Ealing’s Conscientious Objectors continued
Another Non-Religious Application, 1916-18
Alfred George
Melhuish of 68 Meadvale Road, Ealing.
Occupation: Optician
The description for this record states –
Grounds of Appeal:
D: On the ground that serious hardship
would ensure [misprint for ensue] if the man were called up for Army service,
owing to his exceptional financial or business obligations or domestic
position.
F: On the ground of a conscientious
objection to the undertaking of combatant service.
Although those were the grounds for the original claim by Melhuish
for exemption under the Military Service Act, the first appeal to the Middlesex
Tribunal encountered in this set of documents was made, unusually, by the National
Service Representative (NSR), and its aim was not to extend the exemption but
to withdraw the modification of it which had been granted earlier.
NOTICE OF APPEAL N.S.R.,
Town Hall, Ealing, 7th June 1918
(2) Grounds
on which appeal made:
That when the case was
last presented to the Tribunal the full facts of the position were not
disclosed, and that it is improbable that the certificate exempting him from
combatant service only would have been varied had it been known at the time
that he was an Absentee who had absconded from the Dartmoor Work Centre; and
that the said certificate should be withdrawn.
FOR APPEAL TRIBUNAL:
NSR Allowed [signed and date-stamped] 12 SEP 1918
Certificate withdrawn
Return
to Non Combatant Corp
[different signature,
date hand-written] D. A. Griffin June
17th/18
NOTICE OF APPEAL [against the above decision] BY MELHUISH Date-stamped 2 JUL 1918
(2) Grounds
on which appeal made:
That the decision of the Local Tribunal
withdrawing the certificate of conditional exemption granted on Feb 25th
was made without proper consideration of the facts and the grounds of the
appeal by the N.S.M. [sic] were irregular and based upon
regulations not contained within the Acts. M.S.A. [Military Service
Acts]1916-18.
A. G. Melhuish .
19-6-18
FOR APPEAL TRIBUNAL:
dismiss [not signed or dated]
Certificate of exemption granted by L Tribunal withdrawn
Case fully heard
A NOTICE OF DECISION confirming the above is dated 20 SEP 1918
[Typescript, separate page]
Mr. A. G. Melhuish. Age
32 C1 [fitness, in military terms] _8 [68]
Meadvale Rd., Ealing
When the case was presented to the Tribunal on the last
occasion, it was not disclosed that Melhuish was an Absentee who had absconded
from Dartmoor Work Centre. Had this fact
been known, the Tribunal would not have considered the case at all.
The certificate of exemption from Military duties was
therefore withdrawn, and a fresh Certificate issued in the form previously
granted to Melhuish, exempting him from combatant service only.
D. A. Griffin
As a married man, Melhuish was liable for conscription under the
second Military Service Act and came before the Ealing Tribunal in summer 1916,
which was after the introduction of the questionnaire requiring a detailed
account of the basis for conscientious objection.
His answers included [his spelling and punctuation]:-
(1) The use of physical force is diametrically opposed to those
fundamental laws which govern & determine the progress of all mankind,
therefore I cannot conscienciously deliberately train myself for the purpose of
taking aggressive action against those with who I have no quarrel, & with
whom I do not desire to quarrel.
(2) I have no objection to combatant service of a character which
does not conflict with my conscienctious convictions, but I hold the conviction
that the duties should be such as I am qualified to perform.
(3) The question whether a cause is just would not be determined
by physical force. Physical Force, would only decide which opponent were the
strongest or best equipped & and the victor may be right or wrong. Justice
when armed is blindfolded & as we have
abolished physical force in our national & domestic life, & submit
instead our disputes to arbitration & reason, so I hold that International
disputes should at the beginning, e settled by the same process.
(5) a. [Have held these views] For at least 12 years.
b. My [illegible] and attitude towards all
conflict, is known to many people, but I alone am responsible for interpreting
& obeying the dictates of my conscience, & I alone accept
responsibility for its inspiration.
(6) Not of any orthodox religious body.
... Have been for
many years, opposed to the use of physical force between nations, as I do not
consider this method of settling international disputes, as being either
sensible or satisfactory. In support of my attitude I submit the following.
In 1907, I represented Brentford Labour Organisations at the
International Peace Conference held in London [in] May of that year.
1914 (Jan) I refused a position, under a large publicity & advertising
department, which entailed a lecture tour for purpose of popularising the Army.
About 1913 I spoke, at a meeting in Victoria Hall, Ealing (The Mayor
Councillor Eden? in the Chair) against War & in favour of international
arbitration.
8 (d) For the purpose of aquiring further knowledge & skill in
my proffession, to meet the demand for increased efficiency which may arise
after the war, I have recently commenced a course of studies at the Northampton
Institute, which would suffer serious interruption.
That the delicate health of my wife [expecting their second child], who has no relatives near at hand, & the fact that my son is
at an age when a father’s control & guidance are most essential, are
factors which should be considered in relation to my claim.
I submit that the foregoing considerations should weigh with the
Tribunal when deciding whether it is in the national interest that I should be
taken from a sphere of activity for which I am qualified, & transferred to
an occupation for which I possess no ability or enthusiasm.
I am perfectly willing that my services should be used in the
interests of the State, in any sphere where the duties do not conflict with my
sincere conscienctious convictions, but I do suggest that the position should be
one for which my previous experience & training qualify me.
The original application, dated June 8th 1916 and
amplified by the above answers (hand-written in duplicate, hence a few copying errors) to the form sent to him on 9th
June, resulted in exemption from combatant service (ECS), notified in a letter
of 20 June. (Melhuish had asked for, under grounds F, “absolute exemption from
combatant service”, and under D, “temporary exemption from other service under
military control”). He did not appeal against this decision, but evidently was
not fully aware of what he was letting himself in for.
After 8 months service in the Non-Combatant Corps – i.e. in the
spring of 197 – he was writing to the Central Tribunal from The Settlement,
Princetown, Devon, one of the work camps for COs, many of them “absolutists” (from
whom Melhuish sought to distance himself, a distinction lost on the army in
view of his refusal to obey an order) under the Home Office Scheme:-
I claim that the military have not honourably observed the
conditions of my exemption – as I was forced to refuse ammunition work, have
suffered imprisonment, & been placed upon this Scheme & forced to work
with those who apparently have no desire to serve the state in any way.
[Complains of withdrawal of Civil Liability Allowance, causing
hardship to wife and family.]
I voluntarily surrendered my claim to total exemption &
offered to continue my work as a qualified optician within the army.
Notwithstanding this I was placed in the NCC & did not realise that loading
ammunition was work which the Tribunal could recognise as reconcilable with a
conscientious objection.
Trusting you will be able to assist me to obtain consideration of
my case...
He had written on 10 January 1917, before his court martial at Lewes on the 20th (according to Pearce), asking
for the papers relating to his original application, using YMCA notepaper
supplied for “HM forces on Active Service” and headed “For God, For King &
For Country”, giving his address as The Guardroom, 100th Canadian
Battln., South Camp, Seaford, Sussex, and signing as Pte. 2125 A. G. Melhuish,
NCC, Eastern Company. The papers were
sent to him.
The reply from the Central Tribunal, dated 29 May 1917, was unhelpful,
stating that it had no jurisdiction over the allowance and no power to consider
revision of exemption certificates. He
accordingly went back as directed to the Local Tribunal.
After a preliminary
enquiry and reminder, he wrote on 9th July 1917:
... I claim a revision of my certificate No, 679 dated June 23rd
1916 on the ground that the conditions have not been satisfied or observed by
the Military Authorities.
The Tribunal will be aware that the evidence brought forward by me,
entitled me to total exemption as obtainable within the Military Service Act.
In offering me service in the R.A.M.C. & granting me a Non
Combatant Certificate the Tribunal were misinformed as to the conditions of
service in the said Corps & the endeavour to convert the Non Combatant Corp
into a branch of the A.S.C. is obviously a contravention of the terms & conditions
under which I express my willingness to become part of the Military
Organisation.
It does not appear to me that the Tribunal could possibly accept
Munition loading as being reconcilable with a claim to exemption on conscientious
grounds.
The Central Tribunal had also communicated with Ealing – which had
tried to pass the buck back – confirming that it was up to them to respond to Melhuish.
This followed an exchange of information
about the case (in February 1917) when the Military Representative supplied a
report concluding:
“that Melhuish was genuine in his
Conscientious objection, and would have willingly carried out medical or
optical services – he being a practical optician before being called up.
From
the first Melhuish did not exhibit that refusal to serve in any way which was
adopted by the general run of those claiming to be Conscientious objectors.”
On 31st July Melhuish wrote a brief note requesting an
early reply to his application for a review of his certificate of exemption.
On 4th September the clerk of
the Ealing Tribunal wrote telling him that the application had been considered
at a meeting the evening before, and that the Tribunal “could not see their way
to accede to” his request. At some time in late 1917 he appears to have gone
AWOL (absent without leave) or “absconded” from Princetown.
In the new year, on 10th January 1918, he was writing
from his home address in Ealing:
... I beg to inform you that I have now
left the employment under the jurisdiction of the H.O. Committee and I now
propose, failing a satisfactory settlement of my case, to contest the attitude
of the Ealing Tribunal... I am of opinion that my position this last year has
resulted from the mal-administration of the relatives [relevant] clauses of the
M.S. Acts by the Tribunal, probably owing
to the fact that the L.G.B. [Local Government Board] circular R97 of Aug. 25th
was not to hand at the time of my application on June 23...
and 6 days later his
persistence had got a result:
I am advised by Mr. Walter Davies NSR, that you have kindly
consented to my bringing an application before the Tribunal...
In answer to his question as to whether he would have to appear in
person, he was told he need only re-submit an application, and was sent a form
for this purpose which he duly completed, with a restatement of his claims and
standpoint.
Reasons in
support of the application
A non-combatant Certificate is not recognised
in the Army Optical Corps, and the Non Combatant Corp is now expected to load
ammunition, which I consider as being essentially a part of combatant warfare.
In the event they informed him on 29th January that
they declined to alter their previous decision but sent him a letter “for
presentation to the Committee on Work of National Importance” indicating some
sympathy for and recognition of his position. A month later, after some exchanges with that
Committee, the news was better.
[Letter dated 26 February]
I beg to inform you that at a Meeting
of the Ealing Local Tribunal held last evening it was Resolved to withdraw the Certificate
of exemption from Combatant Service which you now hold and to issue to you a
Certificate of exemption from Military Service, with a condition attached that
you shall engage on work of National Importance...
Melhuish returned his Certificate of exemption for replacement as
instructed, thanking the Tribunal “for a decision which I trust will prove
satisfactory to all parties.” His release from the army was under way – at least until
the appeal brought by the same NSR (National Service, or Military, Representative)
who had played a part in facilitating his application for the certificate’s
review.
