Non Combat Corps, what was it?

[roughdiamond]

Looking in Gerard Orams "Death Sentences........1914-1924", I noticed the following all sentenced to death for disobedience around the same time in F&F:

4 x Men from the East Non Combat Corps 02/06/1916 - sentence not confirmed.

4 x Men from the East Non Combat Corps 07/06/1916 - reduced to 10 years Penal servitude

7 x Men from the East Non Combat Corps 10/06/1916 - reduced to 10 years Penal servitude

11 x Men from the 2nd North Non Combat Corps 12/06/1916 - reduced to 10 years Penal servitude

5 x Men from the 2nd North Non Combat Corps 13/06/1916 - reduced to 10 years Penal servitude

7 x Men from the 3rd East Non Combat Corps 13/06/1916 - reduced to 10 years Penal servitude

1 x Man from the 3rd East Non Combat Corps 24/06/1916 - reduced to 10 years Penal servitude

Was there a co-ordinated protest around this time? I'm surmising these were conscientious objectors who were made to work as an alternate to fighting.

Cheers Sam

[John_Hartley]

I'm surmising these were conscientious objectors who were made to work as an alternate to fighting.

I suspect partially correct. I think these will be the men who were "conscripted" into the NCC but refused even that. To put the frighteners on them, they were shipped off to France and ordered to work. They refused and were court martialled and sentenced to death. There was never much likelihood of sentence being carried out.

The book "We will not fight" is an interesting and very moving account of these COs, the story centring round one man, Bert Broklesby (?)

[roughdiamond]

The book "We will not fight" is an interesting and very moving account of these COs, the story centring round one man, Bert Broklesby (?)

JH Brocklesby was one of the 2nd North Non Combat Corps sentenced to death 13/06/1916.

[charlesmessenger]

Sam

Its official title was the Non Combatant Corps and you are right in your surmise as to its purpose. Eight NCC comanies served in France on labouring tasks in the rear areas. Its members did not bear arms.

Charles M

[John_Hartley]

JH Brocklesby was one of the 2nd North Non Combat Corps sentenced to death 13/06/1916.

That's him. IIRC, his middle name was Herbert/Hubert/similar which is where the Bert comes from. His brother served and was commissioned - apparently both had respect for the other's point of view.

[MichaelBully]

Felicity Goodall in her work 'A Question of Conscience- Conscientious Objection in the Two World Wars' has a chapter titled 'The Frenchmen', concerning some groups of CO's who were despatched to France in May 1916 and tried in Field General Courts in Boulogne in June 1916. Felicity Goodall points out that once the death sentences were instantly commuted to ten years penal servitude, the men were then sent back to Britain and then placed under the jurisdiction of the civil prison service rather than under military law.

[sotonmate]

Sam

This reminds me that,whilst I was looking through some MIC records,I saw that an NCC soldier had a medal issue. For some reason I had not expected to see this,but I guess that if he was in a war theatre he was as entitled as anyone else,even though he may or may not have accepted them. Would it be "cool " as we say today (well,I don't use the word !) to be able to say that you were in the thick of things but weren't armed because of your beliefs !

Sotonmate

[roughdiamond]

Now my memory is jogged, I'm almost certain the case of the Conscientious objectors and the Brocklesby Brothers in particular was brought up in Ian Hislops excellent "Not Forgotten", had a quick look and one episode was called "the men who would not fight", first shown 10/11/2008.

I'm almost certain there were 3 Brothers, 2 of whom became Officers and Bert, Amazon has a book "We will not fight" by Will Ellsworth-Jones which I'm sure covers the incident.

Sam

[John_Hartley]

Amazon has a book "We will not fight" by Will Ellsworth-Jones which I'm sure covers the incident.

It does - as mentioned in my reply to you at post #2

[corisande]

Questions continued to be asked in Parliament. Men in the NCC seemed to be court martialed fairly regularly

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons...combatant-corps

[Terry_Reeves]

The full story is in John Rae's Conscience and Politics. They were men who had persistently refused to obey orders and were told they were to be sent to be France where they were to be shot. The party was put on a train, but one of the men scribbled a note telling of their plight and managed to throw it out of the window as they passed through a station. Miraculously, the note was found and is was quickly passed on to Philip Snowdon MP, one of a small number of politicians who looked after the interests of COs. It was Snowdon's intervention that managed get the matter resolved.

TR

[Ivor Lee]

Regarding the men of the NCC being awarded medals we should not overlook the fact that not all the men were unwilling to serve in the NCC there were men who refused to serve in fighting units but were willing to serve in the NCC.

I suspect that the majority of NCC men who served in France were willing to do so otherwise there would have been far more instances of these men being court martialed.

Those sentenced to death were men who had been refused exemption and refused to serve in the military. By taking them to France as members of the NCC when they refused to obey orders they could be tried by FGCM and sentnced to death.

The men who had been sentenced to death were brought back from France and sent to various civilian jails. Their return was not without incident, being hissed at by French soldiers at Rouen and having tomatoes and eggs thrown at them when they arrived at Southampton.

Ivor

[Terry_Reeves]

I would agree with Ivor that most NCC men in France were found it it satisfied their consciences to serve there, although there were some of instances where those who had agreed to serve in on the Western Front refused to carry out certain tasks such as unloading ammunition ships. Unfortunately there is much mis-information about CO's around, a subject that is very complex indeed.

With regard to death sentences, no CO was executed.

TR

[MichaelBully]

I would agree with Ivor that most NCC men in France were found it it satisfied their consciences to serve there, although there were some of instances where those who had agreed to serve in on the Western Front refused to carry out certain tasks such as unloading ammunition ships. Unfortunately there is much mis-information about CO's around, a subject that is very complex indeed.

With regard to death sentences, no CO was executed.

TR

Hello Terry, I have only started to look at this subject very recently so would welcome your view -or anyone else on this thread- concerning the 'mis-information' that is circulating re. CO's .

What sort of assumptions and pre-conceived ideas should we try to avoid when looking at this subject? Thanks

[Ivor Lee]

Michael

I am not sure whether we are talking about 'mis-information' or rather a one sided view.

IMHO the problems arises from the fact that the majority of literature about the NCC comes from books or articles about Conscientious Objectors and that these often focus on the worse aspects of abuse.

There is no doubt that COs were treated badly, by todays standards. This ranged from being given white feathers to physical and mental abuse.

W E Burns tried to organise a strike among the COs he was with who were being employed as civilian workers in the UK. Because of this he was also sent back to the Army, court-martialled and sentenced to 2 years Hard Labour. Sent to Hull Prison he went on hunger strike. He was force fed for three days but on the fourth day the tube used was too short and the cocoa and milk was inhaled into his lungs and he choked to death. The inquest found that death was due to pneumonia accelerated by forcefeeding, although the jury said that no blame could be attached to the doctor.

In 1921 the Conscientious Objectors Information Bureau said 73 men had died whilst as a direct result of treatment they received in prison or

at the hands of the military. Of these, ten are shown as dying in prison, in Home Office Centres, military custody or shortly after release. Of these ten men only three are among the 33 members of the NCC who are buried in graves with CWGC headstones.

The matter is a complex one as COs who were deemed to be in the Army were sent to civilian prisons in the UK.

To add to the confusion the Authorities would transfer a CO between the Army and civil life and back again.

Alfred Catherall (a CO placed in the ASC when he failed to report for service in 1916) was released to the reserve and sent to work as a civilian in Yorkshire under the Brace Committee arrangements. Something must have occured whilst he was employed as a civilian as in June 1917 he was recalled to the army. When he refused to obey instructions he sentenced to 84 days in prison. After serving his sentence he was taken to France where he was to receive further punishments of 84 days Field Punishment No 1 and 112 days in prison. He was to remain in France until June 1918 and in the army until April 1919.

Regards

Ivor

[MichaelBully]

Thanks for all the information Ivor, appreciated. I had wondered if there is a danger of treating the worst abuse of CO as somehow being typical of the experiences of thousands of men who fall into that category.

I remember as a nipper of about 14 seeing a TV drama 'Days of Hope' ( 1975 ? 1976? ) where on leading character is a CO in 1916. He and a fellow band of CO's got victimised and ill treated in military custody, then taken to the Western Front , and as far as I recall getting dumped in No Mans Land for a while.

For dramatic purposes this makes intense viewing, but the question concerning how representative such a protrayal was of the more typical experience of the CO in 1916?

As far as I recall the drama did stimulate debate about the plight of the CO's in WW1.

Michael

I am not sure whether we are talking about 'mis-information' or rather a one sided view.

IMHO the problems arises from the fact that the majority of literature about the NCC comes from books or articles about Conscientious Objectors and that these often focus on the worse aspects of abuse.

There is no doubt that COs were treated badly, by todays standards. This ranged from being given white feathers to physical and mental abuse.

W E Burns tried to organise a strike among the COs he was with who were being employed as civilian workers in the UK. Because of this he was also sent back to the Army, court-martialled and sentenced to 2 years Hard Labour. Sent to Hull Prison he went on hunger strike. He was force fed for three days but on the fourth day the tube used was too short and the cocoa and milk was inhaled into his lungs and he choked to death. The inquest found that death was due to pneumonia accelerated by forcefeeding, although the jury said that no blame could be attached to the doctor.

In 1921 the Conscientious Objectors Information Bureau said 73 men had died whilst as a direct result of treatment they received in prison or

at the hands of the military. Of these, ten are shown as dying in prison, in Home Office Centres, military custody or shortly after release. Of these ten men only three are among the 33 members of the NCC who are buried in graves with CWGC headstones.

The matter is a complex one as COs who were deemed to be in the Army were sent to civilian prisons in the UK.

To add to the confusion the Authorities would transfer a CO between the Army and civil life and back again.

Alfred Catherall (a CO placed in the ASC when he failed to report for service in 1916) was released to the reserve and sent to work as a civilian in Yorkshire under the Brace Committee arrangements. Something must have occured whilst he was employed as a civilian as in June 1917 he was recalled to the army. When he refused to obey instructions he sentenced to 84 days in prison. After serving his sentence he was taken to France where he was to receive further punishments of 84 days Field Punishment No 1 and 112 days in prison. He was to remain in France until June 1918 and in the army until April 1919.

Regards

Ivor

[MichaelBully]

Thanks for all the information Ivor, appreciated. I had wondered if there is a danger of treating the worst abuse of CO as somehow being typical of the experiences of thousands of men who fall into that category.

I remember as a nipper of about 14 seeing a TV drama 'Days of Hope' ( 1975 ? 1976? ) where on leading character is a CO in 1916. He and a fellow band of CO's got victimised and ill treated in military custody, then taken to the Western Front , and as far as I recall getting dumped in No Mans Land for a while.

For dramatic purposes this makes intense viewing, but the question of

Michael

I am not sure whether we are talking about 'mis-information' or rather a one sided view.

IMHO the problems arises from the fact that the majority of literature about the NCC comes from books or articles about Conscientious Objectors and that these often focus on the worse aspects of abuse.

There is no doubt that COs were treated badly, by todays standards. This ranged from being given white feathers to physical and mental abuse.

W E Burns tried to organise a strike among the COs he was with who were being employed as civilian workers in the UK. Because of this he was also sent back to the Army, court-martialled and sentenced to 2 years Hard Labour. Sent to Hull Prison he went on hunger strike. He was force fed for three days but on the fourth day the tube used was too short and the cocoa and milk was inhaled into his lungs and he choked to death. The inquest found that death was due to pneumonia accelerated by forcefeeding, although the jury said that no blame could be attached to the doctor.

In 1921 the Conscientious Objectors Information Bureau said 73 men had died whilst as a direct result of treatment they received in prison or

at the hands of the military. Of these, ten are shown as dying in prison, in Home Office Centres, military custody or shortly after release. Of these ten men only three are among the 33 members of the NCC who are buried in graves with CWGC headstones.

The matter is a complex one as COs who were deemed to be in the Army were sent to civilian prisons in the UK.

To add to the confusion the Authorities would transfer a CO between the Army and civil life and back again.

Alfred Catherall (a CO placed in the ASC when he failed to report for service in 1916) was released to the reserve and sent to work as a civilian in Yorkshire under the Brace Committee arrangements. Something must have occured whilst he was employed as a civilian as in June 1917 he was recalled to the army. When he refused to obey instructions he sentenced to 84 days in prison. After serving his sentence he was taken to France where he was to receive further punishments of 84 days Field Punishment No 1 and 112 days in prison. He was to remain in France until June 1918 and in the army until April 1919.

Regards

Ivor

[truthergw]

In the interests of balance, may I say that this was a matter which divided ex-soldiers of the Great war untill the end. I witnessed several very sharp disagreements on the subject, between ' Old Contemps' in the mid fifties. It seems to me now, that most of them disagreed with the Conshies but respected their right to the view, while quite a few were adamant that they ought to have been severely punished with long prison sentences or being shot.

[Terry_Reeves]

Michael

Unfortunately, the impression given in many general publications about the war, and also the popular press, is that all COs were badly treated. That for me is mis-information , intended to perpetuate a myth that is well entrenched in public memory but feeds the prejudice that helps sells copy. In fact , a large proportion of the COs who appeared before theMilitary Service Tribunals accepted the decision of their tribunals because the sort of work they were allocated, either military or civilian, satisfied their consciences, despite the fact that many members who served on the local tribunals did not fully understand the nature of conscience objection. This is hardly suprising, as it was a completely new philosophy in terms of military and other war related service, brought about by the introduction of general conscription. A situation, nobody in this country had had to face before.

Conscientious objection in WW1 had many facets, of which religious objection is the most well known. Yet even amongst the various religions and sects there were differences. How, for instance, could a tribunal hope to understand the apocalyptic expectations of the small sect of Dependent Cocklers, or even larger religious groups such as the Plymouth Brethren, amongst others, who saw their life governed by the second coming, and believed that they should not get involved in such earthly matters. In the case of the latter, the Brethren were split into two groups, the closed brethren who believed that their members should not be in contact with those who did not share their views, and the open brethren, who were prepared to undertake some sort of limited war work or military service. The most well known group of objectors were the Quakers, whose views were accepted by the War Office, but even then there are complications. One of the basic tenets of the religion is that of individual thought. Whether a man should kill enlist, or not ,was left to the individual's "inner light".

There are other equally complex aspects, such as objections on moral grounds to the war in general,and the taking of of life by men who may , or may not have been, atheists. Perhaps the most controversial of all perhaps, were political objections to the war. Political objectors, mainly Socialists, objected on the grounds that the war was being fought largely by the working class of Britain, who had no quarrel with their counterparts in Germany.

A complex subject indeed.

TR

There are also other complications. There were those who objected to military or even

[MichaelBully]

Thank you for all the information Terry. Yes indeed. If one is writing a drama about the plight of CO's in the Great War, it makes sense to find the worst case scenario for maximium impact, but the impression ends up being generated that the said worse case scenario is typical, which is not the case.

Personally I think that the issues surrounding conscientious objection are important because it was part of the overall history of the Great War.

How we judge the ethics of people ninety years ago is a tough question. Especially as the concept of large scale conscription was not part of British

tradition, and how the course of the Great War unfolded was something that could not possibly have been envisaged in 1914.

Going back to the aformentioned 'Days of Hope' drama, one aspect that was covered was the range of objections to being conscripted; the main character had what could broadly be called a 'Christian Socialist' view, but there were Quaker 'absolutists' who refused to engage in anything related to the war effort, and also an atheist Socialist Revolutionary who refused to participate in a war he viewed as 'capitalist' and 'imperialist'.

'Days of Hope' also mentioned organisations such as the No Conscription Fellowship and George Lansbury was featured speaking at NCF meeting which got stormed and broken up by a patriotic mob.Again you have to consider such incidents are great for dramatic effect but may not have been typical.

Although 'Days of Hope' might have been simplistic, misleading, and at times verged on propaganda , I have to admit that watching it at a tender age of 13 or 14 made me think about the role of the CO's and groups such as the No Conscription Fellowship, a side to the Great War that I was not taught at school. I haven't a clue how the Great War is presented at school these days, but it seems from looking at the work of the Peace Pledge Union , there are attempts to encourage an awareness of the issue surrounding conscientious objection within the education system. But I have no idea how this actually works in practise.

[themonsstar]

Here is the orbat for Dec 1918 NCC

[Simon Colbeck]

Interesting to find this thread having belatedly joined the forum after several years of researching COs in WW1. My interest arose from knowing a Quaker and former NCF member, Howard Marten (when I was a child) who, in 1916 had been the first CO to be sentenced to be shot. His sentence with those of 33 others in the same group, was commuted to penal servitude but his story made a major impression esp as my father and grandfather were both career soldiers and I had grown up with the usual ideas about courage and heroism in war being exclusive to combatants.

Brutal treatment of COs was fairly commonplace in WW1 both in military custody and in prisons and Home Office work camps. 81 COs are known to have died from  mistreatment and/or medical neglect - a relatively high number considering that there were no more than approx 20,000 who applied for exemption on the grounds of conscientious objection; and many of these accepted non-combatant service without resistance.  A minority of 'absolutists' refused any form of military or alternative service, believing this to be indirectly supporting war or freeing others to fight in their place. Socialist and absolutist COs were the most likely to have their claims rejected by the tribunals and to suffer harsh treatment as a consequence. Almost all COs had to face degrees of ostracism and public hostility often including loss of employment.  A more respectful climate grew within a few years of the war's end however and many prominent resisters and opponents of the war had successful business, professional and political careers.  NCF co-founders Clifford Allen and Fenner Brockway were notable examples although Allen died prematurely in 1939 partly as a result of punishment diets and hunger strikes in prison. Bertrand Russell was the best known NCF leader, already too old to be conscripted in WW1 but imprisoned for seditious writings and quite leniently treated as an aristocrat; he became an anti-war 'celebrity' in old age, dying aged 97 in 1970.

Howard Marten's story is included in this 2014 documentary: 

 

[MaureenE]

The following is an account, available online,  of a man of German background but a British citizen, regarded as an "enemy alien Briton", who ended up for a few months in France in a non-combatant corps (N C C ) where conscientious objectors were usually sent, even though he had volunteered. There are references to COs in his account. The NCCs were not well regarded.

 

Page 48 The War Diary of a Square Peg. With a Dictionary of War Words by Maximilian A Mügge. 1920 Archive.org. The author was transferred to a non-combatant corps (N C C ),  with which he served in France for a few months late May-August 1916.  He was soon transferred again to an Infantry Works Battalion in England which he calls "a political concentration camp".

 

Cheers

Maureen

 

[Simon Colbeck]

21 minutes ago, Maureene said:

The following is an account, available online,  of a man of German background but a British citizen, regarded as an "enemy alien Briton", who ended up for a few months in France in a non-combatant corps (N C C ) where conscientious objectors were usually sent, even though he had volunteered. There are references to COs in his account. The NCCs were not well regarded.

 

Page 48 The War Diary of a Square Peg. With a Dictionary of War Words by Maximilian A Mügge. 1920 Archive.org. The author was transferred to a non-combatant corps (N C C ),  with which he served in France for a few months late May-August 1916.  He was soon transferred again to an Infantry Works Battalion in England which he calls "a political concentration camp".

 

Cheers

Maureen

 

I can well imagine that a volunteer would resent being enlisted in the NCC.  It was nicknamed the 'No Courage Corps' and not esteemed by either combatant soldiers or by COs whose principles were more 'absolute'.  It was probably preferable to prison or, in the case of an 'enemy alien', preferable to an internment camp.

[Chris_Baker]

Just for interest: https://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/army/regiments-and-corps/the-non-combatant-corps-2/