§ Sir GEORGE RADFORDasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can supply any information concerning F. Badman, of Paulton, near Bristol, a conscientious objector to military service who was sentenced at Taunton to 365 days' imprisonment, subsequently commuted to 112 days; whether he is still in this country; and whether he is suffering from the effects of his incarceration?
§ Mr. FORSTERIf my hon. Friend will furnish me with the name of Badman's regiment and his regimental number, I will have inquiries made.
§ Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Charles Dukes, the organising secretary for Lancashire of the General Labourers' Union, was called upon by the military officer at Warrington to report himself at 8 a.m. on Friday, 18th August, and that he was arrested under a warrant by the police at 9 a.m. the same morning; if he is aware that the warrant was prepared and all the arrangements made to arrest Mr. Dukes before the expiration of the time for reporting himself, which action on the part of the recruiting officer is in harmony with his actions for the past six months against Mr. Dukes; and, seeing that Mr. Dukes was one of the trade union officials for whose exemption the General Labourers' Union applied on the grounds of his indispensability along with some eight others, all of whom with the exception of Mr. Dukes have been given exemption on that ground, and seeing that the military representative at the tribunals has repeatedly said that he opposed exemption for Mr. Dukes because of his views upon the War, he will take action to stop this personal 2686W treatment of Mr. Dukes and order his release for his trade union and public work?
§ Mr. FORSTERCharles Dukes has had every latitude shown to him. I am informed that his employer's application was dismissed by the local tribunal on the 28th April. An appeal was lodged and was dismissed on the 6th May. An application for rehearing was made; leave was given, and the case was reheard and was again dismissed. Another application made to a different tribunal, and therefore irregular, was withdrawn, but leave was given to apply to the Manchester local tribunal on the ground of conscientious objection. This was dismissed on the 20th July. An appeal was lodged and heard and dismissed by the Appeal Tribunal on the 8th August. In addition, various applications were made to the War Office and the Local Government Board with respect to this man and received careful consideration; but it was decided that as the case had been fully investigated and dealt with by the various tribunals to which applications had been made, the decision of the tribunal ought not to be interfered with. I am not aware of the circumstances mentioned in the earlier part of the question, but as the last application to a tribunal was dismissed on the 8th August, Dukes could properly have been required to report for service before the 18th August. No further steps can be taken by the War Office.
§ Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the number of conscientious objectors at one camp, namely, Valley Camp, Newhaven, was, in the second week of August, over 250, and that no case of drunkenness, bad language, or other improper conduct had occurred against the Non-Combatant Company there for over six weeks and whether, in view of the exemplary conduct of so many conscientious objectors, he will give orders that the Non-Combatant Corps of this camp shall be granted leave of absence?
§ Mr. FORSTERI am not aware that any restrictions in regard to leave have been placed upon the Non-Combatant Corps. If the hon. Member has information to this effect I shall be happy to make inquiry.
§ Mr. JOWETTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that Mr. C. H. Norman, a conscientious objector, was informed by the 2687W Marquess of Salisbury, a member of the Central Tribunal, that had Mr. Norman applied for exemption he would have got complete exemption under the first Military Service Act; and whether he will consider restoring the power originally possessed by the Central Tribunal to allocate to work of national importance and to give total exemption?
§ Mr. LONGI do not receive reports of the proceedings in connection with the casee of conscientious objectors who have been imprisoned. I do not see any reason for my intervention in the matter to which the hon. Member refers.
§ Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will have a full inquiry made into the action of the Sherborne Local Tribunal who, about two months ago, granted exemption to James Bell on condition that he obtained ambulance work or similar work, when Bell secured a post as orderly in the Bath military hospital, but, on appearing before the local tribunal for its sanction to this post, it was refused on the ground that the wages of 14s. a week and board were too low, the tribunal then varying the condition of the exemption to work of national importance under the Pelham Committee, but when at the end of a fortnight Bell had not obtained such employment the tribunal dismissed his case and refused an appeal to the county tribunal on the ground that his application was too late; and, in the circumstances, will he order the local tribunal to accept the notice of appeal to the county tribunal?