HC Deb 23 April 1917 vol 92 cc2188-92

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE

I rise to call attention to a matter which, I think, the majority of hon. Members will consider is fast becoming a public scandal. I refer to the privileged position of so-called conscientious objectors at Princetown and elsewhere. The feeling is running so high at Princetown and neighbourhood that the Mayor of Plymouth has summoned a public protest meeting for Wednesday. Perhaps the House is not aware that at the present time there are at Princetown 856 of these men. They are employed at the Princetown centre. What exactly the work is that is done there no doubt the hon. Gentleman who replies for the Government will be able to say. For myself, I do not know what progress has been made at this work centre. I do not know whether all the 85G are engaged upon farm work. If that be the case, their duties must be very light indeed. Anyone who knows farming at Princetown will know that to employ 856 men upon that is a rather large order. I am told—I do not know whether my information is correct—that these men are doing very little work indeed; in fact, that they are work-shy. Who are these conscientious objectors? Most of them are men who have been sentenced to long terms of imprisonment for military offences. They are sent, not to military prisons, but to civil prisons. Then, after being there a couple of months, they are released and they are put to do what is called work of national importance. We are told that there is a Committee arranging what work they have to do and that regularises it, but what the Committee is the House of Commons has not yet been informed. We do not know about the regulations which have been laid down or the rules under which these men work. I should like the hon. Member in his reply to give us some information about this Committee. Then we are told that this Committee did not consider it right to deprive all these men of their liberty, or of all their liberty. That seems to be a doubtful matter. I really do not see why these men, who have been released from terms of imprisonment, should find fault at having a certain amount of their liberty taken from them. Whether, in fact, they ought not to be deprived of their liberty except what is necessary for exercise and for such recreation as may be necessary for their health?

Those men, I believe, select their own officers. That seems to me to be a mistake. You can hardly expect men who select their own officers to obey those officers, nor can you expect those officers to get the best work out of their men. I believe that if late at work they are fined a penny, but to most of these men who are very well off that is not much. Then. I understand, that from Saturday to Monday morning they are practically free for all purposes, and can go away to amuse themselves. I believe, too, they keep motor cycles. I do not know whether they receive petrol, and what their allowance is. Why should they have motor cycles? Then they walk about in the roads in large numbers. Why should they be allowed to go about in large numbers? I understood that three or more people congregating together was against the law, but these people seem to be specially privileged to walk about in any number, and possibly to terrify the inhabitants. I do not know about that, but I do know that the women of Princetown are very much incensed against these men, and feel very much their walking about in this style. They are provided with every possible article of clothing necessary for their work, and are given every facility that can possibly be provided to enable them to do farm work. They work in overcoats so as not to get cold, they wear woollen gloves to prevent their hands getting red, and they are given food which is as good as, if not better than, what is now given to the soldiers at the front. They crowd out the shops, and they purchase the best of everything the town can provide. Their diet-sheet shows a singularly liberal diet. We have already had some statements as to diet. I brought forward a diet sheet, but I was told I was misinformed. To-day I saw in the "Western Morning News" the statement of a lady who had gone to Princetown, and who gives a diet sheet much the same as I gave a fortnight ago. Then we are told these men are required to have gas-rings on which to cook their suppers.

This is the worst case of all. While hard-worked female typists are requested to use as little of the railways as possible, and even then are called upon to pay 30 per cent. excess on ordinary fares, these shirkers to the number of 240 were allowed to go on leave at Easter, and in 166 of these cases fares were paid, in some eases as far as Scotland. The fare there and back is £5. Does the hon. Member mean to say the Government is prepared to give free passes worth £5 to 166 of these conscientious objectors twice a year, and yet the hon. Member told the House they were able to obtain these free passes twice a year? Theirs, of course, is a kind of punishment. They arc; not sent to Princetown as a treat to enjoy themselves, but to continue the punishment which has been inflicted upon them by courts-martial, and by men who know exactly the offences they have committed. How long have these men been at Princetown? Because the hon. Member tells us that formerly one day's leave a month was given in addition to non-working days. Now four days in two months are given. Why? Public holidays are thrown in. Why? Yet you have munition workers appealed to by the Government to work on Bank holidays, while these shirkers at Princetown are given the Bank holidays in addition to free railway passes. The whole thing is monstrous. The men in the dockyard do not get holidays on ordinary Bank holidays, nor do they always get their wages paid when they do take holidays. Contrast the position of these men and that of the soldiers and sailors. There are sailors who have never had a day's holiday for five or six years.

Here are men, soldiers who have been at the front for two-and-a-half years, who have never had a day's holiday during the War; and yet these men who have only been in Princetown for a few weeks are given the whole of Easter and their fares paid. It is absolutely scandalous. Then we are told that leave depends on their good conduct and industry, and the exigencies of the work. As regards the conduct, I think the hon. Gentleman has some information which has been sent from the spot. An example will be found in the case I cited the other day, where the men walked out of church when the National Anthem was sung. I think that is dis-giaceful. Then you hear them saying that they will do no work, and the hon. Gentleman knows that is perfectly true. The state of mind of these men is shown by their demanding that the buttons on the tunics of the warders should be changed, because they have crowns on them. That shows their state of mind. Then you have these loathsome leaflets, and do not know whether they are circulated freely, but this one was found in Princetown. I do not want to read it, but it was picked up by the widow of a Ser-geant-Major in the Surreys, who had behaved well in the War, and what must she have thought on reading it? It says: "Your King and country need you." Then it proceeds to pour contempt on the King, and to pour contempt on the country, telling the men they ought not to fight Germans—

Notice taken that forty Members were not present: House counted and, forty Members not being present, the House was adjourned at Fifteen minutes after Eleven o'clock.