18. Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the treatment received by Ithel Davies, of the 4th Battalion Royal Welsh Fusiliers, at the military detention barracks, Mold, while serving his sentence for refusing for conscientious reasons to obey military orders; whether, on the first day of his detention, he was knocked and dragged about for ten or fifteen minutes by two or three officials so that he was bruised and sore all over; that he was then handcuffed for hours; whether he was given any dinner; whether the same treatment was meted out to him the second day with the addition that shovelfuls of mud and stones were thrown over him, and that he was placed in irons and a straight-jacket until bed-time; that on the third day one of the officials brutally ill-treated him and hit him in the face and broke his nose; whether, while in that condition, a sergeant tried to drill him by himself and on his refusal dealt him many blows; whether Ithel Davies was released on 7th June and returned to the camp at Whittington, near Oswestry; whether he has been court-martialled again for disobedience to military orders; what sentence has been passed upon him; and what is proposed to be done to him after such sentence has been served?
§ Mr. TENNANTI have caused full inquiry to be made into this case, and, as a result, I can give my hon. Friend this information: All those who had Private Ithel Davies under their charge deny that he was ill-used. The statements of the N.C.O.'s in question on this matter were taken by the visiting officer. No complaint was made to the visiting officer by this man. 706 Private Davies was examined by the medical officer on 24th May, 25th May, and again on 7th June. On each occasion he was found to be fit; he never complained of sickness, nor called attention to any marks of violence from ill-treatment or injury of any description. He was also asked on the day of his release by the medical officer whether he had any complaint to make, and he answered "No." I think this question shows the desirability of treating these allegations of ill-treatment with great caution; otherwise I fear there is some danger of hon. Gentlemen being imposed upon, or at all events placed in a false position. I have no information as to whether this man has been again court-martialled.
Mr. CHANCELLORIn view of the discrepancy of the statements on both sides, will the right hon. Gentleman allow an independent inquiry into half-a-dozen of these cases?
§ Mr. TENNANTWhat I meant was that the answer I gave yesterday might give rise to some misapprehension on the part of hon. Members. We have appointed an investigator who is independent in the sense, with no party to serve, and as he has no previous knowledge of these cases he goes down with a perfectly open mind.
Mr. WILLIAMSWill the right hon. Gentleman's investigator see Private Davies himself and ask if he has the letter containing these allegations?
§ Mr. TENNANTThe statements were made, first of all, by a non-commissioned officer to the visiting officer. No complaint was made by the man to the visiting officer.
Mr. WILLIAMSWould the right hon. Gentleman answer this part of the question: Whether the investigator, who, I understand, has been sent down by the War Office, has seen Private Davies, and asked him the specific questions?
§ Mr. TENNANTI am afraid I cannot answer that.
§ 19. Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the cases in which conscientious objectors, while in detention barracks, have been deprived of their bibles; whether he is aware that this has been especially the case at Horfield Barracks, Bristol; whether this has been done on War Office instructions; and 707 whether a general order will now be given that bibles are not to be taken from prisoners under any circumstances?
§ Mr. TENNANTInquiry is already being made into this allegation.
§ 26. Mr. TREVELYANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the conduct of Lance-Corporal Barker at Pries Heath Camp, Whitchurch, in kicking, hitting, and bullying the conscientious objectors placed under his charge; and whether he will have an inquiry made into their ill-treatment from headquarters and prevent any repetition of such conduct?
§ Mr. TENNANTA report on these allegations has been called for, but has not yet been received, but in the meantime I must not be taken as in any way accepting the correctness of these allegations.
§ 30 and 32. Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) whether, in view of the fact that there is evidence to show that the military authorities in many instances are testing the bona fides of the conscientious objector by subjecting him to physical violence, he will take steps either to prohibit this procedure or to promote legislation to provide a scale of punishments to test conscientious objection and so secure uniformity of treatment; and (2) whether his attention has been called to the fact that some officers appear to consider that they are entitled to test the bona fides of a conscientious objector by subjecting him to treatment of the nature of torture; and can he say whether any steps have been taken to correct this impression?
§ Mr. TENNANTThe bona or the mala fides of an insubordinate soldier does not concern the officer whose duty it may be to punish him under the Army Act or "Rules for Detention Barracks and Military Prisons." The latter part of the question, therefore, does not arise.
§ Mr. OUTHWAITEIs it not a fact that these men are being subjected to ill-treatment for the purpose of compelling them to forego their conscientious objections?
§ Mr. TENNANTNo, Sir; I do not think that is so.
§ 31. Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, when the parents, wife, or near relative of a 708 conscientious objector has reason to believe that he has been subjected to physical violence, he will permit an examination of the man to be made by a doctor instructed by the person so informed, in order that the truth as to grave allegations of ill-treatment may be established?
§ Mr. TENNANTNo, Sir; such an examination cannot be permitted. A soldier possesses a statutory remedy under Section 43 of the Army Act for bringing to light any grievance under which he deems himself to be suffering.
§ Mr. OUTHWAITEIn view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman yesterday asked hon. Members to make individual inquiries before putting down questions, how can they arrive at the facts unless some opportunity is given them of getting an independent examination of a man who says he has been subjected to ill-treatment?
§ Mr. TENNANTAll I suggested to hon. Members was that they should themselves ascertain the facts if they possibly could. If my hon. Friend tells me they cannot do it, I must bow to that, but I should have thought there were methods which could be employed to ascertain whether there was a prima facie case, supposing any ill-treatment occurred, to justify an inquiry.
Mr. E. HARVEYWill the right hon. Gentleman suggest any method by which such an investigation can be made?
§ Mr. TENNANTI can suggest many.
§ Mr. TENNANTAn one in the district would surely be cognisant more or less of the facts. My hon. Friend has many acquaintances in and around those places, and he can easily ascertain from them.
§ Colonel NORTON GRIFFITHSIs it not a recognised fact that any soldier has the right to appeal to a higher officer if he thinks he is ill-treated?
§ Mr. TENNANTYes, Sir, and I have just stated that fact in answer to the question.