asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to Ambassador Gerard's Report of 3rd July, on his visit to the prisoner camp at Giessen, in which he states that letters are delivered after the usual delay of six weeks; whether this regulation obtains in German prisoner camps in Great Britain; and, if not, will he advise the same delay in the delivery of letters from Germany as is considered proper for prisoner camps in that country?

We have no reason to suppose that this delay of six weeks is habitual; but if we find that this is the case, we shall have to consider the advisability of treating German correspondence in a similar way.

Is the Noble Lord aware that Ambassador Gerard says this is the usual delay? Those are the words in his dispatch.

I will look into that, but I think, as a matter of fact, it is not usual.

Can the same treatment be accorded here as in Germany in regard to delay, if any?

Speaking from recollection, I do not think there is any great delay.

Is it desirable to make ourselves as contemptible as Germany?

asked whether, in view of the failure of the Turkish Government to reply to the British Note of 6th July, any intimation has been conveyed to the Turkish authorities of the good treatment accorded to Turkish prisoners in our hands; and whether the good offices of the United States representatives are still being invoked to ensure similar treatment for British prisoners in Turkish hands?

United States officials have since October last been at entire liberty to inspect camps where Turkish prisoners of war are interned, and their reports, which have been sent to Constantinople, have been most favourable. The Porte can be in no doubt as to the excellent treatment received by Turkish prisoners of war in our hands; the reply to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

Have the Turkish Government replied?

So far as I know, they have not yet replied.

asked the Secretary of State for War how many Turkish prisoners have been captured by the Allies?

According to the latest returns in possession His Majesty's Forces have taken and there, are now held as prisoners of war 425 Turkish officers and 9,598 of other ranks. These figures do not include those recently captured in Egypt, about which the Department has as yet no information other than that obtained in the published communiqués.

asked whether proposals have been made by any neutral countries other than Switzerland to receive prisoners of war for internment, or whether any negotiations on this subject are proceeding between His Majesty's Government and such countries?

His Majesty's Government have recently received a proposal from the Danish Government for the transfer of wounded British and German prisoners of war to Denmark. His Majesty's Government are grateful to the Danish Government for their interest in the matter, and the proposal is receiving their careful consideration.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state with whom it rests to determine which individual wounded prisoners shall be sent to Switzerland from Great Britain and from Germany, respectively; whether Switzerland has given any and what number as the maximum of such wounded prisoners which she is prepared to receive; if not, why a larger number is not sent; and whether each batch is the subject of separate negotiations, or whether they are sent at stated intervals and in agreed numbers?

The arrangements for the transfer to Switzerland of British and German wounded and sick prisoners of war are described in White Paper, Miscellaneous, No. 17 (1916). I would explain with regard to Paper No. 8 in that White Paper that in the case of France and Germany, the country holding the prisoners has a majority of members on the final board and that, consequently this is the case in the United Kingdom; Switzerland has fixed no maximum number of prisoners to be accepted; time is required to examine the prisoners who are scattered about all over Germany, but we understand that 764 British prisoners are to arrive in Switzerland on the 11th instant. We are proposing that the Swiss Medical Commissions shall visit this country and Germany every quarter.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether thirty-six British exchanged prisoners of war passed through Holland on 7th August, while eighty-five German prisoners of war were being returned in exchange for this party; and, if so, will he say for what reason such a disparity of numbers to the advantage of the enemy is permitted in the exchange of prisoners of war?

asked the Secretary of State for War whether the last exchange of prisoners of war was thirty-six British for eighty-five German soldiers; and will he state the principle upon which such unequal exchanges are based?

My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has asked me to answer this question, and I will, at the same time, answer question No. 92. The actual numbers on each side passing from England to Germany and from Germany to England were thirty-six British and sixty-two Germans, respectively. Of these sixty-two Germans, nine were sanitary personnel. I would remind my hon. Friend that the repatriation of invalids is based on a certain standard of physical or mental disability, and not on equality of numbers.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is no sort of relation between the numbers on one side and those on the other, and that any number of Germans might be sent home as against a very much smaller number of British?

I think that would be so, because it depends on disability, and not on numbers, and I think I am right in saying that on a recent occasion when prisoners were sent to Switzerland the rule operated in our favour—there were more British than Germans.

Are we to take it that the disability of the Germans returned from this country to Germany was greater than the disability of the British returned to this country?

I do not know whether it was greater, but there were more of them.

Are we to understand there were only thirty-six British subjects who came up to the standard?

I think that is so—thirty-six selected by the Selection Board in Germany.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in one sanatorium there are still about sixty who have got their discharges signed, most of whom are in a deplorable condition, and who cannot get to Switzerland?

Does the hon. Gentleman seriously ask the House to believe that in Germany there were only thirty-six British prisoners of war who reached the standard of incapacity for exchange, and that His Majesty's Government accept that on the statement of the authorities in Germany?

I do not ask my hon. Friend to accept that, and he knows I do not. What I do ask him to accept is that thirty-six was the number passed by the Selection Board.

Why are thirty-six equivalent to eighty-five?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how soon he will circulate the American reports on prisoner camps in Germany received since 31st March; and what is the cause of the delay in the issue of this White Paper, whose contents were in the printer's hands on 17th July?

The White Paper containing the reports will be laid on the Table to-morrow. I regret the delay which has occurred, but the causes of it have been unavoidable.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any fresh and more stringent Regulations have lately been issued as to the sending of books to prisoners of war in Germany?

The instructions on this matter which are in force were communicated to the Press on the 23rd June, and came into force from the 1st July, since which date no fresh, and consequently no more stringent, Regulations have been issued. I will send my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of the Regulations, and he will then be able to see exactly how the matter stands.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that very simple books, such as nursery rhyme books, have been refused?

I am not aware of it.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the failure of the Turkish Government to reply to the British Note of the 6th July regarding the treatment and condition of British prisoners, the Government proposes to warn the leaders of the Young Turkish party that they will be held personally responsible for any untoward results which may happen to the British officers and men in their hands?

The Porte were warned in July, 1915, that all Turkish Ministers and officials would be held personally responsible for damage and loss of whatever kind suffered by individual British subjects detained in Turkey. We are renewing this warning with special reference to our combatant prisoners. I must, however, point out that in time of war it is futile to expect words to be effective, and that the defeats which the Turks are now suffering are much more likely to be effective than any threats used by the Foreign Office.

asked, in view of the facts that the Declaration of Paris, 1856, was signed by Lords Clarendon and Cowley without authority from Her late Majesty Queen Victoria, that in has never been ratified, that by the two conditions attached to its first four Articles the signatories undertook not to enter thenceforth into any arrangement not resting at the same time on all those four Articles and that the Declaration should not be obligatory except between Powers which have acceded to it, that the United States have not acceded to it and that it is therefore not binding either between the United States and Great Britain or between the United States and any one of the present belligerent Powers, and that Articles III. and IV. of the Order in Council of 11th March, 1915, are contrary to Article III. of the Declaration, have the Law Officers of the Crown been consulted on the question whether the Declaration is now of any effect or binding force; and, if not, will the Law Officers be consulted on that point.

His Majesty's Government cannot admit that the terms of the Order in Council referred to are inconsistent with the obligations assumed under the Declaration of Paris. There is, accordingly, no occasion to consult the Law Officers, as suggested. The hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that Her late Majesty Queen Victoria did not give her approval to the participation of this country in the Declaration of Paris. As regards his further point, namely, that the Declaration has not been ratified, I would beg leave to point out that the instrument contains no provision for ratification, and that ratification is not always an essential formality in order to give effect to an international arrangement.

May I ask whether it is not the case that this Declaration was never before, her late Majesty Queen Victoria in its completed form, and also whether it is not the case that the Prize Courts have frequently condemned goods on the sole ground that they are enemy property?

As to the latter question, I think my hon. Friend is in error, but as to the first my recollection of the document is that her late Majesty gave a distinct authority to the representatives of this country to conclude the arrangement that was afterwards embodied in the Declaration.

asked whether His Majesty's Government is satisfied that the funds of the National Committee for Relief in Belgium are in fact devoted to the relief of loyal Belgians in the occupied territory, and not to that of Germans or of Belgians working for the German Army; and whether the Government will continue to take steps to ensure the application of the funds to the purposes for which they were given?

The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative. The work in the so-called "Zone of Occu- pation" in Belgium, under civil government, which comprises the bulk of the occupied territory, is now proceeding under satisfactory guarantees covering all domestic food produce. In certain respects violations of these guarantees by the Germans still arise, but the United States, Spanish and Netherlands Representatives at Brussels, as patrons of the Relief Commission, are taking energetic steps, and the Germans are well aware that a continuance of such violations will endanger the whole work. In the military zone, d'Etape, comprising East and West Flanders, and in the French provinces, the question of domestic supplies has been put on a clear basis by a demand made by the Allied Governments that the yield of the coming harvest shall be reserved for the civil populationֵ This demand is being and will be energetically pressed. In the whole territory His Majesty's Government are satisfied that the foodstuffs imported by the Relief Commission run no risk of appropriation by the enemy.

Do they not indirectly set free supplies which are of advantage to the Germans?

I would not like to say that that never happens, because it is dangerous to speak so absolutely, but I do believe that on the whole the House may rest assured that the precautions taken are satisfactory.

Is it a fact that the Germans are now deporting women from Belgium?

I do not know how far that policy has been applied to Belgium. It has been applied in France, and a terrible and scandalous state of things has arisen.

Are we to take it the Government are still satisfied that the funds collected by the National Relief Commission for Belgium should be handed over to the neutral Commission for administration?

The Government are fully satisfied.

asked whether any further steps are being taken or will shortly be taken with a view to exchanging the 4,000 British interned in Germany for the 20,000 Germans interned in this country; whether His Majesty's Government is aware of the wish of the British to get rid of these Germans once and for all even at the risk of presenting such material to Germany?

The German Government having inquired whether we are prepared to exchange all British and German civilians over forty-five years of age, we have agreed to do so in principle on certain conditions, the most important of which is that the remaining British civilians interned in Germany should be exchanged against an equal number of German civilians interned here.

May I ask whether the Noble Lord has received from the Home Office a classification of the civilian prisoners interned here?

Not a complete classification. I have received an estimate of the number of German prisoners over forty-five. Further inquiries are being made.

Can the Noble Lord give the number above forty-five years of age?

I am told there are about 4,000 out of the 26,000 who are over forty-five, but I ought to warn the House that this is an estimate and not an absolutely certain figure.

Is it intended to exchange an equal number?

The proposal which is the basis of discussion now is that all civilians over forty-five, irrespective of numbers, should be repatriated on the ground that they are not of so great military value, but that all civilians of military age should be exchanged in equal numbers?

Can the Noble Lord say when he expects a reply?

It is very difficult to expect anything from the Gorman Government. I think the answer went off to Germany through the American Embassy two or three days ago

Does the Noble Lord say that men over forty-five in Germany are not liable for military service?

I do not know technically, but the Germans assert very strongly that that is so. We do not however, base ourselves on that but on the great desirability of getting British prisoners over forty-five out of Germany if we can, and on the relatively small military value of those we send back.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information as to the present general condition of affairs in Persia; whether any recent arrangements have been concluded between Persia and His Majesty's Government relating to the financial and military reorganisation of that country; and whether Anglo-Indian officers will be employed in Southern Persia in officering the gendarmerie?

The general condition of affairs in Persia has recently shown a decided improvement, and the arrest or dispersal of most of the German parties and agents in that country give good reason to hope that this improvement may be maintained. In regard to the second part of the question while no agreement has yet actually been concluded, I hope that an arrangement on financial and other questions may very shortly be arrived at with the Persian Government, who have shown a sincere desire to work with the Allied Governments. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

asked on what grounds the Hon. Bertrand Russell has been refused a passport to enable him to proceed to the United States to take up his duties as lecturer in philosophy and mathematics at Harvard University?

His Majesty's Government do not consider it to be in the public interest to issue a passport to enable Mr. Russell to leave the United Kingdom at the present time. No application from him has, however, been refused since, I am informed, he has made none.

May I ask the Noble Lord whether the Ambassador at Washington has received any representations from the authorities of Harvard Uni- versity on this subject, and whether, considering that this is a purely academic appointment, the Foreign Office cannot see their way to reverse their decision?

I should like notice of the first part of the question. As to the second part, I do not see any prospect of His Majesty's Government reversing their decision.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the refusal to allow this distinguished philosopher to fulfil an engagement made long months ago to lecture to the students at Harvard University is likely to cause a great deal of misunderstanding in the United States?

May I ask whether the resources of Harvard University will be so destitute in philosophy and mathematics if the services of this gentleman are lost to them?

This seems to be leading to a debate.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the declaration made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his statement of 23rd July, 1915, to the United States that we are not detaining enemy goods on the sole ground that they are the property of an enemy, if he can say whether that is the policy now being pursued; whether orders to that effect have been issued to the Fleet and to others concerned in the detention of goods brought into port on the ground of probable liability to confiscation; and, if so, can he explain how it is that, while neutral goods suspected of being contraband of war are detained and submitted to the Prize Court, enemy goods are not even detained but are allowed to go free without submission to such Court, and on what ground or for what reason enemy goods are treated with an indulgence not extended to neutral goods?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the second part of the question goods are not brought into port on the ground of probable liability to confiscation, but in order to facilitate the belligerent right of search as was explained in the last note on the subject to the United States Government. No orders in the sense indicated are now in force. No such indulgence as is apparently suggested in the last part of the question is now or ever has been shown to enemy goods.

Is my Noble Friend quite sure that the Prize Court have not condemned goods on the sole ground that they are enemy property?

I do not think that arises out of this question. I am not quite sure about it, but my recollection is that no such case has, in fact, yet been brought before the Prize Court, but I do not know.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether German rupees are being accepted as legal tender in East Africa and Mafia; whether he is aware that they are only worth 8½d. in silver, so that there is a 50 per cent, loss on such acceptance; whether German paper money is being accepted at a discount, thus bolstering up German credit; and, if so, will he say which Government Department is responsible for this action?

The provisional arrangements as to currency have been made by General Smuts, who, however, has directed that German currency notes and Imperial German coin are not to be recognised. I consider that his action is necessary, for the present, to avoid loss to the natives and consequent unrest; and I have approved the adoption of similar measures in the southern portion of the occupied territory under the immediate control of General Northey.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there was an Order in Council some time in 1914 before the War altering the regulations governing the promotion of Admirals to Admirals of the Fleet; and, if so, why was this Order in Council kept secret and withheld from the knowledge of the admirals it affected?

The King's Regulations prior to August, 1914, contained the following provision:

"Admirals of the Fleet will be selected by His Majesty from the Admirals on the Active List who have served as Commander-in-Chief or who have commanded at sea as Flag Officer for two years."

This was changed so as to read—

"Admirals of the Fleet will be selected by His Majesty from the Admirals on the Active List who have served with distinction as Flag Officer, without regard to seniority."

At the same time the Board decided that in selecting officers for promotion the following qualifications should be required:

"To have served as First Sea Lord for upwards of twelve months,

or

To have commanded the principal Fleet, for a period of twelve months,

or

To have performed special war or other conspicuous service since the attainment of captain's rank."

No specific Order in Council was necessary and none was obtained.

The change in the King's Regulations was promulgated to the Fleet by Admiralty Monthly Order of 1st August, 1914, and as all the admirals affected were then serving they had access to the Order in question.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that one of the conditions that he has to serve at least one year as First Sea Lord of the Admiralty makes the First Sea Lord during that period absolutely at the mercy of the First Lord?

No.

asked whether, in the cases of Naval Courts of Inquiry where civilian witnesses may be criminally implicated, it is intended to take powers to add civilians to the Court as in the Army Act Amendment Bill of this Session?

Should the circumstances contemplated in my hon. Friend's question arise, the Board of Admiralty will consider what additional powers, if any, are required.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that on 22nd July, 1915, in reply to a question, he stated that the grant of a war bonus to the timekeepers employed in His Majesty's dockyards was under consideration; and is he now in a position to state whether any, and what, decision has been come to?

It is regretted that a decision has not yet been arrived at.

Will a decision ever be come to?

Yes, I hope so. I think my hon. Friend knows that the whole question of the clerical staff is a very difficult one, and raises issues very much wider than those raised in this particular case.

asked whether a few days ago a Chinese crew signed on for a ship chartered by the Admiralty at Cardiff was paid off and a British crew engaged instead; if so, will he state the reason for this action; and whether the Admiralty have now definitely decided to engage British seamen whenever and wherever they are available?

A British crew was engaged for a ship in Cardiff, the Chinese crew of which had been paid off. The Admiralty prefer, and have always preferred, a British to a foreign crew whenever it could be obtained.

asked the Secretary for Scotland, anent the trial and conviction of Mr. David Cockburn before Sheriff-substitute Baillie, in the Royal burgh of Jedburgh, and the fine of £15 imposed for an infraction of the Lighting Order No. 1 for failing to obscure sufficiently the light in his premises, whether any previous conviction or malice or atrocity or connivance with the enemy was charged, proved, or admitted; and whether the learned judge found any specific act to be a reason for the amount of the fine inflicted?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate in the Debate on Scottish Estimates yesterday in this House.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of the question as to what the circumstances were, and whether Sheriff-substitute Baillie found any specific act to justify such a tremendous fine? I want an answer to those two points.

My right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate dealt with those points in his speech yesterday.

No.

I understand that he did.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Attorney-General was only fined £1, while this poor man was fined £15?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in England and Wales these prosecutions are undertaken by the Home Office, and that the Under-Secretary for the Home Department was recently fined only 5s. for an offence such as this; and will he try to establish equality of treatment?

I am aware of all those circumstances, but the matter is entirely within the discretion of the Court.

Why is it that the Attorney-General is fined £1, and the Under-Secretary to the Home Office 5s., while this man in Jedburgh is fined £15?

If the right hon. Gentleman will consider the information given as regards this specific case he will find that it was answered by the Lord Advocate yesterday by putting specific questions.

I will endeavour to get the information. I understand that the whole question was the subject of debate in the House yesterday, and that my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate gave a specific answer.

And there was a Division upon it.

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether the Glasgow Town Council is about to fill by co-option a vacancy now existing by reason of the death of one of its members; and whether he will represent to the council the advisability of giving direct representation on that body to the 120,000 unrepresented Irish Nationalists, 15,000 of whom have joined the Colours since the outbreak of War?

I am not officially informed of the occurrence of such vacancies, and it would be quite beyond my province to make any representations to s the corporation as to the exercise of the power conferred upon them by Statute to fill by co-option as they think fit the vacancy in question.

asked the Home Secretary if, owing to the restrictions put on obtaining cocaine and its preparations by the Home Office, nearly 2,000 members of the Incorporated Dental Society are unable to obtain this anæsthetic, and consequently suffering is inflicted on the general public; and if he can see his way to remedy this state of affairs?

asked the Home Secretary if he will modify the Order prohibiting the sale of cocaine to unregistered dentists who are genuinely utilising the drug for dental purposes?

I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave on Monday last to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. In response to the representations which; have been made to mo from many quarters of the House, I propose to extend the temporary permit which I have already granted for the purchase of; cocaine preparations by unregistered dentists, and in the meantime to make further inquiries into the subject.

asked the Home Secretary whether the cases of James Hefferman, New Birmingham, Thurles, and Michael Morris, New Birmingham, Thurles, have been investigated by the Advisory Committee; whether these men were arrested ten days after the surrender in Dublin for an offence of a non-political character and not in connection with the rebellion; and whether, as they have been three months interned, he will now order their immediate release?

James Hefferman and Matthew Morris, of Thurles (not Michael Morris, of whom I have no record), were released on the 2nd August, on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee. I am informed that both these men were arrested on the 11th May for offences in connection with the rebellion.

asked the Home Secretary whether the case of Willie Ryan, Turraheen, Rosmore, county Tipperary, who was arrested at North Strand Street, Dublin, on the premises of his employer where he had been employed for three months previous, has been investigated by the Advisory Committee; and will he order the release of this young boy?

Willie Ryan, of Rosmore, county Tipperary, was released on the 22nd July, on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee.

asked the Home Secretary whether the cases of Edward O'Dwyer, Ballagh, county Tipperary; John Sheehan, Dundrum, county Tipperary; Patrick Gautly, Roscrea, county Tipperary, have been investigated by the Advisory Committee; whether he is aware that these men had no connection with the recent rebellion, further than that they were members of the Irish Volunteers, which was a legal body previous to the rebellion on Easter Monday; and whether, as there was no outbreak of rebellion and only four persons in all in Mid Tipperary arrested for their connection with the Irish Volunteers, he will order the immediate release of these three men?

The cases of Edward O'Dwyer, Patrick Gautly, and Michael Sheehan, of Dundrum (not John Sheehan, of whom I have no record), have been considered by the Advisory Committee, with the result that they recommended the release of Sheehan and Gautly. These two persons have been released. The Committee recommended that O'Dwyer should be retained in internment.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has settled the reference to the Commission which is to inquire into the circumstances connected with the death of Mr. Sheehy Skeffington; and when the Commission is to open its sittings?

I hope that the terms of reference will be announced in a day or two and that the Commission will begin its sittings before the end of the month.

Will the other members of the Commission beside the Chairman be announced at the same time?

Certainly.

asked the Homo Secretary whether, in view of the cancelling of all race meetings in Great Britain, it is proposed to cancel or carry out the full autumn and winter list of fixtures in Ireland?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. No action in regard to racing in Ireland has been taken by the Board of Trade, and, so far as I am aware, no action is at present contemplated.

Is not that question rather incorrectly worded? I understood that the autumn meeting at Newmarket is to take place as previously arranged. Is that so?

Yes, Sir; the statement in the hon. Member's question is incorrect, but I cannot undertake to correct all hon. Member's misstatements.

asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the case of a man and his wife named Leppail who are acting as hairdressers at the Grand Hotel, Folkestone; if he is aware that these persons claimed to be of French nationality but, when before the local tribunal, the man admitted that they were both Germans; and whether, seeing that a large number of British officers and their wives have been staying at this hotel ever since the outbreak of war, he will, in the interests of this country, cause these two Germans to be removed from this hotel?

I am informed that the hairdresser at the hotel named is a man named Zoller, who is a naturalised British subject of German origin. I am not aware that he has ever concealed his origin. He attested under the group system, and has recently been granted conditional exemption by the local tribunal. If the hon. Member has any facts which would enable me to identify and investigate the case of the man named Leppail, I shall be glad to receive them.