Conscientious objectors question

[GlenBanna]

I would appreciate if any of the forum members have come across the answers to the following questions in their reading

Were imprisoned conscientious objectors allowed any of the following?

Visits

Food parcels

To smoke

Exercise

Thanks in advance

Glen

[johnboy]

[jay dubaya]

I have a transcription from the Liddle Archive relating to a conscientious objector by the name of Ronald Long, I'll have to dig it out but I'm sure he was allowed out on visits and that provisions were made for him and COs to cook their own food. Exercise was daily but not allowed to go to church

Jon

[Terry_Reeves]

Glen

Most COs who were imprisoned, were subjected to the rules of the Third Division designed for the harder criminal elements in society. . John Rae in his book Conscience and Politics (pp 204-204) has this to say about it:

"The majority were sentenced to imprisonment "with hard labour", and although the Dickensian phrase had legal rather than physical significance, the sentence still demanded that the prisoner should be kept in strict separation for the first twenty-eight days. After this period, he was allowed to work in association, and after two months, to communicate with and receive visits from relatives and "respectable friends". From six to ten hours each day the conscientious objectors were employed on making mailbags......"

TR

[centurion]

AFAIK all prisoners even those in solitary were allowed exercise even if it was just walking around an exercise yard on their own (apart from a supervising prison officer) for an hour a day

[Magnumbellum]

I have a transcription from the Liddle Archive relating to a conscientious objector by the name of Ronald Long, I'll have to dig it out but I'm sure he was allowed out on visits and that provisions were made for him and COs to cook their own food. Exercise was daily but not allowed to go to church

There is clearly some confusion here. CO prisoners were subject to the same rules as all other prisoners in the particular category to which they had been assigned. This included receiving a limited number of visitors for a limited time on limited occasions. At no time did they allow for prisoners to go out on visits. They were allowed to receive limited numbers of letters and parcels, but both incoming and outgoing communications were subject to scrutiny. There was no provision for any prisoners, COs or otherwise, to cook their own food. There was exercise, but it was often limited. COs were not forbidden to attend the prison chapel, but there was not normally provision for attending non-CofE services.

[johnboy]

I think some were put in workplaces where they were allowed out.

[centurion]

Round here there were hostels for COs used to work the land (sometimes alongside German POWs) and they went out in the evenings, however these places seem to have been located where it would be an exceeding long walk to go into town for a pint. Some COs did not mind working to feed the general populace but other more doctrinaire refused saying it was supporting the war effort - it was these who tended to end up in quod.

[CGM]

Round here there were hostels for COs used to work the land (sometimes alongside German POWs) ...............

Were they uniformed Non-Combatant Corps, do you know?

[centurion]

Were they uniformed Non-Combatant Corps, do you know?

From what I can gather - no - in civies

[johnboy]

From what I can gather - no - in civies

I think they were only uniformed if they enlisted for a non combatant role.

[CGM]

I think they were only uniformed if they enlisted for a non combatant role.

Thank you Centurion.

johnboy, they were still conscientious objectors, but they accepted a uniformed, non-combatant role, after having explained their beliefs to the satisfaction of a Military Service Tribunal which then allowed them to serve in the Non-Combatant Corps. They couldn't choose to enlist in the Non-Combatant Corps.

Absolutists refused to serve in any way including in the Non-Combatant Corps. They faced imprisonment for this stand.

[Magnumbellum]

There appears to be even more confusion. GlenBanna's question was about "imprisoned conscientious objectors", i.e. conscientious objectors serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed by a duly constituted court - whether with or without hard labour, or whether by penal servitude - in one of His Majesty's Prisons.Over 6000 WW1 COs served such sentences, varying between 28 days and two years, some serving up to four sentences more or less consecutively.

The other matters raised by contributors to this thread, however interesting they may be in themselves, relate to COs elsewhere than in prison, and can only serve to mislead GlenBanna and other readers, on the interpretation that they must somehow relate to imprisoned COs, the subject of the original question.

[Magnumbellum]

They were still conscientious objectors, but they accepted a uniformed, non-combatant role, after having explained their beliefs to the satisfaction of a Military Service Tribunal which then allowed them to serve in the Non-Combatant Corps. They couldn't choose to enlist in the Non-Combatant Corps.

Absolutists refused to serve in any way including in the Non-Combatant Corps. They faced imprisonment for this stand.

This greatly oversimplifies the position. There were some COs who would have accepted direction to the Non-Combatant Corps, but whom Tribunals insisted on directing to an ordinary Army regiment, with the inevitable result of disobedience. There were other COs who were willing to accept direction to civilian Work of National Importance, as permitted under the Military Service Act, but whom Tribunals insisted on directing into the Army, again with the inevitable result of disobedience.

"They faced imprisonment for this stand" again misleadingly simplifies. COs directed into the N-CC or an ordinary Army regiment against their will refused to obey military orders for which they were formally court-martialled and awarded a specific sentence of imprisonment. There was no vague alleged offence of being a CO or being an absolutist. CO imprisonment was always a specific sentence for a specific incident of disobedience.

[jay dubaya]

Ronald Long was charged as a deserter and disobeying orders at Derby Barracks (4th/5th Sherwoods) and served 56 days in Wakefield Military Prison where he was refused church service and I quote 'they wouldn't let us go to church by the way. We were too heathen which of course, was breaking the regulations. We weren't fit to go to church that was the argument.'

At Tunstall in Sunderland he was under canvas with 20 other COs, on their arrival the cooks refused to cook for them so provision was made for them to draw their own stores and cook for themselves. It was here that Ronald Long was court martialed and sentenced to 2 years with hard labour. His sentence began at Newcastle Prison where he wore a grey prison suit before being transferred to Durham Prison where the cell doors were left open albeit you weren't allowed to leave the cell or talk and time was spent sewing mailbags. All 180 COs at Durham were exercised together each morning. Eventually he was sent back to Wakefield Prison which had become a 'prison work centre' and where he served the remainder of his sentence. It was here that friends could visit and could easily be met outside.

Jon

Liddle Collection - Leeds University Library

TAPE 132

This is an interview between John Mclennan and Mr Ronald Long of 100 Linden Place, Newton Aycliffe, County Durham in September 1971. Subject - Conscientious Objection in the First World War.

[CGM]

I think they were only uniformed if they enlisted for a non combatant role.

......johnboy, they were still conscientious objectors, but they accepted a uniformed, non-combatant role, after having explained their beliefs to the satisfaction of a Military Service Tribunal which then allowed them to serve in the Non-Combatant Corps. They couldn't choose to enlist in the Non-Combatant Corps.......

This greatly oversimplifies the position. There were some COs who would have accepted direction to the Non-Combatant Corps, but whom Tribunals insisted on directing to an ordinary Army regiment, with the inevitable result of disobedience. There were other COs who were willing to accept direction to civilian Work of National Importance, as permitted under the Military Service Act, but whom Tribunals insisted on directing into the Army, again with the inevitable result of disobedience........

Thank you very much for the additional information, Magnumbellum.

My answer was directly in response to the comment about those COs in uniform in the N-CC so I wasn't simplifying the situation, just avoiding taking the subject outside the topic.

They could not just enlist in the N-CC.

However, by saying they had been allowed ...I didn't include those COs who had been directed into the N-CC but who were not willing to accept this role, so thank you for adding that.

CGM

[Magnumbellum]

Ronald Long was charged as a deserter and disobeying orders at Derby Barracks (4th/5th Sherwoods) and served 56 days in Wakefield Military Prison where he was refused church service and I quote 'they wouldn't let us go to church by the way. We were too heathen which of course, was breaking the regulations. We weren't fit to go to church that was the argument.'

At Tunstall in Sunderland he was under canvas with 20 other COs, on their arrival the cooks refused to cook for them so provision was made for them to draw their own stores and cook for themselves. It was here that Ronald Long was court martialed and sentenced to 2 years with hard labour. His sentence began at Newcastle Prison where he wore a grey prison suit before being transferred to Durham Prison where the cell doors were left open albeit you weren't allowed to leave the cell or talk and time was spent sewing mailbags. All 180 COs at Durham were exercised together each morning. Eventually he was sent back to Wakefield Prison which had become a 'prison work centre' and where he served the remainder of his sentence. It was here that friends could visit and could easily be met outside.

Jon

Liddle Collection - Leeds University Library

TAPE 132

This is an interview between John Mclennan and Mr Ronald Long of 100 Linden Place, Newton Aycliffe, County Durham in September 1971. Subject - Conscientious Objection in the First World War.

The reference to Military Prison in the first sentence is unfortunately misleading, as what is being described is military detention, that is, custodial punishment within the Army, not a sentence of imprisonment within a civilian prison, which I understood to be the subject of the original question, and in terms of which I have responded.

In the case of the incident at the Army camp at Tunstall, Sunderland, it appears that the COs described were not even in military custodial quarters, let alone undergoing sentence in one of HM Prisons, again the subject of the original question.

The references to Newcastle and Durham Prisons appropriately describe the conditions, with the leniency allowed at Durham of leaving cell doors open while work tasks were being performed. Such leniency was a concession, not a right, but was occasionally allowed in prisons.

The final reference to Wakefield is again misleading, in that it is not properly explained that its status as a Home Office Work Centre, to cite the official title, meant that it was no longer a prison, signified by the locks being taken off the doors, the inmates wearing ordinary clothes, not prison uniforms, and the freedom to go outside in the evenings and on Sundays. It is precisely because it was not legally a prison that these things were allowed, and it helps in no way at all to cite such a regime as an example of the actual prison regime for COs, as asked in the original question.

If one is asked about apples, it is always helpful to reply in terms of apples; it can only serve to confuse if one starts talking about pears.

[jay dubaya]

With respect I am talking about imprisoned COs and cite facts from one that was there. Military detention in a prison is 'imprisonment' be it a military or civilian prison and does not call an apple a pear. I do not aim to confuse but do try to provide information which was requested. It is clear that 'rights' were flaunted in some cases

Jon

[centurion]

Imprisonment is usually used in a hopelessly imprecise way. Many of the instances referred to as imprisonment were in effect confinement or restriction . Imprisonment means in a prison. I agree with Magnaumbellum. very confusing. An Apple and a Pear are both similar fruits but still quite different. Shows the need to be precise.

[jay dubaya]

So a man locked in a wakefield prison cell is not 'imprisoned'?

[E Wilcock]

To the OP. If you are looking to research this for your proposed book, an excellent source on prison conditions is Martin Gilbert's Plough My Own Furrow a life of the objector, Clifford Allen. It includes letters and original sources.

[Magnumbellum]

So a man locked in a wakefield prison cell is not 'imprisoned'?

As it happens, Wakefield very neatly represents the contrast between a prison and a non-prison. Early in the war it was a prison, housing civilians serving sentences of imprisonment for various crimes, plus possibly some prisoners on remand awaiting trial. In October 1916, when the Home Office Scheme was devised to provide some solution to the scandal of thousands of COs in prison, serving no useful purpose to anyone, Wakefield was cleared of prisoners by sending them to other gaols, locks were taken off the cell doors, the entrance gate was no longer permanently shut, and it was available to receive conscientious objectors wearing plain clothes, not prison uniform, released from prison on licence so long as they accepted civilian work under civilian control in the newly declared Wakefield Work Centre, Outside work hours, in the evenings and on Sundays, they were free to go outside, and inside they could elect committees to make representations to the manager - not a prison governor - and for other purposes, and to create sports activities, social clubs etc, entirely unlike the then prison regime. Then in 1918 the Home Office, seeking to make an example of the Absolutist COs still languishing in prisons elsewhere, cleared Wakefield of COs, dispersing them to other Work Centres, and at public expense ordered new locks for the cell doors, kept the gate regularly shut, and collectively confined the Absolutists gathered from prisons from around the country to the newly redesignated Wakefield Prison. As anyone with the least understanding of Absolutists could have foreseen, if Absolutists could be difficult to manage in small groups among other prisoners, they could be much more difficult herded together, and so it transpired. Within a month the Home Office conceded the experiment to be a total failure, and the Absolutists were once more scattered, albeit mostly not to the same prisons from which they had been brought, and at more public expense the locks were again removed, the gate was once more kept regularly open., and conscientious objectors were again returned to the once more recreated Wakefield Work Centre, which remained until the dissolution of the Home Office Scheme in April 1919.

Jay's question does not state any specific period for which a reply is asked, so, for certainty that every permutation is covered, it will be necessary to consider the four wartime periods. In the period to October 1916, the inhabitants, whether individually locked in cells or not, were indubitably imprisoned, and I am not aware of anyone who has ever argued otherwise. In the period of the 1916-18 Work Centre there were no locks on the cell doors, so no one could be locked inside them, and Jay's question does not arise. In the brief Absolutist period, the Absolutists, whether individually locked in cells or not, were indubitably imprisoned and neither I nor anyone else of whom I am aware has ever argued otherwise. In the final Work Centre period there were again no locks on the doors, so no-one could be locked in, and the question again does not arise.

One final point I would make is that Jay seriously misrepresents the Home Office Scheme in claiming that Ronald Long went to Wakefield in its Work Cenrre mode to "serve the remainder of his sentence". The whole point was that CO sentences were effectively suspended while COs were on the Scheme, but if they left it voluntarily, or were discharged for alleged misconduct, they returned to prison to complete the full sentence, with no remission whatsoever for time spent on the Scheme. This also meant that many COs spent longer on the Scheme than the length of the sentence which had been suspended, but from the CO's point of view that was preferable to completing a sentence, being returned to the Army, being given a fresh order which one conscientiously had to disobey, being again court-martialled and receiving another sentence, the cycle set to repeat indefinitely.

There are many other aspects of the WW1 CO experience worthy of discussion and even censure, but as the original question starting this thread was about prison - serving a sentence in a civilian prison as a penalty awarded by an Army court-martial - it is unhelpful at the very least, confusingly misleading at the worst, to bring in extraneous matters such as treatment of COs in military custody, guardrooms or detention barracks, where different rules and practices applied and, for that matter, still apply.

[GlenBanna]

Thanks to all those who took the time to answer my questions and for the suggested books. Still wonder if those in prison would be allowed to smoke though.

Glen

[johnboy]

Is there any reason you wondering about smoking?

There was no smoking ban then and I think prisoners are allowed to smoke in jail now.

[GlenBanna]

I am trying to write some fiction set during WW1 and I wanted to be as accurate as possible. With smoking being so prevalent then and normal prisoners being allowed to smoke I wondered if this "privilege" was denied them.