§ Where a man who has been enlisted under the principal Act or under this Act refuses or fails to obey an order given to him by his superior officer on the ground that he has a conscientious objection to military service he shall forthwith be tried by court-martial, and, if it appears to the court that there is reasonable grounds, for 1069 supposing that his refusal or failure to obey such order was in fact due to conscientious motives, the case shall be referred for trial to a civil court which may order the man to engage in work of national importance as an alternative to military service, under Regulations to be made by Order in Council under this Act, and subject to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding two years if he fails or refuses to comply with the order of the civil court.
§ Clause brought up, and read the first time.
§ Mr. MORRELLI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI think this Clause is covered by a decision already arrived at by the Committee.
§ Mr. MORRELLWith all respect, I think I should now be allowed to explain its object. This is a practical solution for dealing with a still more difficult question. I do not wish to enter into any previous discussion as to the powers of the tribunals, but I want to deal with the question of what is to be done with men who have gone into the Army and are there on grounds of conscience resisting orders which they say their consciences will not allow them to obey. What this Clause proposes is that such men shall be entitled to be tried by court-martial. This is a very important matter.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI do not want to interrupt the hon. Member unnecessarily, but the very point he is now discussing has already been discussed by this Committee. To my own personal knowledge—I was not in the Chair at the time—it was debated.
§ Mr. MORRELLI have been in the House all the time and do not want to put my opinion against yours, but I just want to explain this practical suggestion. It is that if at the court-martial there is reasonable ground for supposing that a man is induced on conscientious grounds to refuse to obey orders he should have the right to be taken before a Civil Court which should have the power to decide whether or not he should be put to some alternative service. There is one other point which has not been before the Committee, and that is the liability of these men, whether they go to France or not, to be shot. It seems to me, if such a man does go to France, it will be the duty of the military 1070 authorities to shoot him. I have here extracts from the Army Act—I do not propose to read them—which to me make it perfectly conclusive that unless some provision such as I am suggesting is put into this Bill the result will be that the conscientious objector will be shot. For that reason I do urge my right hon. Friend to consider this practical attempt at the solution of a very difficult problem.
§ Mr. LONGI do not think my hon. Friend realises that this new Clause goes, far beyond anything which has been proposed hitherto in connection with the conscientious objector. There is no provision in it that the man affected should in the first instance have taken advantage of the Appeal Tribunal. There is nothing in it with regard to his previous conduct. All he has to do is to say he has a conscientious objection to military service. Lots of people can say they conscientiously object to various forms of service, and if you are going to allow any man to whom military service is distasteful to be relegated to civil process for trial, although he has taken no step to secure exemption on the ground that he is a conscientious objector, you will be making a very undesirable extension of the Clause already agreed upon. I cannot accept this Clause in any form, and I hope my hon. Friend will not press it. Let us consider the Debate closed on this question and pass on to other important points which remain to be settled.
§ Mr. KINGI am very sorry that the President of the Local Government Board is not more sympathetic. It seems to me he is not trying to understand what this Clause is about. It really is very discouraging to those who, like myself, are sincerely hoping to find some honourable solution of this problem, and at the same time to find a solution which will increase the military strength of this country, to get no more sympathetic treatment than the right hon. Gentleman extends to us. The hon. Member who moved the Clause has spoken of the possible fate of these men if they are sent to France. I have looked into the question and I have come to the conclusion that these me must expect to be shot sooner or later—sooner rather than later—if they go to France, and that that is really contemplated by the military authorities. That is deplorable. It is no solution whatever, and it is not going to increase either the honour, strength, or military power of this country. I very much regret 1071 that we do not get a little further. We might have had more sympathy from the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. MORRELLI beg to withdraw the Motion, but I will raise the matter again on the Report stage.
§ Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.