Brothers in Refusal to Bear Arms

(further to Ealing’s Conscientious Objectors: Case Study No. 3)

Arthur Morley Jones of 24, Grove Avenue, Hanwell, had a younger brother, Sydney Langford Jones, living a few streets away at “Birnam”, 67 Shakespeare Road, who also became a Conscientious Objector and appealed unsuccessfully to the Middlesex Tribunal. In early 1916 Sydney was 27, single, an art student and teacher at Ealing Art School (employed by Middlesex County Council).

Being unmarried, Sydney, or “Langford Jones”, as he signed himself, became liable to conscription earlier than his brother, and was prompt to lodge his claim for exemption on grounds of conscientious objection. Like Arthur and virtually all other COs, he was “Not attested” when he applied to the Local Tribunal in Hanwell for absolute exemption on 26^th February 1916:

I believe that all military work, &  all work that facilitates or promotes military work is contrary to the teaching of Jesus Christ.

Central Military Service Tribunal and Middlesex Appeal Tribunal: Minutes and Papers, Case Number: M623 [and M118} http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/. [NB. Erroneously described on the National Archives website: “Case Number: M623. Sydney Langford Jones of Birnam, 67 Shakespeare Road, Hanwell. Occupation: Art Student. Grounds of Appeal: B: On the ground that it is expedient in the national interests that the man should, instead of being employed in military service, be engaged in other work...” (Catalogue ref.:  MH 47/11/89). The grounds are clearly and repeatedly stated as being conscientious objection – written out, not using the letter ‘F’ – as here.] 

67 Shakespeare Rd. W7 in 2015

The Local Tribunal’s decision, Application refused, was signed on 6^th March 1916, whereupon Langford Jones went to the Middlesex Tribunal.

Notice of Appeal. (2) Grounds on which appeal made:

I appeal against  the decision of the local tribunal because, under clause 3 of section 2 of the Military Service Act 1916 I submit that I am entitled to complete exemption; although my claim has not been allowed, I cannot do  what I believe  to be wrong, I cannot act against  my conscience.

Langford Jones

8^th March 1916

Reasons for the decision of the Local Tribunal

The Applicant failed to satisfy the Tribunal that he had a conscientious objection.

FOR APPEAL TRIBUNAL:          Exempt from Combatant Service

27 MARCH 1916

So the Middlesex Appeal Tribunal, unlike Hanwell, at least recognised S L Jones as a CO, but the partial exemption did not overcome his objection. He proceeded to apply for leave to appeal to the Central Tribunal:

I cannot express my position better than in the words of the letter recently sent by the Friends’ Service Committee to the Prime Minister, namely –

 - that  I “can under no circumstances  become part of the Non-combatant corps.”

  My “objection covers any form of military service, combatant or non- combatant, & also any form of civil alternative, under a scheme whereby the government seeks to facilitate national organisation for the prosecution of war.”

29^th March 1916

Leave to appeal to the Central Tribunal was refused, on the 30^th. During April Jones wrote to the Board of Education and the Committee on Work of National Importance, evidently seeking a solution compatible with his conscience, receiving not wholly discouraging, if not immediately helpful replies. He also obtained a letter of support, testifying to the sincerity of his beliefs, from a Wesleyan Minister in Dawlish.

4/4/16

I have known Mr. S. L. Jones intimately since 1903.  I have definite recollection of a conversation which took place about 1908-9 when we had a lengthy discussion on the subject of the Christian attitude to war, during which he warmly advocated the pacifist position as being the only consistently Christian attitude .

Whenever we reverted to the subject he always maintained the same position which was and is to him a matter of deep conviction.

I believe him to be entirely sincere and consistent in his present attitude.

On 14^th April Jones signed a further application to the Hanwell Local Tribunal asking for a variation of the ECS (Exemption from Combatant Service) certificate because it did not satisfy his ”conscientious objection to all military service & to any work that would release others to perform such service & would therefore make me an accomplice to such service”, using the letters he had received, as above, and citing relevant sections of the Military Service Act and regulations. He had also written to the War Office, which denied being able to intervene. The application was refused on 1^st May, the Local Tribunal asserting:

Applicant stated he was not willing to join the Ambulance or Red Cross Corps of the Society of Friends, for ambulance work and made no practical suggestion of any work of national importance which he was willing & able to undertake.

A further Appeal to Middlesex was dismissed, “No new circumstances having arisen” (15^th May), and leave to take it to the next (Central) stage, requested on 17^th May, predictably again refused.

What happened next can be read in SLJ’s own hand

The letter, dated 6^th February 1918, was addressed to Hanwell Local Tribunal and showed he had neither abandoned his absolutist position nor lost hope, even in Wormwood Scrubs. It was sent with a covering note from the prison Governor and a copy of the regulations (see below) about communicating with prisoners such as “5411 Sydney Langford Jones”.

Dear Sirs,

I have been advised to ask you if you would be so good as to forward my name to the Local Government Board as being legitimately entitled to absolute exemption from military service. I understand that the Army Council have asked the Local Government Board to collect the names of any such & forward them to the War Office.

The following are the main facts of my case ------

Hanwell passed it on to Middlesex, referring to the Appeal Tribunal decision of 26-3-1816, and on 7^th March a letter was sent back to Mr. S. L. Jones, Number 5411, HM Prison, Wormwood Scrubs:

Dear Sir,

l beg to inform you that your letter of 6^th February was submitted to the Tribunal at their meeting on 6th March, when they decided to take no action in your case.

Yours faithfully,           

Joint-Secretary

[file copy unsigned and un-headed]

As he had foreseen, he remained with other absolutist COs in the almost routine vindictive cycle of imprisonment, release, disobedience, re-arrest and sentencing.

From transcription of SLJ’s record at Imperial War Museum Lives of the First World War website:

Magistrates Court         Arrested 30.5.17, tried at Hanwell 31.5.17 and released         Absentee

Non-NCC (Drafted into a combatant unit and disobeyed orders) Depot R. Fusiliers CM (Court Martial) Hounslow 22.11.17 - 2yrs.HL (With hard labour) com. to 112 days, Wormwood S.; CM (Court Martial) Hounslow 6.3.18 - 2yrs.HL (With hard labour), to Pentonville CP (Civil Prison)

Central Tribunal 1.12.17; Central Tribunal at Wormwood S. 4.1.18, refused to accept HOS (Home Office Scheme, administered by the Brace Committee) conditions

Military Service Tribunal Appeal            Central Tribunal Nos. W.4655 M.188 Refused HOS

Prison Wormwood S. 28.11.17 to 23.2.18 to Escort; Pentonville CP (Civil Prison) 13.3.18,26.4.18,26.7.18,25.10.18;

Sources           FH/FSC(1916/20)/SER3 - COIB Two Year Men Draft List; The Friend 22.3.18, 26.4.18, 26.7.18, 25.10.18; NA/WO86/79/55, 81/5; LMA/4417/01/016 - Wormwood S. Nominal Register; Not found in NA/WO363; NA/MH47/125; NA/MH47/2 Central Tribunal Minutes; FH/SER/VOPC/Cases/5(1954)

(His brother Arthur Morley Jones is reported to have been “Arrested, to Brentford Police Court 26.8.16, Fined 40/- [£2] and handed over” and “Discharged as unfit for service.”)

In 1911 both were still living with their parents at 11, Eaton Rise in Ealing (Arthur’s middle name is incorrectly transcribed as “Orley” in the census record for that year, but is correct in 1901). Their father Henry Chapman Jones is described as a Lecturer in Chemistry and Photography (“Professor of Chemistry” in 1901). A third brother, Ernest Malcolm Jones, a year younger than SLJ, is included in 1901; all three are said to have been born in Chelsea. Sadly, it appears that Ernest Malcolm died in 1905, aged only 15 (BMD Records, Brentford).

AMJ and SLJ each had quite close neighbours in Hanwell who are listed among First World War COs, and there were others in the area – more on this to follow. 

Regulations sent with letter from Wormwood Scrubs

*********************************


Late Footnote: 67 Shakespeare Road, Hanwell

Another notable (temporary) resident of the house where Sydney Langford Jones was living in 1916 was South African writer and activist Solomon Plaatje, who was there in July 1923, according to an Introduction to his novel.

It would be interesting to know whether those two dissident resisters encountered each other; they may well have found much common ground, e.g. political and religious.  

'Sol' Plaatje had been in Britain earlier, during the First World War. He is also recorded as having lived in Waltham Forest - at 25 Carnarvon Rd., E10, where he is commemorated with a blue plaque.

For COs’ Day, May 15

A review of a book previously cited on this blog, with two others relevant to the same theme

David Boulton, Objection Overruled: Conscription and Conscience in the First World War. Dent, Cumbria, Dales Historical Monographs in Association with Friends Historical Society, 2014.

See also previous posts on COs in Ealing

CO on left in photo above: Frederick Bromberger (of Ealing)

David Boulton’s pioneering study of conscientious objectors (COs) in Britain in the First World War was published in 1967, “to ensure that war resisters would ‘not go unsung’”. Just over fifty years since the introduction of conscription in the UK, historians rarely paid serious attention to those who refused it, or to opponents of the war generally. A further half-century on, it is becoming more likely that writers on the period will at least refer to the fact that COs and other war resisters existed, albeit, according to the dominant narrative, as a tiny, eccentric and reviled minority. That dismissive view is open to challenge on all counts.

Boulton’s account is still probably the most comprehensive available, ranging from the pre-war prospects for internationalism, through initial reactions to the war, to the way conscription was introduced and how it was resisted. What happened to COs is described along with the dilemmas they faced (whether or not to accept various forms of “service”); there are harrowing details of what their decisions entailed, including accounts in their own words and those of their supporters, notably but not only in the No-Conscription Fellowship (N-CF). They were far from isolated in their stance: tribunal hearings and appeals were monitored, individual cases taken up, instances of particularly harsh treatment publicised, questions asked in Parliament, and dependants helped. As “pacifism became militant” resistance was organised on an impressive scale. When 35 men were sent to France and threatened with the death penalty, the resulting outcry ensured the sentences were commuted. A new Appendix discusses that episode, concluding that it was both “Conspiracy” and “Cock-up”, confusion and ineptitude combined with some elements conspiring to kill the peace movement by using the perceived ultimate deterrent. (p. xxxvi) 

Some COs did pay with their lives. An estimated 73 named as having died in direct consequence of their resistance and its punishment; prison doctors, some of whose subservience to military or prison authorities prevented them from mitigating patients’ hardships or even saving lives, were implicated in several fatal outcomes, through callousness or incompetence. A growing body of evidence of the worsening health of COs is cited as a major factor in contributing to agitation on their behalf, and a change in public attitudes towards them.

For many who survived, the ordeal did not end with the Armistice. COs remained in prison or might even be called up and (re-)arrested even while demobilisation was being got into gear. Punishment often stretched into post-war life, following “dishonourable discharge” (without pension rights), entailing social ostracism and barriers to employment.

Cyril Pearce, Comrades in Conscience: the Story of an English Community’s Opposition to the Great War. London, Francis Boutle, 2014.

 

Just what prevailing public attitudes to the war were is no longer a matter of such complacent certainty, thanks to recent work, notably that of Cyril Pearce, whose Register of British COs has been promised for more than a year “soon” to be made interactively available on-line via the Imperial War Museum [where is it?]*).

Pearce’s study of an English community’s opposition to the Great War, published in 2002 and now re-issued with new material and revisions, is focused on Huddersfield, a town which by 1917 had become “a virtual citadel for the anti-war cause”. (p.15) Unlike what is taken to have been the sequence of events in most places, the anti-war stance of the labour and socialist movement in Huddersfield survived the outbreak of war, and the local public mood, tinged with scepticism, was wary of jingoistic excess. The one recorded serious attempt to disrupt an anti-war meeting was spectacularly unsuccessful.

While outright anti-war activism remained a minority movement it benefited from being widely tolerated, Those who opposed the war often did so in no uncertain terms: Paddock Socialist Club denounced the “murderous gang of war-mongers responsible for the present European crisis” and the “efforts that are being made to involve this country in the bloody outrage on humanity.” (p.53) Although they are not all he considers, Pearce has thoroughly researched the identities, choices, and fates of COs in the area, making extensive use of press reports and organisational archives to show what can be done in the absence of Tribunal records. Almost all of the latter have been destroyed, the exceptions being those of the Middlesex Appeals Tribunal, and (in Scotland) of Lothian and Peebles, and the Isle of Lewis.

When conscription began in early 1916 it drew divergent local labour and leftwing elements back together, in the face of what was seen as “Prussianism”, i.e. the sort of militaristic society the war was supposed to be fighting against. Practical preparations were made and support systems put in place, including networks to help fugitives evade arrest. COs could become local heroes to crowds of demonstrators; a “collective/group consciousness” arose, embodied in an extensive and vigorous local organisation for Our Boys – in the sense of resisters not troops. (p.162) For many the question was not whether, but how far to resist, and what compromises, if any, to accept.

“Work of national importance” here could mean workers staying in the jobs they already had or being directed to similarly “essential” work (textiles, dye-works, chemicals) in the area, to which COs from elsewhere were also sent, contributing to its balance of dissident opinion. By November 1918 the anti-war movement in the town is said to have been more united than ever. At the same time the threat of industrial conscription was a further focus of resistance, and labour struggles continued unabated. “As the war progressed it became seen as part of an inevitable process of depriving workers of their already limited freedoms and of harnessing them more thoroughly and repressively to the needs of capital.” (p.194) Others, however, were motivated rather by revulsion at violence, especially killing, and at the denial of individual freedom that was a concomitant of war and militarism. In Huddersfield, Pearce contends, the matter was not only a private and personal one but a public issue bound up with multiple issues of ordinary life. The question remains, as posed at the end, “not why there was so much opposition here, but why there was so little elsewhere.”

Conscription was presented as un-British until the government decided it was necessary

Or was there..?

Alison Ronan, A Small Vital Flame: Anti-war Women in NW England 1914-1918, Manchester, Scholars’ Press, 2014.

Alison Ronan’s book is a good example of further research already under way, indicating that in at least one other part of the country there was more widespread and varied opposition to the war than conventional historical narratives have tended to acknowledge. She focuses on the even more neglected subject of women’s contribution in this area. While Boulton and Pearce each make some mention of women’s roles, in the context of the No-Conscription Fellowship and of informal, family support networks respectively, these account for only a few pages in their works; David Boulton points out this “glaring omission” himself, and supplies some sources to atone for it, in his new Introduction (pp.xviii-xix).

Using research methods avowedly influenced by a feminist historical analysis, Alison Ronan aims to examine “women’s motivation and decision to become visible opponents of war, both at an individual and organisational level”. (p.10) The organisations explored in detail are: Manchester and Salford Women’s War Interests Committee, 1915-1917; the Women’s International League (for Peace and Freedom) 1915-1918; branches of the Union of Democratic Control, the Fellowship of Reconciliation, the No-Conscription Fellowship, and the Workers’ Suffrage Federation, 1916-1918; and (a particularly rewarding subject) the Women’s Peace Crusade, Manchester, 1917. Perhaps it is inevitable that the focus should be on organisations, since they kept records which survive, but the approach is far from bureaucratic, always attending to personalities and informal interactions. Anyway they are overdue for and repay attention, as illustrated in the case of the Women’s Peace Crusade:

p.259  The Women’s Peace Crusade was extraordinary. It spread like wildfire across industrial cities in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland during 1917 and 1918. It was unambiguously anti-militarist, feminist, internationalist and socialist, explicitly recruiting support from women in working-class communities across the country.-261 [Yet generally unremembered] perhaps because the series of demonstrations were co-ordinated by local, ordinary working-class women or perhaps because its spontaneous energy was not organised through formal committees nor generally recorded in minutes of meetings and so little documentation has survived. (note 4)  # [The leaflets] were handed out in the door-to-door campaign or at the public meetings and were carefully drafted to appeal to the working-class woman... full of housekeeping metaphors and easily recognised wartime tropes of grieving wives and mothers. They also offered a ‘commonsense’ approach to the political issue of international peace and the negotiation of a just settlement.  -262 The Crusade was against the war, its principal demands focusing on an immediate, negotiated peace settlement. Originating in Glasgow, it used the organisational strategies of local women who had led the women-led rent strikes in 1915. (note 8)  -265 The Crusade lulled during the winter of 1916 and re-emerged throughout 1917 particularly after the Russian revolution in March and during 1918 when peace was on the horizon after the entry of the USA into the war. [Highlighting added]

In addition, there are chapters on women in progressive organisations in the two years preceding the war, and on wartime friendships and alliances between suffragist, pacifist and socialist women. Throughout, the conditions and hardships of everyday life are emphasised: shortages of food and fuel, restrictions and surveillance, threats to women’s personal liberty. The sense of reality and immediacy is enhanced by a few effective illustrations, posters or leaflets from campaigns and photographs of groups with a shared purpose. While women were clearly not subject to the same dilemmas and penalties as men liable to call-up, to be identified as an anti-war campaigner required considerable courage, which was not lacking, sustained by networks across generations and overlapping affiliations.

“Belonging to any anti-war group politicised women, because of the simultaneous explorations of the economic, political and the gendered aspects of war.” (p.219) “This was the pivotal issue for the anti-war women across the country and in Manchester: to determine how ordinary women, without apolitical voice, could affect the outcome of a war and thereby ensure a permanent, just and international peace.” (p.10)

There is a certain amount of repetition – and a tendency throughout to follow the traditional lecturers’ advice, to “Tell them what you’re going to say, say it, then tell them what you’ve said”, but given that few readers will have any familiarity with the material, this is probably all to the good. Certainly the key points are worth emphasising.

p.136  The disturbance to everyday life was immediate and the critical issues for local working-class women were the threat to their family life, their employment and the supply of food and fuel.            p.138  Very quickly, the surveillance of working women asking for relief and the relation of surveillance to the stoppage of the new sailors’ and soldiers’ allowances, began to raise questions about the potential wartime threats to women’s personal liberty.

p.230  By the first winter of the war, there was a local network of people in Manchester who were prepared to come together to protest against the threat of conscription.  -233 Many local meetings held by different organisations which were critical of the war were not even being reported in the ‘liberal’ Manchester Guardian. -235 Pamphlets and leaflets began to circulate more widely throughout the city because of the local risks of holding anti-war meetings. -236 The irony of surveillance and censorship was that it strengthened local resistance. 

Ronan concludes, like Pearce, with the idea that other places may have similar hidden histories to be discovered and the implicit hope that other studies may follow, modestly describing her work – which is further enhanced by an extensive bibliography – as revealing only “a small part of a much larger, still largely undiscovered, jigsaw of resistance to war and the demand for a just and negotiated peace made by women anti-war activists in the First World War.” (p.332)

Together or separately, these three books present a formidable challenge to the dominant warmongering ideology and mainstream historical view of an overwhelmingly pro-war consensus.

L.W.

[A non-identical version of this combined review in Medicine, Conflict & Survival Vol. 30, no. 4, 2014, should be available at http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/mcs]

* The question about the Pearce Register has been partially answered, insofar as

"The records of COs compiled by Cyril Pearce are now online via the Imperial War Museum: https://search.livesofthefirstworldwar.org/search/world-records/conscientious-objectors-register-1914-1918 "

 But disappointingly 

The website is not all that was hoped, in particular: 

"One is obliged to register to see the individuals' records. Downloading the data appears to be impossible. Searching the data is clumsy at best; search by location doesn't work if you are not searching on a name as well. Best results are got by using the 'keywords' search at the bottom left side..."

However:

If you have a name you can view and copy a transcription of the record, after signing up (free).