fighting spirit: conscription and conscientious objectors between 1916 - 1918
DESCRIPTION
Extract: The Military Service Act 1916 (hereinafter the 1916 Act) established conscription for the first time in British history. Conscription is the “compulsory enrollment for service in a country’s armed forces”. The 1916 Act, passed during WWI , was the first of only two periods in British history where conscription has been in force, the other was during WWII. This essay will discuss the political, social and media attitudes towards conscription during WWI and the treatment of conscientious objectors (COs) in the community and whilst in detention.TRANSCRIPT
LW3HEL: History of English Law
Fighting Spirit: Conscription and Conscientious Objectors between 1916 - 1918
James Beechinor
Assessed Work Number: 3123
ContentsList of Abbreviations ii
Bibliography iv
Primary Sources iv
Statutes iv
Case Law iv
Hansard iv
Government Publications iv
Private Papers Sourced from the Imperial War Museum London, (IWM), Archives iv
Audio Records Sourced from the Imperial War Museum London, (IWM), Archives v
Pamphlets v
Cabinet Papers v
Newspaper Articles v
Secondary Sources vi
Books vi
Journals vii
Electronic Resources ix
Fighting Spirit: Conscription and Conscientious Objectors between 1914 - 1918 1
Politics: Tough Decisions 1
Tribunals: A Guilty Conscience 3
Press: not all publicity is good publicity 4
Public Attitudes: shirker, traitor or coward? 5
Business perception: You’re fired! 6
Detention: Objectors in prison 7
Conscription: An effective means to an end? 9
The Military Service Act 1916: Worth it? 10
i
List of Abbreviations
† See Bibliography
1916 Act Military Service Act (1916)
c./cc. Column/ Columns
Co. Company
CO/ COs Conscientious Objector/ Conscientious Objectors
Col. Colonel
Doc. Document
Dubitante Doubting
Ex Parte With respect to, or in the interests of, an interested outside party.
FAU Friends’ Ambulance Unit
Fn. Footnote
HC House of Commons
HL House of Lords
HMG Her/ His Majesties Government
Ibid. ibidem, the same place
IWM Imperial War Museum
J. Justice
Jr. Junior
L.J. Lord Justice
Lt. Lieutenant
NCF No-Conscription Fellowship
No. Number
p./pp. Page/ Pages
ii LW3HEL Assessed Work No: 3123
PPU Peace Pledge Union
R Regina/ Rex
SoF Society of Friends
Supra. Mentioned earlier
v. Versus
Vol. Volume
UDC Union of Democratic Control
WWI World War Two
WWII World War One
iii LW3HEL Assessed Work No: 3123
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Statutes
Law Revision Act (1927)
Military Service Act (1916)
National Service (Armed Forces) Act (1939)
Case Law
R v Central Tribunal, ex Parte Parton 86 L.J.K.B. 799; 32 T.L.R 476 *Thought to be from 1917.
R v Lyons [2012] 1 Cr. App. R. 20
Hansard
Parliamentary Debates (Commons) 5th Series: Vol. 71, 1915 14th Apr. - 19th May, c.2414
Parliamentary Debates (Commons) 5th Series, Vol. 74, 1915, 14th Sept. - 21st Oct., c.213
Parliamentary Debates (Commons) 5th Series, Vol. 77, 1916, 5th Jan., col.933-998
Parliamentary Debates (Commons) 5th Series, Vol. 78, 1916, 17th Jan. - 27th Jan. col.1029-1033
Parliamentary Debates (Lords) 5th Series, Vol. 20, 1916, Jan. 26th, c.1047
Parliamentary Debates (Commons) 5th Series, Vol. 81, 22nd Mar., 1916, c.270
Government Publications
Personnel, Legal, Administrative and General Orders 0801 (PLAGO 0801)
Private Papers Sourced from the Imperial War Museum London, (IWM), Archives
Private Papers: Clinch J.A., Document 477
Private Papers: Collins, S.W., Document 17114
iv LW3HEL Assessed Work No: 3123
Private Papers: Hoare J.E. Documents 7644
Private Papers: Lawson, H.B., Document 16253
Private Papers: Millward, H., Document 7032
Private Papers: Rinder, O., Document 8300
Private Papers: Thomas, N. A., Document 2616
Private Papers: Visick, T.H., Document 4641
Audio Records Sourced from the Imperial War Museum London, (IWM), Archives
IWM London Interview: Manthorpe, W.F., Catalogue number: 659
IWM London Interview: Smith, A.J., Catalogue number: 9433
Pamphlets
Bristol Selected Pamphlets, Field Officer, 1886, Our Military Weakness: Compulsory Service: A Scheme of Limited Conscription
Bristol Selected Pamphlets, Saunders, E.A., 1875, Recruiting Without Conscription
Cabinet Papers
British Government: Henderson. A., (Memorandum), Printed for the Committee of Imperial Defence 1917, “War Policy, Report and Supplementary Memoranda of a Cabinet Committee, Report of the Committee, Supplementary Memorandum by four Members”. pp.156-172Catalogue Reference: CAB/24/1 (National Archives)
British Government: The War Cabinet, Report for the Year 1918Catalogue Reference: CAB/24/86 (National Archives)
Newspaper Articles
News Sheet, H.O Camps. H.O Work Centres, No.10, Issued by Central News Bureaux. Extraordinary Treatment of Conscientious Objectors at Cleethorpes Camp, from which 5 C.O.s were recently sent to France. Private Papers: Clinch J.A., Doc. 477, (IWM London)
News Sheet, H.O Camps. H.O Work Centres, No.13, Issued by Central News Bureaux.
v LW3HEL Assessed Work No: 3123
Private Papers: Clinch J.A., Doc. 477, (IWM London)
Secondary Sources
Books
Adams, R.J.Q. & Poirier P.P., 1987, The Conscription Controversy in Great Britain, 1900 - 18, Macmillan
Barnett, C., 1970, Britain and Her Army 1509-1970: A Military, Political and Social Survey, Diane Publishing Co.
Catchpool, C., 1940, On Two Fronts: Letters of a Conscientious Objector, Allen & Unwin[Copy number: 83 / 2503 (IWM London)]
Cole, C.G., 1936, The objectors to conscription and war a record of their sacrifice, their letters and Tribunal appeals their testimony for liberty of conscience, Workers’ Northern Publishing Society[Copy Number: 88 / 403 (IWM London)]
Goodall, F., 1997, A Question of Conscience, Sutton Publishing
Griffin, N., 2001, The Selected Letters of Bertrand Russell, The Public Years, 1914-1970, Routledge
Hawtin, W.G., 1917, The Law and Practice of Military Conscription under the Military Service Acts, London, Harrison & Sons
Russell, B.A.W., 1968, The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell 1914-1944, Vol.I, Allen & Unwin
Russell, F., 1923, My Life and Adventures, Cassell & Co.
Snowden, P., 1916, The Military Service Act Fully and Clearly Explained, National Labour Press[Copy Number: 80 / 463 (IWM London)]
Taylor, A.J.P., 1976, Essays in English History, (“Politics in the First World War”), Penguin Books
Vellacott, J., 1980, Bertrand Russell and the Pacifists in the First World War, The Harvester Press
vi LW3HEL Assessed Work No: 3123
Journals
Bobrakov, Y., 1966, War Propaganda: A Serious Crime Against Humanity, 31 Law & Contemporary Problems p.473
Cain, E.R., 1970, Conscientious Objection in France, Britain, and the United States, Comparative Politics, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp.275 - 307
Cohen, C., 1968, Conscientious Objection, Ethics, Vol. 78, No. 4, pp.269 - 279
Collins, T., 2002, English Rugby Union and the First World War, The Historical Journal, Vol. 45, No. 4, pp.797 - 817
Dewey, P.E., 1984, Military Recruiting and the British Labour Force During the First World War, The Historical Journal, Vol, 27, No. 1, pp.199 - 223
Douglas, R., 1970, Voluntary Enlistment in the First World War and the Work of the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee, The Journal of Modern history, Vol. 42, No.4 pp.564 - 585.
Eller, C., 1990, Oral History as Moral Discourse: Conscientious Objectors and the Second World War, The Oral History Review, Vol. 81, No. 1, (Spring), pp.45 - 75
Greenwalt, K., 1971, All or Nothing at All: The Defeat of Selective Conscientious Objection, The Supreme Court Review, Vol. 1971, pp.31 - 94
Gullace, N.F., 1997, Sexual Violence and Family Honour: British Propaganda and International Law During the First World War, The American Historical Review, Vol. 102, No. 3, pp.714 - 747
Harding, C., 1988, The Inevitable End of a Discredited System? The Origins of the Gladstone Committee Report on Prisons, 1895, The Historical Journal, Vol. 31, No. 3, Sept, pp.591 - 608
Heisler, F., 1953, The Law Versus the Conscientious Objector, The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 20, No. 3, (Spring), pp.441 - 460
Jefferson, C.E., 1917, Ethical Aspects of Conscription and the War, The Advocate of Peace (1894 - 1920), Vol. 79, No. 8, pp.239 - 241
Johnson, M., 2008, The Liberal War Committee and the Liberal Advocacy of Conscription in Britain 1914-16, The Historical Journal, 51, 2, pp.399 - 420.
Kennedy, T.C., 1973, Public Opinion and the Conscientious Objector, 1915-1919, Journal of British Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp.105 - 119
Koss, S.E., 1968, The Destruction of Britain’s Last Liberal Government, The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp.257 - 277
vii LW3HEL Assessed Work No: 3123
Macgill, H.C., 1968, Selective Conscientious Objection: Divine Will and Legislative Grace, Virginia Law Review, Vol. 54, No.7, pp.1355 - 1394
Malament, D., 1972, Selective Conscientious Objection and Gillette Decision, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 1, No. 4, (Summer), pp.363 - 386
Marquis, A.G., 1978, Words as Weapons: Propaganda in Britain and Germany during the First World War, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 13, No.3, pp.467 - 498
McCloskey, H.J., 1980, Conscientious Disobedience of the Law: Its Necessity, Justification, and Problems to Which it Gives Rise, Philosophy and Phenomenonological Research, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp.536 - 557
Meuller, J., 1991, Changing Attitudes Towards War: The Impact of the First World War, British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp.1 - 28
Millman, B., 2005, HMG and the War against Dissent, 1914-18, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp.413 - 440
Navias, M.S., 1989, Terminating Conscription? The British National Controversy 1955-56, The Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 24, No. 2, Studies on War, pp.195 - 208
Nielberg, M.S., 2005, The British Working Class Enthusiasm for War, 1914-1916, by David Silbey, Journal of Social History, Vol. 39, No. 2, Kith and Kin: Interpersonal Relationships and Cultural Practices, (Winter), pp.547 - 548
Pollard, R.S.W., 1946, Conscientious Objectors in Great Britain and the Dominions, Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law, Third Series, Vol. 28, No. 3/4, pp.72 - 82
Rempel, R.A., 1978, The Dilemmas of British Pacifists During World War II, The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 50, No. 4, On Demand Supplement, pp.D1213 - D1229
Ward, A.J., 1974, Lloyd George and the 1918 Conscription Crisis, The Historical Journal, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp.107 - 129
White, B.J., 2009, Volunteerism and Early Recruitment Efforts in Devonshire, August 1914 - December 1915, The Historical Journal, 52, 3, pp.641 - 666
Williamson, S.R.Jr., 2007, An Identity of Opinions: Historians and July 1914, Journal of Modern History, Vol. 79, pp.355 - 387
Winter, J.M., 1977, Britain’s ‘Lost Generation’ of the First World War, Population Studies, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp.449 - 466
Zieger, S., 1996, She Didn’t Raise Her Boy to be a Slacker: Motherhood, Conscription, and the Culture of the First World War, Feminist Studies, Vol. 22, No.1. Women and the State in the Americas, (Spring), pp.6 - 39
viii LW3HEL Assessed Work No: 3123
1968, Propaganda, 13 Digest of International Law 982
Electronic Resources
Called to Active Service, UK Parliament, Last accessed: 24.03.12http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/parliamentary-archives/archives-highlights/archives-ww1-conscription/
Company War Records, Aviva Insurance, Last accessed: 24.03.12http://www.aviva.com/about-us/heritage/world-war-one/company-war-records/
'Conscientious objector' against Afghanistan war loses appeal, 13 October 2011, Last Accessed: 24.03.12http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/13/conscientious-objector-afghanistan-war-appeal
Conscription, Encyclopedia Britannica, Last Accessed: 24.03.12http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/133307/conscription
Conscription, Peace Pledge Union, Last accessed: 24.03.12http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/infodocs/st_conscription_l.html
Royal Navy medic jailed after refusing to attend rifle training on moral grounds, 5th July 2011, Last Accessed: 24.03.12http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8618440/Royal-Navy-medic-jailed-after-refusing-to-attend-rifle-training-on-moral-grounds.html
ix LW3HEL Assessed Work No: 3123
Fighting Spirit: Conscription and Conscientious Objectors between 1914 - 1918
The Military Service Act 1916 (hereinafter the 1916 Act) established conscription for the first
time in British history. 1 Conscription is the “compulsory enrollment for service in a country’s
armed forces”.2 The 1916 Act, passed during WWI , was the first of only two periods in
British history where conscription has been in force, the other was during WWII.3 This essay
will discuss the political, social and media attitudes towards conscription during WWI and the
treatment of conscientious objectors (COs) in the community and whilst in detention.
Politics: Tough Decisions
The incumbent Liberal government of 1914 faced a political crisis in passing the 1916 Act
because conscription challenged the fundamental values of British Liberalism. Enforced
military service represented the greatest curtailment of individual liberty throughout the
course of war, but without it the war may have been lost. Alan Taylor asserted that the two
choices for Liberals were “abandon Liberalism or abandon the war”,4 and most chose the
former by supporting conscription.5 It split the party in two: many liberals renounced
conscription,6 whilst others viewed it as a necessary evil. The Welsh MP William Llewelyn
Williams was typical of many Liberals. He begrudgingly declared that, faced with the
necessity of conscription to national survival, “however reluctant I may be, however
repugnant it may be to me, I will acquiesce”.7 A more radical Liberal MP noted that many in
his party had supposed the nation to be engaged in “a fight for liberty against bureaucracy, for
British ideals and for Liberalism in its widest sense”.8 By May 1915 the Liberal MP, Mr Ivor
Herbert, was advocating national service for everyone on the basis that the government should
adopt a precautionary position, rather than wait until there was some great crisis concerning
1 LW3HEL Assessed Work No: 3123
1 Section 1: “Every male British subject who... (a) was ordinarily a resident in Great Britain, and had attained the age of eighteen years and had not attained that age of forty-one years; and... (b) was unmarried or was a widower without any child dependent on him; shall, [...] be deemed [...] to have been duly enlisted in His Majesty’s regular forces... for the period of the war”.2 Conscription, Encyclopedia Britannica† 3 National Service (Armed Forces) Act (1939)4 Taylor, A.J.P., 1976, Essays in English History, p.2335 In actual fact only three Liberal MPs (Charles Trevelyan, John Burns and John Morley) resigned when war was declared against Germany, which shows that most MPs were at least partially prepared to support the war even if it was not strictly following a Liberal ethos. 6 Hansard 5th Series: (HC) Vol. 77, 5th Jan, 1916, cc.933-998 per Mr Thomas; (HC) Vol. 78, Jan.17th -Jan. 27th, 1916, cc.1029-1033.7 Hansard 5th Series: (HC) Vol.74, 14th Sept. - 21st Oct, 1915, c.213.8 Johnson, M., 2008, The Liberal War Committee and the Liberal Advocacy of Conscription in Britain 1914-16 p.400.
recruitment before implementing conscription.9 His call was echoed by other Liberal MPs,
including Mr Houston10 and Mr Ellis Griffith.11
Following Lord Kitcheners voluntary recruiting campaign (famously illustrated by the
‘Your Country Needs You’ posters), the government introduced a half-way-house system
when it implemented the Derby Scheme. Named after its creator, Lord Derby, men would
register and were organised into groups based on their age and marital status. The youngest
single men would be called up first. However, because signing up to the Derby Scheme was
voluntary, the system was not particularly successful.
The primary reason for the introduction of the 1916 Act was that monthly averages of
new recruits were falling. This caused great concern to the government, which required a vast
number of soldiers to fuel the army required to defeat Germany. The British War Office
official statistics show that average monthly and annual numbers of new recruits were
declining.12 In the five months following the outbreak of WWI, between August and
December 1914, a total of 1.2 million new men joined the colours. During the whole of 1915,
1.3 million new men joined. However, whilst 150,000 men signed up in January 1915, only
55,000 signed up in December that year.
The government had been considering conscription since the beginning of the war but
had refrained from acting because it was such an enormous political decision with extensive
social implications. There does not appear to be a turning point where conscription became
necessary. The government spent two years trying to avoid making the decision, but gradually
their confidence in the voluntary system disappeared when the number of new recruits had
noticeably reduced. Many politicians would have preferred to avoid conscription as men who
would volunteer to fight for ‘King and country’ were a source of great pride in the UK. Bonar
Law was adamant in 1914 that, “voluntary enlistment has not failed here. We have got so far
and I am sure we shall get all the men we need”.13 Nevertheless, the 1916 Act was passed two
years into the war on the 24th of January, after its third reading with only 38 votes against it.14
2 LW3HEL Assessed Work No: 3123
9 Hansard 5th Series: (HC) Vol. 71, 19th May, 1915, cc.2400-241310 ibid. c.241011 ibid. c.241412 Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War 1914-1920, War Office, 1922, p.364, The actual figures were; (1914) 1,186,357; (1915) 1,280,362; (1916) 1,190,075; (1917) 820,646; (1918) 493,462. 13 Douglas R., 1970, Voluntary Enlistment in the First World War and the Work of the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee, p.57714 Vellacott, J., 1980, Bertrand Russell and the Pacifists in the First World War, p.32
Tribunals: A Guilty Conscience
The UK became the first state to simultaneously introduce conscription and legislate for the
recognition of COs.15 At the time the 1916 Act was drafted, it was unclear whether or not this
provision would be included in the final version. The Earl of Malmesbury expressed his regret
that the clause had ever entered the Bill, when he said, “Perhaps I shall be regarded as
speaking rather strongly, but I consider that any man who has a conscientious objection to
taking up arms for his country is sailing dangerously near the very ugly word ‘traitor’”.16
Nevertheless, COs were granted the opportunity to apply to a Local Tribunal for a ‘certificate
of exemption’ under section 2(d) of the 1916 Act “on the ground of a conscientious objection
to the undertaking of combatant service”.
Prime Minister Asquith’s 1915 speech introducing the Bill “painted a picture of a
conscientious objector as as refusing only to bare arms, but ready and eager to to perform any
military duties that did not involve him directly in the taking of a life”.17 The philosopher and
ardent CO Bertrand Russell claimed this “rendered the conscience clause almost worthless”.18
A true CO was not simply opposed to fighting, yet many people were led to believe that was
the case and found it very unpatriotic. Prejudice was thereby founded on ignorance of what it
meant to be a CO.
It was stated in R v Central Tribunal, ex Parte Parton,19 (Avory J. dubitante), that,
“under the Military Service Acts, no greater exemption than that from combatant service
could be given on the grounds of conscientious objection”. Therefore requests were not easily
granted.20 Section 2(3) of the 1916 Act stated that an exemption, if it were granted, may be
conditional on the applicant being “engaged in some work which in the opinion of the
Tribunal... is of national importance”. Work, such as road building, was often done alongside
soldiers and this invariably led to disagreements between them. In the private letters of one
soldier, N. A. Thomas, he writes to a family member stating:
3 LW3HEL Assessed Work No: 3123
15 R v Lyons [2012] 1 Cr. App. R. 20, p.280, per LJ Toulson.16 Hansard 5th Series (HL), Vol. 20, Jan 26th, 1916, c.104717 Vellacott, J., 1980, Bertrand Russell and the Pacifists in the First World War, p.3218 ibid.19 86 L.J.K.B. 799; 32 T.L.R 476. There is no date. The case was sourced from, Hawtin, W.G., 1917, The Law and Practice of Military Conscription under the Military Service Acts. The preface indicates this text was intended as a practitioners guide for military tribunals. 20 Applicants could appeal to the Appeal Tribunal, and then the higher Central Tribunal which heard approximately 66% of the original cases. 78% of the appeals were recommended for alternate service, 13% refused to plead and only 9% were released from their obligation to fight. It is not fully clear how many refused alternate service and served punishments for failing to comply. War Office, 1922, Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War 1914-1920, p.673. “Court Martial proceedings involving COs up to 31st may 1919”. A total of 5,808 (out of 8,806) cases were reviewed by the Central Tribunal.
“The road is the same as it was before the operations of the COs. They all were
allowed to leave at Easter and Xmas and get real good food. Don’t you think its rather
unfair to us fellows? We often march past them and pass a good deal of comments”.21
Thomas’ letter contains a mixture of boredom with his own work, and resentment towards
COs. Taunting the COs was good sport which showed there was a bulling culture amongst
the soldiers.
There is evidence which suggests that the Tribunals were not impartial. Bertrand
Russell, in a letter to a fellow CO, wrote “The tribunals are monstrous... the law is bad
enough, but they disregard it and are much worse. It is simply a madness of persecution”.22
Arbitrary decisions regularly occurred. For instance, the Market Drayton Tribunal granted
exemption to all the servants of a local hunt.23 These failings were allowed to persist because
the conscience clause conflicted with government recruitment objectives, so COs were
effectively made into criminals with little opportunity for vindication. Initially, there was no
obligation on the tribunals to find work for COs which was of ‘national importance’, which
was an obvious failing. In 1916 the Pelham Committee was set up for this purpose.24
Press: not all publicity is good publicity
The government were concerned that COs could potentially damage the war effort. Milman,
when considering the potential of COs to damage the war effort, claimed,
“Principled dissent of an élite, if allowed to connect with a mass audience disaffected
for more immediate reasons, might well have produced an amalgam powerful enough
to affect the conduct of the war effort”.25
Disaffection organised by liberal anti-war groups such as the Union for Democratic Control,26
No-Conscription Fellowship27 and Society of Friends28 might gain popularity and reduce vital
public confidence in the war.
The British press worked hard to thwart the efforts of the CO movement. The Express
did its best to publicise and disrupt the meetings, and to promote verbal and physical attacks
4 LW3HEL Assessed Work No: 3123
21 Private Papers: Thomas, N. A., Doc. 2616 (IWM London), 1917. 22 Vellacott, J., 1980, Bertrand Russell and the Pacifists in the First World War, p.3323 ibid. p.46; Hansard 5th Series, (HC) Vol. 81, 22nd Mar., 1916, c.270 per Snowden. 24 ibid. p.4625 Millman, B., HMG and the War against Dissent, 1914-18, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 40, No. 3, 2005, p.41526 The Union for Democratic Control (UDC) was a British pressure group formed in 1914 to press for a more responsive foreign policy. While not a pacifist organization, it was opposed to military influence in government.27 The No-Conscription Fellowship (NCF) was an organisation that encouraged men to refuse war service. The NCF required its members to refuse to bear arms because they consider human life to be sacred.28 The Society of Friends (SoF) are a religious Quaker organisation which advocates peace.
on COs. It was purchased in 1915 by Sir Max Aitken (Lord Beaverbrook) precisely to support
the Imperial programme. Aitken saw dissent as a dangerous threat to the war effort.29 The
UDC became the target of virulent attacks from the rightwing press, being made a symbol for
all that was sinister and pro-German, and represented as “spy infested, traitorous organisation,
secretly financed by enemy sources (the last accusation probably being fed by the proneness
of Quakers to the giving of anonymous contributions)”.30 The press even went as far as to
publish details of individual COs. Included in the private papers of T.H. Visick, a newspaper
article about him states, “the young mans home is 29, Albany road, Redruth and until recently
he was an assistant master at the Redruth County School”.31 Visick was dismissed from his
post on the grounds of being a CO. The inevitable result of this name-and-shame type of
publication would be that men, such as Visick, would have been victims of a modern witch
hunt, vilified and rejected by their communities. The press did not make life easy.
Public Attitudes: shirker, traitor or coward?
As popular dissent grew through the efforts of groups such as the UDC, NCF and SoF, so did
the pro-war movement amongst the public. The press would often re-publicise the meetings of
these groups and encourage all patriotic Britons to attend. From the end of 1915 local patriots
began to deny dissenting organisations access to public platforms. Patriots could be counted
on to “ensure that nothing untoward indeed, nothing took place. Rather than a dissenting
meeting, a patriotic riot would ensue”.32 Millman argued that “opposition to any part of the
war effort has tended to become opposition to all and to association with other dissenters
regardless of the root of their opposition, while support for the war has generally produced a
consolidated community of patriots.”33
However, the fiercely patriotic attitudes in urban Britain failed to spread to rural areas.
The local inhabitants of rural Devon “destroyed recruiting posters, vandalized depots, and
accosted recruiting agents”.34 Ideas about the collective good, culled from traditional
conservative and nationalist ideologies, failed to convince the rural poor. It was not because
they were anti-war or unpatriotic, nor were Devon’s young men unsympathetic to the needs of
5 LW3HEL Assessed Work No: 3123
29 Millman, B., HMG and the War against Dissent, 1914-18, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 40, No. 3, 2005, p.42530 Vellacott, J., 1980, Bertrand Russell and the Pacifists in the First World War p.22,31 Private Papers: Visick T.H., Doc.4641, (IWM London): Notes on the File of T.H. Visick, CO, 1916, written by Mary Visick, July 1981. 32 supra. fn.29, p.42533 ibid. p.41434 White. B.J., 2009, Volunteerism and Early Recruitment Efforts in Devonshire, August 1914 - December 1915, The Historical Journal, 52, 3, pp.641–666, p.666
the military. Rather, lack of war news and a geographic disconnection from the fighting meant
that “the severity of the situation was not immediately felt, and the willingness of recruiting
agents to intrude into the private sphere of the home was not only regarded as distasteful, but
also rendered residents sceptical about state policies and the extension of government
powers”.35
The millions of newspapers, posters and leaflets that were distributed were
concentrated in cities. Rural agricultural workers were doing work of national importance
anyway. Therefore men in urban areas will have felt disproportionately exposed to patriotic
propaganda and will have been subjected to the mass recruitment of their peers which was not
the case in rural Britain. The social pressure to join the colours, as an urban resident, will
therefore have been that much harder to resist. A man in a city who was a CO was more likely
to be labelled as a shirker, traitor or coward if they did not also sign up because the public was
led to believe that not fighting was a bad thing. The press did an excellent job of ostracising
COs and creating a ‘with-us’ or ‘against-us’ attitude. This simply was not the case, but
generally the public failed to understand that being a CO was not as a result of a moral fault
or lack of patriotism.
Business perception: You’re fired!
It would potentially be very hard for a CO to find employment as few business owners wanted
to employ COs to substitute men who had gone away to fight. In a letter from Park Davis &
Company, Manufacturing Chemists, to T.H. Visick, August 7th 1918, the management wrote,
“We have 182 of the employees of this branch serving with the colours. They have
given up their jobs - although we undertake to re-employ them if they live - sacrificed
their pay, their comfort and are jeopardising their lives (a number of them have also
been killed), to save their homes, and your home, from the violation of the Germans...
I do not know you: I do not question your sincerity. I am addressing you as an abstract,
conscientious objector, and I am sure you will understand why I cannot offer you
employment”.36
A similar attitude was taken in a letter written, on behalf of a business owner (Mr Chaplin), to
J.A. Clinch which stated, “You would see the women of England - wives and daughters -
ravished by brutal soldiery before your eyes; their homes destroyed and set on fire... and yet
6 LW3HEL Assessed Work No: 3123
35 White. B.J., 2009, Volunteerism and Early Recruitment Efforts in Devonshire, August 1914 - December 1915, The Historical Journal, 52, 3, pp.641–666, p.66636 Private Papers: Visick T.H., Doc. 4641 (IWM London)
he (Mr Chaplin) understands you will not lift a finger to protect them”.37 Many firms also
took pride in the number of men who had volunteered for war duties. For instance the Aviva
Insurance Company and its subsidiaries proudly claim that whole departments registered for
service and not one man was conscripted.38
When a whole social or working group signed up it would have been extremely hard
for a young man to resist peer pressure and object as a CO, irrespective of the 1916 Act. The
government introduced ‘Pals battalions’ which meant men who grew up together could serve
together, thus reinforcing both community and regimental loyalty. Bonds created in the
workplace or during recreation provided a basis for “solidarity that was considered to be one
of the army’s greatest strengths”.39 Brotherhood and the collective good were far more
convincing ways of persuading men to fight than a law informing them they must do so.
The general lack of enthusiasm to employ COs was a bi-product patriotism and
propaganda promulgated by the media. Fear of reprisals from patriots, disturbances within the
work place and the risk COs would be arrested for their convictions meant employers shunned
COs. Especially when many positions could be filled more securely by the growing number
of working women.
Detention: Objectors in prison
COs who objected to military service and refused to complete alternate service would have
found themselves stripped of their liberty, either in the custody of prison or the army. In an
open letter published by the News Sheet newspaper Catherine. E Marshall stated that,
“There are at present 4,000 men being punished in one way or another for believing
that war is wrong. 1,653 are in prison, and most of the remainder are being penalised
in what are called Home Office Camps. It is true to say that there are more people in
prison because of their conscientious beliefs than at any time during the past 200
years”.40
COs would invariably be subject to degrading and even tortuous treatment.
The position of a CO was made worse where a man signed up as a soldier and then
later became a CO. The News Sheet published a letter dated June 24th 1917 from a soldier, J.
7 LW3HEL Assessed Work No: 3123
37 Private Papers: Clinch J.A., Doc. 477. (IWM London) Letter written on behalf of Mr Chaplin, business owner. 38 Company War Records, Aviva Insurance†39 White. B.J., 2009, Volunteerism and Early Recruitment Efforts in Devonshire, August 1914 - December 1915, The Historical Journal, 52, 3, pp.641–666, p.65340 Private Papers: Clinch J.A., Doc. 477, (IWM London) News Sheet, H.O Camps. H.O Work Centres, No.13, Issued by Central News Bureaux, For Private Circulation Only. Catherine. E Marshall, a prolific figure in the women's suffrage movement and worked with the UDC and NCF during the war.
Brightmore, who recounts his experiences in military detention, “I was bullied horribly when
I was tried, and sentenced to 28 days detention in solitary confinement”.41 His punishment
was being confined to a pit. He described the experience: “the bottom is full of water and I
have to stand on two strips of wood all day long just above the water line”.42 Similar accounts
can be seen, in the private papers of T.H. Visick who was detained in Wandsworth Detention
Barracks, of examples where soldiers treated COs poorly. The Command, Lt.-Col. Reginald
Brooke was notorious for his bullying treatment, which sometimes came close to torture of
COs, although, he was in fact removed from his post before the end of June 1916.43 Brooke
was in the habit of “embellishing his morning inspection of the prisoners by swearing and
spitting at the COs, using language which must have been almost inevitably provocative”.44
Although, this attitude towards COs was not taken by all soldiers. After witnessing this
sort of treatment, one soldier encouraged Visick to “Stick it, mate”.45 73 people allegedly died
from their treatment as COs,46 and they are remembered on a plaque in the Peace Pledge
Union’s offices.47 Eventually members of Government moved to address this sort of
behaviour and a motion was submitted to Parliament, and passed, by Earl Frank Russell,
which was critical of the army’s treatment of COs. It stated that, “it is the opinion of this
house it is undesirable to subject military prisoners to punishments not authorised by law”.48
The 1916 Act contained no provisions to protect soldiers who signed up and later
became COs, this is not the case at present.49 Due to the lack of conscription, COs rarely
present a problem for the modern army or government. Although when they do COs still
receive, at least, disapproval. In R v Lyons,50 a medical assistant in the Royal Navy claimed he
was a CO after being told he would be deployed to Afghanistan. His appeal was dismissed
and the judge advocate, delivering the reasons of the Board (which the appeal court
supported), said “service personnel who fail to do their duty by refusing lawful orders create a
situation where other soldiers and colleagues who might also have misgivings about
8 LW3HEL Assessed Work No: 3123
41 Private Papers: Clinch J.A., Doc. 477, (IWM London) News Sheet, H.O Camps. H.O Work Centres, No.10, Issued by Central News Bureaux, For Private Circulation Only. Extraordinary Treatment of Conscientious Objectors at Cleethorpes Camp, from which 5 C.O.s were recently sent to France. 42 ibid. 43 Private Papers: Visick T.H., Doc. 4641, (IWM London): Notes on the File of T.H. Visick, 1916, written by Mary Visick, July 1981.44 ibid. 45 ibid. 46 Conscription, Peace Pledge Union47 Peace Pledge Union: British Pacifist NGO, established in 1934, but commemorates those killed in WWI. 48 Vellacott, J., 1980, Bertrand Russell and the Pacifists in the First World War p.38; Russell, F., 1923, My Life and Advenures, pp.328-9; The debates took place 4th July: Hansard 5th Series (HL) Vol.22, 4th Jul., 1916, cc.521-31.49 Personnel, Legal, Administrative and General Orders 0801 (PLAGO 0801)50 [2012] 1 Cr. App. R. 20
dangerous operations can harbour real misgivings about a system that allows particular
personnel to avoid dangerous duties”.51 COs are simply not good for the supply or morale of
men, particularly when disaffection stems from within the ranks.
Conscription: An effective means to an end?
The introduction of conscription was sometimes so objectionable to COs that men involved in
peaceful organisations supporting the war felt the urge to leave those positions. Corder
Catchpool served in the Friends’ Ambulance Unit (FAU) from November 1914 until May
1916, when he became “convinced the coming of conscription would mean for him and his
friends compulsory service in a military machine”.52 These men completed life saving work
but conscription and war represented “a surrender of the Christian ideal”53 which the FAU, a
Quaker organisation, fully rejected. As such they returned home and joined the CO
movement. Ironically for the government conscription meant those men left the war.
It is unclear whether conscription was the most effective means of recruiting because
recruitment numbers were falling before conscription was introduced and the 1916 Act only
came into effect in March 1916. It would be reasonable to expect a particularly large intake of
men during March. That was not the case: 129,493 joined up, which was higher than the
monthly average of 1916, but not exceptional.
It is impossible to determine the number of men who would have voluntarily signed
up without the 1916 Act. It has been suggested that conscription sometimes hindered
recruiting because “the compulsory system, far from bringing more men into the army, kept
them out of it. Men in reserved occupations who were doing vital work could not be
prevented from succumbing to patriotic enthusiasm so long as enlistment was voluntary. They
stayed at their jobs once conscription went through”.54 However, there were many other
reasons men might sign up to fight. The excitement of young men going overseas to fight
would certainly eclipse the fear. H.B. Lawson wrote to his brother: “Dear Bill, I am very near
the firing line and in sound of guns all the time. I expect to be going into the trenches in a day
or two. I am having the time of my life”.55 The introduction of a war pension in 1916, a steady
wage and low expenses, when the alternatives were poverty and unemployment will have
9 LW3HEL Assessed Work No: 3123
51 [2012] 1 Cr. App. R. 20, p.28552 Catchpool, C., 1940, On Two Fronts: Letters of a Conscientious Objector, Copy number: 83 / 2503, p.753 ibid, p.8454 Douglas, R., 1970, Voluntary Enlistment in the First World War and the Work of the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee, The Journal of Modern history, Vol. 42, No.4, pp.564 - 585, p.231-232.55 Private Papers: Lawson, H.B., Doc.16253 (IWM London)
sweetened war for many. For others the adventure, peer pressure, fierce propaganda and
patriotism will all have impacted on the number men who signed up. It is very unlikely that
the 1916 Act alone could have rid the public of war apathy and inspired them to sign up.
The Military Service Act 1916: Worth it?
It is unclear whether COs really ever presented a threat to the war effort. The number of men
who were in prison or prosecuted was so small in comparison to the number of people who
were signing up to fight, even at the end of the war, that it’s hard to believe the government
was ever truly concerned about them. However, without radical patriotism and propaganda
that may not have been the case. Had newspapers in particular not vilified COs then the
movement would have gained popularity.
If nothing else, conscription did show that Britain and the government were committed
to finishing the war. The Earl of Malmesbury claimed that conscription increased the “moral
effect upon our enemies, who will see that we are determined to finish the war; the moral
effect upon our Allies, who will see that we are determined to support them; and, finally, the
moral effect upon the whole nation, which I believe is at last and only now beginning fully to
realise the magnitude of the task we have undertaken”.56
The life of a CO was often not easy. They were shunned by the community, had
difficulty finding employment and suffered persecution and often imprisonment. It is easy to
perceive objection to the war as cowardice, stemming from a fear of fighting or dying. This
was not the case for the majority of COs. Negative public opinion would have taken a great
deal of strength to resist, and weak men would have fought and kept quiet about their beliefs.
The 1916 statute was only repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act (1927), despite the war
ending in 1918, and due to advancements in modern warfare and human rights conscription is
unlikely to return.
10 LW3HEL Assessed Work No: 3123
56 Hansard 5th Series (HL), Vol. 20, Jan 26th, 1916, c.1044