HC Deb 04 July 1917 vol 95 cc1090-2
81. Mr. TREVELYAN

asked the Undersecretary of State for War whether George Tyrrell, a conscientious objector in France, who he stated had not been returned to England because he was not undergoing punishment for disobedience to orders, has in fact received a sentence of ninety days' field punishment, No. 1; whether such punishment exceeds the legal maximum; and whether the man can now be returned to England?

Mr. MACPHERSON

I am not aware I have made any such statement. If my hon. Friend refers to the question he put to me on the 14th June, my allusion to the soldier who was performing his duties satisfactorily did not have reference to Private Tyrrell. Private Tyrrell was tried by court-martial in France and sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour. The confirming officer, however, commuted the sentence to field punishment. This commutation was perfectly legal, but opposed to the principles of Army Order No. X. of the 25th May, 1916. The authorities in France, however, writing on the 20th May, 1917, stated that instructions had been issued for Private Tyrrell to be dispatched to England, as the case clearly was one which came under the intentions of the above quoted Army Order. In view of the fact that field punishment No. 1 is not carried out in this country, the sentence has been remitted. I have not made special inquiry, but I have no doubt that Private Tyrrell is now in this country, as orders were issued that he should rejoin his original unit forthwith.

Colonel YATE

Is there any reason why conscientious objectors should not be permitted to work in France?

Mr. MACPHERSON

I do not think that arises; but, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, there is no reason at all why, as, an alternative, men attached to non-combatant units should not be sent to France. A good many of them are there now.

An HON. MEMBER

Or Mesopotamia.

98. Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any changes have been made in the procedure adopted by the Home Office for dealing with conscientious objectors; and, if so, is he in a position to give particulars of those changes to the House?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave)

After carefully considering the whole question of the treatment of the persons dealt with by the Home Office Committee on Employment of Conscientious Objectors, I have come to the conclusion that, while the principles on which the Committee have acted are right and should be maintained, the time has come when the procedure should be strengthened, and the conditions of release more strictly enforced. The Committee have accordingly amended their rules for this purpose, and a copy of the Rules as amended is being laid on the Table. The Committee have also decided to appoint a whole-time inspector to visit the work centres and supervise the administration, and to report periodically to the Committee.

I may add that the constitution of the Committee has been somewhat changed to enable it to sit daily at the Home Office for administrative work. Three of the members who have not recently been able to devote much time to the work (two of them having undertaken other important public duties) have retired. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester recently consented to join the Committee, and its reconstitution has been completed by the appointment of Major Briscoe, one of His Majesty's Prison Commissioners.

The thanks of the Government are due to the retiring members, Sir Matthew Nathan, Sir Thomas Elliott, and Sir Alexander McHardy, for the time and labour which they have devoted to this difficult and distasteful work.

Commander WEDGWOOD

Does this proposed change in the Committee mean that more intelligent work and work more useful for society as a whole, than the digging of Dartmoor, will be given?

Sir G. CAVE

It is very important that the Committee should be always in London ready to meet every day at a moment's notice, and therefore the membership has been changed.

Commander WEDGWOOD

Is there any chance of the large camps being broken up, so that fewer people under strict discipline can be engaged on varied tasks throughout the country?

Sir G. CAVE

The unsatisfactory centres have been closed. Those which remain are not so unsatisfactory. Of course, if they do not work well they will have to be broken up.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE

Under the new rules, will it be clear that these men do work of national importance, and that they do the work given to them to do?

Sir G. CAVE

My hon. Friend will see the rules when they are circulated.

Colonel YATE

Will my right hon. Friend consider the question of sending these men over to France to work?

Sir G. CAVE

That is not for me to say.