22. Mr. T. WILSON
asked the President of the Local Government Board whether conscientious objectors who are 110 exempted by the tribunals on condition that they engage on work recommended by the Pelham Committee are under the control of the military authorities?
§ The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long)
The answer is in the negative.
§ 26. Sir W. BYLES
asked the President of the Local Government Board whether a conscientious objector, the son of the Rev. Mr. Neighbour, a Unitarian minister, is suffering fourteen days' imprisonment at a camp near Rhyl for refusing to obey orders; whether he was first sentenced to twenty-four hours' solitary confinement, and then marched through the streets of Cardiff by an escort of eight soldiers with fixed bayonets; whether, for refusing to take an oath or to wear military uniform, he was subjected to threats and vile language; whether he has been drafted to a fighting regiment although he holds a non-combatant certificate; and, if so, whether conscientious objectors will be afforded the protection which the Military Service Act, 1916, is intended to secure for them?
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant)
My hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question, and I am obtaining a report. As regards the last part of the question, this man no doubt had the opportunity of making an appeal for exemption on the ground of conscientious objection as provided by the Military Service Act.
§ Mr. SNOWDEN
Would the right hon. Gentleman explain what is the use of making them appeal when the Appeal Tribunal says that it has got no power to grant exemption on conscientious grounds?
§ 54. Mr. KING
asked the Under-Secretary for War whether, in view of the number of conscientious objectors who have proved their sincerity by undergoing trials, fines, imprisonments, and other severities, and who are now allowed to be at liberty because the military authorities can do nothing with them, he will give instructions that all conscientious objectors who have proved their sincerity in this way shall be offered service of national importance under some civil authority?
§ Mr. TENNANT
No, Sir, I regret that; I do not see my way to give any comprehensive undertaking of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend.
§ 58 and 59. Mr. SNOWDEN
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) if he will have inquiries made into the case of A. Paice, of Guildford, who, after applying without success to a local and and appeal tribunal for exemption on conscientious grounds, was tried by the Guildford Police Court on 12th April and handed over to the military authorities; if he will say whether this man was taken to Stoughton Barracks and afterwards removed to Dover; whether he has been tried by a Court-martial for refusal to obey orders; where he is now confined; and (2) if he will have inquiries made into the case of A. F. Ward, formerly of Harrow, who, after claiming exemption on conscientious grounds without success before the Hen-don Local Tribunal and the Middlesex Appeal Tribunal, was tried at Wealdstone Police Court and handed over to the military authorities; in particular, if he will say whether this man was punished for refusing to obey military orders; whether he was kept for some days without any food and, if so, by what order; and whether he is now in military hospital?
§ 65. Mr. KING
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, at the Guildford Borough Tribunal, on 23rd February, 1916, eight conscientious objectors were granted absolute exemption under The Military Service Act, 1916, and that no appeal was lodged by the military representative, but that, on 26th April, 1916, another military representative applied to the same tribunal to re-open the cases of these eight conscientious objectors, but was refused; whether this latter action was taken under instructions from the War Office; if so, whether the War Office is instructing military representatives to apply for the re-opening of the cases of all conscientious objectors who have been granted exemption; and, if not, whether military representatives will be warned of the futility of such proceedings?