Leighton Buzzard Conscientious Objector at Tribunal

Friends Meeting House, Leighton Buzzard 1969 [Z50/72/2]

Friday 2nd November 1917: William M. Holland of Regent Street, Leighton Buzzard has appeared at an appeal tribunal asking for his conditional exemption from military service on grounds of conscience to be renewed. He explained his reasons in writing:

“I still believe that war is the devil’s business and that Christians should not kill or assist to kill those for whom Christ died. I believe that the war is being continued for territorial gain and the gratification of military pride, and I welcome this opportunity of protesting against the sacrifice of lives to the ambition and vainglory of statesmen and army commanders. It is impossible to believe that this country is fighting for liberty and justice when over 1,200 men are in prison for loyalty to conscience and for claiming that exemption to which they are entitled by Act of Parliament. I would also point out that (1) The genuineness of my case has been recognised by the Tribunal on two occasions by granting exemption from all forms of military service. (2) I have fulfilled the conditions of my exemption.”

Mr. Holland has been a member of the Society of Friends, or Quakers, since 1909, and made his initial appeal for exemption from military service in July last year. Colonel Fenwick, challenging the appeal on behalf of the Army, engaged in a long argument with Holland over his pacifist views. After this was brought to an end by the Chairman the tribunal considered a recommendation by the Advisory Committee that Holland should serve in a non-combatant corps. Holland told the tribunal he was not prepared to undertake non-combatant service and was working 9½ hours a day as a farm labourer. He then produced a protection certificate from the Bedfordshire War Agricultural Committee which had been sent to him last week. The Chairman pointed out that a lot of time and trouble would have been saved if he had presented the certificate earlier, but Holland declared he did not ask for the certificate, did not want to be protected by it and intended to send it back. After lively discussion the tribunal came to a majority decision that his certificate of temporary exemption should be renewed for another six months.

Source: Leighton Buzzard Observer, 6th November 1917

A Conscientious Objector and his Family

Springfield Road, Leighton Buzzard [Z1432/1/2]

Friday 6th October 1916: The Guardians of the Leighton Buzzard Poor Law Union have been asked to provide information in relation to William Rose, a conscientious objector from Linslade. Mr. Rose was convicted at a court martial for disobedience of lawful commands, and his case has been sent by the Central Appeal Tribunal to the committee for the employment of conscientious objectors. The Home Office has provided that where such men are to be employed on work of national importance, separation allowances will be paid to their dependents if necessary. The Relieving Officer for Leighton is now making inquiries into the situation of Mr. Rose’s wife, who lives at 10, Springfield Road, Linslade. He has been asked to find out how many children the couple have, what their average weekly income was before Mr. Rose’s arrest, and how this compares to their current average weekly income. If it seems likely that the family would otherwise be forced to claim poor law relief, Mrs. Rose will receive a separation allowance.

Source: Leighton Buzzard Observer, 10th October 1916

Leighton Buzzard's Conscientious Objector

Friends Meeting House, Leighton Buzzard 1969 [Z50/72/2]

Saturday 8th July 1916: Leighton Buzzard’s only conscientious objector has appeared at a military tribunal to request absolute exemption from war service on religious grounds. The man, who has not been named, is a 27 year old house decorator living in Regent Street. The tribunal was told that the applicant’s views were of long standing: before the war he had posted peace posters around the town; he had spoken publicly against the war; and he was peace correspondent for the local Society of Friends (also known as Quakers). He stated that not only was he not prepared to fight, but he would also not take part in the war in a medical capacity, knowing that the wounded would be sent back to fight again once they recovered. He would also not help with minesweeping as he would only be allowed to sweep German mines.

The advisory committee recommended that the applicant should be made to serve as a non-combatant. One member of the tribunal said he thought a man holding such views should be put into a boat on the North Sea and left to choose which side he would take; another suggested that the final decision should be left to the County Appeal Tribunal; and a third pointed out that the man was acting within his legal rights. After considerable discussion the decision was taken that his conscientious objection should be accepted and he was released from military service on condition that he would undertake agricultural work.

Source: Leighton Buzzard Observer 11th July 1916

Luton Conscientious Objectors Expect Death Sentence

Wednesday 28th June 1916: Two conscientious objectors from Luton are in France where they expect to be sentenced to death for refusing to serve. The death sentence has already been passed on four men, though it was commuted to ten years penal servitude, and another thirty men are expecting to receive the same punishment. The two men are Quaker Harry E. Stanton and Bernard Bonner, an International Bible Student.

Mr Stanton has described his experiences to his mother, who lives at Wellington Street in Luton. He was assigned by the Local Tribunal to non-combatant service, and his appeal against this was dismissed. He was called up for March 8th and was handed over to the military on March 11th. At the first barracks to which he was sent he was subjected to various forms of coercion and threatened with a rifle by an N.C.O. who told him he “would be the end of him”. He refused to be examined or to strip, and was sent to another location where he was again punished. After another move he was put in detention for seven days for refusing to drill. According to a friend “He had rather a stiff time – ninety-six hours’ bread and water diet, with an interval of twenty-four hours’ ordinary prison food. It pulled him down a good deal, as he is not naturally strong. I found him, however, facing his difficulties with great fortitude – contented and happy in the course he is feeling it right to take in the service of truth, and grateful to his gaolers for any little kindnesses they show him.”

Mr Stanton was expecting to be court martialled, when he and sixteen others were sent to France on May 8th. They have been at Boulogne for most of the time since then. In his letters to his mother his only complaint has been that the room in which they were confined was dark and he could not read and write properly. He told her “Keep a brave heart whatever happens – right will triumph some day”. Before he left home he told her that if he had to be shot he would be. Bernard Bonner’s experiences have been very similar to those of Mr. Stanton. He appears to have been at Felixstowe, where the men had been sentenced to 28 days detention and had been put in irons and on a diet of bread and water On 19th June he wrote a letter from the Field Punishment Barracks, Boulogne, which was quoted in the House of Commons on Monday:

“Things are moving very slowly. We twelve have been court martialled, and four are on the way back to the homeland. They have received a very heavy sentence, as we also expect. They were read out on the 15th, and the sentence was death, but commuted to ten years’ penal servitude. Think of that for one’s convictions! … Amongst [the other conscientious objectors] are seven other I.B.S.A. men. They are fine fellows. We are now all together in one room, and our food has been changed since the time of the 28 days finished on the 8th, so conditions are a little better. … I expect my situation has caused many who before did not think about me to enquire how I am, as it must have done all over the country, who thought that such could not happen.”

 Source: Luton News, 29th June 1916

Luton Conscientious Objectors Arrested

Conscientious Objector Memorial, Tavistock Square Gardens, London

[Wikimedia Commons]

Friday 21st April 1916: Five conscientious objectors from Luton have been arrested as absentees under the Military Service Act for failing to comply with notices to report for military service. All five had applied unsuccessfully to Local Tribunals for exemption, and their Appeals against refusal had also failed. Appearing before the magistrates they explained that they had failed to report as they had conscientious objections to serving as combatants, but the Magistrates’ Clerk pointed out that his was of no consequence to the court as the magistrates were bound to carry out the law. The five men were remanded to await military escorts. They were named as Sidney Charles Bell of 23 Ashburnham Road; Bernard Bonner of 20 Park Street West; Montague Ronald Dimmock of 92 New Town Street; Harry Edward Stanton of 90 Wellington Street; and Hubert R. Plummer of 15 Ashburnham Road.

Source: Leighton Buzzard Observer, 18th April 1916

Objections to Conscientious Objector as Schoolmaster

Image: Westoning School, 2009 [CR/PH © Beds Archives]

Saturday 8th April 1916: At a meeting yesterday of the Bedfordshire Education Committee a deputation was present to object to appointment of a conscientious objector, Mr. R. R. Fordham, as headmaster of Westoning School, and the following resolution passed by the Flitwick group of School Managers was read:

“The local Managers of the Flitwick Group of Schools desire to protest against the appointment of Mr. Fordham as headmaster of Westoning School on the ground that he is a conscientious objector. They are of opinion that in the interest of the nation children should be taught their duty to the State, which includes the right of defending it against oppression, and that while parents and brothers are fighting for the state it is not advisable that children should be under the influence of a conscientious objector. They desire to point out that two names were submitted to them by Mr. Baines suitable for the vacancy of headmastership. They refused to recommend Mr. Fordham by reason of his being a conscientious objector. As they were doubtful whether the only other candidate was entirely suitable, not having had charge of a school, they recommend his appointment on trial. They do not see what other course was open to them. The Managers fail to see the usefulness of their continuing to act as Managers if their recommendations are disregarded.”

There was discussion as to whether the objection to Mr. Fordham was because he was a member of the Society of Friends [Quakers]. It was pointed out that the Managers did not object on religious grounds, but on patriotic grounds. The committee decided to invite both the deputation and Mr. Fordham into the room. Mr. Spensley, one of the managers from Westoning, said their objection was simply that at times like these such a person should not be sent to teach in any village school. In his view it was essential that the children should be taught patriotism, and that they should not have a man who would teach the children not to fight.

Mr. Fordham said he was 31 years old, was a member of the Society of Friends and a conscientious objector. He would never dream of teaching children not to fight for their country. He would not mind serving with the Friends’ ambulance unit, but would not serve under the military. The Rector of Blunham, where Mr. Fordham was currently teaching, had written stating that he had always acted loyally and within the traditions of the Church School. It was stated that there was no other position open to Mr. Fordham.  The Chairman of the Committee pointed out that Mr. Fordham had the right to conscientiously object, and another member said that no man should be penalised for holding opinions which were recognised in law.

The matter was referred back to the Committee for further consideration.

Source: Bedfordshire Standard 14th April 1916

Biggleswade Soldier's Views on Rifles and Conscientious Objectors

Biggleswade Post Office c.1910-1920 [Z1306/16/32/1]

Sunday 26th March 1916: Rifleman Bert Tasker of the Post Office Rifles [1], a former employee of the Biggleswade Post Office, has written a letter home in which he explains the intricacies of a rifle and expresses his less-than-flattering views of conscientious objects:

“I am now on my last course of musketry, and expect to go out at the end of April. Musketry is very interesting if one has become a real soldier and wishes to learn everything there is to know about a rifle. There are over 100 parts to our rifle, so you see it wants some memory to remember them all. The lads in our hut have just had a good laugh at some of the excuses that the ‘conscientious objectors’ have made in different parts of the country. What do you think of them? I don’t know whether Biggleswade contains any but my opinion of such people is that they are traitors to their religion as well as to their country. For a man to say he would not defend his own mother and loved ones from the Huns if England had been in the position of Belgium is absolute cowardice and rot. No man who has any love at all for his own flesh and blood could stand idle and see an enemy such as the Germans come into the country without taking up arms against them. I think I should be quite right in saying that no Englishman loves war: I haven’t met a single soldier yet who enlisted just for the fun of having a season at ‘man shooting,’ but thank God there are some millions of men who believe in taking up arms to protect their homes and their loved ones.”

Source: Bedfordshire Times, 24th March 1916

---

[1] Second Lieutenant Herbert Edwin Tasker, of the 6th Battalion, London Regiment (City of London Rifles), was killed on 22 August 1918, aged 24, while attached to the 19th Battalion.

Conscientious Objector Asks Leave To Appeal a Second Time

Wellington Street, Luton 1905 [Z1306/75/10/61/2]

Friday 24th March 1916: Following the block refusal at Wednesday's Bedfordshire Appeal Tribunal to allow those conscientious objectors whose appeals had been refused one of those men, Mr. Harry Stanton has written asking them to reconsider and allow him to take his case to the Central Appeal Tribunal:

From 89 Wellington St, Luton

To Clerk to the Bedfordshire Appeal Tribunal

Dear Sir,

I believe I am allowed under the Military Service Act to make an application in writing for leave to appeal against the decision of the County Appeal Tribunal within seven days of their decision. I do this, in spite of the fact that a verbal refusal of the right of appeal was given, because the whole number of cases where leave of further appeal was asked were taken “en bloc”

The Act states, I believe, that leave of further appeal should only be granted where the case in question involves a principle which may be typical of numerous other cases. I feel that my own appeal is such a one. The Appeal Tribunal, as did the Local Tribunal, seemed quite convinced that mine was a genuine case of conscientious objection, and I claim that it is one of those termed “exceptional” in the instructions from the Local Government Board, and that I am therefore entitled to absolute exemption. Surely the fact that I refused what was to many the easy way out (of acceptance of work under civil authorities) is a further proof that mine is an exceptional case.

However, I do not wish in any way to decry the decision of the Appeal Tribunal. Although I cannot accept it, I believe it to have been the honest opinion of the Tribunal. My sole object is to establish the fact that a genuine conscientious objector is entitled to absolute exemption if nothing else will meet his case.

May I also take this opportunity of thanking the members of the Tribunal for the very considerate attention and hearing which they gave to the cases of conscientious objection.

If you decide to grant me leave of further appeal, and a special form of application for such leave is necessary, I should be pleased if you would send me such a form by return of post, as I believe the time allowed is very limited.

Yours truly, Harry E. Stanton

Source: WW1/AT1

Conscientious Objectors at Bedfordshire Appeals Tribunal

Luton Town Hall 1911 [Z1306/75/10/23/8]

Wednesday 22nd March 1916: The Appeals Tribunal for Bedfordshire sat for the first time today at Luton Town Hall to hear appeals against the decisions taken by tribunals in respect of applications for exemption from military service. All the morning and part of the afternoon was devoted to hearing appeals by conscientious objectors. The Chairman stated that he was looking for evidence that an applicant’s conscientious objection was genuine and of long standing, and would attach weight to any evidence that the applicant belonged to a religious body with well-known views on this question, or to proof that his opinions had been openly expressed fro a considerable period of term.

The first applicant, who appeared to have left the Church of England because he did not want to take on parish work and had a grievance against the vicar, was dismissed as a “bona-fide shirker”. The second case to be heard involved a member of the Society of Friends who had been ordered to undertake non-combatant service by the local tribunal, but who believed to play any part, even as a non-combatant, would be as bad as being a soldier and carrying a rifle. He refused to accept exemption on condition that he would accept employment in some work which the Tribunal considered of national importance and his application was refused.

The longest case was an appeal by the military representative against the absolute exemption of an individual who described himself as an “ambassador of God”. It was alleged that the man’s conscientious objection was not proved, that he had equivocated in reply to questions, and that he had used his influence to prevent others engaging in military service. After discussing the case in private, the decision of the local tribunal was confirmed and the man exempted. One case was adjourned for a fortnight to give the applicant time to prove that he was to be engaged on work of national importance, such as for a railway or dock company. The majority of the remaining cases were also refused, including an appeal by a member of the International Bible Students’ Association who stated he was prepared to accept “the extreme penalty” for refusing to serve.

All the conscientious objectors whose appeals were refused asked permission to appeal to the Central Appeals Tribunal. They were told this would only be possible if an important question of principle was raised, which in these cases it was not.

Source: Luton News 23rd and 30th March 1916

More Conscientious Objectors

Christadelphian Lecture Hall, St. Loyes St, Bedford c.1910

[Z1306/10/56/1]

Thursday 16th March 1916: The tribunals which sat this week at both Bedford and Ampthill heard a number of applications from conscientious objectors.

At Ampthill a provision merchant claimed exemption on dual grounds, both as a conscientious objector and as the sole support of his parents. He also had a sister, who was due to be married at Easter, who looked after the business while he was out getting orders and carried on the drapery department. He also had a lad to help him. His conscience had troubled him from boyhood and he did not think killing was right, though he would be willing to go with the ambulance. He was a Wesleyan, not a Quaker. Another man applied for total objection as a believer in the sacredness of human life and the brotherhood of man. He would not send men abroad and would not have a Navy; he did not think men ought to go and fight. Both these applications were refused, as was that of another man who stated that if he had the option of killing or being killed he would be killed, and that if he had to go into the trenches he would rather go without a rifle than with one.

At Bedford a Christadelphian applied on grounds of conscientious objection. This man was an engineer engaged in shell manufacture. Although he would rather “suffer the extreme penalty” that affirm or swear to support any institution in the taking of human life, he was compelled to make whatever his employer undertook to manufacture. He was granted conditional exemption so long as he continued to be employed in munitions work. A 19 year old student at the Royal College of Science said he objected to taking part in the war, but recognised that he must make a concession and so would be willing to take part in work such as mine-sweeping which was destroying instruments of war. He stated “I cannot see any point in the war. It seems to me pure destruction for no end. I do not believe the ownership of land is of sufficient importance”. He believed that at this time the nation was wrong to take up arms and he could not imagine a war in which it would be legitimate to take part. His application was refused. Another applicant who objected on similar grounds was passed for non-combatant service after stating he was willing to work in the Army Service Corps but not to swear an oath.

Source: Bedfordshire Times, 17th March 1916

Ampthill Rural Tribunal

Sheep at Biscot Mill 1915 [Z1306/75/11/1]

Monday 13th March 1916: The first Ampthill Rural Tribunal sat today and heard fifty applications for exemption from military service. Six of these were from conscientious objectors. The others came from a variety of occupations, although being a rural area the majority related to farm employees.

• A doctor applied for his chauffeur, stating he was absolutely necessary if he was to continue his practice as Medical Officer of Health for 31 parishes. He himself was unable to drive due to his eyesight and the lighting restrictions. Despite advertising in several papers he could not find a replacement. Again, a temporary exemption was granted until June 13th.
• A railway labourer applied to be exempted on the ground of domestic hardship as he supported his widowed mother. He was refused as there was insufficient evidence of hardship.
• A grocer and tax-collector applied for both his son and a labourer. The son managed the business and helped with the collecting. He had two other married sons, one working on munitions and one in the Post Office, a daughter who was not capable of working, and his wife was an invalid. The labourer was his only employee and could not be substituted; he delivered goods and worked on 4 acres of land. This man at attested but had been passed for home service only. Although the father stated he would have to give up the business without his son’s help the application on the son’s behalf was refused, but the labourer was conditionally exempted while in his current employment.
• A farmer of 310 acres applied on behalf of one of his seven sons, who was his horsekeeper and engineer. Two of the other sons had attested but none were actually serviing; an appeal to a higher court for another son had already been refused. The farmer was asked if he was not ashamed to appeal for this young man when he had all those other sons, but said he was not as he could not manage without him. The application was refused.
• A shepherd on a 436 acre farm was needed because the farm had 105 in-lamb ewes and he also helped with milking, building and thatching ricks. Other men had already left the farm to join the army. The shepherd was granted a conditional exemption.

Source: Bedfordshire Times 17th March 1916

Conscientious Objectors at Luton Tribunal

Christadelphian Lecture Hall, St.Loyes St, Bedford, 1910 [Z1306/10/56/1]

Saturday 26th February 1916: Today the Luton Tribunal has heard the cases of a number of conscientious objectors who have asked to be excused from military service. Some of these men are employed at munition factories; as a result the Tribunal was very sceptical of their cases, considering that if a man’s conscience forbade him taking the life of another in battle, it was odd that he was content to make his living producing weapons for other men to use. A Christadelphian appealed to the principles of his religion which caused him to oppose war, but was told to stick to tangible facts as to why he should not become a soldier. He agreed that he was working for a firm which produced items for the Government, but argued that as a civil clerk employed by a civil firm he could leave if he was ordered to do anything which went against his conscience. It was pointed out that although the company did not make munitions, they did make vehicles which were part of the supply chain for shells to the trenches. He requested that if the Tribunal decided to refuse his application it should state its reasons for refusal in writing and made clear his intention to appeal to the Appeals Tribunal in the event his application was rejected.

One of the applicants stated that he absolutely objected to being made to kill his fellow men, and that he had a horror of killing animals or even insects. He would not even kill a spider he found in his room. He argued that if everyone held his opinion Germany would never have gone to war – he was told to consider that “if all English people held the same opinion there would have been no war, for Germany would have been over here”. Asked if he objected to killing vermin, he replied that he had never had any vermin on him; after further questioning he admitted he might kill rats or mice under exceptional circumstances. He also stated he would not like Germany to win as they were “the worst of the civilised nations of Europe”, but did not think it possible that they would. His application for exemption was refused.

Source: Luton Times, 2nd March 1916

Views on Conscientious Objectors

Conscientious Objector Memorial, Tavistock Square Gardens, London

[Wikimedia] 

Wednesday 23rd February 1916: As the Conscription Bill passes through parliament the issue of conscientious objectors has become the subject of lively discussion in the Luton area. Jesse Blaxley of Hibbert Street, Luton, has called for the Bill to be rescinded, putting his case for freedom of conscience eloquently:

“Without stating the arguments for or against, let us admit the fact that there are men who have sincerely arrived at opposite convictions, and by trying to take the other fellow’s view we may have kindlier feelings one toward the other. Amongst those of both sides may be found some of the best and most loyal citizens; their past record is sufficient proof of this. Personally, I do not think there ever was a war more justifiable than this awful struggle, and I can admire those thousands of young men who under a noble impulse have offered their lives for their King and country.

It does not follow that all men can make this sacrifice in the same way. Many years ago I came to the conviction that for me to kill my fellows under any circumstances would be wrong, and this was the result of entering the service of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ. His commands are supreme in the conduct of my life … and if it comes to a conflict with any other power, the final sovereignty rests with Him. I am quite sure there are others equally sincere who have felt it their duty in this war to bear arms. They interpret the teaching of their Master differently. We do not judge them; in fact, we have the express command, “Judge not”, nor do we admit their right to judge us.

We grieve that England has decided to persecute some of her noblest citizens, for that is what it has come to. What is to be the extent is hidden in the future. During this discussion, the murder of Edith Cavell … has been cited as a reason for the destruction of Germans. Let us remember. That noble woman, when facing death, said, “Patriotism is not sufficient. I must have no bitterness toward anyone.” Surely this is the highest possible attainment to man or woman, and turns her awful death into a glorious ending of a glorious life. Let England beware lest in the frenzy of this maddening time it is lured perhaps unconsciously to similar crimes. There never can come a time when all, or anything like all, the men of the country must bear arms. Therefore there must always be occupations in which we can show our loyalty.”

Others, however, are considerably less sympathetic to the voice of conscience. An anonymous correspondent writes:

“I [am] filled with amazement at the attitude of the conscientious objector. May I be permitted to ask what return the conscientious objectors are making for the great privilege of living in comparative safety, due to those who keep watch and ward on the storm-tossed seas and in the mud-filled trenches? … A peculiar sense of the duties of citizenship and the scruples of religious convictions, which too often make the second great Commandment embrace the cultured Hun and exclude the British brother, seem to be the sum total of the gratitude shown for being born an Englishman.”

Source: Luton News, 24th February 1916