I am submitting to you, herewith, a plan of Ruhleben, upon which are marked the various buildings and locations mentioned in this report. I have further included a selection of programmes of the various entertainments, sports, etc., which have taken place in the camp.—I have, etc., G. W. MINOT. The following two extracts are also of some significance. The first is from the _Times_, the second is from the _Daily Telegraph_ of June 18, 1915. The suspension of correspondence was due to some demonstration on the part of the prisoners. Sir,—It may perhaps interest some of those who are feeling anxious about the treatment of their relatives at Ruhleben to hear that we have direct evidence of kindly action and consideration for the prisoners on the part of the German authorities at a date later than that at which the regular postal communication was suspended.—I am faithfully yours, A PARENT OF A PRISONER. February 17. We received the following from the Press Bureau last night: “A statement recently appeared in a letter to an organ of the Press to the effect that it was inadvisable to send parcels to civilian prisoners interned at Ruhleben in view of the heavy charges made on delivery. “Information has now been received from the United States Ambassador at Berlin that no such charges have been made for the delivery of parcels at Ruhleben, but for a short time certain prisoners who had been temporarily released and sent to a sanatorium were charged duty on parcels sent to them there. This matter was, however, satisfactorily adjusted in a very short time, and duty is no longer charged on parcels to such prisoners.” In the early autumn of 1915 civilian self-government was fully established at Ruhleben. Writing on October 16, Mr. Page remarks: “The administration of the camp to-day is entirely in the hands of the prisoners themselves. There are no guards in the barracks, and all internal arrangements, including discipline, are in the hands of the camp and barrack captains.” [Miscel. No. 3 (1916), p. 4.] A CONTROVERSY.