Opposition to Conscription but not the War

[MichaelBully]

I had been thinking about the No-Conscription Fellowship (NCF) , and had wondered whether the organisation were essentially opposed to the Great War, or at least British participation in the War : Having decided that they were unlikely to achieve this aim, they were cutting their losses so to speak and focusing on preventing conscription- then opposing conscription- when this became law.

This might just be presumption and lazy thinking on my part.

I thought again about this topic when looking at local newspapers from 1915. In the 'Brighton Gazette' of 8th September 1915, found an account of a rally in Brighton held at the Duke of York picturehouse- still a working cinema incidently. The date of the rally was 5th September 1915, and those present were addressed by J.H. Thomas the MP for Derby. According to the newspaper account, the MP gave a speech against both conscription and entering into peace negotiations to end the War.

Am quite interested in learning more about opposition to conscription which came from parties that were not necessarily against the War. Also if the NCF included individuals who were adopting said stance.

Regards, Michael Bully

EDIT OOps ! date of rally was 5th September 1915 - not 1918 as first posted.

[Magnumbellum]

There was certainly opposition to conscription based upon other premises than opposition to that particular war, or war itself. Put at its simplest, it was the belief that one volunteer was worth ten pressed men, or that Britain had throughout the 19th century kept aloof from the European stigma of inducing patriotism by force rather than honour. It was the division between the holders of such views and those who simply insisted on more cannon-fodder, come what may, that led to the raging controversy over conscription, culminating in the unprecedented British step of mass conscription "for the duration". I put it that way, because there had previously been a form of conscription to the militia.

All that, however, bears little relation to the No-Conscription Fellowship. Its founders, primarily a coalition of socialists and Christian pacifists, were against the war as such, and did what they could to try to stop it. Fenner Brockway was far-sighted enough by November 1914 to realise that if the war continued there was a real danger of conscription being imposed - hence his use of the Leader, the ILP paper of which he was the editor, as a platform to launch a movement to try to stop the possibility of conscription. Anyone who joined the N-CF on the illusion that it fully supported the war while solely opposing conscription would have had a very uncomfortable time; there is nothing in their literature, a great deal of which I have read, to encourage that view.

Speaking of foresightedness, it was apparently most foresighted of the Brighton Gazette to be able to publish in September 1915 a report of meeting held in September 1918!

[Gibbo]

According to J. H. Thomas's entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography:

'He supported the war effort, while helping to keep the Labour Party together by defending the freedom of Ramsay MacDonald and other socialists to criticize it...He campaigned against conscription, but only from fear of national divisions and labour unrest, and easily reconciled himself to its eventual peaceful introduction.'

[MichaelBully]

Helpful as ever MB, much appreciated. Yes so N-CF was essentially anti-war . I have done some research about a few individuals connected to the Brighton branch of the N-CF and they were anti-war more than just opposed to conscription. But was wondering how typical this was.

Yes I can see how the views converge in the sense that those male N-CF members of military age would risk being conscripted to fight a war that they disagreed with: So it was in their interests at the outset of the Great War to oppose conscription.

From what I remember from reading J H Thomas' speech, he used various arguments against conscription. One was that the military could not arm or maintain all the extra men -he was refering to the shell shortages earlier in 1915. Another was that there was pressure to introduce conscription to please Britain's allies.

I am going to go back to Brighton History Centre in the near future so will try to find and then summarise J H Thomas' speech.

And yes, I have corrected the date clanger in the first post ! Thanks

Gibbo- thanks for the extra information re. J H Thomas. So possibly he was being pragmatic in his approach. As far as I recall he had some affiliation to the National Union of Railwaymen. I don't know if this influenced his decision or not .

Regards,

Michael Bully

There was certainly opposition to conscription based upon other premises than opposition to that particular war, or war itself. Put at its simplest, it was the belief that one volunteer was worth ten pressed men, or that Britain had throughout the 19th century kept aloof from the European stigma of inducing patriotism by force rather than honour. It was the division between the holders of such views and those who simply insisted on more cannon-fodder, come what may, that led to the raging controversy over conscription, culminating in the unprecedented British step of mass conscription "for the duration". I put it that way, because there had previously been a form of conscription to the militia.

All that, however, bears little relation to the No-Conscription Fellowship. Its founders, primarily a coalition of socialists and Christian pacifists, were against the war as such, and did what they could to try to stop it. Fenner Brockway was far-sighted enough by November 1914 to realise that if the war continued there was a real danger of conscription being imposed - hence his use of the Leader, the ILP paper of which he was the editor, as a platform to launch a movement to try to stop the possibility of conscription. Anyone who joined the N-CF on the illusion that it fully supported the war while solely opposing conscription would have had a very uncomfortable time; there is nothing in their literature, a great deal of which I have read, to encourage that view.

Speaking of foresightedness, it was apparently most foresighted of the Brighton Gazette to be able to publish in September 1915 a report of meeting held in September 1918!

[Gibbo]

Thomas was a member of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, and from 1906 he was its organisng secretary, which meant that he was an employee of the union rather than the GWR. He became MP for Derby in January 1910 and ASRS assistant secretary in September of the same year. He was involved in the merger of three of the four railway unions to form the NUR in early 1913 (ASLEF was the one that stayed out, becoming its assistant secretary. In July 1916 he was its general secretary.

Michael's description of him as a pramatist appears to be accurate. According to the ODNB:

He wanted working men generally and his union's members in particular to secure a better life and increased power, but by improving their position and opportunities within existing economic, social, and political structures. His collectivism served individualist assumptions, and his economic opinions were mildly redistributionist yet solidly orthodox. In both trade unionism and labour politics he was a constitutionalist, upholding the authority of national leaderships; the limited aims of collective bargaining, with strikes as a weapon only of last resort; the priority of the ‘public interest’, and the supremacy of the ballot box and parliament.

[MichaelBully]

Editorial comment from Brighton Gazette, 11th September 1915

The two points of View

In the general scheme of things right, and wrong hold their appointed place. One is necessary to the other. The same holds good in regard to such antagonisms as the positive and negative, and the analogy of the argument can be traced in the relation of black to white. Perhaps a great deal depends on the neatness of the arguments, and in that sense there was much to be said in favour of the order in which Conscription and the War were considered on two succssive days at the Trade Union Congress.One perceived that curious mentality of Trade Unionins. On the first day the Congress proclaimed pious horror of conscription as a military system; on the next day with ever more vehmence it declared that this war was just and holy and must be fought to a British victory. At first the contradiction suggests that Trade Unions want the war to go on but desire other forces in to the trenches whilst they do the shouting at a safe distance, But on second thoughts there is an impression that the anti-conscription vote was only a pious resolution. Obviously, it the war is to be won the army must be forthcoming to win it.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

So interesting to note that it was also claimed that the TUC itelf was anti-conscription but pro-war if the 'Brighton Gazette' is to be trusted.

[MichaelBully]

Thank you for the further information Gibbo.

Going back to J H Thomas' speech, looking at the coverage again, the points he raised against Conscription were

1) That it was not the action of responsible government but " a mere press campaign organised, controlled and inspired by Lord Northclife who had today assumed the role of dictator. "

2) Conscription would hinder the military.

3) At the moment there were thousands of soldiers already enlisted who could not be equipped .

4) Also that the Allies were trying to force Conscription on Britain and the implication was that they didn't think Britain was sacrificing enough in the war effort.

He seemed to be a bit naughty in denouncing Northcliffe's newspapers' impact, whilst at the same time trying to exploit their influence regarding shortages of equipment. But his audience were reported to be hissing when Lord Northcliffe's name was mentioned.

[Simon Colbeck]

Resistance to conscription was quite deeply embedded in old fashioned Liberalism. It was quite possible for Liberal politicians including the PM Asquith, to be fully supportive of the war effort but very reluctant to move to compulsory military service, seen as a continental innovation, inconsistent with 'British liberties' and very much a last resort.  Opposition within the Labour movement came from socialists and trades unions for separate but often overlapping reasons; internationalist hostility to workers being compelled to fight 'the capitalists' war'; and fear of the conscription principle being extended to industrial employment. Religious and political 'conscience' also coincided more often in an era when outright 'atheism' was rare and seldom admitted.

[David Filsell]

All well covered in Simon Heffer's new book.

[Terry_Reeves]

See Conscience and Politics - The British Government and Conscientious Objector to Military Service 1916-1919,  John Rae, Oxford University Press, 1970.

 

A first-rate publication.

 

TR

Edited 22 October , 2019 by Terry_Reeves

[Simon Colbeck]

Thanks for the book recommendations. John Rae's is interesting as an 'apologist' account of official and popular attitudes to COs, written as a response to David Boulton's more readable but journalistic and not always accurate 'Objection Overruled'.  Boulton's book is recently re-issued with some good additional commentary by the author. None of the recent books specifically about the NCF, have improved on two older ones in my opinion; Jo Vellacott's 'Bertrand Russell and the Pacifists in the First World War' (re-issued with 'Conscientious Objection' prefacing the full title) and Thomas Kennedy's 'The Hound of Conscience' which is excellent but out of print and hard to find.

And I intend to read 'Staring at God' soon...