" I am making this statement as an act of wilful defiance of military authority, because I believe the war is being deliberately prolonged by those who have the power to end it. I am a soldier, convinced that I am acting on behalf of soldiers. I believe that this war, upon which I entered as a war of defence and liberation, has now become a war of aggression and conquest. I believe the purposes for which I and my fellow-soldiers entered upon this war should have been so clearly stated as to have made it impossible to change them, and that, had this been done, the objects which actuated us would now be attainable by negotiation.
I have seen and endured the suffering of the troops, and I can no longer be a party to prolong these sufferings for ends which I believe to be evil and unjust.
I am not protesting against the conduct of the war, but against the political errors and insincerities for which the fighting men are being sacrificed.
On behalf of those who are suffering now I make this protest against the deception which is being practised on them; also I believe that I may help to destroy the callous complacency with which the majority of those at home regard the continuance of sufferings which they do not share, and which they have not sufficient imagination to realize."
The Declaration appears in Sassoon's diary for June 15, 1917, after he had been at home some time recovering from a wound. He sent a copy of it to his Commanding Officer on 6 July, and it was read out in the House of Commons on 30th July by H B Lees-Smith, Liberal MP for Northampton.
"...[This young officer] was sent to a hospital for officers suffering from shellshock and other minor ailments [!]. I read that letter [the Declaration] because I think, however profoundly hon. Members may disagree from it, that it shows no sign whatsoever of having been written by a man suffering from any kind of nervous shock. This young officer is known to Members of this House. I myself had a long interview with him only a few weeks ago, and he certainly impressed me as a man of most unusual mental power and most extraordinary determination of character. The fact is, that the decision of the medical board was not based upon health, but based upon very easily understood reasons of policy. It was quite clear that it was the easiest way to avoid publicity. I think it was also based upon reasons of personal kindliness. This was a very popular and distinguished young officer, and the medical board was only too ready to believe that this letter could only be written by someone suffering from nervous shock. But the evidence is the letter, and I really do not think any impartial person would say that that letter is any evidence at all. As a matter of fact, this officer had been in this country for three months, and it had never occurred to a soul that he was showing evidence of nervous shock until he wrote the letter....That is why it is necessary in this House to prevent the action of this young officer being stifled and discredited by the absurd doctrine that it has been due to the effects of nervous shock."
...
Mr MacPherson (Under-Secretary of State for War) in reply quoted a telegram to the effect that Sassoon had been Boarded and found to be suffering from shellshock and continued "The proper reason [he was sent to Craiglockhart War Hospital] is that which is given in this telegram, that the military authorities saw at once that there must be something very wrong in the case of such an extremely gallant young officer who had done excellent work, and who had shown...that he was no mean soldier....Here is a gallant young officer who has done his best at the front, and done nobly, and, like so many others, he has received a nervous shock; he comes home, and in a state of very great nervous agitation he writes this letter...therefore I ask my hon. Friend [Lees-Smith] and those associated with him who have made use of this letter to hesitate long before they make further use of it."
(from Hansard for 30 July, 1917, at 1797-1806)
The exchanges between Lees-Smith, who was against conscription and against the war generally, and MacPherson and other pro-war MPs make very interesting reading in Hansard; particularly as Lees-Smith constantly argued that the jingoistic attitude of the government and the people would make another war with Germany inevitable - the debates on this point, with the benefit of hindsight, are fascinating.