§ 28. Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it is with his sanction that the Doncaster Rural District Tribunal, in hearing a claim for exemption of a conscientious objector, excluded the public and the friends of the applicant while admitting the reporters of a hostile newspaper; whether a witness called to support the evidence of the applicant was properly prevented from testifying and made to withdraw from the Court; whether the applicant himself was properly excluded while his case was discussed, but the Press was allowed to remain; whether the decision of the tribunal ought to have been withheld from the applicant for two days and he left to learn his fate from the newspaper; and whether he will secure that the rights of conscientious objectors, as conferred by the Military Service Act, 1916, shall be more carefully guarded?
§ The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long)I have communicated with the local tribunal on this case. I am informed that the Press have been admitted to all the sittings of the tribunal and that there has been no exclusion of the public. Applicants have been asked to withdraw while the tribunal arrive at a decision on their cases, but the Press have not been called upon to, retire. I am informed that the decision of the tribunal was posted to the applicant early on the day following the hearing. It is probable that he may have seen the result in the newspaper before the notice of the decision reached him. The facts before me do not indicate that the Military Service Act has been infringed.
§ Mr. SNOWDENSeeing from that reply it must have been two days before the applicant received the decision of the tribunal and that there were only three days allowed for notice of appeal, does he think that sufficient time was given to the applicant in which to decide whether to appeal or not?
§ Mr. LONGSo far as I can see the tribunal acted quite regularly. It is quite obvious that those who desire that their cases should be heard a second time must themselves take a little trouble to see that they keep within the Act and take the earliest opportunity of making the appeal.
§ Mr. OUTHWAITEDoes the right hon. Gentleman think that a tribunal is acting quite regularly in referring to a witness as "that woman" in insulting terms, and will he take steps to see that witnesses are properly protected?
§ 38. Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under-Secretary for War if the undertaking given by the Attorney-General in the House of Commons on 18th January last, that no man who was deemed to have enlisted and was transferred to the Reserve under the Military Service Act, 1916, should be liable to suffer the death penalty in respect of failure to obey an order calling him up front the Reserve for service with the Colours, extends to a person taken by force under the Military Service Act, 1916, who refuses to submit to military orders and discipline; and, if so, if he will state what is the maximum penalty of imprisonment which could be imposed in such a case?
§ Mr. TENNANTI think my right hon. Friend's assurance was limited to the conscientious objector. I think it must be 1861 obvious that once a man, deemed to be enlisted under the Military Service Act, 1916, joins for duty with the Colours, he must be subject to the Army Act in exactly the same way as any other soldier. My hon. Friend is, of course, acquainted with the provisions of the Army Act, and he can see by reference to it what penalties are provided by Statute in respect of failure to obey military orders or in respect of other military offences. It would obviously be improper for the death sentence to be applicable to those who enlisted voluntarily and inapplicable to those who join the Army under compulsion.
§ Mr.SNOWDENAre we to understand that the pledge of the Attorney-General which was incorporated in the Act is now withdrawn, and if a person refuses to act as a soldier because he thinks he has been unjustly treated or because he has conscientious objections he is to be shot? Are we to understand that to be the purport of the right hon. Gentleman's reply?
§ Mr. TENNANTNo, Sir, the hon. gentleman is not to understand that. What the Attorney-General said was that no conscientious objector would be subjected to the death penalty. I think the hon. Member should put the question to my right hon. Friend.
§ Mr. SNOWDENI tried to do so, but the question was not accepted at the Table.
§ Mr. TENNANTI have been in communication with my right hon. Friend, and the answer I have given is the joint answer agreed upon.
§ Mr. OUTHWAITEMay I ask—
§ Mr. SPEAKERI cannot allow quite so much latitude.
§ 52. Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister what steps are being taken to cancel or diminish the number of exemptions granted under the Military Service Act, 1916, upon the plea or pretext of conscientious objection and for other reasons, in order that the pledge given to married men who attested under the Derby scheme, that all unmarried men except a negligible minority should first be called up, shall be in spirit and letter redeemed?
§ Mr. LONGThe Departments con- cerned are engaged in reviewing the lists of certified occupations. The decisions given under the Military Service Act are valid unless varied on appeal.
§ Sir J. D. REESWill the Government abstain from calling up further classes of married men until the just grievance of those who attested under the Derby scheme has been dealt with, and, if possible, satisfied?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is a question for debate, not for an answer to a question.
§ 62. Sir JOSEPH WALTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the desirability of giving to conscientious objectors who are physically fit an opportunity of volunteering to fix barbed wire between the trenches, in which work they would be saving instead of taking human life?
§ Mr. TENNANTMy hon. Friend mill have gathered, from the usual source of information, that conscientious objectors accepted for service will be appointed to the Non-Combatant Corps. Members of this corps will be organised in units to relieve combatant soldiers for service at the front. These men as a class are not, I venture to think, wanting in physical courage, and the opportunity of performing tasks requiring that quality and of winning a hero's crown, will not be denied to them.
§ 65. Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the sitting the local tribunal for the rural district of Newcastle, Staffordshire, on the 9th instant, at which a claim for exemption on the grounds of conscientious objection was refused which had been made by a man who has been a local preacher for five and a half years and a Sunday school teacherfor a longer period; and, in view of the fact that both Colonel Heath and the Reverend P. E. Mainwaring appeared as military representatives, will he state whether the War Office is securing the services of the clergy to oppose claims for exemption on grounds of religious conviction?
§ Mr. TENNANTMy attention has not been called to the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. The military representative is entitled to ask the tribunal to receive such evidence as he thinks desirable in exactly the same way as applicants are so entitled. The decision of the matter in every case is that of the local tribunal.