§ 58. Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Prime Minister how many conscientious objectors engaged in reclamation work at Princetown were given leave for Easter; what was the extent of the leave and whether free railway warrants were given; is he aware that there are men now fighting at the front who have had no leave for two years, and that thousands of men in the Royal Navy have not had leave since the mobilisation in 1914, and in some cases not for five years; and how he reconciles the giving of leave, if such leave were given, to these conscientious objectors after a few weeks' residence at Prince-town in face of the long and continued service of our sailors and soldiers?
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace)My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. Of the 856 conscientious objectors then employed at the Princetown Work Centre, 274 were allowed to go on leave at Easter, and of these 166 had their fares paid. The amount of leave given varied according to the time the men had been employed. The regulations formerly provided for one working day's leave per month; but they now allow four days' leave after three months, and another six days after twelve months, in addition to the usual public holidays. The men are not allowed to travel by rail oftener than once in three months, and their fares are paid only twice 1822 in the year. Leave is dependent in every case on good conduct and industry and the exigencies of the work. It is no doubt the case that many soldiers and sailors have less leave, but, as the men under the Committee were specially released from prison after accepting alternative service, the Committee have not considered it right to deprive them of all liberty.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEIs the hon. Gentleman aware that these cowards and shirkers attended divine service at Princetown and walked out when the National Anthem was sung?
§ Mr. BRACEI am not aware of that. I have heard that it was so, but I have no evidence of the fact.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEIt is so.
§ Mr. PETOWhy was Easter selected for this privileged leave in this case, when the rest of the public were specially warned not to travel at that time?
§ Mr. BRACEThese men, under the Regulations, are entitled to a certain amount of leave, and it was thought that Easter was quite as convenient as some other time. If the House gives authority that these men are not to have any leave at all, that is a matter entirely for the House of Commons.
§ Mr. BRACEIn the Regulations under which the Committee works; we feel that these men are entitled to at least ten days' leave a year, and as they only get 8d. a day—[An HON. MEMBER: "A great deal too much!"]—it is not an improper thing to give them free railway passes.
§ Mr. PRINGLEDid the Home Office grant leave at Easter because the Home Office were not aware that the Board of Trade had advised the public not to travel?
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEIs the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a lieutenant in the Royal Indian Marine who has been six years in Mesopotamia and unable to get a day's leave?
§ Mr. BUTCHERBy whose orders are privileges given to these shirkers which cannot be accorded to our soldiers fighting at the front?
§ Mr. BRACEIt is not a privilege. It is one of a series of Regulations under which the conduct of these people is controlled. If the Regulations are not correct, I shall be prepared to answer any question that may be put.
§ 59. Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Prime Minister whether conscientious objectors have been sent from Wakefield Gaol to a parish in Norfolk and put to cut pit-props; that on arrival they refused to sleep in the barn prepared for them; that, in addition to receiving 8d. a day, they are lodged rent free, given 1s. 9d. a day for food, free coals, and 7d. a week for washing; whether these men were given holidays at Easter and in some cases free passes as far as the north of Yorkshire were allowed; and, if so, why these men who refuse to serve their country in the Army are given better conditions than men fighting at the front?
§ Mr. BRACEMy right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. Conscientious objectors have been sent to Norfolk by the Committee on Employment of Conscientious Objectors to work at cutting pit-props, and the firm employing them reports that they are working satisfactorily. The Committee know nothing of any refusal to sleep in the barn. They received a report from their agent that the barn was not suitable for prolonged occupation, and they sanctioned his renting another building. The men are not required to pay rent; fuel is supplied; and food and washing are provided for as indicated in the question. The men could not meet the expense of living out of their daily allowance of 8d., less deductions up to 6d. As regards their leave, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I have just given to the previous question.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEIs the hon. Gentleman not aware that they refused to sleep in the barn for one night?
§ Sir WALTER ESSEXIs the hon. Gentleman aware that his questioner would probably, in the recent weather, also have refused to sleep in a barn?
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEI would not mind sleeping in a barn.