Pacifists & Conscientious Objectors

They Did Not Fight …

Introduction

By the time the war ended in November 1918 nearly 1500 Magdalen men were of an age which required them to enlist in the armed services under the Military Service Acts of 1916 and 1918, unless exempt for one reason or another. Of these 1013 of these served in the armed forces at some time during the war, and a further 58 were involved in war service, but not in the armed forces. Most of the remainder were in reserved occupations and over 50 were clergy (who did not have to enlist until the middle of 1918) or were unfit to serve. A small group did not fight because they were conscientious objectors, pacifists or had been interned by the German Government.

When they went down in June 1914 the men who had matriculated in 1912 and 1913 expected to return to Magdalen in October for another one or two years. But of the 49 who matriculated in 1912, 41 had enlisted by the end of 1914, a further three enlisted in 1915 and one either enlisted or was conscripted in 1916. Four men did not serve; three were unfit and one was a conscientious objector. Of the 41 who matriculated in 1913, 27 enlisted by the end of 1914, six more in 1915 and one in 1918; one was interned in Germany for the duration of the war, and one was unfit. There were three Americans and two Germans – one killed fighting for the Central Powers in 1915. It is clear that by far the majority of these Magdalen undergraduates enlisted when or soon after war was declared; few, if any, waited to be conscripted. Against this background it was extremely difficult to declare oneself a conscientious objector, especially if still in residence and returning to a nearly empty College.

The short essays in this section seek, in part, to gauge the active opposition to war among Magdalen men. This opposition falls into two overlapping categories: pacifists who either did not have to serve or who volunteered to serve as non-combatants, and men who sought exemption from service by applying as conscientious objectors and appearing before a Military Service Tribunal. Six Magdalen men have been identified who were conscientious objectors and two who were pacifists (of whom one was living abroad and so was not eligible for conscription and one who pre-empted conscription by joining a non-combatant unit before he was 18). One further man was most likely a pacifist, but he was killed while serving as a stretcher bearer before conscription was introduced.

Conscription

Early in 1915 it became clear that the war was not going to be a short one and that the number of troops required by the British Army would not be met by volunteers. But as some members of the Liberal Government opposed the introduction of conscription, the Derby Scheme[1] was introduced in November 1915. Under this scheme, men could either enlist or attest, i.e. agree to enlist if called up. Those who attested were divided up into 46 groups, a group for each age of single men aged 18–41 and a group for each age of married men 18–41. It was also agreed that no married man would be called up until all the single men had been enlisted. Over 200,000 enlisted immediately, and just over 2,000,000 men attested. But 38 per cent of single men and 54 per cent of married men failed to attest, and this meant that a significant number of single men avoided military service (unattested) when married men (attested) were being called up. The opposition to this was considerable, and the Prime Minister, Herbert Asquith (1852–1928), considered that the only “fair” solution was to bring in compulsory service – to which end he introduced the Military Service Bill on 5 January 1916. By stressing the “unfairness” of the Derby Scheme, Asquith was able to lessen opposition to it within his own party. So whereas Sir John Simon (1873–1954), the Home Secretary, resigned, two other opponents of conscription, Walter Runciman (1870–1944), President of the Board of Trade, and Reginald McKenna (1863–1943), the Chancellor of the Exchequer, “decided to stay in office and to defend laissez faire, which they did to some purpose”.[2]

The main provisions of the first 1916 Bill were as follows: single unattested men between the ages of 18 and 41 were treated as if they had attested; service was for the duration of the war; Ireland was excluded from the Bill for political reasons; Ministers of Religion were exempt; the physically unfit and those in protected jobs[3] were also exempt, as were those who were given protection certificates by Government Departments; and although conscientious objectors were also exempt, their exemption was “from combatant military duty only”, as The Times reported.[4] The second reading of the Bill was carried in the House of Commons by 431 votes to 39 on 12 January 1916[5] and the Act came into force on 27 January 1916.

The Times report was confusing, as its claim that conscientious objectors would only be exempt from combatant duty implied that they could not avoid conscription into a non-combatant unit. However, this is not what the Act says:

Classes of Cases

10. A special class of application which will come before the Local Tribunals is dealt with separately on page 9, in the section headed “Certified Occupations.” Apart from this class of case applications for certificates of exemption from the provisions of the Act may be made to a Local Tribunal on any of the following grounds:

[…]

(f) On the ground of a conscientious objection to undertaking of combatant service.

It is for the Tribunal to decide in each case whether the grounds of the application have been established and, if they have been established, what exemption should be granted.

[…]

Exemptions

11. The certificates of exemption which the Local Tribunal are empowered to grant may be absolute, conditional or temporary. Furthermore, in the case of exemption granted on conscientious grounds the exemption may be from combatant service only or may be given on the condition that the applicant is or will be engaged in some work which in the opinion of the Tribunal is of national importance.[6]

It is clear from this that the Local Tribunal could grant a certificate of absolute exemption to a conscientious objector, albeit with the proviso that they were engaged in some work of national importance. The difference between this and the claim by The Times that exemption could only be from combatant service confused some Tribunals and in the case of the Oxford Tribunal was clarified by one of the Magdalen conscientious objectors, Richard Brockbank Graham (1893–1957) (see below). At the Oxford Local Tribunal hearing of Graham’s application the Town Clerk said “the tribunal could only let anyone off combat service”. Graham then quoted the circular above showing that the Tribunal could grant absolute exemption to conscientious objectors on condition that they carried out work of national importance.

So tribunals were set up to examine appeals for exemption from combatant service. Further, Government Departments were empowered, after consultation with the Army Council, to issue certificates of exemption from the provisions of the Military Service Act “to men, or classes or bodies of men […] where it appears to the department that certificates can be more conveniently granted by the Department than by the Local Tribunal.”[7] The Military Service Act in May 1916 removed the protection from married men and the Military Service Act of April 1918 extended the upper age limit to 51 at the time of the passing of the Bill. It also removed the exemption for Ministers of Religion, while stipulating that they did not have to serve in a combatant role, and it tightened up the rules applying to Tribunals and Government Departments.

Conscientious objectors

Broadly speaking, conscientious objectors fell into two classes. The Alternativists were prepared to work as non-combatants, for example doing mine-sweeping, working in the Friends’ Ambulance Unit (FAU) or the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA), or performing work of national importance such as school teaching.[8] The Absolutists, on the other hand, would accept nothing but absolute exemption on the grounds that being a stretcher-bearer released another man to bear arms. Similarly, they argued that if the work was genuinely of national importance then the same applied, and that clearing mines, unless it included all mines, helped one side to pursue its war aims.[9] An even more refined stand was taken by the Quaker Thomas Corder Pettifor Catchpool (1883–1952), who served in the FAU at the beginning of the war and was awarded the Mons Star. But after the introduction of conscription in January 1916, he appeared before a Tribunal and made it clear “that he wished to continue with his ambulance work but was not prepared to accept a direction by the Tribunal making it a compulsory alternative to soldiering”. When the Tribunal did not accede to his request and directed him into the FAU, he resigned and served several hard labour sentences, totalling between two and three years.[10] Indeed, of Britain’s 16,500 conscientious objectors during World War One, more than one-third went to prison at least once, and 1500 Absolutists were locked up for its duration.[11]

The life of the imprisoned conscientious objector was hard, as described at length in Conscription and Conscience,[12] by John Graham[13] (1859–1932), a Quaker and the father of Richard Brockbank Graham (see above). An even more powerful contemporary document is ‘I Appeal Unto Caesar’: The Case of the Conscientious Objector[14] by Mrs Henry Hobhouse (Margaret Heyworth Potter 1854–1921), with an introduction by Professor Gilbert Murray (1866–1957) and comments by Lords Selborne (1859–1942) and Parmoor (1852–1941), Hugh Cecil (1869–1956), and Henry Cavendish-Bentinck (1863–1931). Although the author disagreed with his views and supported the war (in which three of her sons served and one was killed), she wrote the pamphlet to highlight the plight of another son, Stephen Hobhouse (1881–1961), a Quaker convert, and others like him, who were suffering in prison for their views. Nor did her supporters, with the exception of Lord Parmoor, object to the war or sympathize with the views of the conscientious objectors, but they did object strongly to the treatment meted out to them by a so-called civilized country. The campaign waged by Mrs Hobhouse is discussed at length by John Rae in his book Conscience and Politics.[15] But, so far as we know, only one Magdalen man was imprisoned, and then only for a single night.

It is not, however, easy to identify a conscientious objector, as the records of Military Service Tribunals were destroyed by government order in 1922, with the exception of those for Middlesex, and Lothian and Peebles, which are held in the respective National Archives as examples. And, whilst the proceedings of the Tribunals were reported extensively in the local press, the anonymity of the appellants was maintained by many newspapers. But the Oxford newspapers reported the appeals in full and named the appellants – which is how we know the identity of four of the Magdalen conscientious objectors.

However, Cyril Pearce, Honorary Research Fellow, School of History, University of Leeds, has built a database of over 18,000 conscientious objectors from a great many sources including newspaper records, the collections at Friends House, Army Court Martial Registers, prison admission registers, personal papers etc. The records of the Pearce Register of WW1 British Conscientious Objectors are freely available through the Imperial War Museum Lives of the First World War.[16] This database was scanned using the names of Magdalen men who were old enough to be conscripted but for whom there is no evidence as to why they did not serve. This produced a further two Magdalen conscientious objectors.

Tribunals

Local Registration Authorities were empowered to appoint between 5 and 25 members to their Local Military Service Tribunal, always “providing adequate representation of labour”.[17] The meetings of the Tribunal were normally held in public, but could be held in private if one of the parties concerned so desired. A military representative had the right to be a party to any application to the Tribunal, and, like the applicant, was given at least three days’ notice of the hearing.[18] Witnesses could appear before the Tribunal and the applicant could, if he so wished, appoint someone to represent him, usually a solicitor. There were six grounds on which the Tribunal could issue certificates of absolute, conditional or temporary exemption: (1) that it was in the national interest for the applicant to continue in his present employment; (2) that it was in the national interest for him to be directed to non-military work; (3) that he was currently in full-time education or training; (4) that he would suffer considerable hardship if conscripted because of an exceptional financial, business or domestic situation; (5) ill health or infirmity; and (6) conscientious objections. While much is heard about applications to the Tribunals from conscientious objectors, well over 90 per cent of the cases heard by the Tribunals fell into the first five categories, a spectrum that is well illustrated by the 99 cases considered by W. Grist Hawtin.[19]

In practice, the Tribunals largely “consisted of elderly local magnates or tradesmen, often with a Labour man, known to be in favour of the war, added”.[20] And there was a military representative who, through his knowledge of the process, frequently dominated the proceedings. John Graham writes at length about Tribunals in Conscription and Conscience and the one point that comes across very clearly in his account is their arbitrariness. Writing about the Oxford Tribunal he says:

At Oxford, the Mayor, a tradesman in High Street[21], had at his disposal the liberties of undergraduates plainly of a high spiritual type. He was aided by a military representative much out of his depth[22], who enquired of a religious applicant whether Jesus had not said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”. In reply he got half a chapter from the Sermon on the Mount read to him. The same gentleman also thought that Tolstoy was the name of a place.[23]

The Oxford Chronicle[24] gives a fuller account of this episode:

“Ah” said Lieut. Baldry presently, “do you agree with the verse in the Bible, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’?” The pacifist student seemed rather a nervous young man, but he unexpectedly floored the by no means nervous Lieutenant. “Will you mind finishing the verse?” he said. Lieut. Baldry was nonplussed. “I am afraid I cannot,” he said. […] But at last a Bible was found and the student read “Ye have heard it hath been said ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say unto you that ye resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.’” There was a burst of applause from the gallery, but the Lieutenant took his downfall in good part.

A more objective sense of the workings of a Tribunal comes from one of the many reports in The Times:

The applicant, a colliery lampman before the Ebbw Vale Tribunal said that his conscience would not permit him to take the oath of allegiance:

The Military Representative – “Do you object to save life?” The applicant – “No, I would endeavour to save life even at the risk of my own.” “Would you object to being in a mine-sweeper?” – “No, if I were allowed to sweep all mines, our own as well as the enemies’.” A member of the Tribunal –“Would you object to serving in the R.A.M.C?” The applicant – “Yes; it would not be proper in accordance with my convictions to heal the wounds of one man in order that he may inflict wounds on another.” The Military Representative – “Do you consider that the four million men now with the Army are heathens or wholly indifferent to the teachings of the Bible?” The applicant – “I hold no brief for any other man’s conscience.” “If you had a mother and someone attempted to kill her what would you do?” – “Stand loyal to my principles. I would place myself between the aggressor and the object of the assault.” “But suppose he had a revolver and you placed yourself between them, what would happen?” – “I would not sacrifice my principles.” “You enjoy a ‘scrap’?” – “I don’t think that point arises and does not embrace the taking of life.” A member – “If someone struck you on the face would you turn the other side to him?” – “We are talking now of the taking of life. If a man deserves a good thrashing that is another matter, but I object to the taking of life.”[25]

While anecdotes of extreme behaviour at Tribunals were reported in the press, to make a point on one side or the other, and remain in the folk memory, most Tribunals went about their business as reasonably as possible, and although hundreds of thousands of men appeared before them, in 1917 only a small minority, around 2 per cent, were conscientious objectors.

A contemporary comment on the Tribunals was made by the distinguished Oxford Classicist Gilbert Murray (1866–1957):

The local Tribunals probably formed as good an instrument for carrying out the Act as could be reasonably expected, but they had grave faults. The first and most obvious fault about many of them was their lack of the necessary qualifications for dealing with questions of conscience, or for at all understanding the mind of an intellectual or religious man, not to speak of an eccentric or an enthusiast. Besides this, they were of course anxious to please the War Office, to satisfy the more turbulent newspapers, and to display their own patriotism by sending other people to the trenches. They were very reluctant indeed to grant total exemption. They were for a long time reluctant to grant the second form of exemption, conditional on the performance of other work of national importance. They had a strong feeling, not very enlightened perhaps, but quite intelligible, that before getting his exemption the objector ought to be made to prove his genuineness by suffering. Whatever was done to him he could hardly be made to suffer as much as the men in the trenches.[26]

Anyone who was not satisfied by a decision of the Local Tribunal had the right to appeal to the Appeals Tribunal (usually one for each county) for that area.[27] The Appeals Tribunal’s members were appointed centrally, by the Local Government Board on the advice of prominent men in the county, and published in the London Gazette. The conduct of an Appeals Tribunal was similar to that of the Local Tribunal, but with an obligation of having at least one legally qualified member. It was also possible to appeal the decision of the Appeals Tribunal at a Central Tribunal, but relatively few cases got that far. Rae provides an interesting review of the limitations of the Tribunal system.[28] After being called to the Colours, men could seek a certificate of exemption on any of the above grounds, with any exemption being absolute, conditional or temporary. Those refused exemption were conscripted, and if they refused to obey military orders they were imprisoned, initially in a military prison, but eventually under civilian jurisdiction.

Conclusion

The Magdalen men discussed in this section (with one exception, Alfred Willis Clemes) did not fight in the Great War. Some were unfit and were disappointed not to have served. Others were non-combatants – one of whom was killed – who in some cases shared the hardships and dangers of the fighting troops. Those who were interned for part or for the whole of the war lived for years under poor conditions only exceeded by those experienced by the troops while on the front line. And even those who avoided the war as conscientious objectors had to fight for their rights, and suffered abuse for the stand they took.

 

Note on sources

Our sources appear in the footnotes to the essays, but we would like to draw attention to those we found most helpful. There are many good books on conscientious objectors in World War One, but John Rae’s Conscience and Politics: The British Government and the Conscientious Objector to Military Service 1916–1919 (London: OUP, 1970) was particularly helpful. For a less objective but more immediate account by one who played a small part in the story, see John Graham’s Conscription and Conscience: A History 1916–1919 (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1922). James McDermott’s British Military Service Tribunals, 1916–1918: A Very Much Abused Body of Men (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2012) is an account of the workings of Tribunals in one part of the country and acts as a balance to Graham’s Conscription and Conscience.

 

Most of the books on Ruhleben were written by prisoners soon after their release. We found Israel Cohen’s The Ruhleben Prison Camp: A Record of Nineteen Months’ Internment (London: Methuen & Co. Ltd, 1917) the most useful of these, while Matthew Stibbe’s British Civilian Internees in Germany, The Ruhleben Camp, 1914–18 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2008) gives a present-day overview of Ruhleben.

—

[1] Named after the Director General of Recruiting, Edward Stanley, 17th Earl of Derby (1865–1948).

[2] A.J.P. Taylor, English History 1914–1945 (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1965), p. 56.

[3] Lists of Certified Occupations were published: in November 1916, for example, Liquor Blenders in the Leather Trade were protected if they were over 25 and married or over 30 and unmarried (List of Certified Occupations, R105, 20 November 1916 (London: HMSO, 1916), p.18); whereas in 1918 all Liquor Blenders were protected if they were over 30 (Schedule of Protected Occupations, MM130 (Revised), 1 February 1918 (London: HMSO, 1918), p. 24).

[4] [Anon.], ‘The Service Bill’, The Times, no. 41,056 (6 January 1916), p. 9.

[5] [Anon.], ‘Absolute Military Necessity’, The Times, no. 41,062 (13 January 1916), p. 9.

[6] Circular Relating to the Constitution, Functions and Procedure of Local Tribunals, produced by the Local Government Board 3rd February 1916 (London: HMSO, 1916), p. 4; National Archives’ reference MH 47/142/1.

[7] Military service Act 1916 [5&6 Geo.g], Ch. 104 2(2).

[8] John W. Graham, Conscription and Conscience (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1922), p. 213.

[9] See also the letter to the Editor from Robert O. Mennell, Secretary of the Friends’ Service Committee [FSC], The Times, no. 41,061 (12 January 1916), p. 9.

[10] [Anon.], ‘T. Corder Catchpool’ [obituary], The Times, no. 52,421 (19 September 1952), p. 8.

[11] See e.g. Schoolshistory website: https://schoolshistory.org.uk/topics/world-history/first-world-war/conscientious-objectors/ (accessed 12 April 2022). [Reference originally at National Archives: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/firstworldwar/spotlights/antiwar.htm but link no longer available].

[12] Graham (1922), Chapter VIII.

[13] [Anon.], ‘J.W. Graham – A Leader of the Friends’, The Times, no. 46,268 (19 October 1932), p. 16.

[14] Mrs Henry Hobhouse, ‘I Appeal Unto Caesar’: The Case of the Conscientious Objector, Fourth edition (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1918).

[15] John Rae, Conscience and Politics: The British Government and the Conscientious Objector to Military Service 1916–1919 (London: OUP, 1970).

[16] Imperial War Museum, ‘Lives of the First World War’: https://livesofthefirstworldwar.org/ (accessed 23 March 2022).

[17] Regulations for Tribunals under the Military Service Act, 1916 (London: HMSO, 3 February 1916), National Archives ref: MH 47/142/1, p. 2.

[18] Ibid., pp. 3–4.

[19] W. Grist Hawtin (1918), ‘Appendix III. Notes of cases decided by the Central Tribunal, and circulated for the information of Tribunals by the Local Government Board’, The Law and Practice of Military Conscription under the Military Services Acts, 1916 to 1918; Part II – The Military Service Act, 1918, Medical Grading &c. (London: Harrison and Sons, 1918), pp. 154–204.

[20] Graham (1922), p. 65.

[21] Graham is perhaps being a bit unfair. The Mayor was Cyril Mosson Vincent (1847–1923) and at the time of the 1881 census he was the Editor of the Oxford University and City Herald, published from 90, High Street; in 1901 he was described as a printer living at 67, High Street.

[22] Lieutenant Walter Burton-Baldry OBE (1888–1940), a stockbroker.

[23] Graham (1922), p. 70.

[24] [Anon.], ‘An Eye for an Eye’, Oxford Chronicle, no. 4,202 (10 March 1916), p. 6.

[25] Anon., ‘Scruples and Service – The Conscience Cases’, The Times, no. 41,101 (28 February 1916), p. 5.

[26] Gilbert Murray, ‘Introduction’ to Hobhouse (1918) p. vii.

[27] Regulations for Tribunals under the Military Service Act, 1916 (HMSO: 3 February 1916), National Archives ref: MH 47/142/1, p. 4.

[28] Rae (1970), pp. 52–61.