12. Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. John S. Baker, of West Green, whose claim as a conscientious objector was disallowed by the tribunals; whether he is aware that Mr. Baker received a letter on 18th April from the Tottenham recruiting officer stating that he would have it noted on Mr. Baker's documents that he was a conscientious objector and would be sent to this branch of the Service; whether he is aware that on 30th May Mr. Baker was arrested, fined, taken by escort to Mill Hill, passed for home field service, and put into the 5th Royal Fusiliers, being sent on the following day to Dover; whether any action has been taken to fulfil the promise of the recruiting officer; or whether any other action is proposed or has been taken by the military authorities in this case?
§ Mr. TENNANTThere are two brothers involved in this case—J. S. Baker and E. J. Baker—who both live at the same address. A letter was written to J. S. Baker, on the understanding that he held a certificate from the tribunal exempting him from combatant service, but it was his brother, E. J. Baker, who had been granted exemption from combatant service, and J. S. Baker had had his appeal refused. J. S. Baker, who had received the letter mentioned under a misunderstanding, and who, as I have said, had not been granted exemption from combatant service, was arrested by the police on the 30th May as he persistently refused to report to the recruiting office. I do not think that J. S. Baker can expect that he should have the advantage of an undertaking which was made to him under a misapprehension.
Mr. HARVEYIs my right hon. Friend aware that at the court-martial on Mr. Baker on Monday it was admitted that his 10 conscientious objection was sincere and that he has been transferred to a civil prison?
§ Mr. TENNANTI dare say that that is quite true, but I do not see what bearing that has on the situation, inasmuch as the tribunal did not grant him exemption from combatant service.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is not asking a question but advancing an argument.
§ 13. Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked how many men now in France who are resisters on grounds of conscience are undergoing detention or other methods of punishment?
§ Mr. TENNANTThis information is not in my possession.
§ Mr. WHITEHOUSEIs it not a perfectly simple matter to obtain this information?
§ Mr. TENNANTIt is very hard to ask a commanding officer in France to take up his time with these matters.
§ Mr. WHITEHOUSEAre we to understand that we can obtain no information with regard to this matter? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!" and "Order!"] These men have been sent to France in direct defiance of the stipulation given in this House that they would not be sent there?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is only asking the same question which has already been put.
§ Mr. OUTHWAITEIf this matter takes up so much of the time of the Commander-in-Chief why are these men sent there?
§ 14. Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked how many men sent to France who were resisters on grounds of conscience have been returned to this country?
§ Mr. TENNANTI have no information.
§ Mr. WHITEHOUSEAre those men who were sent to France, owing to the telegram of the War Office authorising them to be kept in this country arriving too late, to be returned to this country?
§ Mr. TENNANTI am very doubtful whether that would be wise, as I understand that they are doing very good work.
§ Mr. WHITEHOUSEI beg to give notice that I will raise this question on the Adjournment to-night.
15. Mr. HARVEYasked whether the seventeen conscientious objectors who were sent from detention at Harwich to France at the beginning of May, the eight objectors who were so sent from Seaford on 30th May, the sixteen who were sent from Richmond on 29th May, and those who were sent from Abergele on 30th and 31st May, are still in France; and whether any steps have been taken to effect their transfer to civil prisons in accordance with the new Army order?
§ Mr. TENNANTThe answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, none of the men in question are in prison according to the most recent information I have, and none of them therefore are eligible to be sent to the civil prison.