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