Sitting of 27 April 1915

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Ammanford Urban District Council Bill,
Great Eastern Railway Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Methodist Church in Ireland Bill,
To be read the third time upon Tuesday next.
Bury and District Joint Water Board Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Dewsbury Corporation Bill,
As amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
Seaforth and Sefton Junction Railway Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Deaf and Dumb Poor Asylum Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Tramways Provisional Orders Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 to 1909, relating to Clifden and Enniscorthy." Presented by Mr. ROBERTSON; read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 61.]
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill.
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 to 1909, relating to Haworth Urban District, Irlam, Kingston-upon-Hull (Extension),
544
Knaresborough, Litherland, Normanton Urban District, Ryde (Amendment), Skipton, Stanley (Yorkshire), and Tenby." Presented by Mr. ROBERTSON; read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 62.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    PRISONERS OF WAR.

      TREATMENT OF BRITISH OFFICERS.
      Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any official information showing that British officers have been condemned to solitary confinement in fortresses in Germany; and, if so, whether he will solicit the assistance of the United States Ambassador to make it clear to the German Government that, while this country will not descend to retaliatory measures on German officers, the Kaiser and those responsible for the outrage will be held to strict account?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): The matters raised in the question of the hon. Member will be dealt with in the Debate which will take place to-day, and that will be the more convenient course.

      INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.
      Mr. TREVELYANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there are any other treaties existing between Great Britain and any other Power similar in general terms to the treaty ratified at Washington in November last between Great Britain and the United States of America agreeing to refer all disputes to a permanent International Commission?
      Sir E. GREY: The answer is in the negative.

      TUBERCULOSIS (SANATORIUM TREATMENT OF SOLDIERS).
      Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether provision will be made systematically for the sanatorium treatment of soldiers suffering from consumption or tuberculosis caused by hardships experienced on active service or developed as the result of wounds; whether he is aware that at present such provision is casual only and in some cases entirely wanting, and that offers of accommodation in consumption hospitals have been sometimes accepted and sometimes declined by the Medical Department of the War Office upon no apparent uniformity of principle; and who is responsible for this state of matters?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): I fully recognise the importance of this matter, to which careful attention has been given. The National Health Insurance Commissioners accept the responsibility to secure the provision of accommodation in sanatoria of all cases of tuberculosis occurring amongst insured soldiers. Instructions to this effect and as to the procedure to be followed have recently been issued to all commands. The best method of providing sanatorium treatment for tubercular soldiers who are not insured is not yet finally settled, but the War Office has taken up and has at its disposal beds in several sanatoria and full use has been made of these. Only one offer of a consumption hospital has been refused. This was because the War Office were advised that it was not suitable for military cases.

      ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
      Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if officers of the Special Reserve of the Royal Army Medical Corps are being treated differently from the rest of that corps as regards temporary promotion; and, if so, upon what grounds that difference is based?
      Mr. TENNANT: Temporary promotion is not given in the Regular Royal Army Medical Corps. In the Special Reserve Royal Army Medical Corps promotion is by time, but it is probable that some promotions otherwise than in respect of a period of service will be made.
      Colonel YATE: Will permanent promotions be given to captains in the Royal Army Medical Corps?
      Mr. TENNANT: I must ask for notice of that question.

      TERRITORIAL FORCE (POWER OF DISMISSAL).
      Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a commanding officer of a Territorial unit has, in addition to his other powers of punishment under Section 46 of the Army Act, the power of awarding dismissal; whether there, is in force any enactment or rule which prevents the exercise of the power of dismissal at the present time by Territorial commanding officers; and, if such prohibition is now operative, what enactment, order, or regulation it is that contains this prohibition?
      Mr. TENNANT: There is a power of awarding dismissal, but I am not aware that this has been restricted by any order or regulation.
      Mr. KING: The power to order dismissal still continues?
      Mr. TENNANT: That is so.

      INVALIDED SOLDIERS (FURLOUGH).
      Mr. KINGasked whether the Government will take adequate steps to secure that soldiers invalided home shall as soon as they have been passed ready for duty or light duty, after being in a hospital or convalescent home, have at least one week's furlough at their home before being sent to the front again?
      Mr. TENNANT: Furlough to invalided soldiers is a question which depends on the exigencies of the Service, and concerning which no definite promise can be given. Large numbers of men, however, have been granted furlough to their homes, especially in cases of recovery from serious ailments or wounds.

      BASINGSTOKE CLUBS.
      Mr. RENDALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that during the last six months the military authorities have commandeered the whole of the

      547
      clubs in Basingstoke, namely, the Mechanics' Institute, the Liberal club, and the Conservative club; whether, having regard to the many hundreds of men engaged in manufacturing munitions of war in that town, he will explain why industrial workers working long hours should be deprived of places of recreation except licensed premises; and whether the same course has been pursued in other towns where soldiers are billeted?
      Mr. TENNANT: The clubs mentioned were assigned for the use of the troops by the police authorities of Basingstoke when billets were asked for. I am informed that if complaint had been made earlier, it would have been possible to have moved the troops away to some other locality. The objections to the use of the clubs now raised are, however, stated to proceed from a few individuals only, and a removal of the troops, besides involving the expenditure of time and money, would apparently not be welcome to the inhabitants generally. Clubs have been similarly used elsewhere. Billets are, of course, paid for.

      "IRISH VOLUNTEER" NEWSPAPER.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the "Irish Volunteer" newspaper under its present editor has contained any breach of the Defence of the Realm Act; if not, will he say on what grounds its publication continues to be thwarted, first by seizing the machinery of its printer and now by delaying the editor's correspondence with its present printer forty-eight hours on a route traversed by other letters in three hours; why has the editor's public offer to allow his proofs to be read by a nominee of the Government before publication not been availed of; whether the registered letter addressed to the editor recently officially opened and reclosed in the post office contained any breach of the Defence of the Realm Act; and why the paper is not either dealt with openly if violating that Act or let alone if not violating that Act?
      Mr. TENNANT: Any action in regard to the "Irish Volunteer" is in pursuance of the Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act. The authorities must necessarily take from time to time such precautionary steps as seem to them to be called for.
      Mr. GINNELL: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question. Will he be good enough to answer it?
      Mr. TENNANT: I can only answer it in a general way in the terms of the answer which I have given to the hon. Gentleman. The fact is that the offices of the printer of this hews paper were raided because he had issued another newspaper, not this particular newspaper, which contravened the Regulations of the Defence of the Realm Act.
      Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer whether or not this paper has committed any breach of the Defence of the Realm Act?
      Mr. TENNANT: I never said that it had.
      Mr. GINNELL: Then it has not. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question on the Paper? Did the registered letter recently opened and reclosed in the War Office contain any matter in contravention of that Act?
      Mr. TENNANT: I do not think that I can answer that question.
      Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this paper will be prosecuted or brought to trial of some sort if it has violated the Act, or let alone if it has not?
      Mr. TENNANT: I shall certainly promise the right hon. Gentleman that the paper will be prosecuted if it violates the regulation.
      Mr. GINNELL: Will it be let alone if it has not violated it?
      Mr. TENNANT: Yes. If it does not do so it will be let alone.
      Mr. GINNELL: Then why is it not let alone?

  MUNITIONS.

    WORKMEN'S BADGES.
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether in connection with the issue of badges to men engaged in the manufacture of munitions of war he will give an exact definition as to what is included in the term munitions of war; and whether their issue is extended to firms other than the armament firms?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. H. Baker): The main classes of material comprised in the term munitions of war are guns, small arms and their respective natures of ammunition, swords, lances, aeroplanes and military motors. The issue of badges is limited to firms supplying this equipment.
    Mr. TERRELL: Is it not equally important to give badges to men who are engaged in all classes of War Office work?
    Mr. BAKER: I think that the ground on which the position has been taken is that it is necessary to make a distinctive badge for certain classes.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Under-Secretary for War if he is aware that many men formerly employed in the electrical services of the Metropolis have joined His Majesty's forces; that others are desiring to join and, owing to the technical and expert training required, their places cannot readily be filled, and there is some risk of the power stations, the output of which is largely used for Government purposes, becoming insufficiently manned; that representations have been made, at the instance of the general officer commanding the London district, of the importance of preserving the efficiency of electric and power services of the Metropolis, but that in the absence of some public service or other badge authorised by the Government, which cannot be forged, to protect the men from reproach for not enlisting, it is difficult to persuade them to remain; is he aware that proposals submitted by the Association of Municipal and Electrical Engineers of Greater London have not resulted in any satisfactory solution of the difficulty; and will he consider the question of either authorising the issue of an officially recognised public works badge, or of enlisting the men employed in approved public utility services in a special volunteer body authorised to wear uniform, as in the case of the Civil Service Corps?
    Mr. TENNANT: Recruiting officers have instructions not to enlist skilled employés of electrical services without the sanction of their employers. I am not informed that several electric supply companies, which have applied for War Office badges, have been offered such badges for issue to men of recruitable age who would be willing to enlist if called upon in the event of emergency, or of their ceasing to be urgently required in their present employment.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Are these official badges what I call War Office badges?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes; they have been offered these badges.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Official badges?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how this gift of badges differs from the badges which the last hon. Gentleman referred to as given to those engaged upon munitions of war?
    Mr. TENNANT: The badges to which my hon. Friend referred are badges exempting the wearer from all war service, inasmuch as he is helping to produce munitions of war. The badges to which I refer would not in all cases exempt a man from such military service, and in the event of emergency arising he would be called upon to serve, unless he were urgently required in his present employment.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Are two classes of badges issued, and to whom is application to be made for those badges?
    Mr. TENNANT: When the hon. Gentleman says there are two classes of badges, that is not so. This has been offered, and has not been accepted. We are prepared to issue it. Applications should be made to the Secretary to the War Office.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Is it a condition of the issue of badge that the man who receives it shall give an undertaking to join the Colours if called upon to do so?
    Mr. TENNANT: That is so.

    DOMINION SKILLED LABOUR.
    Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Committee to accelerate the production of munitions of war have or will take steps to ascertain what skilled labour is obtainable from any of our Colonies or from the United States of America to make up the shortage in the armament firms; and whether the Government will give men who express their willingness to come over free return tickets for the purpose?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Acland): I have been asked to answer on behalf of my right hon. Friend. His Majesty's Government are

    551
    in communication with Dominion Governments on the subject of the importation of suitable labour from the Dominions to assist in the production of munitions of war. If the result of these communications is to discover a supply of such labour, suitable arrangements will be made as to transport.
    Sir RICHARD COOPER: Is it not the fact that there is a great deal of machinery in those countries which cannot be brought over, and, in the circumstances, would it not be wise to employ the men in their proper countries?
    Mr. ACLAND: I think that, where labour is employed on machinery in those countries, there would be no question whatever of displacing them. We are anxious to get as great supplies from the Dominions as we can.
    Sir R. COOPER: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that in some of the Dominions and in the United Slates there is machinery which is not now employed on munitions of war, and which could be employed if the hon. Gentleman requires goods from those countries?
    Mr. ACLAND: I am aware that vast contracts are being carried out in the Dominions and elsewhere, but if the hon. Gentleman can give me any information which he thinks useful, I shall be very glad to receive it.

    GUARANTEES TO ARMAMENT FIRMS.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will say on what date a Government guarantee was first publicly made that armaments firms would be compensated for all losses on capital expenditure connected with extension of plants; whether the guarantee also applied to conversion of plant; and in what way was it publicly made?
    Mr. ACLAND: I am not aware that any general guarantee has been given, but the discretion which has been given by Treasury Minute to the War Office and Admiralty to make Grants and loans for extension of plant in connection with contracts has no doubt in many cases enabled them to secure contractors against any danger of loss in respect of such extensions.

  COMMISSIONS FROM RANKS.
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked the Under-Secretary for War if he will state how many commissions have been granted from the ranks since the commencement of the War; and what number of these have been granted to men who were serving previous to the outbreak of War?
  Mr. TENNANT: There have been 1,676 commissions granted from the ranks since mobilisation, and in each case the recipient was serving before the War began. I cannot say how many commissions have been given to those who joined the ranks "for the period of the War." No record has been kept of the number of temporary commissions given from the ranks as distinct from those from other sources.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is some feeling amongst non-commissioned officers who are acting as instructors in the Territorial units that they are not given an equal chance with other men in other branches of the Service?
  Mr. TENNANT: I am aware that a very large number of commissions have been given to the class the hon. Member mentions.

  MILITARY BANDS WITH EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.
  Mr. HODGEasked the Under-Secretary for War whether his official information shows that military bands that are at the front counteract the effects of the monotony and hardships of trench life and its surroundings; and, if so, will he undertake that military bands be sent to France, in preference to permitting them to play at seaside or other resorts?
  Mr. TENNANT: A communication has recently been received from the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief in which he has expressed his opinion that military music has a good effect on the troops resting in rear of the trenches. Proposals in connection therewith are now under consideration.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the hon. Member's question?
  Mr. TENNANT: It surely would be a great advantage that we should have bands playing wherever possible.

  VETERINARY CORPS (PROMOTION).
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under Secretary for War whether he will consider the question of promoting lieutenants in the Army Veterinary Corps to captains, as has been done in the case of lieutenants in the Royal Army Medical Corps; and, if this is not possible, will he consider the suggestion that the rank of captain be granted to all members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons possessing a qualification of five years or more before joining?
  Mr. TENNANT: Up to the present there has been a sufficiency of captains in the Army Veterinary Corps for the purpose of command, and the necessity for the extra promotion of lieutenants has not therefore arisen. It is not considered advisable to grant the rank of captain automatically to those in possession of the time qualification mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, but selected cases will be considered when vacancies in that rank occur.

  MEN OF MILITARY AGE (POLICE CANVASS).
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that police constables are calling at houses in Kent inquiring for the names of male residents who are of military age; whether this practice is general over the country; and under what authority is the canvass being carried out?
  Mr. TENNANT: The canvass mentioned by my hon. Friend is not being carried out under the authority of the War Office, which possesses no information on the subject.

  TERRITORIAL FORCE (PAY).
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that only service rendered during mobilisation, or former service in the Regular Force or embodied Militia, counts for increase, of pay dependent on completion of a fixed period of service; that this Regulation bears hardly on men who have done previous service in the Territorial Force; and whether he can see his way to make such amendments as will allow of previous service in the Territorial Force
  554
  counting towards obtaining the full pay of the rank, thus making the pay of the Territorial officer equivalent to that of the officer in the Regular Army?
  Mr. BAKER: I am aware of the condition mentioned by the hon. Member. It is not considered that service in the Territorial Force before embodiment should be treated as equivalent to continuous service in the Regulars.

  ARMY CLOTHING (FAIR-WAGES CLAUSE).
  Mr. BARNESasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he has any knowledge of the payments made to workers engaged in making up soldiers' clothing employed by Messrs. Fifers, in Roman Road, Bow; Clingers, Mare Street, Hackney; and Diamond and Beavers, Railway Place, Cambridge Road, East; and wiil he have full inquiry made as to the way in which this firm is carrying out the Fair Wages Clause?
  Mr. BAKER: No complaint has been received regarding the wages paid by these firms to workers engaged in making up soldiers' clothing, but inquiry is being made in the matter.

  HAY PURCHASES.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he has received complaints as to the methods of purchasing hay, that the sellers have been promised a deposit if they retain hay for the Government and have never received it, that waste has been caused by careless cutting, and delays have ensued before payment is made; and whether, in view of the sacrifice made by those who sell hay to the Government, he will take steps to ensure that the buyers should be prompt and punctual in their payment?
  Mr. BAKER: No complaints of this nature have been received, but if the hon. Member will give me details of any specific case I shall be glad to have inquiry made. I am informed that the bills as a rule are paid within seven days of their receipt, and that such delays as have occurred have been due to the rendering of inaccurate accounts by sellers.

  SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES).
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will say how many claims for dependants' allowances made by soldiers have been referred to the War Office and are now being investigated by the War Office; and what is the average delay caused by referring these claims to the War Office instead of leaving them to be settled locally?
  Mr. BAKER: There are no records from which the precise number of miscellaneous cases could be ascertained. Cases of local disagreement as to assessment which have been referred to the War Office amount to 15,500. They are normally disposed of within two days.
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state how many claims for dependants' allowances made by soldiers are now being delayed in the pay offices at Woolwich, Preston, and Shrewsbury, respectively, awaiting investigation and return by the pension officers and committees; and whether steps will be taken to reduce this delay?
  Mr. BAKER: The number of cases not yet returned to these pay offices is as follows:—

  Woolwich, No. 1 office

  …

  …

  5,900

  Woolwich, No. 2 office

  …

  …

  3,398

  Preston

  …

  …

  3,825

  Shrewsbury

  …

  …

  2,594

  These offices have had to deal with some 170,000 claims. Instructions have already been given to pension officers and committees to deal with such claims as quickly as possible, but the investigations naturally occupy some time. Arrangements have been made for the issue of temporary advances, as in the case of separation allowance.
  Viscount VALENTIAasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is prepared to consider the exemption from Income Tax of the pensions of widows of officers of the Army and Navy whose husbands are killed in action in cases where it can be shown that the deceased officer was in possession of no settled income beyond the pay of his rank?
  Mr. ACLAND: The case of officers' widows should, I think, be met by an adequate scale of pensions rather than by exempting such pensions from Income Tax. I would also remind the Noble Lord that a large measure of relief is already granted under the existing provisions of the Income Tax Acts in cases where the total income is small.
  Viscount VALENTIA: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the widows of subaltern officers killed in action are in very many cases in possession of incomes exceeding the Income Tax limit by a very small margin, whose husbands gave up a considerable earned income to serve the country, and does he not think the case of these widows one for exemption from Income Tax?
  Mr. ACLAND: I think it is possible that those cases will be dealt with as a result of the deliberations of the Committee which is dealing with the question of military pensions, but I think it better to deal with all those cases by giving adequate pensions rather than by exempting some particular class from Income Tax.
  Viscount VALENTIA: Is the Committee likely to report soon?
  Mr. ACLAND: I understand that a considerable amount of progress has been made.
  Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Will the pensions be considered as earned income?
  Mr. ACLAND: I could not say offhand.
  Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any provision by way of separation allowance is made in the case of the mother of a soldier who makes an allotment to her, and who has been dependent on the allowances made prior to the War by her son or sons; and whether, in the event of the death of any or all of such sons, the widowed mother is eligible for a pension?
  Mr. BAKER: Dependant's allowance would appear to be admissible in the circumstances stated. The question of pension would be for the new statutory body recommended by the Select Committee.

  ROSYTH.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether any progress has been made with the scheme for housing at Rosyth, or whether it is being delayed until after or on account of the War?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): It is not intended to postpone the scheme till after the War, and the Departments concerned are making progress with the preliminary negotiations with a view to the commencement of building operations at an early date.

  DEER PARKS (STATISTICS).
  Mr. KINGasked the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Agriculture whether any statistics have been compiled of the number of deer parks in England and Wales, the number of head of deer therein maintained, the acreage of grass land required for deer, and the amount of forage supplied to them in the course of the year, the number of horned cattle or sheep which could be supported if the deer were removed, and the cost or loss in the national home-grown food supply by the maintenance of such deer parks; and whether steps are being taken to urge that the national supply of meat and milk be increased by the restriction of merely ornamental animals?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD Of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Harry Verney): No statistics on this subject are available, and a Return could not be collected without imposing much extra labour upon a division of the Board which is at present working under very severe pressure. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will not press for it. I know at least one owner of a deer park who is slaughtering his merely ornamental animals.

  WHEAT SUPPLY.
  Mr. ANDERSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the hardships that can be caused to the people of this country by speculation and gambling in American and other supplies of wheat, the Government propose to take steps to increase the supplies of home-grown food and to insist that British land is put to
  558
  its most productive use; and, if so, will he outline these steps?
  Sir HARRY VERNEY: The Board have been keeping and will continue to keep the question of the supplies of home-grown food under close observation, and they have issued advice on many points to farmers and others, with the concurrence of the Agricultural Consultative Committee and with the co-operation of the agricultural colleges, farm institutes, and the Press. So far as can be ascertained, energetic endeavours have been made by farmers, notwithstanding a shortage of labour and unfavourable weather conditions, to increase the acreage under cereals this year.
  Mr. ANDERSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he has written a letter to the London Corn Trade Association, stating that the Government will not make any further purchases of wheat; whether this declaration was made in response to representations from the corn trade; whether he will state the extent of these State purchases; and whether, in deciding to abandon future buying, the Government have assured themselves that they are best serving national interests as well as the corn interests?
  Sir HARRY VERNEY: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on Thursday, the 22nd April, to the hon. Member for the West Toxteth Division of Liverpool, to which I have nothing to add.

  SUGAR.
  Mr. ANDERSONasked whether, in view of the advances in the price of sugar, equal to 100 per cent., the Government are taking steps to cultivate and develop the production of British-grown sugar beet; and whether it is proposed to erect beet factories in selected districts and to etablish co-operation between the State and the growers?
  Sir HARRY VERNEY: The present price of sugar is abnormal, and, presumably, temporary. I am not at present prepared to say whether, in the cultivation of beet or in the subsequent stages of sugar production, we could compete successfully in normal times with Continental countries, where there is an abundant supply of very cheap labour available, and in any case we could not hope to produce

  559
  here more than a small proportion of our requirements of sugar. It is an intricate economic problem, upon which the Board await a report from Mr. C. S. Orwin, of the Oxford Institute for Research in Agricultural Economics.

  TEMPORARY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, LONDON.
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education the number of schools, and their total authorised accommodation, which are recognised as temporary elementary schools in London; and whether the total number of these authorised school places exceeds the number of similar places a year previously?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): The number of public elementary schools in London recognised as temporary on 31st March, 1915, was thirty-four, with accommodation for 10,976 children; the corresponding numbers on the 31st March, 1914, were thirty-eight and 11,891.

  SALE OF ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS (HOUSE OF COMMONS).
  Mr. RENDALLasked the Prime Minister whether he has received any expression of opinion from the usual or any other sources requesting him to give a further day for the discussion of the adjourned Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring; and whether he will grant a day if a request is made to him by Members other than total abstainers?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I have received no expression of opinion on this matter, and there is nothing to make me think that there is a general desire for further discussion.

  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (PROFITS).
  Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to announce the methods adopted by the Government to carry out the policy already declared of causing the profits earned by firms executing war contracts to be shared proportionately by their workmen?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to him on Tuesday last, the 20th April.
  Mr. J. HOPE: May I ask if anything will be said on this matter by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his financial statement next week as well as on the limitation of profits?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I am quite unable to answer that.

  HISTORY OF THE WAR.
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister who is the historian of the Defence Committee provided for in Class II., Vote I), of the Civil Service Estimates. 1915–16, for whose Department, dealing with the history of the European War, £2,085 is provided; and whether the work will be of a public or a strictly confidential character?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Major E. Y. Daniel, who is working in co-operation with Mr. Julian Corbett and Captain C. T. Atkinson. These gentlemen are engaged in collecting and collating material for the ultimate compilation of a history of the War, but it has not yet been decided whether the history will be of a public or confidential character.

  PENSIONS COMMITTEE REPORTS.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to give an opportunity for discussing the Pensions Committee Reports?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I trust that an opportunity will be given before long for this discussion, but I can make no definite announcement at present.

  EMPLOYMENT OF SOLDIERS AT END OF WAR.
  Mr. HEWINSasked the Prime Minister whether he will give an undertaking in respect of employment in the various Government services that when filling up positions after the War preference will be given to those who have served their country under arms or in making munitions of war; and whether he will

  561
  suggest to the municipal authorities throughout the country that they also should support this movement?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member's suggestions will receive the Government's careful and sympathetic consideration.
  Colonel YATE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will communicate with the municipalities and public bodies throughout the country on the subject?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir, I propose to do so.

  GERMAN SOUTH-WEST AFRICA (PARCEL POSTAGE).
  Mr. PETOasked the Postmaster-General whether the postage on a parcel to German South-West Africa is now 8s. 3d. for 11 lbs. owing to the parcel having to be conveyed via Cape Town, whereas before the War the charge was 3s. 3d.; and whether he will take steps to see that this charge is reduced so that, it may be made possible to send comforts to the British troops now serving there at a reasonable cost?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): The Parcel Post service to German South-West Africa, For which previous to the War the rate of 3s. 3d. was charged for an 11 lb. parcel was maintained by the German Post Office and has now been suspended. The higher rate represents the postage of 9d. per lb. in force between this country and the Union of South Africa. I may say that in spite of frequent representations to the Union Post Office, it has not been found possible hitherto to obtain a reduction of the rate.
  Mr. PETO: Will the hon. Gentleman assure me he will continue those representations, so as to avoid unnecessary hardship on men who are serving in that part of the world?
  Captain NORTON: Yes; my right hon. Friend has still the matter under his consideration, and is in communication on it.

  SPIRITUOUS DRINKS (SALE BY RAILWAY COMPANIES).
  Mr. CATHCARTWASONasked the President of the Board of Trade under what authority railway companies are permitted
  562
  to retail spirituous drinks; and if there is any restriction as to hours and days?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to this question. The sale of intoxicating liquor on railway premises is governed by the ordinary licensing provisions contained in the Finance and Licensing Acts of 1910, subject to the exception that the provisions as to closing hours do not preclude the sale of liquor at any time at a railway station to persons arriving or departing by train.
  Mr. C. WASON: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to ensure that at all railway stations refreshment rooms where alcohol is sold tea and coffee shall be obtainable on reasonable terms?
  Mr. McKENNA: I will inquire into the point. I am not quite sure as to what are the legal obligations on the companies.

  SALE OF BREAD.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has received resolutions from county and borough councils, and from such bodies as the Norwich and District Bakers' Association, requesting the adoption and enforcement by law of the sale of bread by standard weights; and whether any legislative action is contemplated in respect thereof?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: No resolution with regard to the sale of bread seems to have been received by the Board of Trade from the association to which my hon. Friend refers. The resolutions on the subject which I have recently received from local authorities do not recommend that bread should be sold only in fixed standard quantities.

  AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS (WAGES).
  Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can supply figures as to the number of agricultural labourers who have received advances in wages during the past eight months, the amounts of such increases, and the counties in which they have been granted?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The increases in the wages of agricultural labourers during the period referred to in the question varied considerably in different districts and, without exhaustive inquiries, it would be impossible to give the number of labourers of all classes affected by each increase. As far as reported it appears that in England and Wales the increases in eight counties reached 4s. a week in many cases, and exceeded this amount in some instances; in twenty-four counties the limit of increase was usually 3s. a week, while in nineteen counties the limit was 2s.; in one county where industrial employment is slack comparatively little movement in agricultural wages has occurred. The increases in Ireland were also widespread, but the amount did not generally exceed from 1s. to 2s. a week. In Scotland, at the autumn hirings in 1914, unmarried servants obtained increases of £4 or more for the half-year in a large number of cases.

  WAR REGISTER (EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN).
  Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) the latest returns as to the number of women registering for special war service; the number who have already been placed in employment from the special war register; and to what trades they have been attached; and (2) whether, as a result of a special war register, some six or eight thousand women have been encouraged to signify their willingness to undertake armament work; whether he can name armament factories in which there is a shortage of or demand for such labour; and if he will state the duration of the working shift in such cases and the rate of wages offered?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The total number of women registered for special war service up to the week ended 16th April was, approximately, 47,000, of whom 8,089 had entered their names as willing to undertake armament work. I am circulating with the Votes a statement showing the numbers already placed in employment and the trades in which they have been placed. The total number, so far, is only 440, but I would remind my hon. Friend that the work of placing is only just beginning. As he is aware, the special register has been formed in advance so
  564
  that in the event of the ordinary supply being insufficient to meet the national requirements a reserve may be available without delay. In the department of armament labour I understand that, while the immediate demand for women is not in excess of the numbers that can be supplied in the ordinary way, some of the principal factories have informed the Board of Trade that during the next few months they will require additional numbers of women, amounting for these firms alone to over 13,000. I understand that the wages and conditions vary according to the character of the work, the experience of the woman, and other factors.—[See Written Answers this date.]

  WOMEN'S LABOUR.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the resolutions passed at a special conference of trade unions and women's organisations laying down the safeguards which are considered essential in any substitution or transference of women's labour, and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: My attention has been called to the resolution referred to by my hon. Friend. The whole question is now receiving the careful consideration of the Department.

  BRITISH DYES, LIMITED.
  Mr. BOOTHasked if British Dyes, Limited, has decided to purchase the business of Read, Holliday and Company; and whether any director or any member of the Committee which formed the company will receive a commission for either party?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative.
  Mr. BOOTH: Have Messrs. Read, Holliday and Company identified themselves with the statement made by the hon. Gentleman's Department that there is no commission paid?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I think that is granted
  Mr. BOOTH: May I ask for a specific answer on the point?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice.
  Mr. BOOTH: The question relates to it. I asked whether any member of the Committee will receive commission from either party?
  Mr. ROBERSTON: Even in that sense I think the answer admits it; but if my hon. Friend wants a specific statement as to the attitude of Messrs. Read, Holliday and Company, perhaps he will put down a question.

  DEVIZES PRISON.
  Mr. PETOasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the charge, to the grand jury at Quarter Sessions at Salisbury on the 6th instant, in which the inconvenience, expense, and delay caused by the total closing of Devizes Prison was stated; and whether he will consider the advisability of reopening the prison, at any rate for the accommodation of persons awaiting trial or on remand, and avoid their being sent outside the county boundaries to distant and inaccessible places where it is difficult for them to obtain legal assistance for their defence?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have seen a report of the charge referred to, from which it would appear that the inconvenience commented on by the Chairman of Quarter Sessions was due to bail not being granted in a suitable case and to the prisoner's failing to make application for legal aid until a few days before her trial. It does not appear that this inconvenience would have been avoided if Devizes prison had been available. The prison, which was only used for the reception of prisoners on remand or committed for trial, has been lent to the military authorities for use as a detention barrack to meet the urgent needs of the Army, and in present circumstances I do not think it should be reopened as a civil prison
  Mr. PETO: Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention to reopen the prison for the purposes for which it was open before the War after it is no longer required for the present purpose?
  Mr. McKENNA: I assume that it will be reopened for its former purposes, but I am unable to answer positively.

  SPECIAL CONSTABLES.
  Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the order that special constables could be supplied free with uniform to the cost of £3, provided the applicant was really necessitous, has become inoperative; is he aware that the retention of the order is giving offence to special constables; and will he rescind the order?
  Mr. McKENNA: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply on 15th March to the hon. Member for Lewisham. There was no question of supplying uniforms, but only special clothing for those who could not afford it. Full advantage has been taken of the provision, and I am advised that it has not caused dissatisfaction.
  Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Home Secretary if he will state the total number of men enrolled in the Metropolitan Special Constabulary; the number between the ages of eighteen and thirty-eight; how many of the latter have applied for service in the Army or Navy and been rejected by the authorities; and, in view of the depletion of the ordinary police through recruiting for His Majesty's forces, will he see that men of military age not enrolled in the special constabulary if fit for military service?
  Mr. McKENNA: The total number of men now enrolled in the Metropolitan Special Constabulary is 32,189. The number of special constables between eighteen and thirty-eight capable of military service cannot be given, but it is believed to be very small. Since the first enrolment care has been taken not to accept without adequate reason any man fit for military service; and of those who joined at the inception of the force upwards of 5,000 have been released for service.

  INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S CONGRESS.
  Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he will state the precise reasons which led to the refusal to allow about 100 British women to attend the International Women's Congress at The Hague; on what principle were the twenty women selected to whom permits to proceed to The Hague were granted; and whether it is the policy of the Govern-

  567
  ment to restrict the opportunities of inhabitants of this country to take part in international congresses?
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Home Secretary whether he has selected the persons who are to attend the International Congress of Women to discuss terms of peace at Berne as representing various organisations and sections of thought; and whether the selection is to be taken as giving any official character either to the conference itself or to the delegates stated to have been selected by him?
  Mr. McKENNA: Upwards of 180 ladies applied for permits to leave for Holland with the object of attending the International Women's Congress at The Hague. The Foreign Office considered it very undesirable that so large a number from this country should attend a conference at a place so near the seat of war, and where it was known that agents of the enemy were making great efforts to obtain fragments of intelligence as to the movements of our ships and armies. I therefore refused the general grant of permits but agreed, after consulting the Foreign Office, to issue a limited number of permits, not exceeding in all twenty-four, to ladies representing various organisations and sections of thought. The selection of the twenty-four did not in any way give any official character cither to the conference itself or to the delegates. It is certainly not the policy of the Government to promote or encourage international congresses in present circumstances.
  Mr. KING: Were all the permits given to representative women, or were not many given to women who went as individuals and not as representing organisations at all.?
  Mr. McKENNA: To the best of usability I selected representatives of organisations and well-known sections of thought. Of course, I had in every case to keep in view the fact that no person ought to be allowed to go who was in the least likely imprudently to give information to those seeking it.
  Mr. LOUGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of these women have actually gone?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, as since the permits were given all communication between this country and Holland has been stopped.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Do we understand that in granting these permits the right hon. Gentleman demanded that these women should give a pledge of secrecy?
  Mr. McKENNA: I requested one of the ladies, and asked her to communicate the request to the others, that great caution should be exercised, that they should take care to have no written matter of any kind which it would be dangerous to have read, and that they should remember that they were in a country beset with foreign spies.
  Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what induced him to depart from his first wise resolution?
  Mr. McKENNA: The "first wise resolution" was to refuse to give 180 permits, on the ground that it was considered undesirable that so large a number should attend a conference at The Hague. The resolution did not cover a smaller number.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: What was the second wise resolution?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have already answered that question.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Is it not a fact that no French women and no Russian women are attending this Conference? Would it not have been well to have prevented any English women from attending?
  Mr. McKENNA: I think that that question should be addressed to the Foreign Office.
  Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put his question on the Paper.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOPS ACT.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the proceedings against Messrs. Granwood and Balley, at Leeds, on 19th April, under the Factory and Workshops Act, for keeping women at work longer than the specified time, and to the statement of the stipendiary magistrate that there had been a clear infringement of the Act, but he was not going to

  569
  do anything to prevent it in view of the fact that the factory was engaged in manufacturing ammunition; and whether, in view of the danger of permitting magistrates to decide which laws are to be enforced and which are not to be enforced, he proposes to take any steps to bring the orders under the Act into conformity with the needs of the present moment?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): As the case is still sub judice, I am precluded from discussing it. But I may say generally that since the outbreak of the War many thousands of exemptions from the Factory Acts have been granted, and that the Home Office, in consultation with the War Office and the Admiralty, has constantly endeavoured to meet the requirements of the present emergency and to allow such extended hours as will secure the highest degree of efficiency in labour and the maximum output. Experience shows that, while a considerable extension of the ordinary hours is possible without injury, excessive hours necessarily reduce efficiency and so cause diminution of production.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: In what respect is the case still sub judice? Is there an appeal?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no information on that point.

  CHAMPAGNE FIRMS (OWNERSHIP).
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Home Secretary whether he has any official information showing that the champagne firm of G. H. Mumm is owned by two German officers and that the firm of Geisler is also owned by a German, who is in a concentration camp; and whether both these enemy firms are under sequestration in France, but in England are allowed to carry on business undisturbed?
  Mr. McKENNA: I would refer the hon. Member, as regards the firm of G. H. Mumm, to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for the Ludlow Division on the 15th March. The firm of Geisler and Company is, I understand, now under the management of an official appointed by the French Government, and their agent in this country, who is an Englishman, does business with that official.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any further inquiries in France since the answer given to the hon. Member-for Ludlow as to the position of these two firms in France?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir, I have no record thereon, but I will inquire.

  NATURALISED ALIENS.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Home Secretary whether (1) his attention has been called to the fact that in the period from 4th August to 31st December, 1914, after the commencement of the War, approximately 104 Germans and 32 Austrians have been naturalised in this country as compared with, approximately, 154 Germans and 49 Austrians so naturalised between 1st January and 4th August. 1914; whether he will state on what principle certificates of naturalisation are granted to alien enemies; and whether he will consider the danger of granting the rights and privileges of British subjects to so large a number of alien enemies; and (2) whether his attention has been called to the fact that, as regards the year 1914, the average number per month of Germans and Austrians naturalised in this country since the commencement of the War is practically the same as the average number of Germans and Austrians so naturalised before the commencement of the War, but that, in the case of persons of every European nationality other than Germans and Austrians, the average number naturalised in this country since the commencement of the war is far less and, in most cases, upwards of one-half less than the average number so naturalised before the commencement of the War; and whether he can state the reason of this difference?
  Mr. McKENNA: The figures given by the hon. and learned Member are only approximately correct. Excluding re-admissions of British-born women the figures for Germans should be 165 before 4th August and 97 after that date; and the corresponding figures for Austrians and Hungarians should be 55 and 30. The figures include many persons who were merely of German or Austro-Hungarian nationality in a technical sense. In all cases certificates have only been granted when after a thorough examination it was clear that there was some public advantage to be gained or

  571
  some other special reasons, coupled with the certainty that no possible danger to the State could arise. The number of applications has been enormous, running into many thousands, and certificates have been granted in but a very small percentage of the applications. As regards friendly nationalities, there has also been some increase in the number of applications, but the enormous pressure of work has made it necessary to postpone the consideration of many cases. They are now being dealt with as expeditiously as circumstances will admit.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the fact that the proportion of Germans and Austrians naturalised since the War is pretty much the same as before the War, while in the case of other nationalities it is very much less?
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not think the proportion shown should be so regarded. If the hon. Member will compare the number of certificates granted with the number of applications made, he will find in the case of neutral nationalities a very large percentage, while in the case of enemy nationalities the percentage is extremely small.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the necessity of taking precautions to ensure that persons residing in this country shall not under the guise and protection of British citizenship secretly help the enemy, he will again consider the desirability of taking power to revoke the certificates of naturalisation granted to persons of German nationality who still owe allegiance to the German Emperor?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have kept this matter under constant and careful observation; but I have seen nothing to change the view of the Government that it is not necessary or desirable to take the power suggested.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very considerable number of Germans naturalised in this country who still owe allegiance to the German Emperor?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have no definite information on that point.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman get it?

  WEST HAM GUARDIANS (SCALE OF ASSISTANCE).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the West Ham Union Board of Guardians is prevented by a Local Government Order from granting as high a scale of assistance to British-born wives of interned aliens as is allowed by other boards of guardians in London, on the ground that the area of the West Ham union is not considered to be in the Metropolis; if he is aware that the cost of living for the persons concerned is as much in West Ham as in other parts of London; and if he can see his way to remove this disability?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): The allowances to which the hon. Member refers, although made through the agency of boards of guardians, are charged upon public funds placed at the disposal of the Local Government Board by the Treasury, and not on local rates. The Local Government Board have no authority to make repayments to boards of guardians on the London scale in any district outside London.

  GERMAN SUBMARINE CREWS.

    STATEMENT BY MR. CHURCHILL.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether any regulations have been made with regard to the differential treatment of prisoners captured in German submarines; in what respects this treatment differs from that accorded to other persons; whether this treatment applies to all submarine prisoners, and, if not, on what principle is discrimination made between them; whether he will state the total number of prisoners now subject to such differential treatment; and (2) whether the treatment accorded to German submarine prisoners is penal in character; and whether it is proposed to put them on trial on any charge?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): No special conditions are applied to German submarine prisoners because they fight in submarines; but

    573
    special conditions are applied to prisoners who have been engaged in wantonly killing non-combatants, neutrals, and women on the high seas. Submarine prisoners taken before 18th February have been treated as any other prisoners in our hands. But we cannot recognise persons who are systematically employed in the sinking of merchant ships and fishing boats, often without warning, and regardless of the loss of life entailed, as on the same footing as honourable soldiers. Incidents such as the sinking of the "Oriole" by night, without warning, with all her crew, the circumstances attending the sinking of the "Falaba," and the blowing up by torpedoes of fishing vessels through the agency of German submarines, force us for the future to place all German submarine prisoners taken after 18th February, and for as long as this system of warfare is continued, in a distinct and separate category. The question is not free from difficulty, because as the crimes committed are entirely unforeseen in international law, no remedy has been prescribed. We cannot tell at present how far it may be possible at the end of the War to bring home the guilt of their actions, directly or indirectly, to individuals; nor in what form reparation of a special character should be exacted from the guilty State. Meanwhile, we consider it just and necessary that the prisoners concerned should be separated from honourable prisoners of war who are free from all reproach.
    The conditions under which they are interned are in every respect humane. I do not propose to go into the details of their treatment here, because it is better that that should be the subject of neutral investigation. We have offered to allow a representative of the United States Government to visit the prisoners, and make a report on the conditions of their captivity, provided reciprocal facilities are accorded. There are at present thirty-nine German submarine prisoners who are thus separately interned. We cannot admit that the reprisals which have been taken against a number of our own officers can be allowed to deflect us from a policy which we regard as humane and just in
    574
    itself, and as a necessary means of publicly branding a barbarous form of warfare and of preventing it from taking its place among methods open to belligerent nations. Whatever material ill-usage is inflicted upon the gallant gentlemen upon whom it is in the power of the Germans to revenge themselves, they will have the consolation that no charge can be made against their conduct as honourable soldiers.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it would not be advisable for him to state fully and definitely what are the exact conditions of imprisonment of these persons, and not leave the matter wrapped in mystery, in view of the fact that certain evils may proceed from any mystery that is allowed to surround the matter?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I thought myself that it would be more efficacious that a report should be made by a representative of a neutral State, because on both sides—
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Why should not both be done?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think it necessary to object to that at all, if that is the general opinion of the House—
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: To see if reciprocal treatment could be arranged?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: But if a question is put on the Paper, I will have an answer prepared. It is necessary in these matters to be precise. They are not suited to any loose description by word of mouth.
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider the submarine officers more guilty than the officers who bombarded Scarborough and killed women and children, and who are now at Donington Hall?
    Mr. LOUGH: Would my right hon. Friend say whether he does not think that the question of reflection upon the character of these officers is affected by the question that they acted under orders, and, indeed, might be shot if they did not obey those orders?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: All these points have been very carefully considered, and we have arrived at the conclusion that a distinction must be drawn in regard to the conduct of these men.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Can the right hon. Gentleman make any statement as to the number of prisoners who come within the category?
    Mr. MacMASTER: Is there anything in the treatment extended to these prisoners that is at all contrary to the obligations and provisions of the Geneva—[An HON. MEMBER: "Hague !"]—Convention?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think it much better that the case should be stated in full detail after an impartial and neutral investigation has taken place.

    FALKLAND ISLANDS BATTLE (ADMIRAL SIR DOVETON STURDEE'S DISPATCH).
    Mr. NEVILLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Admiral Sir Doveton Sturdee's dispatch relative to his expedition to, and the naval action fought near, the Falkland Islands has been published in its entirety, or have any parts been omitted in the dispatch as published?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: All dispatches are carefully edited by the Admiralty, and in the case of the Grand Fleet Squadrons by the Commander-in-Chief as well; and nothing is allowed to appear which throws too much light on British naval tactics or gunnery. Recommendations in regard to individuals are only made public to the extent and in the form in which they are concurred in by the Admiralty.

    INDIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE (DEDUCTIONS FROM PAY).
    Mr. PETOasked whether any decision has been arrived at with regard to the deduction from the pay of officers in the Indian Expeditionary Force serving at the front for horse rations, grooms' pay and rations, and servants' pay and rations?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. C. Roberts): It has been agreed with the War Office that during the present War in Europe stoppages from
    576
    officers receiving Indian pay and serving with the Force for rations for themselves, their servants and their chargers shall be discontinued, and charges already made refunded. No change has been made as regards officers' liability for servants' pay.

    ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether, during recent events in South-Western Persia, any injury has been done to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company's pipe-line or to their refinery at Abadan?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: The company's pipe-line has been cut, but no damage has been done to the refinery or works.

    INDIAN MEDICAL SERVICE.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Under-Secretary for India (1) whether he is aware, that the junior officers of the Indian Medical Service are charged 1s. 9d. a day for rations, whereas no corresponding charge is made to officers of the British Medical Service; and whether such officers when employed during war time in India are charged only 1s. 1d. a day; (2) whether Indian medical officers below the rank of major, to whom during war the use of a horse is essential, are charged at the rate of £7 per annum for the hire of a horse and receive no horse allowance; and, if so, whether any steps will be taken to remedy these and other disabilities under which members of the Indian Medical Service now serving in France appear to suffer?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: Under a recent decision of the War Office the charges hitherto levied on officers in receipt of Indian pay for hire of horses and for rations and forage will cease to be levied during the present War in Europe, and amounts already collected will be refunded.

    PAYMENTS TO OFFICERS.
    Mr. STEWARTasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he can expedite the payment to officers at the front of their field allowances and their allowances for lodging, fuel, and light, as in some cases the amounts due for December were only paid in March, and to officers of limited means the delay in receiving the amounts due causes inconvenience?
    Mr. BAKER: Steps have already been taken by the Paymaster-in-Chief to expedite such payments, but these officers should not have suffered inconvenience as they are always allowed to draw advances for their immediate requirements.

  Budget (Date of Introduction).
  Mr. EVELYN CECILasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state on what day he proposes to introduce the Budget?
  Mr. ACLAND: My right hon. Friend proposes to make his Financial Statement on Tuesday next.

  Royal Blind Asylum.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland if any action has been taken on the memorial presented to the Scottish Education Department by the Royal Blind Asylum of date 11th May, 1914?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The suggestion in the memorial for an increase of Grants has been met by the modification shown on page 37 of the Code for 1915. The second proposal as regards increase of contribution from school boards is one for adjustment in the first place with the school boards concerned.

  Russell and Company, Glasgow (Bankruptcy).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Lord Advocate whether he has considered fully the circumstances relating to the failure to bring to trial the directors of Russell and Company, jewellers, Renfield Street, Glasgow, on a criminal charge in connection with the bankruptcy of the firm; whether depositions justifying a criminal charge were brought to his notice on 11th August, and it was not until 24th October that criminal proceedings were ordered; whether, after criminal proceedings were ordered, there was a further delay of three weeks before any arrests were made, and in the meantime the principal director had gone to Canada; whether it was intimated to the creditors that no steps would be taken to bring this director back from Canada unless they guaranteed the expenses of so doing; whether the proceedings against the other director have since been stopped, in view of the fact that proceedings were not thought advisable against him alone in the absence of the principal director; and whether, in view of the fact that the
  578
  failure to arrest the principal director was due to the delay in executing his instructions and of the desirability of protecting legitimate traders, he will now authorise his being brought back from Canada for trial at the public cost?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro): I have fully considered the circumstances of the case referred to by my hon. and learned Friend. My attention was drawn to the case towards the end of August last by a letter from the Goldsmiths' Association, but I had then no information at my disposal, by way of deposition or otherwise, to justify a criminal charge. On consideration of further information obtained by the inquiries which I directed, I gave instructions on 15th October that criminal proceedings should be taken. Before these instructions were received in Glasgow one of the two directors against whom proceedings were contemplated had left for Canada. In accordance with the usual rule in such cases, the creditors were asked to guarantee the expenses of his extradition, and, on their refusal to do so, it was decided that extradition should not be made at the public expense. The evidence available did not in my judgment justify proceedings against the other of the two directors referred to. The failure to arrest the absconding director was not due to any delay in executing the instructions given by me. I am unable to find anything in the circumstances of this case to justify a departure from the usual rule that the expenses of extradition should not be defrayed out of public funds.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Has the right hon. Gentleman satisfied himself that there was due diligence in executing the criminal proceedings which he authorised?
  Mr. MUNRO: Certainly.

  Board of Education (Appointment of Inspectors).
  Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in making recent appointments to the inspectorial staff, there has been any differentiation of treatment in the matter of the maximum age between candidates who will inspect schools under the direction of the Welsh Department of the Board and those whose duties will be generally confined to the inspection of English schools; and, if so, what was the practice followed in making the selection of candidates for the two departments?
  Mr. PEASE: The maximum age for the first appointments of assistant inspectors of elementary schools in England was forty-five. For the appointments made in 1914 and 1915 it was raised to fifty. The maximum age for the vacancies under the Welsh Department which have fallen in this year is forty-five. The method of selection has been identical, namely, a preliminary selection by a Selection Committee, who recommended candidates to me from whom I made a final selection.

  Post Office Employés (Medical Examination).
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Postmaster-General whether he has accepted Recommendation 89 of the Holt Committee's Report, whereby an appeal is suggested to the Treasury medical referee when there is a difference in medical testimony either for the purposes of the Superannuation Acts or for retention in the services; and whether he is also prepared to accept the suggestion that the employé who appeals may be allowed to see the report on his or her fitness?
  Captain NORTON: The Committee's recommendation that Post Office servants should be permitted to appeal to the Treasury Medical Referee in the circumstances mentioned has been accepted; but the suggestion that the appellant should in certain circumstances be allowed to see the referee's report is one which my right, hon. Friend cannot accept.

  Loss of Steamship "Hydro" (Deck Cargo).
  Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Court in the case of the steamship "Hydro," which foundered on the 22nd January last with a loss of fourteen lives, due to the carriage of a deck cargo which broke loose in bad weather, tearing away the covering of the after-hatches and causing the vessel to fill; and whether he proposes to initiate legislation rendering the carriage of such deck cargoes illegal and preventing the loss of merchant steamers urgently required for oversea trade?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: When the report of the Court of Inquiry in the case of the steamship "Hydro" is received the Board of Trade will give it careful consiedration, but I do not see any immediate prospect of initiating legislation dealing
  580
  with the carriage of deck cargoes. I understand that the deck cargo of the "Hydro" included barrels and drums of oil. The Board of Trade have already issued a notice to shipowners and masters calling attention to the danger involved in carrying such a cargo.
  Mr. PETO: Is any penalty incurred if no attention is paid by the shipowners and masters to the representations of the Board of Trade?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: There has been no legislation immediately applicable.

  Prison Warders (Salaries).
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Home Secretary (1) whether he is aware that temporary warders are employed in prisons under the control of his Department; how many are so employed and what is the scale of wages; in view of the increased cost of food, will he consider the need for an increase; and (2) whether he has yet consulted with the Treasury as to the need for increased pay to prison warders in view of the increased cost of food; whether he has received a petition for an increase of pay from the prison officers; and what he proposes to do to meet this necessity?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have received petitions from the warders in the Prison Service for an increase of pay in view of the special circumstances now existing, and am in communication with the Treasury on the subject. With regard to officers temporarily employed in the Prison Service, there are seventy-eight men engaged in local prisons to perform simple night patrol duty at wages of 28s. a week. In addition a number of temporary officers are occasionally employed at daily rates varying, according to locality, from 3s. 4d. to 4s. 3d. a day. The number employed varies from day to day according to the needs of the various prisons. The case of these men cannot be considered apart from that of all others in similar circumstances.

  Welsh Church Act.
  Mr. HINDSasked the Home Secretary how many holders of ecclesiastical offices in the Church in Wales affected by the Welsh Church Act, 1914, had existing interests within the meaning of the said Act on 18th September, 1914; and what was the aggregate net value of such existing interests on 18th March, 1915?
  Mr. McKENNA: I regret that I have not the information which would enable me to answer my hon. Friend's question.
  Mr. HINDSasked the Home Secretary if he will cause inquiry to be made as to the number of ecclesiastical offices in the Church in Wales which were vacant on 17th September, 1914, otherwise than on the nomination or appointment of the holders thereof to other ecclesiastical offices in the Church in Wales, and as to the number of such offices that were vacated in like manner from 18th September, 1914, to 18th March, 1915?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am unable to give my hon. Friend the information he asks for, but I am making inquiries and I will give him what I can obtain.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked how many applications have been made to the Welsh Commissioners to lay patrons for compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 16 of the Welsh Church Act, 1914; whether any such applications have been made by colleges in the University of Oxford, and by the Simeon trustees, or the trustees of the Church Patronage Society; and, if so, whether the Welsh Commissioners have given any decision as to the validity of applications by the said colleges and trustees?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am informed that the Welsh Commissioners have received applications for compensation from 219 applicants in respect of 351 benefices. Applications have been made by the Oxford colleges Jesus, Pembroke, and Keble, and also by the Simeon trustees and the Church Patronage Society. The Commissioners have not as yet given any decision as to the validity of any claim under this Section of the Act.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked the hon. Member for the Doncaster Division, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the total net income from endowments of the Church of England in Wales at 1st January, 1913, and at 1st January, 1915; the portion of such income at each of these dates derived from tithe rent-charge; and the commuted amount of the tithe rent-charge arising from endowments believed to have existed prior to 1662 in the diocese of Bangor, Llandaff, St. Asaph, and St. Davids?
  Sir CHARLES NICHOLSON: The information required to answer the first and second parts of this question is not in the possession of the Ecclesiastical Com-
  582
  missioners, and I do not know of the existence of any more recent Return than that given in the Appendix to the Report of the Royal Commission on the Church in Wales, which was based on figures for the year 1906. In reply to the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the written answer given by me on the 20th instant to a question of the hon. Member for the Northern Division of Somerset.

  Public Trustee.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the office of Public Trustee (which was created in 1906) has now been officially declared to have been assimilated with the Civil Service, the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury can now see their way to proceed with the recommendations of the Royal Commission in regard to the unestablished staffs of the solicitors to the public departments, especially in view of the fact that the system at present prevailing has been in existence ever since 1890?
  Mr. ACLAND: The recommendations referred to involve important questions of organisation affecting several departments, and I fear that I see no prospect of its being possible to give them adequate consideration at the present juncture, when the work of the departments affected is in many respects abnormal. The recommendations have, however, not been lost sight of, and the matter will be taken up as soon as circumstances permit.

  INDIA.

    GWALIOR RESIDENCY.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary for India whether his attention has been called to the account furnished by the consulting architect to the Government of India on the work done by craftsmen on the building of the Gwalior Residency; and whether, in view of the official testimony to the fact that Indian craftsmen, when inadvertently left without full size drawing, are able to carry out details with freedom, taste, adherence to the leading ideas of the British architect, and with pride and delight in their work, instructions are now being given to save the expense of drawing full-sized details of mouldings, ornaments, etc., so that office expenses may be saved and Indian master-builders and craftsmen may be encouraged in their traditional art?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: The Secretary of State has noticed the paragraph in the Report by the Consulting Architect to the Government of India to which the hon. Member alludes. The Government of India are also no doubt aware of it. They have expressed their intention to give facilities to such an extent as may be found practicable for Indian sentiment to find expression in New Delhi through the medium of Indian craftsmen and builders, and the Secretary of State does not consider it necessary to issue any special instructions in the matter.

    NEW CAPITAL.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary for India whether the building of the new capital at Delhi is proceeding as contemplated before the War, or whether any alterations or delays have taken place?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: The building of the new capital is proceeding on the lines contemplated, but in view of the special circumstances of the present time the expenditure during the present year will be on a reduced scale.

    COMMISSARIES OF INDIA DEPARTMENTS (PENSIONS).
    Mr. HOGGEasked whether any thing further has been done to bring the pensions of commissaries of the India Departments into line with those of similar rank in the Home service?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: The Secretary of State has not yet received the revised proposals of the Government of India. On 30th July last they stated that it would be some time before they could submit their proposals.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the hon. Gentleman say when it is likely they will be submitted?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: I cannot press the Government of India, considering the circumstances.

    MURDER CASE (MEERUT).
    Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked whether the accused man in a murder case just reported from Meerut was acquitted by the Sessions judge; whether the acquittal was successfully appealed against by the local Government to the High Court at Allahabad, and the accused person, without any fresh evidence, sentenced to death; and whether such judicial methods are having the consideration of His Majesty's Secretary of State with a view to their alteration?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: The Secretary of State has no official information on this case. The provisions of the Indian Criminal Procedure Code, under which appeals from acquittals are preferred to the High Courts, are at present under consideration in the Imperial Legislative Council in connection with a Bill for the general amendment of the Code.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  Chelmsford Corporation Gas Bill,
  Southend Water Bill,
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Mersey Railway Bill [Lords],
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Message from the Lords,—
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to continue and confer further powers upon the Town of Warwick Gas Light Company to change the name of the company; and for other purposes." [Warwick Gas Bill [Lords.].
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to change the name of the Ormskirk Gas Light Company; to empower the company to acquire additional lands, to supply electricity, and to raise additional capital; and for other purposes." [Ormskirk Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords].
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for making provisions respecting the capital of the Falmouth Docks Company; and for other purposes." [Falmouth Docks Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, An Act to extend the limits of supply of the Brighton and Hove General Gas Company; and for other purposes." [Brighton and Hove Gas Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for conferring further powers upon the Corporation of Rotherham with reference to their tramway and electricity undertakings; to authorise the construction of street works and to make better provision for the health, local government, and finance of the borough of Rotherham; and for other purposes." [Rotherham Corporation Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer powers upon the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the city of Sheffield with respect to the construction of tramways and the running of omnibuses; and for other purposes." [Sheffield Corporation (Tramways) Bill [Lords.]
  Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Sunderland to reconstruct the Wearmouth Bridge; and for other purposes." [Sunderland Corporation (Wearmouth Bridge) Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for conferring further powers upon the Frimley and Farnborough District Water Company." [Frimley and Farnborough District Water Bill [Lords.]
  And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to regulate the user of the Shirehall and Guildhall at Shrewsbury, in the county of Salop; and for other purposes." [Salop County Council Bill [Lords.]
  Warwick Gas Bill [Lords],
  Ormskirk Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords],
  Falmouth Docks Bill [Lords],
  Brighton and Hove Gas Bill [Lords],
  Rotherham Corporation Bill [Lords],
  Sheffield Corporation (Tramways) Bill [Lords.]
  Sunderland Corporation (Wearmouth Bridge) Bill [Lords],
  Frimley and Farnborough District Water Bill [Lords],
  Salop County Council Bill [Lords],
  Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Prime Minister what the business is to be tomorrow and on Thursday?
The PRIME MINISTER: To-morrow we shall take the Post Office Estimates, and on Thursday the proposals with regard to the facilities for drink. We shall not proceed with the Second Reading of the Mental Treatment Bill to-day.

POLICE (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): This is the third Bill introduced since the War dealing with the same topic. There are several small points in the Bill relating to police officers, giving additional benefits to the Service. In the first Bill introduced certain privileges were given to police officers who enlisted in the Army provided that at the time of their enlistment they were Reservists. By the subsequent measure these privileges were extended to police officers who enlisted who were not Army Reservists, but had previously served in the Army, or who were specially selected by the War Office because of their having particular qualifications. It is now proposed in this third Bill that the same privileges which were conferred by the two previous Bills should be given to any police officer, whether he has served in the past in the Army or not, or whether he has special qualifications or not.
Mr. TOUCHE: Does that apply to all who have already enlisted?
Mr. McKENNA: Yes; it would apply to those. It is proposed that in those cases in which Army pensions are not given on an equally wide basis as pensions in the police service a disabled policeman shall have the benefit of his own police conditions, and not of the narrower Army conditions. It is next proposed to clear up a doubt, that the privileges given to police officers who enlist should be extended also to those police officers serving who obtain commissions or who are promoted to commission rank. There is another provision which withdraws a privilege from the existing police service. It is proposed to take power to suspend the right, of any policeman who has served his full period to retire on a pension. It is proposed that, unless he obtains a medical certificate, or is authorised to retire, his services may be retained. Then there are other small provisions in the Bill. The first enables, in certain circumstances, a county police authority to take over a small borough police authority in its area. It has been found that under the new War conditions duties are thrown upon some of the small borough police forces which they are not fitted to carry out. They have not the staff or the means to do this, and power is taken in certain cases to authorise the county police authority to take over such
604
a borough authority. It is further provided that no new police authorities shall be created during the War. The reason for this is very simple. Every new police authority increases the total number of police officers, and in consequence a new recruiting demand is made for policemen who would be in ordinary circumstances selected from amongst the men who are of military age. It is thought desirable to discourage all recruiting of policemen of military age, and therefore we propose that no new police authorities shall be created. That is the whole scope of the Bill, and I hope it will be regarded as an emergency measure and of an uncontroversial character.
Mr. TOUCHE: I should like to ask a question upon a subject about which there is some uneasiness amongst the police, and that is the question of pensions. Take the case of a man entitled to retire after twenty-five years' service. He has a right which at the present time is inalienable. Under this Bill he will not be allowed to retire except with special permission. I wish to know can anything happen in his subsequent service which might diminish his right to that pension? That is a point which is concerning the mind of the police, and I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would give me an assurance on that point.
Mr. BOOTH: I wish to raise a question which I have drawn attention, to in the case of other Bills, and it is why is there no special Clause terminating the operation of this measure with the end of the War? It is quite true that in Clauses 2 and 3 "Continuance of the present War" is specifically mentioned, but there are Clauses which do not seem to take any cognisance of the War. Would there be any objection to a new Clause being inserted between Clauses 3 and 4 which would place it beyond all doubt that this is emergency legislation? It seems to me that under Clause 1 the Home Office might be able to slip in other reforms and amendments, and I do not think anything of that kind should be introduced as emergency legislation, with an appeal that it should be taken as uncontroversial. If I am wrong in this respect, why cannot it be specifically stated that this measure is only for the duration of the War. Several other Government Bills contain a specific Clause that the Bill itself terminates either at the conclusion of the War

605
or six months after. These Government Bills do not now contain any such Clause, although they contain references in some of the Clauses that it is only during the continuance of the present War. Why cannot we have a good, wholesome clause restored which everybody can understand, to the effect that the Bill itself ceases to be operative within a certain period after the end of the War? It may be that that is a Committee point, and therefore I will put down a Clause dealing with it, and I hope the Government will put it beyond doubt.
Mr. DUNCAN: I understand that under Clause 1 service in the police force and with the Colours will count for a pension. There has been a number of varied conditions. Some of the men have served in the Army before. The new Bill is to put the whole of the men who have joined the force on exactly the same footing as any who may have been with the Army before they joined the police force. If that is so, it fulfils the point which I am desirous of dealing with. I understand that this Bill puts all those varying conditions on the same footing. I know there are men in the police force who have never been in the Army, and pressure is being brought to bear upon them to join the Army. I wish to know if the time they have been in the force and with the Colours will count for a pension. There is a further point which I would like to deal with, and it is in connection with Clause 2. It is this particular Clause which deals with the case of a man who has served his twenty-five years in the force. Under ordinary conditions that man would retire, but I understand that this Clause is to prevent his retirement. If he can produce a medical certificate, I understand that he can still retire, but his retirement without the medical certificate is subject to the sanction of the chief officer of the police force to which he belongs. My point is that the police themselves are desirous that the whole of the men who come within this category should all be treated alike.
The constables who have approached me in regard to this matter desire that the whole of the men who have served twenty-five years should be treated in exactly the same way. Their view is that there may be cases of men who have served for twenty-five years who cannot produce a medical certificate, but who may receive sanction to terminate
606
their service with the force by a little bit of favour on the part of the chief officer, and they desire that that should not be so. They think that in every case the man should produce his medical certificate before he is allowed to retire from the force, and they believe that if that is insisted upon there can be no favouritism to anybody and the same conditions will apply to every man who has served twenty-five years. I understand that if the men who have served twenty-five years serve a year extra they are entitled to a higher scale of pension. I should like to know when this new Bill comes into operation if those men will be entitled to the pension which they would be entitled to after twenty-six years' service if they serve twenty-six years instead of being tied down to the twenty-five years' pension.
4.0 P.M.
Sir CHARLES HENRY: The point I want to raise is this: If a policeman joins the Army after having served in the police force for a number of years and obtained the rank of sergeant, will he have to go into the rank and file, or will his present rank as constabulary sergeant be considered. Another point I wish to raise is as to his superannuation on leaving the force; will he get his full superannuation pay while with the Army, or will it be kept until he returns, or, in the event of his not coming back, will it go to his representatives?
Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I should like to ask the Home Secretary, in reference to the possible merging under an Order of the Secretary of State of the police administration on non-county boroughs into the police administration of counties, what will be the effect in regard to the rate? This is rather an important point, and I do not see any provision dealing with it in the Bill. There is a great difference in the police rates levied in non-county boroughs and in counties. In some cases the borough rate is higher than the county police rate. Take the case of a non-county borough where the rate is 5d. in the £, while in the county it is only 2½d. or 3d. Is it proposed that the county police rate shall fall to the level of the non-county rate, or that the county rate shall be raised to the level of the borough rate. I believe some of the non-county boroughs are managing their police forces at a cheaper

607
rate than the counties, and vice versa, but there is no provision, so far as I can see, in this Bill to deal with the point, and I should like to know what are the Government proposals in regard to it.
Sir COURTENAY WARNER: I want to refer, to the case of a man who has already served twenty-five years in the police, and who may not be discharged because there is a difficulty in finding sufficient men to serve. The police authorities under present circumstances do not want to part with men if they can help it. I was sitting on a police authority yesterday and we looked on this as a very serious question. One of our difficulties is this: We do not want to take men of military age who are fit for service with the Colours. On the other hand, according to our rules and regulations, the proper age for policemen is between nineteen and thirty-five, and, consequently, there is nobody eligible who is not fit for military service. There are left only cripples and invalids who are not fit to act even as policemen. I ask the Home Secretary to consider whether he cannot by this Bill, or at any rate by the issue of an instruction from the Home Office, make some provision for the raising of temporary police. Under the present system the pay of the policeman is calculated on the number of years he is likely to serve, and his pension is also based on that. What is wanted at the moment is some system of employing as temporary police during the War men of greater age. It will be necessary to have a totally different system, with different pay and other arrangements. If that can be done, many of the difficulties which this Bill proposes to meet could be got over without legislation.
Mr. DENNISS: I wish to ask the Home Secretary a question with regard to those policemen who are in a position to retire, but may be compelled to remain in the force. As a result of so remaining, will they get an extra pension proportionate to the extra time they serve?
Mr. YEO: I should like to ask whether, in the case of a constable who has already served twenty-five years extending his period, and during the extended period being guilty of some minor offence, he will run the risk of losing his whole pension? A man may make a slight mistake, and there is a good deal of apprehension in the
608
minds of constables that they may be risking the pensions already earned. If that apprehension can be removed, I think there will be no difficulty in getting men to volunteer to stay on. They only want a straightforward statement from the Department.
Mr. McKENNA: I have been asked what is to happen to a policeman who has earned his pension by twenty-five years' service, and is detained in the force, if he commits some breach of discipline which renders him liable to forfeit the pension already earned. That is a very difficult point, and I am sure the House will appreciate that it is almost impossible to decide the question one way or the other. The difficulty is this: If you determine that in no case shall a policeman lose his right to a pension, you break the bonds of discipline. On the other hand, if you determine that for any offence the policeman is to lose a pension to which at the moment he has a statutory right, you are taking from him something of which he ought not to be deprived. The problem is how to reconcile these opposing factors. The method we have adopted in the Bill is this: We say that no constable shall, during the continuance of the present War, be entitled, without medical certificate, to retire and receive a pension for life, except with the consent of the chief officer of police force to which he belongs. That proviso is not, as might be suggested, intended to send a man out of the force because he may enjoy the favour of his superior officer, but it is intended to meet the very case put forward by my hon. Friend and to give the chief officer the right to discharge him without sacrificing his pension.
Colonel LOCKWOOD: In case of default?
Mr. McKENNA: Yes. In case he finds the man's behaviour is such as to be prejudicial to the discipline of the service, he has the power conferred on him to discharge the man from the service without sacrificing his pension. I hope that, on consideration, that method will meet with the approval of the House.
Colonel LOCKWOOD: Will the chief constables understand that that is the only object of the provision?
Mr. McKENNA: We shall take care to explain it to them. As a matter of fact, I do not think a case is ever likely to arise where a man will lose his pension. In ordinary circumstances such cases are very few

609
indeed, and where a man has nearly earned his pension—in the last year or two of his service—practically they do not occur. Therefore we are really only discussing an academic case. But I think the method we propose to adopt will be found to be satisfactory. The general intention is that a man who has earned his statutory right to a pension shall not lose that pension. The intention is also that a man who does not conform to discipline shall not be retained in the service, and so far as we have been able to reconcile those two contradictions we have done so. The question has also been asked by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) whether this Bill is to apply to the period of war only. He will see, in Clause 1, that reference is made to the original Act, which was for the War only. It is quite clear that although it is done by reference and not by special enactment, that it is to be operative only during the War. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow (Mr. Duncan) asks whether Army service will count for police pension.
Mr. DUNCAN: My point is that there are men in the police force now who have never been in the Army. They are being asked to join the Army, and are not unwilling, but they are anxious to know whether, if they do, they will enter on the same terms as those who have had previous Army service, or whether there will be any differentiation against them?
Mr. McKENNA: This Bill proposes to put all policemen who enlist on the same footing. Whether they have served in the Army before or not, their Army service will count as police service for pension. I have also been asked "whether the additional period of service will count for additional pension. The answer is, "Yes, it will." If a man serves twenty-six years in the police force he will be entitled to pension on the basis of the full twenty-six years. Now I come to the question put by the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. J. Samuel) regarding financial difficulties which may arise through the amalgamation of county and small borough police forces. I do not think any financial trouble under the terms of the Bill will in fact arise. It is only for the period of the War that the county police force is to take over the borough force for purposes of discipline and control.
Mr. J. SAMUEL: Suppose that the borough police rate is less than the county police rate, will both borough and county have to pay the same rate?
Mr. McKENNA: No, they will continue to pay exactly the same rate as they are now paying. There will be the same number of police and the same charges, but the borough police will have to obey the orders of the county police authorities. I think I have replied to all the questions, and I hope now we may get the Second Reading of the Bill.
Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I hope the Home Secretary will reconsider the position regarding the possibility of losing pensions through committing some fault during the extended period of police service. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that such a case is unlikely to accur, but still there is the probability. A man may lose his temper and strike his superior officer, and for that he may lose the whole of the pension which he has already earned under his contract with the authorities. If he joins the police force for a further term of years, surely it would be sufficient punishment to take away the pension to which he is entitled in respect of that extra service, and in no way interfere with the pension already earned by his long period of service ! I should like to see the possibility removed of any man suffering this very great injustice. I have known cases in the Service where a man who has served twenty years has been liable at the end of that time for some blunder to lose the whole of his pension. A man may have served the State well for twenty-five years and have earned his pension. That is his contract with the State, and if he does wrong after that he ought only to be punished in respect of the pension that would accrue for the extra service. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the case from that point of view.
Mr. McKENNA: If the Noble Lord will, on the Committee stage, bring up words which will meet his views, I shall be glad to consider them. I entirely recognise the force of his argument.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Mr. WALTER REA (Lord of the Treasury): I beg to move, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill committed for to-morrow (Wednesday).

TERRITORIAL FORCE BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
This Bill is one to enable the Army Council to transfer a man in the Territorial Force from one unit to another without his consent. I might perhaps say that under the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, Section 7, a man may not be transferred from one corps to another, nor, when the corps of the Territorial Force to which he belongs includes more than one unit, can he be transferred without his consent to any unit other than that to which he was posted on enlistment, nor can he be transferred to any unit of the Regular Forces. There is no intention to transfer men from the Territorial Force to the Regular Forces. This Bill is designed in order to give power to transfer men during the present War to other units of the Territorial Force, or from one corps to another. I do not think that I need go into further details; there is a Memorandum issued with the Bill which explains it.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I should like to ask for a little more information. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying that this is in fact a Bill to enable the War Office to break the conditions of enlistment. The right hon. Gentleman will realise that very great pressure was put upon Territorials to induce them to pledge themselves to go on foreign service. I know it was necessary that pressure should be put upon them, and they nobly responded, but I am bound to confess that it seemed to me, even then, a form of conscription on the very type of men who did not need conscription. They had already joined the Army for Home Defence, and pressure was put upon them to induce them to consent to go on foreign service.
Mr. TENNANTindicated dissent.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. Since the notice of this Bill appeared I have had much correspondence with regard to it, and in many Territorial regiments pressure, I will not say improper, but patriotic pressure, and a vast amount of pressure,
612
was put upon them to induce them, for the honour of the regiment if you like, to serve in foreign parts. They responded very nobly, but in all these regiments the commanding officers were authorised to make, and did make, the specific condition that they should not be changed from one unit to another. The object of this Bill is to curtail the conditions under which they were asked to undertake to serve abroad. That is the right hon. Gentleman's own Memorandum. One of the conditions was that they should only be liable to serve with their own unit, and should not be liable to be drafted, as individuals, to any other unit. The object of this Bill is to enable the War Office to get out of those conditions, and it does need a little more from the War Office to show that it is necessary to break them. Then we ought to know whether it applies to large numbers of men or whether it is only proposed to make a very few transfers. The Bill will cause, I will not say a certain amount of ill feeling, but a certain amount of feeling of injustice, on the part of thousands of these men who have volunteered to serve abroad, and we do require, with the utmost respect, a little more than the statement of the right hon. Gentleman from the War Office to show that it is desirable. I do not want to oppose it, but I want to ask the real reasons for it, and how many men to whom it will apply.
Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give us the assurance that there is nothing in this Bill which will make the man liable to serve abroad without his having voluntarily undertaken to do so. I have read the Bill carefully, but it is a complicated subject, and it would be very much more satisfactory to have that assurance from the right hon. Gentleman than to rely upon the inference which a more or less uninstructed Member like myself might draw from the Bill.
Mr. LONG: I do not want to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, and it is very difficult for us to take any step of that kind at the present time, but I confess I share, the view of my hon. Friend (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) that the Government ought to have given us a great deal more information—first of all, as to the need of this Bill, and, secondly, as to the use that is to be made of it. My hon. Friend stated, with very great moderation, that when in the early stages of the War the Territorials were invited to

613
volunteer for the front, very great pressure was brought to bear upon them. My hon. Friend said that the pressure was of a patriotic kind. I wish that were really a correct description to apply to it. I raised the question earlier, and I refer to it again to-day because I think, whatever powers the Army Council are taking, they should give us, through the Under-Secretary, an assurance that there will be no repetition of the kind of pressure which was exercised in the early days of volunteering by the Territorials.
This is the kind of pressure which I say is not patriotic, and is wholly improper. When the Territorial regiments were invited to volunteer for the front, a great many members of them had not joined with any intention of serving abroad. Their local connections and businesses made it impossible for them, at a moment's notice, to undertake to abandon everything and go on foreign service, and what most of them wanted was time. A great many of them, as far as I know, were willing to go if arrangements could be made, but they wanted time. What happened? Some commanding officers thought it patriotic and proper to divide their regiment, as it were, into sheep and goats. They not only divided them into paper lists, but they actually established separate camps in which the men who were not prepared to volunteer immediately for foreign service were placed. They were, in some cases, deprived of their uniforms, their arms, and their equipment. They were marked as if they were black sheep, and, to my own knowledge, in some cases they were told that they were acting in a way unworthy of their country.
It is impossible to talk about a volunteer army if you apply methods of this sort. This country and Parliament deliberately, with their eyes open, embarked upon a certain programme with regard to the Army. We had a small Army for purposes abroad, and we had a much larger Territorial Force, which was enlisted especially for Home defence. If you desire that those men shall volunteer for foreign service, or if you desire to use them for any purpose other than that for which they have enlisted, the terms on which you do it must be perfectly clearly laid down. You have no right to take advantage of the fact that a man was patriotic enough to join the Territorial Force, and then, having got in, to put him in a position which makes volunteering for foreign service practically obligatory, because if he
614
does not so volunteer he is liable to have odious charges brought against him.
My hon. Friend says that he has had many applications made to him. I have had pitiable cases brought to my notice, cases of men whom I have known ever since they were boys, as good and gallant farmers as ever lived, men responsible for the conduct of considerable businesses. These men joined the Territorial Force and were prepared to give time to their duties as members of that force. How on earth could they undertake, at a moment's notice, to leave their farms and businesses and go and serve abroad? It is obvious that you were asking them to do that which they could not consent to do without having time to make other arrangements. Yet, in some cases, those men were sent home by their commanding officer. They came to friends, to persons like myself and ethers, and said, "What am I to do? I cannot come home, because I shall be marked down as a coward who would not go to the front." Those are conditions which ought never to be repeated. It is an insult to the men, and it is a condemnation of the volunteer system of this country. We ought to have care, if the Army Council are going to take fresh powers, that they shall be so safeguarded that the men shall not be exposed to conditions of this kind in future.
I am not quite sure that I understand what is the actual proposal of the Government. The Under-Secretary gave us a very brief statement, and perhaps it was my stupidity that I was not able, for the moment, to appreciate the exact force of the Government's proposal. I urged upon the Under-Secretary months ago that there should be much greater power residing in the War Office, or in the Army Council, to make use of the men who have volunteered to join the Army. A great many men who volunteered to join the Army were recruited from the Territorial Force, though they were quite willing to go into the Regulars. At the beginning of the War—I fancy that the rule has been abrogated now—the War Office said that a man who had been enlisted in the Territorial Force could not be transferred to the Regulars, or used for service connected with the Regulars, and vice versa. I think that rule has been abandoned, or, at all events, that it has been more honoured in the breach than in the observance.
Mr. TENNANT: Officers or men?
Mr. LONG: Both officers and men, members of the Territorial Force. I think myself that it would be a good thing if there were power properly safeguarded enabling men to be transferred from the Regulars to the Territorials or the conditions varied where it seemed necessary and desirable in the public interest, but it must be safeguarded. When, however, you come to moving a man against his will from one Territorial unit to another, I must point out to the Under-Secretary that you are striking at the very foundations of the Territorial Force. Its very name shows that you raise men territorially, or, in other words, that you raise men by counties. It is the county feeling which leads men to join their county battalions. It is because they believe that they can do their service and at the same time carry on their own business, either agricultural or industrial, which leads them to enlist. If you are going to transfer a man from the Wiltshire Territorial Battalion to the Northumberland Territorial Battalion you are going to introduce a new principle altogether. I understand that you are going to do it against the will of the man himself.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: And against their own pledge.
Mr. LONG: Yes, against their own pledge. You are going, in other words, to take power to compel a man to do that which you undertook when you enlisted him he should not be asked to do. It is a very serious step indeed, and one which, I am afraid, may have a prejudicial effect upon recruiting for the Territorial Force. I do hope that the Under-Secretary, before he asks you to put the Question, will tell us with a little greater detail why it is that this new power is wanted, and how it is proposed to safeguard what are undoubtedly the actual statutory rights of the members of the Territorial Force. It may be necessary to do it for some reason that we have not yet heard. If it is, I should be the last to offer any opposition to a step which is thought desirable in order to prosecute the War with success, but what the reason is we do not know, nor do we know what safeguards it is proposed to introduce in order to protect the rights of these men. Those are two small bits of information which should be given to the House and the country.
As regards the Territorial Force as a whole, of course it is being used now
616
quite freely for foreign service, and in nearly every case the Territorial regiments who have gone to the front have already covered themselves with glory and rendered magnificent service. They have shown us that by pluck and determination the citizen of this country will make up for want of training, and that in a tight place he will show himself as good as any man can possibly be. That the Territorial Force has already done. I hope that the Army Council, the War Office, and the Government will pause before they take a step which seems to me to be a serious one, for which sufficient reason has hardly been given, and which may have a very serious effect upon a Force which has already proved its value, and we hope will become a leading and prominent part of our national defence, but which you might easily injure if you once deprive the men of the conviction they now hold, that they are entitled to certain rights which cannot be alienated except by Act of Parliament.
Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I wish to associate myself with the attitude taken by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) in asking for far more information than the House has yet had, and far more explanation of the safeguards which we hope will be inserted in this Bill, if the Government proceed with it. It is really difficult to exaggerate the importance of the purely territorial aspect of the Territorial Force. Anything which weakens that and leads men to think that they can be separated against their will from comrades with whom they have joined in the belief that they would serve together—joining under strong local influences, and thereby associating in their work not only the sympathy but the practical help of the people who know them at home—would be a very great mistake. Unless there are safeguards, of which we have as yet heard nothing, it will have a serious effect, not only on the members of that Force themselves, but on the recruiting for that Force. I believe it is contemplated that in ordinary counties which at the beginning of the war had one or two battalions of Territorial Infantry, that Reserve battalions should be created. As we know. Reserve battalions have been created, and as the War goes on it may be contemplated to have a third or a fourth battalion of Territorial Infantry. I am confident from what I know of the county of whose Territorial Force Association I am

617
a member, that recruiting for the further battalions will be very seriously hampered and affected if this Bill becomes law without the modifications suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. If you ask men to join a Reserve battalion, or a third battalion—no doubt for foreign service, and quite properly so—if you ask them to join that which, although called a Territorial battalion, leaves them open to be moved to any other point against their will and to be detached from their friends and the influences which have led them to enlist, I am confident it will make a very great difference and will do harm to recruiting just where, at the present time, it may be of great value, because the very fact that our Territorials have done so well abroad is all the more reason for safeguarding and strengthening them, and enlisting others who will keep up the traditions they are now creating. All that is imperilled by this Bill as we have it.
I notice that the second Clause says that the Bill is to affect those who have already enlisted and those who are already engaged. We have had complaints in this House with regard to the treatment, in regard to the vexed question of inoculation, of soldiers who have enlisted in the faith that they would not be required to be inoculated. Nothing can have so great an effect on recruiting, or upon public opinion, than the slightest suspicion, however uncalled for, of a breach of faith. To make this change now apply to those who have already enlisted under definite conditions—conditions which were to them the greatest attraction; many of them have already fought side by side with those whom they knew at home, and when they enlisted they had the strongest local feeling, and there are many others prepared to enlist now on the same terms and in the same spirit; and if this Bill is to pass without explanation or modification I am perfectly certain the harm will be great. If it is to apply without restriction and modification to those who have already enlisted, then I am confident the Government will be unwittingly doing great harm to that force which hitherto they have supported and helped in every way, and which has proved its value in the defence of the Empire during the past months.
Mr. BOYTON: There are some Members of the House who are not very well versed in military terms, and I for one would like to know what
618
is meant by the terms "unit" and "corps." For the information of the Territorial Force I should like to know what will be the position, in regard to new uniforms, of an officer transferred from a unit or a corps to another. Most of those who are now officers, and who are old members of the force, had only a small grant of £20 for uniform and outfit. I believe that more liberal conditions prevail now, but it would be a very serious thing if you transferred an old-time Territorial officer from one part of the country to another, or from one regiment to another, and involved him in considerable expense. We ought to have more, details given to us before we pass this Bill.
Mr. WING: I should like to associate myself with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) in regretting that the Under-Secretary has not given us a fuller explanation of the Bill before the House. In Durham we have largely advocated what are known as "pal battalions," and I suppose it is the same all over the country. There has been a kind of loyalty to small places, in order to keep men from those places in one particular regiment or battalion. I have had a large amount of correspondence, asking if it is possible to get persons transferred from one battalion to another in order that chums might be together, but I have found it very difficult. As a question of principle, this Bill is very serious, because it really gives up the voluntary principle and adopts the compulsory principle. In fact, it is worse, because these men have enlisted on the voluntary principle, and then find that during their career as soldiers a new principle is introduced which was not in existence when they joined. I hope the Government will withdraw this Bill in order that we may have a Bill more in conformity with the principle of the British Army, namely, the voluntary principle.
Mr. DENNISS: I hope the Under-Secretary will seriously consider the effect this Bill will have on recruiting, and particularly on what are called "pals' battalions," because the same principle will be involved with regard to them. If you break a pledge in regard to the Territorial Force, it may be that they will think you will do the same with regard to those who have enlisted for the purpose of keeping together as one body—a principle which the War Office itself has sanctioned. We have raised one in my

619
own Constituency. We had to guarantee £5,000 in order to do it, and we have got the men. If you pass this Bill, they may think that having enlisted on these particular terms, and having paid all their expenses up to £5,000, they may be liable, by some Bill brought in in this way, to be transferred to other units. The real reason for which they enlisted in these battalions was that they wished to keep together as individuals. It will interfere with recruiting for "pals' battalions." and I have no doubt in other ways.
Sir JOHN JARDINE: I should like to join with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) and most hon. Members who have spoken in the demand for a fuller explanation of the reasons for this Bill and for some knowledge of the modifications. I dislike anything that strikes at the security of a promise made on behalf of the State or any department of it. I think this tends to strike at the principle of the Territorial Force. Local feeling is very strong. People enlist in Territorial battalions because some brother has enlisted before. It is the same with officers as with men in that respect. A number of people from the same village are recruited by local people on the strength of local feeling, and they want to be together. They do not mind going abroad; they have gone abroad with those they call their "pals." I am sure the same feeling has obtained among the officers. They are ready for a great deal, but they want to volunteer by the battalion, and they would greatly dislike it if a number were taken out and sent away. Again, the local organisations for looking after their dependants centre a good deal around this particular plan. The ladies who look after the widows and children left behind are related to the particular unit, and that principle would be struck at. It would be hardly reasonable for me to push my criticisms further, but I would like to press the point that we should have full reasons given for what seems to me very much of an emergency measure.
Mr. TENNANT: With the permission of the House, I should like to answer the questions addressed to me by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Long) and by various hon. Members. I regret that I did not give a more lengthy and detailed explanation of the needs for this Bill. It is really a much more harmless Bill than
620
is apprehended by many hon. Gentlemen. In the first place, I should like to draw attention to the fact that it is purely permissive. It is only intended to be utilised in case where there is real reason for it— for instance, such as that of a battalion having been seriously cut up in the course of the fighting. If the right hon. Gentleman will project his mind to such a case as this, he will see that we might have a brigade of four regiments, say, two Durhams and two Northumberlands brigaded together. They might all be decimated in which case we should try to make a single regiment out of the four battalions which had been so severely handled. In that case yon would ask the Durhams and the Northumberland? to serve together, or similarly the Devons and the Dorsets, or the King's Own Scottish Borderers and the Royal Scots, and so on in similar combinations which will readily occur to the minds of hon. Members. I need not say that I should be most jealous of guarding the voluntary principle involved in the Territorial Force Act There is nothing further from the intentions of my Noble Friend or myself than to do anything just now, or so far as we know at any time, to injure the voluntary principle on which the Army exists.
Mr. LONG: The right hon. Gentleman appears to indicate that it is only intended to use the powers conferred in the Bill when the regiments are abroad on active service, and not here at home. Is that so?
Mr. TENNANT: I cannot limit myself by saying that in no circumstances shall the powers be used at home. Supposing you have already utilised three or four battalions of a particular regiment, there may be a fifth Reserve battalion which may not be complete, but it may be very desirable to hurry men out to the front with the greatest possible rapidity and dispatch. There ought, in my judgment, to be power residing in the Secretary of State to fill up that battalion and send it out complete. There would be no real ground for saying that it should not be completed because they did not happen to be Wiltshire men. It would not hurt if they were Gloucester men. I cannot help thinking that if the House realises these things it will come to the decision that it is desirable to place this power in the hands of the Secretary of State and the Army Council, because it is quite possible

621
that such circumstances may arise as will make such transference urgently necessary. But there is no reason to fear that so long as affairs continue as they are continuing to-day we shall in any way utilise these powers in a manner which would be resented at all by the men of the Force whom we are asking power to transfer. When the right hon. Gentleman said he would take powers to transfer Territorial soldiers to the Regular Force, I think that is much more striking at the foundations of the Territorial principle—
Mr. LONG: No; the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. It is not striking at any principle; it is transferring men on their own request. If a man makes His own request to be transferred I am not striking at any principle.
Mr. TENNANT: I beg pardon. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say he would not object to giving power to transfer a man against his own will. I should like the House to realise this; In January or November, certainly during this Session of Parliament, I introduced and carried a Bill giving similar powers to those contained in this Bill with regard to the Regular Army to the Secretary of State and the Army Council to transfer men against their will from one unit in the Regular Army to another, or from one corps to another, always within the same arm. I may explain that a unit means a battalion, and a corps generally means a regiment. You cannot transfer Infantry to Cavalry or Artillerymen to the Engineers. Here you have in this campaign Territorial soldiers serving side by side with Regular soldiers. It seems quite desirable that similar powers should be given to the War Office to transfer them, if necessary, from, we will say, the second battalion to the third battalion of the same regiment.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: In the case of two battalions serving abroad, if the right hon. Gentleman looks at line 15 of the Bill, surely the illustration he gave just now of the united Devons and Dorsets and the Northumberlands and Durhams is wrong, because it is only to join two units in one corps when serving abroad. The 5th and 6th Durhams cannot be joined to the Northumberlands. The right hon. Gentleman's explanation is a little at fault.
Mr. TENNANT: I do not think that is so. The Bill says, "may authorise a man
622
of the Territorial Force when belonging to one corps to be transferred without his consent to another corps of the same arm or branch of the Service."
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The first part of the Clause refers to home and not abroad.
Mr. TENNANT: The Bill actually contains the words, "who is liable to serve outside the United Kingdom." There is no intention of taking a man who only enlists for Home service and drafting him to a unit for foreign service.
Sir RYLAND ADKINS: Supposing a man enlists for foreign service in the Northumberlands, will this allow him to be drafted into the Bedfords or Dorsets against his will?
Mr. TENNANT: In the event of such an emergency as I have described, it would. That is the whole object which we have in the Bill.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: It does not do it; it only allows him to be transferred for foreign service to a unit of the same corps to which he belongs. Not from the Bedfords to the Northumberlands, but from the 5th to the 6th battalion of the Bedfords.
Mr. TENNANT: I am nonplussed. I agree it does not seem to carry out the actual terms printed in the Memorandum. Perhaps we had better defer further consideration.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's last announcement that he proposes to adjourn the debate and get further information. May I ask him to be prepared on the next occasion to deal with a point which deserves some consideration. Special battalions are being raised with the sanction of Lord Kitchener; they are not affected.
Mr. TENNANT: This Bill deals only with the Territorial Force. I had intended to tell my hon. Friend behind that what are called "pals' battalions" belong to the New Army; they are quite separate from the Territorial Force.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Are they subject to the provisions of the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman introduced some time ago, which applied to the

623
Regular Army, that any man enlisting in a "pals' battalion" is liable to be transferred into any other battalion?
Mr. TENNANT: Of course, not without reason. I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
Mr. SPEAKER: I think someone else had better move that.
Mr. WALTER REA: I beg to move "That the Debate be now adjourned."
Question put, and agreed to.
Debate to be resumed to-morrow (Wednesday).

PRISONERS OF WAR.
Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, "That, in view of the grave statements that have been made regarding the treatment of prisoners of war in Germany, this House requests His Majesty's Government to take all the means in their power to ensure their better treatment in the future."
I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the Prime Minister for having given mo facilities for bringing this question on. I am perfectly well aware of the great difficulty which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has to meet in dealing with these matters, and I do not in any kind of way bring this Motion on in a hostile attitude to the Government, but merely because I think the public ought to know the manner in which our brave soldiers are being treated at present, and which is contrary to all the customs of civilised warfare. I am sorry the Government did not publish these Papers earlier. I think, from what I know of my own countrymen, that it is always better to tell them bad news, if there is bad news, and that they are always prepared to meet it in a proper spirit. The Government have, perhaps for good reasons, at a moment when there has been a great desire to obtain recruits, withheld this information. My own belief is that if the manner in which these men are being treated is circulated throughout the country there is not a man who would not, if he was able, at once feel desirous of joining the Army in order to avenge the treatment which has been meted out to these men. In fact, old as I am, when I read the White Paper I felt a desire to
624
ask the Secretary of State for War to find me a commission as second lieutenant in some regiment. I should like to ask why it is that on 13th October, when the Government received some information from the United States Ambassador with regard to the camp at Doberitz, as far as one can see no steps were taken to deal with it until 26th December. On that date a letter was written dealing with the camp at Ruhleben, but not with the camp at Doberitz. Of course, it is possible that Papers have appeared and letters have been written and steps taken which do not appear in the White Paper, and, therefore, I am only asking for information, but apparently no steps were taken between 13th October and 26th December. I should also like to ask for an explanation of the letter which was written on 4th March from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the United States Ambassador. Apparently this is the first letter in which His Majesty's Government really attempt to take any steps. It says:—
"His Majesty's Government feel that the time has come to ask that the same permission as was given by His, Majesty's Government to Mr. Jackson to visit the camps in this country, should be given by the German Government for a similar inspection of camps in Germany, in which British prisoner of war, civil and military, are interned."
5.0 P.M.
That seems to be a very likely explanation, but it seems to me that the 4th of March was rather late to ask for permission to visit the camps in Germany in the same way as permission had been given to Mr. Jackson to visit the camps here. I trust that the Press will take notice of this Debate. Large numbers of people in this country do not read White Papers, because it is not in their power to do so, and they do not read the summarised reports that very often appear in the Press of the Debates in the House. I do not know what view the Press generally take upon this subject, but in my opinion it is so important a matter that it is necessary that the Debate which takes place to-day should be very fully reported in the Press, and I hope that that will be so.
There was a question asked to-day about the officers who have been interned in Germany in solitary confinement, in consequence of the treatment which has been meted out to the thirty-nine officers and the crew of the submarines who have been captured. So far as I know the officers and crew of the submarines, if they have been treated differently from the other prisoners of war, have been treated in a

625
humane manner, whereas the thirty-nine British officers who have been taken by the Germans have in some instances not been treated in a humane way. An old friend of mine wrote to me the other day on hearing that I was to raise this question in the House, and she sent me a letter from her niece who is engaged to be married to one of these officers who have been placed in a common gaol in Germany. From that letter, which I have in my pocket, it appears that this gentleman is wounded. I think he is wounded in the lung. They thought he was dead, but they found out later that he was alive, but in a very weak condition, and still suffering from this wound in the lung. In the letter this lady says:—
"Why cannot they take an unwounded man if it is necessary to make a reprisal of that sort. Why do they take a wounded man, and put a poor weak, wounded man in solitary confinement, whore he has to clean his own cell and so on. I should not have minded so much if he had only been strong and well, because I know he would have borne it for the sake of his country."
It seems to me almost incredible that any nation calling itself a civilised nation should do a thing like that. I think the fact, and it is an undoubted fact that that has been done, should be made known all over the country. I propose to confine most of my remarks to certain extracts and letters in the White Paper, but before doing so I should like to relate one or two narratives that have been told me. My hon. Friend the Member for the Holderness Division of Yorkshire (Mr. Stanley Wilson)—I am not quite certain as to what corps or unit he is attached in France—was over here last week, and he told me that a certain communication had been made to him in France by an officer who told him that he was prepared to verify the statements made in it. My hon. Friend made a promise to this officer to read the letter in the House of Commons. He was, however, sent back to France, and he handed the letter to me, and asked me to take his place. This letter has been quoted in one or two papers, and therefore I do not propose to read it unless any hon. Member desires it. I have got it in my pocket and I propose merely to summarise what is in it. I know who wrote it. He is a private soldier in the Army. I know his regiment, and I know how the letter got over here. I am prepared to show that letter to the Government or to any Member of this House who wants to see it, but I think every one will agree with me that as this man is still a prisoner in Germany it
626
would be wise if I do not in any way indicate his regiment or the manner in which he sent the letter over here:—
"This man says that he is starving. He says that men are tied up to posts in such a way that only the tips of their toes touch the ground, and that it is worse than being in hell."
He writes altogether an extremely despairing letter. In the days of my youth I used to read the books of Fennimore Cooper, and I used to see how the American Red Indians behaved to the trappers and settlers who were colonising in America. There was little worse punishment ever inflicted by these American Red Indians than is now apparently being inflicted by these people who call themselves the cultured nation of Europe. That is one case. The other case which has been brought to my notice confirms the statements in the first case, and is from a totally different source. From this totally different source I am informed that it is by no means uncommon for our prisoners to be tied up in the way that has been described for such small breaches of discipline as smoking when smoking is forbidden, or smoking in a place where smoking is forbidden. It is said that men have been bayoneted in the hands and in other parts of the body, and ill-used in the way I have described.
Certain information I received yesterday came to me in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil). I do not know what impression it made upon him, but certainly I thought that the person who gave me the information was giving me information which was correct and not exaggerated. That gentleman has asked me not to mention his name, if it is possible to avoid it, and not to state the particular camp to which he alludes, and, of course, I understand the reasons which actuate him. I shall be very willing to give in confidence his name, and the name of the camp, to any Member of this House who asks me for them. I think the information has already been given to the Government. This gentleman corroborates the statement about prisoners being tied up in the way I have already indicated. He tells me that at one camp he knows the allowance for food is 6d. per day. Sixpence a day, or 3s. 6d. a week, is not a very large allowance to feed a man upon. In addition to that there is also given every other day a loaf of bread:—
"He says that prisoners in many cases are being starved, and that to his knowledge people have died from the effects of imprisonment. He did not think it would ever be known how many people have died,

627
because when it is found that they are in a dying state they are quietly taken away, ostensibly to a sanatorium, and nothing more is heard about them."
Now I turn to the White Paper, from which I shall only read a few extracts. I presume that Members of the House have read the White Paper, but people outside the House have not read it, and I believe I shall be making my case all the stronger if I take what is admitted by the Government to be true, than if I take statements, however true they may be, which come from other sources. The first extract to which I shall call attention is on page S, and it is from Mr. Gerard. After stating that he is visiting a number of prisoners of war, Mr. Gerard says that their care is a matter which requires the immediate attention of the British Government. That letter was written on 2nd October and received by the Government on the 13th October. It comes from an American who is an impartial observer, and it says:—
"There are a number of British prisoners of war in this country I have not yet succeeded in getting the exact number and place of confinement, but their care is a matter which requires the immediate attention of the British Government.
I visited the camp at Doberitz, near Berlin, the other day, interviewed the sergeants and examined the camp…The prisoners have only one blanket and are without overcoats, as when taken prisoner they are compelled to drop their overcoats and equipment. They therefore suffer from cold, as well as from the condition brought about by having no change of underwear. … I have already purchased and sent out 100 blankets… Some of the men complained that the food was insufficient. One loaf of good black bread is given to three men; each man has a cup of coffee in the morning, some soup in the middle of the day, and a cup of tea or coffee at night, and this constitutes their sole rations. I presume that the British prisoners in other camps are in a similar condition."
It does not sound a very great amount of food to have—a cup of coffee in the morning, some soup in the middle of the day, a cup of tea or coffee at night in conjunction with some black bread. But it depends upon what the coffee and the soup and the tea is like, and when you come to read further in the White Paper you will find that the coffee is nothing but a little brown-coloured water, that the tea is as bad, and that the soup is simply a little hot water with a little colouring matter in it from vegetables or something of that kind. The next extract is on page 11, and it is a letter from Mr. Grew, who is the counsellor of the American Embassy in Berlin, who had visited the prisoners' camp at Doberitz. He says:—
"There were very few complaints on the part of the men. Nothing was said about the food, but the men objected to the fact that the blankets were not thick enough."
628
I have been told, and as far as I can make out there is a great deal of foundation for that view, that we must not take too seriously favourable statements about the condition of these prisoners, because I am told the German authorities have left unturned no stone in order to prevent people who are visiting the camps from knowing the true state of affairs. They are only shown what the Germans desire should be be shown, and pressure is brought upon the prisoners not to make any complaint for fear things should be worse than before. Then there is a letter from Mr. Lay, the American Consul-General at Berlin, who gives a list of objectionable features in reference to the treatment of British officers detained at Tergau. At page 13, he says:—
"Officers have recently been forbidden beer. The water is unfit to drink, likewise the mineral waters provided. Wine and beer, if limited, could not possibly do any harm.
At present every officer has to be in bed at 9 p.m. with lights out. An extension, even to 10 p.m., is urgently requested.
At present the water-closets are used by officers of all ranks; by English and French orderlies, by German soldiers, and by German civilians employed in the fort. Could not a water-closet and latrines be set apart for English officers and the same for French officers?
There are here many officers so badly wounded as to render them permanently unfit to serve again. Many require serious operations. They are unfitted for the rough life here, and in the cause of humanity should be sent to England."
Then he deals with various other questions, including the pay of officers. On page 22 there is a letter from Sir Edward Grey to Mr. Page, in which he says:—
"I have the honour to inform your Excellency that His Majesty's Minister at Stockholm has reported that, according to information received from Russians lately returned from Germany, the British prisoners of war interned at Munsterlager, near Hanover, complain greatly of ill-treatment."
That is the first intimation in this White Paper that the Government was dealing seriously with the question. Then, on page 26, there is a letter from Sir G. Buchanan, His Majesty's Minister in Petrograd, to Sir Edward Grey, enclosing a statement made by a Russian medical officer just returned from three weeks' detention as prisoner of war at Dänholm bei Stralsund, who says:—
"The British officers are not as well treated as the Russian officers. They are classed among the less-educated Russians, who speak no language other than Russian, so that they cannot talk… With regard to the food, the doctor said it was very bad, both in quality and quantity. The coffee was bad and made with dirty water. The officers were given three pieces of bread a day made with potato meal. Lunch consisted mostly of potatoes. In the evening they received bread and a small slice of sausage."

629
All these reports come from unbiassed men, and sources which, in all probability, have not been able to obtain full information, because it is evident that the German Government would not like them to do so. Then, on page 28, the Foreign Secretary writes to Mr. Page and makes allusion to a report by Mr. Gaston, and there is a footnote with the words, "Not printed." I do not know why that report is not printed; perhaps there are very excellent reasons. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to make a note of that point, and let me know why the report is not printed. Then there is a statement by a French priest, who says:—
"While the French prisoners were very well treated and the Russians not so badly, the British were singled out for ill-treatment. According to the French priest the German soldiers kick the British prisoners in the stomach, and break their guns over their backs; they force them to sleep out in marshy places, so that many are now consumptive. The British are almost starved, and such have been their tortures that thirty of them asked to be shot."
At page 34 there is a statement by an American citizen who lives at Havre. His name is not given. It is sent by the American Ambassador to the Foreign Secretary. It is a long statement in reference to the British prisoners of war at Döberitz. I will only read a few words. It says:—
"There are 9,000 men in the Doberitz camp, elbowing each other, sleeping two in a bed. Not one has had a bath since he was first brought to the camp. It isn't likely that one will have a bath while the war lasts. When winter comes, and they move into the permanent wooden barracks which have been provided for them, conditions must grow worse. They will be huddled about stoves then, and in the lack of proper clothing will not keep in the open air. Even now—
'Don't touch anything, said the guard. 'You'll get' em on you.'
When a man can stand the torture no longer he is sent to the hospital. There he gets—not a bath—but a thorough daubing with a vermin-killing ointment. His clothes are disinfected. He is sent back to be reinhabited.
Some of them do their best to keep clean. In the centre of the camp is a horse-trough, perhaps 50 feet long, into which water may be turned from a tap. It stands in the open air. Men who have money and can buy soap at the canteen wash their clothes in this trough. If they are particularly particular they strip themselves and take an ice-water bath. The fall and winter climate of northern Germany is very severe. We were shivering in our overcoats. But we saw half-a-dozen men naked to the waist, rubbing themselves down with water at the horse-trough… 'Seems to me a great many of the Englishmen are very pale,' I said to the guard. 'Do they get enough to eat?'
He said they did, but that they didn't like it. The men receive a hunk of war bread, made of rye and potato flour, with a cup of tea in the morning and the same thing at night, with an occasional chunk of sausage added. The one hot meal of the day is at noon, when each gets a pannikin full of a soupy stew of cabbage and carrots and potatoes, or whatever other vegetable may be handy, plus some meat.
630
'The Russians like that soup,' said the guard. 'The Englishmen and Frenchmen do not. They are always complaining.'
I saw that stew in the rough. Perhaps I was influenced by my dislike for cabbage and carrots, but it seemed to me it was a mighty unappetising mess… The men sleep in pairs in the tents or straw ticks. When we were there it had been raining for days. The dirt floor of the tents was a mass of mud. The straw gave off a sour and musty odour. But the guards say that the animal heat of so many men sleeping under a single canvas roof keeps them warm."
There is a report at page 46 which deals with the conditions in the camp at Ruhleben, and the conditions there appear to be similar to those which I have already read out. The food appears to have been very bad. In this report the writer says:—
"Ruhleben is a trotting course with a training establishment attached. The latter is used to house the prisoners. There are eleven stables, each containing twenty-seven horse boxes of 10 ft. 6 in. by 10 ft. 6in., and above them two-large lofts. We are housed in the boxes and in the lofts, each box accommodating six prisoners. The floor is of concrete, and after we arrived we were supplied with a moderate amount of straw, which, strewn on the concrete, serves as one's bed. There is also a table and five chairs. The concrete is damp, and consequently the straw has become damp and clammy also. Recently we were supplied with sacks which were to be filled with straw and to serve as mattresses. For this we had to use the old damp and partly-rotten straw. A long passage runs down the full length of each stable; it contains two taps, which, together with one earthenware dish, constitute all the washing accommodation for the approximately 300 to 400 men housed in each stable. We are roused at 6, and have to get up at once; light in the passage is turned on about 6.30, when there is a scramble for water, afterwards the whole stall is lined up and has to march a distance of 500 to 600 yards for coffee. Each man is supplied with a dish, which he takes with him, and in this he receives about a pint of what is called coffee, but what is really only a concoction of chicory without either milk or sugar. After that the horse's box has to be cleaned. Each stall has a non-commissioned officer and two private soldiers in command. They treat the prisoners with great brutality, shouting at them, and even using personal violence. Between 11 and 12 o'clock the midday meal is served out in the same way and into the same dish as the coffee. Prisoners are marched 500 to 600 yards to one of the kitchens and there receive about 1 to 1½ pints of what is called soup—it is water, potatoes, vegetables, such as Swedish carrots or cabbages, sometimes peas or rice, and very little meat boiled with it. Men sometimes have not received a scrap of meat for a whole week. It is said that the contractor who supplies the food boils the meat first for the soldiers and gives them the best of it, and the bones and leavings then go into the prisoners' soup. The ingredients used seem to be to a great extent condemned stores. The rice, for instance, was sweepings from warehouses and soiled by mice, and the barley also often has the same flavour… They are not actually dying of starvation, but they can only just keep themselves alive and no more."
Then there is a very sad statement about the condition of the prisoners who are ill. It is stated that the food given causes diarrhœa. There are no latrines anywhere-except out of doors, and in the middle of the night they have to be used by going

631
out. There are so few that, in the middle of a cold winter night, these unfortunate people suffering from bad food have to line up in queues while waiting to use these latrines. Then there is a statement here about a man who was taken ill one night with gall stones, and hon. Members of this House who have seen a person ill with gall stones must know the frightful pain and suffering which it causes. This man was taken ill at night time, and, of course, he could not get help in the night.
"But the first thing in the morning the noncommissioned officer was informed, who came and looked at him and sent for the hospital attendant. That attendant turned up a few hours later, took the patient's temperature, found his pulse vary weak, and said it was a case for the doctor, whom he would inform. The sick waited all day, but no doctor came, although he could be seen walking about the square for hours smoking cigarettes. In the evening the hospital attendant came to ask if the doctor had been to see the patient and promised to send him at 8 o'clock, but no doctor fame. Next morning, after thirty-six hours after the man was taken ill, he was informed that if he wanted to see the doctor he would have to dress and go and see him. This he eventually did. His friends dragged him to the consulting room, the doctor did not even examine him, he merely asked him what was the matter and what he wanted. When informed that the patient wanted morphium he told his attendant to give him one capsule, and that ended the matter. All the inmates of this camp are agreed that if anyone here should fall ill his days are numbered unless he be a German Englishman."
With regard to this camp, as far as I can make out from what appears in this Paper, the people interned there are all civilians, and, as far as I can also make out, in Germany in the case of every Briton and every man who is born of British parents, or born in any of the Colonies, even if he has been naturalised, if he is between the ages of seventeen and fifty-five, he is interned in these awful places. That is very different from the treatment which we have given, to naturalisel Germans over here. I feel that that ought to be brought borne to naturalised Germans over here, many of whom are connected with people of prominence, of wealth, and of good social position in Germany. Many of them are very rich men; they are naturalised as Englishmen. I am not making any accusation, but I should like to see them do something to show that they are really naturalised Englishmen, and not Germans, who have naturalised themselves in order that they may take advantage of it.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Primrose): Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will refer to
632
the Memorandum, No. 16. on page 9 of the White Paper.
Sir F. BANBURY: I see it is dated 17th October. It states that there are
"some few English civilians in Germany who have been placed in prison or in prison camps—about 300. The German Government is informed that a great number of German civilian prisoners—over 6,000—are in prison camps in England."
That, however, does not deal with the statement I have just read.
Mr. PRIMROSE: I do not wish to defend what the German Government has done, but the hon. Baronet will find in the Memorandum that Germany pointed out that some civilians would be interned if we took further measures against the civilians here, and that one would be the result of the other.
Sir F. BANBURY: I am coming to retaliation, of which, however, I am not in favour. The fact does remain that there is a large number—if not all, nearly all—of Englishmen interned in Germany, and there is also a large number of naturalised Germans interned here. That is very different from the treatment given here, and if there is not to be retaliation, at any rate, there is room for it. Although I am against retaliation, unless we are driven to it, yet I do not think we would gain anything by letting the German people think that we are afraid to do it. We have got to make up our mind, and we have got to do something to let the Germans know that we are not going to take these things lying down. Though our soldiers and civilians in Germany are bearing their ills like men, that is no reason why we should allow these people to think that they can impose those hardships with impunity. On page 48 of the Paper there is confirmation of what I have said, and we must not take for granted all that is told us. I give every credit to the representative Americans who are making inquiries, still I do not think we should take for granted everything that they state, because I think they have sometimes been misled. On page 48 we are told that the representative of the American Embassy was allowed to visit certain places in the camp; he was shown comfortable places which had been arranged for him to see. That is nothing new; it has been done over and over again in all sorts of places, and the House must be prepared for something of that sort. Only the other day, according to the White Paper, page 82, this was

633
sent by Sir Edward Grey, the Secretary of State, to the United States Ambassador in London:—
"We have received information from a prominent official of the Red Gross Society from which it is evident that our prisoners of war in Germany are being kept very short of food—if not starved."
This was written on 19th March. I hope the House will excuse me for having brought to their attention these extracts from the White Paper, but I could not have performed my task without doing so, and it is a matter which the country ought to know. I may be asked what is my remedy. There are three remedies—I do not say they are good—which have occurred to me. Probably there may be others with suggestions which they may think better. The first of the three remedies is retaliation. I do not believe in retaliation, because two wrongs do not make a right, and if the Germans are behaving in the horrible manner which I have indicated, and if they break all The Hague Conventions, which I think is undoubtedly the fact, that is no reason why we should do so, or act as they are doing. I would not do it if it could possibly be avoided, but some things might arise which would make it absolutely necessary to take some steps. The next remedy is one proposed by my Noble Friend (Lord C. Beresford), that we should take some of their money. Undoubtedly money goes a long way with a good many people, and certainly the Germans do not like their money interfered with. I was very much taken with my Noble Friend's suggestion when it was first made, but one has got to be a little careful to find out exactly how much money we have got of theirs and how much they have got of ours.
Lord C. BERESFORD: More than they have of ours.
Sir F. BANBURY: That is rather a difficult thing to find out. So far as I can make out, I do not think the information we have is at all authentic, and I have not been able to ascertain exactly what the actual facts are. So far as I can gather we have more cash, more security, more actual money of the Germans here than they have of ours; but there are certain debits owing to us by Germany which might possibly alter that position—for instance, acceptances of bills. One does not know exactly what is going to happen after the War; we cannot be too sure that those debts will be paid off, whatever happens. There is a difference between a promise to pay and a golden sovereign in
634
your hand. At present, however, so far as I can make out, we are in a better position with regard to actual assets than are the Germans. I think that is a matter which has to be carefully considered. There can be no question that there is a very large number of naturalised Germans over here who are in partnership, or who have been in partnership, with large numbers in Germany. I believe a good deal of German money is over here in that form. A naturalised German has a business here, and he has also got a firm abroad in Germany; but the partners in Germany do not come over here, though they really are partners, whatever arrangement has been made since the War. A good deal of money belongs to these people, and that has got to be included—at least I should include it—in the amount that we have over here.
Then the last solution is that we should make it one of the conditions in the terms of peace that the people who have been responsible for these outrages should be punished. I think on the whole that is the best solution. We could hold our hands with regard to the others, especially with regard to the money, until we could make that last solution sufficient. I think it would also be well if we could, in concert with our Allies, tell Germany that, at the close of the War—which will undoubtedly be in our favour—the conditions of peace will be more onerous unless an amelioration takes place with regard to the condition of the prisoners, and1 unless the people who have been responsible for what has occurred in the past are to be brought to account. We must not overlook that. I would not let them turn round and say, "We are sorry now."' Those people who are responsible in the past should be made to feel the effects of their wrongdoing, and I think that should be made one of the conditions of peace. I have endeavoured to discharge a difficult task, and I hope I have not wearied the House, but I felt that it was essential that the people should know the truth of what is going on. It was therefore I ventured to ask the Prime Minister to give me a day, and, in conclusion, I thank him and the Secretary of State for War for having given me that day.
Mr. POLLOCK: I hope the House will grant me their indulgence while, for a short time, I endeavour to add to the observations which have been so forcibly made by the Member for the City of London. I think we ought, first of all, to

635
point out at once that the discussion on this subject in this House is not brought forward because we are feeling the pinch of the misconduct of Germany towards our prisoners. It must not go forth from any Debate in this House that Germany has succeeded in touching us "on the raw," or that any further departure from international courtesy and rule will be effective in causing us to feel what Germany would wish us to feel, namely, the power of the mailed fist. That will not be the result of this Debate. I hope that it will have another result among the neutral countries where they will read the White Paper—I hope we shall gain, what Germany has always attempted to gain by foul means, by lies, by falsehood and untruth, namely, opinion in our favour in neutral countries. I hope we shall be able, especially in those countries where an interest is taken in this question, and where this Debate may be read, to show that we have got a crime brought home to the Germans, and that neutral countries will realise that we are fighting, as we are fighting, against Prussian militarism and for the cause of humanity and civilisation. One other result, I hope, will arise from this Debate, that it will have the result, as my hon. Friend suggested, of increasing the numbers of recruits by causing it to be realised throughout the country that it is the duty of our men to save their own "pals," as we have heard them described this afternoon, who are in various units at the front—their own friends, their own countrymen—from some of the most grievious horrors that have ever been perpetrated on prisoners of war.
The hon. Baronet detailed a certain number of facts, which are contained in the White Paper, and I assume that all Members of the House are in possession of the salient features of that document. It is not uninteresting to recall the terms of the Convention which Germany has signed. There have been two Conventions which have dealt with the treatment of prisoners of war. Germany has signed both. She signed one on the 29th July, 1899, at The Hague. She signed another with some slight reserve—which I do not think is material, though the Under-Secretary may tell us it is material—on the 18th October, 1907. It comes as no matter of surprise to any Member of this House to find that Germany has acted in direct contradiction of these two Conventions to which she put her hand, and that she has added one more proof of that
636
perfidy of which she has been guilty in breaking treaties by which she was bound as well as ourselves. What are the clauses of those Conventions? Germany may care very little for international law, but at any rate the conditions to which she put her hand set up a standard of treatment which should be accorded to prisoners of war. There are three or four rules. The first is that prisoners must be humanely treated. The next is that the Government into whose hands they have fallen is bound to maintain them. The next, failing special agreement between the belligerents, prisoners shall be treated as regards food, quarters, and clothing, on the same footing as the soldiers of the Government who captured them. The fourth is that there should be a bureau of information established, in order that communications may be made by the prisoners to their relatives at home. Those are four simple rules. Let us come now to what the White Paper tells us from impartial sources as to the terms of treatment being received by our prisoners. Does it accord with anything like that standard which civilised nations have set up, or does it accord more nearly with what we find published on 8th December in the Berlin papers. Some correspondence had taken place in those papers as to whether or not prisoners at Ruhleben were being too well treated, and in an official communiqué, published in Berlin, on 8th December, we find it stated that the Ruhleben prisoners
"were not being treated too well, but as severely as possible, in accordance with the wishes of the people."
I hope neutral countries will take note of that—"in accordance with the wishes of the people." May I refer also to one or two passages which the hon. Baronet overlooked, and for this reason. I think we have got to remember in a discussion on this subject that there are different sorts of camps. Ruhleben camp is the camp in which a large number of civilian prisoners have been interned. Here, perhaps, I may make this remark, that although I followed the passage to which the Under-Secretary referred to show that not all Englishmen in Germany are being interned, perhaps when he comes to address us he will explain how that coincides with the statement which is made on page 82 of the White Paper and which is put forward apparently from authoritative sources. How does he explain the divergence, and how can he reconcile the two statements? I accept, of course, his

637
statement that all British subjects are not being interned, but on page 82, No. 109, and dated 18th March, there is the statement:—
"A month ago all British Colonial subjects were rearrested and interned."
Mr. PRIMROSE: The hon. and learned Gentleman misunderstands me. I did not say that British civilians are not being interned now. They are.
Mr. POLLOCK: Whether earlier or later, I am sure this House will take just the same interest, and I am not sure that it is much satisfaction to the British subjects who are interned now to tell them that they have been lucky that they were not interned a little while ago. What we really care to know is that they are interned now, and all British Colonial subjects are. As I have pointed out, we must differentiate between the camps. Ruhleben, I think, is, on the whole, the camp in which the civil prisoners have been interned. A description of that camp is to be found on page 65, and a contrast can be made between that description and what appears on page 80 with regard to the principles to be observed in the treatment of the prisoners of war:—
"In the morning there is coffee, tea, or soup, and at noon a plentiful fare, consisting of meat and vegetables. The meat may be replaced by a correspondingly larger portion of fish, and at night a substantial and plentiful meal."
There is a bold statement concerning the principles observed in housing, feeding, and clothing the officers and men held prisoners of war in Germany. Contrast that with what appears on page 8 of the White Paper of a ration of a little coffee in the morning, a little soup in the middle of the day, and practically no food at night. It is all very well to put off the neutral inquirer, and we are very grateful for the way in which the United States Ambassadors have done their best, but the statement of their principles which appears on page 80 is putting us off. Those principles are honoured in the breach and not in the observance, and they are of a kind with a great many other pieces of information which come from Germany. Let us turn from the Ruhleben camp to the other camps, because I think it may be fairly said, and I wish to be quite fair on the matter, there is evidence in this White Paper that the conditions at Ruhleben have much improved. It is quite true that only from about 6d. to 7d. is allowed for food, but since they have apparently removed one or two of what I should call the "German captains,"
638
who were originally placed in charge of the camp, matters seem to have improved, and let us hope that they have.
Let us turn now to where the prisoners of war are interned, namely, at Doberitz, Torgau, and Sennelager. Those are all camps where our prisoners are at the present moment being confined. You will find the conditions at Doberitz described on page 8. Even at the other camp at Ruhleben the prisoners were all vermin-ridden, and I do not think that we can believe that the condition of the men at Doberitz is anything better. We have the statement at the bottom of page 35 about these men:—
"It may be quite true that nothing better can be done for them under the circumstances. Nevertheless, these 9,000 are very miserable men."
This is the way it closes—
"It is true they are vermin-ridden. They have no way of keeping themselves clean."
That is at Doberitz. Let us go now to Torgau, a fortress where officers are imprisoned, and of them we read:—
"Many require serious operations. They are unfitted for the rough life here, and in the cause of humanity should be sent to England."
Here is another:—
"Information regarding the treatment of noncommissioned officers and men of the British Army who are prisoners of war in other camps is anxiously awaited. Rumours of their exposure to the elements, their starvation, and their treatment are rampant all along the line."
Let me now come to Sennelager, of which we read the following:—
"Three prisoner camps at Sennelager require 1,000 uniforms, 1,500 greatcoats, and 1,000 sets of underwear, which should all be addressed and forwarded directly to Kommandateur, Sennelager."
That is in a telegram from Mr. Page, United States Ambassador in London, to Sir Edward Grey, and dated Febrnary 16th. We know that the greatcoat is always taken from the prisoners, and very often the tunic, but always the greatcoat, because the German officers wear it, since it is much better than the one with which they are supplied. On page 77 we find further requests for clothing, and that in March the total number of greatcoats required for our troops is 6,815, for those men exposed to the rigour of the climate in Germany, and who had their greatcoats taken from them. Those are details of the three camps set out in the White Paper, and then there is the other question, How are the officers treated? Are they treated in anything like the same way as the officers of our Allies are treated? They are not. On page 26 we find the statement from a Russian medical officer as follows:—
"The British officers are not as well treated as the Russian officers. They are classed among the

639
less educated Russians, who speak no language other than Russian, so that they cannot talk. The Russians are allowed to buy books, but the British officers are not allowed to do so. The German lieutenant in charge is openly insulting and hostile towards the British prisoners."
We must again note the differentiation against the British officer under circumstances which might well imply humiliation and actual discomfort by treatment which must be extremely hard to bear. I need not go through the other statements as to the other camps. Not only have we the details in the White Paper, but a day or two ago I read in the Press a statement by a German prisoner, who said:—
"On the transports the English and French prisoners were mixed together. When the prisoners were given water to drink the English were always the last to get the water, and if they made any remark they were always roughly ordered to keep silent."
6.0 P.M.
So that we see there is a design and a purpose in the way in which they treat not only the men but the officers. It may be asked, Can we do anything? I confess I am not very confident about retaliation. After all, the treatment of prisoners of war is no new problem. It is a problem which belongs to all wars. I was much interested to read as I have done just lately that a good deal of controversy arose between this country and America during the period of the American War on this subject. Any hon. Member who cares to look back to the year 1782 will find a controversy which arose over a Captain Asgill, who was chosen by lot in answer for Captain Huddy, who had been put to death improperly by an officer of our staff. You will find that each side put forward the claim of man for man, but it came to an end because at that time we were fighting a foe to whom chivalry meant something and who understood the dictates of humanity. Those who wish to make further inquiry into this will find perhaps as noble a letter as ever was penned from George Washington, who ultimately released the captain. It is interesting to note when we are fighting a foe of the type we are now fighting, that not always in the history of the world have we had to do battle against what I may call the foe of civilisation. This particular incident shows that we have fought sometimes against foes who, in the bitter stress of war, have been able to find an opportunity for the expression of some of the highest and noblest
640
qualities. I looked to see whether or not we have succeeded in any steps we have taken. One observes that the Foreign Secretary has taken the step of saying—I do not know whether he has actually done it—that if our prisoners were not treated better he would withdraw some of the pay given to the Germans over here in accordance with the principles of The Hague Convention. I hape that that may have some salutary effect. I think we need not go quite so far as we have done in the treatment of German prisoners over here. In another paper—Miscellaneous No. 5—in a memorandum on the treatment of interned civilians and of prisoners of war in the United Kingdom, a description is given of their food, housing and clothing. This may be read in contrast to the robbing of our prisoners of their greatcoats and tunics, and the requisition which has to be made for clothing to be sent out because the Germans supply none. This is what we read:—
"Clothing, An ample supply of first-class clothing, including overcoats, boots, shirts, and underclothing, as well as towels, soap, etc., is kept in each camp, and is supplied to those who may have need of it free of charge. Several cases have been brought to notice where aliens have gambled away the garments given to them, and have accordingly suffered from want of clothing until this has been supplied for a second time."
Are we not going a little far if we, I do not say allow gambling, but recognise that a gambler is to have more clothing served out to him when he has gambled his first lot away? Is that quite a sensible way of treating them? Hon. members will find that this question was debated in this House during the Napoleonic Wars. I have read the Debate which took place in June, 1811, when the condition of the French prisoners was discussed. It was then stated that the prisoners gambled away all their clothes, and Lord Cochrane stated that he had ascertained that if they had only three rags they would gamble away two of them. We may recognise that gambling is apparently a solace to the prisoners of war, but may we not ask that we should not give to the gamblers a second lot of clothing, while our prisoners are being treated as they are at present in Germany? If retaliation is ruled out, what can we do? I believe that my hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury), in the course of his speech, struck the right note. There are a certain number of Germans who are ashamed of the way in which our prisoners have been treated by Prussian militarists. I believe that those who would be ashamed are the Germans who might be described

641
as leading business men, men who have businesses over here, and it occurred to me that, quite apart from saying that we would take money belonging to Germans over here, or in partnership with persons over here, we might follow this path. There are a certain number of large trading concerns carrying on their businesses over here under licence. A controller has been appointed, and they are carrying on their businesses under his control. I suppose it is very important from the German point of view that these businesses should continue. I recognise that one must have every possible reserve in making suggestions. One has not sufficient knowledge of the facts to be able to make valuable suggestions. But if I were to make a suggestion it would be that, inasmuch as we have granted these large concerns the right to trade under a controller, it would not be impossible to make the licence in some way conditional, so that the interest of the Germans in these concerns should be subject to be taken if it were thought advisable to do so.
The purpose of this War is that Germany may ultimately not only become strong from a military point of view, but also rise to a point of success in business such as she has never achieved before. If we were to make it clear that that business would be subject to drawbacks, we might possibly have a weapon to secure something like proper treatment for our prisoners. It is abundantly clear that Germany has, by design, treated our prisoners far worse than she has treated the prisoners of any other country. She will not succeed by this treatment in altering our determination to carry on the War. She will arouse an enthusiasm in this country which these facts when brought home to the people will inspire. She will arouse a resentment against herself in neutral countries, because it will be perfectly plain, if any demonstration were necessary, how she is determined to dissociate the English from the other Allies and carry out in the most brutal manner the particular treatment which will satisfy her hate. This country has made it perfectly clear that it will not alter its course of war. We are at least entitled to make a perfectly clear statement of our case, to indict Prussian militarists at the bar of humanity, and convict them, not only of gross cruelty, but of the same perfidy of which they have been found guilty in the matter of treaties, also in the matter of those conventions under which various nations have over a
642
long period of time attempted to ameliorate the horrors of war.
Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I desire in the fewest possible words to associate myself with the hon. Baronet who brought forward this Motion. When this subject was raised before, certain statements were made with regard to the treatment of prisoners abroad, every one of which statements has since been confirmed by the White Paper. I think it is proved, without the need of further extracts, that our men in Germany are being abominably and brutally treated. There is evidence of that on almost every page of the White Paper. They have been insulted away from the battlefield, they have been spat upon by the officers in charge of them; they have been hit by the officers; they have been starved in the camps; they have been allowed to die without proper medical treatment. All these facts are proved up to the hilt, not merely by the White Paper, but by evidence that could be read to the House from absolutely impartial correspondents. There has been throughout calculated brutality inspired from high quarters against our prisoners of war. I might read one extract to show the refined brutality which has been exercised. On page 33, speaking of Crefeld, Major Vandeleur says:—
"I wish also to state that—, who arrived at Crefeld about December, told me that all the Irishmen at his camp (I think, but am not sure, that it was—) were collected together shortly before he left, and were harangued by the commandant, who stated that the Emperor was aware of the downtrodden state of Ireland, and now wished that the Irishmen should be placed in a separate camp, where they would be better fed and treated differently from the Englishmen. He further stated, that subsequently they went, in a body to the commandant, and said they did not wish to have any different treatment from their compatriots."
That shows the kind of calculatel brutality which is being exercised. Admitted that the case exists—and no one can read the White Paper without admitting it—what can best be done in the interests of our fellow-countrymen in Germany? In my opinion the first thing to do would be to interest neutrals much more than has been done up to the present. It is surely impossible to believe that neutral nations can stand aside and be parties—for that is what it comes to—to the brutalities and horrors that are going on every day. I think that a much more dramatic step than has yet been attempted should be taken to bring the real facts before neutral countries. As far as America is concerned our Government have made great efforts, and

643
I do not think that this country can be too grateful to the officials of the American Government for the daily, almost hourly, attention which they have given to this matter. We ought to insist more on an impartial investigation of these camps. We allowed Germany to nominate her own man, so to speak, to go through our camps in this country. I regret very much—I have no doubt there were reasons why it was not done—that we did not make the bargain, "If you are to have your own man in our camps, we must have our man to go through your camps." I would still wish that we should try to get an impartial gentleman, say a member of the American Embassy, to go to all the camps in Germany, and give us a frank and true statement of the condition of things. There is this difference between our investigations there and their investigations here. The visitors to the camps in Germany have never been allowed to converse privately with our men, whereas in our camps here Mr. Jackson was allowed to lunch with the German officers without any Britisher being in the room at all. He was allowed to talk to them as long as he liked, and there was no one present as representing this country. That was frank. We practically opened the doors in the making of the investigation. I am very glad that we were able to do so, because so far as I have seen—and I have been pretty well round the camps now—there is nothing to hide and nothing of which to be ashamed. I do not care who goes to investigate. Of course, there may be small complaints in a great organisation of the kind, but, speaking generally, we are treating them like gentlemen, humanely, and we have nothing of which to be ashamed in respect of that treatment. I hope we shall press for this further impartial investigation. I also hope that an American representative will be introduced. I do not understand that it has been done up to the present time in our camps in Germany. When this subject was mentioned before, the Under-Secretary was good enough to say that he was going to arrange for a quartermaster from America to be present in all our camps in Germany. I hope he will be able to tell us something reassuring in respect of that.
I would further suggest that the question of exchanges should be pressed to a much greater extent than has been done up to the present time. I do not know
644
that the system under which exchanges are carried out is a very good one. For instance, I know a place where German officers are in this country. I think there were eight doctors in the camp. At the time of an exchange seven were taken away and one was left. The one that was left found it rather difficult to understand, as he was one of the oldest of these medical men, with greater qualifications than almost all the others, why he had been left. Therefore I think it would be a good thing that we should exchange all doctors, or, if necessary, equivalent professional men, if there are not sufficient doctors in Germany. At any rate, my policy would be exchanges all the time, and as many as possible; for that undoubtedly is the right line on which we ought to proceed.
I should like to say a word on another aspect of the case. Nothing has been said in regard to the question of reprisals. There is the isolation of the thirty-nine officers in Germany, and the treatment of them as felons. This is a very serious matter indeed. Something, I hope, will be done—I do not know how—to find a way out by which that intolerable state of things may come to an end. It may be by neutral inquiry in some way. I wish we could say that we were entirely free our selves in regard to this matter. So far as we are concerned, I think the dramatic announcement of the manner in which we were going to treat the submarine officers, almost as though it had been a great naval victory, was ill-advised, and in itself was a great political blunder. If we had desired to treat these German submarine officers differently it could have been perfectly well done, and still they might have been treated most humanely—because there is no officer treated badly in this country. I venture to say that the treatment which is being meted out here to these German submarine officers is a very great deal better than meted out to any British officer in Germany; authough there is not the shadow of a doubt that the result of making that announcement has given the impression that we were treating them practically as felons, and punishing them in a way that could not be defended. That policy was, I say, a mistake, and the manner in which it was announced was a still greater mistake.
For my part, as I indicated in the question I put to the First Lord to-day, I cannot for the life of me see where the difference comes in between the German submarine

645
officers who sink ships and the officers of the Blücher, or anybody else who killed women and children at Scarborough, and who, some of them, are now at Donington Hall. They were carrying out the orders of their Government. So were the German submarine officers, though, of course, I do not defend the latter. But that aspect is one for consideration when you come to consider the punishment which ought to be meted out. We have acted in this matter in a way that is not calculated to help our fellow countrymen in Germany. In every step we take in regard to the Germans—civilians and soldiers—in this country, we ought to weigh well how far it is going to help or injure the condition of things in regard to our own people in Germany. Our action was a mistake from the beginning; it was totally unjustified, in my opinion, from any point of view, and I do hope there will be a way found whereby we will make this matter straight; for unless we do that the question of reprisals will get much worse for our own people than they will for the Germans.
In reprisals the Germans will stick at nothing. They do things we should never do, no matter what happens. We, therefore, ought to bear that in mind, whatever they do, that our policy in this country ought to be to treat our prisoners humanely and fairly, and not injuriously. If we start on a policy of reprisals we are not going to get anything from it at all. On the contrary, our own men in Germany would suffer as a result of that policy. Therefore I say we are indebted to the hon. Baronet for raising this question today. It is one that has been rather neglected. I am certain of this, however, that a state of mind is gradually arising outside, and once the country gets to know the facts the people will not allow the Government to tolerate the horrors that are going on in Germany. I am certain that the Under-Secretary is sympathetic in this matter, and I hope he will be able to give us a statement to-day which will be much more hopeful than any of the information we have up to the present.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I say how very much I agree with what has just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite? May I say how much I agree with him as to the question of exchanges? That is a very important matter. There is a phrase in one of the dispatches where the Foreign Secretary declined to consider
646
any question of individual exchanges. I think that is a great mistake, and a great pity. I think the great object ought to be to get as many people as possible out of Germany. The Under-Secretary, I hope, will not think I am guilty of any personal discourtesy to him—it is the last thing I should wish to be—if I say that I do rather regret that it has been found impossible for the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary himself to be here. I do think that this is one of the most important questions that this House can consider. There is an impression—I hope it is entirely unfounded—that the case of the British in Germany has not excited so much official interest as it ought to have excited. I make that observation not for the purpose of scoring a party point, or anything of that kind, but to urge upon the Government that they will—and I am sure they are doing their best—make it clear to the whole world that they really do care intensely about this question.
There are one or two questions which I would like answered on a particular aspect of this question. I shall be very grateful to the Under-Secretary if he can give us some information as to the treatment of Indian prisoners. There are rumours going about that they are being treated even worse than the British prisoners in Germany. If the hon. Gentleman can reassure us on this point I am sure the House will be grateful. There is another question which I raised in a question I put the other day. I have seen a considerable number of letters from wounded prisoners in Germany. The burden of many of them—I will not say all, but certainly frequently—is that the friends hear from their relatives once: that such a relative says he is a wounded prisoner in such and such a German camp. The relatives add, "We have heard nothing further from him at all for weeks." I do not know whether any inquiry is being made on that point from the German authorities, but it seems to suggest some rule which forbids a wounded prisoner, at any rate in some camps, from writing to his relatives more than once. This is a little borne out by a letter which I saw from the commandant of a camp at Gardelegen. It referred to the case of one of our medical officers who is in prison there. The letter was to the relative of this medical officer from the commandant, saying: "Your brother or son" —I forget which it was—"has been brought here from such and such a camp. He is quite well, but for sanitary reasons"

647
—I think that is the phrase—"he will not be allowed to write while he is here, though he will be very glad to receive letters from you." I shall be very glad to send the hon. Gentleman the letter if I have not already done so. I do not understand quite what it means. It can only mean one of two things: either that there is some such rule as that to which I have referred, or some special circumstances dealing with infectious disease which is rife in these camps. Either explanation is very disquieting to the relatives of those who are prisoners. I hope that this matter will not be lost sight of, but will be pressed upon the attention of the German Government.
The question of inspection was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I am not quite sure how the question of inspection by Americans really stands. It has been left rather vague. We are told that there has been a proposal for an official from the American Ambassador to visit and distribute food and clothing in the German camps. We are not quite clear whether or not the official ever went there. What is even less clear is, what is to be his right of inspection when he gets there? It is perfectly useless for a man merely to go down to a German camp and to be shown round by the commandant. The only thing that is of the least value is that he should be allowed to have free converse with the prisoners. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the visit of Mr. Jackson. I myself went down to one of four camps with two Swiss gentlemen who came from the Geneva Red Cross. They were allowed to visit our camps, and were made absolutely free. They went where they chose. I did not see them a lot of the time. They were permitted to talk in German to the German prisoners, and everything that was to be known was known to them when they left the camp.
If any investigator on our behalf is merely allowed to talk to the officials of the camp, or even to selected prisoners in the presence of German officials, it is absolutely useless. I hope that will be made perfcetly clear to any Americans who are going to inspect the German camps on our behalf. The House will not forget—I am not sure whether it has been mentioned—but as I understand it the organisation of these camps in Germany is carried out by the German authorities selecting particular prisoners to be cap-
648
tains. In the case of the civilians, the so-called prisoners are prisoners who at any rate are not very unsympathetic, and are practically Germans; and if these are the only people who are to be interviewed by the Americans, that again is really no use. The investigation must be a real investigation to be of any use. I also desire to make clear the question of the food. There is some indication, I am glad to see the matter is quoted in the White Paper, and other information has reached me, that recently there has been an improvement in the food—at any rate in some of the camps. I am not sure how far that improvement extends, whether, as it was put to me by one gentleman who knew what he was talking about, the quality had improved but not the quantity. That really is a very scandalous state of things, because undoubtedly there is overwhelming evidence of the fact that in a number of these camps the men are getting absolutely less than is sufficient to support health and life. I have got a letter here—one of very many, I am sorry to say, that I have seen—I will not read the name, but the substance of the letter is:—
"I am sorry to inform you that my son, who is a prisoner in Germany, has written a letter to his firm where he worked before leaving for the war, stating that he is dying of starvation. The letter has been three weeks in coming."
It came the other day.
"Would you be so good as to help us in every way you can?"
That is a very, very serious matter. It is tremendously serious, because it does seem to indicate that about a month ago affairs were still in a most serious condition in some of the camps. I saw a gentleman the other day who informed me that in one of the camps in which either he or a friend of his had been a prisoner, there came in from another camp a number of prisoners. I can give the hon. Gentleman the full name if he is not aware of it. The prisoners were in such a miserable, half-starved condition that the German doctor himself was quite shocked. That is a terrible state of things, and it is a mere truism to say that everything that can be done must be done to put an end to it. Then there is the sanitary question. I do not want to go into sanitary details, which are extremely unsavoury, but, unless I am grievously misinformed, the sanitation of several of these camps is really scandalous. It has been very bad up to now, but as the year advances, and we come to dry and hot weather, one

649
really does tremble to think what may be the result. These are some of the questions I want to put.
There is one other question. The right hon. Gentleman referred, in a forcible sentence, to the scandalous treatment of some of the British prisoners on their way to prison. There is, of course. Major Vandeleur's case, which is very familiar to some Members, but it does not stand alone. It is proved to the hilt that, deliberately and intentionally by order of the superior military authorities in Germany, certain prisoners were submitted to the grossest insult and ill-treatment of a character which makes the blood of anyone who reads it boil with indignation. I do not read that any protest has been made against that particular outrage which the Germans have committed. There may have been such a protest, but I have not come across it in my reading of the White Paper. It is a matter which ought to be raised in the strongest way, both to the Germans and every neutral country throughout the world. That leads me to make one of the very few criticisms I propose to make. I must say that I cannot help feeling there ought to have been, a long time ago, a demand for an inspection by a neutral person of the camps in Germany. We knew as early as the middle of October that there were the gravest reasons to suspect that British prisoners were grossly ill-treated in the camps. I cannot find that any demand for inspection was formally made until 14th January. It is true there were suggestions by Americans themselves on the 26th December, but I cannot find that there was any actual demand made by the British Government for inspection. I may be wrong about that; there may have been demands not stated in the White Paper, but I do think it is matter for regret that so long a period was allowed to elapse before a demand for inspection by neutrals was made.
The hon. Gentleman will perhaps allow me to say that it was a grave matter for regret that the publication of this White Paper was so long delayed. It is quite true a good deal of the information is quite recent, but there was a good deal of information available as early as the end of last year, and certainly the first weeks of this year, and I do think it would have been a very much better plan, in this matter at any rate, if the public had been taken earlier into the confidence of the Government. I do feel this, not only
650
because I think it is right that we should know, but still more because it is important that neutral countries should have the whole of these facts officially before them. I want to say a word or two on the possible remedy. I ventured to say in the House some weeks ago, when this question was being discussed, that I was very much opposed to retaliation. I am still entirely of that opinion. I believe it to be utterly repugnant to the ordinary English feeling in the matter, and I am sure that it is wrong in itself. I think there is another reason which one may fairly add to those two reasons, and that is that it is useless. We are trammelled by our own moderation and good-feeling in this matter. We cannot press retaliation as far as the Germans undoubtedly would press it if they were provoked. In such a matter, therefore, we fight with one hand tied behind our backs, and I should regard it, not only as wicked, but extremely foolish if we were to indulge in a policy of this kind. And, so far as I am personally concerned, I would extend that view to what I sometimes think is called in the Press "reciprocity," which seems only another form of retaliation, and I doubt very much its advantage.
I see it is suggested, and by some of the hon. Gentlemen who sit near me, that, at any rate, we might cut off the luxuries, as they call them, which we give to the German prisoners here. If we are giving them real luxuries, they ought to be cut off on the merits. We are bound to treat the Germans, as I hope we do, only according to the terms of The Hague Convention. I should look with great disfavour upon any modification of that treatment. After all, we want to improve the condition of the treatment of our fellow-subjects in Germany. We believe—at least I believe—that a great deal of ill-treatment is the result of deliberate policy of the high military command in Germany. Is it possible that you are going to affect the high military command in Germany by saying that some of the prisoners here are not to have so much tobacco, or are to have a few shillings less a week, or anything of that kind? They will not be affected in the least degree; they are not that kind of men at all, and, therefore, I do not myself believe that that policy would succeed in the least, and I must say I associate myself for the same reason with a good deal—perhaps not everything—of what fell from the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the treatment of the submarine

651
prisoners. I am not concerned with the abstract justice of making a distinction between these prisoners; I want to treat the matter purely practically. What good are you going to do by any particular policy you adopt, and I confess I agree very largely with the right hon. Gentleman's criticism of the actual policy, and entirely with him in his criticism of the way in which it was announced. I dislike histrionics at all times, particularly when it is a very serious matter of this description.
Therefore, I am utterly against retaliation as a remedy in all forms, and I was very much interested in talking to a gentleman who came from one of these prisoners' camps and to hear him say that he and all his fellow-prisoners were equally against retaliation. What can be done? You have got to remember that there are two currents of thought in Germany. There is the dominant military current, which really—I hesitate to use strong language, because it does not do any good—but which really does seem to me to be about as bad a thing as has existed in Europe for hundreds of years. It is pure animalism, and one chief object of it appears to be to crush out all those features of humanity which distinguish men from wild beasts. I do not believe that is a bit too strong language. If you read, not only what they have done, but the kind of way in which a man like Bismarck used to talk, it is quite plain that, with a people of that kind, any appeal to humanity, or chivalry, or reason, is of no avail. So far as they are concerned there is only one argument, and that is force. I regret very much that the Foreign Secretary, or Prime Minister, is not here to state the policy of the Government. I should like to hear in this House a statement made by one or other of those right hon. Gentlemen that it was an essential part of the policy of the Government that, at the end of the war, any man, be he Kaiser or general, who could be proved to have been instrumental, either directly or indirectly, in inflicting cruelty upon prisoners, should be punished. I believe that an announcement of that kind, particularly if it were concurred in by our Allies of France and Russia, would produce far more effect than any amount of argument addressed to the military class. That is the first thing I should like to see done, and the second thing I should like to see done is to say: that for every injury inflicted full com-
652
pensation for the victims would be demanded, and would be enforced exactly as we have said with reference to Belgium. Why should we not say with reference to our own subjects exactly what we have said with reference to our Belgian Allies? That is the policy I would suggest to deal with what I have called the dominant military class.
But I believe there is another kind of opinion and another kind of man in Germany altogether. I was very much interested to see in the other White Paper an account of the negotiations for the release of Mr. Grant Watson, and a very striking passage in the communications from the German Foreign Office written in a wholly different tone and manner from those which emanated from the military class, saying they would be very glad, in effect, to release Mr. Grant Watson, that they had been able, so far, to prevent his being tried by court-martial as a spy, but that they doubted their power—this comes from the German Foreign Office—to succeed in saving him from that fate much longer. I accept that myself—I may be unduly prejudiced, but I believe it is perfectly true—I believe that is an exact picture of what does go on in the German capital at the present day, that the more humane, the more sane elements of the population do make a struggle against the military section, and are constantly overborne—miserably weak creatures I agree—but they do make a struggle, and occasionally they are able to modify, more or less, the policy of the German Government. One slight instance is the case of the "Asturias," undoubtedly fired upon—personally. I believe, deliberately fired upon—by a German submarine. A kind of halting apology was afterwards issued by the Berlin authorities, partly, no doubt, dictated by a desire to conciliate neutral opinion, but partly. I believe, as a genuine expression of opinion of some of those who live in Berlin. I believe that that section of opinion, be it strong or weak, does regard neutral opinion; they do wish to have the support of the neutral Powers, and to have the approval of neutral opinion, and I do think we ought to do all we can to assist neutral Powers to exert every kind of influence they can to assist in fostering that opinion and bring the Germans back to sanity. I may be wrong in overestimating this power; it may have a very slight existence; it may be entirely overborne by the military power, but let us not forget that the future peace of Europe, the ultimate peace of Europe, depends upon the return to sanity

653
of the German people. That is the great object we have in view—to destroy utterly the power of the military class and, if it may be so, to give to the other elements of the German people, if they exist, some power of again recovering their proper influence, in Germany. It is for that reason I hope the Government will not weary in their efforts to convert neutral Powers to a proper appreciation of this matter. It is of the utmost importance, not only for the safety and welfare of our subjects in the German prisons, but also for the ultimate settlement of this great controversy, that we should do all we can to reconvert the German people from their terrible heresy. It is for that reason I rope the Government will do their best to publish far and wide the case made out in this White Paper.
Mr. PRIMROSE: I wish to express the regret of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that he is unable to be present to-day to speak for the Foreign Office. I am sure, however, that the House will realise that he has engagements with various foreign representatives at the Foreign Office which it is quite imperative that he should meet, and, therefore, he is quite unable to be present. Personally I welcome this Debate, because it has given an opportunity for a wide expression of the anxiety and horror which is felt by all those who have friends or relations imprisoned in Germany. It is a horror which is not confined to those who have friends in Germany, but I believe it is shared by other civilised nations. I have no intention or wish to palliate any of the horrors which have been perpetrated on any of our prisoners in Germany, and it would be out of my power to do so. I think there have been instances when cruelty seems to have reached a refined height, and seems to have been carefully studied. It does seem to be the case that in many cases British officers and men have been discriminated against. I have heard statements that the Russian prisoners are treated equally badly with the British, but in most cases the German Government seem to have given more favourable treatment to the French prisoners, in the hope, I suppose, by these rather clumsy efforts, of detaching our Allies. The hon. Baronet opposite, in the very temperate speech in which he moved his Motion, suggested that these Papers were delayed on the ground of interference with recruiting. Let me assure
654
the hon. Baronet that the question of its effect upon recruiting never entered our minds.
Sir F. BANBURY: I did not say it had. What I said was that if they had been published earlier it would have had an effect on recruiting.
Mr. PRIMROSE: Papers were asked for last Session, and I undertook that they should be published as quickly as possible, and every effort was directed to their publication as quickly as possible. I am sure hon. Members will understand that there were a great many Papers to go through, that the correspondence was added to almost every day and a careful selection had to be made, which accounted for the delay. There was no intention of delay, and they were published as quickly as possible. The Government have followed three policies in their endeavour to ameliorate the conditions of these prisoners. In the first place, they have addressed protests about the treatment of prisoners as they were brought from the trenches to their imprisonment. I know the protests were not much good, but it is impossible to pass over some of the flagrant cases which we have known without making some protest, and we have forwarded every case which has come to our notice to the American Ambassador, with a request that he should take notice of them and make a protest. Included amongst those Papers is the letter from a private soldier to which the hon. Baronet opposite refers. But, Sir, the more concrete way in which we have endeavoured to help these unfortunate people is by the inspection of the camps and by supplying money to be distributed among them. May I first show the different ways in which we have given money to the American Embassy at Berlin, and the different ways in which it has been spent? In the first place, of course, the British Government will pay the salaries of all the officials who are used by the American Embassy in their work of inspection and distribution. Secondly, money is allocated for the relief of prisoners of war and interned civilians. The interned civilians are at Ruhleben. With regard to interned civilians, I wish to explain the interruption which the hon. Baronet allowed me to make in his speech when he referred to the fact that in Germany all civilians had been interned. I have no wish to defend the action of the German Government in interning those civilians. It seemed to me to be a most

655
wanton and from every point of view a most stupid thing to do. On page 16 of the White Paper, in Memorandum No. 24, the House will see that Mr. Gerard, the American Ambassador in Berlin, urged the British Government as far as possible to refrain from interning civilians which could only have the effect of bringing about a similar state of things in Germany. I will now come back to the method of the distribution of this money to civilians. It is done through captains who have been appointed for this purpose.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the hon. Member whether the Government have received a reply to No. 21 in the White Paper?
Mr. PRIMROSE: I will make an inquiry on that point. Captains have been appointed in civilian camps. The German authorities say it is impossible to appoint captains in military camps of this kind, but in civilian camps captains have been appointed, and it is through them that the distribution of this money is carried out. I saw a gentleman the other day who had recently been released from Ruhleben, and he did not express himself as being satisfied with the captains. He said that in Ruhleben they were not really representative of the prisoners. We have forwarded his complaint to Berlin through the American Ambassador. In regard to that there are two things which I should like to point out. It is very difficult in a camp where two different classes of civilians are interned, such as shopkeepers, sailors, and every variety of mankind, to find captains who will successfully represent all those classes. I think one hon. Member who spoke said that these captains were rather, if anything, pro-German. I have no means of judging whether that is the case or not, but it is quite obvious that it is to the advantage of the prisoners whom they represent that they should be individuals who will get on best with the German officials. However well a bluff sailor might represent the sailors in their camp, he probably would be less successful in negotiating any betterment in their condition than some Englishman who had lived a long time in Germany, and who was more or less acclimatised. In the distribution of this money we take a double receipt, and one goes to the captain and the other to the American Embassy, so that they can see exactly how the money
656
is distributed and to whom it goes. An allowance of five marks a week has been given to all the necessitous civilians who are in Ruhleben.
Lord C. BERESFORD: Since when?
Mr. PRIMROSE: I should think about a month ago, but I will inquire. That money has been of great assistance to them. Another form of relief has been the distribution of clothing. We understand that the American Ambassador in Berlin has provided clothing in the case of all necessitous cases. Of course, under The Hague Convention the distribution should be done by the German Government, but it is impossible to allow these prisoners to be neglected merely because the German Government did not fulfil its obligations. Clothing has been sent from here, and all necessitous cases have been supplied. Money has been given to civilians who have standing in Germany who have not been interned, but who are in want of money, and for the most part they are women and children. This has been done by the American Embassy through their consols all over Germany. Before I pass from this point I should like to deal with one question which the hon. Baronet raised relating to the camp at Doberitz. The hon. Baronet said that we heard in October from the American Ambassador that the conditions were very bad there. The Secretary of State sent a reply within two days telling the Ambassador that he was authorised to spend £3,000 to relieve these cases. This does not appear in the White Paper. I am not old in official life, and so I asked why it had not appeared in the White Paper, and I was told that a letter which is not official is not usually published, and that this was more of a private note.
7.0 P.M.
With regard to the inspection of the camp on the 26th December, we told the United Spates Ambassador that we wished to put into force this larger scheme, the terms of which the House is cognisant. It is true that it was not until 14th January that we asked the United States Ambassador formally to obtain the assent of the German Government. I would remind the House that before we made a deliberate proposal of this kind we had to receive the assent of the American Government to the scheme, which involved the appointment by them of a certain number of their officials to inspect these camps, and that, I think, accounts for the

657
gap. We did not get a definite answer to that suggestion for about two months. We had repeated telegrams pass on that point.
It has been asked why we did not immediately suggest that we should have inspection of the camps of Germany, in the same way as the German Government had inspection with us. We were very anxious, for reasons which I think will be quite obvious to the House, that the larger scheme should be brought into force, and we were afraid, if we pressed for permission for an immediate inspection, the German Government would say, "You have had your inspection, we cannot agree to the larger scheme." The advantages of the larger scheme, as I say, are obvious. The hon. Baronet quoted one passage showing the difficulty of arriving at a proper knowledge of the conditions in a camp from one inspection. It is very difficult to find out what are the true conditions under which prisoners are kept, and we feel that by the scheme we do arrive at a true statement of the case, and that we do find out exactly the conditions under which prisoners are interned. We did eventually ask to be allowed to have an inspector appointed to these prisons, because we were told in an indirect way that the German Government would not consent to the larger scheme, but on 17th March we were told that the German Government had accepted the scheme, and ten consular officials, United States officials, have been appointed to make this inspection.
The original idea was for quartermasters to be sent over from the United States, but I think we are quite satisfied with this idea of ten officials appointed by the Embassy at Berlin. It allows the scheme to be begun sooner than otherwise, and we hope and believe that the conditions under which it is being worked are satisfactory. Passes have been given to these officials for visits, and they are going to be allowed to pay visits. They need not be formal visits. They are passes which allow them to go whenever they like, and unexpectedly if they prefer it in that way, and as often as they like. Free intercourse is allowed under the scheme. Sixteen camps have already been visited, The camp at Halle was not visited because the American Ambassador went there and he was told by the commandant that he would not be allowed to have informal and free conversation with the inmates. He pointed out that this was against the agreement which had been come to and re-
658
fused to make any inspection at all. At another camp, Salywedel, the same restriction was imposed upon the United States official. However, he merely reported it and went on with the inspection.
We have received these reports. We have thought that it is advisable to wait and publish all these reports as a whole. If, of course, the House have a very strong feeling that they should be published as we receive them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear !"]—I will communicate that view to my right hon. Friend, but there is a reason for our idea that we should wait until all the camps have been inspected. I do not know how that reason will interfere with the desire of the House. It is one which I cannot communicate in public, but I shall be delighted to do so to anyone who asks me privately. There is undoubtedly an improvement, and I am told that the improvement is due to the publication in Germany of Mr. Jackson's report. That report, of course, has been communicated to the German Government, who have ordered its publication in Germany for the Reichstag, and they have allowed the Press to publish any parts which they like. I have not observed that the German Press have availed themselves of that permission.
Colonel LOCKWOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the Report will be published?
Mr. PRIMROSE: It depends when they all come in. They will be published when they are all got together. We have been told that this bad treatment of the prisoners in Germany is due to the impression there that we are treating prisoners badly here. That does not carry any conviction to my mind. After all, we cannot imagine that you can have several thousands of prisoners here and the German Government have no idea of the way in which they are treated. That is quite absurd. It is merely to my mind an excuse for what they have been saying. There is one crumb of consolation I can give to the House, and that is about the Paper which we published, No. 86, in which it speaks of the wounded officer who could not possibly live much longer. We have heard that he is going on well, and I shall be happy to communicate his name to anyone who asks me privately.
As we all know, the treatment of prisoners in camps is not the only cruelty which the German Government have inflicted on our fellow countrymen. Their

659
treatment on the way from the trenches to the camps has been of a cruel—and calculated to be cruel—character. We have the best information, absolutely reliable information, which we cannot publish because of its source, that coats are almost invariably taken from the prisoners, that officers are spat upon without any word of remonstrance from the guards who are accompanying them, and that in the various stations in Germany the German Red Cross people give food and drink to the Belgian and French prisoners, but deliberately refuse it to English prisoners. In spite of these insults, which must have been harder to bear than any other part, of their military career, we have heard, also on good authority, that the bearing of the prisoners throughout has been beyond praise. It is impossible to imagine a case where human nature could be more severely tried than that, and this shows us that Major Vandeleur's narrative is no mere, isolated incident. This conduct is revolting to us. I think that to wreck vengeance upon and to bully harmless people, who can do you at that moment no harm, and who are prisoners unarmed, is alien to the British temperament and quite repulsive to our mind, and it shows us what the Prussian spirit of brutality is in all its naked hideousness. The Germans have raised up for themselves by their cruelty a memorial which will endure in all civilised countries and survive any recollection of their former greatness.
The business of the Foreign Office is to continue to do what they can to help these prisoners. I myself do not think that any defence of what the Foreign Office have done is either asked for or required. These Papers which we have laid before the House speak for themselves. It should be remembered that the ordinary methods of diplomacy are debarred to us. I get a great many letters, as I dare say other Members of this House do, from relatives and friends of prisoners, urging us to do something and asking, "Why does not the Foreign Office help these people?" The writer of one letter I received suggested that we should hold a meeting of protest. There is only one way of putting pressure upon Germany, and that is the pressure which the British Empire is putting on it now with all its strength.
Before I sit down, I would like once more, as I did on the last occasion when I spoke on the subject, to express our
660
deep gratitude to the representatives of the United States of America. Mr. Page in London and Mr. Gerard in Berlin, with all their staff, have spared no effort and no leisure to help us in this matter. I have met some of these gentlemen who have been engaged in the task of relief, and I have said how grateful we all were to them. Their only reply was, "We wish we could do more; we would do anything in a cause like this." We do feel real gratitude to the United States of America, who have, through their representatives, helped us so much in these matters.
There was a point raised by the Noble Lord with reference to the Indian prisoners. We have no very specific information on that subject. They were mentioned in one of the reports we got. Their condition seems to be fairly satisfactory. I should not care to go further than that. As regards remedies, I have nothing to add to what has been already spoken in this House. The suggestion of the hon. Baronet was dealt with in the answer by my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General to the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth on the 22nd April in these terms:—
"The total estimated value of enemy property, which has been registered with the Public Trustee under the provisions of the Trading with the Enemy (Amendment) Act, is £84,600,000, the estimated value of enemy property in partnerships being £1,600,000 and not (as stated in the Noble Lord's question) £16,000,000. As stated in that Act, such property has been registered with the Public Trustee, with a view to arrangements to be made at the conclusion of peace, when questions of compensation may well arise. In the meantime, I am glad to be able to assure the Noble Lord that these German assets are, and will remain, available for such disposal as seems proper."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd April, 1915, col. 399.]
It is not for me to suggest any method of retaliation. That is for some more responsible Member of the Government to deal with. But I may add that it is impossible at this moment to anticipate what the terms of peace may be, and of course such retaliation would have to be incorporated in such terms. Still I think I can assure the House that this matter has not been lost sight of, and I can further assure it that the Foreign Office have done and will continue to do all that is in their power to help those whom the changes and chances of war have delivered into German hands.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My first word must be to associate myself with all that the hon. Gentleman has said as to the indebtedness of our country to the representatives of America and the American

661
Government. To those of us who know him, it will not be news that the American Ambassador in this country would gladly do anything in his power to relieve or mitigate the sufferings of helpless men and women, and we shall gratefully bear in mind, long after these troubles are over, the sympathy which the American representatives have shown and the assistance which they have given. There is not very much, I think, to add to the speeches made from both sides of the House before the hon. Gentleman spoke, either in the way of criticism or of suggestion to the Government. The speech of the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs has brought our information more up-to-date than the White Paper did, and has done something to allay the poignant anxiety which has been felt throughout this country as to the treatment of British prisoners of war in German hands. It is a very modest satisfaction that we receive up to the present time to be told that things may not be quite so bad as they have been. They are a great deal worse than they ought to be.
Our soldiers in misfortune bear themselves, as the hon. Gentleman said, with the same courage and fortitude that they have shown when fighting with arms in their hands. Out people would expect our Government to realise how deeply this subject touches the hearts of every man and woman in this country, and that no time or effort is too precious to be spent upon endeavouring to secure better treatment for these men by any Member of the Government. And so I can say with still more conviction, and with still more obvious sincerity after what the hon. Gentleman has said, that is not from any want of courtesy to him, or from any under-estimate of his capacity as a Minister, that I do deeply regret, as do my hon. Friends behind me, that neither the Prime Minister nor the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, nor the head of one of the fighting services, could be present during this Debate. We shall readily accept the statement of the Under-Secretary that this or the other Minister is unable to be present. But it would have been grateful to the country to see the importance of this Debate recognised, and to know that its interest is shared, by the presence of one of these Gentlemen, not at this stage of the proceedings but at the time when the Debate was being opened and the case was being made out. I say this in the gentlest terms I can use. None of us
662
have any pleasure in criticism at the present time, unless the criticism may be helpful.
I cannot quite agree with the Under-Secretary that a perusal of the White Paper shows that the Government has at all times recognised the extent of the problem or the urgency of it, or has done everything that might be done to secure the better treatment of the prisoners. There is plenty of evidence in the White Paper that the German Government were procrastinating over this subject, and I should have liked to have seen a little more effort on the part of the Foreign Office in keeping the matter before them, and in not waiting for an answer until such time as it might be convenient to the German Government to send it. I am not here to suggest, any more than those who have preceded me, that we should retaliate on the German prisoners the kind of treatment which has been accorded to the British prisoners in Germany. It would be abhorrent to us, and contrary to the dictates of humanity. But although I am not prepared to say that under no circumstances, under no provocation would we take steps which under ordinary circumstances, or fighting any other foe it would never have crossed our mind to contemplate. I do not believe that that is the way to deal with this matter. I do not think that our people would stand seeing accorded to men in distress within our country the treatment which has been accorded to our soldiers in Germany, even under the provocation of that treatment.
But there is something more. Nobody can read the account of what has taken place in Belgium and in the occupied portions of France, nobody can read the account of the treatment of our prisoners between the trenches and the places where they were or are interned without being struck by the fact that the cruelty inflicted on the inhabitants of France and Belgium, or upon our prisoners, is not an accidental outburst by men who are out of hand. It is cruelty by command. It emanates not from undisciplined human nature, but from high quarters, and it is carried out by people disciplined not in civilisation but in savagery. The men who are to be held to account for these deeds are not the unfortunate prisoners here, who have perhaps had no part or lot in them, but those from whom the policy springs, those who are responsible for inculcating and commanding it, and in obedience to whom these brutalities are

663
enacted and perpetrated. I agree with the concluding sentences of the Under-Secretary. This is not now the time to define the terms of peace. Yet they have been to some extent defined by the Prime Minister himself, and I am not sure it would not be well to say that as we shall not sheathe the sword until satisfaction has been given to outraged Belgium, so it ought also to be made a condition that satisfaction shall be given to outraged humanity for the cruelties perpetrated on these defenceless men
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I rise to make a very brief contribution to this discussion. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will see that my absence during the earlier part of the Debate was not due to any want of sense of the importance of the subject-matter under discussion, for there could be no more painful aspect of the horrors of war than the treatment to which the British prisoners have been subjected. I do not hesitate to say—and I say it in the plainest possible terms—that from the very beginning the British prisoners have been treated by the Germans in a discriminating fashion. There can be no shadow of doubt about it. Those who have read the sworn testimony of our officers, their description of their treatment on the way from the places where they were captured, either in France or Belgium, to the different camps in which they were ultimately interned: those who have read the almost incredible tale of deliberate and calculating insult to which British officers and British soldiers have been exposed, and from which to a considerable extent their French and Belgian fellow victims were shielded, must realise that from the first it has been the deliberate policy of the Germans to expose our soldiers and our officers to the worst possible treatment. That is a fact which is worth placing on record. When we came to consider whether or not—a very proper inquiry—adequate and appropriate steps had been taken by the Government in this matter, we came to the conclusion, I think rightly, that mere publicity and protest would be of no avail if the object was to secure better treatment. On the contrary, the Germans
664
having adopted this as their deliberate policy—the more we protested, and the more we published it to the world, the more they might be tempted to think they were attaining their end, I will not say of intimidating but of exacerbating public feeling in this conutry.
I think the most practical steps were taken when the good offices of the American Ambassador were invoked with, as we know, a considerable mitigation and amelioration of some of the more obvious hardships to which the prisoners were exposed. But it is a horrible story from whatever point of view you look at it. It is one of the blackest, spots on the records even of German methods of warfare, and my main object in rising is to say—and I say it in response to the invitation the right hon. Gentleman gave me in the concluding part of his speech, and I say it with all emphasis and with all deliberation—that when we come to the end of this War, which please God we may, we shall not forget, and ought not to forget, this horrible record of calculated cruelty and crime, and we shall hold it to be our duty to exact such reparation against those who are proved to have been guilty agents or actors in the matter as it may be possible for us to exact. I do not think we should be doing our duty to these brave and unfortunate men, or to the honour of our own country and the plain dictates of humanity, if we were content with anything less than that.
Lord C. BERESFORD: May I ask the Prime Minister, after his most satisfactory speech—now we know that those who are responsible for the brutality and ferocity to our defenceless prisoners will be called to account—if he will get the Allies also to join with him in a distinct expression of opinion such as he has given to-day? If he does that, I am quite certain that the whole British nation will be at his back and that these brutalities will cease. Bullies are always cowards, and when these people know that they are liable to be tried for murder and that they will suffer when the War is over, they will cease. Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a definite, deliberate plan to cause the death of these prisoners, first by starvation? I have had

665
any number of letters from prisoners, and heart-breaking letters from the relatives of these prisoners, giving the details. I cannot, obviously, mention the names of these people, but our British prisoners are being starved. I have had letters from both officers and men, in which they say:—
"For God's sake send me bread !"
That is in addition to the other brutalities, and taking their greatcoats, tunics, and so forth. I believe that these people are in overcrowded places. The American gentlemen, who deserve every gratitude we can give them for their trouble in this inquiry, have not brought out that point. These places are not ventilated. If the men are given punishment in any way, they are only given one blanket, and are ordered to lie on a cold slab. The real point is that these places are not ventilated, and the result will be that a number of these gallant men, when the hot weather comes, will die from consumption. I do not think the thirty-nine officers will suffer so much. They will probably be put in a gaol where there is proper ventilation. No doubt they will have solitary confinement, but the whole world knows their names, and the Germans, in spite of their brutality, will not murder them. All the others—there are thousands of them—are kept in these sheds which are not ventilated, with filthy floors and disgusting sanitary arrangements. Many of them are wounded. There is one case where the wounded men were not attended for a whole week, although they had gangrenous sores, and although all the other prisoners were looked after. I can assure the Prime Minister that these statements are correct. I have had them from officers and soldiers themselves and also from their relatives. The point is, that there is a deliberate attempt to starve our people, and, in addition, to put them in unhealthy surroundings where they are certain to contract consumption, with the result that they will die when the summer comes. I quite agree with my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) that this Debate will do a great deal of good. It will let the country know the facts; it will help recruiting, and help the Prime Minister and the Government to take very drastic action, so far as their language goes, as to what will happen when the War is over to these brutes who have been trying to kill, insult, degrade and humiliate honourable foes who have fought them honourably from the beginning of the War.
Mr. DICKINSON: I rather regret that the Prime Minister was not present during several speeches made in the course of this Debate, and especially that he did not hear the speech made by the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) who dealt with this matter in a way which impressed the House very greatly. This Debate will be useless and, perhaps, harmful, if it does not result in the improvement in the condition of our prisoners in Germany. We must all feel that their condition is one of grave danger. We recognise not only from the White Paper, but from other information which comes to us, that the British prisoners in Germany are not being treated in a way in which they ought to be treated, and we also know that the position at the present moment in Germany is extraordinary. The anti-British sentiment has become a hatred which is also akin to madness. The German people are ready to accept from their Government any statements that tend to operate against the British. I cannot help thinking that no threats such as have been used on this occasion will have any effect in improving the condition of the prisoners in Germany. The German people and the German Government are not at this moment afraid of anything that we can do, or of anything that we shall do. No suggestions of retaliation will possibly have any effect upon this particular body. The Noble Lord struck the right note when he said the only way in which we could improve the conditions of British prisoners in Germany was by appealing to the higher feelings of sections of Germans who at the present moment are concerned about this question. Hon. Members and many people in this country will say that there is no such section at all, and that you cannot stir up in Germany at the present moment any better feelings on this subject. I think they are mistaken. I know from my own experience that there are men in Germany who are anxious to improve the condition of affairs in their prisons at the present moment.
Soon after the beginning of the War a committee was started in England for the purpose of watching over the interests of the Germans in this country. That committee has done a very great work, but the greatest result has been that their example has been followed in Germany, and that the Germans have established a committee for that very purpose—a committee of influential persons which is actually

667
working for the benefit of British and other persons interned in Germany in the same way as is being done in this country. I should like the Foreign Office to work upon that ground. I am sure they would find it a more fertile ground than that of the ordinary negotiations between the various Governments. But in order to do that we must ourselves avoid making mistakes. I cannot help affirming that we have made mistakes ourselves, and it is better that we should recognise it. Reference has been made to the internment of civilians in Germany. A great number were interned, but that was not during the early stages of the War. During the early stages of the War British subjects and other aliens were allowed considerable freedom. Of course, they had to register and constantly report themselves to the police, but they had freedom of movement and were not interned. It was not until the reports of our own practices in internment camps became known in Germany that they started their system of interning foreigners in Germany. Those of us who watched the administration of those camps in this country know perfectly well that during the first few weeks of the War, owing to the great practical and administrative difficulties surrounding the subject, the conditions in these camps were not satisfactory, and that there was hardship, discomfort, and many things to which people might justifiably take exception. These reports were sent to Germany, and were thrown broadcast among the people. They had the very greatest effect upon public opinion in Germany, and justified, from the German point of view, their Government in retaliating by interning Englishmen and other aliens who, up to that moment, had been free. That state of affairs was well known. The Prime Minister himself took a personal interest in the matter, and it is largely due to the fact that he did so that things were remedied as quickly as they were in this country. We are now aware that for some months the conditions of German prisoners in our internment camps have been all that could be desired. I believe it is recognised by the people themselves, because I know they have written home about it, and I have knowledge of statements made by them that the conditions in our camps at the present moment are satisfactory.
The original mistake was in not taking sufficient precautions to avoid the difficulties which resulted in a certain degree of
668
hardship upon these persons. I cannot help thinking that we are making another mistake which will have a similar effect. That is the one already referred to, namely, the action taken with regard to the officers in the submarines. It may be justifiable under international law. I will not argue that, although I doubt it myself, but it was a very great error and mistake. The result has been that the German Government have taken it up in order to inflict hardships upon many of our finest officers, for whom we must feel the greatest sympathy. I have no doubt whatever that if these officers themselves were asked, they would say to us, "Do not stir a finger to release us. We will bear our trials like men, and we do not want you to ask any favour on our account from the German Government." That does not release us from the obligation of doing what we can to remedy that state of things. Inasmuch as the initial mistake was made by our announcement that we were going to treat the captive officers of the submarines differently, when, as a matter of fact, we did not treat them differently, except by putting them into different residences—inasmuch as we made that mistake, we had better retreat from that position, or at any rate see whether we cannot come to some further arrangement about prisoners so as to get rid of this difficulty and liberate the unfortunate men who in solitary confinement must undoubtedly be undergoing hardships which are cruel, and certainly not consistent with international law. This might be done by introducing again in this particular special case the good services of some neutral Power. I had a good deal to do with the late Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and recognise his great ability in dealing with this particular subject. I have no doubt the Foreign Office could obtain the services of some neutral to negotiate in just the same way as they succeeded in obtaining what was a very great concession, the representative of the United States who visited the camps in Germany. I trust we shall not let this matter of the officers at present in solitary confinement in Germany drop simply by threatening what we will do at the end of the War when we do not even see the end of the War, and have no more means of judging what it will be than the Germans themselves. I hope we shall have this matter attended to rapidly, for the benefit of these men who have been picked out by a very cruel Government

669
because they think that by so doing they can force us to make some other concessions. Let us try and see whether the Ambassador of a neutral Power cannot arrange this matter by appealing to the better sense which still remains in Germany, and then we shall have done some good to these men who are suffering on our behalf.
Mr. STEWART: If this Debate has served no other purpose, it has, at least, given us who are following this case of the German prisoners the great satisfaction of hearing the announcement by the Prime Minister, and also the satisfactory announcement made by the Under-Secretary, that he has made a scheme for the inspection by ten United States officers of the internment camps. We can only hope that their work will not be thrown away, and that conditions will be made better. I should like to say a few words on the subject, because, as one of those told off by the War Office to visit the camps in this country, I have personally seen at least 25,000 Germans. I have heard no single complaint of substance. The men are well cared for, and they realise it, and I think it is well that it should be brought out in this Debate. As far as I know from my experience of them, there has been but one death amongst about 30,000 prisoners interned in this country. I have myself seen a man who returned to one of the camps. He was given his liberty, but returned because he was happier there than anywhere else. There is only one omission from the Government statement as far as I can see, and that is, that no one has mentioned the possibility of exchange. Prevention is always better than cure, but I have not heard a statement as to the possibility of any exchange of prisoners, although it is laid down as a recommendation by the American gentleman who saw our men in Germany. I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Dalziel) on the impossibility of retaliation, and about the mistake made in putting the submarine officers into special confinement and giving the Germans an excuse for what they have done. I think we should not be too proud to retreat from that position if, by so doing, we can benefit in some way the men who are now suffering from a foolish Departmental action of this kind. It is against our English ideas that the sins of one man should be visited upon another, and
670
because the German High Admiral has brought indelible disgrace upon the German naval uniform by the orders he gave his officers, I am certain that there is no man in this country who would feel that we were doing any good in taking steps to impose hardships on his own son, who is now a prisoner in this country. That Germany has so far forgotten herself is to be regretted, but we cannot follow in her footsteps.
Is it impossible to arrange this matter of exchange? We have got about 30,000 German prisoners on our hands—prisoners of war and interned people—and we are allowing about 30,000 enemies freedom—not interned. If there is one thing that has been brought out in this war it is the revelation of the German character, and its three main points are arrogance, deceitfulness and brutality. To those of us who knew Germany well, we were prepared for conceit and a certain amount of dishonesty, but the revelation of their cold, calculated brutality is a painful revelation to those of us who have known many Germans. Can we not utilise this conceit in the matter of exchange, and, if need be, lay our hands upon some of the Germans who are in this country, add them to the present stock, and if need be, offer to exchange them at the rate of two to one to get our men back? Surely their personal arrogance might make these people consider some proposal such as that. It is appalling that we should perhaps have to realise in our minds that we shall never see, as hale men, one of those gallant men who are now in Germany. What the Noble Lord (Lord Charles Beresford) said is perhaps a little highly spiced, but the German character has been so displayed that we must prepare ourselves for the very direst possibility. I know of a soldier of eight and a half years' experience, and a man who would not grumble, who wrote to his brother—one of my Constituents—only the other day, that he was absolutely being starved. If we refuse to consider any question of exchange, of course we have to consider other means. Is it possible that we could get our men into some neutral country, such as Switzerland or Norway? Both those countries are suffering from want of tourists, and it would circulate a good deal of money there, and we would guarantee their expenses and guarantee that none of them should be allowed to escape or take any further part in the war.

671
But if all our negotiations fail, we can collect, at any rate, the names of the commandants and officers of every camp in Germany. The commandants have a tremendous influence in the way they conduct their camps, and under absolutely the same rules life in one place may be fairly bearable, and in another may be a hell upon earth. It would be only right that any particularly brutal commandant should receive well-merited punishment, and also any officer who may have been guilty of following his bad example We should also have the names of the States in which the camps are, so that if the guilty officers are not produced we could exercise, when we come to discuss terms of peace, some stringent regulations against the State which tolerated in its midst any infringement of humanity. The last and greatest delinquent of all is the German Government itself. How can we get at them?
I do not think that moral suasion will go a very long way, but I believe we have a weapon which we might use with effect. We might now make a declaration that the treatment of these men is going to be considered as a matter of first importance by us and our Allies, and we might forbid, after the War is over, say for one year, any of the ports in the United Kingdom, or in India, or in any Crown Colony, to be polluted by the sight of the German flag, and we might refuse to allow one of their ships to come into our harbours. If that were considered unwise, we might levy a certain tax on the tonnage entering our ports until it totalled a certain sum of money to be used for the amelioration of the hardships they have committed upon our people. They are thick-skinned but they would not like to pay that tax, and all the world would know the reason why they were called upon to pay it. However powerful they may be on land, we at least are more powerful than they are on the sea, and if we cannot effect justice by our land forces, we have an engine in our maritime supremacy which we can use to make things most unpleasant. I believe after the revelation of their spy system, and the revelations we have heard to-day, that intercourse between Germans and Englishmen can never be the same again as it has been in the past. We have had wars with every sort of savage throughout the whole of the known universe, but this is our first war with educated savages, and their education is a gross addition to the
672
outrages they have committed, not only upon our men in particular, but upon humanity in general, and not even the most modest pacifist would refuse to support the British Government in showing its resentment and its displeasure by every possible means in its power when this War comes to a termination.
Mr. ANNAN BRYCE: The last speaker has indulged in some very interesting speculations as to methods of putting pressure upon the German Government. Those speculations might be almost indefinitely extended, but at this moment I doubt whether it is desirable to do so, and my only object in troubling the House is to ask the Secretary to the Treasury how long it is likely to be before further reports upon the condition of prisoners, which the Under-Secretary told us were going to be published together, for a very good reason, are likely to be received, and when they are received, whether the Government will give another day, if the House demands it, for the discussion of the subject in the condition in which it will then appear. It is a matter in which the country takes a most immense interest. I do not think the Government did quite—at all events, in the early stages—realise the extreme importance of pressure in regard to this matter. There is evidence in the White Paper that it is only latterly that the Government has felt quite as strongly about it as the country has been feeling all along, and I think the country will wish it, when this further evidence of the treatment which is now being meted out to these unhappy prisoners in Germany is gathered, a further discussion should take place. There is one point, perhaps, upon which the Secretary to the Treasury might say something in answer to the hon. Member who spoke last, and that is the question of exchanges. It would be of great interest to the House and the country to know something more upon that point.
8.0 P.M.
Mr. MACMASTER: There has been considerable suggestion here as to the proper remedy for the state of things that exists in Germany in regard to our prisoners, and, of course, it must be admitted to a certain extent that we are powerless. There is one recourse that we might have used more freely than we have done. We should have taken the people of the country more into the confidence of Parliament and of the Government at an earlier stage, so that the country, being fully informed of what we now know from

673
the White Paper, might, through the Press and otherwise, have given greater support to the Government of the day. I am perfectly convinced that what Germans will ultimately have to reckon with is the power that this country and its Allies will have in the last resort. It is perfectly useless to attempt to reason with them, but they certainly will take into account much more the fact that the Government is acting with the country behind them than if the communications are simply made by the Government, or if they pass in the ordinary formula from one office to another. I am not going to read it, but it appears to me that the statement of Major Vandeleur is one of the most circumstantial statements that could possibly have been made. It gives in detail facts that are truly startling in regard to the treatment he received on his way from the field of battle to the place of internment, and also after he arrived there. Unless we actually saw in print details of such cruelty and brutality and we believed in the veracity of the narrator it would have, been almost impossible for us to imagine such things to be true. What I am about to say I do not say in the way of attack upon the Government, or as a matter for argument, but I would point out that Major Vandeleur's letter reached the Government on the 24th December last. On the 26th December they communicated it to the American Ambassador with the request that he would convey it to the American Ambassador in Berlin in order that it might be brought to the notice of the German Government. The statement of Major Vandeleur is of importance, not only for its own intrinsic value, but because in submitting it the Foreign Secretary accompanied it with a number of confirmatory statements of absolutely disinterested witnesses, who were not British born, such, for instance, as the statements of two Russian doctors, the statement of an American citizen, and others.
Therefore the communication that reached the German Government was a detailed circumstantial statement of brutality and cruelty; cruelty of a most despicable character, inflicted upon helpless and unarmed men. This statement of Major Vandeleur, with its supporting testimony, went to the German Government at the end of last year, and yet we heard nothing of it in this House, and nothing of it in the country until a few days ago,
674
that is, about the end of the first week in April, although information was specifically asked for in the House as to the condition of our prisoners in Germany and how their treatment compared with the treatment we were extending to German prisoners in this country. I say with all submission that the Government would wield a much more powerful hand if the letter of Major Vandeleur had been published in this country and had been communicated to Parliament in the early stages three and a half months ago. If it had become public property the people of the United Kingdom and of the Empire would have become aware of its detailed facts and circumstances and the neutral nations would also have known them. Perhaps, then, some sense of shame or some sense of decency, would have been brought to the German Government and the German Empire and a better result might have been arrived at. Whether that is so or not, and whether I am right or wrong in my opinion, I am convinced that the Government in making representations to Germany in regard to the treatment of prisoners, are much stronger when they have the knowledge of the views of the whole of the people of the country behind them, than they are in making official representations in the way in which they have been made.
In saying that I associate myself with the opinion expressed by speakers in this House as to our gratitude for the co-operation that we have received from the American authorities, as they express it, "in the cause of humanity." Really, our position would have been worse if it had not been for this intervention. I think every concession has been granted except one—a notable one—through the intervention of the American authorities.
One more statement in regard to this letter of Major Vandeleur. Notwithstanding the character of his statement, his plain circumstantial statement, it has never been explained, it has never been contradicted, and it has never been apologised for, though it has been in the possession of the German authorities for nearly four months.
With regard to the position of German prisoners in this country, one hon. Gentleman said that in the early stages they were not quite so comfortable as they have been at the later stages. I think that in the early stages the best provision was made for them that possibly could be made. Certainly they were not short of food. There

675
may have been some burdens that they had to bear during the preparation of the camps. However, at a very early stage, they were most comfortably housed and provided for, not merely in country houses, in castles I was going to say, but in some of our finest ships, which were retained by the Government at enormous prices in order to accommodate them. Therefore everything, even in the early stages, was done that possibly could be done to provide for the German prisoners, and there was no excuse whatever for any uneasiness in Germany on that score. In those early stages the Government informed the German Government through the American Embassy exactly the kind of housing provision and comforts were provided for the German prisoners in this country. If that fact was not communicated to the German people, it is not the fault of the people of this country or of the Government of this country.
As to the comforts of German prisoners in this country, I have seen something of the conditions. Like the hon. Gentleman who spoke a few minutes ago (Mr. Gershom Stewart) and the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Dalziel), I happened to be one of the Committee which has been visiting the German prisoners in the camps and steamers where they are interned, and I have had an opportunity of seeing the conditions under which they are cared for and maintained. I can say this in regard to the huts, that they are infinitely more comfortable than the huts in which our own soldiers and our own officers were housed for a large part of last winter. I have seen the huts in which our officers were housed and those in which the German prisoners have been housed, and whereas the walls of the huts used by our own officers and soldiers were very often perfectly bare and with only one-ply board lining, in every one of the huts used by the German prisoners I found there was a three-ply board lining inside so as to protect them from moisture and draughts.
There is no question in regard to the food of the German prisoners in this country. We found in our inspection that invariably it was admitted that the food was good, though sometimes there was a little complaint about monotony. There was no complaint in regard to bedding or sleeping accommodation, none in regard to ventilation in buildings,
676
and none in regard to ill-treatment in any respect. In some of the camps and steamers there was no complaint whatever, but in others there would be comparatively small complaints which would inevitably be the case with people more or less deprived of their liberty and suffering from conditions of ennui such as we see on ship board in people of different sorts. As a rule the prisoners acknowledged, either in the mass or through their representatives, that they were well clothed, well fed, well housed, and that in respect of latrines and baths and everything of that kind no better provision could possibly have been made. I will give an instance or two. Take the German prisoners interned at Hollyport, near Maidenhead. I visited them along with my colleagues. This is a place where officers only are imprisoned. We found 102 officers there with their servants. We minutely examined the officers in the presence of their own "captain" and asked them if there was any complaint to make or anything they could suggest. The captain (who was "commander" of the "Gneisenau") said there was nothing to complain of and that they were perfectly comfortable in every respect. It could not have been otherwise, because, on examining the rooms, we found that everything was comfortable. They were not overcrowded in the rooms. In every bedroom—though the weather was fairly fine, and in my own home we had not then a fire in every room—we found a coal fire burning, and there was the most absolute comfort in so far as comfort could be provided under the circumstances. There were not only several baths luxuriously provided, but there was a swimming bath, fifteen or sixteen feet broad and twenty-five feet long, supplied with the purest running water. Therefore, if they were not satisfied with the ordinary hot and cold water bath in their bathroom provided for their comfort, they could have this cold bath.
When I read the details of our own poor unfortunate countrymen confined in German prisons without the privilege of a bath and that some of them have never had a bath, though they have been interned there for months, yet with no prospect of a bath, I could not help thinking of the very different treatment we are providing for German prisoners in this country. In the long dining room in that house I found that the chairs were padded. Of course, I do not object to comfort being provided for these people;

677
every reasonable comfort should be provided for them. They should be treated humanely and should not be made uncomfortable by the lack of provision or the lack of attention or by insult. We also visited the great encampment at Dorchester and found every provision made for the private soldiers and the few civilians interned there. There are magnificent grounds where they can play at games and enjoy themselves. The drainage was so excellent that there was an utter absence of dampness, and we found a fire in every one of the huts. In the main barracks, which was used by a large number of prisoners, every comfort was provided, and in that building there were thirty-six bathrooms provided for those who were housed in the huts and eighteen bathrooms provided for those in the barracks. I am not going to say anything in regard to Donington Hall more than this: If one has a good bedstead upon which to rest and a good mattress with ample covering, and gets abundant food and has every facility for baths, as they have there, with six baths and a shower bath for seventy-two men, and lives amongst the finest scenery that you could possibly look upon, breathing the best fresh air in the country, living in large airy rooms and having extensive grounds in which to take exercise, then there is absolute security for perfect health and nothing could be more comfortable. There is ample opportunity to play tennis and any games they like, and they are welcome to it. I trust that the nation will never be so mean as to deny to such men the opportunity of preserving their health in reasonable comfort.
I may say of our Foreign Secretary that he did vigorously protest against the treatment to which our countrymen were subjected in Germany, and, though he did not take the country into his confidence as much as I think he should have done, yet he did protest in adequate language and call the attention of the German authorities through the American authorities to the condition of our people, and to the fact that the proprieties, the necessities, and the decencies of life were denied to them. But I do hope that if the Government will from this forward take the whole country into their confidence, and if they will let the light shine upon our relationship with Germany more than they have done in the past, they will find that there is public strength behind them, which will stand them in much better stead than reliance
678
upon arguments or upon any sort of persuasion. I trust that this Debate may have the effect of procuring better treatment for our fellow-countrymen who are prisoners in Germany.
Though the course which has been taken was taken in good faith, I think that it was a great mistake for any one to have said that we will give different treatment to submarine prisoners from that which we give to others. I believe that when the facts are investigated and known, it will be found that the submarine prisoners in this country are getting all the humane treatment which The Hague Convention provides for them, and that it is all moonshine about them being kept in close confinement, though it has been made an excuse for Germany to intern some of our people under very severe conditions.
Mistake though it is, it may not be too late to retract it. I believe that the best thing to do now is to have these submarine prisoners inspected, their conditions ascertained, to give the result to this House and let it go forth to the public, to the world, and to Germany, and if Germany in face of all that pretends to make the excuse that they are not properly treated and goes on to persecute our prisoners in that country, we may not help it for the moment; but I believe that a day of reckoning is coming, and Germany must be told, through the force of public opinion in this country, that the day of accountability will come, and that it will not be those in subordinate positions who executed the orders who will be held to account, but those in high authority, because we know that by one word from them this bad treatment might have been stopped. We know that the insensate hate of England might have been prevented if the German Emperor and those associated with him in the conduct of this War, had issued but the faintest suggestion that their wish was that our prisoners should receive the humane treatment provided under The Hague Convention. Nothing will deter them from continuing their course except they see that we are firmly resolved to take note of what they are doing, and to hold them to strict account when the day of reckoning comes. We may remind them that their seat of power is not secure, that we have sent a greater man than William to St. Helena, and that we will yet have to deal with the German authorities who have so persecuted our countrymen.
Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I should not have intervened in this Debate but for something which impelled me to do so. The picture has been so sombre and so distressing that if there is anyone who could throw some little brightness upon it from any experience of his own, I think that it is his duty to do it. No doubt the treatment that our unwounded prisoners have received, up to lately at all events, merits all that has been said about it, but when we begin to threaten and say what we are going to do at the end of the War, then I think we are proceeding on a wrong line. I rather follow the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin. He said in his speech that there were two currents of thought in Germany, and that feeble though one of the currents was, yet it might grow in strength. That is my belief, and it is to that current, with all the other aids that we can bring in, that we must look for relief for our prisoners in Germany, for that, after all, is the object that we have in view. In searching for a relative in the war, I myself came upon several instances of this undercurrent of good feeling in Germany. It is to the military authorities, I think, that we are indebted for this harshness which has been exercised upon our soldiers and officers, but even among the German military there are men of great humanity.
A relative of mine, lying wounded on the field of battle, in a Red Cross Hospital, was approached by a German officer, who said, "Yor are in a forbidden area and you will not be allowed to communicate, but if you write a letter to your people, telling them that you are safe, I will take it in my pocket and see that it is forwarded." Another officer, in another case, was in the hospital at Lille, where another British soldier was. This British soldier had been reported from headquarters as very seriously wounded, and the headquarters of his regiment firmly believed that he was dead. This German officer, whom he saw in hospital, also said, "You are in a forbidden area and not allowed to communicate with your people, but if you will write a letter, I will take it through with me to Germany and I will post it, so that your relatives may know." That letter was posted by the German officer to this soldier's friends, and that was the first intimation which they had that the man was alive, and, of course, it afforded them great delight. I have known several instances which I could name in the House. But when you come to deal with wounded
680
prisoners of war, I am bound to say that my experience points to this, that in no place, in no hospital in France, in Belgium, or in Great Britain are wounded officers or wounded soldiers better treated than they are in the German hospitals. I know of four cases of soldiers who received dangerous and difficult wounds, which have taken months to heal, but they have been healed. The greatest pains, assiduity^ care, and skill have been devoted to them by the surgeons in German hospitals, and in each one of those cases it would have been a very easy thing to lose a limb. Not one lost a limb, and all are convalescent at the present moment.
Another young soldier, writing to his friends at home, said the hospital surgeons were not satisfied with his progress, and they called in a specialist, in whose hands he was improving already. I mention this as coming within my own particular knowledge, but similar cases must have occurred by hundreds in this terrible War. I only hope that through the Embassies and through the neutral countries, and by the continuance of our own generous treatment, things will be improved, because anything else would be foreign to our nature. We cannot bully and oppress helpless men. Rather would we see generous and courteous treatment continued, whatever may happen outside, and it would be perfectly simple to proced on our present course of generous treatment. There is one bright spot which has shown itself throughout this horrible War, and it is the skill and devotion of the surgeons and doctors on both sides. They are not out to fight nationalities; they are out to fight disease and death, and, in order that they may better do so, they are not afraid to face death themselves at any time. Instead of threatening what we shall do or what we shall not do, I hope that the kindness which has been shown to wounded prisoners here, and the kindness, skill and care given to our wounded soldiers in Germany may, when the time comes by and by, be the means of effecting something more in the way of healing some of the bitterness which has been created by this terrible War. The hon. Baronet who introduced the Motion said he objected to retaliation. So do I; so does everybody of any sense. He spoke of seizing money. We do not know where that might land us. But that, again, is on the very principle, which we are repudiating, of punishing one man because of some other man. That is directly

681
in contravention of our principles. We must never condescend to that; we must rather do something which will nourish a better feeling, and which will strengthen a current of feeling which is pretty silent just now, but which by and by will find a stronger voice in Germany, and that will, more than anything else, bring about that amelioration of the treatment of our men, which is clearly the object we have in view.
Mr. SANDERSON: Much of what I had intended to say has already been forcibly addressed to the House in the various speeches which have been made, and I only rise because I feel most bitterly on this question of the treatment of our prisoners of war in Germany. I do not think I shall be doing my duty if I fail to add a few words to what has already been said. I was very glad indeed to hear what the hon. Member opposite (Mr. J. M. Henderson) had to say about the treatment of four wounded prisoners in Germany, and I thoroughly agree with him in what he said about surgeons and doctors. My own experience of that profession is that they regard their duty to their patients as sacred, and that they always perform it to the very best of their ability. But the matter which we have been discussing this afternoon does not rest in the hands of the surgeons and doctors. The people who have, been responsible for the cruelties, which the Under-Secretary of State confirmed this afternoon in the clearest possible way, are not the people who are going to listen to any representation, or who have any feeling of duty towards humanity; they are the people who can only be made to listen to reason by fear for their own skin. When we heard from the hon. Gentleman that overcoats and clothing were taken from the prisoners, and when we have the statement of Major Vandeleur, which is a sort of isolated one, and when we hear that the German Red Cross had deliberately refused food to British prisoners while extending it to other prisoners, to my mind it seems a most extraordinary statement, and one which will have a great effect in this country.
When we are dealing with people like that, there is only one thing to be done, and that is, if possible, to make them feel that if they persist in this conduct they themselves will suffer. We do not want to make, anybody else suffer, but we do want the people responsible for these monstrosities to be made to suffer themselves.
682
I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite on the Treasury Bench, and a great number of people in this country will to a certain extent be relieved by the statement which he made. From the statements made by Ministers—though there has been a feeling that the Government has not been treating this matter with sufficient seriousness—the country will be satisfied that no stone will be left unturned, but that everything will be done for our poor countrymen who are prisoners of war in Germany. The main point which I wish to impress on hon. Gentlemen has reference to the statement of the Prime Minister made tonight. No doubt it is one of very great importance, but, with great respect to him and to the Government, I do not think it goes far enough. I think if it is left as it is it will not have the effect which is hoped for. In my opinion, to be really effective, it must be backed up by a statement by France and by Russia as well. We all remember the statement made by the three countries with regard to the terms of peace, that one country would not make peace without the consent and agreement of the other. If we can get statements made by the three great countries, France, Russia, and England, and Belgium, too—I do not see why we should not have them all—that unless the Germans treat our prisoners of war in Germany in a proper and humane manner, we will, when we have won victory—as we shall do—see that the utmost punishment is exacted, and that the persons, even the highest, who are responsible, will be punished.
"Where the offence lies, let the great axe fall."
That is a very good maxim of William Shakespeare to apply in this particular case, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use his influence to see that it is carried out. I think that for the future all our prisoners in this country should be dealt with in the same way. Personally, I think it is no use saying that we will treat the crews of the submarines different from other prisoners. I am not going to discuss it further than this. An instance was given by the right hon. Gentleman opposite to-day. What good does it do anybody. Further than that, to make a statement that you are going to treat the crews of the submarines differently by keeping them separate from other prisoners because they are not fit to associate with them, to my mind, and I speak with some hesitation, was simply a piece of absolute folly. I do not know

683
who was responsible for it. I have my suspicions, especially after what was said just, now in another place. As I understand, the Government have taken responsibility for it. What could be the result of a statement of that kind? It could not possibly deter the crews of any other submarine from doing what that crew had done. The Germans were not going to be prevented from carrying out their orders by being told that they would be separated from other German prisoners, but that they would get better treatment than any of our prisoners in Germany. The only result that could possibly occur was this, that we were gratutiously giving the Germans an opportunity, and a pretext for treating some of our prisoners in the way they have treated them.
I am bound to say I do not envy the person or people who were responsible for that extreme act of foolishness, because if they will only think about it, they must come to the conclusion that they and they alone are responsible, now for the indignity which has been imposed upon no less than thirty-nine of our officers in Germany. If it had not been for that act, those thirty-nine officers would not at the present moment have been interned and treated as common prisoners. I hope nothing of the kind will ever be done again, Let us make it clear with regard to all prisoners of war that we shall treat them in the same humane manner as we have treated them in the past, and do not let us in any shape or form give Germany a pretext for the ill-treatment of our prisoners. My object in rising, and the only object of everybody, is, if possible, to mitigate the conditions under which our poor countrymen are living in Germany. I am perfectly certain that the only way to do so is for ourselves to treat them in a humane manner, all of them, and make it, plain, with the assistance of France and of Russia, and the whole world, that if the Germans do not do the same we will hold those who are guilty liable to the last extent.
Sir WALTER ESSEX(indistinctly heard): I cannot agree with the last speaker altogether in the matter of the submarine prisoners, although in what he has said in the main I agree with him. I do not think I agree quite with what anybody has said on the subject, except the hon. Member who represents the Foreign Office, and it seemed to me that he put the true position when he said that
684
we have no precedents whereby we may guide ourselves in our treatment of these men. Neither The Hague Convention nor any of the other various arrangements made internationally provide for these unexpected and unprecedented events. Again, I would ask the hon. Gentleman opposite to remember the temper we were all in, and the horror and indignation with which we heard of those outrages against all previous practices and humane ideas of war, when crews were sent to the bottom composed of simple honest sailors harmlessly going about their business, and when we had women and children sent to the bottom without any attempt being made to rescue or help them, and, as one report had it, with jeers and laughter meeting them in their death struggles. It was a submarine to which that story attached. With that indignation has grown a good deal of the power which forced forward the policy which has been adopted. It has been pointed out that what these men have done was done under orders, and that they were bound to do it, just as, if we can conceive our submarines engaging in such a practice, if our men were ordered to do so they would be bound to obey orders. But I do think the Government is right in keeping those people apart. The charge we make against them, and that has been committed against civilisation, has been committed by them in an unprecedented way, and we have no law laid down by which we may guide ourselves. But at least we may signalize a unique practice that has crept into the naval aspect of this War by keeping these people separate until we have decided what shall be done, and by that separateness recognising them as a class of prisoners apart, and in doing that we shall have done a very great, deal to show the peoples of the neutral countries of the world what our feelings in this matter are.
I sincerely hope that we shall not allow ourselves in our just and proper indignation to play into the hands of our enemies by giving them satisfaction at any excessive display of anger at these abominable outrages which our men have to suffer. That we should be angry is right and proper, but I do not want that to be carried too far. I believe that the brutes who have so treated these men would rejoice in their coarse hearts at every expression that came from us of indignation. I would not give them even that satisfaction. Inasmuch as the Government have shown very

685
clearly that they have never been unmindful of these things, and with the splendid help afforded by the American Government have done what they could to mitigate those horrors, I feel we may keep our eyes open and, as the hon. Member has just said, see to it that we are not led into any undignified attitude of reprisals against the helpless persons under our charge. The hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. J. M. Henderson), in his pathetic reference to his son, bore grateful testimony to the fact that all Germans are not like those we are complaining of to-day, and in doing so was only following out the line of the Noble Lord the hon. Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil). I had a very curious experience in the early hours of the Sunday morning preceding the outbreak of the War. I was marching about the streets of Berlin in the midst of an excited crowd along the Unter den Linden and other main thoroughfares. As leaflets were thrown out in showers from the offices of the evening papers I had the satisfaction and pleasure of hearing my country cheered again and again. It is true that I could not join in singing "Deutschland uber Alles," but conversation with a number of Germans showed me that what the hon. Member for Aberdeen and the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin had said was true—that there had been, at any rate, in the recent past, two sorts of Germans. I do not know whether there are to-day. You have a very significant indication of the change of German opinion in the letter in this morning's Press from Professor Haeckel—a man who, for many years, was a friend of England, but who now certainly despises this country, and hopes never to have anything to do with her again.
But the Prime Minister was right when he suggested that these things were not the outcome of the bitterness of the German nation. They are the outcome of a distinct order, and are part of the policy of the men who made this War. Those men are the men who intended that this War should be the prelude to another war; they are then men who have made me hug to myself the satisfaction of feeling that our country has anticipated their ulterior end by joining with her Allies in this great struggle. Their chagrin is manifest in all these brutalities; they have stimulated their people to do these things. These influences, on the one hand, and the ever-present nightmare of the Slavonic force which besets the heart of the average
686
German, account for the present frenzied lunacy of the German people. In these brutalities they are playing the game of angry children; we will not follow them in that. England will, I hope, treat her prisoners of war in a dignified, honourable way, not lavishing excessive comforts or unwonted luxuries upon them, but treating them as soldiers and honourable men, leaving it to the judgment of the world to see that, as we began this war with high ideals and noble purposes, so we shall go through it, paying its bitter and bloody price, fighting it through to the end, with unblenching courage, without any attacks against weak and defenceless persons, but carrying it through in a way which will enable us at the close to lay a tight fist upon everyone of those persons, many of whom are in high places, to whom Christendom owes this, the bitterest and foulest blot that has ever rested on her fair fame.
Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I have one suggestion I wish to make in regard to the unfortunate persons in this country who have friends prisoners in Germany. It has come to my knowledge in more than, one case—I have submitted one case to the Foreign Office—that when friends of prisoners have sent parcels or money to Germany, neither parcels nor money has reached the prisoners. I received a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs enclosing a circular which pointed out what could be done. There is a committee in London called the Foreign Prisoners' Help Society, through which parcels and money can be sent. I would suggest that this organisation should be made better known throughout the country, and that the Foreign Office should notify the Post Office that when people send parcels or money it would be much better for them to be advised to send it through this central committee. The people who send these parcels belong largely to the working classes, and make great sacrifices to send them, and it is a shame that, when money is sent, it does not reach its intended destination. I am certain that the bulk of these people have no knowledge of this central committee, otherwise they would utlise its services. One speaker this evening said that the country was more or less dissatisfied with the work of the Foreign Office in regard to prisoners in Germany. Speaking for myself, I think that that is a wrong impression. I have had to go to the Foreign Office during the time both of the present Under-Secretary and of his

687
predecessor, and I am bound to say that they have been friendly and alert, and have paid the greatest amount of attention to any request made to them. I cannot understand how anyone, after reading the White Paper, can say that the Government have not attended to this department of their work. I have read the White Paper through from end to end, and there is every indication there that the Government have been alert, and that they have attempted to do perhaps what they could not do, and that the Government have endeavoured to mitigate the horrible state of affairs of which we have learnt through the White Paper. I hope that the result of this Debate will be that that mitigation will go on, and that the prisoners will reap some advantage.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Acland): I do not think that the House will grudge me the privilege of bringing the Debate to an end, considering that I have listened to every word of it. We have had a most interesting Debate; we have had some extremely interesting speeches, even in the thin House which we have enjoyed or suffered from during the last hour or so. The Government have been asked two questions which I will try to answer, as I was personally concerned in these matters from the beginning of the War up to the beginning of February. Members have asked what is the position with regard to exchanges, and why we cannot do more than we have done to effect what everybody desires, namely, that our prisoners in Germany should come back altogether in exchange for Germans at present detained here. If the White Papers are read, it will be seen that, at a certain stage in the negotiations with regard to the exchange of prisoners, incapacitated officers and so on, the offer was made by this country that there should be a general exchange of prisoners of war. That offer was made by His Majesty's Government, and declined by the German Government. So much for the exchange of that category of prisoners. Undoubtedly more might have been effected, more exchanges might have taken place than have taken place with regard to civilians. There, however, we were confronted with this difficulty: We proposed to exchange civilians who were not trained and not fit for military service against civilians who were similarly not trained and not fit for military
688
service in this country. We were wanting our untrained men to come here, and willing to release German untrained men to go back there; that was declined by the German Government. They have no use for men who will not be ready at once to take their place in the fighting line. On the other hand, the Germans were willing to send back men who would have been of no military use to us in exchange for prisoners who would have been of considerable military use to them, because they would have taken their place in the fighting line. That suggestion was, not unnaturally, declined by our War Office, because it has been, and I think will remain, one of the principles upon which we go, that if exchanges are effected, they shall be exchanges of persons of equal value.
There were two categories in which we were able to do something, that of incapacitated officers, of whom a considerable number have been exchanged, and invalid civilians. Both of these were arranged largely owing to the good offices of the Pope, who acted in the matter and put forward proposals. If those here at present could realise the difficulty in getting even those two categories of persons arranged for, they would not, I think, regard it as an easy matter to have gone further. When you rule out military prisoners, the exchange of whom was refused by Germany, and the civilians, owing to reasons I have stated, these two categories, incapacitated military men and invalid civilians, are the only categories left. It is something, at any rate, that exchanges have been arranged in these two categories, and that in these we have been able to go further. I want to say a word in answer to another question as to further time for debate, after the reports which are now being made by the representatives of the United States in Germany are published. I cannot in any way pledge the Government, but I feel sure when these reports are published, if there is a general desire and feeling that further time should be given, and it is brought to the attention of the Government in the ordinary way, that every attempt will be made to afford more time.
Mr. ANNAN BRYCE: When are these reports likely to be received?
9.0 P.M.
Mr. ACLAND: We cannot tell. It is not entirely within our control as to when these visits are paid and when the reports

689
will be completed and received. There are reasons why it is better to publish the reports altogether than to publish them piecemeal while they are coming in. There certainly would be no reason for delaying the publication of the reports when they have all been received. I should like to explain the reasons for not publishing some of the Papers which have been referred to as soon as they were received, as some think might have been done. I would like to deal with that point because it is one that personally touches me very nearly. It is suggested that we did not feel strongly enough about the matter. It is suggested that we might have acted at an earlier stage and got things made better at an earlier stage. I feel personally about this, because I was responsible for advising the Secretary of State in this matter. In the face of the multitude of duties which he had to perform he could not personally study all these indirect matters from day to day, and to some extent I was connected with the policy that he followed. May I draw the attention of the House to one little matter which seems to me to illustrate the way I had to deal with these things, and so reply to the suggestion of slackness which has been made? It has reference to the letter of 26th December. The hon. and learned Gentleman has rightly said we saw Major Vandeleur on Christmas Eve. On the evening of Christmas Day he first visited me at the Foreign Office.
On the morning of Boxing Day I sent on that very full letter containing his report, and other reports which we had previously received. I must say that I spent a somewhat busy Christmas Day, with an officer at the Foreign Office, in composing that letter, and—when many persons were, quite naturally, absent from their work and absent from London—obtaining sanction from the Treasury and from the War Office, so that I could, on the morning of Boxing Day, post that letter, with a request for the immediate representation of its contents at Berlin at the hands of the American Ambassador. I knew that these other reports were coming in; that we ran the risk of being accused of slackness; that we were not feeling strongly about it, if we did not publish these reports and other reports that we had received, and so show to the world what was going on. I may have made a mistake. The Government may have made a mistake. What was in my mind—I confess it frankly to the House—was this:
690
What is my duty? Surely everything was to give way in favour of taking every action to get the treatment made better! It is very tempting to make a great protest. It is very tempting to declare to the world how your men are being treated. But the prevailing temper in Germany—and there are two tempers, and I hope we shall gradually be able to appeal to the better temper—is such that any publication of our complaints, of our exposure of facts to the world, would only delight them more, and would only make them rejoice in their power, as they would think, to put pressure on us. The thing to do was not for the moment to publish these reports, but simply to concentrate on definite detailed plans for working out the machinery which would improve the state of things in the camps. That was not easy. It was not quick. It was not simple. It involved a good deal of machinery. It involved a good deal of correspondence. After all, one must judge these things having in one's view the state of mind at the time. It is very easy to forget that state of mind when you are reviewing the question a few months later. It did, however, seem to us at that time that the only thing to do was to keep our mouths shut, so far as public protests were concerned, and concentrate on the definite plans which occurred to us, which, by the help of Americans both here and in Germany, we were eventually able to work out, rather than by publishing the facts as we knew them, tempting though that was. I do not know if I have satisfied the hon. and learned Member. I quite understand his point, and, at the time of the conversation with Major Vandeleur, publication seemed to be the natural thing. But, on further consideration, it seemed to be better to settle down to these detailed ways by which we have now succeeded in getting considerable amounts of money and better supplies of food and clothing regularly distributed, and by which we have succeeded in getting persons who have a right, not to make casual inspection, but visits when they like. In having succeeded in getting these things seemed to be the best way, because the conditions seemed so terrible that the only thing one could have in one's mind was the quickest and best way of getting them remedied.
Mr. KING: I am sure the House must be very grateful to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, not only for his speech but also for the revelation he gave us of the way in which he spent his Christmas

691
in the service of those who are suffering in bondage. I am sure we realise with gratitude his services to our captive fellow countrymen for the first six months of the War when he was at the Foreign Office, and it is only fitting, I think, that some expression should be given of the gratitude, not only of the House but of the nation. But I venture to speak in order to call attention to two omissions which I noted in the hon. Gentleman's speech. I am very sorry that, summing up the whole Debate as he did for the Government, he should not have said whether the Government intend to accept or to refuse this Motion.
Mr. ACLAND: We accept it.
Mr. KING: I am very glad he has accepted, and that gives me the opportunity of referring to the second omission in his speech. He made no reference to the condemnation which we had in several speeches on either side of the House of the policy which the First Lord of the Admiralty defended to-day in connection with prisoners taken from enemy submarines. As far as I have listened to the Debate, there has been no approval of the policy of the First Lord of the Admiralty. On the other hand, there have been several most emphatic condemnations of it, and certainly it has not been defended by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and has listened to the whole Debate. I am sorry the First Lord of the Admiralty has not been here, and I hope that in the great and arduous work in which he is,
692
of course, engaged at his office, he will find time either to read or to have communicated to him the condemnation which has been given to his policy of reprisals on enemy officers. I believe myself that the one way to ensure better treatment for our men who are in captivity is to make it perfectly clear to all the world that we are treating well and, if possible, better and better those of our enemies whom we capture and intern here. I believe the policy of reprisals, though it may have some justification, will, at any rate, have this result, that it will make the lot of our fellow countrymen in captivity harder than ever.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved, "That, in view of the grave statements that have been made regarding the treatment of prisoners of war I in Germany, this House requests His Majesty's Government to take all the means in their power to ensure their better treatment in the future."
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, in pursuance to the Order of the House of the 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Ten minutes after Nine o'clock.

WAR.
  SUGAR TAX
  SUGAR TAX
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS (INCREASED PAY).
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS (INCREASED PAY).
  MEDICAL CONSULTANTS.
  MEDICAL CONSULTANTS.
  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
  ALIEN ENEMIES INTERNED.
  ALIEN ENEMIES INTERNED.
  BRITISH EXPEDITIONARY FORCE (CASUALTIES).
  BRITISH EXPEDITIONARY FORCE (CASUALTIES).
  GERMAN OFFICERS INTERNED.
  GERMAN OFFICERS INTERNED.
  SERVICE DRESS CAP (WEATHER CURTAIN).
  SERVICE DRESS CAP (WEATHER CURTAIN).
  WIRE CLIPPERS.
  WIRE CLIPPERS.
  VOLUNTEER TRAINING CORPS.
  VOLUNTEER TRAINING CORPS.
  ARMY VETERINARY CORPS.
  ARMY VETERINARY CORPS.
  CAMP DENTISTS.
  CAMP DENTISTS.
  SERVICE AND PROFICIENCY PAY.
  SERVICE AND PROFICIENCY PAY.
  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.
  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.
  WELSH CHURCH ACT.
  WELSH CHURCH ACT.
  MUNITIONS.
  MUNITIONS.
  SPOTTED FEVER (MIDDLESEX).
  SPOTTED FEVER (MIDDLESEX).
  PARCELS FOR TROOPS IN FRANCE.
  PARCELS FOR TROOPS IN FRANCE.
  PROVINCIAL POST OFFICES (CASUAL LABOUR).
  PROVINCIAL POST OFFICES (CASUAL LABOUR).
  POST OFFICE (MALE TEMPORARY FORCE).
  POST OFFICE (MALE TEMPORARY FORCE).
  WAR REGISTER (EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN).
  WAR REGISTER (EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN).
  COST OF LIVING (BOARD OF TRADE OFFICIALS).
  COST OF LIVING (BOARD OF TRADE OFFICIALS).
  CRUDE BY-PRODUCTS.
  CRUDE BY-PRODUCTS.
  Increased Cost of Living (Old Age Pensioners).
  Increased Cost of Living (Old Age Pensioners).
  British Museum (Wages).
  British Museum (Wages).
  Sick Insurance (Ireland).
  Sick Insurance (Ireland).
  Teachers (Promotion).
  Teachers (Promotion).
  Swaffield Road School, Wandsworth.
  Swaffield Road School, Wandsworth.
  Welsh Church Act.
  Welsh Church Act.
  Portuguese African Colonies (Native Labour).
  Portuguese African Colonies (Native Labour).
  China and Japan.
  China and Japan.
  Hollesley Bay Farm Colony.
  Hollesley Bay Farm Colony.
  Tilled Land (Ireland).
  Tilled Land (Ireland).
  Church of England in Wales (Endowments).
  Church of England in Wales (Endowments).

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:

Ascot District Gas and Electricity.

Doncaster Corporation.

850

Great Central Railway.

London, Chatham, and Dover Railway.

Metropolitan District Railway.

Streatley and Goring Bridge.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
BRISTOL TRAMWAYS BILL, [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Order made on the 11th of March last discharged, and Bill committed for Tuesday next.

ALTRINCHAM GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
SUTTON DISTRICT WATER BILL, [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
NORTHWICH GAS BILL, [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment.
YORKSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee that the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill: Ordered, That the Bill be not further proceeded with.

BLYTH HARBOUR BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
WARWICK GAS BILL, [H.L.]
ORMSKIRK GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
FALMOUTH DOCKS BILL, [H.L.]
BRIGHTON AND HOVE GAS BILL, [H.L.]
ROTHERHAM CORPORATION BILL, [H.L.]
SHEFFIELD CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS) BILL. [H.L.]
SUNDERLAND CORPORATION (WEAR-MOUTH BRIDGE) BILL, [H.L.]
FRIMLEY AND FARNBOROUGH DISTRICT WATER BILL, [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SALOP COUNTY COUNCIL BILL, [H.L.]
Read 3a: An Amendment made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
AMMANFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION (TRENT NAVIGATION TRANSFER) BILL.
SKEGNESS URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

ASHINGTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL, [H.L.]
STALYBRIDGE, HYDE, MOSSLEY AND DUKINFIELD TRAMWAYS AND ELECTRICITY BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
The Order made on the 16th instant appointing certain Lords the Select Committee to consider the said Bills, discharged.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.),

M. Bath (Chairman),

E. Verulam,

E. Kilmorey,

L. Shute (V. Barrington),

L. Rotherham;

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Wednesday the 5th of May next, at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL, [H.L.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OE CREWE): I ask your Lordships to give a First Reading to a Bill to consolidate enactments relating to the Government of India. This is a Consolidation Bill, and I propose, with the leave of the House, to take the Second Reading to-day week.
Bill read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next. (No. 58.)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.

BRITISH PRISONERS IN GERMANY.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON rose to call attention to the Correspondence respecting the treatment of Prisoners of War and Interned Civilians in the United Kingdom and Germany respectively. [Cd. 7817.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, more than a month has elapsed since my noble and gallant friend Lord Grenfell and I raised in this House the question of the treatment of British prisoners in Germany. Upon that occasion we received practically no reply from His Majesty's Government, and the discussion was completely ignored in the Press. If I now return to the subject it is not because I have anything fresh to say upon it, but because I feel, in common presumably with everybody here, that the utmost publicity ought to be given to the circumstances connected with this case. Making every possible allowance for exaggeration, nobody can any longer entertain doubt as to the fact that, speaking generally—there are exceptions, as we all know—British prisoners have been abominably treated in Germany. The evidence upon that fact is forthcoming from various sources. It is forthcoming from the unfortunate victims themselves; it is forthcoming from neutrals; and it is forthcoming in the German Press and in German official proclamations.
It has also now been made evident that not only have these men been abominably treated, but they have obviously been treated worse than the prisoners of other nationalities. It may be said without exaggeration that their ill-treatment began with their capture, that it became worse as they were being conveyed to their destination, and that when they arrived at their places of confinement in many cases their lives have been rendered almost unendurable by a system of what I can only call cold and calculated ferocity which is more repulsive than the furious outbursts of less civilised people. In many of the camps these men have been left half-clothed and half-starved, and kept in many instances in a condition more appropriate to the Middle Ages than to the 20th century. And all this has been perpetrated not on account of any offences which the prisoners have committed, but clearly and obviously because they happen to be men of British nationality. I dare say that many of those who have read the Correspondence have observed that Major Vandeleur, in his statement, expresses the opinion that this

853
brutal treatment was deliberately arranged for by superior authority. I do not know what grounds there are for this assumption, but this I know perfectly well—and we all know it equally well—that the German Government being what it is, any hint from superior authority in favour of treating these prisoners in a humane manner would have met with an instantaneous response; and it will be a lasting disgrace to what is known as the higher authority in Germany that when the circumstances were made known no effort whatever was taken to mitigate the treatment.
This conduct is all the more outrageous because, perhaps with one infinitesimal exception, we have never given any excuse for it. Our own position with regard to the treatment of prisoners of war is a perfectly clear one, and we have no reason to be ashamed of it. His Majesty's Government Lave always made it perfectly plain that they would positively welcome investigation, and so far from putting any obstruction in the way of investigation the camps in this country have been visited by representatives of the American Government. The result of their observations has been communicated to the German Government, and we know quite well that the reports have been of a favourable character. Speaking of my own experience with regard to these camps—I admit it is not a large one—I have been permitted to converse with the prisoners without any interference on the part of the authorities, and I can honestly say that, with the exception of one or two trifling complaints with regard to the delivery of parcels and things of that kind, I have met with no complaints whatsoever. And above all, there is one thing upon which we can pride ourselves, and that is that in no single case can it be shown that we have exercised any discrimination as regards one nationality as against another.
Turning to the published Correspondence, I think I may say that it discloses an attitude of extreme moderation and patience, pushed almost to the verge of excess, on the part of His Majesty's Government; and to me it is quite evident that, had His Majesty's Government desired to do so, a far more overwhelming case could have been made against the German Government. It probably will not have escaped notice that the Correspondence refers chiefly to the case of officers. We are all aware that in many instances British officers have been extremely badly treated, but we also
854
know that the men have been treated infinitely worse. There are a number of men in this country who were exchanged as being incapacitated for further service. I have myself examined many of these men, and I have no hesitation in saying that, if the stories which they told had been published in official documents, so much indignation would have been created throughout the country that it would have been almost impossible to resist a demand for retaliation upon German prisoners in this country.
I gather from the official Papers that at first His Majesty's Government were rather disposed, like many other people, including myself, to consider that the reports of ill-treatment were exaggerated. The first official intimation that I am able to discover with regard to ill-treatment appears in a Despatch from the American Ambassador at Berlin, Mr. Gerard, dated October 2, referring to a visit to the DÖberitz camp. On November 5a Report was received from Mr. Page, the American Ambassador here, with reference to the unsatisfactory condition of the camp at Torgau. But it was not until December 11 that Sir Edward Grey made formal complaints. His complaints related to the condition of things at Munster Lager and on the Island of Dän-holm. Towards the middle or end of December Major Vandeleur escaped from Crefeld, and His Majesty's Government were then in a better position to ascertain what the real treatment of British officers in Germany was, and on December 26 Sir Edward Grey made a much stronger protest, in which he spike of the "inhuman treatment" to which these officers were subjected. On January 13 of the present year Sir Edward Grey informed the American Ambassador that His Majesty's Government were quite willing that the conditions of our Concentration Camps should be known as widely as possible, and on the following day he formally accepted the offer of the American Government to lend certain officers from the Quartermaster-General's Department in the United States to act with reference to British prisoners in German camps. On February 3 Sir Edward Grey stated that visits of American representatives to the Concentration Camps in this country would be welcomed. Meanwhile—and this is an important fact—our request for reciprocity on the part of the German Government remained unanswered. I think for con-

855
siderably more than a month the American Note embodying our views remained without any reply from the German Government; and it was not until March 4 that Sir Edward Grey, finally losing patience, stated that he could not wait any longer, and asked that permission might be given for Americans to visit English camps in Germany just as permission had been given here to visit the German camps. In Communication No. 96—I should like to draw particular attention to this circumstance—there appears the curious statement:
"Such inspections as have hitherto been made of German camps have not been at the request of His Majesty's Government."
That is an expression that I do not altogether understand, but there may be some explanation which is not apparent to me. These proposals were finally accepted by the German Government on March 17, and the Correspondence closes with an assurance from the American Government that that Government will do all that they can towards the assistance of British prisoners in Germany. And here I may say, I am sure, on behalf of every one of your Lordships, that we cannot feel too grateful to the American Ambassadors both here and in Berlin for their exertions on behalf of these unfortunate men. It is deplorable to think what the condition of these victims would have been had it not been for the exertions of these two distinguished officials.
What, I take it, we are all anxious to know at the present time is whether since this Correspondence closed any general improvement has taken place with regard to the treatment of British prisoners in Germany. But even if a marked improvement has taken place, I do not think we can altogether obliterate or wipe out what has taken place in the past. As is only natural in the circumstances, a demand has arisen in this country on the part of many people for what is termed "retaliation." I have seen it frequently urged that the French and the Russians have obtained better treatment for their prisoners because they have threatened to retaliate or have actually retaliated upon German prisoners. I have no knowledge as to whether or not this assertion is justified. There is no proof, so far as I am aware, that the prisoners of these nationalities have been better treated in consequence of this threat of retaliation. Personally I am inclined to think that the reason why British prisoners
856
are worse treated than the prisoners of other nationalities is that it has been all along the deliberate policy of the German Government to make the world believe that we are their real enemies, and with that object they have endeavoured to sow dissension between the Allies. I doubt very much whether the threat of retaliation has had anything to do with the better treatment enjoyed by French, by Belgian, and in some cases by Russian prisoners.
So far as I am personally concerned, I am strongly averse from any suggestion of retaliating upon German prisoners in this country. And when I say I am averse from proposals of that character I am not looking at the matter solely from a chivalrous or sentimental point of view. It seems to me that there are strong practical objections to such a course. In the first place, it would be folly to ignore the fact that the German prisoners of war in this country are fewer than the British prisoners of war in Germany. But in the second place—and this is a strong argument—if there is to be a competition in brutality between the two nations there is not much doubt that we should be out-distanced immediately. I would further urge this. Judging from the Correspondence I cannot help thinking that the German Government would welcome any excuse for perpetrating further cruelties upon the prisoners who are in their possession. As it is, they can already find a pretence for cruelty. It is alleged, for instance, that there is a scarcity of food in Germany. Well, a more humane nation lets its prisoners go in circumstances of that kind. But judging from its conduct in the past the German Government is quite capable, not perhaps of literally starving its prisoners to death, but certainly of half-starving them, and threats of that nature have already been held out. I remember reading in a German newspaper during the early part of the war, shortly after the Russians had invaded and retired from East Prussia, a Proclamation by General Hindenburg, in which he called attention to the fact that as the Russians during their occupation of East Prussia had destroyed a large amount of grain the first persons to suffer should be the Russian prisoners.
But, my Lords, with regard to this question of retaliation we have a singularly unfortunate object lesson before us at the present moment. We have, unfortunately, provided the Germans with a

857
pretext of which they have not been slow to take advantage. Owing to what is generally believed to be the more or less independent action of the First Lord of the Admiralty, the prisoners taken from submarines have been treated differentially from other prisoners. What is the result? The German Government has not only retaliated, but it has retaliated with vindictive tyranny. By retaliation I understand that you do exactly the same thing as the other party. But in this case there is no equality of treatment. The submarine prisoners, I believe, consist of three officers and thirty-six men, whereas the German Government has laid hands upon thirty-nine British officers irrespective of rank, and has apparently chosen officers who belong to families whose names are well known; and it is an instructive sign of the feeling of the German Government with regard to this matter that one of these unfortunate hostages is the son of the ex-British Ambassador at Berlin who only a short time ago was so severely wounded that his life for a time was despaired of. Personally I entertain the opinion that the German Government looks upon prisoners in a totally different light from that in which we do. I am convinced that the German Government looks upon prisoners as mere wreckage. And judging from the Correspondence in the other White Paper recently presented—No. 8—I gather that the only prisoners in whom they take any interest at all and whom they wish to recover are those who are still capable of rendering some form of military service.
But when I disclaim all idea of retaliating upon prisoners, I hope very much that His Majesty's Government will not forthwith and immediately dismiss from their minds other forms of retaliation. For one thing, although I do not know that it would amount to very much or whether it would be very valuable, I hope to see the announcement one of these days that certain officers will be held responsible for their acts. But there is another indirect form of retaliation which commends itself to a good many people in this country, and that is that we should retaliate upon German property. To my mind that is about the only threat that is likely to exercise any influence upon Germany at all because the property of Germans in this country is far more valuable and far larger than the property of British subjects in Germany. I hope, therefore, that His
858
Majesty's Government will not altogether dismiss this alternative as an impossibility, because I feel confident that if the German Government were on their side convinced that we should put our threat into execution, their whole attitude with regard to the question of prisoners would change almost immediately. It is, of course, quite possible that the answer made by the Government may be so satisfactory that any question of retaliation is entirely unnecessary.
I desire, however, to ask His Majesty's Government for information upon the following specific points. In the first place, I should like to ask whether anything is being done with reference to the further exchange of men who have been incapacitated from taking any further part in the war. In the second place—this is really only a minor point, but still I should welcome information on the subject—I should like to ask why the German military prisoners in this country are supplied with civilian clothing, which in some cases helps to facilitate their escape, whilst we apparently, judging from the official Correspondence, are obliged to supply additional military clothing for British prisoners whenever the German Government asserts that it is required. In the third place, I should like to know the exact circumstances with regard to the treatment of the thirty-nine officers who have been seized as hostages by the German Government. Finally, I desire to ask whether His Majesty's Government can give any definite assurance that British prisoners are at all events not worse treated than the prisoners of other nationalities at the present moment.
There is one additional matter to which I desire to refer before I sit down, and it seems to me to be almost the only point on which any reproach can be addressed to us at all. I have visited some of the Concentration Camps in this country, and whereas I expect we are all agreed that there are a number of men at liberty who ought to be interned, it is quite obvious to me that there are a certain number of men interned who ought, on the other hand, to be at liberty. I have come across, for instance, quite a considerable number of men who are interned because they happen to be technically Turkish subjects. Now anybody who has the most elementary knowledge of Turkey knows perfectly well that these men, who consist largely of Armenians, or Syrians, or Jews, are the last

859
people in the world to go back to Turkey and join in any hostile action against this country. I believe them to be in many cases men who have been taken off ships. I expect that in most cases they are entirely harmless, and it seems to me only reasonable that wherever it is possible they should be liberated.
The other point to which I cannot refrain from drawing attention is that to my surprise I found that there was a certain number of comparatively old men still detained who were clearly and obviously quite unfit for military service. I understand that there is a general agreement between His Majesty's Government and the German Government that all males under the age of 17 and above the age of 55 should be liberated. I regret to say that I have found men over that age interned; and the Commandant and other officials, and even the General commanding the particular District, have all expressed to me the opinion that it was perfectly useless to keep these men and that they ought to be got rid of. If I might be allowed to make a suggestion—possibly it has already been carried out—I would suggest that somebody should be sent round to the Concentration Camps and should be empowered, after consultation with the Police and the other authorities, to arrange for the liberation of those men who are not destitute and who are looked upon as harmless. That really is all I have to say on the subject. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I have not brought forward any new facts, but I have returned to the subject because I consider that the greatest possible publicity ought to attach to everything in connection with this question. And speaking for myself personally, I am actuated not only by sympathy for these unfortunate victims of the war, but also by the hope that the world will be able to judge between England and Germany and decide which comes best out of the controversy over this question.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Earl KITCHENER): The noble Lord has raised a question of some importance with regard to the treatment of prisoners of war, and has suggested that certain categories of prisoners should be released or exchanged. I may inform the noble Lord that in dealing with alien prisoners a Commission under the direction of a General Officer investigates each case,
860
and when advisable, on the evidence produced, effects a release. The exchange of alien prisoners presents considerable difficulties, which increase as the war progresses owing to the use which Germany makes of the services of prisoners who hitherto, on account of advanced age, would have been immune from military employment.
The noble Lord opens a wider field in dealing with the treatment meted out to our officers and men who have had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Germans. Although the conduct of our enemies does not directly affect the operations of the war, it is of the utmost importance to those taking an active part in it, and in a scarcely less degree to their relatives and friends at home. As a soldier, I have hitherto always held the officers of the German Army in respect, and it has been with the greatest reluctance that I have been forced to accept as incontestably true the maltreatment by the German Army of British prisoners. The constant testimony that has come in, not only from our own escaped prisoners, but also from French, Russian, Belgian, and American sources, has brought it home to all who have sifted the evidence that the inhumanity displayed by the German authorities towards British prisoners especially is beyond doubt.
The Hague Convention signed by Germany lays clown rules for the treatment of prisoners of war. Its provisions are broad in scope and admit of such differential treatment as military conditions may demand, while providing stringent rules to prevent the escape or undue combination of prisoners. So long as the rules of this Convention are observed, no just complaint as to prisoners' hardships can reasonably be made by any belligerent nation. With regard to the allegations made against the Germans in this matter, I would quote Articles 4 and 7. Article 4 reads as follows—
"Prisoners of war must be humanely treated. All their personal belongings, except arms, horses, and military papers, remain their property."
Article 7 lays down that—
"Prisoners of war shall be treated as regards rations, quarters, and clothing, on the same footing as the troops of the Government which captured them."
The evidence detailed in the White Paper shows that these two Articles have been flagrantly disregarded by German officers.

861
Our prisoners have been stripped and maltreated in ways, and in some cases evidence goes to prove that they have been shot in cold blood. Our officers, even though wounded, have been wantonly insulted and frequently struck, and testimony has been given by Germans themselves of the way in which our people have been illtreated and injured.
I think it is only right and fair to say that the German Hospitals should be excepted from any charges of deliberate inhumanity. There have been indications of a lamentable lack of medical skill and in individual cases of neglect and indifference to suffering on the part of hospital orderlies. On the other hand, there are statements from prisoners who have been released, as incapacitated, that their experience in hospital did not form any ground for special complaint.
The treatment in the Detention Camps in Germany has varied considerably according to the locality. Our men in most cases have suffered from want of food and have received differential treatment as compared with their French and Russian comrades, and many acts of violence have been complained of. Latterly, however, there does appear to be a slight improvement in some respect, due, perhaps, to the visits of inspection which have been made from time to time through the American Ambassador. Recently some of our officers have been subjected to solitary confinement as a retaliation for supposed treatment to Germans in this country. The Hague Convention does not admit of such confinement of prisoners of war except as an indispensable measure of safety, and I hope before long to obtain some evidence of the manner in which these officers are now being treated.
Germany has for many years posed before the civilised world as a great military nation. She has abundantly proved her military skill and courage, but surely it was also for her to set up a standard of military honour and conduct which would gain the respect if not the friendship of nations. Instead, she has stooped to acts which will surely stain indelibly her military history, and which would vie with the barbarous savagery of the Dervishes of the Sudan. I do not think there can be a soldier of any nationality, even amongst the Germans themselves, who is not heartily ashamed of the slur which has been
862
thus brought upon the profession of arms. The usages of war have not only been outraged by the infliction of cruelties on British prisoners but by a contrivance which must have arrested your Lordships' attention. The Germans have, in the last week, introduced a method of placing their opponents hors de combat by the use of asphyxiating and deleterious gases, and they employ these poisonous methods to prevail when their attack, according to the rules of war, might have otherwise failed. On this subject I would remind your Lordships that Germany was a signatory to the following Article in The Hague Convention—
"The Contracting Powers agree to abstain from the use of projectiles the object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases."
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, it is not necessary for me to say more than a few words in continuation of this discussion. The speech which has just been delivered to us by the Secretary of State for War leaves, unfortunately, no room for doubt that the facts as laid before the House by my noble friend behind me are substantially accurate. None of us, I am quite sure, have any desire to exaggerate the complaints which have been made as to the treatment of British prisoners in Germany. I do not think I am going too far when I say that most of us would have been glad to know that there had been exaggeration, and that these acts of cruelty and persecution had either not taken place at all or had been much rarer than we have been led to suppose. But the evidence contained in the White Paper which is before your Lordships makes it, I think, perfectly clear that in a great number, at any rate, of these camps the German authorities have been guilty of deliberate persecution of the most callous and inhuman description. There have been exceptions; and I should be the last person in the world to suggest that we ought to judge the whole German nation or the whole of the German authorities hardly because a small number of brutal boors have taken advantage of their authority in order to torment the unfortunate persons committed to their care. Again, we can quite conceive that there should have been at times circumstances which rendered it very difficult, or perhaps impossible, to give to British prisoners the full amount of care and decent treatment to which they were entitled. But making

863
allowance for all these things, I repeat that there can be no room for doubt that the charges which have been made against the German authorities have been proved, and proved to the hilt. This conduct, as the noble and gallant Field-Marshal has just told the House, has been in flagrant disregard of the obligations imposed by The Hague Convention—obligations which have, as he pointed out to us, been also disregarded in another respect during one of the most recent engagements in Flanders.
Another point which I am afraid is abundantly proved is that this persecution is mainly directed against the British prisoners who are in the charge of the Germans. There has been deliberate discrimination against them. We have that in evidence from a number of sources, and the fact cannot be doubted. When we contrast the treatment which has been meted out to these gallant men with that accorded to the German prisoners who are in our hands we may indeed have a feeling of the most profound indignation. As to our treatment of the German prisoners, we have, fortunately, evidence which cannot be questioned—the evidence of Mr. Jackson, and the evidence of some British Members of Parliament who have made it their business to visit these Internment Camps—to show that that treatment has been not only considerate and liberal but generous to a point sufficient to attract a certain amount of criticism.
There is another count in the indictment which is amply established by these documents. The German Government throughout this Correspondence have deliberately procrastinated and evaded coming to terms with us for the purpose of bringing about an amelioration of the present discreditable state of things. At the very outset of the war the Secretary of State—I think on August 25—made a proposal for instituting an Information Bureau from which information was to be acquired in regard to the whereabouts and the fate of British prisoners in German hands. We lost no time in setting the necessary machinery in motion. Our first list was published on October 5. If you contrast our promptitude with the extraordinary dilatoriness which led Sir Edward Grey to protest as he did on March 4 that he had been left no less than six weeks without comments upon the scheme which he had laid before the German Government through the American Embassy in Berlin on January 14, there
864
can be no doubt that our conduct compares favourably with that of our opponents.
I am glad that my noble friend has again brought this matter to the notice of the House, and I venture to think it is one which cannot be too strongly or too frequently brought before public attention. It is a question which greatly moves the people of this country. I read the other day a very interesting account of a recruiting meeting at which one or two speakers had made eloquent orations with very little effect, but when somebody produced from his pocket an account of the sufferings undergone by a British prisoner in one of the German Internment Camps the meeting was immediately moved and a number of men were at once recruited. It seems to me most important that these facts should become thoroughly well known to the neutral Powers, who have an opportunity of exercising an influence upon opinion in Germany and who should be made thoroughly aware of all that is taking place. As far as I am able to follow the Correspondence, I am bound to say that it seems to me that the Foreign Office has done all that it could to obtain redress for this great grievance, and we have certainly every reason to he grateful to the American Government for the manner in which they have seconded the efforts of the Secretary of State. Without the assistance of the American Embassy at Berlin very little, if anything at all, could have been achieved; and I venture to express my hope that, in spite of the very heavy and disagreeable work which the performance of this task must necessarily impose upon the staff of the American Embassy in Berlin, the members of that staff will persevere in their efforts and will endeavour to bring it about that these inspections, upon which so much depends, shall be frequently made and shall be of a most thorough description. I attach great importance to the thoroughness of the inspection, because stories have reached me to the effect that there have been occasions on which inspection has been, perhaps unavoidably, of a somewhat perfunctory character, and that great pains have been taken by the German authorities to prevent the official who has carried out the inspection from acquiring a real knowledge of the inner circumstances of the Internment Camp.
There is another matter to which the efforts of these kind-hearted American

865
officials might, I think, well be directed. In some of the camps the administration is entrusted to a kind of popularly-elected committee—that is to say, to camp "captains," as I think they are called, who are chosen by the prisoners themselves. That is an admirable arrangement, because you are pretty sure to get in that way a camp captain who really will know what his brother prisoners require and the kind of treatment they are experiencing. The case is quite different if the camp captain is a prisoner chosen by the German authorities and who may be animated by German sympathies and not at all likely to take a dispassionate view of the facts which come before him.
I wish to say a word about another matter—I mean that which is usually spoken of as the question of reprisals. I greatly regret that the word "reprisals" should have been admitted into this controversy at all. Your Lordships are all, I think, familiar with the statement which was published by the Admiralty on March 9 last. It was announced in that statement that prisoners taken from the German submarine U 8 were to be made the subject of special restriction, and could not be accorded the distinctions of their rank or be allowed to mingle with other prisoners of war. Those words, carefully and closely interpreted, do not really go very far; but I am afraid there is no doubt whatever that they have been taken by many people who have read them and by a good many who have not taken the pains to read them carefully to indicate that His Majesty's Government were prepared to embark upon a course of reprisals in the true sense of the word. To my mind no policy could be more unfortunate or disastrous than a policy of reprisals in a case of this kind. It is, to begin with, a policy which I go so far as to say a Christian country could not deliberately adopt. I do not believe that public opinion would support any Government that adopted a policy of reprisals in the full sense of the word; but what is much more to the point—I think my noble friend said so just now—is that in any competition of this kind with the Germans we should be hopelessly out-distanced. It is quite clear that if we were to endeavour to respond to every German act of barbarity by an act of barbarity perpetrated by ourselves we should very soon come to the end of our tether, and certainly to the end of the patience of the public of this country.
866
There is another reason which leads me to hold this opinion. These reprisals are supposed to be directed against the crews of the submarines by whom our vessels and those of our Allies have been sunk during the last few weeks. The crews of these submarines are not the real culprits. They are under the orders of the German Government; they are sent out on this ruthless mission. If they refused to go or to obey the orders given to them they would be shot. The real culprits are not these men; the real culprits are the Government who adopt this policy and send out these submarines on their deadly mission. It is quite true that when a defenceless merchantman is sunk by a submarine no lives are saved. Of course they are not, because a submarine has no means of saving lives. If the captain of the submarine was ever so willing, it would be impossible for him to save the lives of, say, two hundred or three hundred sailors plunged into a wintry sea; and that is why the Prime Minister—to my mind very rightly—protested against these acts of German piracy, because from the very circumstances of the case it was impossible that peaceful vessels should be sunk without the loss of the innocent sailors on board them. I say, therefore, that a policy of reprisals in the usual sense of the word would be, in the first place, a policy unworthy of this country, and, in the next place, a policy which I believe would be futile and predestined to failure. There are other forms of retaliation which are, I think, much more open to consideration. It has been, for example, suggested that those who suffer by the barbarous conditions of their internment might be compensated out of funds levied on German property impounded in this country. That is quite a different form of retaliation, and that kind of retaliation seems to me to be one well worthy of consideration.
I, for one, am deeply convinced that our true policy with regard to these men who are now suffering at the hands of their German captors is to say to the German Government, "Here are your prisoners in our hands; send anybody you like, when you like, and how you like, to inspect them and see how we treat them; and in return allow some one acting on our behalf to inspect our prisoners and see how you are treating them on your side." That seems to me to be what we ought really to endeavour to secure. I have made these few remarks because I was anxious that

867
we should not be under the suspicion of being indifferent to the cruel sufferings of those who are described in these Papers, in rather touching words, as "very miserable men," and also because I felt that this debate ought not to proceed without some word of acknowledgment to the American Government for the great services which in this matter they have rendered to this country and to the cause of humanity.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, may I say a few words in support of a remark dropped incidentally by Lord Newton as regards the treatment of Turkish subjects? No population in the world is more heterogeneous than the Turkish, and although a large number of Turks are hostile and unfriendly to this country there are masses of Turkish subjects who are not only not unfriendly to us but desire that we should succeed. This matter is one that requires attention. I know that in the early days of the war there were a number of Egyptian students in this country who were technically Turkish subjects and who were treated as such. I think that was extremely unwise. A wiser policy would have dictated an endeavour to differentiate between the Turks and the Egyptians. I brought this matter to the attention of the authorities but I got no satisfaction whatever. All the young men in this country who were Egyptians were treated as Turkish subjects. I am convinced that the matter requires consideration, because there must be many more Turkish subjects besides these young Egyptians who would welcome the success of the Allies. I hope that the subject will receive attention.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I should not venture to address Your Lordships after the speeches of the Secretary of State for War and the noble Marquess were it not for the fact that since I associated myself with Lord Newton when this question was raised before I have received many letters —some from people who have relatives prisoners in Germany and several from commanding officers—expressing the wish that I should bring some cases before your Lordships. I have several here, but shall not now read more than two. In both cases I can speak with certainty. One is from an officer of a certain rank, the other from an unfortunate trooper of a regiment with which I am intimately connected. The case of the trooper is so dreadful that
868
it really is almost unbelievable. But I have seen his captain, and am assured that the trooper while in the Army was a man of the very best character. He had come back from the Reserve, where he had been some years, a quiet, steady, married man. The officer assures me that every word which his trooper says could be and must be believed. The trooper mentions the place, but of course I cannot state it, neither can I give the name of his regiment. The letter runs—
"We are being starved here. We get rice water and horse beans only—no solid food; one loaf of bread for six days. Several men have been run through with bayonets by the guard, and a large number are being flogged. Men are tied up to posts for six hours, with their toes just touching the ground. It is worse than being in hell. They do this without just cause. We have only one blanket, and all the men are suffering from itch and dysentery. The guards knock us about unmercifully with their rifles and sticks…The wounded do not get proper treatment and several have died, and there will be a lot more yet. All I have said is quite true. I could tell you much more, but this is enough for now."
I will not say how this letter passed through. It came by post concealed, but could have been very easily discovered. And I do not think that a man would risk, if not his life, at any rate very severe punishment, for a statement which had not any reference to fact. As to the case of the officer, he writes—
"British officers and men are most brutally ill-used. The food is unfit to eat; bread of sawdust and potatoes. Please publish this in the Press. German officers are worse than the men."
I have to-day been talking to some of the members of the American Embassy, and I am certain that the best thing to do is to make all these statements as public as possible. When those at the head of the Army and the Government in Germany read, as they must do, The Times—I believe it is still freely circulated in Germany—and see these awful and dreadful disclosures, it can hardly be believed that such statements will have no effect upon them.
May I say that there is a very strong feeling in the Army regarding the internment of the thirty-nine British officers? Bearing in mind the very slight punishment that the German submarine men were to receive it seems to us perfectly incomprehensible why it was necessary to issue any sort of manifesto to the world as to their treatment. The punishment they are now receiving might have been merely a disciplinary question, and when they were sent

869
to their destination they might have been told that they were not considered fit to be accorded the distinction of their rank or to be allowed to mingle with other prisoners of war. But naturally retaliation was immediately taken up by the Germans, and these British officers, some of them sons of members of your Lordships' House, are now suffering we know not what—at any rate, solitary confinement and differential treatment. We all consider it most unfortunate that the Admiralty's manifesto should ever have been issued.
As to inspection of camps, I think the only remedy is constant inspection. And the inspections should be surprise ones. I have heard of an inspection near Berlin which was entirely prepared for, and the prisoners themselves were astonished to find how comfortable they were made. To be of the slightest use inspection must, as I say, be by surprise; and, as was the case when Mr. Jackson, M. Naville, and the other member of the Dutch Red Cross, M. van Berchem, inspected our camps, conversation in private with the prisoners should be allowed. That, I think, is the only means whereby the dreadful sufferings of our men may be mitigated. But I must add that from my conversation to-day with a member of the American Embassy I am convinced that Mr. Gerard, the United States Ambassador in Berlin, is doing every mortal thing lie can to assuage the sufferings of these poor men and to bring such comfort to them as may be possible.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, nobody can doubt that the discussion which has taken place this afternoon must do good. Light is what we want on the whole of this matter: information on both sides as to what is actually taking place. I was very glad to hear the noble and gallant Field-Marshal who has just sat down refer to the Report, to which I do riot think enough attention has been given, drawn up by M. Ed. Naville and M. van Berchem, who, on behalf of the International Red Cross Society, visited the English camps. In their Report, published in French and possibly also in English, they drew attention to the fact that they had been allowed, without the slightest reservation or restriction, to hold interviews privately with any person in any of the camps, and that at such interview no official was present. To all impartial readers that Report must carry convincing testimony. The publication of
870
Reports of that kind, in my judgment, should be the weapon we should employ for showing the contrast between what is going on in England and what is apparently happening in Germany.
I cannot help saying a single word of regret at having heard from two noble Lords on the other side something like approval of another measure of retaliation than that which has been already to some extent put in force by the conditions prescribed for the internment of the men taken from the German submarines. I feel that we shall do a wrong thing in principle and commit a very grave blunder at the same time if we allow it to stand upon the records in the history that will hereafter be written about this war that we attempted anything in the way of competition as regards the severities of imprisonment. We want scrupulously and even proudly to repudiate and eschew any action contrary to the ordinary high-minded rules which hold good between belligerents and which is not in accordance with the great Conventions of The Hague Conference. To retaliate upon property may be less cruel and certainly less barbarous than retaliating upon the persons of individuals, but it does come into the category of our going outside what English belligerents regard as honourable. For that reason I believe we shall stand right with ourselves, with posterity, and with history if we adhere absolutely and without reserve to the honourable, high-minded conduct of war. Whatever our foes may do, let us scrupulously avoid any action which can be regarded as contravening the ordinary interchange of international procedure with regard to matters of this kind. I hope the Government will consider many times before they adopt it. After all, and apart from higher reasons, it would not be an extraordinarily effective mode of attempted competition with our enemies on the other side. I shall lament it exceedingly if we adopt action of a retaliatory kind, which I believe would smear us with some mark, at all events, of a sort which Englishmen have always regarded with intense dislike. We want to go down into history absolutely unsullied in the records of our carrying on of this great war.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I will trespass upon your Lordships' time for only a few moments, but I think some acknowledgment is due to my noble friend Lord Newton for the zeal with which he has brought forward this matter of the treat-

871
ment of British prisoners in Germany. I am perfectly certain the House will agree that he will receive for his action the very grateful thanks of the families of these prisoners. It will be within the recollection of a great many of your Lordships that the late Mr. Gladstone was rather fond, in alluding to the particular effect of this or that measure, of discussing what the effect would be on the opinion of what he called "the civilised world." I think it is our duty to direct the attention of the civilised world to the very base, cruel, and unmanly treatment of British prisoners in Germany that has been so fully proved in the White Paper; and there can be no difficulty in His Majesty's Government instructing His Majesty's Ministers at the different Courts to which they are accredited abroad to submit copies of the White Paper containing these well-proved instances of brutality and request the Governments to which they are accredited, in the name of common humanity, to appeal to the German Government to put a stop to this very grievous state of things.
I should like to say a word on the subject of the thirty-nine British officers who, we understand, have been sentenced to and are undergoing a form of punishment called solitary confinement in prisons in various parts of the German Empire. This would appear to be the outcome of the instructions conveyed in the Admiralty Order as regards the treatment of Germans captured in submarines and who are prisoners in this country. I think your Lordships will agree that solitary imprisonment, if protracted over an indefinite period, is a very ghastly punishment indeed, and I can conceive in the case of many individuals that death would be preferable. I can only hope that the brave men who are undergoing this form of imprisonment will have the fortitude to endure it with the utmost courage. I happen to have a relative among the men who have been thus sentenced, and I find on inquiry that the War Office is unable to give any information to the families of these officers as to whether the officers will be entitled to receive communications or whether they will be allowed to send any letters to their families; and the question of their treatment at present—and what it will be—is quite unknown in this country. I sincerely hope that His Majesty's Government will direct the attention of neutral countries to the fact that this treatment of prisoners, officers or men, is entirely contrary to The Hague Convention and to
872
what I believe has been the recognised usage of all civilised countries during the last two centuries or more.
This is a time at which I am sure none of us desire to criticise any action of His Majesty's Government, but I think it was injudicious on the part of the Admiralty to have issued those instructions last month with regard to the differential treatment of the officers and men of the German submarines. Every single person one speaks to on this subject has but one opinion on the point—namely, that the instructions were of a singularly injudicious character. I would venture to quote what was said only last Monday in the Daily News—
"It is doubtful whether we are wise, even in the case of the submarine murderers, to give Germany the excuse of inflicting more misery on the British prisoners of war."
And I saw on March 23 a letter in The Times signed by Admiral Sir William Kennedy, in which he said—
"All this talk about treating the officers and crews of German submarines as pirates and hanging them or treating them differently from other prisoners is nonsense."
Now, what has been the net result of these instructions of the Admiralty? The net result is that we have on the credit side of the account a handful of German prisoners, officers and men, who were captured from one of these submarines and are, I fancy, detained in naval barracks somewhere on the South Coast. But their detention appears to be of a very mild character, and mitigated, as the White Paper shows, by the admission of German newspapers and by other amenities. The net result on the debit side is that there are thirty-nine British officers in Germany undergoing one of the most deplorable punishments that could be devised—namely, solitary imprisonment for an indefinite period. I do not know whether it will be the opinion of any other noble Lords, but I do not think it would affect the national honour if our Government were to inform the German Government, through the United States Embassy or in any other way open to them, that for the sake of our officers, and only for the sake of our officers, we were prepared to give the submarine crews the same treatment as the other German prisoners of war in this country, provided that there was an immediate, proper, and decent treatment of the British officers and men who have the misfortune to be prisoners of war in Germany.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, will you allow me two minutes in which to make a formal protest? I feel that I need make no excuse for addressing you for a brief space, inasmuch as I am deeply interested in the question that is now before Your Lordships' House. My only reason for doing so—I have, by the way, three sons serving His Majesty with the Colours—is that my third son is one of the officers who are undergoing this special punishment in Germany, and I desire to enter a formal protest against, and to record my horror at what has been done in the last few days by, the arrest of these thirty-nine gallant officers. The ground has been so fully covered that I will not say more upon that subject.
But your Lordships will allow me, perhaps, to say that the other day I represented to the First Lord of the Admiralty that it was solely and entirely due to his action that this state of things has arisen. He might have taken the steps which he thought fit in respect of the submarine officers and men now imprisoned in this country, but I cannot see why anything should have been said about it. The Admiralty communiqué of March 9—it is familiar to your Lordships, and therefore I need not trouble to read it through—stated that the Board of Admiralty did not consider themselves justified in extending honourable treatment to the officers and men rescued from the submarine U 8; and in the last paragraph the communiqué stated that—
"Persons against whom such charges are pending must be the subject of special restrictions and cannot be accorded the distinction of their rank or be allowed to mingle with other prisoners of war."
That is all very well, but I hope that before the House rises this evening we shall hear whether it is the First Lord of the Admiralty who is responsible for this procedure or whether he has the full support of the Cabinet. We all know that the First Lord of the Admiralty is a brave man on the field of battle and a brave man on the field of politics, and is not a man to shelter himself behind anybody; and when I represented to him the other day that I felt very keenly, not only about my own son but equally about all the other officers, he was only too ready to say, "Yes; I have laid down this policy, and I am going to adhere to this or that"—I cannot repeat exactly what he said. I would like
874
to have some assurance from the Government whether this, policy has their sup port or has not their support. From what I have heard and seen I think that if this matter had been left in the hands of the Foreign Office we should have heard of no reprisals, and matters would have been amicably and satisfactorily adjusted between the two countries with the aid of the American Ambassador.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LUCAS): My Lords, no One who has listened to this debate to-night, or who has read the Papers which have been laid on the Table, or who has followed this question during these past months can fail to realise the extreme seriousness of it. As was said by Lord Kitchener earlier this evening and as is well known to us all, we are not dealing with a case of individual acts of ill-treatment or brutality but with a more or less consistent discrimination against British prisoners, and one which has obviously received the sanction of the highest authorities in Germany. Face to face with a position of that kind your Lordships will readily recognise the difficulty in which His Majesty's Government are placed when dealing not at first hand but through the intermediary of a third party. I am sure your Lordships will realise that the fact that the Foreign Office were not able to attain any speedy results from their labours was not any fault of theirs. It was not through any lack of initiative or flagging on their part that all these months have elapsed before any satisfactory light could be thrown upon this extremely gloomy situation. Even what has been done would not have been possible at all had it not been for the assistance which has been rendered by Mr. Gerard and the United States Embassy at Berlin. Not only His Majesty's Government but, all classes in this country owe to him and his staff a deep debt of gratitude for their untiring efforts on behalf of British prisoners in Germany. From the first days of the war, when Mr. Gerard undertook the care and charge of British subjects remaining in Germany—the personal assistance he rendered to our Ambassador, your Lordships will remember, was dealt. with in the Despatch which our Ambassador wrote after his return—from that time consistently all through we have had most valuable assistance from Mr. Gerard, and I am glad to say that to a

875
certain extent his efforts have at last been crowned with success.
As Lord Newton went into that point rather in detail, perhaps I may lay before your Lordships actually what occurred. I should like to say first of all that by no means all the documents that have reached the Foreign Office have been printed in this White Paper. All the important letters have been printed. But there was an enormous mass of documents, a great many of them very contradictory, and the Government shared the reluctance that we all of us had to believe the worst of these stories that found their way home about the treatment of British prisoners. I do not think that the Government were wrong when they felt that it was incumbent upon them to have some very clear and indisputable evidence as to ill-treatment on an organised scale before any very definite action was taken. Of course, the Government realised quite early certain things. For instance, it was early brought to our notice that a certain number of British prisoners were destitute and badly in need, of clothing and other things. On October 2 a sum of money was placed at Mr. Gerard's disposal, and, although it does not appear clearly in this Paper, from that time on he has had as much money at his disposal for the purchase of clothing and all forms of necessities as he could possibly require. That was one of the things dealt with pretty promptly, and Mr. Gerard has been persistently supplied with money.
The first really definite information on which the Government felt that they could act was the report of Major Vandeleur which appears in the Correspondence. After that there was no sort of delay, and within comparatively a few hours a Despatch was sent asking for inspection. This was shortly followed up by a carefully considered scheme which was worked out at the Foreign Office, with, I think, the assistance of one or two people who had seen the camps, and we asked for a proper system of inspection, and other things. The delay of the German Government in dealing with these questions has been referred to. The scheme was sent forward to them in the Despatch of January 14. By March 4, as I think the noble Marquess pointed out, Sir Edward Grey had practically given up all hopes of acceptance of the scheme, and feeling that anything that could be got was then to be tried for he
876
simply asked whether inspection of the camps would be permitted. However, as a matter of fact—and for this I think we have largely to thank Mr. Gerard—by March 17 the German Government accepted, practically in its entirety, the proposal which had been put forward on January 14, rather more than two months before.
The German Government agreed to a certain number of definite points. The first is a general agreement with regard to transmitting to those countries whose subjects are held by them as prisoners of war a certain amount of the necessary information with regard to lodging, clothing, and food, as well as correspondence and the forwarding of money and presents in kind. That is all to the good. The second point is, I think, the most valuable of them all. General permission to inspect the Detention Camps is to be given to the chiefs of the diplomatic missions who have charge of the protection of the prisoners, as well as to the diplomatic or consular officers of their country who may be designated by them. Under that Mr. Gerard and nine members of his staff have been given general permission to visit the camps. So that I think, as the result of this, we shall be able to have full reports from these vigilant gentlemen. We feel that this general permission to inspect will really produce good results. Then they further agreed—and this is valuable also—to the distribution to necessitous prisoners of the money which we have placed at Mr. Gerard's disposal. The particular £20,000 which is mentioned in the White Paper is only a part of the money that has been placed in his hands; it was the particular sum that was under discussion at the moment. But they stipulate certain restrictions when mentioning the articles upon which the money may be spent. However, no objection is to be interposed on the sending of simple foodstuffs, sweets, &c., by people at home; and to men who are not in a position to get enough to eat that is a valuable provision. That is the arrangement under which we are going to work from now forward. I think we may at any rate say that it is an enormous advance on anything we have been able to get, and if it works as we have every reason to think it will the result Will be considerably to ameliorate the lot of our men who are imprisoned in Germany

877
The noble Lord (Lord Newton) raised a number of other points, and perhaps I may express my thanks to him in that he was kind enough to inform Lord Herschell, who represents the Foreign Office here, as to the points on which he was going to ask for information. With regard to the exchange of incapacitated prisoners, we sent in our list three weeks ago and are waiting for the German reply, which always takes a considerable time in coming. But we have no reason to think that we shall not be able to arrange for a further exchange. As to civilian clothing, the position is this. Lord Newton pointed out that while we provide civilian clothing for German prisoners here we have also to provide military clothing for our own men who are prisoners in Germany. Under The Hague Convention a belligerent country is responsible for clothing the prisoners in its charge, and by rights Germany ought to have clothed our men there. The position, however, was that our men were without clothes—some of them had had their clothes taken from them; others were in rags. The German Government gave not the slightest sign of any intention to provide the men with clothes. To meet the emergency we did a thing which we were under no obligation to do—we sent out clothing for these men. On our side, however, we fulfilled the obligation that rested on us to clothe the German prisoners, and as no uniforms were available they had to be clothed in civilian clothes. But I may say that the possibility of providing a general kind of uniform for these prisoners is now under consideration.
The next question put by the noble Lord was as to the release of aliens. Broadly, the rules are that men of under 17 or over 55 years of age in the case of Germans, or under 18 and over 50 in the case of Austrians, are entitled to be released; and that, generally speaking, has been the policy of the War Office, who is responsible. They have tried as far as possible to repatriate all who are not seamen or suspected of any definite thing. But one of the difficulties met with is that some of these people do not want to go. There was the case of a man who, at his own request, was let out, but who four days afterwards was found, so to speak, sitting on the doorstep asking to he taken in again. Then there is the case of the men who, if let out, will be destitute. The last place such persons want to go to is
878
Germany; they would far sooner remain in these camps. And that applies equally to aliens whom it is suggested you should release, who are domiciled in this country. There is the strongest possible objection to having a number of destitute aliens at large in this country. For these reasons there are a considerable number of men over 55 in the Concentration Camps. I am told that the camp commandants would be only too glad to get rid of them if they could. If there are cases of which the noble Lord knows of men who are over 55 and of blameless character and so on, whom he would like to get out and send hack to Germany, I am sure the War Office would consider the cases.
Then with regard to those who might be called "alien enemy friends"—Armenians and people of that sort who have reason to dislike their own country more than ours. They are being treated in as generous a way as possible. It is realised that there are a number of people of that sort, who, though technically alien enemies, yet are not at all actuated with hostile feelings towards us; and everything is being clone to treat them in the best way possible and to release them if they so desire.
The noble Lord asked whether British prisoners in Germany were not treated worse than the prisoners of our Allies. I think there is no doubt whatsoever that that is so. There is a large body of evidence already to that effect, and all the fresh evidence that comes in—and it is rapidly accumulating—goes to show the same thing. But I doubt very much whether that is at all due to any threats of reprisals. I think it must be put down to the general attitude of mind of the Germans. Really, people who can stamp their paper money with "Gott strafe England !" which is what they do, are quite capable of issuing orders that the treatment of English people is to be different from that of the French, Belgians, and Russians.
I come now to the question of the treatment of the crews of these submarines. I think it should be explained at once that their special treatment was not a question of reprisals. It was not done from the point of view of a reprisal, but, if I may so express it, as an expression of the highest kind of moral disapproval of what was

879
being done. You were faced by an action on the part of these men which was unique in civilised warfare. I need not go into the number of actions by submarines. These facts are familiar to every one. But it was felt very strongly that there should be some sort of expression of the most severe disapproval. These people were therefore treated as a separate class. But it is important in this context that it should be quite clearly understood by every one concerned that these men are to be treated according to conditions laid down by The Hague Convention. In all these things we entirely agree that there is only one standard on which we can go, and that is the standard laid down by international law; and nothing has yet occurred, though there has been a great deal of provocation, which can tempt us to depart from that course.
We are in negotiation, again through the American Ambassador in Berlin, to obtain inspection of the conditions under which the thirty-nine officers referred to are living. We have not yet received an answer to our application, but we hope that it will come, though it is impossible for me to say for certain at the present time. What we are aiming at is to secure inspection so that we may obtain information as to what the conditions are under which these officers live. That is an indispensable preliminary to any action. There was one other point. The noble Marquess mentioned what occurs in some of these camps, where a camp captain is selected by the prisoners and is to a great extent responsible for the internal management. I speak under correction, but my impression is that that occurs only in camps like Ruhleben where there are civilian prisoners, and not in camps where there are prisoners of war. It certainly appears to work very well in the civilian camps, and it is a system which one hopes might be extended.
I hope I have sufficiently met the points which have been raised this afternoon. I can only repeat that we welcome this debate. The facts which have been shown, in the White Paper and in the information which reaches this country, prove that the state of things is deplorable, and one hopes that some good may be done at any rate by a wide diffusion of the facts and the utmost possible knowledge of what is occurring. That is the only thing which we can hope now will have any effect. As far as
880
the Government can do anything further to improve the lot of these unhappy people, I am sure that we on this side would welcome any suggestion towards that end.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The noble Lord has omitted to answer one very important point with reference to the Admiralty circular which I am sure we all agree was the origin of the retaliation by the Germans. If any individual member of a Cabinet is to issue circulars of that kind, it seems to me that he is taking upon himself a very grave responsibility—a responsibility which no single member of any Cabinet ought to be able to assume. What we wish to know is whether this circular originated with the First Lord of the Admiralty alone, or had it the approval of the Cabinet.
LORD LUCAS: I can only answer the noble Earl's inquiry in general terms. As I understand the Constitution of this country, there is only one form of decision in matters of this kind—the decision of the whole Government. The decision with which we are dealing, like all other decisions, was the decision of the Government as a whole. And in this matter I hope that the present Cabinet is not less nor more Constitutional than other Cabinets.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I do not know that we have received much consolation from the last reply with which the noble Lord has favoured us. We all know the Constitutional position—that a Minister speaks on behalf of his colleagues, with their knowledge and consent. But, as the noble Lord knows very well, since the commencement of this war there has been more than one case in which there has been an appearance of independent action on the part of one Minister in particular—the First Lord of the Admiralty; and the noble Lord must not be surprised if the continued recurrence of these incidents is called attention to in this House, as it has undoubtedly caused profound disquiet and anxiety in the country. There is an appearance from time to time of independent action on the part of this Minister —action which raises doubts as to whether it is supported by his colleagues at the Admiralty, and also whether the course in question could conceivably have been approved by the Government as a whole. I do not desire to press the matter unduly.

881
But no member of the Government can be ignorant of the fact that those doubts are felt; and the Government should practise greater care in their action, and still more in the control they exercise over their colleague, than has hitherto been the case.
While saying that the last few remarks of the noble Lord in reply to Lord Camper-down do not give us much solace, I think that from his speech we could derive more satisfaction. He gave us what I understand to be the Ministerial explanation of what was in their minds when this Admiralty declaration was made. I only wish that that explanation had been given rather earlier in the day. The noble Lord told us this afternoon that the Government, in authorising this statement—if they did—were merely emphasising the high moral considerations which they entertain in regard to the action of these German submarines. So far so good. We are entirely with them in that matter. But why did they allow the enunciation of this moral principle to be couched in such a form? Can anybody doubt that the publication of that announcement to the world, urbi et orbi, in the form which was adopted, did suggest that it was a deliberate statement on the part of our Government of an intention to exact reprisals? I need not enter into the question of reprisals. I think we are all agreed about it, from the most rev. Primate down to every layman who has spoken this evening. But the form in which the Proclamation was made undoubtedly was open to grave misinterpretation. We all abhor the acts of the German Government which led to the announcement in question, but I would counsel His Majesty's Government, if I may do so without impertinence, to be rather more careful as to the way in which they make their statements, all the more because the sufferings of which we complain to-night are without a doubt the consequence of the mistake made on that occasion.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: My Lords, I do not wish to enter into this discussion for the purpose of inquiring into the indiscretion, real or imaginary, of the First Lord of the Admiralty; but I must say, in justice to the right hon. gentleman, that I seem to remember an utterance by the First Lord of the Treasury which adumbrated, if it did not suggest, the exact words of the circular. But I leave
882
that. I rise simply for the purpose of asking my noble friend Lord Lucas whether he could not supplement his speech with some further information. He told us that after a delay of two months the American Embassy in Berlin was able to obtain from the German Government a comparatively fall, if not a complete, acceptance of the suggestions made by Sir Edward Grey for visitation to the persons in the German camps. That came after a delay of two mouths. Some weeks have elapsed since then. Has not my noble friend something to say in pursuit of that? I read in The Times to-day an account of a visit made by members of the American Embassy in Berlin to the camp at Göttingen where numerous British prisoners are lodged, with the result that investigations were made on the principle enunciated in Sir Edward Grey's Memorandum. I suppose other noble Lords have seen this short report. Incidentally I may say that coupled with it is what is rather a grotesque circumstance. The report continues that several professors of Göttingen University are giving lectures to the prisoners on the war, its causes, and the attitude of the Powers, especially Great Britain. But the other information given in this newspaper report is of sufficient value and authority to require a further statement from my noble friend.
LORD LUCAS: These reports are being made at the present moment by the staff of the American Embassy, and some of them have already been received. But it is not intended to publish them or to take any action upon them until all the camps have been reported on.

GERMAN ATROCITIES IN BELGIUM.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Can the noble Marquess state when we are likely to get the Report of the Committee which is now sitting, under the chairmanship of Lord Bryce, inquiring into the German atrocities in Belgium? I understand that the Committee is reaching the end of its labours.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am afraid I cannot answer precisely. I, too, have been told that the proceedings of the Committee are far advanced, but I am not able to give the noble Earl the date on which we may expect the Report.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: May I remind the noble Marquess the Leader of the House that there are one or two small matters on which he kindly undertook to ascertain the facts and to give us information. One was as to the pay and rations of the Territorial troops in India, which question we discussed here some weeks ago. The other question was raised recently, and refers to German newspapers not being allowed into this country and the censorship of extracts from foreign newspapers.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am able at any time to give a reply upon the Indian matters. In fact, I have communicated with the noble Earl in those terms, but he has probably not received my letter. As regards the other matters, I can also reply in due course if noble Lords will once more place the Questions on the Paper. I am given to understand that there is no business on the Paper for tie remainder of this week, but of course if it is desired to raise these questions either to-morrow or on Thursday—
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I have a Question down for Tuesday of next week, and could add these at the same time.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: If the noble Earl pleases.
Moved, That the House do adjourn, except for Judicial business, until Tuesday, May 4.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.