Sitting of 31 July 1917

JUDICIAL BUSINESS.
Ordered, That the expression "recess of the House" in Standing Order VII regulating Judicial proceedings in this House be deemed to include the period between this day and the 16th of October next.
ARMSTRONG WHITWORTH AND COMPANY (RAILWAYS) BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
LEVINSTEIN (RAILWAYS) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 4) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a to-morrow (The Lord Hylton). (No. 87.)
POLICE CONSTABLES (NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICE) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a to-morrow (The Viscount Sandhurst). (No. 88.)
CAERPHILLY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
  COLONIAL BANK BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
LAND DRAINAGE (WISTOW) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
    CHEPSTOW WATER BILL.
      SHEFFIELD UNITED GASLIGHT COMPANY BILL.
        SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
          SOUTH EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM AND DOVER RAILWAYS BILL.
          Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
ROYAL VICTORIA INFIRMARY, NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
Miscellaneous, No. 12 (1917)—An Agreement between the British and German Governments concerning Combatant and Civilian Prisoners of War:
Treaty Series (1917)—No. 9. Agreement between the United Kingdom and Liberia respecting the Boundary between Sierra Leone and Liberia from the River Nakona or Noa in the north to the River Nagowi in the south (with map); London, 19th–26th June, 1917:
Census of England and Wales, 1911—Volume XIII. Fertility of Marriage. Part I:
Light Railways Acts, 1896 and 1912—Orders made, by the Light Railway Commissioners and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, entitled—
The Milford and Saint Bride's Bay
Light Railway Order, 1916;
The West Sussex Light Railway Order, 1915:
Board of Agriculture and Fisheries—Statement in regard to the cost of growing an acre of wheat during the present season compared with the pre-war cost:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Companies (Winding-up)—Twenty-sixth General Annual Report by the Board of Trade under Section 283 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908:
Shops Act, 1912—Order made by the Council of the Burgh of Wishaw and confirmed by the Secretary for Scotland:
Metropolis Water Act, 1902—Fourteenth Annual Report of the Metropolitan Water Board; year ended 31st March, 1917:
Road Board—Seventh Annual Report of the Road Board:
Army—Rules of Procedure, Amendments:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a to-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendments proposed by the Committee made: The Report of Amendments to be received to-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a to-morrow.
MARTIN'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.

NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE ADDITIONAL PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF LYTTON): My Lords, this Bill proposes certain amendments in the Naval Discipline Act of 1866. They are chiefly administrative points; but in so far as they have any other purport, it is in the direction of mitigating punishment and making it easier for a man who has committed an offence to redeem his character. The Bill has two clauses. The first clause, with its four subsections, contains the amendments to the existing law; the second clause gives power to reprint the Naval Discipline Act with all the alterations which have been made in it up to date, and therefore makes this Bill into the nature of a consolidating measure.
I am afraid that the Bill as it stands, without reference to the original Act, is unintelligible. Therefore I will state, briefly, what is proposed in the Bill. By a short Amending Act passed in 1915 provision was made for the suspension in approved cases of the operation of sentences of penal servitude, imprisonment, or detention, so as to give a man who has committed an offence a chance of redeeming his character by subsequent good conduct. That measure has now been in operation for two years, and experience has shown certain defects in it which it is proposed to remedy in this Bill. The first defect is that at the present time a sentence may be suspended only before the offender is
80
committed; there is no power to suspend a sentence after a portion of it has been served. In the Army either course is possible; and it is proposed in Clause 1, subsection (4), of this Bill to make the practice in the Navy conform to that in the Army, and to enable suspension of a sentence to take place either before or after committal. The second defect relates to the committing authority. Section 74A of the Act confines the power of suspending a sentence to the Admiralty or committing authority, who may be either the Commander-in-Chief, the officer who ordered the Court-Martial, or the officer commanding a ship if the sentence had been awarded by him. This limitation has been found inconvenient in practice, and it is now proposed, in subsections (1), (2), and (4) of Clause 1 of this Bill, to extend this power to an officer holding such command as the Admiralty may by regulation prescribe. Regulations which it is proposed to issue will confer this power of either suspension or re-committal upon the commanding officer of any ship or naval station.
The third defect is one which was common to the Army, and which was remedied in the Army (Suspension of Sentences) Amendment Act of last year. We now propose, in subsection (3) of Clause 1 of this Bill, the same remedy in the case of the Navy. The law at present provides that a case may be reconsidered at any time and shall be reconsidered at intervals of not less than three months. The intention of this section would have been better expressed had it stated—as it is now proposed in this Bill to state—that a case may at any time, and shall at intervals of not more than three months, be reconsidered. The only other amendment of the law is contained in subsection (4). At the present time the infliction of a punishment involves certain consequential penalties. For instance, penal servitude involves dismissal from the Service with disgrace; imprisonment and detention involve disrating in the case of a petty officer and reduction to the ranks in the case of a non-commissioned officer, with the loss of good conduct medals and badges. This Bill provides that when a man is sentenced the whole or part of any of these consequential penalties may be remitted if the suspending authority thinks fit to do so. Then there is the provision that the Naval Discipline Act, as amended, shall be brought up to date and reprinted, which

81
will be a great convenience to all who have occasion to refer to it.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS RILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, this is an annual Bill for the purpose of authorising the issue of money from the Local Loans Fund for loans and for other purposes connected with that Fund. Clause 1 authorises the issue to the Public Works Loans Commissioners in Great Britain of a sum not exceeding £1,000,000, and to the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland of a sum not exceeding £300,000, for the purpose of making loans in the ensuing year. These sums are the maxima; the actual loans issued will probably be considerably less.
During the war the total amount of loans issued has been very small owing to obvious causes—partially to the drastic restrictions placed on capital expenditure and the very high rate of interest that is now charged (I think 5½ per cent. is now the lowest rate), and, further, owing to difficulties of obtaining labour and materials. In the year 1914 the amount authorised in Great Britain was £6,000,000, and in Ireland £600,000. Since that year there has been a gradual decrease. Last year the amounts were £1,500,000 in Great Britain, and £200,000 in Ireland. This year the sums asked for are, as I have stated, £1,000,000 in Great Britain, and £300,000 in Ireland. The increase in the case of Ireland is in order to provide for urgent loans for housing, and possibly for reconstruction in Dublin. Provision for these loans must be made even during the course of the war, because of commitments which were arranged for previous to the war, and of other urgent expenditure for public health purposes, munitions, housing, and so forth.
Clause 2 writes off from the Local Loans Fund the balance of principal of certain funds now regarded as irrecoverable. The principal balance which is irrecoverable is
82
connected with an Eyemouth loan, in Scotland; the others are in respect of small loans in Ireland. They are all mentioned in the Schedule to the Bill. Clause 4 gives the Treasury power to fix the rate of interest on future local loans that are not on the security of local rates. In the case of loans which are secured on the local rates—far the most important class of loans—the Treasury already fixes the rate of interest as required by the varying conditions of the Money Market, and it is now proposed to give the Treasury the same power in regard to loans made out of the Local Loans Fund otherwise than on the security of local rates.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

SOLICITORS (EXAMINATION) BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD FINLAY): My Lords, this is a Bill relating to the examinations which have to be held by the Law Society, and it is rendered necessary, or highly desirable, by the war. By the Statutes under which the Law Society work, they are required to hold, at least three times annually, preliminary, intermediate, and final examinations for persons wishing to be admitted as solicitors. Owing to the war there is not a sufficient number of candidates at the examinations to justify the holding of more than two of each of such examinations annually. It is therefore proposed to reduce the number of examinations to two.
By section 3 of the Solicitors Act, 1843, as amended by section 12 of the Solicitors Act, 1860, candidates wishing to become solicitors must not submit themselves for the final examination until after the expiration of their articles, or if their articles expire in the vacation they may so submit themselves at the examination held in the term immediately preceding the vacation. If the examinations are reduced to two, candidates whose articles expire in a term during which no examination is held would be prejudiced by the delay. It is proposed, therefore, to allow the Law

83
Society to permit candidates to enter for the final examination at any time within six months before the expiration of their articles.
The duration of the Bill is restricted to the duration of the war and twelve months after the termination thereof, with power, however, to the Lord Chancellor, with the consent of the Master of the Rolls, to extend its duration.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2*—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2* and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS. &c. (TRANSFER OF POWERS) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3* to-morrow.

THE NEED FOR ECONOMY.
LORD ANSLOW LORD ANSLOW had the following Notice on the Paper—
To call attention to the serious waste of time, work, and money which, in view of the depleted staffs throughout the country and the paramount claims of the war, should as far as possible be avoided or prevented, and more especially to the waste of public time over trivial litigation between individuals, to the unnecessary work and expense incurred through the neglect of railway passengers to take the proper steps for obtaining their tickets, and to the excessive number of Returns and statistics of little present or future value under existing circumstances, but still required by Government Departments; and to ask that some relief should be given.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I be allowed to plead for a little indulgence, as this is the first time I have addressed your Lordships at any length, although a short time ago I made a few remarks in the course of a debate upon the work of the war agricultural committees. I feel that I am somewhat bold in taking upon myself so voluminous a Notice and dealing with such very important subjects, but my main object is that I may be helpful in my humble capacity and within my own strict limitations in the work, which is so much in all our hearts, of trying to get the maximum of good results from the man-power and the money-power so willingly put forward by
84
the people of this country at the present time. I am fully aware how heavy are the responsibilities resting on the members of His Majesty's Government, and I should be one of the very last to wish to add to those labours in the slightest degree. My earnest hope is that we may lighten not only the labours of Ministers, but the labours of all others who are working for the good of the country.
Two reasons actuate me in calling attention to the serious waste of time, work, and money which, in view of the depleted staffs throughout the country and the paramount claims of the war, should as far as possible be avoided or prevented. First of all, I wish to obtain, if possible, some relief for those hard-worked men and those local authorities and public companies who have from the commencement of the war been working at high pressure and doing their utmost to push forward the work which is required for the prosecution of the war. My second object is to ease as far as possible the path of those who, by the invitation of the Government, are working at the present time to obtain economy in all directions. The campaign for economy is being conducted through the machinery which has been instituted by the war savings committees all over the country, and it has been carried on, as your Lordships know, in several different ways. It is carried on, first, by publicity through the Press. Some newspapers are read by a good many people, but in many cases the particular points dealing with the need for economy are passed over and not read. Public meetings have been tried, and the experience of those who have been arranging them in country districts is that they are largely attended by those who are already converted to food economy, and are avoided by those who might possibly be led to effect some economy in their household matters.
I believe that a good deal of work has also been done in this direction by means of kinematograph exhibitions and by advertisements, some of which are distinctly to the point; but the main work must always be done by individual effort, by going from house to house and trying, by careful and quiet argument, to convince the residents of the need for economy. And to ease the labours of these canvassers it is necessary to get rid of the impressions created by the examples which, unfortunately, have been given in the past of lavish expenditure and a certain amount of waste in public places

85
and by those in authority. It is a very difficult thing indeed to get rid of these impressions. Personal examples of economy are insufficient if once these impressions get hold of the minds of the people to whom you have to address your arguments. The only way of really convincing them is by showing that the attention of Public Departments has been called to the matter of expenditure, and that reforms are being made day by day. I hope that what I am going to put before your Lordships to-day will be corroborated to a great extent, supplemented, and amplified by those of your Lordships who have had far more experience in local administration than I have had, and who, as leaders of industrial undertakings, are constantly hearing the opinions of those with whom they come in contact.
Last week, when I was going to our county council, I was mentioning one of the subjects which I have specially put down in this Notice to friends of mine who were travelling with me, and they called my attention to a cartoon which had appeared on that particular day in the Daily Graphic. It is a cartoon which is decidedly pointed. It depicts two houses side by side, one occupied by Officialdom and the other by the British Public. Officialdom is portrayed as putting a large poster on the door of the British Public containing the words "Eat less bread"; and, while he is doing that, British Public has quietly come up and is posting on the door of Officialdom, "Spend less money." I believe that this cartoon represents what is in the minds of a great number of people when we preach economy. I do not know whether it is possible that any great relief should be given through a discussion in this House, but I feel certain that wherever these matters are brought to the attention of the British public the common sense and the good feeling of those who are affected will lead them to work in co-operation with us, and that those who have, perhaps through carelessness or unwitting selfishness, contributed to unnecessary expenditure will themselves curtail those practices and do their utmost to prevent anything like waste.
The first subject to which I especially call attention is what I may call trivial litigation. I think that what most oppresses those who are working hard is that they are called upon to undertake work which seems to be trivial and frivolous
86
in comparison with the work of national importance which we are all anxious to do. Lately your Lordships have probably had your attention called to several cases which have appeared in the records of our Courts of Justice. There was one case where a young lady was sued by her rejected suitor for the recovery of an engagement ring. Another ease arose where a lady had an action for breach of promise brought against her by a rejected suitor. And quite recently, before Mr. Justice Darling, a claim was made for the recovery of a prize in one of the football competitions in a newspaper. Perhaps I may be allowed to read what Mr. Justice Darling said with regard to that case. He said—
" It would amuse the whole world to find that twelve special jurymen had been summoned, in the middle of a great war, to do nothing more than to decide who won in a gamble. He had heard that paper was scarce; yet here they found people using paper for this kind of non-sense."
He went on, in the course of his judgment, to say—
" It was a public scandal that an official like himself and the jury should be brought there to consider nothing but rubbish of that kind."
He held that there was no case to go to the jury, and entered judgment for the defendants, with costs. If I remember rightly, the case which was brought for breach of promise against the lady ended in a farthing damages being given to the man who brought it.
I submit to your Lordships that the trial of actions of this kind—and I have no doubt there are many others—is a shameful waste of time which is paid for to a very great extent out of public money. It is not fair to jurors who are called from their businesses at a time when possibly they are short-handed, that they should be required to hang about the Courts waiting for trials of this kind. It is hardly fair to the learned Judge that he should be asked to try cases of this kind. Witnesses, again, have to be called; there are the ushers of the Court; there may be applications to the Judge in Chambers during the course of the proceedings—all of this occupying the time of people who could be better employed, and also wasting money. It is especially hard, I dare say, upon solicitors. The solicitor, if he is asked by his client to undertake a case, can hardly refuse it unless he is contemplating that the client

87
should go to some other solicitor. There are a great number of solicitors at the present time who have joined His Majesty's Forces and are on active service. I have had the numbers furnished to me. I find that 2,943 solicitors and 1,377 clerks have joined His Majesty's Forces; and 352 solicitors and 229 articled clerks have been killed in action or died of wounds. Further than that, 1,342 barristers have joined the Services. When there are so many members of those two professions serving our country in this great war, it is very important indeed that those remaining should not have their time taken up by carrying trivial actions of this kind through the Courts.
I may be asked what remedy could be provided. It is a difficult thing for any one who is not regularly connected with the legal profession to make a suggestion. But there is something analogous in the case of vacation work by Judges. The work which is allowed to be tried by Judges during vacation, I think I am Tight in saying, has to be work of an important nature, and this point is decided by a public authority. I suggest that when the originating summons in an action is put down, there should be some authority who might decide whether or not the proceedings are of national importance, or of such importance as to justify their being tried in a time of war; and if the decision is that they are not of sufficient importance to warrant the expenditure of valuable time and labour at the present time, the action should be stayed for the duration of the war, without prejudice to the rights of either party to bring the action when the war is over exactly as if a moritorium for that purpose had been passed.
Now I come to the question of the great waste of time and money upon our railways owing to the selfishness, unwitting selfishness I believe, of a great many travellers. The accountant of my small railway company—and my railway is not essentially a passenger line, but one which carries coal and goods more than passengers, and therefore the illustration of what takes place upon that railway could be multiplied very greatly when you take any of those lines which carry a large number of passengers—has supplied these figures for the year 1916. The number of passengers who travelled in that year without tickets was 263,456; the receipts for excess charges of
88
all sorts in 1916 amounted to only £6,809. Your Lordships will remember that, owing to the decision of the Courts, passengers can claim the right to pay when they are called upon for their ticket. This practice is hurtful in many ways. It is an incentive to dishonesty not only on the part of some passengers, but on the part of the staffs of the railways companies who have to issue the excess tickets. It also has a very great effect upon the carrying on of the traffic on the railways; and the delays of trains at the present time is of very serious moment to the whole public, and especially to the railway companies, who have their staffs greatly depleted.
Excess tickets cause great labour in consequence of the number of forms and columns and accounts through which they have to pass after they have been issued by the official of the railway company who finds out the defaulting passenger. At least nine different operations have to take place through the company's books upon every one of these excess tickets. Each excess ticket has to be checked, not only with the fare to see whether the amount charged is correct, but it has to be checked with the monthly classifications and the daily check books, and this causes a considerable amount of additional work. What I suggest with regard to this—and I have already submitted the proposal to the President of the Board of Trade—is that if, after the attention of the public has been called to the serious trouble which this involves upon railway companies, no remedy is given by the public generally, some effort should be made to add a proportion of the extra expenditure which arises on to the cost of issuing excess tickets. At the present time excess fares are paid exactly as if the tickets were taken out at the booking office in the prescribed places. No additional charge is made for all the extra trouble occasioned. I venture to suggest that it might be possible, during the war at any rate, that some extra charge should be made, possibly 2d. upon each excess ticket, the amount to be increased in the case of first class travellers. Some charge of that kind should be imposed so as to put a check upon a practice which is undoubtedly increasing at the present time and giving a great deal of trouble to the railway companies.
The third point to which I wish to refer is the very heavy strain which is being placed on the administrative staffs of our local authorities by the forms which have

89
constantly to be filled up in dealing with the Departments in London. It is not only the staffs of the local authorities who suffer through this extra work. There are considerable numbers of obsolete forms and forms the co-ordination and standardisation of which would save a large amount of clerical work in the offices in London as well as on the part of our local authorities. I have had personal experience with regard to this matter. Two or three times lately, as chairman of my county council, I have been appealed to by overworked staffs. I have found that the heads of departments have been working almost night and day. I know that this is constantly done by members of the Government and by others in the London offices; but throughout the whole of the country this is going on in the case of the local authorities, and there is a danger of the strain leading to a breakdown of our local machinery. It is therefore very important that something should be done to relieve those staffs from this excessive and sometimes unnecessary work.
I would like particularly to point to the work of our education staff. For the purpose of getting our elementary grants we have to send in eight different returns. The grants are given on eight different forms; they are given at different periods and are based upon different factors, every one of which requires calculation. And now there is a supplementary grant under the new scheme for educational reform which requires many more forms to be filled up, every one of which is at present most mystifying and very difficult even for the older members of our staff to understand. As your Lordships know, from all our staffs we have been sending away our youngest and best men to the Army, and although we have filled up their places very largely with able and intelligent women who are doing most excellent work, the older members of our staff have had to give up a great deal of time to instructing and training these new officials. Therefore there has been double work thrown upon the remaining members of the old staff. I am not saying for a single instant that we are not getting most admirable work done, but there is a danger at present of the staffs breaking down. I earnestly hope that when the question of educational reform is being considered by the Minister of Education the grants made for educational work will be grouped into as small a number of forms
90
as possible and given upon a settled basis that will require little calculation.
The subject of what should be the real relations between Imperial and local taxation has been discussed in Parliament over and over again, and there are Reports of Commissions available with regard to that matter. The exact proportion might be hard to find, but it ought to be possible to arrange that there should be one standard grant made for the purposes of education—one proportion being the Imperial proportion, the other proportion being sufficient to enlist the careful attention of the local authority which is carrying out the work. It is necessary for the purpose of getting the local authority to do the work well that they should pay a certain proportion. It is probably desirable that when the Imperial grant is given there should be deductions made from it if the local authority is not carrying out the work to a proper standard after inspection has been made on behalf of the Imperial authority. But if the grant could be made in some such way as I have suggested, there would be great simplification of the work both in the Hoard of Education in London and also in the education offices of our local authorities.
I thank you, my Lords, for listening to what I have had to say. I hope that something may result in the way of relief to our overworked staffs in the provinces, and that the work of educational reform may be helped on by the removal of the great obstacle that undoubtedly exists in the fact that there is a strong feeling on the part of a great number of ratepayers that they are bearing far too large a proportion of the cost of education, and that as the real work of education is a national work to attain a national asset it ought to be paid for to a very great extent out of the national funds.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, the noble Lord began his speech by asking for your Lordships' indulgence, but of that I am sure the House will feel he stood in no need, for he has ranged over a variety of topics in the course of his speech with the utmost ease and facility. With regard to the general subject. I am sure that every member of the House will be in agreement with the noble Lord that every possible attempt should be made by Government Departments and all concerned to prevent waste of time, work, and money. Therefore the noble Lord will, I hope, forgive me

91
if I do not devote more than a passing reference to that general part of his speech, because it is really an agreed matter. It will be within the recollection of most of your Lordships—I do not know whether it is within the recollection of the noble Lord himself—that nearly three years ago the question was brought forward by Lord Midleton, supported by many other noble Lords in this House, of endeavouring to prevent waste of time, work, and money by Government Departments. A strong Retrenchment Committee was set up. Debates took place on the subject in this House, and instructions were issued by the Treasury to the different Departments concerned; and I think your Lordships will feel that there is not much more to be said on that matter this afternoon.
The noble Lord passed to the grave inconvenience—if no more serious term should be applied to the practice—of persons indulging in trivial litigation at the present time. He quoted the case of an action for breach of promise of marriage, an action for the recovery of a ring, and actions of that sort. Surely it is not within the power of His Majesty's Government—of which I am a very humble member, if indeed I can claim such a title at all—to take steps to prevent litigation, trivial or otherwise, unless the noble Lord, or some one else, brings in a Bill ordering the Law Courts to be closed during the continuance of the war, when it would be for Parliament in its wisdom to consider and decide upon such a proposal. The noble Lord did make a suggestion to the effect that whenever it was proposed by litigants to bring a suit into Court some panel of censors should be set up, possibly composed of the noble and learned Lords who are such ornaments of this House. Whether or not the undertaking of such a task would be agreeable to them, it is impossible for me to say. At all events, it is a matter altogether outside the competence of the Government to deal with, as I am advised. Then the noble Lord proceeded to allude to the great inconvenience and loss caused to a railway company with which he is connected—I think he is the chairman of it—
LORD ANSLOW: It is not a loss to the railway company at the present time, because under the existing agreement between the railway companies and the Government the receipts and expenditure are based upon the 1913 figures; therefore the loss will be borne by the taxpayers of the country.
LORD HYLTON: I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Lord on that point. At all events, he was speaking of a practice that has obtained in connection with the railway of which he is chairman, by which considerable delay has taken place in the punctual starting of trains owing to passengers not having taken their tickets beforehand.
LORD ANSLOW: The point I made would be, of course, multiplied according to whether the railway company is a passenger-carrying company or a goods company. The figures that I gave would be very much larger when taken over the whole country, and the loss is one that falls on the country generally.
LORD HYLTON: The noble Lord has been in correspondence with the Board of Trade on this point. I have the correspondence here, as a matter of fact. It has been considered by the Board of Trade whether it would be advisable that legislation should be brought forward to deal with the point, but the Board has come to the conclusion, in the first place, that at this moment of the session it would be undesirable to bring in any further legislation, and, in the second place, that it is doubtful whether, if any legislation were brought in on this subject, it would result in curing the evil of which the noble Lord complains. I know from my own experience that on a great many railways now nobody is allowed to go on to a platform unless he has taken a ticket; and the remedy in this matter is that the noble Lord should adopt a similar practice on his railway.
Lord Anslow commented on the great loss and inconvenience caused to various people, such as county councils and managers of schools, and, I think it has been suggested, to directors of railway companies, in being obliged to present numerous Returns to Government Departments. I may say, with regard to a particular Return that was asked for this month from railway companies to be furnished to the Board of Trade giving figures respecting employment, that this Return has not been asked for for twelve months previously, and it is one which it is absolutely necessary that the Government should have in order to enable them to see what effect the war is having on industries which control such large bodies of men as are controlled by railway companies. I think your Lordships

93
will agree that to furnish a Return once in twelve months is not a very great hardship.
As to the general question of Returns asked for by Government Departments, I should like to quote this to the House—
" The Committee on Public Retrenchment, in their first Report, recommended that Government Departments should carefully review all the Reports, Returns, and publications hitherto presented to Parliament or published, with a view to the permanent discontinuance of any which are no longer of sufficient importance to justify the money spent on compilation and printing, to the temporary discontinuance for the period of the war of any which, though necessary in normal times, can be dispensed with temporarily without grave risk or inconvenience, and to the permanent curtailment of the length of all publications by excluding those portions which are not absolutely necessary or which are required for departmental use only and need not therefore be printed."
The Treasury specially directed the attention of all Departments to this recommendation, and, in doing so, pointed out to them that the direction by Statute to lay a Return before Parliament is not per se equivalent to a direction to printing it, but is satisfied by laying on the Table in manuscript. Many Returns, however, are required by Statute. The Treasury have endeavoured, ever since the Report of Lord Midleton's Committee, to do what in them lay to cut down and minimise the number of Returns required. But if the noble Lord will bring to the attention of the Treasury or the Board of Trade any specific instances where he thinks unnecessary Returns are still being asked for, I can assure him that those Departments will do their best to meet his wishes. It is, perhaps, not for me to say so; but I think the House will recognise that speeches such as that which the noble Lord has made this afternoon will do good in keeping everybody, Government Departments included, up to the mark.

PRISONERS OF WAR.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are able to make any statement in regard to agreements relating to prisoners of war concluded between the British and German delegates who recently met at The Hague.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, members of your Lordships' House will have read with a great deal of satisfaction the statement made in another place on Friday
94
last in regard to the improved prospect for many of the British prisoners of war who are now in Germany, and I think that your Lordships will feel that the labours of Lord Newton have already met with considerable success, and that the gratitude of the country at large, of the next-of-kin, and, above all, of the prisoners themselves, will go out to him. I believe that they would like and appreciate an expression of gratitude going forth from your Lordships' House, not only to Lord Newton himself, but to Sir Robert Younger and to Sir Herbert Belfield, who accompanied the noble Lord to The Hague, for the success that has attended their efforts. In connection, however, with any arrangement made by the present Government in Germany, it was difficult to accept that arrangement without some feelings of reserve; but I trust that in such a humane concern as this, relating both to German prisoners in this country and to British prisoners in Germany, we shall not be disappointed, and that the German Government will carry out, not only in the letter but in the spirit, the arrangements recently entered into at The Hague.
I should like to ask the noble Lord a few questions with regard to the provisions which have been already announced. The first provision mentioned in another place was that "all existing agreements for direct repatriation shall be resumed." What exactly are those arrangements? I have in mind the arrangement which was entered into at the beginning of the year and which undertook to allow an exchange, or repatriation, of the civilian prisoners in the Ruhleben Camp who were over military age. Some 500 to 600 individuals have been, I believe, very much disappointed, and have been waiting for a safe sea transport to this country. I understand that this arrangement is one of those referred to. I would ask the noble. Lord whether there is any other arrangement that he has in his mind in connection with the first provision. I should also like to ask whether the German Government have undertaken to give a safe sea transport from one country to the other to the prisoners who will be returned to their own countries.
The next question is. What are the exact arrangements to which reference is made in the second provision? That provision alludes to arrangements already in force between France and Germany in connection with qualifications on medical grounds both

95
for repatriation and internment in a neutral country. I ask this question because I have not in my possession—and I do not suppose any of your Lordships have—information as to exactly what those arrangements are. Then I should like the noble Lord to tell us, if he can, how many prisoners he anticipates will be repatriated from Switzerland, how many will remain in Switzerland after these arrangements are carried out, and how many will remain in Holland? Further, can the noble Lord inform the House, with regard to the 7,500 for whom places are to be found by the Dutch in Holland, whether each country will receive a moiety of the prisoners of its country, or whether the 7,500 will be divided into different proportions between German prisoners and British prisoners?
Then with regard to the 6,500 who are going to be interned in Holland and who have been undergoing prolonged imprisonment in German camps, I should like to inquire why the provision has been made for the benefit only of commissioned and non-commissioned officers to the exclusion of the men. It seems to me that it would be fairer between man and man if the rankers could be included in this arrangement. There is no doubt that the men in the ranks and also those interned at Ruhleben are suffering from mental trouble as well as from other things, and they should receive the benefit of any arrangement made in the connection to which. I have referred. I have here a letter which I have received within the last few days in which a prisoner alludes to the length of time he has been in detention and to the great loss of mental condition which has been caused not only to himself but to his companions. However, as statements such as this have been so often read to your Lordships I will not now trouble you with another extract.
With regard to the last provision that was announced in another place, can the noble Lord explain exactly what that refers to? The last paragraph of the statement says—
" No future reprisals shall take place except on four weeks' notice, and the execution of all sentences for offences committed by combatants or civilians between the date of capture and August 1 shall stand over till the conclusion of peace."
I do not understand whether it is anticipated that when the conclusion of peace arrives all those sentences will be commuted, or whether it is suggested that
96
they shall be carried out subsequently. What is the reason for including sentences of that nature in the arrangements which have been arrived at?
I have only two other questions to ask the noble Lord. They refer to the distribution of parcels to prisoners. I recently sat with other members of your Lordships' House upon a Joint Committee dealing with this matter of parcels, and in one paragraph of our Report we say—
" Besides these delays in transit, there is evidence that in some camps the German authorities have adopted the practice of distributing the parcels at long intervals instead of immediately on their arrival; while the distribution of the prisoners into working parties, at a distance from ' the parent camp,' a practice which had much increased in the last winter, has also contributed to delay."
Parcels are going out regularly to prisoners abroad; three parcels go every fortnight. Therefore if the parcels are not distributed to the various camps the fault lies with the authorities appointed to carry out this function, and cannot lie at the door of people in this country. Can the noble Lord inform the House whether arrangements have been entered into which will enable parcels to be distributed on a much better system? It has been suggested that one of the reasons for delay in this connection has been the censoring of the parcels; but now that the regulations are so complete with regard to the prohibition of forbidden articles, it seems to me that a modification of the existing censoring arrangements in Germany might be possible. I feel sure that such a course would contribute very much to the more regular delivery of parcels to the various camps in Germany.
My last question to the noble Lord is whether means have been secured for more prompt intimation of the names of prisoners and the places to which they have been sent on capture. In the Report of the Joint Committee this paragraph on the organisation of parcels occurs—
" There seems to be no regular system for securing the early record of the arrival of new prisoners in the various prisoners' camps. The first information usually comes from the prisoners' letters to their own relatives or regimental authorities…The regular regimentallists which are issued by the War Office every three or four months are usually too late to be of much use. The average time taken…to get into touch with a new prisoner of war is about two months. As parcels in bulk, which used to be sent to the prisoners' camps to tide over this interval, have now been stopped, it is increasingly important that early information should be obtained of any new captures."
I trust that the noble Lord will be able to inform the House that steps have been taken to secure a more rapid intimation of the capture of prisoners and of the places to which they have been taken. The prisoners who are now captured have to undergo two months imprisonment on rations which, in my judgment, are not fit for human diet, and which are most repulsive to those called upon to subsist upon them until their addresses are known, when decent food can be sent to them.
THE ASSISTANT UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, a White Paper is about to be presented, and a statement has been made already in another place with regard to the agreements; but I shall be happy, if the House wishes, to give a summary of the agreements arrived at. If the noble Lord opposite will follow what I say when giving this information, I think he will find that all his queries will be answered, more or less to his satisfaction.
In the first place, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, all existing agreements are to be resumed as quickly as possible, and the present disgraceful state of things—discreditable to both Governments—will, I hope, shortly come to an end. The noble Lord asked me to what these agreements with regard to exchanges referred. They are roughly three—the exchange of civilians over the age of forty-five; the exchange of invalid civilians; and the exchange of totally incapacitated combatants. I trust that those exchanges will be resumed without any delay.
In the next place an agreement was arrived at with regard to more lenient schedules of disabilities with regard not only to exchange but to internment in a neutral country, and pending the conclusion of these more lenient schedules the schedules adopted between the French and the German Governments will be utilised for the purpose. Additional prisoners are to be sent to Switzerland; but as the number of prisoners that Switzerland can accommodate is necessarily limited, it is obvious that provision must be made for the new arrivals by repatriating a certain number of men from Switzerland. Therefore I hope that without delay steps will be taken by our representatives to bring back to this country all the men who are entitled under any agreement whatsoever
98
to be repatriated. The number of places available in Switzerland is not large, and, as I have explained, accommodation will have to be provided largely by the repatriation of men already there. I am unable to give to the noble Lord the exact figures as regards the number of men who will be accommodated in Switzerland; but I think it would be unsafe to count upon more than a few hundred.
Other agreements arrived at related to punishments. One question which has occupied a good deal of the attention of both Governments has been the punishments awarded to prisoners for attempting to escape, and it was eventually agreed that these punishments should be very much diminished. For an ordinary attempt to escape it was decided that the punishment should be only two weeks, and in aggravated cases that it should not exceed two months. Further, as it was the case that reprisals had been exercised upon British prisoners of war on the alleged ground that excessive punishments had been awarded to German prisoners in this country for attempting to escape, the German delegates undertook to release at once all British prisoners confined under this particular provision, and we have reason to believe that this has been carried out.
It was further agreed—and this is a point on which the noble Lord asked for information—that all punishments inflicted upon either civilian or military prisoners prior to August 1—that is, to-morrow—should be remitted until the conclusion of the war. I venture to think that this is an extremely valuable agreement, and one which will give very great satisfaction to this country, because many British officers and men have been awarded extremely heavy sentences, and these men will now be liberated. I announced the other day that orders to liberate such German prisoners in this country had been given already. I refrained from mentioning the exact date because there was the possibility that if prisoners realised that their punishments were to end on August 1 they might in the meanwhile take the opportunity to commit fresh offences. However, there is now no danger in mentioning the date.
Other agreements had reference to reprisals, and upon this point, both parties were agreed that reprisals ought to be avoided as much as possible. The opinion, in fact, was expressed that reprisals were

99
perhaps more objectionable in the case of defenceless prisoners than in any other; and eventually it was agreed that reprisals should take place only after at least four weeks' notice, that notice to date from the period when the Note was handed in either at Berlin or at London. It was further agreed that in cases of great urgency or importance a personal meeting should be arranged at The Hague, if necessary.
Further agreements related to the question of parcels. On this point both military administrations have undertaken to ensure the speedy delivery of parcels. The British delegates having formulated many complaints with regard to failure to distribute parcels and to the great amount of delay that had occurred, it was explained by General Friedrich, the principal German delegate, that much of the delay arose from the necessity of extremely strict censoring. It was stated by the German delegates that in many parcels sent to prisoners of war—not necessarily British—were found what are known as instruments of sabotage, and it was represented to us that in consequence of this practice it was necessary to exercise a strict censorship, and this censorship naturally caused considerable delay. In order to obviate this in future both Governments have agreed to issue in their own Press and in the foreign Press a notice deprecating any such practice, and as soon as the form of words is agreed upon by both Governments the German Government have undertaken that the censorship shall be largely relaxed. I may say in this connection that our form of words has been already despatched.
Another complaint raised by the British delegates was in regard to the delay which frequently occurs in Germany in bringing prisoners to trial. Having listened to our complaints, the German delegates assured us that such a practice was irregular and contrary to the German custom; and they added that whenever the German Government were made acquainted with any case of which we had reason to complain, steps would be taken at once to prevent a recurrence in the future.
Other complaints made by the British delegates had reference to a point raised by the noble Lord in his speech—namely, the delay in notifying capture. We pointed out, as the noble Lord has done this afternoon, that there had frequently
100
been great delay in notifying capture, that in fact sometimes no notification had arrived at all. Upon this point both parties agreed that all captures should be notified with the least possible delay, and that every prisoner should be provided with the means of communicating at once with his relatives. Our own conscience with regard to that particular matter is fairly clear. In view of the assurances given to us both verbally and in writing by the German delegates it may be hoped that there will be considerable improvement in this respect, more especially as it was pointed out to us by the Germans that such practice was quite contrary to German principles. I need not go through the list of the other agreements. There were minor agreements relating to the treatment of youthful prisoners, and to the exchange of ministers of religion and of civilian doctors. All these are set forth in the White Paper to which I have already alluded.
But perhaps the most important agreement at which we arrived was that relating to the internment in Holland of a large number of prisoners, both military and civil. The Netherlands Government shortly after we met were good enough to make an offer to us which was gratefully accepted by the delegates on both sides. As noble Lords are no doubt aware, the Netherlands Government offered to place 16,000 places at the disposal of the two Governments. Of these places 7,500 are to be allotted to invalid combatants, 6,500 to officers and non-commissioned officers who have been in captivity for eighteen months, and 2,000 to civilian invalids, of whom 1,600 will be German and 400 British.
It is obvious that this agreement will be fastened upon at once by hostile critics, who will ask why private soldiers have not been included, and also why there is such a greater proportion of German than British civilians. I think the answer to these criticisms is a complete one. We asked that privates should be included among the men who were to be interned in a neutral country in virtue of having been in captivity for eighteen months. But it was obvious that there was not much chance of the request being complied with, for two reasons. In the first place, it would have been practically impossible to include all the privates who would have been eligible under this particular provision. Had they all been included it would have been very difficult to make a

101
selection, and there would have been no room for anybody else. But the real reason why it was impossible to include privates in this particular arrangement was that it was clear that the Germans did not intend to part with any one out of whom they could get any work. As every one knows, officers and non-commissioned officers cannot be set to work, but the men can. It therefore very soon became perfectly plain that there was no chance of including men in this particular agreement. At the same time I should like to point out most emphatically that it is grossly unfair to attempt to make out that the private soldier has been excepted altogether. Nearly all the 7,500 combatants for whom places are provided will in all probability be privates, and, in addition, privates will be exchanged under the agreements already prevailing.
With regard to the disproportion in connection with civilians, I should like to point out this. At first sight it seems unfair that 1,600 Germans and only 400 British should be accommodated. But taking the proportion of the civilian prisoners of the two countries this arrangement really works out in our favour, because there are something like six or seven times as many German civilians in this country as there are British civilians in Germany. Consequently the proportion of four to one is, from the numerical point of view, by no means an unfavourable one. There is the further provision that, whereas it might be difficult to discover 400 British civilians who are sufficiently ill to come within the agreement, it has been expressly stipulated that if that number could not be found the number should be made up to 400 by taking those whose health has been less severely affected.
I fully expect that before long—in fact, the flood has begun already—I shall be inundated with thousands of letters from people who have relatives imprisoned in Germany, asking me to ensure their transmission to Holland, to Switzerland, or back to this country. I should like to take this opportunity of warning everybody concerned that I have practically no voice in the matter of selection. The choice will not depend upon me or upon my Department, but upon selections made by neutral and by German doctors. And, although I do not wish to appear unduly depressing, I should like further to remind the public
102
that these arrangements cannot be made at once, and that it is useless to expect that prisoners are going to arrive by return of post, so to speak, or by the next available train. But I can assure the House that I am doing everything I can to expedite the arrangements.
LORD GAINFORD: Have the Netherlands Government indicated when the accommodation for the 16,000 will be provided?
LORD NEWTON: The Netherlands Government have already begun to make preparations with a view to receiving the men, and some weeks ago they sent an officer of high rank to Switzerland in order to study the arrangements made there. Having made these elaborate agreements upon paper, the question remained, How were they to be carried out? For a long time this seemed to present an insoluble problem, because, for reasons best known to themselves, the Germans were bent upon utilising Southwold as the place of exchange. A more unsuitable place in every respect could not well be devised. On our part we endeavoured, but without success, to persuade the German delegates that the exchange ought to take place at a port on the Thames. I should like to add that, Southwold being pronounced by us to be impossible, and the Thames having been pronounced by the Germans to be impossible, I referred the matter to the Admiralty and received an offer of Holyhead as an alternative—not an ideal place in the circumstances, because I imagine it would take something like a month to get there. It proved impossible to arrive at an agreement on this point, and we left The Hague without its being settled. However, as soon as I arrived in London the first thing I did was to approach Sir Edward Carson, and I am only too happy to say that he met me at once in a most accommodating spirit and arranged that Hull should be the port of exchange. Hull, in some respects, is as convenient a place as could possibly be chosen—in fact, I think that even German ingenuity will be insufficient to discover why that particular port should not be made use of.
That is practically all I have to say with regard to the actual agreements, and anything that I have left unsaid will appear in the White Paper. But I do not think it would be fitting for me to fail to take this opportunity of expressing the

103
obligation which I am sure everybody feels towards the Dutch Government for their great services to humanity in making the offer to which I have alluded. This offer would have been valuable at any time, but it is doubly valuable at a time when the economic resources of all European countries are diminishing rapidly. At the same time a great deal of gratitude is due to the Netherlands Government for the extremely efficient manner with which they facilitated and promoted our meeting, and also for the tact and skill shown by the Dutch Minister who presided over our deliberations, whose duties were, to put it mildly, of a somewhat delicate and difficult description.
There is one other point upon which I wish to touch before I sit down. I observed that when the announcement was made that British delegates were going to proceed to The Hague to discuss prisoner questions with German delegates, there was raised at once in the Press and elsewhere a howl of indignation, and certain people whose imagination is probably stronger than their common sense did not scruple to say that it was the greatest outrage that had yet been perpetrated in the war. They were evidently possessed with the idea that when the British delegates arrived at The Hague they would be seized with a kind of sentimental frenzy and would, figuratively and literally, fall upon the necks of the German delegates and thereby seriously prejudice the whole course of the war. I need hardly say that these fears, to put it mildly, were not justified, and there never was the least danger of their materialising. The demeanour of the German delegates was unexceptionable and, to use a familiar French term, extremely correct. There was nothing in the nature of fraternisation. The discussions were very full, perhaps all the fuller because, contrary to the usual practice, and being able to understand each other, we used our own language in preference to using that of a neutral power.
And not only were the discussions very full, but I think I can say that they were also extremely frank. It is interesting to note, as an instance of this frankness, that the chief German delegate, General Friedrich, admitted quite candidly that the treatment of German prisoners in this country was distinctly superior to what it was in any other country; and I would like to draw attention to the fact, which
104
I think will be evident to any one who reads the White Paper, that practically no complaints at all were made against the British treatment of prisoners. One impression which I certainly derived from my intercourse with these delegates—and I rather think that my colleagues also derived this impression—was that, in spite of all that we hear about German powers of centralisation, the central German prisoners authorities did not know a great deal of what went on. That impression more or less confirms what used to be said to me by the late American Ambassador at Berlin, Mr. Gerard, with whom I was in frequent communication. He always gave me to understand that there was much less centralisation in Germany than was generally supposed, and that the control at Berlin over prisoners of war administration was nothing like so effective as the control of prisoners administration in this country. At all events, I have a very strong suspicion in my own mind that there is a great deal going on in various German camps of which the central Berlin administration knows very little. And upon the whole that is not very surprising when you remember that the Germans have something like thirty times as many prisoners as we have in this country. If I am not mistaken, something like one person in thirty-five in Germany is a prisoner; therefore it would be a surprising thing if the central administration really did know everything that went on.
My noble friend opposite was kind enough to pay me some compliments upon the part which I have taken in these proceedings. If the results obtained are satisfactory, then the credit must be shared by all the members of the British Mission; and that credit, again, must be subdivided between the male and the female elements of the British Mission. The only credit I can claim is that, contrary to the opinion of nearly everybody with whom I came into contact, contrary to the opinion both of my superiors and of my subordinates, my friends and everybody else, I have always maintained that the most practical and efficacious plan is to enter into direct communication with the enemy, because I hold very strongly that you can do more in a few hours conversation than in the course of months of writing. As an instance in point, I need only state that whereas we arrived at these important agreements within something like a week, it has taken a month to secure

105
from Berlin their ratification. The results at which we have arrived, and the agreements themselves, are not of a sensational nature, and they are nothing to boast about. What I think I may fairly claim is that neither side has obtained any advantage over the other. The only persons who have benefited are the prisoners themselves; and I think I can safely say that even the most carping and embittered critics will be bound to admit that the result of this Conference certainly has been to alleviate the lot of many thousands of gallant and unfortunate men who deserve well of their country.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord who asked the Question to-night expressed in admirable terms something of what we all feel with regard to the action taken during, not months, but years past, by the noble Lord who has just spoken. As one who was among his rather troublesome questioners during that period, I should like to join my tribute of gratitude to what has already been expressed—a gratitude which I am certain will be felt not only by the members of this House but throughout the country. The noble Lord's courtesy in this House and his acceptableness always as a speaker are proverbial, and he finds it easy to deal with problems because of his understanding of this House and our understanding of him. But I am certain that there are very few men who would have exceeded, and few perhaps who would have equalled, the characteristics of patience and perseverance shown by the noble Lord in the face of all kinds of difficulties.
The difficulties have been of a most trying and depressing sort to any man of fine feeling. The constant discovery that applications were being met, not by a retort which could be easily dealt with, but by silence; the interminable delays; and sometimes, it seems to me, the obstructiveness which has been shown by our enemies in this matter—the patience and perseverance with which these situations have been dealt with have been characteristic of the whole conduct of the noble Lord throughout these negotiations. I am afraid he has also had to endure not a little from the apparently inevitable though rather inexplicable complexities and difficulties owing to the fact of different Departments being concerned at home.
106
But through all these difficulties the noble Lord has steered with characteristic power, and has now reached what is, I hope, a fairly satisfactory result. The task he has undertaken could not be called a thankless one, because whenever any measure of success is attained there is probably no task which elicits such warm thanks from a large portion of the population. But it has been an irritating and trying task. Yet the noble Lord has gone forward, without putting us off with sanguine platitudes but telling us plainly what the facts were, until at last he is able to tell us something with regard to the consummation of his labours; and I am sure that the House and the country are genuinely grateful to him for what he has been able to do.
I should also like to join in the expression of our gratitude to the Dutch authorities for the part they have taken in this matter. I imagine that without their help the completion of this task would have been extraordinarily difficult. We are, of course, still without the White Paper. We do not know exactly what has happened. But from the statement that has been made to us to-night we can hardly doubt that the result is a fairly satisfactory one so far as the circumstances permit; and the measure of satisfaction and of excellence which the arrangement has attained is in no small measure due to the noble Lord, to whom we give our thanks.
LORD SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I feel a delicacy in rising to address your Lordships after the observations of his Grace and those of my noble friend Lord Gainford congratulating Lord Newton on the great success of his labours. I feel this delicacy because I have from time to time put questions to him. But I want to impress upon the noble Lord the desirability of getting more of the civilians at Ruhleben interned in neutral countries. My noble friend has no doubt used his best endeavours in the splendid arrangements that have been made to get this accomplished; but I would ask him to bear in mind that there are many young men also suffering in health, and, in addition, that there are many who have not suffered already but who will probably suffer in health later on unless they get some relief from the terrible life they must be living in Ruhleben. It is, perhaps, unnecessary for me to say it, but I do not think it ought to be left unsaid that

107
we desire some accommodation to be found in countries besides Holland for the exchange of those who are now suffering imprisonment at Ruhleben. I hope my noble friend will not think that I am in any way criticising what he has done, because, like all other noble Lords in this House and people outside who have taken an interest in this matter, I feel personally grateful to him.
LORD NEWTON: There is one thing that I forgot to mention. I can assure my noble friend behind me (Lord Southwark) that when I was at The Hague I did my utmost to persuade the German delegates to agree to an exchange of
108
civilians on equal terms, limited to whatever number or proportion they cared to adopt. I regret to say that I was quite unsuccessful in this endeavour. I was always met with the reply that the exchange could be only what is known as an "all for all" exchange, and I was prevented by my instructions from making any bargain of that kind. However, I can assure my noble friend that the question is not being forgotten, and when he sees the White Paper he will observe a declaration on that particular point.
House adjourned at a quarter past six o'clock, till to-morrow, a quarter past four o'clock.