Lords Sitting of 14 May 1918

SCARISBRICK ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
CALTHORPE ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Road 2a.
WANDSWORTH, WIMBLEDON, AND EPSOM DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

JURIES BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD FINLAY): My Lords I beg to present a Bill to limit the right to a jury in certain civil cases, to raise the age for jury service, and to enable Coroners' inquests in certain cases to he held without a jury; and I ask your Lordships to read the Bill a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  THE WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.
  THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House whether he is able to give us any information about the course of business during the present week; also when it is proposed to adjourn for Whitsuntide, and for how long.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I will answer both of the questions which have been put to me by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition. It is in contemplation to ask your Lordships to adjourn from Thursday next, May 16, until Tuesday, May 28, the day on which the other House of Parliament reassembles. I am not certain, however, unless other events supervene, that there will be any business of importance to come to us at that date from another place; and therefore I think it not at all
  1054
  unlikely, when the House reassembles on May 28, that it may be in my power, if your Lordships approve, to move a further adjournment for a week or some short space of time.
  In the interval between now and Thursday I hope to persuade your Lordships to give your assent to the passage of two Bills, both of which are in charge of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal. The first of these is the Post Office (No. 2) Bill. It is a measure dealing with smite of the changes that have been brought about in the Post Office in relation to the financial proposals of tile Government, told it is extremely desirable on financial grounds that it should receive the Royal Assent before Parliament separates—for the reason that if the Bill be not passed within that period, a very considerable burden will be imposed on the Exchequer. My noble friend will therefore ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to that Bill to-morrow (Wednesday); and there being, so far as I can anticipate, no Amendments he will ask your Lordships to suspend Standing Order No. XXXIX on the following day in order to allow the Bill to be taken through its remaining stages.
  The second Bill to which I have referred is also a matter of some urgency. It is the Defence of the Realm (Food Profits) Bill. That measure received a Second Reading at your Lordships' hands on Thursday last. It had been contemplated to take the Committee stage to-day, but the Order Paper shows that there are one or two Amendments down—Government Amendments—dealing, I believe, with matters of procedure, and inasmuch as I am reluctant at any time to ask your Lordships to discuss Amendments in Committee which you have only seen for an hour or two, or perhaps but a few minutes, before you come into the House, I prefer to put off the Committee stage of that Bill until to-morrow. In the event of your Lordships agreeing to this procedure I would ask that the suspension of the Standing Order should be applicable to that Bill also, so that it may pass through all its remaining stages before the adjournment of the House.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As I understand it, the suspension of the standing Order would apply only to the Report stage and Third Reading on

  1055
  Thursday. There is no reason, I take it, why these Bills should be passed before Thursday
  EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: There is no absolute reason, of course, except the delay that may be caused in the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament. I do not suppose it matters, unless your Lordships have points of importance and criticism to raise, whether you pass the Bills on Wednesday or Thursday. On Thursday there is the question of the time of the meeting of this House; a Bill amended here has to go back to another place; and a Royal Commission has to be taken later in the day. While the noble Marquess is a great stickler for procedure, there is no benefit in making any point about procedure unless something is to be gained by it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understand that your Lordships will be asked to meet not only on Wednesday but also on Thursday, and there is ample time to deal with these Bills on Thursday. The noble Earl speaks as though it were an unprecedented matter that we should deal with a Bill on a particular day and pass it through its final stages, and that the Royal Assent should be given to it on the same evening. That has been done over and over again.
  EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Yes; but if a Bill is amended in Committee in this House it has to go back to the other House; a sitting has to take place, and unless there is any advantage to be gained—
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The House of Commons will be sitting on Thursday.
  EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I do not know at what hour, but I think we should try to suit the convenience, as far as we can, of both Houses; and unless some advantage can be gained I would suggest that your Lordships should pass the Bill—the Defence of the Realm (Food Profits) Bill—through its various stages to-morrow.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I regret to appear to be unyielding, but as I have watched the perpetual infractions on your Lordships' procedure under the
  1056
  leadership of the noble Earl I am rather reluctant to agree to his proposal. I hope that we shall be able to meet him in some way, but he must not be surprised if tomorrow we cannot see eye to eye with him on this point. There is no question, my Lords, of postponing these Bills until after the Whitsuntide recess. They ought to have been brought to your Lordships' House earlier, and we should have been given ample time for discussion. As usual they have been brought here late, and there is the customary hurry and want of business-like capacity shown in the way business is managed. But let that pass. We have these two days, and there appears to be no reason why we should not use them. The matter is not one of great importance. I do not suppose there is much to be said on either Bill, but if there is no good reason why we should not discuss them properly on Wednesday and Thursday I think we ought to do so.
  EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: If the noble Marquess is so anxious to set to work at once, why does he not take the Amendments in Committee now? It is solely out of regard to your Lordships' House—
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There has been no notice given.
  EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Yes, the Amendments are in print and have been circulated, and the Bill is down for Committee this afternoon. If the noble Marquess is so anxious to do business in a businesslike way, my noble friend is quite prepared to proceed with the Committee stage to-day.
  LORD BUCKMASTER: Might I suggest to the noble Marquess that it would be well to consider the relative times at which the two Houses sit. It is not unusual for the other House, on the last day before adjourning for a recess, to meet at 12 o'clock, and it would be extremely inconvenient if this House sat at the usual hour and sent a Bill down for further consideration, perhaps after the proceedings of the other House had concluded. I place that before the noble Marquess for his consideration,. as I know he does not wish to create any unnecessary inconvenience between the two Houses, and perhaps unnecessary inconvenience would take place if the course proposed by the noble Earl were not adopted.

POST OFFICE (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 1) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

DEFENCE OF THE REALM (FOOD PROFITS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order).
[The EARL OF KINTORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Forfeiture of excess profits from overcharging for food.
1. Where a person has, after the passing of this Act, sold any goods at a price in excess of that allowed by or under any order made by the Food Controller in pursuance of the powers conferred on him by the Defence of the Realm Regulations, that person in addition to any other penalty to which he may be liable, shall forfeit to His Majesty a sum equal to double the amount of such excess, and in any proceedings taken to recover such amount the court, if satisfied that there has been a breach of the order, may order an account to be taken in like manner as if the sum recoverable under this provision had been money had and received for the account of His Majesty.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD)THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD) moved to omit from Clause 1 the words "in any proceedings taken to recover such amount the court, if satisfied that there has been a breach of the order, may order an account to be taken in like manner as if the sum recoverable under this provision had been money had and received for the account of His Majesty," and. to substitute the words in his Amendment. The noble Earl said: This Amendment is purely a technical one, and deals with the method of procedure. Your Lordships will remember that the main object of the Bill is to copy the method adopted in the case of persons who offend against the Customs and Excise Acts—that is to say, the statutory penalty imposed upon the offender is twice or three times the amount of the money of which he has defrauded the Revenue. The Amendment which I now submit provides that where a large number of offences have occurred—as unfortunately is only too common, because it sometimes happens that the same offence is committed 100,
1058
200, and 300 times—what is called an account shall be taken by which the amount charged in excess of the stated price is assessed under the authority of the Court. The second part of the Amendment also is purely technical. The language, I understand, has been carefully chosen by the Scottish Law Officers, and makes the Bill applicable in all respects to Scotland. I beg, therefore, to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 11, leave out from ("and") to end of line 16, and insert ("that sum shall be recoverable as a debt due to the Crown.
"(2) In any proceedings in England or Ireland under this Act against any person in respect of any such sale as aforesaid, the court, if satisfied that there has been a breach by him of any order so made by the Food Controller, may order an account to be taken with respect to that sale and with respect to any other sales by that person of any goods to which any such order applies, and may upon such account being taken direct the payment of double the amount of the excess thereby appearing to have been realised on the sales.
"(3) In any proceedings in Scotland under this Act against any person in respect of any such sale as aforesaid, the court, if satisfied that there has been a breach by him of any order so made by the Food Controller, may proceed in like manner as if such proceedings were an action of count reckoning and payment concluding for production of an account of the aforesaid sale, and of any other sales by that person of any goods to which any such order applies, and for payment of double the amount of the excess thereby appearing to have been realised on the sales").—(The Earl of Crawford.)
LORD PARMOOR: I should like to ask one question of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. I have only just seen this Amendment. It appears to me to be technical, except in this sense. Is there any difference as to the area over which the account is to be taken, or is it the same in both?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The Amendment does not change the area in the least, I understand.
LORD PARMOOR: As the noble Earl says that, I raise no objection; but it is difficult at the moment to follow it on the Paper.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

HOME FOR NEURASTHENIC PENSIONERS.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD rose to ask His Majesty's Government why it is proposed to close the Home of Recovery for Neurasthenic Pensioners at Golder's Green, seeing that the monthly reports show that a very large proportion of the patients treated there are discharged fit for work, and considering the large amount of money which has been expended to fit it for its present purpose; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I hesitate to trouble any member of His Majesty's Government with a question in these times, but the decision of the Minister of Pensions to close the Golder's Green Hospital for the Recovery of Neurasthenic Pensioners has come as such a bombshell to the medical profession and to all of us who are interested in the cure of these neurasthenics, that I cannot help asking whether there is an adequate reason for this decision. The Golder's Green Hospital for the Recovery of Neurasthenics is one of the most successful hospitals—if not the most successful—in the whole of our country. The sum of £11,000 has been spent upon it by the Red Cross, who had no notice whatever from the Minister of Pensions of his intention to close it, except what they had seen in the public Press. It is absolutely and perfectly equipped for its work. It has a large gymnasium, perfect electrical apparatus, and workshops of every sort, and has every facility for training men to return to civil life again after having learned a trade. The Minister of Pensions himself admits that the hospital's work is satisfactory. I should think that it was satisfactory. In the last seven months—these figures are almost unbelievable, but they are true—of 189 patients 183 have been returned fit to work, and are in work to-day. One would have thought that the record of such a hospital as that would have resulted in its being encouraged and commended for its work. On the contrary, it is to be scrapped.
When two of the best-known neurologists in the world, who are on the Committee appointed by the War. Office to deal with neurasthenic cases, went to the Minister of Pensions and asked why this hospital was to be scrapped, the answer was that it was in the raid area, and that it was to be closed for that reason and was to be
1060
used for paraplegics! For those who do not meet as many medical men as I do, perhaps I may explain that a paraplegic is a man who is paralysed in consequence of injury during the war. I speak with experience—I happen to be connected with four hospitals for officers who are suffering from shell shock and who are neurasthenic —when I say that they are not distressed by air raids. A very small minority of them are disturbed by the noise of the guns, and I think that it is rather a helpful thing that we are able to sit up with these men and explain to them that there is no reason for fear, and help them to regain their courage and calm in such a time. It is really quite surprising how few of them are in any way adversely affected by an air raid. But if there is one class of patient who ought not to be in what is called an air raid area, surely it is the paraplegic. The man who is suffering from neurasthenia can at any rate get out of bed and go to a place of safety, but the poor paraplegic is a man who cannot move. In one of our important hospitals the neurasthenic patients are making a dug-out so that they can shelter on the occasion of the next air raid, and they are very much amused with the job and are looking forward to the next raid. What can the paraplegic do? Of all people these persons are those who should be removed as far as possible from the influence and disturbance of air raids. So that that reason, at any rate—and it is the only one that we have had—is quite as silly as it is insufficient for the closing of this successful hospital.
To-day in the newspapers we are given other reasons for closing this hospital, and I will deal with them all. The Minister of Pensions says that 50 per cent. of the pensioners to whom Golder's Green Hospital is offered decline to go there. He says that there are a large number of beds available there and not in use, and he says he is going to start another institution in the country where these cases can be sent at some distance from London. Those reasons are perfectly astounding.
I will deal with the last one first—namely, that the patients are going to be sent to a hospital at some distance from London. There is a very limited number of men in the country who have studied neurasthenic conditions. You can almost count them on the fingers of your two hands. It is quite impossible for these men to attend to patients if they are sent to hospitals at

1061
some distance from London. In dealing with them these doctors have to sit by the patients sometimes for half an hour, sometimes for an hour, before they can have any effect upon them, and it is impossible for a doctor to go all the way down to Maidenhead, or some other place to which this hospital is going to be removed, and give the time to deal properly with the patients. Therefore that reason—the removal to some distance from London—is one which will really result in these patients not getting the best medical attendance that is available for them in the country. It is quite impossible for an ordinary doctor to attend a neurasthenic patient. He has not had the experience. He has never made the subject a special study, and it is only those men who have who can properly deal with these cases.
The next reason is that 50 per cent. of the pensioners who are offered Golder's Green have refused to go there. But it depends very much on how a man is asked. If you say to a poor fellow whose nerves are wrecked, "Would you like to go where there is likely to be an air raid, or would you like to live by the beautiful river Thames?" of course you get the answer you want. And that is exactly the sort of way—I am exaggerating for picturesque reasons—in which these men may be asked.
We cannot be surprised that these poor men dislike the idea of going to any other hospital. They have been handed about from Army hospital to Army hospital; they have been treated and misunderstood by doctors who have never studied these diseases; they have been thought to be malingerers; they have been laughed at by fellow patients—I am speaking from actual experience—and it is quite likely that, if you ask a neurasthenic patient whether he would like to go to his home and live upon a pension, or go to yet another hospital, he would say that he very much preferred to go home and enjoy his pension there. But are you going to frame your policy upon the decisions of men who are admittedly, I will not say weak-minded, but not quite normal; or ought you to frame your policy upon the admitted success of the hospital treatment?
Then the Minister says that he has a large number of beds available and not in use. I do not like to use a strong word, but that is absolutely untrue. At Golder's Green there are 100 beds, and 92 of those beds have been in constant and actual use
1062
every day for the last seven months. When the Minister says that he has a lot of beds there available and not in use, can he mean really that they are adding forty beds to the 100, and that these are not equipped yet, and that these are the beds that are not in use? Can such a quibble as that be thought to be a sufficient answer? And yet that is the answer given in the newspapers to-day—that a lot of beds available are not in use. It is untrue. The decision has been come to, we are told, upon the advice of the medical adviser of the Ministry of Pensions, Sir John Collie. But I would ask the Government, before this drastic step is taken, to find out whether the board of which Sir John Collie is the head are unanimous, because I am informed that they are not at all unanimous.
I do not want to say anything offensive, so I had better sit down. I can only add this, that if the Lord Privy Seal, whose courtesy and fairness everybody knows, would appoint an expert Committee to look into this matter we should all be content. More than that, if he would constitute himself the judge whether this hospital should be closed or not, he could in one day hear the reasons on both sides, and we should not have the slightest fear as to the decision.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I confess I feel some embarrassment in replying to my noble friend, because during his speech I have looked through the answer which I am about to give, and I observe that every statement I propose to make has been contradicted in anticipation by himself. I can only inform him of the view taken of this matter by the Pensions Department. The Minister of Pensions has decided, upon the recommendation of his medical officers, that the presence of a hospital for the treatment of shell shock and neurasthenia within the zone of antiaircraft gun fire is undesirable. Whether the medical advisers or the board of this hospital were unanimous or not I do not know, but I think it would be, perhaps, imprudent to decide off-hand that no change may be made unless there is unanimity; otherwise, it is quite possible, as your Lordships will all admit, that one single medical man night exercise his veto upon the policy advocated by a great majority.
Accommodation in a rural district admirably suited for the treatment of this

1063
class of case has been procured at some distance from London, near Maidenhead. In making these arrangement the Minister has followed the practice of the War Office, which, upon the advice of its Committee of experts, has recommended a similar course. The president of the special medical board which alone decides the suitability of patients for these institutions has reported that a large number of these men refuse to enter Golder's Green because of the not unnatural anxiety to escape from conditions which too often vividly bring before them the memory of the circumstances under which their trouble originated. Lord Knutsford advocated a decidedly homeopathic policy with regard to these patients. I would remind him that all these men are discharged soldiers, and therefore completely free to enter or refuse to enter any hospital to which they are invited by the Minister of Pensions. If they were soldiers, no doubt discipline could insist upon their going to this hospital or that, hut, as they are all civilians again, the matter is entirely within the discretion of the neurasthenic patient himself.
The total number of this class of case for which the Ministry of Pensions has now to provide has greatly diminished owing to the more efficient method of treatment adopted by the military authorities in France. The number it is anticipated will in the near future be still further diminished by the recent action of the War Office in establishing, as it is now doing, from six to eight similar institutions in the country with provision for some 3,000 to 4,000. The Minister of Pensions is making provision for between 500 and 600 beds throughout the country apart from the Home at Golder's Green. At present there are 216 beds occupied in the institutions already established, which is less than 40 per cent. of the bed accommodation which will be available in the country for this class of case before the patients at Golder's Green are transferred to the country. The Home of Recovery at Golder's Green has, or will have in a few days time, accommodation for 140 beds. Owing partly to the fact that pensioned soldiers refused to enter the institution on account of air raids, only 50 per cent. of those considered suitable for treatment availed themselves of it when offered. The result is that a large number of the beds available are not in use. An institution has been provided in the country in favourable surroundings which will amply accom
1064
modate a number of cases for which provision has hitherto been made at Golder's Green.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: My Lords, I have only to say, in reply, that if the number of patients is diminishing so fast, is it not almost incredible that the Minister of Pensions should think it necessary to open more homes for neurasthenics all over the country? Why, if they are diminishing so quickly, should he not leave this successful Golder's Green institution alone and not open another at Maidenhead? I am sorry that I did not catch the argument which was put forward with a sweet smile about the beds not being available, but the Minister of Pensions cannot say that there are beds at Golder's Green which he cannot use when he is using ninety-two out of 100. It is true that very soon there will be another forty, but on the day of his saying that he has a large number of beds there not in use he is actually occupying ninety-two beds out of 100.

PRISONERS OF WAR.
LORD BURNHAM LORD BURNHAM rose to ask the Controller of the Department of Prisoners of War whether any, and if so what, steps have been taken for the exchange of noncommissioned officers and men of the British Armies captured in 1914 and 1915; and, if not, what are the intentions of His Majesty's Government having regard to what has been done for officer prisoners of war.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have placed this Question on the Paper well knowing the difficulties which beset and perplex the matter and well knowing also that any decision must be in the nature of a balance of the evils and disadvantages; and if I put it to my noble friend opposite, it is not because I wish in any way to belittle or to disparage the efforts that have been made to relieve these men from the utter darkness of a misery as great as humanity has ever been called upon to endure. I would point out, however, to your Lordships that things cannot be left where they are in face of the Agreement which it was officially announced from Berne had been made between the German and French Governments for the free exchange of all prisoners who had been for over eighteen months in confinement. And there is something more than that. For humanity's sake it is impossible to leave

1065
things where they are, having regard to the future discipline and morale of our Army, and to the social peace and contentment of the State after the war.
The men whom this Question covers are the dying and tortured remnants of the Old Expeditionary Force—the rear parties, most of them, of the rearguards of those regiments which we know saved France and saved Europe. They are the men who the Prime Minister in the other House said most eloquently had "centered in their own breasts the spears of the hosts of the barbarians." They were mostly men captured because they were meant to be sacrificed—it was inevitable that they should have been —in the onward rush of the German Armies. Well, we know what their fate has been, and I think that of all that Germany has done the worst and most shameful thing has been the official and systematic ill-treatment of these helpless prisoners. It is much worse than the use of poison gas, because, although that was denounced as "the unforgivable sin," after all it was certain that it would provoke retaliation, as it has, of a more deadly kind than the original. But in this case it was known there could be no retaliation. It was common knowledge throughout the world that in this country, whatever our failings—and they are many—we should never stoop to that organised cruelty which has characterised the treatment of our men taken prisoner behind the lines, in the concentration camps, and, worst of all, on commando and forced labour in the mines and factories. It is true, of course, that there are some people who take the view that we ought not to dwell on these things. I had the misfortune to read a speech by Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, in which he said that we ought not to allow ourselves to roll in the filth of atrocities. That was a pleasant and disinterested view on the part of one who has kept clear of any share in the war, but it is not the view which I am certain your Lordships, with all that your houses have suffered, are likely to take.
I am bound to say that I complain, and I do so with all respect to the Government, that we have not had enough official information on this subject. I do not mean to say that this is done purposely, but it gives an impression and an appearance of callousness in official quarters which, though it may not be justified, may have very bad effects. It would be a piteous thing if the remnants of our Army come
1066
back—those who have not been decimated by starvation and disease—debilitated as they will be in health and character, to bear witness for years to come of the ingratitude of their fellow-countrymen. There has been the appearance of keeping this vile state of things out of the light, not dwelling upon it, for Departmental reasons. I think the time has come when these things should be considered in the full light. I wish we had more upon which to go than the unofficial statements made in newspapers or conveyed to us by letter. It is true that we have the two Reports of Mr. Justice Younger's Committee, one dealing with the filth and foulness of the typhus camp at Wittenberg, and the other dealing—as your Lordships have read recently—with the lot of prisoners on their way to camps, and forced with frightful barbarity to work immediately behind the lines, and not registered or reported to the authorities. I think that the country owes a great debt of gratitude to Mr. Justice Younger for the manner in which he and his Committee have investigated and reported upon these methods.
I am not going to trouble your Lordships with a re-hash of the atrocities revealed by those Reports, and they are not strictly pertinent to the Question I have put down; but there is a great deal of unofficial information coming through which shows that these men who have been so vilely treated, and who have almost lost heart now, have had their fate aggravated, comprehensively but not in the least designedly, by the arrangements mutually made for the internment of officers in neutral countries who were in other camps but who shared to some extent the same extremes of hardship. In August last, as the House knows, my noble friend made an arrangement for the internment—I think owing to the generosity of Holland—of, I believe, 8,000 officers and non-commissioned officers on both sides. That arrangement has been carried out. There has been also the internment in Switzerland of officers, noncommissioned officers, and men who have been in the last stage of ill-health. But in regard to the internment of those who did not come in that category of extreme disability of health there was no arrangement that extended to the private soldier.
For the internment in Holland I know it was impossible to make arrangements on a big scale, because none of the neutral countries could have found accommodation for the large numbers of men they would

1067
have been asked to receive within their gates, having regard to their straitened means and supplies, but the effect must have been in some respects deplorable, because although the officers were not in the same camps many non-commissioned officers were, and when they left for internment the private soldiers, to whom they must have been a moral support, as well as to some extent a sort of championship, were left to be ill-treated and subjected to the intolerable bullying of the Prussian sergeants and other men who made a business of rendering their lives a misery.
The editor of the Pall Mall Gazette reported, a few nights ago, a letter which he had received, written on March 21 last, describing the condition of British prisoners in Germany. It said—
"The men at Chemnitz are having a terrible time; in fact, they say the treatment is as bad as in 1914. The men in parent camps are all right, but it's those on commando who suffer so terribly. At Chemnitz they are working 900 feet underground. If they refuse they are knocked senseless, and taken down to where they recover consciousness; they are made to work till their piece of work is done, and starved until it is finished. Unless something is done to release these 1914 prisoners from Germany soon I fear very few will return to the old country."
I saw in yesterday's paper a statement from two privates who had just arrived, not belonging to that category, I dare say, but who narrated circumstances which show the sort of treatment which is still being meted out. They are two privates in the Canadian Scottish, and they say—
"The treatment which the Germans meted out to their captives was devilish. We were sent to a noted strafe camp at Grissen, where we were put into a small room which had no windows and no means of ventilation, and the door was always kept shut. The atmosphere became terrible. While there we were fed on bread and water, and only small quantities of that. Many of the parcels from home were withheld for five weeks, and then, instead of handing them to us, a German officer opened each parcel and dumped the contents into a big tub. The result was that everything was spoiled. It was a source of great amusement to the Huns."
That is the sort of treatment which is going on; and these men, who I say are on commando from concentration camps, and who include all those still able to move and work among the heroes of the Old Army, are the men who are suffering most. These men are almost ruined in mind as well as in body. What will they become if nothing is done to bring them back to this country, even at the sacrifice of what is called military considerations?
The facts that I have stated are borne out by a letter which I had from a person in the county of Dorset, who says—
"I am receiving numerous letters from both N.C.O.'s and privates, protesting against the fact that only N.C.O.'s are exchanged, which both they and privates join in saying is a cruel injustice, in view of the fact that the privates have infinitely more to suffer. The N.C.O.'s do no work, while we all know the terrible slavery our unfortunate men endure, accompanied with most brutal treatment. One private writes 'We are aghast at this decision, and can see no reason for it.' Their complaints are bitter. All are men of the Old Army, prisoners from the early days of the war."
If nothing had been done by our Allies to remedy this appalling tragedy the official answer that it was impossible to move might avail, but it is not the case that the Allies are acting together. Your Lordships may have seen in the official announcement in The Times of May 3, from Berne, a statement that arrangements have been made between the French and German Governments that this class are to be repatriated head for head and rank for rank. It says—
"Non-commissioned officers and men of over eighteen months captivity are to be repatriated head for head and rank for rank, according to the length of their captivity. It is calculated that the exchange of the prisoners of 1914 will take fifteen months."
Then there are various provisions with which I will not trouble your Lordships because you will have read them. It seems to me that this arrangement has had very scant notice in this country, and I cannot understand why no official reference has been made to it in either House of Parliament. It means that the French Government have already met the urgent demands of their own people. I hope the same thing will be done here. If not, I think that the charge of official callousness as to the fate of these men will be to some extent justified.
I cannot see why there should be a greater difficulty in regard to this country than in regard to France. Of course, I know that the military view may not be favourable. It may be averse to returning to Germany non-commissioned officers and men who certainly will not be worse in health for their captivity here. We know with what scrupulous care their interests have been safeguarded in the prison camps in England. I am not saying that it should not be so, because there is nothing I should hate more than that we should be guilty of this horrible, bestial cruelty, such as is

1069
reported on commando and behind the lines right up to this day from Germany. I cannot believe that your Lordships will be insensible to the sufferings of these men. I do not see any right rev. Prelates on that [the Episcopal] Bench. In all our old prayer-books we recollect the service for prisoners and captives. No special service has been instituted, but at least we can do something to give effect to the prayer for those taken by the barbarian. We can do something through my noble friend, if he isinspired and encouraged by your Lordships to press for the same treatment for our own heroes as the French have already secured in the case of their own men.
Countless numbers are now arrayed in battle. It may be impossible to enforce any such condition as that released prisoners of war shall not be used as combatants in the fighting lines, but I think that in such an awful condition of things we must run the risk. In this spirit I have put down the Question, and I will not proceed beyond it, although I have been asked to do so and to refer to civilian prisoners, because Lord Devonport is raising that matter, and it is a separate issue, to-morrow. I therefore content myself with asking my noble friend the Question which stands in my name, and I feel assured that we shall get from him a sympathetic reply.
LORD FORESTER: My Lords, I rise to say a few words in support of what my noble friend has just said, having before addressed your Lordships' House on this subject. I entirely agree with what my noble friend has said. I have seen two or three officers who have escaped from Germany lately, and they have informed me that the officers over there who have not been wounded or ill in any way have banded themselves in a body and refused to be exchanged because the men are not allowed to be exchanged. I think that speaks most highly for the officers of our Old Army, and it is just the thing which we would expect them to do.
I can vouch for the truth of the stories which my noble friend has told you, and I could tell you a great many more a good deal worse. I do not wish to take up your Lordships' time in doing that, but I venture to suggest that the Germans are acting in this way for a definite purpose, that purpose being to set class against class in this country after the war. They allow officers and non-commissioned officers to be ex
1070
changed, yet they will not allow men to be exchanged. They imagine that by so doing the men will think that we in this country have not done anything to help them to get back, although we have helped the officers and non-commissioned officers. I earnestly trust that the noble Lord who is in charge of the Prisoners of War Control Department will do his utmost to try to get some of these heroes who fought for us in 1914 and 1915 accorded the same treatment as is accorded to their officers.
Before I sit down I would ask the noble Lord if he can do anything to make a strong representation about a definite case that I can give him. It is the case of an officer who is due for internment in Holland according to the arrangement that he himself was able to make with the Germans a short time ago. This officer was brought up on a charge of assault.
LORD NEWTON: What is his name?
LORD FORESTER: I will give his name in private, if I may. Perhaps it would not—
LORD NEWTON: I cannot reply unless I know his name.
LORD FORESTER: I will give it to you afterwards. It might do him harm to give it publicly. Apparently the clause of the Agreement says that every officer who has completed eighteen months in captivity, whether under punishment or not, shall, provided there is sufficient accommodation, be interned in Holland. The Germans interpret this clause as meaning that the officer must actually be in prison undergoing sentence before becoming eligible for internment in Holland, and, therefore, it is in their interests to postpone the sentence as long as they can—for several months in the present case, during which time the officer is either kept in solitary confinement under precisely the same conditions as he has after receiving his sentence, or, at the best, allowed to live as a prisoner in the Lager. This officer has endured imprisonment under these conditions for the best part of a year. They kept him there so as not to allow him to be available for exchange to Holland, and then, when there was no room for him in Holland, they gave him his sentence of nine months solitary confinement. Not one of the months that he served in solitary confinement before he was brought up for Court-Martial counted towards these nine months. I am informed

1071
that if the noble Lord would make strong representations about that case the sentence would very probably be reduced to two or three months solitary confinement, instead of the officer having to serve the whole term of nine months.
THE ASSISTANT UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down will, I hope, forgive me if I point out that the question he has just put to me has a very remote connection with that which appears on the Paper. If he will give me the name of the Officer to whom he refers I shall be only too pleased to inquire into the case. I think it extremely probable that the case has already been taken up by my Department. With regard to the Question on the Paper I do not think that anybody is likely to dissent from the opinions which were expressed by Lord Burnham with regard to the treatment of British prisoners in Germany generally, but I confess that I take strong exception to the expression which he used—namely, "official callousness"—as applied to the action of His Majesty's Government in regard to prisoners of war generally.
LORD BURNHAM: I said I hoped that that could not be substantiated.
LORD NEWTON: I hope the noble Lord does not include me—
LORD BURNHAM: I specially said so.
LORD NEWTON: Because I desire to take this opportunity of repeating what I have often said before, that the action of His Majesty's Government will bear most favourable comparison as regards prisoners with that of any other Government.
With reference to the Question on the Paper, I can well understand that there should be much ill-feeling on the subject on the part of those unfortunate men who have hitherto not benefited by the arrangements that have been made. These men obviously have the strongest possible grievance. They rightly complain that they who have been worse treated than anybody else have been unfortunately excluded, and that their more fortunate companions in the shape of officers and non-commissioned officers have been provided for. I should like to repeat most emphatically that this is not due to what the noble Lord calls "official callousness"
1072
on the part of His Majesty's Government. Imyself, in common with the other delegates who went to The Hague, have suffered a good deal from abuse of a somewhat ignorant character with regard to this particular point.
Let me explain the position. Up to now it has always been the policy of His Majesty's Government to refuse to exchange able-bodied combatants, and consequently when I went with other delegates to The Hague this question was ruled out altogether. The German Government, as the noble Lord and everybody else knows, looks upon a prisoner as literally nothing much more than a beast of burden. When it came to a question of interning these men in a neutral country the German Government naturally refused to do anything of the kind, because they would have lost the labour of these men. The question of exchange naturally is a totally different matter. If there is a question of exchange both sides benefit by recovering their own nationals for employment. Up to now it has always been the deliberate policy of His Majesty's Government to refuse to exchange able-bodied combatants, and the reason is plain enough. It has always been the view of the War Office, and of the Admiralty, and of the Cabinet so far as I know, that the more you exchange prisoners the more you prolong the war, and His Majesty's Government have always refused to adopt anything of this nature, because they considered that it would act as an incentive and encouragement to all the Allies to do the same. I am only announcing what is really an open secret when I point out that the obvious motive of this policy was to prevent the enormous exchanges taking place between the Russians and the Austrians and Germans which have taken place since Russia dropped out of the war. This policy was adopted consistently by the French Government until the other day, and it was therefore somewhat of a surprise to find that, as has been explained by my noble friend Lord Burnham, an Agreement of a very far-reaching character has been entered into, and has been ratified between the French and German Governments. I have not yet seen the text of this Agreement, but I have every reason to believe that it is of an extremely far-reaching character, and that the numbers involved, including civilians and military, amount to something like 330,000 men.
LORD BERESFORD: In France?
LORD NEWTON: No, on both sides. It is perfectly obvious that this completely alters the whole situation. I do not think it would be within the capacity of anybody, however ingenious, to persuade the British soldier that he is henceforth to stand in a totally different character from any other soldier who is fighting in this war; and after having consulted my noble friend the Secretary of State for War he authorises me to state that, in view of this totally new situation, His Majesty's Government are prepared to re-consider the question of exchange de novo. I should like to point out, although it is hardly necessary to do so, that a decision of this kind is not one which I. can take myself. It is a highly important matter which will have to be considered by the War Cabinet, and I have no means myself of anticipating what the decision of the War Cabinet may be.
But perhaps, without committing too great an indiscretion, I may be allowed to express my own personal opinion that the importance of exchanges may very well be over-estimated. It strikes me that under any reasonable proposals the numbers involved could not in any circumstances be very great, and I do not think the fact is sufficiently realised that, even if you arrive at agreement with regard to exchange, the actual operation takes so long a time that the eventful influence upon the war cannot be of much importance for a considerable time to come. My own view, therefore, is —for what it may be worth—that if, for instance, we were able to arrive at an agreement with the Germans for the exchange, say, of all combatants and all civilians who had been either in captivity or interned for a period of three years, not only should we put an end to the extreme hardships which these men have undergone, but it would not be a bad bargain from our own point of view, because the numbers would be approximately equal; and, as I have already pointed out, the actual operation of exchange would take so long that it would be hardly likely to have any very serious effect upon the war. These are, of course, only my own personal opinions, which may be of no value at all. This is, I repeat, a highly important question which must be considered by the War Cabinet, and I have not the smallest doubt that the War Cabinet will take everything into consideration, and will be guided solely by
1074
what they consider to be the real interests of the country.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I am sure that every one has heard with pleasure that there is some prospect of the Government reconsidering this question of exchange. I understand that the French and German Governments are proposing the exchange of those who have been in prison for a period of eighteen months. I think the noble Lord mentioned three years as the period for which they would have to be imprisoned before they would be exchanged, if an exchange took place between this country and Germany. It seems to me, if the French and Germans exchange all their prisoners who have been in prison for over eighteen months, that our prisoners ought to be exchanged if they have been in prison for eighteen months, and should not be retained in Germany for three years if it is possible to avoid it.
There is one other point I wish to touch upon. When I was a member of a Committee appointed to inquire into the distribution of parcels for prisoners of war we had a great deal of evidence from escaped prisoners, as well as from some of those who were subsequently exchanged, as to the character of the food received by men in the ranks who were working in Germany. At that time we had very definite information to show that the parcels, whilst they were received by those in the "parent camps," were not forwarded in many cases to those who were in the working camps, and consequently the men who were working in Germany, British subjects, were underfed and treated in the brutal manner described by Lord Burnham. Therefore these men are not really able-bodied men in the ordinary sense of the term. They have been underfed for many months, in some cases for year, brutally ill-treated; and whilst the exchange would be an unfair one from one point of view, yet on humanitarian grounds I am sure it ought to be done. It is unfair because we should return to Germany men who have been properly and decently treated in the prison camps here and in France, whilst we should receive in return men whose health in many cases has been destroyed and who have been subject to gross and brutal treatment at the hands of the Germans.
LORD BERESFORD: May I ask one question of the noble Lord? I brought

1075
before his notice the case of those prisoners who are working in mines, and he gave me to understand, as far as I remember, that he did not know how many there were. These men are those who are particularly subject to brutal treatment, because neutrals are not allowed to visit and inspect them. The Germans say it is against military interests. Can the noble Lord give us any information about these men?
LORD NEWTON: I am afraid it is impossible to give an answer as to the number of men who are working in mines at the present time. Generally speaking, as I said just now, the Germans utilise prisoners for getting as much work as they can out of them, and use the most brutal methods. The men who suffer most are undoubtedly those of whom my noble friend speaks, who are sent on these working commandoes, and who are frequently employed in mines, and whom the Netherlands Legation find it extremely difficult to visit. I can assure my noble friend that whenever we hear—and we constantly do hear—of cases of ill-treatment and suffering on the part of our prisoners, we invariably ask the Netherlands Government to visit these particular places, and in most instances they do their best to do so. These are the men who would benefit if an Exchange Agreement were arrived at, and they are the men who deserve to benefit. The other men who are in equally bad case are the men who have been detained behind the German lines in open defiance of the Agreement which we have made, and who are exposed not only to the brutality of their guards, but are also in many cases even exposed to the fire of their own men. The case of these men is, if such a thing were possible, even worse than that of those who are employed in the mines. There will be further information available on the subject before long, because we are shortly producing fresh Parliamentary Papers which deal with these particular points. In the meanwhile I am afraid that it is impossible to give the noble Lord the figures for which he asks. All I can say is that the Germans leave no roan idle if they can possibly help it. Every private is removed from the main camp if he is able to do any work at all, and is employed in some capacity, very often under the deplorable conditions which have been alluded to this afternoon.

NAVAL PRIZE.
The EARL of DESART The EARL of DESART rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are now in a position to state when it is proposed to introduce the Naval Prize Bill to which reference was made by the Additional Parliamentary Secretary of the Admiralty in this House on April 9.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I do not think, if I should venture in putting this Question to add some word that a Naval Prize Bill of some kind ought shortly to be produced, I can be said to be urging the Government to any very precipitate or hasty action. When I call your Lordships' attention to one or two dates, I think you will agree with me that there has been ample—shall I say a good deal more than ample?—time for His Majesty's Government, or for one of His Majesty's Governments in the course of the last three and a-half years, to decide upon the principles and the policy by which they are going to remunerate the officers and men of His Majesty's Naval Forces, and to have put forward in the shape of a Bill an expression of that policy.
As your Lordships are well aware, the old system of prize money created no difficulty as to the fund, because the people who took the grants that were made from time to time by the Crown were the people who captured the ship or the cargo, and when there was a grant of prize it operated only after condemnation. The captors brought the ship or the cargo into the Prize Court, and if they obtained its condemnation they secured the proceeds. This at the time of the beginning of the present war was governed by Proclamation of the year 1900 which generally was on the old lines; but on August 26, 1914, almost immediately after the outbreak of war, it was decided—and if I may have an opinion on the subject, I think properly decided—that the time had come when the distribution of rewards of this character to His Majesty's Naval Forces required alteration, that instead of being limited to the individual captors of naval prizes, payment should be spread over the whole Navy; and that in some way or another it should, in such proportions as might be settled, reach all those who serve on the sea or in connection with the sea during the war.
The Government cancelled by an Order in Council of August 28, 1914, the Proclamation of 1900, and put it in this way—

1077
"Whereas it is intended that, in lieu of the system of distribution of prize money described in the above Proclamation, there should be substituted, under regulations and conditions to be hereafter announced, a system of prize bounties or gratuities for more general distribution to the officers and men of His Majesty's Naval Forces."
On August 31, 1914, my noble friend Lord Camperdown called attention to the matter, and made some comments about one system being done away with and nothing having been brought forward to substitute it or to describe what the new system should be. Lord Wimborne, who at that time represented the Admiralty in this House, said that the matter was under consideration, that the old system had been done away with and a new one set up, and that the exact form which it would take would be announced in due course.
LORD BERESFORD: Was that in 1914?
THE EARL OF DESART: Yes; August 31, 1914. Of course, that answer was vague, but I do not think that those who heard it imagined that an announcement to be made "in due course" would result in complete silence for nearly four years. That is what has happened. Up to the present date there has been no communication of what the policy of the Government is to be in this matter, and no Prize Bill has been presented in either House of Parliament. On April 9 this year my noble and gallant friend Lord Beresford put a Question in this House which, dealing with a number of other matters, raised the whole subject of the manner in which the Naval Forces of His Majesty were to be remunerated for their services during this war. We did then for the first time in public get some information that a policy was contemplated and was in some stage of progress, because the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said—
"The noble Lord asked me when the Bill will be introduced. I cannot give him a date, but it is intended to introduce the Bill this session, and it will no doubt come before your Lordships at an early date."
I hope that it will, because I do not think that it is right that people who are serving us as the Navy are doing should be kept in suspense for a period of three years and nine months without knowing whether any source of remuneration is provided.
The old system which gave to a portion of the Navy a reward for their services
1078
in connection with prize is abolished and nothing whatever is substituted for it. There is, in fact, no Prize Fund. There are large sums of money, no doubt, in the Paymaster-General's keeping, credited. I suppose, to an account opened by the Prize Court, but there is no Prize Fund in a technical sense at all, and there is no indication of what is ultimately to become of the moneys that He with the Assistant Paymaster-General. There is no indication for the men who are serving as to what the terra "Naval Forces" will include. Does it include the mine-sweepers, the air force, and the adjuncts which have done so much splendid service for us? These men are serving without any idea of how they will be considered or what will be done for them at the end of the war. I think, therefore, that it is perfectly reasonable that we should from time to time urge His Majesty's Government to inform us in the form of a Bill what their intentions really are on this subject, and I hope it may be done shortly.
I should have stopped at this point but for some of the observations which Lord Lytton made on April 9 in the discussion that took place on the Question of my noble and gallant friend Lord Beresford. There were one or two things which he said then which have caused me a little anxiety as to what really is contemplated. He said, in answering as to the figures of the Fund that stands to the Assistant Paymaster-General, that the amounts there "would be of no value as a guide to the ultimate amount of the Prize Fund which will be available for distribution"; and on Lord Beresford asking, "Why not?" the noble Earl said—
"Because that Fund will contain a number of items which will not be available for distribution. It will contain droits of Admiralty, which will not go to the Prize Fund but to the Treasury."
I confess that this view of the matter gives me a good deal of uneasiness. Hitherto it is quite true—it is in accordance with precedent—that what are called droits of the Crown (that is, property captured at sea by His Majesty's Naval Forces) did go to the captors. Droits of Admiralty in old days went to a different fund from droits of the Crown—either to the Lord High Admiral or to the Crown in its office of Admiralty, and it ws not the practice to grant droits of Admiralty; droits of the Crown with condemnation were granted, but not droits of Admiralty.

1079
But in doing what is proposed to be clone under the Order in Council of 1914 the Government have changed the whole thing. Instead of a small portion of the Navy getting certain funds which they themselves have produced and which were there, you are now proposing to make payment to the whole of the Navy. Not only that, but the Navy must be very much larger than it ever was before, with all its auxiliary forces, and you may want, in order to give them any adequate remuneration a very large sum indeed. For there is one thing which the Government, the House of Lords, the House of Commons and everybody else, are agreed about—that is, that, whatever is given to the Navy, it must be adequate. Is the noble Earl at all satisfied that the droits of the Crown alone are likely to fulfil those conditions? There is no difficulty as to the division of the Fund for the purpose of granting, because they both now go to the Exchequer, and the Crown has absolute power to grant either one or the other. There has been no grant made, and the Crown is perfectly free to grant either the one or the other. So there is no technical reason why droits of Admiralty should not be available just as much as droits of the Crown. I do not put it higher than this, but I hope that until the Government know what the funds are they will not finally commit themselves by excluding droits of Admiralty from the possibility of forming a subject of grants if droits of the Crown prove to be insufficient. I think that is essential.
While I am on this point I want to suggest to the noble Earl that in this war we may have very great difficulty in distinguishing between the two. I have had to, and I have been interested as far as I could to follow the proceedings of the Prize Courts since the beginning of the war. I do not want to put it too high, but I am very doubtful whether it would be possible properly to distinguish between them and to say in particular condemnations which are droits of the Crown and which are droits of Admiralty. It is rather a technical argument, and not one that I ought to enter upon at length now. I only really put it as a caveat before you finally commit yourselves in the form of a Bill. It is a point that you ought to consider very carefully. I am not saying this lightly; it is a matter that I have considered very fully indeed.
1080
As to the question of detained ships, to which my noble friend referred, I do not see how that could really come under discussion at the present time, because what happens to them where they are available for any purpose depends on whether at the end of the war it is decided to abide by, or not to abide by, one Article of The Hague Conference, and that I should have thought could not possibly be decided at the present time. If that is followed, the produce of the cargoes will not be available at all. If it is available, it will be a very considerable addition to the Fund. I only hope that soon we may know what the policy of the Government is, and I want to urge that we should know it as soon as possible, because the delay has been very great.
I hope the noble Earl will not think that I am attacking this Government or any Government. Since 1914 there have been so many Governments and so many changes of personnel that I should find it difficult to know against whom the attack should be made. But I hope that something will be done, and I trust that in doing it the Government will have in mind that the Bill must be elastic enough to provide sufficiently for adequate remuneration for the Navy at the end of the war.
It has occurred to me sometimes that there is another and a very much simpler way in which the thing may be done—that is, that all produce of prize should be paid into the Exchequer, and that an adequate grant should be made by Parliament. That, of course, gets rid of all your difficulties. And if it is feared that Parliament might be niggardly—well, I should hardly have thought there was a foundation for that, because there is one thing in which everybody in or out of Parliament is agreed. Considering that we owe almost everything, that we owe our existence, to the Navy, in no place would there be any tendency to such niggardliness. But I am not advocating this course. The only advantage it would have is that it would get rid of any technical difficulty or of anything hide-bound in a Bill which might, when it came to be acted upon, turn out to be inadequate. Anyhow, for the moment I think I have not done an unreasonable thing by expressing the hope that my noble friend may be able to tell us approximately, at any rate, the date at which the proposed Bill will be introduced.
LORD BERESFORD: My Lords, we shall be very interested to know what is the Government's definition of "an early date." We were told that we were to get this Prize Bill in 1914. My noble friend Lord Lytton told us on April 9 also that we were to have the Bill "at an early date," and I hope he will be able to inform your Lordships to-day when the Bill will be introduced. Not only in the Royal Navy but in the Mercantile Marine, without whom we could not have arrived at this stage of the war, does this interest exist.
I should like to know whether the question of Admiralty droits is going to be dealt with in the Prize Bill. In the old days they went into the Exchequer, and my noble friend was not very clear about this point on the last occasion when he answered me. I imagine that the country will want the whole Navy and the whole Mercantile Marine, those who have been actually under shot and shell and who have risked their ships and their lives, to take advantage of the money which will be forthcoming from the Prize Bill. I think that my noble friend Lord Desart made a point that we should have a fund to go into the Exchequer. Anyway, that would get rid of a considerable amount of the money that is now paid to lawyers. The matter would be before the House of Commons, and the country would have an opportunity of saying how these people should be rewarded; and when the Bill is produced I hope it will definitely state who is to benefit. There is the question not only of the Mercantile Marine, of the patrols, and of the sweepers, but of the Royal Naval Air Service and the Royal Naval Division, both of which belonged to the Navy up to a certain date. All the different branches that have undertaken maritime warfare and who have acted with great resource and courage should be specifically designated in the Bill.
Another point. Will the Prize Bill deal with the vexed question of enemy goods, of ships' cargoes, or the value of their cargoes, being restored to the owners after the war? I cannot imagine that this country will ever allow any of these things to be restored to the Germans at the end of the war after the shocking brutality they have perpetrated on our Mercantile Marine. As I have said before, this is the first time in the history of the world that any nation has prostituted the chivalry of the sea, and the Germans ought to be punished for it. At
1082
any rate, as far as the National Sailors' and Firemen's Union are concerned, they are determined to punish the Germans for the brutality they have shown their class. I hope that the noble Earl will give us as much information as he can. I do not know whether he has seen the Bill, but if he would tell us what he can about the different points raised by my noble friend and myself it would go to satisfy to some extent the curiosity and the anxiety which are now being exhibited not only in the Navy but in the Mercantile. Marine among our brothers of the sea.
THE ADDITIONALPARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF LYTTON): My Lords, I can assure the noble Earl that I do not in any way resent the complaints he has made on the subject of delay. I think they are very reasonable and fully justified, although I believe he was not quite accurate when he said that no indication of any kind had been afforded as to the policy of His Majesty's Government with reference to the matter since the answer given by Lord Wimborne. I have not looked up the references, because I did riot know the noble Earl was going to raise the point, but if he will look back through the columns of Hansard he will find that answers were given in general terms certainly on one, if not on more than one, occasion by the Duke of Devonshire, when he was Civil Lord of the Admiralty, as to the contemplated policy of the Government. The noble Earl will find that the policy of the Government has been defined and has been stated in general terms to this extent, that I think it is now common knowledge that instead of the old system of distributing prize money to the individual members of the crew of a ship who were the actual captors of the prize, it has been decided that in this war all the prize money shall be pooled and distributed throughout the Navy upon a scale to be submitted to Parliament which will appear in the Naval Prize Bill.
THE EARL OF DESART: I think I said that.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: Yes. I want to emphasise that this is the policy, and that so far as our policy goes it has already been made clear. But it is perfectly true that no detailed information as to the scale of distribution and many other

1083
extremely important matters, some of which have been referred to to-day, has yet been disclosed. It has certainly been the wish of the Government that this Bill should be introduced at the earliest possible date. Delays have taken place which are very much to be regretted. They were caused by the necessity of consulting the Colonies and the time taken up in doing so, and I think I may be able to justify when the time comes some at any rate of the delay which has taken place. I admit, however, that there has been regrettable delay, and I trust that I shall be able to assure the noble Earl that the Bill will be introduced very soon.
I do not think that it would be desirable for me to anticipate now a discussion of details which must he the subject of debate when the Bill is before the House, especially as some of the points raised by the noble Earl are rather technical and I would like to be excused from dealing with them now. As reference has been made, however, to the answer I gave in this House on April 9, without arguing the matter I desire to make clear the point which I then made. I warned the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Beresford, that the figure I gave of £9,518,000 was not a sum which would of necessity be available for distribution as prize money. I told him that this amount included droits of Admiralty and droits of the Crown, and I reminded your Lordships that there was a distinction between these two funds. I intended to state also that the practice hitherto has always been for droits of the Crown to go to the Navy as prize money, and for droits of Admiralty to go to the Treasury. I think the noble Lord will admit that this is a correct statement of what has hitherto been the practice; and it is the intention of the Government that this distinction shall be retained. The matter, of course, is one which will be submitted to Parliament, and the ultimate decision will naturally rest with Parliament. I did not wish to do more on that occasion than to state that there was this distinction between the two; that they had always gone to different sources, and that therefore it must not be assumed that this £9,000,000 should be available as prize money.
Perhaps I should have more correctly stated, with regard to the detained ships, that I agree with the noble Earl that their ultimate destination is not decided, and I mention them therefore as being in a
1084
separate category. They belong neither to droits of Admiralty nor to droits of the Crown; and I might have said that they represent moneys which, according to the decision taken, would go neither to the one nor to the other. Again, on the subject of what persons shall be entitled to claim under the prize fund, that is also a matter which will be contained in the Bill—or, rather, I should say that the Bill will be accompanied by Regulations which will set forth in clearly-defined terms the precise definition of those who will be entitled to claim. I do not think that it would be desirable for me to anticipate the introduction of the Bill by saying more than this, but I can assure the noble and gallant Lord that the point will be made clear when the Bill is introduced.
In conclusion, in answer to the Question on the Paper, I would say that it is intended that the Naval Prize Bill shall be introduced into the House of Commons after Whitsuntide at the earliest date which can conveniently be arranged having regard to the business of that House. The actual date has not yet been fixed, but the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, who will be in charge of the Bill there, hopes to arrange a date with the officials as early as possible after Whitsuntide.
THE EARL OF DESART: With your Lordships' permission, may I say that I am not sure whether the noble Earl understood what I said about droits of Admiralty? I never questioned that he was following the old precedent with regard to prize money, but I suggested that as the whole system was being altered different considerations arose, and there was a possibility that droits of Admiralty might be dealt with differently from what was the case before.

DAYLIGHT SAVING.
LORD RATHCREEDAN LORD RATHCREEDAN rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the necessity for further economy in connection with heating and lighting, they will consider the advisability of adding another hour to the existing Daylight Saving Regulations during the months of June and July.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking the Question which stands in my name it seems to me unnecessary to do more than remind your Lordships that when the Day-

1085
light Saving Regulations were first introduced almost every argument both for and against them was placed before your Lordships. Consequently the only argument which I have to urge with reference to their extension is that these Regulations were introduced in the main owing to the necessity for economy, and therefore if it was necessary to introduce them then the position in which we find ourselves to-day makes it all the more necessary that we should extend them now, more especially on account of the dearth of labour, seeing that at the present moment we are about to draw very largely upon the civilian labour of the country in order to augment the number of men under arms. I would like to point out that not only is there increased difficulty in obtaining raw materials for heating and lighting, but there is great difficulty as regards transport by ship, by rail, and by road, and that an immense amount of auxiliary labour is required before the raw materials have been prepared for consumption. Taking these points into consideration, if it was necessary then to bring in the Daylight Saving Regulations, surely their extension for a very short time during the longest days of the year is all the more necessary at the present moment.
I do not minimise in the least the point which was urged by Lord Balfour of Burleigh that these Regulations cause great inconvenience to the farming community throughout Scotland and the North of England, but I would point out that to counterbalance this there would be great advantages and considerable gain to hundreds of thousands of small-holders, allotment-holders, and those who possess gardens of any kind, as compared with the thousands who would be, I frankly admit, inconvenienced as regards larger farming operations. If that be the case, the point for the Government to consider is whether the amount of economy which would result, coupled with the great saving of labour, is sufficient to warrant the extension of the Regulations.
There is only one other point which I desire to make, and it is this. I do not consider it incumbent upon me to trouble your Lordships with statistics to prove my case. I think that this should devolve upon the Government. The Government are in full possession of all figures and facts, because those figures and facts were before them when they introduced the
1086
Regulations. Therefore I consider that it is for the Government to show what amount of gain would be obtained and what amount of labour would be saved; and if they are able to show your Lordships that the amount of economy would be very small, and the amount of labour saved would be very small, then the suggestion made in my Question falls to the ground.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I think it can fairly be said that all the objections raised to the Daylight Saving Act of last year have fallen to the ground. I remember it was said that the cows would not give milk at an unaccustomed hour. As far as we can see, the cows have adapted themselves to the change. Then there was the more complicated question of the twins, which I think Lord Balfour of Burleigh propounded. That question has not arisen, and probably is not likely to arise. The question which now presents itself is whether we might not go a little further in the direction we went last year. I think we might do so, but it is just as well to weigh all the objections which may arise from longitude and latitude. As to longitude, England and Scotland are not much affected; but when you come to Ireland you find that Belfast in normal circumstances is twenty-four minutes before the sun, and that Kerry is forty minutes before the sun. If you add two hours in both cases I think very considerable inconvenience would arise. As regards latitude, of course the effect of taking another hour in London and the southern counties would be that people would have to go to bed before it was dark. That is the normal condition of things up in the North during the summer months, and I do not think any great hardship could arise. Half an hour would be better in many respects than a whole hour, but then you come to the difficulty of the complication of railway time tables, and therefore it seems to me it must be one hour or no further extension. The necessity for saving light is so very great that I hope the Government will consider this question, and I believe that the drawback which I have pointed out would not be very great, provided that Ireland could be excluded from the operation of the second hour.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, I quite appreciate the spirit in which my noble friend has asked this Question, but

1087
I am not certain, although he may think he would secure a greater measure of labour by the extra hour, whether he is quite clear in his mind that he would secure an equal amount of efficient labour by the process he suggests. My noble friend is no doubt aware that this whole subject was considered by a Departmental Committee, and in their Report this sentence is to be found—
"As to the extent of the variation from normal time, we have received only a very few suggestions for any departure from the plan adopted last year—viz., a variation of one hour throughout the whole period, which has the paramount advantage of complete simplicity. Any system of graded variations introduces an element of complication and would be bound, we think, to lead to inconvenience and confusion. We are also convinced that the adoption of a greater variation than one hour, over the period during which we have recommended that Summer Time should be operative, would be unsuitable for this country."
The question was again considered, as no doubt my noble friend recollects, this year when an inquiry was held by a Committee appointed in regard to the great importance of saving coal. The conclusion that this body arrived at was that the change itself would not result in substantial saving of artificial light or fuel.
Some of the disadvantages are that in present summer time hours the sun rises at 4.50 instead of 3.50, and sets at 9.4 instead of 8.4. That is to say, it is light till nearly if not quite ten o'clock at that date. That is just about the period which my noble friend mentioned in his Question. But by ten o'clock those who have to rise very early are probably in bed, and no material economy in lighting would be effected. Then a direct disadvantage was alluded to, I think, by my noble friend Lord Rathcreedan—or probably it was the noble Lord below the gangway—in regard to agriculture. I am sorry to say I am no authority whatever on agriculture, but I think it is generally held that the hours could not be altered again without very considerable difficulties arising. I may, perhaps, remind your Lordships that these difficulties were put forward by the agricultural community as a reason for not enforcing the change when it took place two years ago. Supposing you put the clock an hour earlier, one must remember that there is a good deal to be done in the early morning. Horses have to be fed, and in too many cases farm men, team men, may have to walk some considerable way to their work; so that there are excellent
1088
grounds for considering that in their case the proposal would not be convenient. As regards industrials, perhaps it may apply still more. Many whose vocations would compel them to get up very early, probably indeed before daylight, would have to go to bed when it was still light. There was a considerable amount of grumbling or dissatisfaction when the present system was brought about. It was said that it would be very difficult to get to sleep in the daylight. In fact, there seemed to be disadvantages both ways.
Then my noble friend referred to Ireland; he rightly says that the clock has been advanced there. I think he quoted Belfast. In Dublin the difference is twenty-five minutes and in the West of Ireland forty minutes. These differences are worthy of note, and if the suggested change were made they would be more considerable still, and I am advised they would cause considerable resentment. Again, in regard to the Armies now serving in France, considerable confusion and inconvenience would arise if our standard were to be made different from the French standard. In fact, all round it seems that the change—a double change it would be—would lead to confusion and inconvenience.
There is another question which I am sure many noble Lords will regard as a very serious one, and that is in regard to the children. I do not know whether the noble Lord remembers having seen one or two letters in The Times, of, I think, March 6 and April 30, in which the very grave disadvantages as regards children—as to their health, their rest, and also their education—were put forward. In addition to the experts, County Council Committees, and so forth, the children had their say as the letters showed which I have mentioned. In Cardiff in nine elementary schools they instituted a system of essays, which were produced by, I think, some 500 boys and 600 girls, on the question of this early rising or summer time. The boys characteristically were in favour of the increased time, because, while there was more time for work, there was also more time for games and out-of-door exercise. On the other hand, the little girls, aged from ten to thirteen years, were extremly solicitous as to the ease or difficulty of getting the small children to bed and so to sleep in proper time. A County Council—I think it was the London County Council—was so much impressed with the necessity of taking

1089
care of the children's health and also of seeing that the efforts of education should not be thrown away that they caused a very large number of leaflets to be circulated to parents pointing out that in the changed circumstances they ought to take the greatest possible care that their children got to bed in proper time; and if these were not effective it would be seen that, although you could not say the candle would be burnt at both ends—for there are no candles to burn at these hours—there would be very early rising and late going to bed because you cannot get the children in when it is still daylight. There would also be fatigue during the day resulting from an insufficiency of rest.
I may remind my noble friend —I think I am correct in saying this —that this Question was raised in the House of Commons, and that the Government did not see their way to agree to any modification of the existing system. Further, if the existing system is to be changed there will have to be legislation, which, no doubt, would give rise to a good deal of difference of opinion. Perhaps I may say, in conclusion, that the subject has been very carefully considered and re-considered, and I am sorry to say I am unable to meet the wish of my noble friend that it should be reopened again.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I am a very old and confirmed supporter of this scheme of daylight saving; indeed, I had adopted it in my own house in the country four years before it was adopted generally, in spite of the necessary difficulty and confusion of a partial system of that kind. I am sorry to hear the answer of the noble Viscount, although I confess I rather anticipated it. I think we hear a little too much about the confusion and difficulty. We had all that when the system was first introduced, and we heard it for quite a long time after it was taken up and introduced by the Government. Generally, I think in practice the confusions and difficulties largely disappear. We used to hear a great deal about the complete upset which would he caused by this changing of the clock, and how no one would know where he was. This year, so far as my own experience goes, hardly a single human being remarked on the fact that the clock had been changed. It changed automatically, and was accepted by every one
1090
of us the next day without any one noticing it.
What my noble friend has been pleading for has been an extension of one hour during June and July. I am not really in an expert position, like the Committees from which the noble Viscount quoted, to say how great a saving this might effect, but it does rather seem to me that in urban areas it would practically lead to an almost complete cessation of artificial light for all private purposes. If that were so, it seems to me that the considerable release of power in the form of gas and electricity for industrial and war purposes would be a saving worth effecting. Might I make a suggestion to the noble Viscount? He spoke at the end of his speech about further legislation being required if this were to be done. That, of course, would be the case, but. I think, if I remember aright, that the legislation under which we are now proceedings is an Act whose force expires this year. I think it was passed fur only two years, and that it comes to an end this year. Therefore, in any case it would be necessary either to legislate afresh or to include this measure in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Instead of doing that, as legislation has to be renewed anyhow, if the Government were to introduce a Bill and give an opportunity for this matter to be discussed and Amendments moved in either House, perhaps the general sense on the matter might be arrived at.
I am not quite sure, after all, whether this is altogether a matter for Departmental Committees or experts, anal I think it would be a good thing to have an opportunity of learning what actually is the strength of the agricultural case against this after two years experience. If the agricultural case be found to be a very strong one, that would, of course, be an important reason for no further disturbance. I ventured to prophesy, in speaking upon the Bill on its first introduction, when Lord Balfour of Burleigh opposed it from this Bench, that probably after a year or two years experience every one would be so much in favour of it that it would meet with no further opposition. If the Bill, instead of being continued, was re-introduced an opportunity for discussion would be afforded and an expression of opinion in both Houses obtained. If that were done, and ample time given to the passage of the Bill, I think the real sense of the community would be ascertained, and it

1091
might be discovered whether it would not be practicable to make the second change suggested by my noble friend. I doubt whether there are any real grounds of difficulty against it, and I believe there are reasons of saving in favour of it. How strong the force of these various reasons is can only be ascertained by representations from all those interested, and these could be very well ascertained in Parliament during the progress of a Bill.

PRIVATE BILLS, &c.
[From Minute, of May 8 and of Judicial Sitting on May 9.]

CALTHORPE ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that in pursuance of Standing Order No. 163A relating to Private Bills he had, on the requisition of the Chairman of Committees, appointed William Howard Winterbotham, Esquire, of the Royal Courts of Justice, Official Solicitor to the Supreme Court of Judicature, as guardian or protector of the infants, Richard Hamilton Anstruther-Gough-Calthorpe, Frances Jean Anstruther-Gough-Calthorpe, Barbara Anstruther - Gough - Calthorpe, William Fane Wrixon Becher, Muriel Mary Wrixon Becher, Aileen Wrixon
1092
Becher, Sheila Wrixon Becher, Rosemary Wrixon Becher, the Honourable William James, Viscount Fitz Harris, and the Honourable Elizabeth Harris, named in the Bill, to represent such infants before the Committee on the Bill.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a;to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
ST. OLAVE'S CHURCH, SOUTHWARK, BILL. [H.L.]
To be read 3a on Thursday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Reported without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

MILES DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Witnesses ordered to attend on the Second Reading of the Bill.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before seven o'clock.