§ LORD PARMOOR rose to call attention to the position of conscientious objectors whom the Tribunals have found to be sincere in their convictions; and to ask whether the Government is prepared to reconsider their position, more particularly in reference to those who have been in prison for a period of two years or more; and to move for Papers.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Notice which appears in my name has stood on the Paper on many previous occasions, and I think the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, who is going to answer, knows that it was postponed in the hope that the views expressed in it might at any rate be met to a large extent. I am informed—I hope rightly—that a statement has been made in the other House by the Secretary of State for War which to a great extent deals with the matter raised in my Question. I do not know whether I am right in regard to what has been told to me, but I should like to state it and then the noble Viscount can correct me if I make a mistake. I am told that the Secretary for War has stated in the House of Commons that every conscientious objector who in the aggre 151 gate has suffered imprisonment for two years or more is to be released at once, and released in the sense that he is discharged from all obligations which could have arisen in connection with his conscientious objection. If that is true it carries what I desire to attain by my Resolution a very long way; but there are still one or two words that I desire to say with regard to the Resolution itself.
§ In the first place, I will ask your Lordships to notice that I am calling attention to the position of conscientious objectors whom the Tribunals have found to be sincere in their convictions. I have noticed that objection has often been taken on the ground that some so-called conscientious objectors are really shirkers and hypocrites. I do not doubt that. But I believe, owing to facts which I shall state in a few minutes, that the numbers of those are comparatively few. Nobody could desire more strongly to have heavy punishment meted out to shirkers and hypocrites than those who uphold the genuine conscientious objector who acts from a deep sense of moral duty. The second part of my Resolution refers especially to those who have been in prison for two years or more. I do not want to say anything further on that question because, if I am rightly informed, all such are to be immediately released and discharged from further obligation.
§ There are only one or two things further that I desire to say. I bring this forward as an Armistice Resolution, and I think that the conditions now are entirely distinct from what they were during war time. On January 1 of this year a Memorandum was sent to the Prime Minister, signed by numerous persons who stated on the face of the Memorandum that they did not agree with regard to the principle of conscientious objection, but that they all agreed that, owing to the conditions of the Armistice, a time of release should not be admitted and recognised. Amongst those who signed that Memorandum—I will mention only those who are members of this House—were the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, the noble Viscount, Lord Bryce, Lord Harcourt, Lord Beauchamp, Lord Morley of Blackburn, and, in addition, three ex-Lord Chancellors who had been very closely connected with the Governments of the Prime Minister—namely, Lord Loreburn, Lord Haldane, and Lord Buckmaster. 152 I may also say that this Memorandum was signed by a large number of persons of fame and notoriety in every class of life, but no answer, either official or unofficial, has been given.
§ VISCOUNT PEELThat was to the Prime Minister?
§ LORD PARMOORYes. I call attention to the fact that no answer was given to a Memorandum signed by every member of your Lordships' House who occupied a Government position in the same Ministry as the present Prime Minister. There was not a single member of your Lordships' House who had acted with him in the ordinary way in Liberal Ministries who did not sign the Memorandum, and yet no answer, official or unofficial, was given. I think that is a rather strong measure, if I may say so.
What did the Memorandum state? It stated that there were 1,500 men then in prison, 700 of whom had served terms of two years, while pointing out that two years is the maximum punishment allowed for ordinary criminals under either the civil or military code. It pointed out further that a special Inquiry had been made, that it was a laborious matter, and that as a result it had been ascertained that the large majority of these men, who were imprisoned for a period beyond that applicable to the most mean and despicable criminals, were men who had acted under the demands of their conscience and in accordance with deep moral or religious convictions. That statement was made on undoubted authority. The Memorandum was signed by members of your Lordships' House and others whom I have indicated, and yet no answer was made, either officially or unofficially.
Time passed along, and when I put down the Resolution the statistics were—they may have altered since—that there were 773 conscientious objectors in prison believed to be perfectly sincere, who had been there for more than two years, that 218 had been court-martialled since the Armistice, some for the third and fourth times, that fifty-nine men had died subsequently to their arrest, and I have noticed a death or two mentioned in the papers since that date—I do not say they all died in prison—and that thirty-nine men had become mentally afflicted. The noble 153 Viscount shakes his head, but I may tell him that these statistics have been most carefully collected.
§ VISCOUNT PEELI do not know what the noble Lord means by "mentally afflicted." It is not a definite term.
§ LORD PARMOORI mean men afflicted in this sense, that they are no longer responsible for their actions in the ordinary way, and have had to be put under restraint.
§ VISCOUNT PEELIt does not mean men certified as insane?
§ LORD PARMOORNot necessarily certified as insane, but put under certain forms of restraint owing to the condition of their mental attitude, owing to these prolonged periods of imprisonment. I admit that it is a very serious number to give, but it has been ascertained after most careful inquiry, and I should not have given it unless I believed it to be absolutely correct. I only want to say one or two words on the general question, and I will be very brief. The common law of this country, as was stated in the widest terms by a great member of your Lordships' House, Lord Mansfield, contains no principle of persecution for moral or religious principles. That is the standing doctrine of the common law of this country. Wherever persecution is found necessary it is the creature of statute, and of course that was the case during the period of the war. I have always felt myself that during war there is a difficulty in dealing with the question of conscientious objection. I believe myself thoroughly that Parliament desired and determined, if the Act had been followed out, that no man should be punished if truly and sincerely subject to conscientious convictions. There may be some difference of opinion about that point; but it is the opinion which I have formed and which I believe to be accurate.
But surely now the Armistice time has arrived there can be no reason whatever for retaining any conscientious objector in prison for any longer period at all. Your Lordships will have noticed that the numbers I gave showed that 773 had been imprisoned for a longer period than two years, and therefore under the Order, which I understand is to be issued at once, considerably more than half of the con 154 scientious objectors now in prison will be immediately released. That is a matter of great gratification to those who have spent their time in doing what they could to produce fair treatment under conditions of this kind, and, that being so, if I have not misrepresented what was said in another place, I do not intend to detain your Lordships longer, except to utter my protest that, gratified as I am by the release made, I hope a further step will be taken soon and that this blot on the escutcheon of this country will be removed, and that we shall no longer have men in prison because they are loyal to deep moral and religious feeling.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I should like to say a word in support of the Motion which has just been submitted to the House. I will venture to express one sentiment which I think will be shared by all your Lordships, and that is the wish that this may possibly be the last. debate we may have upon a subject which I have always regarded as particularly odious and in some of its aspects particularly humiliating.
I am certainly not here to find fault with His Majesty's Government. I think on the contrary that, as far as I have been able to follow their action during the last few months, they have shown every desire to make their rules as elastic as possible and their treatment of these unfortunate people as humane as circumstances permit. But they most certainly have had a very difficult course to steer. They have had on one side the people who look on this crowd of shirkers—for that is how they regard them—with a feeling approaching blind fury; on the other side there are those who are deeply convinced that many of these conscientious objectors are absolutely honest and animated by high principles and great personal courage.
The difficulty to be encountered is fundamental. This body of people, whom most of us regard as wrong-headed, presents in its wrong-headedness a variety of types. You cannot deal with these varieties by means of the hard standards of Acts of Parliament and Army Orders. I think I remember my noble friend Lord Salisbury saying here that human motives were very complicated and it is very difficult to disentangle them; and for that reason I am absolutely convinced that 155 the tribunals and those who have had to give effect to the decisions of the tribunals, with the best motives in the world, cannot have failed now and again to make serious mistakes. I have no doubt that at this moment there are men at large who have refused military service and who have refused to undertake any national service, simply because they have been fortunate enough to convince the Tribunal before which they appeared. There are other men, probably not very clearly distinguishable from them, who, because they failed to convince the Tribunal, have been treated as criminals and subjected to a great deal of hardship, if not a great deal of indignity. I have said before in this House that nothing will convince me that in a great many of these cases the punishment inflicted has not been a wholly inappropriate punishment to the offence and the person by whom the offence has been committed. This has been very brutalising to the sufferers and very shocking to the large number of people who sympathise with them and believe that they have a real grievance.
My noble friend Lord Parmoor comes here to-night and suggests specifically that those conscientious objectors who have undergone more than two years' imprisonment might now be liberated. I venture to think that this is not an unreasonable request. By submitting to their fate, they have shown beyond question that they are sincere. There is no doubt about that, and I venture to add that two years of imprisonment—imprisonment sometimes under very onerous conditions—is, in the view of most people, not inadequate punishment for the offence that has been committed.
My Lords, I have heard one argument suggested against the proposal of my noble and learned friend, and as it may be used I will mention it. It has been suggested to me that at a moment when demobilisation is not yet completed it might have a very unfortunate effect upon men serving in the Army if these people were released from imprisonment. I really think that this is an argument without material weight. There are, I understand, 700 of these conscientious objectors now in prison. I suppose that would work out at something like one in 3,000 of the number of soldiers who are now being demobilised. If it is suggested that none of these men are to be released until demobilisation is complete, I submit that, with the military 156 prospect of which we now read every time we look at the newspapers, such a suggestion opens a vista of long continued punishment for an almost indefinite period.
The idea that these conscientious objectors, if released, would occupy a number of attractive posts, to the exclusion of meritorious soldiers, seems to me to be quite fantastic. These men, if they are let loose, are generally, I am afraid, likely to be regarded by most of their fellow-citizens as a kind of pariah, and the difficulty will be to get them any work at all. It will not be a question of their appearing as successful competitors for employment with soldiers returning from the Front. I cannot say how glad I should be, what relief it would afford me, if this episode, which has been a very painful one, might now be closed. It is an episode which has occasioned a great deal of bitter feeling in the country—a feeling certainly not confined to those who have actually undergone punishment for their conduct. If His Majesty's Government could tell us that they see their way to close the account, I believe the announcement would be received with universal satisfaction.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships more than a few minutes, but this is a subject on which, I think your Lordships know and the noble Viscount (Viscount Peel) will recognise, I do not speak without some special knowledge. I have never been able, of course, to take quite the view of my noble and learned friend who opened this discussion. I have always avowed in your Lordships' House and elsewhere that there did not appear to be any exit from the dilemna in which the authorities of this country were placed. If service was to be universally compulsorily for men within certain ages, it was impossible to allow a particular number of persons to refuse to meet the obligations which were thrown on everybody else. You might mitigate it in any way you could, but you must ultimately assert the supremacy of the law. I think the Government did go a very long way, because they said, in effect, as it ultimately worked out, that if any of these men would consent to do work of national importance under the Home Office scheme they should not be imprisoned. That was said, and therefore the only ones who are in prison are the absolutists—those who have declined not merely to fight, not merely to do non- 157 combatant service, but to do anything in the nature of work of national importance which might be prescribed to them by the Government.
§ LORD PARMOORCompulsorily.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYCompulsorily; quite so. I have never been able to take any other view than that, when you are driven to that last point, the Government must vindicate its position, and these gentlemen, however honest they may be—and many of them were honest, quite honest—must feel the power of the law exercised to place them, at any rate to some extent, in the same position as their neighbours. I have said that the Government went a very long way, but there was a point beyond which I think they might have gone. I and others ventured to press them to go, but we were not successful. It had reference to the kind of imprisonment which was awarded to those who were absolutists. They were sent to hard labour. We pressed the Government at that time to shorten the period of hard labour as far as possible, as far as they thought it their duty to do so, and I understood that the Government gave an absolute pledge in both Houses of Parliament that no conscientious objector would be imprisoned with hard labour for more than an aggregate term of twelve months. I have no doubt that the Government have fulfilled that pledge.
§ LORD PARMOORIt is two years!
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThere must be some mistake. But there was a question put in another place to which the Home Secretary made an answer, which included this phrase—
732 conscientious objectors have served, in the aggregate, more than twelve months' imprisonment with hard labour, including time served in prison and previous sentences either in detention barracks or in a civil or military prison.
§ VISCOUNT PEELWhen was that answer given?
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI ought to have the date, but I am afraid I have not. It was given by the present Home Secretary, Mr. Shortt, so it cannot be a very long time ago. I should like to have either a reply to-night, or, if my noble friend is not in a position to answer it to-night at some other time, how this is 158 to be reconciled with the pledge which was given so categorically in both Houses of Parliament. It was certainly given in this House by my noble friend the Leader of the House, unless I am very much mistaken, and I think not, for I have refreshed my memory on the subject. My inquiry is not merely how this particular pledge is reconciled to the conduct they have pursued, but I should like to press the Government to go a step further than the concession they have announced to-night. They have agreed to release all conscientious objectors who have been in prison for more than two years—I am not sure whether it is with hard labour. I would ask them to go this length and strike out the terms "with hard labour." I do not say release the others, but might they not very properly reduce the severity of the sentence to the extent of abolishing hard labour. I know it is said that hard labour is a survival of past times, and that it does not differ materially from ordinary imprisonment as a third-class misdemeanant. That is perfectly true; but the pledge which was given to us, to which I have referred and which I want the Government to fulfil and extend, was that all these conscientious objectors should receive a special treatment, which is known as the "Churchill treatment"; that is, under a particular Order issued when the present Secretary of State for War was Home Secretary. It is a mitigated form of imprisonment not unlike the imprisonment of a first-class misdemeanant.
§ VISCOUNT CAVEThat treatment has been applied to every conscientious objector who has been in prison for twelve months.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYIf that is so, then the Home Secretary was a little inaccurate in the phrase he used, which I read out. I do not want to press this, but no doubt that must be the explanation. The phrase used was—
732 conscientious objectors have served, in the aggregate, more than twelve months' imprisonment, with hard labour.
§ VISCOUNT CAVEThat may have been before the concession was made.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThat may be the explanation. I desire to ask the Government to go further than the pledge, and say that all conscientious 159 objectors should have this mitigated treatment now, even if they are not to be released. I think that is a concession which may be made. For hard labour is not the punishment for conscientious objectors. I have seen a great many conscientious objectors. It was my duty to interview them and ask them exactly what their position was. Though, of course, one must not assume that they told the truth in every case, yet there were occasions when I am quite certain if any one of your Lordships had been there you would have been absolutely convinced that the man was speaking the truth. There were all the elements of sincerity written in the most prominent way upon everything the man said.
I remember a case of a conscientious objector who had originally been an officer, but who had resigned his commission before the war because of his conscientious conviction. Then he had a tremendous spiritual feeling in his heart, and he had become convinced that it was his duty to do what he could to restore peace in certain industrial regions where he had influence. He went in the spirit of an evangelist and preached the Gospel, as it is contained in the New Testament, to those persons who were engaged upon industrial struggles in the hope that he might restore peace. That was what he believed to be his mission. He believed he was directed absolutely from on High. He believed it was his duty. And who shall say it was not his duty? He also thought it was wrong to fight and to engage in war; and he was a conscientious objector. It was not possible for the Central Tribunal to release him. They were obliged to say that he must do work of national importance, and he was one of those queer, odd, cranky, men who thought that it was wrong to do work of national importance because it was ordered under the Military Service Acts. It was an absolutely impossible position, as we think, to occupy. I do not pretend to explain it, or defend it, but that was his view. He was punished. He spent very many months in prison doing hard labour. Is it conceivable that it was an arrangement satisfactory to anybody, to your Lordships or to anybody else, that this holy man should be sent to a prison to do hard labour? I do not say that it was wrong to send him to prison. I do not know what else could have been done; but the sooner a man of that kind can be released from hard labour the better every one 160 throughout the length and breadth of the country will be pleased. I urge, for the sake of these religious men, who are, in spite of their wrongheadedness, and whose position we do not understand, "the salt of the earth," that they should be released from the graver penalties which they have incurred, and, now that we have won the war, that we should extend to them that clemency which all of us would desire.
§ THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT PEEL)My Lords, I think that everybody in this House will echo the statement of my noble friend Lord Parmoor, that we hope this is the last debate we shall have upon this subject. I take note of that observation, and I hope he will not initiate another debate. I am very glad that he has at last been able to bring this discussion to a point, because the matter has been postponed from day to day and we have not had an opportunity of dealing with it before the present. My noble friend made use of certain figures, and I think I ought to submit other figures to set against them. So far as relates to the numbers in prison and at work, and who have died in prison, I do not submit them in any way as the representative of the War Office. I have, as a matter of fact, obtained certain figures from the Home Office, and one or two I would like to set against the figures which Lord Parmoor gave, because I think they may create rather a wrong impression. The figures which I have are the latest.
§ LORD PARMOORMine were made up to three weeks ago.
§ VISCOUNT PEELI think my figures are more recent. My figures show how strongly the official figures differ from those given by Lord Parmoor. For instance, he gave the number of 1,500 as representing those actually imprisoned. The number actually in prison is 888, which is a considerable deduction on the figure he has given.
§ LORD PARMOORI gave that figure as on January 1.
§ VISCOUNT PEELI thought you said three weeks ago.
§ LORD PARMOORI gave no figures as to the number in prison three weeks ago, but I did give the figures of the number in prison on January 1.
§ VISCOUNT PEELMy noble friend intervened, and said that his figures were made up to three weeks ago. That is why I commented on them. At any rate, those are the figures at the present moment. As regards the number in prison who have served at least two years, the figure that the noble Lord gave was 773. The figure I have from the Home Office is 464, which is a considerable reduction. These are the official figures. The noble Lord seems to think they are wrong, but he must argue that case later. He gave very different figures also as to the numbers who had died either in prison or at work. I think he gave the figure of 59. My figures are that the number of those who died in prison is 9, and of those who were referred to the Committee by the Central Tribunal, 24.
§ LORD PARMOORI do not wish to dispute my noble friend's figures. I did not say that was the number who died in prison or at work, but the number who had died since arrest. That may be the explanation.
§ VISCOUNT PEELThe noble Lord must deal with these figures. I am giving official figures. I did not compile them myself, but I have no reason to doubt their correctness. As to the number of those who—I think the phrase he used was "not certified as insane but were insane"—
§ LORD PARMOORMentally afflicted.
§ VISCOUNT PEELThat is a rather indefinite phrase, and I challenged the noble Lord so that I may know precisely what he means, because it is rather difficult to measure exactly the state of mind of a man mentally afflicted. But the number of those who have been certified insane, I am given to understand, is twenty, and not thirty-nine; and fourteen were certified within three months of reception, showing that they were mentally unstable before imprisonment took place. These comments I felt compelled to make upon the figures which my noble friend gave.
One word upon the question of the sincerity of these conscientious objectors. Every one who knows one of these conscientious objectors may have his own view as to whether they were conscientious or not, and he is at liberty to have his own view, but I think that it is right, to point out that all these men either have appeared before the tribunals and have been found 162 not to be conscientious—that is to say, not to have a conscientious objection to military service—and have been sent either on military service generally or have been classified for non-combatant service, or they are men who have taken the opportunity and the right they had to appear before the tribunals, and have been found by the tribunals to be conscientious. These latter, for some reason, in the debates in this House are never alluded to. The number of these is about 600, and they got complete exemption from the tribunals; yet for some reason the administration of these tribunals is criticised and attacked, and no credit is ever given to them—at least I have never heard any credit ever given to them—for having completely exempted 600. The noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, criticised the tribunals, not I think unfairly, because he suggested that the tribunals would find it very difficult in specific cases to gauge the sincerity of any man. Of course, we know that the method of tribunals of measuring the sincerity of a man must be of a rough and ready sort.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEBut I did say that there were men who had been let off by the tribunals because they were satisfied of the sincerity of their conscientious objection.
§ VISCOUNT PEELThat is no doubt an allusion to the 600. The test, as I say, must be a rough and ready one. While noble Lords discuss the question of the sincerity of the special persons in whom they may be interested, there is ample evidence to show that a number of these men were by no means conscientious, and many of them were engaged in a deliberate conspiracy to break down the Military Service Acts, and it was the duty of the State, if the Military Service Acts were to be properly administered, to take a strong line to preserve itself. I confess that I rather look upon it with some of those who are not specifically interested in whether this particular man is or is not sincere. It is an immensely difficult thing to measure motives or the truth of motives. There is no doubt that what these men were doing would have resulted in the complete downfall of the State if others had followed their example, and it may well be questioned, I think, by those who believe most deeply in the sincerity of men's convictions, whether people should be permitted or not to take 163 action which, if it were general, would result in the complete break-up of the State to which they belong. Therefore in measuring and in speaking about sincerity—and it is not a subject that I like to discuss very much, because it is so difficult to measure a man's sincerity—we should remember that all these men for whom my noble friend Lord Parmoor pleads have had an opportunity of going before the tribunals, or, having gone before the tribunals, have been found not to be sincere in their conscientious objection.
§ LORD PARMOORNone for whom I speak come within that category.
§ VISCOUNT PEELMy noble friend speaks for them all. I say that they all come within that category, and therefore there is no category outside for whom my noble friend can speak.
§ LORD PARMOORMy Resolution is limited, and purposely limited.
§ VISCOUNT PEELI read it very carefully. My noble friend talks about those whom the tribunals have found to be sincere in their convictions. I am pointing out that all these men have passed through the tribunals. What my noble friend is alluding to—and that is a totally different thing—is to the administrative action of the Central Tribunal in allowing some of these men to go under the Brace Committee and take work. That is a totally different proposition which ought not to be confused with the existence of the ordinary tribunals before whom these men came. I can admit what the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, said as bearing on the question of letting these men out of prison. The situation is wholly changed from what it was during the war, because at that time it would have been very questionable to let men out of prison and thereby suggest to others who were fighting in France that by a resort to this particular course a man might escape prison or be discharged from it. Moreover, I think the question of competition in the labour market is a very unimportant one indeed. These men are comparatively few in number, and they come out of prison branded, and those who want employment will find it difficult to get. A number of them are not, I believe, people who would get that particular employment which has been referred to. Therefore 164 that particular proposition may be put aside. A stronger point, I think, is this. It might be felt as a grievance by the large Army that is retained on the Rhine and elsewhere if these men, who were professed conscientious objectors, were able to escape military service earlier than the men who are so retained. But that is another proposition.
The question of the release of these particular conscientious objectors who have served over two years has not, I think, been put by my noble friend on a basis on which I should like to put it. He suggests, or rather seemed to suggest, that this was a special rule made for conscientious objectors, that after they had served two years they should be discharged. That is not so; it is a general rule applying to all soldiers. It is merely a revival of the system that applied before the war when sending soldiers to detention barracks for punishment. If it was considered they might become good soldiers again, they went back into the Army after leaving prison; if, on the other hand, it was considerable desirable that they should not live under military rule as they might contaminate the men with whom they would have to live, they were discharged from the Army when they entered prison. This is a matter of general application; and the Government have decided that these men, who are looked upon as soldiers and who are in prison, shall be now discharged from the Army, and further, that those who have served, whether conscientious objectors or others, for two years or more in the aggregate in prison, shall be released from prison. That is the decision which His Majesty's Government have very recently come to. I think the point raised by my noble friend Lord Salisbury was really answered by Lord Cave, so that I need not refer to that any more. The only other point is, I think, as to the question whether all could be released.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYWhat I suggested was that the punishment of hard labour should not be enforced any longer against a conscientious objector.
§ VISCOUNT PEELThat is purely a Home Office matter, and I dare say the noble Marquess will excuse me at this moment from specifically dealing with it. That, I think, settles the question of the conscientious objector. But I have one 165 more point to which I really must make some allusion, because it is a very grave reflection on some of the distinguished military officers at the War Office. This is an attack contained in the number of the Westminster Gazette which appeared yesterday, and I want to give it the most emphatic denial that I am capable of giving. The writer says—
I hear that Mr. Shortt and Mr. Churchill submitted a memorandum to the War Cabinet on the question of the conscientious objector which would, if accepted, have moderated the persecution of the objector. But the report is that it was turned down by the Cabinet on the advice of the military authorities. The Generals in the War Office were, in fact, allowed to override all considerations of humanity with the plea that the moral of the Army would be affected.And the writer adds—If the War Office were to be made the judge of what liberty of conscience we may exercise, many of us would find ourselves in prison.It is not a very great compliment—though that is not the matter I am criticising—either to my right hon. friend the Secretary of State, or the Home Secretary; to say that they are over-ridden in this way by their officers, but it is an unfair and cowardly attack on these military officers at the War Office. It cowardly for this reason, that it is well known that these officers are unable to make a reply, or to speak for themselves, and the attack is made knowing that these officers are unable to make any reply. But not only that, the statement is absolutely without any foundation of any, kind. I am speaking with the full direction and assent of the Secretary of State when I say that on this matter the fullest accord exists between himself and his military advisers. The whole thing is an invention, and I wish to give it the strongest and most indignant denial that I am capable of giving.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYMy Lords, in every debate that has taken place on this subject I have trespassed on the time of the House. This, I hope, is the last time, and I rejoice in congratulating the noble Viscount on being the spokesman to-night of what, I hope, means a very speedy ending, not in part but in entirety, of what has been a melancholy story—melancholy as regards the conduct of those who have placed themselves by a strange distortion of conscience in this position; melancholy also, I think, because of the difficulty which has been found in handling the problem 166 with, I am afraid, sometimes the result of its being mishandled in no small degree. However, that is over, I hope. And we are assured to-night that all those are now to be released who have done in the aggregate two years' imprisonment, and those who remain will, I suppose, be found in a position where coercion is no longer required. Because that which corresponds to it in military matters will have ceased, and therefore presumably the coercion which falls upon them will have ceased also. I believe that an endeavour has been made throughout to act fairly in this matter, but that it has broken down from the attempt to apply strict principles of logic or law to men to whom neither of those conditions was really applicable.
I venture to add my voice to that of the noble Marquess opposite in the appeal that, so far as possible, those who are still to remain in custody shall remain in conditions rendered as little severe, onerous, and penal as can possibly be arranged. If it should be necessary that men should be still under restraint at a time when, so far as we know, no peril would result to the nation if these men were at large; if it is felt that for some reason a group of them must still remain in custody I cannot believe that the position in which they are now placed is one which involves the necessity of their being subjected to treatment so severe or penal as that which has broken down the spirit and the health of not a few of these misguided men.
To speak of it as though it were a rare and exceptional thing that these men are conscientious is, I am quite sure, to misunderstand the situation. Personally I know a good many of them. I am in touch with the son of a Bishop for whom I had the highest possible respect. He is, I think, misguided in the highest possible degree, but nevertheless earnest, conscientious, and public-spirited from his own point of view, as well as devoted and courageous. There are many such men. I believe they are mainly those who have got themselves into that most incomprehensible of all positions and speak of themselves as absolutists; and therefore, I suppose, they are the very men who will now be set at liberty. I trust that they will only remain a short time, and that the noble Viscount may be able before long to tell us that the whole of this unhappy matter has come to an end. I have no kind of wish to censure those who have had 167 to discharge so difficult a task, and a task of a complexity for which we had no parallel or precedent to guide us. I trust that we have now reached the time when we may be relieved of a task which must have been as unpleasant to the Government as it has been to those of us who have dealt with this subject in this House time after time.
§ LORD PARMOORMay I put one question to the noble Viscount in order to be quite sure? It is a fact, is it not that the conscientious objector who has been in prison for an aggregate of two years will be released at once.
§ VISCOUNT PEELYes; those who have been in for an aggregate of two years in this country are released at once.
§ [From Minutes of April 2.]