A Brighton Round Up

[MichaelBully]

Continuing my reading of local newspapers from 1914-1920 -found this story in 'The Brighton Gazette' of 13th June 1916

"A Brighton Round -Up

An experience of an unusual character befel travellers arriving at Brighton Central Railway Station last evening between 6 and 8 o'clock. The Military held a "round-up" of all passengers arriving, with a view to securing any of military age unable to offer satisfactory reasons for not being in the Army or Navy. It was the first experience of the sort in Brighton, and was conducted with much efficency and with as little inconvenience as possible to travellers. Only one "arrest" was made, but some 60 names and addresses were taken for further investigation. "

First time that I had heard of such a Round Up taking place in this district or anywhere else. Has anyone else found examples of this practice ?

Regards

Michael Bully

[Magnumbellum]

This is the first I have ever heard of a WW1 military "round-up" among the general public anywhere in Britain. I find it quite frightening - something I would associate with Nazi Germany or the military dictatorships in Latin America, rather than here. It would also be interesting to know the authority by which the military claimed power not only stop and question civilians, but also take names and details and even, apparently, arrest one person..

In garrison towns the Military Police patrol to look out for military personnel misbehaving themselves. In WW1 the civilian police raided peace movement offices and peace meetings to seek out suspected evaders of military service. But a direct interface between the military and civilians going about their ordinary business is something else entirely. This may have been an overzealous initiative of some local military commander, which no-one else in authority dared to question.

[MichaelBully]

Hello MB

I was surprised by the 'Round Up' article, so curious to see if anyone else had heard of such activity, and as you say, what the legal basis would be. Next time I am looking at the local newspapers, might well look at other papers of the time and see how and if they reported the incident.

But the article describes this occurence of being of an 'unusual nature', so perhaps it really was expectional use of military powers.

This is the first I have ever heard of a WW1 military "round-up" among the general public anywhere in Britain. I find it quite frightening - something I would associate with Nazi Germany or the military dictatorships in Latin America, rather than here. It would also be interesting to know the authority by which the military claimed power not only stop and question civilians, but also take names and details and even, apparently, arrest one person..

In garrison towns the Military Police patrol to look out for military personnel misbehaving themselves. In WW1 the civilian police raided peace movement offices and peace meetings to seek out suspected evaders of military service. But a direct interface between the military and civilians going about their ordinary business is something else entirely. This may have been an overzealous initiative of some local military commander, which no-one else in authority dared to question.

[William Shelford]

I too have been trawling through local newspapers, namely the "Leighton Buzzard Observer". This task is far from finished, as I have only done 1917 to 1940, plus a few odd issues so far. While the First World War is not the reason for doing this research, I have found the period very interesting.

In the "Leighton Buzzard Observer for 2nd January 1917, in a column titled LUTON SAYINGS AND DOINGS on page 7, is the following:-

"A sensation was caused on the Market Square, during the holidays by a round up, in the middle of an auction sale. The military and police closed in on the square and carried out a systematic round-up of men of military age. No arrests were made, but about forty or fifty names and addresses were taken to verify the statements of the men."

[Terry_Reeves]

I think the crack-down came as a result of the confusion that arose over changeover from voluntarism to conscription. The responsibility for the compilation of the military register was passed to the Adjutant General's department under Sir Neville McCready. McCready told the Cabinet that conscription would be better managed by a civilian department, but this was rejected. McCready was left with no option but to use the methods previously applied under voluntarism, that is recruiting officers at area, district and command levels who had no experience of conscription and registers. Each Area Recruiting Officer was tasked to draw up a card index for each man in his area who would be liable for conscription which was maintained by civilian clerks. It appears that those who were reluctant conscripts had little difficulty in arranging to have their cards removed by the clerks in that area, the inference being that they were being bribed. Major (brevet Lt Colonel) Aukland Geddes, who served as Director of Recruiting 1916-1917, told the Select Committee on Military Service in 1917 that in one county (not London) forty thousand white cards (registration cards) had been been removed from the register by "deliberate vice". This meant that the War Office had to try and find the missing men - hence the round ups. Incidentally, the task of conscription passed to the newly constituted Ministry of National Service in August 1917, a civilian organisation with, Geddes as its Director.

TR

[MichaelBully]

That's fascinating, thanks for the information. Yes I think that we have to always consider the fact that conscription was totally new to both the military and political authorities, and as Terry says, the change over period from volunteering to conscription would have generated confusion.

In relation to the Minstry of National Service , would 'round ups' , if they occured again, be a matter for the police or the military authorities?

Were there any instances of clerks-who had 'lost' cards- being successfully prosecuted for being bribed?

Also appreciate hearing of the 'round up' in Luton, thank you William.

Michael Bully

I think the crack-down came as a result of the confusion that arose over changeover from voluntarism to conscription. The responsibility for the compilation of the military register was passed to the Adjutant General's department under Sir Neville McCready. McCready told the Cabinet that conscription would be better managed by a civilian department, but this was rejected. McCready was left with no option but to use the methods previously applied under voluntarism, that is recruiting officers at area, district and command levels who had no experience of conscription and registers. Each Area Recruiting Officer was tasked to draw up a card index for each man in his area who would be liable for conscription which was maintained by civilian clerks. It appears that those who were reluctant conscripts had little difficulty in arranging to have their cards removed by the clerks in that area, the inference being that they were being bribed. Major (brevet Lt Colonel) Aukland Geddes, who served as Director of Recruiting 1916-1917, told the Select Committee on Military Service in 1917 that in one county (not London) forty thousand white cards (registration cards) had been been removed from the register by "deliberate vice". This meant that the War Office had to try and find the missing men - hence the round ups. Incidentally, the task of conscription passed to the newly constituted Ministry of National Service in August 1917, a civilian organisation with, Geddes as its Director.

TR

[Terry_Reeves]

Michael

As far as I'm aware the civil police normally dealt with such matters, but there os no reason why the military could not have taken part in spot checks. As for the clerks, this appears to have been an assumption on part of the military, and probably a reasonable one given it was the clerks who had immediate access to the cards. I cannot say if any were ever caught and prosecuted however.

TR

[Magnumbellum]

I would dispute the right of the military to stop civilians in the street and question them. That is what was so disturbing about the Brighton report. In the Luton report it is made clear that the police were involved, and I would imagine that it was the police who actually asked questions. The military, no doubt, simply stood around as a form of intimidation.

It needs to be remembered that even in the case of a CO known to have refused to comply with a notice to report to the local barracks, it was always a police constable who called at the house not only to arrest the man, but to bring him before the local Magistrates' Court to be formally identified before he could be handed over to the military.

[MichaelBully]

Have been having another trawl though local papers and found a report from 'The Sussex Daily News' dated 30th July 1917, showing that there was another round up ( to find men of military age ) on Sunday 29th July 1917 lasting from 12.30- 2.00 PM. This time the entrances to both the Palace pier and the West Pier in Brighton were sealed off in a joint operation conducted by "military police and Canadians and borough polics officers " .

The article is titled '

In Search of Recruits

Raid upon both Piers at Brighton

Much banter but no arrests

Will start typing out the article soon. Particulary as it details the co-operation between the civic and military authorities. There were no arrests but some cases found 'for inquiry' .

[MichaelBully]

[From The Sussex Daily News 30th July 1917 )

In Search of Recruits

Raid upon both Piers at Brighton

Much banter but no arrests

A recruiting "round up" was carried out on the piers at Brighton yesterday under the diretion of Colonely Whittle, who had the co-operation on the West Pier of Sir John Blaker, J.P. Major Speed, A.P.M, and Lieutenant

McNaught, with a detachment of military police and Canadians, and borough police officers under Detective Superintendent Forward, Inspector SInden, and Detective Sergeant Lodge; while on the Palace Pier Captain Twigg ( Canadian, A.P.M) was in charge, with Captain Huble-Crofts (Royal Sussex), Lieutenant Hancock, Mr. Ernest Wyon (Assistant Hon. Recruiting Officer) Mr. Morgan (Head Recruiting Officer), and a contingent of military police and borough police, the latter including Sergeant Hill, Detective Sergeant Scales, and Detective Barden. The operations were carried out simultaneously on both piers, and, beginning at half-past twelve, lasted until two o'clock in the case of the West, and half an hour later at the Palace. They were conducted throughout with the utmost courtesy on the part of Colonel Whittle and his staffs, and with the exception of a few cases no resentment was shown on the part of interrogated. One man made a wild dash for the centre gate on the West Pier and had to be forcibly handled, but his action seemed to be attributable to his losing his head through sheer excitement rather than to any refusal to disclose his identity papers. Speaking generally "perfect good temper was shown and there was not infrequently an exchange of smart and amusing repartee.

Facing The Music When The Band Stopped

"Business" began shortly before the conclusion of the morning band performances. They were very largely attended on both piers, and as people began to stroll away from them and off either pier for lunch they were surprised to find all exists barred by the military and borough police to men and youths of military age until they could give satisfactory documentary evidence why they were not serving in one or another of his Majesty's forces. Registration and exemption cards or protection certificates had to be shown, and those who from carelessness or some other reason had neglected to bring them with them found themselves in a rather awkward predicament. Indeed, one feature of the round-up was the large number of London visitors who had no papers on them and it served to emphasise the importance of every man of military age not in the Army carrying about with hm the documents which show why . SIngularly enough there was included among this batch a Foreign Office official and another holding a post in the War Office. Those who had the necessary proof were speedily passed through the barriers without separation from their lady friends but on each pier about 25 or 30 "doubtfuls" were kept back until the close.

No Arrest, But Some Cases For Inquiry

In the result no arrests were made, but many names were taken for further inquiries, and the probabilities are that these will yield a number of khaki canditates. Not a few tendered out-of-daate rejections. The majority of the men who came up to the barrier were London Jews and struck apparently by the large number of rejection certificates held by them, Sir John Blaker said sypathetically but with a twinkle in his eye, "Dear me, what an unhealtthy lot of fellows you seem to be !" Aliens were very numerous, and among the different nationalities represented were Russian, Italian, Swiss, Danish, Dutch, American, Indian and Egyptian. Two champion swimmers, one of whom has made repeated attempts to swim the Channel and all ut succeeded on one occasion were among those who came under Colonel Whittle's notice. One rejected man looked the picture of health and lacked the necessary papers. "You carry health about with you on your face, and you ought to carry something in your pocket to shew you are unhealthy" was the smiling reproof Colonel Whittle gave him.

.....TO BE CONTINUED

[MichaelBully]

PART 2

[[From The Sussex Daily News 30th July 1917 )

In Search of Recruits

Raid upon both Piers at Brighton

Much banter but no arrests

CONT

Candidate for the Guards

Several extremely tall youths turned out to be under military age, and one who looked to be almost a six-footer gave his age as only 16. "pass 16, may you still go on growing!" was the order to the gatemen. "I'm only 17," said a smartly dressed youth, puffing on a cigarette. "You should not smoke cigarettes or you'll soon have to come up," advised Colonel Whittle as he passed him though the barrier. "Do you want me?" queried a grey-haired veteran, but his attempt to take the rise out of the military was a failure, the laugh going dead against him with the prompt reply, "No, one can see you are in your second childhood." "I see you have exemption until the end of August.No doubt you will join up then," said Colonel Whittle in another case. "No, he won't," protested his wife, who was with him. "Fie upon ladies for keeping the men back," rejoined Colonel Whittle. Many ladies were among the throng, and seemed loth to leave although it was politely suggested ot them, amid much merriement, that they might wait outside "for your husbands-and others."

Very Summery!

"I have got nothing on me but my badge," declared a munition worker: and there was more laughter when the examining officer wittily rejoined, "Then you certainly ought to be locked up for coming out in such a state."

Colonel Whittle must have a very keen eye for faces. Without even a glance at the paper, he recognized severla men who figured in the round-up at the central railway not long ago; and he was right every time.

"I'm 18 next October," said another,-"Well then, pass 18 next October."

Asked what he was doing in Brighton, a pale-faced young man without his papers said he was "resting."

"Then what are you doing when you are not resting"?

-Oh, I'm on munitions.

Having satisfied the examiner, he took his departure with obvious relief.

Several women when passing the barrier paused and perkily asked "Don't you want us"? but they paused no longer when Colonel Whittle smilingly suggested they they might like to join the women's corps of workers in France.

The news of the "raid" spread very rapidly and during the greater part of the operations there was a big crowd of interested onlookers outside the entrance to each pier.

ENDS

[Graham Stewart]

This is the first I have ever heard of a WW1 military "round-up" among the general public anywhere in Britain. I find it quite frightening - something I would associate with Nazi Germany or the military dictatorships in Latin America, rather than here. It would also be interesting to know the authority by which the military claimed power not only stop and question civilians, but also take names and details and even, apparently, arrest one person..

In garrison towns the Military Police patrol to look out for military personnel misbehaving themselves. In WW1 the civilian police raided peace movement offices and peace meetings to seek out suspected evaders of military service. But a direct interface between the military and civilians going about their ordinary business is something else entirely. This may have been an overzealous initiative of some local military commander, which no-one else in authority dared to question.

To be honest I can't see a problem with it since so many were failing to turn up for Attestation under the Military Services Act. In the North East local newspapers were running columns of names and last known addresses of those who were failing to turn up and the Police Gazette for the period lists them as "deserters". Any operation like this would have been conducted with full co-operation of the local Police authorities, under something similar to the Defence of the Realm Act.

During wartime you can't be too picky with your morals, when blokes who should be attesting are buggering off leaving your own loved ones to bear the brunt of it. We have a similar situation today when it appears that two leading bleeding hearts in this country are coming up with the thought that we may have infringed a certain terrorist gentlemans "human rights", because we topped him.

[MichaelBully]

Hi Graham. I started the thread as I am getting fascinated by local papers coverage of the Great War, and I had never heard of such Rounds Ups occuring until reading tne local newspapers.

What intrigues me is firstly what was the legal basis which authorised the Round Ups ? Perhaps it was DORA or some amendment to the Military Services Act? I haven't a clue so would welcome opinions on this.

Secondly, the two Round Ups reported didn't seem to have yielded that many arrests so perhaps they were discontinued for not meeting their objectives. I don't know any more than what the newspapers reported below, which is why I welcome all the comments on this thread. Perhaps such publicity was counter-productive in warning deserters or would be deserters not to think that they could hide in crowded places that could be quickly sealed off such as the station or the piers.

I was interested to read about the North East local newspapers running columns on said deserters. Haven't noticed this in the Brighton papers so far.

Regards.

[Magnumbellum]

To be honest I can't see a problem with it since so many were failing to turn up for Attestation under the Military Services Act. In the North East local newspapers were running columns of names and last known addresses of those who were failing to turn up and the Police Gazette for the period lists them as "deserters". Any operation like this would have been conducted with full co-operation of the local Police authorities, under something similar to the Defence of the Realm Act.

There was little point in allegedly fighting a war for democracy if the first thing that happens is that democratic procedures are circumvented. There was no provision under DORA, the Army Act or the Military Service Acts at any time for the military to stop and and question civilians. The only way this could have been achieved was by formally declaring a state of emergency and imposing military law. This never happened. The procedure for men deemed liable for military service but who had not responded to a notice to report to a specified military establishment on a specified day was for the civilian police to arrest the man and bring him before the local magistrates' court, who, on being satisfied about the facts, would fine him and hand him over to the military.

The military police did have power to arrest deserters, being men who had been formally enlisted, but not until that status had been reached.

The best I can make of the press reports about "round-ups" without the involvement of the civilian police is that either the press were mistaken in not mentioning the police, or the military were acting ultra vires and were overruled by higher authority.

[truthergw]

I agree. The notion that all normal rule of law can be set aside in time of war sounds too much like what my father and grandfathers fought against. As far as troops being involved in the round ups is concerned, I can see no great cause for surprise. The military are always at the disposal of local authority if that is deemed necessary. That is why so many were kept in Britain throughout the war.

[MichaelBully]

Thanks for your input Tom and MB. Appreciated as ever.

I'll see if I can find out any more from local papers. Broadly speaking there seem to be two issues here- if we are prepared to take the newspaper accounts at face value.

Firstly was there a legal basis for the Round Up?. So far there seems to be none that have been identified.

Secondly, are the military authorities justified in taking action without a legal basis to ensure that no male of military age slips through the net ? That all men of the age to serve are either in the military, or legally recognised as doing work of national importance, or as conscientious objectors? My personal view would be No. Either go the whole hog and call a state of national emergency ( as Magnus Bellum has highlighted as being an option ) or stay within the provisions of the law.

What I would add is that we always have to remember the location of Brighton . How physically near to the Front the region was. I will have to look up what the sea front of the town would be like.Was access to the beach banned? Would there be barbed wire and other defences there- even though the chances of invasion were slight ? The south coast of England has had its own provisions in relation to wars, possible raids, invasion fears, going back centuries. Perhaps the Round Ups were part of a wider drive to ensure that the area became and remained militarised as it were, more of a psychological tactic rather than serious attempts to catch evaders.

[MichaelBully]

Have just been looking at 'Military Times-Britain's Military History Magazine' Issue No.10 July 2011. There is an article titled 'To The Trenches-Conscription and the First World War' by Tim Lynch.

The Writer states (in relation to the Military Service Act(s) )

"Throughout the war, regular 'comb outs' were conducted by the police at theatres and cinemas to grab anyone eligibile for service who had not registered. " .

Unfortunately Tim Lynch does not go any further or to give examples of said 'comb outs' as I am wanting to read more on the subject.

Interesting article .

[Magnumbellum]

Tim Lynch's article, as cited by Michael Bully, confuses as ell as clarifies:

The clarification is that "comb outs" were conducted by the civilian police, not by the military, which is the point I have been trying to make all along.

The confusion is that the "comb outs" are said to have been conducted "throughout the war", which, if it means anything at all, means from 4 August 1914 to 11 November 1918 or even later. Conscription was not imposed until March 1916, so what would be the purpose of any "comb out" before then? Lynch also claims that the "comb outs" were for the purpose of grabbing "anyone eligible for service who had not registered". The registration of August 1915 was not, at the time, of people "eligible for service", because, at the time, no compulsory service had been designated, let alone any eligibility for it. When compulsory service was instituted, it applied to by no means everyone who had been required to register.

It is possible that Lynch intended to say that "comb outs" were "conducted by the police from March 1916 to grab any men who had not reported for military service in accordance with instructions sent to them and any men who had evaded registration in 1915". In the meantime, however, I am adopting my usual stance in such situations, viz that an obviously muddled author cannot be relied upon for anything.

[MichaelBully]

Thank you for your help MB, appreciated once more.

I had wondered if the writer was raising the question of 'comb outs' from March 1916 onwards, which would be more in keeping with the rest of his article, rather than 'thoughout the war'. It would have helped the article if the writer had just cited even one example of a 'comb out', especially as he maintained that they were 'regular' occurences.

[Graham Stewart]

One for your notes - I found this in the Hansard dated 24th October 1916, the key words being "military authorities" as opposed to civil authorities. As I said earlier it's because so many were b*ggering off. I think you'll also find you were dcreed a "deserter" the minute you failed to turn up at your relevant Depot within an allotted time, obviously allowing for transport or family problems. I have copies of the Police Gazette at home, which was a fortnightly publication and those those that failed to turn up under both the Group System and Military Services Act are listed in the hundreds

LIABILITY TO SERVICE.

HC Deb 24 October 1916 vol 86 c923 923

§ 22. Mr. LUNDON

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will explain why the military authorities are so active in rounding up young Irishmen who lived in England for a short time, but who went back to Ireland previous to the passage of Conscription, and at the same time close their eyes to the fact that thousands of young Englishmen of military age are living in Dublin and throughout Ireland without any question being put to them; is he aware that numbers of young Englishmen of military age can be seen daily at Irish race meetings, some of them in company with officers of high rank in Ireland; and whether he will see that, if young Irishmen are being harassed and persecuted, the same rule will be put in force against others, no matter in what capacity they work in Ireland and no matter to what profession they belong?

§ Mr. FORSTER

Under the Military Service Acts liability to service depends upon the question whether the individual has been ordinarily resident in Great Britain on or after a certain date, and, so long as the individual is a British subject, is wholly unconnected with the question of nationality or descent. If the hon. Member will furnish me with any information he may possess as to individuals believed to be liable under the Military Service Acts, but not summoned to the Colours, I will undertake that attention shall be paid to their cases wherever they may reside and in whatever capacity or profession they may be employed.

[Magnumbellum]

Interesting in illustrating the chauvinism displayed inside Parliament as well as outside, but Mr Lundon's reference to "military authorities" is not in itself proof that "military" authorities rather than civil authorities were engaged in "round-ups". MPs and even Ministers can be careless in their use of terminology, as, for example, reference to the Report of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill 2011 will show. Much more significant is Graham's citation of the Police Gazette's listing of those who had not reported for service as required. Whyever would the Police be interested, if it it was their duty, rather than that of the military, to bring the recalcitrants in?

[Graham Stewart]

Desertion has always been a crime taken seriously by the military and even today they work hand in hand with the police, when wanting to apprehend the offenders. In wartime it it would become much worse and the military become even more reliant on the civil authorities for the apprehension of offenders. Once taken into custody and then handed over to the military, the military justice system takes over via Kings Regulations the Manual of Military Law.

Even before the introduction of the Group System and the MSA you find instructions on how to deal with the increasing number of desertions taking place as seen in this July 1915 Instruction. As always it would have been amended as the time and circumstance dictated.

[Graham Stewart]

Sorry resizing hasn't worked but it goes onto say;-

and the O's.C. units including depots, recruiting offficers and civil police should work in close accord. To ensure that no available delay occurs, it may be necessary, especially in large units such as reserve battalions, to arrange for an increase of orderly-room clerical staff in order that a sub-division of the office may be entirley devoted to dealing, without delay, with all correspondence relating to absentees and dsereters.

In order to reduce the number of instances in which simple absence develops into the far greater crime of deserting, as soon as the absentee has been two days absent, his next-of-kin, as shown on his attestation, should be written to and asked to persuade him, in his own interest, to return and thus prevent more serious measures being taken. At the same time, and with the same object in view reports of the absentee, additional to those ordered by K.R. 514 and 515, should be sent to the police authorities mentioned in the latter para., with a request that steps may be taken to induce him to return to his unit at once.

The police should be able, on receiving A.F. W.3111, at once either to get in touch with the man and carry out Home Office instructions printed on the back of the form, or report that his whereabouts are unknown to them.

There appear to be in each Command at least two or three reserve units from which desertions of men returned from the fornt are heavy. In such cases steps should be taken under G.O.C.-in-C's. instructions to reduce the number of desertions, and it is for G.O.C.-in-C's., consideration whether it is desirable to move units in which desertions are numerous away from the close vicinty of their recruting areas.

The limitation of advances of pay to men on furlough prior to joining their re-joining units after discharge from hospital, and the witholding of seperation allowance whilst the soldier ia absent without leave are under consideration.

In conclusion G.O's.C-in-C are invited to express their opinions as to the desirebility of having under their orders in each district in their respective Commands selected officers especially charged with superintending and co-ordinating work in connection with reporting and apprehending absentees and deserters. They should also express their views as to the advisability of taking steps to make known through the Press to all including civilians, the extreme gravity of the offence of desertion, especially in time of war, and the duties and liabilities of all in connection therewith.

(L.108/Gen.No./1770, A.G.1)

[Graham Stewart]

Unfortunately I could couldn't resize and attach the necessary document, but considering this was directed at those already serving in 1915, it would then have been amended to include those failing to turn up both the Group System and M.S.A.. To think life would go on as normal under wartime conditions is in itself niave and some of the best places to gather up offenders would be at public gatherings i.e. cinemas, race meetings etc and places of public transport, in which both the police and military would work hand in hand.

[Magnumbellum]

The police should be able, on receiving A.F. W.3111, at once either to get in touch with the man and carry out Home Office instructions printed on the back of the form, or report that his whereabouts are unknown to them.

This usefully corroborates the point which I have been attempting to make all along that, although the Army had necessarily to collate information on absentees, it was the responsibility of the Police actually to apprehend them. My estimation is that, as frequently happens these days, the press was careless in reporting "round ups", emphasising the deliberately intimidating presence of the military without making it clear who did the actual apprehending. That is no excuse for perpetuating such careless confusion almost a century later.