Servicemen at the Front taunting conscientious objectors at a mock trial in 1916
In January 1916, a Bill was going through Parliament to introduce conscription into the Armed Forces. With too few recruits voluntarily coming forward to replace men lost on the battlefield and the Derby Scheme attempt at persuading men to enlist having not been the hoped-for success, Prime Minister Asquith finally accepted that compulsory enlistment of 18- to 41-year-olds was necessary to win the war, with single men being called up first.
The Bill became law as the Military Service Act, effective from March 2nd, 1916. The Act provided exemptions for men whose civilian "starred" jobs were considered essential to the war effort and for those medically unfit, for example - or those who could "show a conscientious objection". The last mentioned group would occupy tribunals for many hours, and those who offered a conscientious objection could expect to face a rather unsympathetic grilling by a tribunal panel who needed to be convinced they weren't merely "shirkers".
Examples of tribunal cases, both successful and unsuccessful, will be added to the site as they arose 100 years ago. But in The Luton News on January 20th, 1916, a week before the Bill received the Royal assent, letter writer Harry Edward Stanton put in print the case for conscientious objectors and forecasting the dilemmas they were about to face. His letter is printed in full here, with a response in an Editor's footnote that perhaps indicated the type of wider public cynicism that would follow.
THE CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR
Sir - I would draw your attention to an aspect of the Military Service Bill at present before Parliament, which is not receiving from the newspapers the attention it deserves.
Apart from the political side of the question, and whatever the ultimate attitude adopted by Labour, there is a considerable number of men, much larger than is generally recognised, who, believing as they do in the sacredness of human life, cannot, owing to the dictates of conscience, take part in any kind of military service whatsoever. Such man are far from being confined within the membership of the Society of Friends, or even of religious bodies with similar convictions in the matter, and will therefore find it practically impossible to obtain exemption.
I am one of a body of such men in this district who will have to refuse to take up any kind of military service, whatever the consequences of such action. We cannot accept non-combatant service as an alternative, as the effect of such a course would merely be to release more men for the combatant branches, and we then should be fighting by proxy. Such an evasion would, from our point of view, be a despicable compromise.
As citizens, we are perfectly ready to perform our duties to the State so long as those duties do not clash with our fundamental religious belief, but when we are required to do service which is in direct opposition to our unalterable conscientious convictions, we must refuse such service. It must be remembered that the State system was instituted to benefit the individual, not the individual to benefit the State.
If the British people do not wish to institute a system of religious persecution similar to that of 350 years ago, they must at once take action to prevent it, using their whole influence with our public men. If they refuse to do so, we are prepared, if it be necessary, to stand alone for what we are convinced is a fundamental principle of Christianity and humanity.
Yours etc.,
HARRY E. STANTON
[If a conscientious objector would regard it as despicable to accept non-combatant service because of its effect on releasing more men for the combatant branches, how can he reconcile it with his conscience to assist in providing the money for carrying on the war? - Ed. LN]