I speak the language of severity; and I am anxious that you should not think that the language of severity is that of the extremist. I invite you, as the proof of what I say, to read, in the light of cold reason a decade after the close of the war, the history of the tribunals in England which were charged with examining conscientious objectors to military service and on the military authorities to whom some of those objectors were handed over.[19] No one can go through the record without the sense that some of the tribunals deliberately evaded the purposes of the exemption clause; and it is clear that in the administration of punishment for refusal to obey orders, there was wanton cruelty, a deliberate pleasure in the infliction of pain, for which no words can be too strong. Nor is that all. The record shows occasions when Ministers of the Crown, when responding to questions in the House of Commons, used evasions of a kind which showed a complete contempt of truth;[20] and they were supported in their attitude by the majority of the members there. I note, also, at least one occasion when a number of conscientious objectors were taken from England to France for the purpose of execution by the military authorities; and it was only the accident that Professor Gilbert Murray was able to appeal on their behalf to the Prime Minister, which prevented the sentence from being carried out.[21] These are worse than the methods of the Inquisition; for, at least, the members of that tribunal believed that they were rescuing their victims from eternal damnation. Those of whom I speak had no excuse save ignorant prejudice and the blindness of passion.