that whenever the German Government were made acquainted with any case of which we had reason to complain, steps would be taken at once to prevent a recurrence in the future.

Other complaints made by the British delegates had reference to a point raised by the noble Lord in his speech—namely, the delay in notifying capture. We pointed out, as the noble Lord has done this afternoon, that there had frequently been great delay in notifying capture, that in fact sometimes no notification had arrived at all. Upon this point both parties agreed that all captures should be notified with the least possible delay, and that every prisoner should be provided with the means of communicating at once with his relatives. Our own conscience with regard to that particular matter is fairly clear. In view of the assurances given to us both verbally and in writing by the German delegates it may be hoped that there will be considerable improvement in this respect, more especially as it was pointed out to us by the Germans that such practice was quite contrary to German principles. I need not go through the list of the other agreements. There were minor agreements relating to the treatment of youthful prisoners, and to the exchange of ministers of religion and of civilian doctors. All these are set forth in the White Paper to which I have already alluded.

But perhaps the most important agreement at which we arrived was that relating to the internment in Holland of a large number of prisoners, both military and civil. The Netherlands Government shortly after we met were good enough to make an offer to us which was gratefully accepted by the delegates on both sides. As noble Lords are no doubt aware, the Netherlands Government offered to place 16,000 places at the disposal of the two Governments. Of these places 7,500 are to be allotted to invalid combatants, 6,500 to officers and non-commissioned officers who have been in captivity for eighteen months, and 2,000 to civilian invalids, of whom 1,600 will be German and 400 British.

It is obvious that this agreement will be fastened upon at once by hostile critics, who will ask why private soldiers have not been included, and also why there is such a greater proportion of German than British civilians. I think the answer to these criticisms is a complete one. We asked that privates should be included among the men who were to be interned in a neutral country in virtue of having been in captivity for eighteen months. But it was obvious that there was not much chance of the request being complied with, for two reasons. In the first place, it would have been practically impossible to include all the privates who would have been eligible under this particular provision. Had they all been included it would have been very difficult to make a selection, and there would have been no room for anybody else. But the real reason why it was impossible to include privates in this particular arrangement was that it was clear that the Germans did not intend to part with any one out of whom they could get any work. As every one knows, officers and non-commissioned officers cannot be set to work, but the men can. It therefore very soon became perfectly plain that there was no chance of including men in this particular agreement. At the same time I should like to point out most emphatically that it is grossly unfair to attempt to make out that the private soldier has been excepted altogether. Nearly all the 7,500 combatants for whom places are provided will in all probability be privates, and, in addition, privates will be exchanged under the agreements already prevailing.

With regard to the disproportion in connection with civilians, I should like to point out this. At first sight it seems unfair that 1,600 Germans and only 400 British should be accommodated. But taking the proportion of the civilian prisoners of the two countries this arrangement really works out in our favour, because there are something like six or seven times as many German civilians in this country as there are British civilians in Germany. Consequently the proportion of four to one is, from the numerical point of view, by no means an unfavourable one. There is the further provision that, whereas it might be difficult to discover 400 British civilians who are sufficiently ill to come within the agreement, it has been expressly stipulated that if that number could not be found the number should be made up to 400 by taking those whose health has been less severely affected.

I fully expect that before long—in fact, the flood has begun already—I shall be inundated with thousands of letters from people who have relatives imprisoned in Germany, asking me to ensure their transmission to Holland, to Switzerland, or back to this country. I should like to take this opportunity of warning everybody concerned that I have practically no voice in the matter of selection. The choice will not depend upon me or upon my Department, but upon selections made by neutral and by German doctors. And, although I do not wish to appear unduly depressing, I should like further to remind the public that these arrangements cannot be made at once, and that it is useless to expect that prisoners are going to arrive by return of post, so to speak, or by the next available train. But I can assure the House that I am doing everything I can to expedite the arrangements.

LORD GAINFORD

Have the Netherlands Government indicated when the accommodation for the 16,000 will be provided?

LORD NEWTON

The Netherlands Government have already begun to make preparations with a view to receiving the men, and some weeks ago they sent an officer of high rank to Switzerland in order to study the arrangements made there. Having made these elaborate agreements upon paper, the question remained, How were they to be carried out? For a long time this seemed to present an insoluble problem, because, for reasons best known to themselves, the Germans were bent upon utilising Southwold as the place of exchange. A more unsuitable place in every respect could not well be devised. On our part we endeavoured, but without success, to persuade the German delegates that the exchange ought to take place at a port on the Thames. I should like to add that, Southwold being pronounced by us to be impossible, and the Thames having been pronounced by the Germans to be impossible, I referred the matter to the Admiralty and received an offer of Holyhead as an alternative—not an ideal place in the circumstances, because I imagine it would take something like a month to get there. It proved impossible to arrive at an agreement on this point, and we left The Hague without its being settled. However, as soon as I arrived in London the first thing I did was to approach Sir Edward Carson, and I am only too happy to say that he met me at once in a most accommodating spirit and arranged that Hull should be the port of exchange. Hull, in some respects, is as convenient a place as could possibly be chosen—in fact, I think that even German ingenuity will be insufficient to discover why that particular port should not be made use of.

That is practically all I have to say with regard to the actual agreements, and anything that I have left unsaid will appear in the White Paper. But I do not think it would be fitting for me to fail to take this opportunity of expressing the obligation which I am sure everybody feels towards the Dutch Government for their great services to humanity in making the offer to which I have alluded. This offer would have been valuable at any time, but it is doubly valuable at a time when the economic resources of all European countries are diminishing rapidly. At the same time a great deal of gratitude is due to the Netherlands Government for the extremely efficient manner with which they facilitated and promoted our meeting, and also for the tact and skill shown by the Dutch Minister who presided over our deliberations, whose duties were, to put it mildly, of a somewhat delicate and difficult description.

There is one other point upon which I wish to touch before I sit down. I observed that when the announcement was made that British delegates were going to proceed to The Hague to discuss prisoner questions with German delegates, there was raised at once in the Press and elsewhere a howl of indignation, and certain people whose imagination is probably stronger than their common sense did not scruple to say that it was the greatest outrage that had yet been perpetrated in the war. They were evidently possessed with the idea that when the British delegates arrived at The Hague they would be seized with a kind of sentimental frenzy and would, figuratively and literally, fall upon the necks of the German delegates and thereby seriously prejudice the whole course of the war. I need hardly say that these fears, to put it mildly, were not justified, and there never was the least danger of their materialising. The demeanour of the German delegates was unexceptionable and, to use a familiar French term, extremely correct. There was nothing in the nature of fraternisation. The discussions were very full, perhaps all the fuller because, contrary to the usual practice, and being able to understand each other, we used our own language in preference to using that of a neutral power.

And not only were the discussions very full, but I think I can say that they were also extremely frank. It is interesting to note, as an instance of this frankness, that the chief German delegate, General Friedrich, admitted quite candidly that the treatment of German prisoners in this country was distinctly superior to what it was in any other country; and I would like to draw attention to the fact, which I think will be evident to any one who reads the White Paper, that practically no complaints at all were made against the British treatment of prisoners. One impression which I certainly derived from my intercourse with these delegates—and I rather think that my colleagues also derived this impression—was that, in spite of all that we hear about German powers of centralisation, the central German prisoners authorities did not know a great deal of what went on. That impression more or less confirms what used to be said to me by the late American Ambassador at Berlin, Mr. Gerard, with whom I was in frequent communication. He always gave me to understand that there was much less centralisation in Germany than was generally supposed, and that the control at Berlin over prisoners of war administration was nothing like so effective as the control of prisoners administration in this country. At all events, I have a very strong suspicion in my own mind that there is a great deal going on in various German camps of which the central Berlin administration knows very little. And upon the whole that is not very surprising when you remember that the Germans have something like thirty times as many prisoners as we have in this country. If I am not mistaken, something like one person in thirty-five in Germany is a prisoner; therefore it would be a surprising thing if the central administration really did know everything that went on.

My noble friend opposite was kind enough to pay me some compliments upon the part which I have taken in these proceedings. If the results obtained are satisfactory, then the credit must be shared by all the members of the British Mission; and that credit, again, must be subdivided between the male and the female elements of the British Mission. The only credit I can claim is that, contrary to the opinion of nearly everybody with whom I came into contact, contrary to the opinion both of my superiors and of my subordinates, my friends and everybody else, I have always maintained that the most practical and efficacious plan is to enter into direct communication with the enemy, because I hold very strongly that you can do more in a few hours conversation than in the course of months of writing. As an instance in point, I need only state that whereas we arrived at these important agreements within something like a week, it has taken a month to secure from Berlin their ratification. The results at which we have arrived, and the agreements themselves, are not of a sensational nature, and they are nothing to boast about. What I think I may fairly claim is that neither side has obtained any advantage over the other. The only persons who have benefited are the prisoners themselves; and I think I can safely say that even the most carping and embittered critics will be bound to admit that the result of this Conference certainly has been to alleviate the lot of many thousands of gallant and unfortunate men who deserve well of their country.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

My Lords, the noble Lord who asked the Question to-night expressed in admirable terms something of what we all feel with regard to the action taken during, not months, but years past, by the noble Lord who has just spoken. As one who was among his rather troublesome questioners during that period, I should like to join my tribute of gratitude to what has already been expressed—a gratitude which I am certain will be felt not only by the members of this House but throughout the country. The noble Lord's courtesy in this House and his acceptableness always as a speaker are proverbial, and he finds it easy to deal with problems because of his understanding of this House and our understanding of him. But I am certain that there are very few men who would have exceeded, and few perhaps who would have equalled, the characteristics of patience and perseverance shown by the noble Lord in the face of all kinds of difficulties.

The difficulties have been of a most trying and depressing sort to any man of fine feeling. The constant discovery that applications were being met, not by a retort which could be easily dealt with, but by silence; the interminable delays; and sometimes, it seems to me, the obstructiveness which has been shown by our enemies in this matter—the patience and perseverance with which these situations have been dealt with have been characteristic of the whole conduct of the noble Lord throughout these negotiations. I am afraid he has also had to endure not a little from the apparently inevitable though rather inexplicable complexities and difficulties owing to the fact of different Departments being concerned at home.

But through all these difficulties the noble Lord has steered with characteristic power, and has now reached what is, I hope, a fairly satisfactory result. The task he has undertaken could not be called a thankless one, because whenever any measure of success is attained there is probably no task which elicits such warm thanks from a large portion of the population. But it has been an irritating and trying task. Yet the noble Lord has gone forward, without putting us off with sanguine platitudes but telling us plainly what the facts were, until at last he is able to tell us something with regard to the consummation of his labours; and I am sure that the House and the country are genuinely grateful to him for what he has been able to do.

I should also like to join in the expression of our gratitude to the Dutch authorities for the part they have taken in this matter. I imagine that without their help the completion of this task would have been extraordinarily difficult. We are, of course, still without the White Paper. We do not know exactly what has happened. But from the statement that has been made to us to-night we can hardly doubt that the result is a fairly satisfactory one so far as the circumstances permit; and the measure of satisfaction and of excellence which the arrangement has attained is in no small measure due to the noble Lord, to whom we give our thanks.

LORD SOUTHWARK

My Lords, I feel a delicacy in rising to address your Lordships after the observations of his Grace and those of my noble friend Lord Gainford congratulating Lord Newton on the great success of his labours. I feel this delicacy because I have from time to time put questions to him. But I want to impress upon the noble Lord the desirability of getting more of the civilians at Ruhleben interned in neutral countries. My noble friend has no doubt used his best endeavours in the splendid arrangements that have been made to get this accomplished; but I would ask him to bear in mind that there are many young men also suffering in health, and, in addition, that there are many who have not suffered already but who will probably suffer in health later on unless they get some relief from the terrible life they must be living in Ruhleben. It is, perhaps, unnecessary for me to say it, but I do not think it ought to be left unsaid that we desire some accommodation to be found in countries besides Holland for the exchange of those who are now suffering imprisonment at Ruhleben. I hope my noble friend will not think that I am in any way criticising what he has done, because, like all other noble Lords in this House and people outside who have taken an interest in this matter, I feel personally grateful to him.

LORD NEWTON

There is one thing that I forgot to mention. I can assure my noble friend behind me (Lord Southwark) that when I was at The Hague I did my utmost to persuade the German delegates to agree to an exchange of civilians on equal terms, limited to whatever number or proportion they cared to adopt. I regret to say that I was quite unsuccessful in this endeavour. I was always met with the reply that the exchange could be only what is known as an "all for all" exchange, and I was prevented by my instructions from making any bargain of that kind. However, I can assure my noble friend that the question is not being forgotten, and when he sees the White Paper he will observe a declaration on that particular point.

House adjourned at a quarter past six o'clock, till to-morrow, a quarter past four o'clock.