HC Deb 26 April 1917 vol 92 cc2601-3W
Mr. JOWETT

asked the Home Secretary whether Arthur Hatfield, a conscientious' objector until recently employed under the Home Office Committee, has been returned to his unit; whether the magistrates at York stated that they could not understand on what ground the man was being treated in the way the evidence disclosed that he had been; whether any charge has been preferred against this man by the Home Office Committee and what is its nature; whether he has had any opportunity of answering the charge; and whether in view of the frequency of arrests of men employed under the Home Office Committee on secret reports made by the agents, he will consider setting up an impartial tribunal which will judge whether any offence has been substantiated against men employed under the Committee?

Mr. BRACE

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Whitehaven on the 23rd instant. The only question before the magistrates was whether the man was an absentee. The question whether Hatfield had failed to carry out the conditions of his release was one for the decision of the Committee on the Employment of Conscientious Objectors, and they fully considered his own account of what occurred before deciding to recommend his recall to the Army. I do not think anything would be gained by setting up another tribunal to discharge one part of the functions of the Committee.

Mr. GLANVILLE

asked the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether he is aware that a number of independent persons are prepared to make an affidavit to the effect that Mr. H. J. Jones, a con- scientious objector to military service now undergoing a term of imprisonment, was told by the clerk to the Camberwell Tribunal that a letter had been addressed to him requesting him to find work of national importance; whether he is aware that it is stated that such letter was never delivered to Mr. Jones; and will he, having regard to the failure of the clerk to the tribunal, take steps to see that Mr. Jones is released from prison and permitted to find work of national importance?

Mr. HAYES FISHER

I have no information on the facts alleged, but the case does not seem one in which I can interfere. As was previously stated the man was offered work under the Home Office scheme and refused it.

Mr. JOHN

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state the reason for the arrest of Solomon Shepherd, a conscientious objector to military service, until recently employed at Llandeusant Home Office Camp, and who performed his work with apparent satisfaction to the responsible officials; and whether he is aware that the agent in charge of the camp expressed himself astonished when Shepherd was arrested?

Mr. BRACE

My hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. Shepherd was arrested because he failed to rejoin his unit on receiving notice to do so. His recall to the Army was recommended by the Committee on the Employment of Conscientious Objectors because his behaviour and work were not satisfactory and because he left work without permission, remaining absent more than a month. There was an interval between his return to work and his arrest, and during that time he showed signs of amendment. If he should again be committed to prison, and applies to be allowed to work under the Committee, his request will be considered.

Mr. KING

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that it is estimated that the cost of every conscientious objector to the country is £5 per week, £2 representing the average maintenance, guards, and administrative charges, and £3 the average economic loss of each man being withdrawn from his usual employment; and that, according to this estimate, the cost of the conscientious objectors to the nation is £750,000 per annum; and whether, in order to conserve the financial resources of the country, a mitigation of the present policy which makes and maintains thousands of conscientious objectors will be considered?

Mr. MACPHERSON

I am not in a position to offer any opinion on the estimates mentioned in the question, which should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. If, as the hon. Member appears to suggest, conscientious objectors were to revert to prison from employment under the Brace Committee, there would be the financial advantage that their labour would cease to be paid.