§ In paragraph (c) of the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section one of the principal Act there shall be added after the words "suffer death" the words "or undergo penal servitude."
§ Clause brought up, and read the first time.
1001§ Mr. KINGI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
8.0 P.M.
This raises the question of the punishment of conscientious objectors. They are supposed under the principal Act not to be liable to the death penalty, although it is continually being said to them and to other people that they are liable to the death penalty. I want to carry the matter further and say that they shall not be liable either to the death penalty or to penal servitude. I understand that a number of conscientious objectors have already been sent to penal servitude. It has certainly been announced that they have been sent to two years' penal servitude, but, as the sentence of penal servitude is never given for less than three years, I think there must be some mistake somewhere.
§ Captain CASSELIt would be two years' imprisonment.
§ Mr. KINGThey have probably had imprisonment for two years. At any rate, there is no doubt whatever that the conscientious objectors are being subjected now to very severe penalties. Perhaps I may break off my remarks here to observe that we are now entering upon the question of conscientious objectors, and a great number of Members wish to take part in the discussion, and if I can assist you, Sir, or the Committee by postponing my remarks to some other occasion, or falling in with any other suggestion which you may have to make as to some other point being better for raising the question, I am quite willing to fall in with anything to which you and the Committee may agree.
§ The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir George Cave)Perhaps I may be allowed to say that so far as my knowledge goes it is not a fact that any conscientious objector has been sent to penal servitude.
§ The CHAIRMANAs to the hon. Member's suggestion, I suppose that he was referring to an unofficial suggestion I made that it might be for the convenience of the Committee if hon. Members having Amendments dealing with one subject should come together and concentrate upon a particular Amendment rather than spread their Amendments over the Bill. I would point out that it is no part of my authority to say that that should be done.
§ Mr. D. MASONCan you, Sir, suggest a better opportunity than this?
§ Mr. KINGI should be perfectly willing to fall in with that suggestion. I see there are several new Clauses upon the Paper dealing with the subject. The difficulty is that we cannot now put them together and have them on the Order Paper in a convenient form. The suggestion you, Sir, made seems an admirable one, and I shall be glad to fall in with it if we are to have another day given to us, so that we may come together and put the new Clauses in form and have a full discussion on the subject, but I cannot see how we can do it unless we relegate the whole discussion to the Report stage.
§ The CHAIRMANPerhaps I may point out to the hon. Member that the New Clause he is moving will certainly not touch more than a little part of the question. There is a New Clause on the Paper standing in the name of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell—Exemption on the Ground of Conscientious Objection) which will come on in a few minutes. I propose to call that hon. Member whose Clause raises a much wider question. I think that would probably meet the convenience of the Committee.
§ Mr. KINGI will be very brief in moving my new Clause. The statement we had just now from the Solicitor-General that no conscientious objector has so far been sent to penal servitude is undoubtedly satisfactory from my point of view. I hope it is correct, and I do not for a moment doubt the good faith of the Solicitor-General. It is quite possible that a number of sentences of a very severe character have been given just recently within the last few days, he notice of which may yet have reached the Department. I sincerely hope the Government will accept this New Clause. It will carry out in law what I am sure must be the feeling and wishes of the Government, namely, that conscientious objectors shall neither be put to death for their conscience sake nor sent to penal servitude. Let them be punished. Although I am not a conscientious objector, I have taken part in the movement. I have said again and again in this House that if they compelled old men instead of 1003 young men to go to the War, I would go, but I say most unhesitatingly that there are conscientious objectors who ought to be respected, that they have received severe and cruel punishments, and that this Committee ought to take the earliest possible occasion of indicating that it does not wish them to be absolutely crushed and made for years to come incapable of doing specific work because they have a conscientious objection.
§ Sir G. CAVEI do not propose to go into the general question raised by my hon. Friend in his concluding words, partly because it would not be in order to do so, and also because this Clause would apply not only to a conscientious objector, but to all men who are under obligations of military service. I thought it was desirable to say at once that, so far as my information goes, in no case has such a sentence of penal servitude been passed. As my hon. Friend knows, such a sentence could not be less than three years for an offence of this kind. His proposal is to enact that the man who does not obey the call to military service shall in no case suffer penal servitude. It is extremely unlikely that any case will arise where such a sentence would be imposed, but at the same time it is very undesirable to minimise this very serious offence, and if at the present moment we were to pass an Amendment saying that the House thinks otherwise than seriously of the offence, it wohld unquestionably be very unwise. I hope the hon. Member will not press the New Clause.
§ Captain CASSELIn confirmation of what the Solicitor-General has said, I might say that the district courts-martial, by which alone these people are tried, have no power to impose the sentence of penal servitude. It is only a general court-martial.
§ Mr. KINGI am rather surprised to hear that. The Solicitor-General spoke of a conscientious objection as being a very serious offence.
§ Sir G. CAVENo, I said nothing of the kind. I spoke only of the offence of refusing to obey the call to military service.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ The CHAIRMANThe next two Clauses in the name of the same hon. 1004 Member [Enlistment of Irish Rebels and Restriction on Discharge from the Army of Persons Suffering from Venereal Disease] are outside the scope of the Bill.
Mr. GRIFFITHThe Clause which stands in my name [Revision of Exemption Certificate] raises a point of some importance, and I understand that it would be more convenient if I raise it on the Report stage; therefore I do not move it now.
§ The CHAIRMANThe next Clause in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) [Power for Soldiers to Vote] is outside the scope of the Bill, and the same applies to the next four Clauses on Paper.
§ The CHAIRMANIt ought to come as an Amendment to the Clause in the Bill. The next group of Clauses in the name of the hon. Member are all outside the scope of the Bill. They deal with Amendments to the Army Act.