Pioneer

Bertrand Russell's Fine Defence. CHARGED AS AUTHOR OF "EVERETT I PAMPHLET." GREAT SPEECH FOR FREEDOM OF CON-I SCIENCE. The Hon Bertrand Russell, F.R.S, appeared before the Lord Mayor at the Mansion House. London, on Monday, The case was brought ag- ainst him by the Crown under the Defence of the Realm Act for having written a leaflet set- ting forth the facts relating to the sentence of two years' hard labour passed on a Conscien- tious Objector under the Military Service Act. (The "Everett" pamphlet, for the distribution -of which two Cefn boys. and other pacifists in BritoR Ferry, Neath and elsewhere have been 'committed io -N,eath and (.,Is,?w h ere have been committed to prison.) Mr Bertrand Russell, a grandson of Lord John Russell, is a lecturer on philosophy and mathematics at Trinty College. Cambridge, and is the author of many well known books on philosophy and mathematics. He was Professor ,-of Mathematics at Harvard University, to which lie is returning next year in the same capacity. It will be remembered that after the first pro- secutions for distributing pamphlets Mr Russell wrote to the "Times'' stating that he was the .author of it. The proceedings by the Crown were taken un- der Section 27 of the Defence of the Realm ^Regulations. which states that: No person shall by word of mouth or in writing spread reports or make state- ments or commit any act intended to or likely to prejudice the recruiting, training, discipline, or administration of any of His Majesty's forces, and if any person contra- venes this provision he shall be guilty of an offence against these regulations. MR RUSSELL, in reply to the charge, made 'the following statement in defence of his action: This prosecution raises an issue of very con- -siderable importance, as to the legal limits of political agitation at the present time. We have been assured repeatedly in Parliament that po- litical agitation against Conscription is still le- gally permissible. But if such a leaflet as the one now before the Court is illegal, it will seem to follow that. although we mav still say that i we think Conscription a bad thing, we may not advance any argument whatever in defence of "our opinion If bhis is so, the supposed politi- cal liberty is a farce, since an opinion which? 1anot be defended is obviously rendered 'impotent. The leg"al position, as it appears to the Gov- irumerit, was explained by Mr Herbert Samuel in the House of Commons on June 1 in connec- tion with .a case analogous to the present case, which is still siib judlee. He first repeated a previous answer given by him m the House: — "It is one thing to advocate repeal of the Military Service Act; it is another thing to advocate resistance, to its provisions." (Official" Report, June 1, 1916, p 2996). 'That, he said, was the essential point. If this answer correctly represents the state ■of the law. everything turns on what is to be, considered as advocating resistance to the provision-, of the Military Service Act." Is it "advocating resistance" to state: "I AB, as a conscientious objector, cannot consent to take part in warfare, even if I fail to obtain ex- | emption from the Tribunals"? It is provided by the Act itself that some such statement MUST be made before the Tribunals in order to obtain exemption, and it can hardly be thought illegal for a conscientious objector to announce weforehand that he intends to make such a •statement. Conscientious objection to war was recog"nised in the Act. and it is of the essence of a,conscientious objection that it cannot be obviated by a.ny decision of a Ti-lbupal, The man r who would waive his conscientious objection if the State ordered him to do so is no genuine conscientious objector. The law. in recognising the existence of the conscientious objector, re- cognised implicitly the right to legal relief of a "body of men, whose convictions are such that they cannot conscientiously obey the law if it attempts to force them into participation in the war. It is this very fact which led Par- liament to insert the Conscience Clause. If it is not illegal for a man to assert that he himself will resist if necessary, can it be illegal to state that there are men who will re- sistif they do not obtain exemption ? If so, Mr Herbert Samuel broke the law in the very speech from which-1 am quoting, for he sfeid: I can understand the individual conscien- I tiqus objector saying, as an individual, 'What- ever happens to me, I do not care. I hold certain doctrines, and no human power can ever compel me to form part of a military or- O-artisation. SUCH A MAX CAN BE RESPECTED." Official report, p 2997). But this is the very thing which I said, less tersely and with reference to a particular case, in the leaflet which you are asked to condemn. I said, in effect: "Ernest F. Everitt, an in- divicl ual conscientious objector, said, and pro- ved by his actions, that whatever happened he would not form part of a military organisation. Such a man can be respected." It will be urged that this man had been before the Local and Appeal Tribunals, that they had heard his case, and that he ought to ha vet submitted to their judgment, For this, too, Mr Herbert Samuel provided an answer in. his speech. He said: A man who has a conscientious objection does not need telling Conscience is es- sentially a spontaneous thing A man j wlie felt in his inmost being that it was Ün- possible for him to help the nation in its hour of -need by taking up arms does not need public meetings held to persuade him of that fact." What applies to a public ijoetli-ig applies equal- i. iy to a Tribunal. No man's conscience can be altered by the decision of a Tribunal. Con- science is a spontaneous thing, and conscientious objectors do not need to be b-rougnt before a Tribunal to learn their convictions. All human institutions are liable to error, and a Tribunal may give a decision which is contrary to the conscience of the man in question. What is the man to do in such a case ? Is he to break the law, or is he to violate his conscience There ?ils conscience There is no third course open to him. I agree with Mr Herbert Samuel in holding that a. man who, in these circumstances, decides to break the law, is a man who can be respected. If Mr Sa- muel and I have committed alL illegality in de- claring this opinion, I hope he wi1 issue new re- gulations before he, Cirds tumself 111 the position in which I am to-da.v. The Everett Leaflet has already been the cause of a number of prosecutions in various parts of the country. When I wrote it, I never for a moment supposed that it could be con- Bidered illegal: and I remain .6rmly convinced that no reasonable interpretation will bring it i within the scope of the Defence of the Realm Ac-. But when I found that men were being sent to prison for distributing it, I felt bound to I accept  endeavouT to ob- accept responsibility, and to end eavour to ob- tain what would seem to me a more just de- cisien. I am charged with "making statements like- ly to prejudice recruiting and discipline." I submit that no evidence has been adduced, or can be adduced, to support this charge. With the exception of the last paragraph, the leaflet was written by me, and consists of a bald narrative of facts, followed by a short pa- ragraph pointing out that Everett's punishment is the effect of a bad law, and an example of persecution on account of conscience. Experi- ence has shown that the authorities object to statements of fact as well as to comments upon them; and it is not to be assumed that thelY dislike of this leaflet is wholly due to disagree- ment with the paragraph of criticism. The Press Bureau, relying on the same section (27) under which I am prosecuted, has forbidden the circulation, to M.P.'s only, of a bald catalogue of illegalities committed bv the Tribunals. Ac- cordingly, if the official in terpreta tion of this section remains unchallenged, it has now be- come illegal for M.P.'s to be informed of the relevant facts by which their attitude on cur- rent legislative questions ought to be decided: Parliamentary Reports, June 1; p 3008: Mr Snowden said: — Application was made to the Press Bur- eau two or three weeks ago to permit the publication of a summary of cases which had been before the Tribunal, in which the deci- sion of the Tribunals had not been in ac- cordance either with the law or with the in- structions and regulations. It was a perfectly bald statement from beginning to end. There was not one word of comment. It simply gave a list of the Tribunals which had not acted in accordance with the. law or the regulations The printer, without the knowledge of those who published the leaflet, sent it to the Press Bureau. The Press Bureau sent back word that it could not be published. A further ap- plication was made the Press Bureau was asked if they would permit the circulation of the records among Members of Parliament, and it wrote back that that would not be per mitted because it would not be a private cir- culation of the pamphlet under Regulation 27 of the Defence of the Realm Act. It would be the record of these cases and, therefore, would be illegal. I must say that I was so astounded when these letters were put int.(1 my hands that I at once came to the con- clusion that it was some office boy in the Press Bureau who had this matter in hand, and I could not for a single moment believe that the Home Secretary would approve of it when his attention was called to the matter. On the 18th May I asked the Home Secretary If the Press Bureau has prohibited the publication of a record of decisions of the Tribunals under the Military Service Act, 1916, which are not in accord with the law and the instructions, and if they have fur- ther prohibited any record being published for the information of Members of Parliament, stating that such a record would be a criticism of Tribunals likely to cause disaffection.' The Home Secretary said: The Press Bureau, in the exercisGl of their- discretion, considered that the effect of the pamphlet would not be merelv to draw at- tention to alleged defects in the administra- tion of the Military Service Act, but to sti- mulate resistance to its operations, since it fell within. Regulation 27, and its circulation in any form sould not oe sanctioned. If we may judge by the practice of the au- thorities, they wish the punishments of con- scientious objectors to be known as widely as possible in the Army, and as little as possible, in the civilian population. The purpose of the Everett Leaflet was to spread knowledge in the civilian population. I suggest that what the Government fears from this leaflet, and others like it, is not any effect upon recruiting or dis- cipline, but the growth of sympathy, tn the general public, for those whose consciences in any case forbid them to submit to discipline. It is not the effect within the Army, but the effect outside it, that the Government wishes to prevent; it is, in fact, the political effect. But' the attempt to produce a political effect is not in itself illogical; it is therefore necessary for the prosecution to imag ine an effect upon recruiting and discipline, for which there is no evidence, and which is contrary to the prob- abilities of the case. At the time when this leaflet was issued, sin- gle men were subject to Conscription. Any supposed injury to recruiting, due to this leaf- let. can only have been among the married men. There has been no evidence to show that even one married man, who had intended to enlist, was turned aside by this leaflet. And I fail to see how any unprejudiced person can suppose that such an effect was likely. Conscription for married men has been imminent ever since the leaflet was issued. A married man who intends enlisting is. "ex hypothesi/' not a conscientious objector. The leaflet informs him that, if he attempts to escape military service by posing, as a conscientious objector, he is liable to be pun- ished by two years hard labour. How can this information encourage him to. pose as a consci- eiijious objector? Certainly such a result was no part of the intention with which the leaflet was written. Is it suggested that recruiting is prejudiced by the knowledge that the Army is an institution m which such sentences are in- flicted F Is it thought that the knowledge of what conscientious objectors have to suffer will turn men into conscientious objectors who would otherwise have been willing to fight? If this is what is thought, I suggest that the res- ponsibility lies with those who inflict those sen- tences, not with those who make them known. The remedy lies in the hands of the authorit- ies instead of uselessly prosecuting those who relate what sentences have been inflicted, let them cease from inflicting such sentences. Then the ill effect upon recruiting, which is supposed to be caused by knowledge of the sentences, if it has really occurred (which I cannot believe) will automatically come to an end. But no doubt the charge of prejudicing re- cruiting is not intended seriously, unless it is supposed that the sentence, u Will you join the persecutors is intended to mean, "Will you join the Army?" I do not see how any reader can nttnbute this meaning to it. It is'-not the Army who are the persecutors, except in so far as they exceed or stretch their legal powers. The military authorities are merely fulfilling duties imposed upon them by the Government: they cannot help themselves and are only in- struments in carryying out the will of others. The persecutors are the Government and their supporters, the Tribunals which have given unjust and wise decisions, the newspapers which have refused to admit the sincerity of the con- scientious objector, or to state the facts about the penalties they have incurred, and the whole of that large section of the public which has allowed hatred and contempt to bind it to the obvious claims of justice, humanity, and the rights of conscience. "Will you join the persecu- tors" means "Will you belong to this section of the public? Will you make it easy for the Gov- ernment to defeat the intentions of Parliament as embodied in the conscience clause? Or will I you try to remedy an evil against which Par- liament thought it had provided." All this has not the remotest connection with the question of recruiting. I come now to the question whether the leaf- let is likely to prejudice discipline. The purpose of the leaflet is to make known that a man is liable to two years' hard labour for infringing discipline. Does this knowledge encourage a man in resisting discipline Surely such a contention is preposterous. If the autho- rities really believe that indiscipline is promoted by being known to be punished, why do they punish it? Why do they take care that the other soldiers shall know of the punishment ? If they are rig' t in believing that this leaflet is prejudicial to discipline, they must have have been wrong in inflicting such a sentence upon Everett. If they were right in inflicting the sentence, they must be wrong in saying that -xvron, in saying that the leaflet is prejudicial to discipline by mak- ing the sentence known. Does the Government believe that conscientious objectors are stimu- lated to resistance by the knowledge of what their comrades have to suffer ? If so, it must be convinced of the sincerity of their objection, since "such a motive could not be attributed to a shirker. And if it is convinced of their sin- cevit3,' it ought at once to set to work to re- cerityt, he failure of the Tribunals to carry out pair the intentions of the Act. It is true that the leaflet does not confine it- self to making the sentence known; it also criticises it. It may be said that discipline is endangered by the phrase, 'Everett is now suffering this savage punishment solely for refusal to go against his conscience." Is this phrase illegal? Is all criticism of a court mar- tial sentence illegal? Every time, that a woman is condemned to be hanged for murder, an agitation is set on foot to have her sentence commuted this is certainly legal. Are military judgments in a different position? Suppose some of the conscience objectors now in .France are shot, as they legally liable to be: everyone knows that there will be a storm of protest, from Bishops, leading Nonconformists, Members of Parliament and innumerable eminent per- sons. Will those who protest be committing any illegality? Will the Government proceed ag- ainst them under the Defence of the Realm Act? Will the mere mention of the fact be illegal? Must we submit in s-ilenc, whatever de- gree of rigour the military authorities may ad- opt in repression, and however repugnant their sentences may be to the moral senle of the community? Yet Mr Bodkin recently assured this Court, in all solemnity, that militarism in the sinister sense is still unknown in Britain. There was a time when we boasted that Britain was a free country. That time is past; free- dom now has few friends among us, and those few can only proclaim their love of freedom at the risk of being declared criminals. The belief that Everett's sentence was exces- ive is not confined to the author of the leaflet: it is shared by the authorities. Soon after the leaflet began to be distributed, the sentence wais commuted to 112 days' detention. (The leaflet began to be dstributed on April 20; on May 1 Mr Tennant informed us of the fact that Ev- erett's sentence was commuted.) In view of this fact we must suppose that the authorities felt their action to be indefensible. Is it too much to suggest that their perception, of this fact was quickened by the distribution of the leaflet? A number of conscisntidtts objectors, concern- ing- whom, so far, no leaflet has been issued, have since been sentenced to two years for the same offence as EA^eritt's. Some of the sentences have been commuted, ma,ny up to the present have not. But I shall be told that it is illegal to call attention to this inconsistency. The fact that Everett's sentence was com- muted soon after this leaflet was issued des- troys whatever ground the prosecution may have had for objecting to criticism of the pun- ishment. If tjbe punishment did not deserve criticism, why was it commuted? If it did not deserve criticism, with what face can the pro- secution object to that criticism being uttered? It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the authorities dislike the leaflet on account of its effect in enlisting the sympathy of civilians, to whom it is obviously addressed. But an attempt to gain civilian sympathy for the conscientious objector is not illegal. The section of the Defence of the Realm Regulations under which the prosecution is be- ing conducted is Section 27. This section has been amended quite recently, but on May 5, which is the date upon which I am charged with making the statements complained of, the rele- vant portion of this section was as follows: — "N 0 persons shall spread reports or make statements or commit any act intended to or likely to prejudice the recruiting, train- ing, discipline, or administration of any of i His Majesty's Forces." The intention of the leaflet was not in any way concerned with the recruiting, training, discipline, or administration of His Majesty's Forces. The intention was to arous public sym- pathy for what J regard as a piece of legalised j persecution, and to secure, through public sym- pathy, a change in the law which renders per- secution possible, or-, as a preliminary, some new administrative machinery for dealing with the conscientious objectors who had failed to obtain from the Tribunals the kind of exemp- tion which their consciences required. In -tlleg,e, objects, the agitation of which the leaflet forms part is achieving a very marked degree of suaw cess. But these objects, though they may be disliked, are., most certainly not illegal. The broader intention of the leaflet, as of the No-Conscription' Fellowship, is to secure the rights of conscience. There are some men in the community who will not fight, not from, any self-regarding motive, but because they consider it wrong to fight. We wish to secure recognition of the fact. that such men cannot be forced to fight, that the attempt to force them is useless from the point of view of ob- taining soldiers, and that the State ought to recognise their right to their principlets, quite independently of any question as to whether those principles arc right or wrong. In other matters, this is acknowledged. We do, not try to force Jews to ea.t pork, though we may con- sider their objection to pork irrational. If Parliament were to impose a new set of beliefs upon the Church of England, as it did repeated- ly during the Reformation, we should recognise the right of the clergy to refuse to obey the law. „Tbe recognition of liberty in various di- rec, as always come only after a struggle. The ,^v., ,610 to secure liberty for those who think ii>,«rong to fight is now at its height. All who know the history of human freedom can recognise in. this contest all the, familiar feat- ures of the old struggles for liberty by which intolerance has been defeated in the past. The charge that we are prejudicing discipline in the Army rests upon the assumption that, if we did not express our sympathy with the conscientious objectors, they would yield to pressure, and suffer the moral degradation of performing work which they believe to roe wic- ked. But this is a complete misapprehension. The resistance of the conscientious obj'ectr is not manufactured by those who champion their right to resist. Whether we stood by them l or not, they would resist with equal determina? tion. I can well believe that injury to discrp-I line results from their resistance; but the I responsibility for this injury rests, not on those who merely tell the civilian world what is hap- pening, but on those who, against tie express desire of Parliament, have forced these men into the Army. The way to prevent injury to discipline is to restore those men to civil life, not to conceal what they are doing from all except the soldiers. It is no part of the intention of the No-Con- scription Fellowship to dissuade men from fighting when they have no principle against it. For my part, I hold that a man ought to be in the war unless he has a sincere conviction that it would be wrong for him to take part. Many of nay friends are fighting: I respect their con- science, and they respect mine. What we ask, and what I was aiming at facilitating by the leaflet, is that respect for the genuine conscien- tious objector which the community ought to give for its own sake, in order not to sin ag- aints the principle of liberty. We wish it known I that men who are profoundly convinced of the immorality of fighting are suffering persecution. We wish this known, not so much on their ac- count, since to suffer in a, neble cause is a privi- geand a happiness, but for the sake of the nation, because liberty has been hitherto the most precious of our national possessions. The Conscience Clause was intended to safe- guard liberty, but the. intention was created by the Tribunals and by the creation of the Non- Combatant Corps. The creation of the Non- Combatant Corps, where men perform such mi- litary duties as do not involve being under fire, was an insult to the conscientious objectors: it implied that what they objected to was not military service, but only DAWGEROUS military service. Can anything be imagined move calcu- lated to stimulate resistance in a man whose objection to war is genuine? Everett. in trlb Non-Combatant Corps, found himself in a situ- ation where shirkers were safe, but real con- scientious objectors were persecuted. The Trib- unals had recognised his genuineness by not de- manding combatant service and had at the same time demanded of him a service which differs from actual fighting only in being safe. The Local Tribunal, in its official report to the Appeal Tribunal, stated that Everett thinks only of saving his own skin." Nothing but a rooted conviction that all conscientious object- ors are really shirking could have led the au- thorities to suppose that such service as is de- manded of the Non-Combatant Corps could hon- estly be performed by a man whose conscience does not allow him to take part in war. The evils of the present situation have re- sulted quite as much from muddle and misun- derstandings as from deliberate malevolence. The LORD MAYOR (interrupting) said "That the discussion of the Non-Combatant Corps was irrelevant to the issue of whether or not the leaflet was prejudicial to recruiting Mid discipline." MR RUSSELL I submit that this is a very relevant point, as the public have not under- stood the objections of the conscientious objec- tor to. performing these duties, and it is neces- sary to explain these circumstances. The LORD MAYOR: I think you must fo- cuss your attention on the point whether the leaflet is likely or not to prejudice recruiting or discipline. You have got on to that point sev- eral times, and drifted awav again. MR RUSSELL I think the prosecution did go into the question of the nature of the Non- Combatant Corps and it duties. MR BODKIN: I only went into it in so far as I read the Act of Parliament that a. man may be exempted on the ground of conscientious ob- jection, but it is not relieved from the duties of non-combatant service. MR RUSSELL: Well, I am sorry if this is so, I pass on to other points. I wish to say that what I think is likely to result—so far from being an injury—is likely to be a, great gain, because it is likely that the keeping of men who refuse to submit themselves to such discipline is a source of possible indiscipline, and nothing can be conceived more likely to prom- ote resistance to orders than the spectacle of such men being put into the Clamp and deliber- ately refusing to obey the orders of the Com- manding Officer. I maintain that if we are to secure discipline it is very necessary that you should weed out— should not keep such men as a constant incite- ment to resistance, but you should, in fact, have the Army composed of willing men, as you cannot maintain discipline in a body of unwill- ing men, and I wish to illustrate the extreme uselessness of the persecution, Part of the in- tention of the leaflet was to illustrate-this. Everett has not been turned into a soldier; and in the opinion of the prosecution, knowledge of his fate is likely to induce others not to be- become soldiers. It is clear, and .is now being recognised by Cabinet Ministers and by Parlia- rmmt, that you must find a system whereby these men who are a source of disaffection may be restored to civil life. The treatment at pre- sent neither turns the conscientious objectors into fighting men-nor preserves in the minds of the public that contempt for conscientious objectors upon, which the Government relies in its treatment of them. I would say that we owe the prosecution, a great debt of gratitude. A pacifist, in any attempt which he may make to influence public opinion, is faced with the difficulty that the most obvious result of his beliefs is avoidance of a painful and dangerous duty which others consider, imperative. His conduct, to a hostile eye, resembles the con- duct of a shirker. To a brave man, filled with the desire of social service, this situation is hard to bear.; many, to my certain knowledge, Ivave found it so hard to bear, that they are fighting now, although their judgment is with the conscientious objector. The only way of escape from this situation was through some painful service which the consicentifcus objector could cofiscienseiously perform. Endurance of persecution is a service exactly of this kind. No more perfect device for affording an opportun- ity to the conscientious objector ccuicl have been invented than the creation of the Non- Combatant Corps, where a man is not exposed to danger but is asked -to perform work repug- nant to the conscience of every thoughtful con- scientious objector. The Government provided men like Everett with the ideal opportunity for PROVING that their convictions were genuine and had nothing to do with fear. The persecu- tion which these men have endured—often a worse persecution than that of Everett has enormously increased their moral weight. It illustrates the invincible power of that better way of passive resistance, which pacifists be- lieve to be stronger tha.n all the armies and navies of the world. Men inspired by faith and freed from the dominion of fear are unconquer- able. Over and over again in the world's his- tory this has been proved. The authorities had forgotten it, but it is being proved afresh be- fore their astonished eyes. I would say, my Lord, that whether I pers- onally am acquitted or convicted, matters lit- tle but it is not only I that am in the dock, it is the whole tradition of liberty which our ancestors built up through centuries of struggle and sacrifice. Other nations may surpass us in other respects but the tradition of liberty has been the supreme good that we in this country have preserved more than anything else1, ana for that liberty of the individual I stand. Under the stress of fear the Authorities have some- what forgotten that English tradition. To me the fear seems unworthy, and I think the effect will be disastrous if it does not cease. The LORD MAYOR here interposed and said I have allowed you a. great deal of latit- ude because you are inexpert; but I think I must tell you that you are now making what is a political speech. MR RUSSELL: I would say then that you cannot defeat such men by these means. The only way in which discipline can be preserved is to let"t h eiii go, is to let them go, and no form of persecution is powerful enough to avail against their testi- mony. JUDGMENT. The LORD MAYOR said: I have given the fullest consideration to Mr Russell's arguments, out he has failed to convince ,m.e. I fine him BiOD and £ 10 costs or 61-days' imprisonmnent, and 8 days in which to pay the penalty.