ENGLAND-THE CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS

New Zealand Tablet, 24 April 1919, Page 13

ENGLAND-THE CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS

At last the restrictions which prevented a democracy from knowing the facts on matters of vital interest to the life of the nation have been removed, and the details of the terrible story of the conscientious objectors in England, is now available (says Australia). Theoretically the Military Service Acts dealing with the problem of the conscientious objectors seemed liberal enough. They endeavored to meet the case of the objector by arranging for three kinds of objection. The objector might be granted exemption from combatant service only, and was placed in the non-comba-tant corps. A certain section of conscientious objectors were satisfied so long as they themselves were not obliged to take human life. The second form of exemption was conditional on the conscientious objector undertaking some work of national importance. To meet the case of a numerous form of objector who refused to work under any Military Service Act, a third form of objection was provided for by Parliamentviz., total exemption by the genuine objector. . This exemption was granted in about 400 cases, but was refused in about 1000 cases whose claims were just as strong. Men who in the course of their ordinary occupation were doing useful work for the community objected, in obedience to the Act, to displace an agricultural labourer when the object was to send the labourer into the trenches. Many, who did not understand their point of view, denounced these men as cowards and shirkers. The fact was overlooked that they could have had easy conditions in the Home Office work centres. This meant comparatively light work, human society, and liberty, whereas the extreme conscientious objector for his opinions was subjected to solitary confinement—no exercise, no companionship, no bed very often, and little food. The severity of the treatment can be gauged by the fact that under it 32 became insane and 30 died. When the armistice was signed, 1507 were in prison, and are, presumably,"there at the present time, as almost all of them were sentenced to two years’ imprisonment at their latest court martial. In keeping these men in prison, the Government violated the terms of their own Act, which provided complete exemption to genuine objectors. Speaking on behalf of the Government on July 4. 1916, Lord Sandhurst said: “If the conscientious objector will not undertake national work, he will complete his term of civil imprison? ment and then be discharged from the army.” Lord Kitchener and Mr. Walter Long supported this with similar declarations. But, instead of discharging these conscientious objectors from the army when they had completed their sentence, the authorities kept them in the forces, and again and again incarcerated them for long terms. The spirit in which the Act was carried out may be illustrated by the case of Mr. Corder Catchwell, a member of a well-known Quaker family. He went to Flanders a few weeks after the war broke out with the Friends’ Ambulance Unit. After laboring incessantly for eighteen months at the front, he returned to England to take his stand with other conscientious objectors. He was arrested and sentenced to 112 days in gaol. On his release, he was again sentenced to two years’ hard labor. In prison for the first 28 days a prisoner is kept in solitude in separate confinement in his cell, seeing no one except the warder and occasionally the chaplain. For the first fourteen days of the sentence he must sleep without a mattress. After this time, if his conduct is good, he is employed on work in association with others during part of the day, if practicable. In practice, the whole time spent with others, including exercise and chapel, as well as work, does not exceed two hours daily. All conversation with other prisoners is forbidden throughout the whole time of sentence. Prisoners undergoing the hardlabor sentence are not allowed to write or receive a letter or visit until two months of the sentence have elapsed. The position of the conscientious objector in England, bad as it was, was mild compared to those sent to France and forced into the trenches, then courtmartialled for refusing to obey orders and sentenced

to be shot. After being marched to the place of execution and after facing the firing party, these men were reprieved, and their sentence commuted to ten years' imprisonment. The number of cases of this kind is not known at present; the facts will come out in time, but in the light of those, available, one does not wonder that there are Bolsheviks.