§ 65. Mr. KINGasked whether John Taylor, a conscientious objector at the Wakefield work centre, recently attempted suicide by cutting his throat; whether this man is the John Taylor, No. 23,162, D Company, 3rd Battalion, Essex Regiment, who was granted a non-combatant certificate by his tribunal, was forced into a combatant regiment, ordered to do rifle drill, and afterwards subjected to field punishment No. 1; whether it is owing to this and subsequent treatment that the man was driven to attempt suicide; whether he has now been certified insane; and whether inquiries will be made into this case with the view to fix responsibility?
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave)The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I have no information as to the allegations contained in tithe second part, which should be addressed to the War Office. As regards the third part of the question, six of Taylor's friends among the men employed at Wakefield have voluntarily supplied a report on the facts of the case and on Taylor's mental condition. It is not suggested in this report that his condition was in any way due to his treatment while in the Army or in prison: on the contrary it is mainly attributed to anxiety caused by an explosion near his home and by subsequent air-raids in London. Taylor has now been certified insane. I see no ground for further inquiry into the matter.
§ Mr. KINGIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man is now in a dangerous condition and that his friends have been sent to see the last of him?
§ Sir G. CAVEI have not heard that, but I am sorry if it is so.
§ 63. Mr. E. DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the feeling which exists in the country owing to the fact that men who claimed exemption as conscientious objectors, but failed to satisfy the various standards of the tribunals in different parts of the country and who, for refusing to obey military orders, have suffered punishment on more than one occasion for what is, in effect, the same offence, he is in a position to say that the question of the method of dealing with these men is being reconsidered by the Government?
§ Sir G. CAVEIf the hon. Member means by his question to suggest that the general feeling of the country is adverse to the continued enforcement of the law in the case of persons claiming to be conscientious objectors I do not agree with him. It must be remembered that all conscientious objectors now in prison have been offered their release on condition of their undertaking non-military work under the Home Office scheme, and have either refused the offer or failed to carry out the conditions on which they were released. The question how these men should be dealt with has been recently considered by the Government, who have determined that the law must be enforced, and that they must serve their sentences in prison. But in the case of men of this class who have been sentenced to a long term of imprisonment the Government have decided that some relaxation of the prison rules should be allowed to prisoners who have earned the marks representing a twelve months sentence (whether such marks have been earned in one or more sentences), and I propose shortly to give directions to this effect under No. 243A of the Prison Rules.
§ Mr. DAVIESMay I ask, in view of the varying standard of tribunals in various parts of the country, whether a body could not be set up to which appeal could be made by these men?
§ Sir G. CAVENo; we must accept the decision of the tribunals. The men have no right of appeal.
§ Mr. DAVIESDoes the right hon. Gentleman see his way, in view of the feeling of those not generally in sympathy with conscientious objectors, against these men being imprisoned time after time for practically, the same offence, and in view of the great demand for man-power in this country at the present time, to allow these men to be employed, in the interests of the State, on work they are willing to do, rather than to be kept on unnecessary work?
§ Sir G. CAVEThe men are not now doing unnecessary work.
§ Mr. DAVIESThey are.
§ Commander WEDGWOODMay I ask whether men are not being re-court-martialed on release and re-sentenced to six months' or a year's imprisonment?
§ Sir G. CAVEAt the beginning of the War the practice was to reduce the sentences in all these cases to 112 days, or about three months. When a man was released he was again apprehended and again brought up for punishment. More recently—I think about a year ago—the practice was changed. The court-martial now imposes a full sentence of two years' hard labour.
§ Mr. DAVIESWill the right hon. Gentleman make an inquiry, as. I can produce an instance where a man has been imprisoned on two separate occasions in the last six months?
§ Sir G. CAVEIf so, it would not make the least difference to the answer I have given.
§ Commander WEDGWOODWould it not be as well for the Home Office to cease this prosecution and the manufacture of anarchists?