Ealing’s WW1 COs: Five More from Hanwell

Update  The total number of records from the Pearce Register of Conscientious Objectors available via the Imperial War Museum’s Lives of the First World War website now stands at 17,426. As was to be expected, keyword searches indicate that these include more residents from the (present-day) London Borough of Ealing than were included in the Partial Overview previously posted. The current figures are (some approximately, as false positives and duplicates can’t always be detected without looking at each transcription):  Ealing 85; Acton 50; Southall 27; and Hanwell 15, excluding four COs from other places who were committed to Hanwell Asylum.

The Hanwell transcriptions have been looked at, and all five of the new names (i.e. not previously noted on this blog) also match appellants with case files among those of the Middlesex Appeal Tribunal (MAT)*.

They are:

·         Harry Leon Curtis, Salesman, 103, Elthorne Park Road;

·         Percival Norman Curtis, Salesman and collector, 103, Elthorne Park Road;

·         Arthur Hazell, Grocer's carman, 7, Westminster Road;

·         Alfred Percy Shawyer, Postman, 21, Deans Road;

·         Augustus Willis Smith, Butcher and slaughterman, 16, Half Acre Road. 

   

Four out of five of these appeals were dismissed in what looks like a briskly routine fashion; they did not  give the Appeal Tribunal case much trouble, so the files are comparatively slim. Yet each relates to an individual story.

         

As might be guessed, the first two were brothers, recorded in the 1911 Census as living at the same address in Elthorne Park Road with their father (a Horse Collar Maker from Hereford), mother and maternal grandparents. Harry Leon Curtis, 20, was a Gas Fitter Salesman and Percival Norman Curtis, 15, a Coal Office Clerk. Five years later, Harry was employed as a Salesman for Electrical Lighting & Heating accessories, Percival as a ‘Salesman and collector in Coal trade’. Neither had ‘attested’ their willingness to serve, and both, after their claims for exemption were refused by the local tribunal, lodged appeals dated 2^nd March 1916, in very similar terms.

Grounds on which appeal made:

1. That judging from the remarks made by the Local Tribunal [...] I failed to convince them that I have conscientious objections.

2. That I am now in possession of further evidence [...] that I have held these conscientious objections for upwards of nine years, which evidence I wish to submit.

3. That I in fact have such conscientious objections as entitles me to relief, and have held same since childhood.

Harry Leon Curtis

Percival added

4. That I am engaged in a trade of national importance.

The Local Tribunal’s comments were the same for each of them:

Applicant failed to convince the Tribunal of the genuineness of his claim that he had a conscientious objection.

The claim was based on ‘Religious Convictions’:

I have been baptised & confirmed in the Church of England & am a regular Chorister & communicant since youth at St. Thomas’ Boston Rd. Hanwell. [Harry]

I have been baptised, brought up & confirmed into the Church of England & have been since childhood a regular communicant & chorister in same. [Percival]

Side door of St. Thomas's church, Hanwell

Given the vociferous support for the war and hostility to COs expressed by so many spokesmen for the Church of England, probably including members of the Tribunal, it is hardly surprising that these brief statements were not enough to win their case. Any additional evidence adduced is not on file; notices of dismissal of the appeals went out on 22^nd March. Transcriptions from the IWM show what happened next.

[Harry] War Service        Essex Regiment; transfer to 1/9th (County of London) Bn. (Queen Victoria's Rifles), killed in action 6.10.16. Thiepval Memorial.

So Harry was already dead when Percival’s ‘War Service’ (possibly deferred due to his work in the coal trade) began. He survived and was duly awarded the British War and Victory Medals: 28.2.17 Hounslow, Suffolk Regiment (Reserve Garrison); transfer to Labour Company 15.3.17 Northants. Regiment ; Home Service: 28.2.16 to 24.3.17; France: 25.3.17 to (?) ; Demob.14.12.19.

The older church building
              where the Curtis brothers were choristers.

Unlike the Curtis brothers, and very unusually for a CO, Arthur Hazell, Wholesale grocer's carman living at 7 Westminster Road, had ‘attested’, at Southall Library. According to his IWM transcription he is recorded as having lodged an “Appeal in CO (F), his employers also appealed but refused”.  Only the latter appears to be on the MAT file, which does not supply much information about him (e.g. his age is not indicated).

Grounds on which appeal made:

Inability to replace him.

50% of our staff have joined the forces.

Necessity of supplying food to the people.

Goldway Bros.,

Southall,

25/2/16

The local (Southall-Norwood) tribunal explained its refusal:

After hearing both employer & him on 23^rd Feby 1916 Claim dismissed insufficient grounds.

His subsequent fate, after the appeal was likewise dismissed, is not recorded.

Postman Alfred Percy Shawyer, from Paddington, was already a Boarder at 21 Deans Road in 1911, staying with an older fellow-postman, Ernest Cohill (also born in Paddington), and his wife. They would no doubt have been acquainted with another Hanwell CO and Post Office worker, George Brodie, who lived at 50 Deans Road. Shawyer was employed at Hanwell Sorting Office. Aged 30 in 1916, he applied for Absolute exemption from military service on 19^th February on the dual grounds of ‘Moral conviction’ and being medically unfit, citing ‘Testimony of Dr. Hope, Postal Medical Officer’.

He was partially successful:

FOR LOCAL TRIBUNAL

Granted exemption from Combatant Service and from other than Garrison duty at home & abroad.

[Signed]     6th March 1916

His fitness for Garrison duty at home or abroad had been stated in a letter of 4^th March from the Army Recruiting Office in Bond Street, Ealing, by the doctor who examined him. A further examination was ordered for the Appeal hearing, resulting in a more favourable outcome, in the short term at least, insofar as:

... the Appeal Tribunal have decided that the man be exempted from the provisions of the Military Service Act 1916. The exemption is temporary for a period of six months from the 27^th March, 1916.

The ground on which exemption is granted is that ill-health has been established.

A handwritten note at the front of the file confirms

Shawyer.     Passed for sedentary work only.

According to new regulations he will be retained on the reserve but not called up at present.

The occupation of Augustus Willis Smith, ‘Butcher and slaughterman', 16 Half Acre Road, hardly fits the profile of a typical Conscientious Objector. Whether or not it struck them as incongruous, his claim got short shrift from the local tribunal. He stated his grounds briefly without elaboration, or reference to religion.

Conscientious grounds. Moral convictions. Absolute exemption.

I have an honest & sincere objection to all forms of military service.

This was not regarded as enough.

Applicant entirely failed to convince the Tribunal that he had a Conscientious objection.

The statement in a letter from applicant’s father (annexed) that he is engaged in a certified occupation, was not considered by the Tribunal, applicant stating that he made no claim on those grounds but confined his claim to the ground of a Conscientious objection.

Evidently it did not occur to them to draw the inference that his failure even to attempt to play the certified-occupation card might be a sign of his sincerity. Their decision was endorsed by the Military Representative:

1. The appellant described himself as a butcher and slaughterman, but as exemption as been granted to three other slaughtermen in Hanwell, and no claim was made on the ground of occupation, it is submitted that the appeal should not be allowed on this ground.

2. The Members of the Local Tribunal have an intimate knowledge of the appellant’s circumstances, and believe that the true ground of the appeal that the appellant’s father, who is also a butcher, wishes to retain him to help in his business [...]

3. The Local Tribunal were convinced that the appellant had no conscientious objection whatever.

The father gave his occupation as Master Butcher in the 1911 census, when the family were living at 14 Maunder Road, Hanwell. (They were settled in the area – Augustus was born in Ealing, and his mother and sister in Hanwell.) 

The letter referred to by the Military Representative, unhelpful as it turned out to be, is on file:

16 Halfacre Rd.

Hanwell, W

28/2/16

To the Chairman of the Tribunal,

Gentlemen,

I am appealing on behalf of my only son who’s [sic] Convictions were known to me from the earliest days of the war. I know that he absolutely refuses any military service whatever, not only that he is in a reserved trade as slaughterman assisting me in my own work and as slaughterman for the County Asylum Hanwell at present I am sorry to say that it is impossible for me to do without him having strained the muscles of my back besides what man can pull a bullock about weighing 8 or 9 hundred pounds by himself. *

Yours faithfully

F.W. Smith       * [Augustus was aged 22 in 1916, his father 46]

The Appeal Tribunal decision was that the appeal be dismissed, but Smith’s claim to be a Conscientious Objector was later vindicated as ‘genuine’ by the Central Tribunal, and like others he suffered for his beliefs, eventually joining the inmates (including some from his home area) not only of prisons but in the notorious Dyce camp and Dartmoor Work Centre. The transcription outlines the recorded stages of the rest of his war:

Central Tribunal at Wandsworth MP (Military Prison) 9.8.16 - CO class A, to Brace Committee; Central Tribunal Nos. W.196 M.13 Class: A - Genuine

War Service     1 (R) Garr. Suffolk; CM (Court Martial) Tilbury Fort 20.6.16 - 2yrs.HL (With hard labour) commuted to 3 months HL Maidstone CP (Civil Prison)

Work Centre    24.6.16 to HOS (The Home Office Scheme, administered by the Brace Committee); 22.8.16 to Dyce Camp, Aberdeen; 19.9.16 released from Dyce Camp on health grounds - Illness

May 1917 Dartmoor, Secretary of Dartmoor NCF (No-Conscription Fellowship) branch.

Thus the man judged to have “no conscientious objection whatever” emerges as one of the most steadfast and committed of COs.

==============

* MAT file details (as listed by National Archives):

Case Number: M11. Harry Leon Curtis of 103 Elthorne Park Road, Hanwell. Occupation: Salesman, Electric Lighting and Heating Accessories. Grounds of Appeal: F: On the ground of a conscientious objection to the undertaking of combatant service. Catalogue reference:  MH 47/8/6

Case Number: M12. Percival Norman Curtis of 103 Elthorne Park Road, Hanwell. Occupation: Salesman and Collector in Coal Trade. Grounds of Appeal: F: On the ground of a conscientious objection to the undertaking of combatant service. Catalogue reference:  MH 47/8/7

Case Number: V69. Arthur Hazell of 7 Westminster Road, Hanwell. Occupation: Wholesale Grocer's Carman. Grounds of Appeal: F: On the ground of a conscientious objection to the undertaking of combatant service. Catalogue reference:  MH 47/72/51

Case Number: M190. Alfred Percy Shawyer of 21 Deans Road, Hanwell. Occupation: Postman. Grounds of Appeal: E: On the ground of ill-health or infirmity. F: On the ground of a conscientious objection to the undertaking of combatant service. Catalogue reference:  MH 47/9/13

Case Number: M13. Augustus Willis Smith of 16 Half Acre Road, Hanwell. Occupation: Butcher and Slaughterman. Grounds of Appeal: F: On the ground of a conscientious objection to the undertaking of combatant service. Catalogue reference:  MH 47/8/8

Neighbours in Refusal to Bear Arms

(more on Ealing’s Conscientious Objectors: Hanwell)

Previous posts have looked at the cases of Arthur Morley Jones of 24 Grove Avenue, and his brother Sydney Langford Jones, of 67 Shakespeare Road, who both became Conscientious Objectors in the First World War. Data from the Pearce Register now available at the Imperial War Museum’s Lives of the First World War website shows at least another half-dozen COs living in Hanwell:

·         George Brodie, Post Office worker, 50 Deans Road;

·         Alfred George Hooker, Postman, 57 York Avenue;

·         H. W. Locke, 12, Milton Road;

·         Frank Scrace, Electric fitter, 1 Market Parade; “wife's address” 34 Boston Road;

·         Jonathan Trigg, Commercial traveller in foodstuff, 29 Clitherow Avenue/ 43 Grosvenor Road;

·         Horace Edwin Walker, Dept. Manager in Southall metal goods factory, 52 Grove Avenue.               

and an A. E. Jones and an M. Jones whose details are uncertain –

·       the former with address given as “Hanwell”, said to have been given a prison sentence (Durham Civil Prison) and transferred to the Home Office Scheme - "12.10.16 gone for WNI (Work of National Importance) at Wakefield; 28.11.16 at Denton, Newhaven; 28.8.17 at Dartmoor”

·    the latter’s arrest said to have been reported by the No-Conscription Fellowship, 5-9-16, address given as  “Hanwell”, “Absentee” from Magistrates’ Court.

For the most part, the known addresses were within easy walking distance of each other, and of the Council’s offices in Cherington Road, where the Hanwell Local Tribunal was based.

The former Hanwell Urban District Council offices,
 where Hanwell Local Tribunal hearings were held.

Information from record transcriptions

H. W. Locke, who lived in the next street down from Sydney Langford Jones, differs from the others insofar as he didn’t wait for conscription; he served in the (Quaker) Friends' Ambulance Unit from Nov.1914 to Jan.1919, according to its List of Members. Presumably he did not therefore need to claim exemption, and hence does not appear in Tribunal records.

Frank Scrace is described, unusually, as “Atheist”, suggesting that his case may be worth examining more closely. His connection with Hanwell is uncertain (an address in Tooting is given as his main one), and he does not seem to have made an appeal to the Middlesex Tribunal. According to the 1911 Census he and his wife Maude were living at 2 Handsworth Cottages, West District Road, Ashford, Middlesex. His wartime fate is summarised as: (Drafted into a combatant unit and disobeyed orders) Prison: Wormwood Scrubs transfer to Wandsworth CP (Civil Prison) 1.2.17 to 8.3.17 (Remission); Wandsworth 26.3.17 to 17.8.17 (Remission); Canterbury CP to Wormwood S. 6.11.17; 2.9.18 transfer to Wandsworth. By Jan.1919 had served 3 sentences and two years. Illness - released on health grounds by order of Secretary of State 10.1.19.

Alfred George Hooker applied to the Hanwell MST (Military Service Tribunal) as a member of the Plymouth Brethren and was granted Exemption from Combatant Service, 14.7.16. Evidently accepting this (his name does not show up on Middlesex Appeal Tribunal files), he served in the Non-Combatant Corps: 24.7.16 Hounslow, (6 Eastern) 25.7.16, (11 Eastern) 11.5.18; Home: 24.7.16 - 24.12.19 Demob.

Information from record transcriptions and Appeal Tribunal (MAT) files

Jonathan Trigg: Married. Born 1-9-1879. Military Service Tribunal Hanwell: Exemption from Combatant Service) conditional on Work of National Importance. Military Service Tribunal Appeal relates to health issues.

Application for Medical Re-examination [after being placed at Grade I]:

That I am not medically fit for military service, having heart trouble, also [...]

May 14^th 1918

FOR APPEAL TRIBUNAL:          The Application is allowed. 28^th May 1918

The Application was supported by a letter from a West Ealing doctor, J. Anderson MB, dated 12-5-1918, confirming Trigg’s account of his problems including : cardiac disease – a mitral murmur [...]

The final document is a certificate dated 12-5-1918 from H W. Price MD of Harley Street, concluding: In my opinion there is enlargement of the heart and organic mitral incompetence

Transcription at IWM site states: WNI (Pelham) (Work of National Importance under the Pelham Committee) 10.10.18 to 5.12.18 Rejected by Army Medical Board in 1916 and 1917 but passed grade 1 in 1918; to work at Isleworth Rubber Co. but work too heavy for him; 5.12.18 allowed to return to his former employment.

George Brodie applied to the Hanwell Tribunal early in 1916 both on grounds of conscience – ‘F’ – and on account of the hardship – ‘D’ – that would ensue for his parents if he was called up.

I have a conscientious objection to participation in warfare which I regard as morally wrong

My parents are old and infirm and entirely dependent upon my earnings & I am married but my marriage did not take place until after Nov 2^nd [...].

29^th February 1916

He added a fuller statement, a note from his parents, and

“a copy of a letter from the Member of Parliament for this division to whom I wrote briefly describing my domestic position.”

This note, dated 19-1-16, is signed W Joynson Hicks - 

 Dear Sir,

At one o’clock this morning the government assented to an amendment of a very wide character enabling persons in the position of yourself to appeal to the Military Tribunal for exemption on the grounds mentioned in your letter.

Brodie’s application was, however, refused, his appeal dismissed, and leave to appeal to the Central Tribunal refused. The pattern was repeated on his second attempt, in June-July. (His was among a batch of 8 appeals sent from Hanwell to the Middlesex Appeal Tribunal on 11-7-16, not necessarily - indeed probably not - all from COs). The fact that his conscientious objection was not based on religion prompted the usual adverse reaction:

... The appellant considers that a policy of disarmament should have been pursued by all the Nations before the War ...

It is merely a case of muddled political theories, and of a refusal to face facts.

[signed] James Morley

MILITARY REPRESENTATIVE

18th March 1916

From transcription at IWM site: Brentford Police Court 21.8.16, tried, fined 40/- and handed over; Absentee; Post Office worker, released for service 31.7.16. Prison: Wormwood Scrubs. Non-NCC (Drafted into a combatant unit and disobeyed orders) Work Centre under Home Office Scheme: Denton, Newhaven; 28.8.17.

TO FOLLOW: A closer look at George Brodie’s case as presenting features of special interest.

Horace Edwin Walker, by contrast, based his claim and appeals on religious conviction, as did his Grove Avenue neighbour Arthur Morley Jones. He is described as a “Baptist 'of the narrower sort' almost a [member of the] Plymouth Brethren” and quoted the New Testament extensively in his statements. He was granted Exemption from Combatant Service by the Hanwell Tribunal but went on to appeal for the absolute exemption he sought.
He did not want to serve in the Non-Combatant Corps but was willing to undertake work of national importance as long as it was not normally associated with waging war. Among the letters of support he obtained was one from another CO, Archibald Montague Mather of 72 Adelaide Road, West Ealing. Mather is on record as having been ‘formerly Baptist, now "[Plymouth] Brethren" because he objected to the pro-war stance taken at Baptist chapel.’
The Military Representative was not favourably disposed to Horace Walker despite his explicit denial of political motivation:

This is a claim on the ground of conscientious objection which I must leave to the tribunal.  I may point out however that the claimant is taking a very fair salary working for a firm which is manufacturing munitions of war.

[signed] James Morley

MILITARY REPRESENTATIVE

1^st July 1916

He later dismissed a further appeal as “the usual attempt to get further time” (11-8-1916).
In fact Walker had supplied a letter from the Southall firm where he was a Departmental Manager, H G Sanders of Gordon Road, “manufacturers of metal goods”, stating that

“Mr. H. E Walker is employed in a branch of our factory that is not in any way connected with munitions or war work, and in fact he intimated to us some time after the war started that if his work could be considered in any way as being connected with munitions he would have to resign from the position he occupies.”

He was nevertheless clearly less of an absolutist than some, who would have had nothing to do with such a firm, and when all avenues of appeal were eventually exhausted he put up with being drafted into the Non-Combatant Corps (14.9.16 Hounslow barracks), no doubt helped by being passed as “Medically fit for Home Service only” and being eligible for periodic leave etc. (he was married).  His transcribed record reports “No disciplinary incidents except for a case of over-staying his leave in August 1918 shortly after his son was born” and gives his Demob. date as 31.12.19.

Part of Hanwell (south Hobbayne) with some streets where COs had addresses.
(Cherington Road as in above picture is south of Hanwell station, at end of Ballfour Av.)

WORK IN PROGRESS; In addition to those named here as having Hanwell connections, at least four COs were confined in Hanwell Asylum – London County Asylum at the time – after the Central Tribunal, meeting at Wormwood Scrubs, decided they should be certified insane. It is hoped that research will reveal more about them. UPDATE ON THIS TOPIC HERE.

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.

Ealing’s Conscientious Objectors: Case Study No. 3

Jones, Arthur Morley 24, Grove Avenue, Hanwell, London W.
Arthur Morley Jones was 31 in 1916, (d.o.b. 14^th May 1885) and married (since April 27^th 1915). The first Military Service Act of early 1916, under which Alfred Evans and Oscar Ricketts were conscripted, applied only to single men aged between 18 and 40. A few months later conscription was extended to married men, many of whom had “attested” their willingness to serve when called upon, in accordance with government exhortations and no doubt often in the hope that the eventuality would not arise. The right to claim exemption on various grounds, conscience being the sixth of these, ‘F’, remained, and the system for dealing with such claims had developed its own bureaucracy.

Arthur Morley Jones, however was “Not attested” when he appeared before the Local Tribunal in Hanwell to claim exemption (Central Military Service Tribunal and Middlesex Appeal Tribunal: Minutes and Papers, Case Number: MS113. National Archives http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/).

Although his conscientious objection was recognised, like Evans and Ricketts he was granted exemption from combatant service only, and like them he appealed, unsuccessfully, against this decision, claiming “absolute” exemption. He signed his ‘notice of appeal’ form on 5^th July 1916, when the Battle of the Somme, in its earliest days, was requiring fresh cannon-fodder at an unprecedented rate.

The scandal of the death sentences (commuted to 10 years’ hard labour) on COs was barely over, and its victims were being shipped back to further ordeals in prisons and work camps. As well as having lived in the same part of West London as two of those “Frenchmen”, Morley Jones was evidently a work colleague of one of them, Oscar Ricketts; both were employed by the London County & Westminster Bank, 21 Lombard St., E.C. In view of similarities between their statements it is interesting to speculate whether they had discussed the matter of conscription and what to do if it came, perhaps encouraging or influencing each other – or both may have been helped in this regard by the No-Conscription Fellowship of which Oscar is said to have been a member, as Jones may have been.

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

As I believe that the whole system of military service is contrary to the spirit & teaching of my master Jesus Christ, the partial exemption granted by the Hanwell tribunal is inadequate. I therefore ask the appeal tribunal to extend the exemption to include military service and all work connected with it.

[I should esteem it a favour if the appeal could be heard as late in the evening as possible so that my absence from the Bank may cause a minimum of inconvenience.]

(Signed) A Morley Jones          July 5^th 1916

Reasons for the decision of the Local Tribunal

Tribunal satisfied that applicant has a conscientious objection to Combatant  Service, and so exempted him from such Service . Signed by Chairman, 10^th July 1916.

For Appeal tribunal:      Appeal dismissed 18 July 1916

The tribunals by this date are asking for more information from applicants than earlier in the year, so that we learn from the Local application (21^st June 1916; non-combatant service granted 3^rd July)  not only Morley Jones’ birthday and date of marriage as above, but the fact that he had worked for the same Bank since he left school, starting on 2^nd May 1904.

Applicants are now being warned that “it is not sufficient to show that opinions are held against war. There must be proof of genuine conscientious conviction.” (Heavy underlining in original). To establish this they have to supply numbered  answers relating to ten points (19 including subdivisions) asking about willingness to do alternative service, membership of anti-war religions and groups etc. and ending with 10 (b): [If unwilling to undertake any work of national importance] “How you reconcile your enjoying the privileges of British citizenship with this refusal.” Fortunately there were  N-CF classes on dealing with this sort of thing. It may even have helped to articulate and disseminate opposition to the war as well as becoming a valued resource for researchers 100 years later.

Some of  Morley Jones’ Replies are as follows:

2. Combatants and non-combatants are all part of the same military machine whose aim is to kill and wound, I cannot therefore distinguish between them.

5. (a) [Have held these opinions] As long as I have been old enough to hold any opinions at all.

   (b) ... I have never regarded the question as debatable from a Christian standpoint and have no recollection of having discussed it.

6. (a) I am a member of the Baptist Church.

    (b) Until the present war I took it as a matter of course that it was [a tenet of this body that no member must engage in any military service whatsoever].

9. (a) My work at the Bank leaves me very little spare time, otherwise I should not be unwilling to do anything I could to help my country in any non-military way.

  (c) I hope that all the work I do is for the good of the community.

   (d) I will stand by my convictions whatever the consequences may be.

In an accompanying letter dated 29^th June he pointed out the difficulty of attending the hearing at short notice, and explained he would be unable to  attend the related Advisory Committee to which Mr Alfred Hill (Heath Lodge) had invited him that day for the next, reinforcing the point about long hours at the bank:

No doubt you will quite understand the position of banks at this time of year – tomorrow  I shall not leave the office till about midnight, and it would probably be about 10 o’clock before I could get away on Monday... [Asking if the case could be postponed for a week] when I could leave the office in time to be at the tribunal by 8.30 without too much difficulty.

Note from Military Representative (there was one on each tribunal)

This is a claim on the ground of conscientious objection, which I must leave to the tribunal.

(Signed) James Morley, 1^st July 1916.

(Presumably the fact that his surname and Jones’ middle name are the same is coincidental).

The Appeal hearing was scheduled for 18^th July at 2.30 in Guildhall. Two days letter the notice of its decision (“dismissed”) was sent to Jones, and to the Local Tribunal n Hanwell. The same day (20^th July) AMJ completed in duplicate the notice of last-resort appeal to the Central Tribunal, restating his absolutist position:

1. As I believe that all war is contrary to the spirit & teaching of my master Jesus Christ,. I can under no circumstances become a member of the “Non-Combatant Corps.”. In the words of a letter sent by the Friends’ Service Committee to the Prime Minister, my “objection covers any form of military service, combatant  or non-combatant , and also any form of civil alternative under a scheme whereby the Government seeks to facilitate national organisation for the prosecution of war.”

2. That I am spending my whole time on work which is admitted by te City of London tribunal to be of national importance, and there is no other work in the doing of which I could be of such effective service to my country at the present time.

Across the bottom right-hand corner of the form, diagonally, handwritten:

I do not recommend leave [to appeal]. If any force is to be given to our direction that there must be Sacrifice of some Kind – then this man has really no appeal whatever. Should be required to serve in the Non-Comb. Corps. [Signed] H.Nield, 24 vii 1916.        

Any sequel must await further research, and/or the anticipated online availability of the Pearce Register* of British COs.

*AMJ is not listed on a spreadsheet from an early version of this database – except possibly as “Jones, M.” – an Absentee whose arrest was “reported 5.9.16”, no source given). This Jones is placed in Hanwell Urban District but under county “Middlesex (Oxon.?)” – a confusion of Hanwell with Harwell, perhaps? Among the Middlesex Tribunal records only AMJ’s case seems to match; those for "Oxon." (Oxfordshire) have not survived. 
Almost all Tribunal records were destroyed, the exceptions being those of the Middlesex Appeals Tribunal, and in Scotland* Lothian and Peebles (as a sample set) and the Isle of Lewis (by chance). 

May 2015: The IWM version of records from the Pearce database shows that Alfred Morley Jones had a brother, Sydney Langford Jones, who also lived in Hanwell and was a CO - more on this to follow.