Mr. E. HARVEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can now state the result of his inquiries into the allegations that at Chelmsford Barracks Mr. Harold Reuthe, a conscientious objector to military service, was struck, knocked down, kicked, and otherwise maltreated; and whether he can also state whether any general measures are being taken by the War Office to prevent this method of treatment of men who, by Act of Parliament, are deemed to be enlisted?
§ Mr. TENNANTYes, Sir, I have now received a report. Harold Reuthe was not cuffed, kicked, or punched. There are no dark cells at this detention barrack. The man has made no complaint at any time of ill-treatment, and is behaving well and doing his drills, etc., in a satisfactory manner. He made no complaints to his sister at her visit. I will read to the House a letter written by Reuthe to the Commandant at Chelmsford:
"Sir,—I respectfully beg to state that there must have been some little misunderstanding between the conversation between my sister and myself. Beyond the inconveniences and natural irksomeness of confinement, I am well and as happy as can be under the circumstances.
I am, Sir,
Your obedient servant.
(Signed) HAROLD REUTHK."
The allegations made in this case are so far from being true that I think my hon. Friend would have been wise to have hesitated before basing on them such a generalisation as is contained in the last part of the question.
§ Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) whether, in view of the fact that there is evidence to show that the military authorities in many instances are testing the bona fides of the conscientious objector by subjecting "him to physical violence, he will take steps either to prohibit this procedure or to promote legislation to provide a scale of punishments to test conscientious objection and so secure uniformity of treatment; and (2) whether his attention has been called to the fact that some officers appear to consider that they are entitled to test the bona fides of a conscientious objector by subjecting him to treatment of the nature of torture; and can he say whether any steps have been taken to correct this impression?
545W
§ Mr. TENNANTThebona or the mala fides of an insubordinate soldier does not concern the officer whose duty it may be to punish him under the Army Act or "Rules for Detention Barracks and Military Prisons." The latter part of the question, therefore, does not arise.
§ Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Under-Sec-retary of State for War whether, when the parents, wife, or near relative of a conscientious objector has reason to believe that he has been subjected to physical violence, he will permit an examination of the man to be made by a doctor instructed by the person so informed in order that the truth as to grave allegations of ill-treatment may be established?
§ Mr. TENNANTNo, Sir. Such an examination cannot be permitted a soldier possesses a statutory remedy under Section 43 of the Army Act for bringing to light any grievance under which he deems himself to be suffering.
Mr. E. HARVEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, when telegraphing to France to inquire as to the position of the Non-Combatant Corps there, he also has inquired as to the position of those members of the corps who have been sent from detention to England while still refusing to obey military orders; how many of these men are still in detention in France; how many have been court-martialled; and what sentences have been passed upon them?
§ Mr. TENNANTNo, Sir, my inquiry was limited to the proportion of men who were unavailable for duty by reason of their refusal to undertake any duties or to obey any military order. The answer is 6.1 per cent.