CONVICTION OF CROWSLEY: SOLDIERS AT ALDERSHOT. (Hansard, 18 June 1912)

§ Mr. LANSBURY
I wish before the House adjourns to ask the Home Secretary whether he is aware that to-day the man, Crowsley, who was arrested and charged with having distributed leaflets to the soldiers at Aldershot, has been sentenced to four months' imprisonment with hard labour. Will the right hon. Gentleman not consider the advisability of ordering this man's discharge? If there is one man amongst the group of men who have been prosecuted in connection with 1619 this "Don't shoot" propaganda who at least stands out from the others as not being a professional agitator, or a professional man of any kind, this is the man. He was a stoker on the railway. He is a follower of the late Leo Tolstoy, who, I think, most people had a respect for. If you have a respect for a man you also, as a rule, have a respect for his disciple; especially of a man who follows the master so far as not to make either profit or position by the action he took. Most of us are judged by all we do; motives are sought for. In this case the only motive was that the man thought he was doing something that he believed it to be his duty to do. I would point out to the Home Secretary and to the House that in this, at any rate, he was deliberately following the teaching of Leo Tolstoy, who believed that the taking of life under any circumstances was a crime.
This man made no defence. I believe had he made any defence or apology or in any way expressed contrition, he probably would not have been punished at all, and the man who tried him would probably have let him go. He said he did what he had done because in his conscience he believed he was right. In these days probably it is curious to find anyone who stands by his conscience, and when a workman does it, I believe the Government of the day ought to consider that especially in view of the fact that all the other men prosecuted in connection with this matter had their sentences reduced very considerably, and every one of them made some kind of defence for the offence they had committed. This man took the full responsibility; he said he had nothing to withdraw and he had no apology to make and that he believed what he did was right. In these circumstances I believe if any one deserved, not merely to have his sentence reduced, but entirely wiped out, it is this man. I would like also to put to the Home Secretary and to the House, that this very day from the benches opposite, we had a right hon. Gentleman, who I expect some day or other will sit on the Government side of the House as Attorney-General, threatening to take part in rebellion against laws that may be passed by this House. If I understand words at all—perhaps the words are used and not meant—that is their meaning. But this unsophisticated workman did understand, and did things quite openly. So far as I understand 1620 language we are to have open rebellion in Ulster, and right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite are going to take part, so far as they are physically able, in the campaign. I should like to ask the House to consider what sort of effect that is likely to have upon people outside. There are a large number of people very hungry at the present time, and it is a very curious kind of law that allows blacklegs to be used against them. If any sort of circumstances would justify riot and rebellion starvation would, and when this man went down and asked the troops not to shoot on men he was only asking them in certain contingencies not to shoot. That is what certain people are doing in Ireland, preaching contingent rebellion if certain things are done by, this House, and I should think right hon. Gentlemen who feel very strongly upon that might join with us in our appeal, considering they are not prosecuted, but are let off scot-free while using this kind of language. I have not heard that any summons has been issued against the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University. He is quite safe. I am very doubtful myself whether we should hear this kind of talk about rebellion if those Gentlemen who use it were not quite certain they would not be prosecuted.

§ Earl WINTERTON
Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to suggest my right hon. Friend asked the troops not to fire in any particular instance?

§ Mr. LANSBURY
No. Certain hon. Gentlemen have made speeches in Ireland in which they have appealed to British troops over here, and stated that British officers would throw up their commissions and join the Ulster men to fight the Regular troops that might be sent against them. What I urge is that at least hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to be the last people in the world to want this man, who has not had their training, to be imprisoned because he recommended soldiers to do certain things under certain contingencies. That is what you are doing in regard to Ulster. You are saying that under certain circumstances we shall be rebels against the Crown, and we shall fight against the British Parliament. This man has only done that. He has simply asked that under certain circumstances people should not shoot people down in trade disputes. I hope the Home Secretary will see his way to order this man's release. In any circumstances he will be punished because he has 1621 already lost his work. He is not a violent agitator, and he does not want to be a Member of Parliament. [An HON. MEMBER: "And get £400 a year."] Other people get £5,000 a year. This is the sort of cant we hear about men only getting £400 a year when we know there are a number of men hungering to get on the Front Bench. I get rather sick of hearing that remark. So far as I can understand, most people in this House want to be something other than they are. I have made these remarks because of the insolent manner in which you have spoken about this paltry £400 a year. I think it is beneath any decent man to want to discuss this question at all, especially in a place where office seeking runs at a great rate on both sides of the House. This man will get no position of any kind, and he does not want it. He wants simply to live an ordinary life in the ordinary way. He will be prevented from getting his living for some considerable period, and that is enough punishment for any workman. I hope the Home Secretary will give this case his fullest consideration and order his release.

§ Mr. WEDGWOOD
I was surprised to hear that this man has been convicted, because he is really a religious fanatic, and a follower of Tolstoy. I have here a letter from him which is typical of the man. I told the man that if he pleaded guilty he would probably get off, and I had good reason for saying that, but he replied that his conscience would not allow him to plead guilty to what he did not consider a crime, and he said: "May God give me strength to bear it, and let His will be done." That is the sort of man you are sending to prison. Perhaps some hon. Members have read his defence before the magistrates at Aldershot—a defence as single-minded and sincere as any Christian ever made. He makes no defence as to his character before this judge at Winchester, and the judge has the face and impertinence to send the man to prison for four months' hard labour.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
If the hon. Member has any charge to make against the judge there is a very well known method by which he can bring it. It is a very unfair thing to make that kind of statement.

§ Mr. WEDGWOOD
I am sorry I was led away into making that charge against this particular judge. I think these prosecutions show it is very difficult, to get justice 1622 for people of this sort, who believe very strongly in certain religious doctrines which are not in consonance, I admit, with the law as it stands at present. It is unfortunate this impression has been given, but we have to reckon with the fact that a man who carries out what he believes to be the doctrines of Christ cannot escape State punishment at the present time. It is the heaviness of the punishment which is so serious. In the case of men like Mr. Mann and Mr. Bowman when they come out of prison they can get their work again, but this man is a fireman on the railroad, and I understand he will have to begin at the bottom of the ladder as a cleaner and gradually work up till he becomes a fireman again. That will take him years. He loses his work. You are turning the best sort of citizen, the man with the best form of Christian ideals out of the labour market, and yet you expect him to remain a good citizen and a useful citizen of the British Empire. In this way you are manufacturing, not only labour unrest, but revolution. I do hope that something will be done to put a stop to this state of things. There are men all over the country who get these leaflets printed, and they are being distributed everywhere. Are you going to arrest them all and send them to prison simply because they believe it is a crime to kill?

§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna)
I am sorry I am unable to do more now than assure my hon. Friend that I will look into this case at once with the greatest care. At present I know only the bare facts, that Crowsley received a sentence to-day of four months' hard labour. The circumstances of the trial, the nature of the defence, what Crowsley may have actually said are all unknown to me. I would remind my hon. Friend that in speaking of the judge, I do not think he really can know either what took place in Court or what the reasons of the judge were in giving the sentence he did. I am sure whatever his reasons were they were good reasons, and, whatever decision we may arrive at hereafter, it would certainly be premature now to say anything more than that I will certainly give the case my most careful consideration.