§ 35. Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under-secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state why W. H. Mathew, B.Sc., of the International Bible Students' Association, has been handed over to the military by the Home Office Committee for work for conscientious objectors; why no charge was made against this man; and why no opportunity was given to him to make any defence?
§ Mr. BRACEThe Committee recommended this man's recall to the Army because of several breaches of discipline. The hon. Member is mistaken in thinking that no charge was made against him or that no opportunity was given to him to make any defence. On the contrary, he was handed three documents setting out several charges, and he made all his replies to the charges in writing. The Committee did not find in those replies anything that would have justified his retention in employment under them.
§ Mr. SNOWDENArising out of this question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware of a decision that was given by the Stipendiary at Merthyr Tydfil yesterday bearing upon the matter of the Home Office sending men back to the Army, and is he 1948 aware the Stipendiary decided the Home Office was acting illegally and that these men having been adjudged by a tribunal to be conscientious objectors were totally exempt from military service, and what action does he propose to take now to bring back from the Army the men they have had illegally?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member must give notice of that.
§ Mr. SNOWDENExcuse me, Mr. Speaker, but the matter that arises on this question is an illegality precisely similar to the case that was decided yesterday. Therefore I want to know what they are going to do in this case now?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member must put a question on the Paper; that is the simplest way.
§ 102. Mr. SNOWDENasked why, in violation of the pledges which have been given and against the practice which has hitherto obtained, conscientious objectors who are under arrest for refusal to obey military orders are being sent to France; and will this practice be immediately stopped?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONRepresentations have been recently made to the War Office that five conscientious objectors were sent to France having been awarded detention by their commanding officer without having been given the option of trial by court-martial as laid down in Section 46 of the Army Act. Inquiry has been instituted as to whether or not they exercised their rights under Rule of Procedure 7. I would remind my, hon. Friend that in any case the provisions of Army Order No. 10 of the 25th May, 1916, operate in France as well as in this country so that in the event of their being sentenced to imprisonment they will be returned to this country to undergo their sentence. I would also refer him to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for the Elland Division on the 14th June when he will see the procedure which was followed in that case. I can give the assurance that the War Office are only too anxious to prevent such practices as considerable waste of public time and money arises therefrom. Experience has shown that where such cases have arisen it has been due to ignorance of the law on the part of those responsible. When these cases came to light the very emphatic instructions issued by the War Office some nine months ago were again 1949 called attention to and instructions were issued that they were to be again brought personally to the notice of every commanding officer, and I therefore trust that there will be no further cause for complaint.
§ Mr. TREVELYANWill the hon. Gentleman observe that almost all these cases which have occurred recently have been in one place, and will he pay some attention to that fact?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONindicated assent.
§ 103. Mr. SNOWDENasked the Undersecretary of State for War if he has received letters, dated the 15th and 24th May, from the visitor of the sick for the Primitive Methodist Central Mission, New Islington, Manchester, about the case of the wife of Mr. E. Ribeiro, a conscientious objector who for some months has been hunger-striking in Lord Derby's War Hospital, Winwick, which state that Mrs. Ribiero is in a very delicate state of health, has no income, and no means of livelihood; why no reply has been sent to these letters; and whether it is intended to leave Ribeiro to die under the treatment to which he is now being subjected?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI understand that these letters were received at the War Office, but they were not addressed to me personally. Ribeiro's case was then the subject of inquiry as the result of questions in this House, and I find that at that time I communicated by letter with my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford West and Whitehaven with regard to his condition. In regard to the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford North.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEWill the hon. Gentleman say why any preference should be given to this coward and shirker over the men who are fighting and dying in the trenches?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONNo preference is being given to him.