Army pay for conscientious objectors?

[FrancesH]

Officially absolutist conscientious objectors who refused all cooperation with anything military and were sent to prison were regarded as recalcitrant soldiers, thus surviving service records for them and quite often references in newspapers will refer to them as 'Private So and So'.

Does anyone know if they actually received army pay while they were in prison? Also if so, was any proportion of this sent to their families? What I'm actually trying to find out is whether the families would have had any source of income while their breadwinner was in gaol. All thoughts welcomed.

[FROGSMILE]

On 02/07/2024 at 11:47, FrancesH said:

Officially absolutist conscientious objectors who refused all cooperation with anything military and were sent to prison were regarded as recalcitrant soldiers, thus surviving service records for them and quite often references in newspapers will refer to them as 'Private So and So'.

Does anyone know if they actually received army pay while they were in prison? Also if so, was any proportion of this sent to their families? What I'm actually trying to find out is whether the families would have had any source of income while their breadwinner was in gaol. All thoughts welcomed.

A pecuniary condition of being in confinement was twofold, no pay and loss of the days from counting towards any long-service pension.  You will find some career soldiers who completed 21-years colour service actually completed more, but the extra days were those in confinement and thus null and void.

The matter of withholding pay during periods in confinement caused severe hardship for many soldiers wives, who were in any case limited in number by regulation and originally only taken on at all by the Army very reluctantly**.

This obvious hardship (on offspring too of course) eventually got out into the print media and, after questions in parliament and agitation by pro reformers, a special allowance was made to the wives of men in confinement.  I cannot recall offhand if the soldier was then required to repay that by incremental deductions from subsequent pay, but I have a nagging inkling in my mind that that was the case.

** Historical social commentator and author Myna Trustram refers.

Edited 7 July by FROGSMILE

[FrancesH]

Thank you, Frogsmile! This is what I suspected. I was just thinking it made it an even tougher decision to become a CO if you had a wife and family.

[FROGSMILE]

36 minutes ago, FrancesH said:

made it an even tougher decision to become a CO if you had a wife and family

Absolutely. But it has to be kept in mind within the context of how Army wives were treated at the time generally.  As with so many other things, WW1 led to significant improvements and heralded changes that we now recognise as the beginnings of the Welfare State.  State funded ‘separation allowance’ and ‘widows pensions’ all emerged from the war.

Edited 2 July by FROGSMILE

[FrancesH]

Oh, I am sure that Army wives themselves might not be that sympathetic to the wife of a CO! However, individual circumstances always alter cases, don't they? I know that a number of Quaker Meetings organised food kitchens to provide support specifically for army families as wives often found it difficult to manage on what they were given, particularly with a large family to feed.

[FROGSMILE]

On 02/07/2024 at 13:10, FrancesH said:

Oh, I am sure that Army wives themselves might not be that sympathetic to the wife of a CO! However, individual circumstances always alter cases, don't they? I know that a number of Quaker Meetings organised food kitchens to provide support specifically for army families as wives often found it difficult to manage on what they were given, particularly with a large family to feed.

Yes I think that’s true and I’ve long thought that so much of the social conscience that we tend to take for granted today began then.

A good example is the absolutely huge national effort devoted to wounded soldiers. Less than 25% of the men of military age in Britain and Ireland combined served in uniform during the Great War, with I think around 10% of them killed (many more wounded and some of those permanently disabled).  At a time without antibiotics or penicillin it was really only bed rest in a clean environment, time for the body and mind to heal (not always successfully) and a good diet, that returned as many wounded men as possible to the front line via a system of dressing stations, stationary hospitals, specialist hospitals, convalescence hospitals and then command depots for rehabilitation.  It was nothing less than a national health service in embryo.

Edited 6 July by FROGSMILE

[knittinganddeath]

The families of Mennonite COs in the United States were taken care of by the wider community -- possibly something similar might have happened in the UK among religious COs?

[Matlock1418]

Since precedence seems to have been set: Taking the opportunity to further expand the scope of this thread's discussion to many more wives and the poor way they were frequently treated ... their existence was significantly passed over during the war when men were disabled.

PENSIONS: It was not until after the war and the introduction of the 1919 Royal Warrant on 3 September 1919 that a disabled man [receiving a temporary or permanent pension under Art 1, physical impairment, or Art 9, disease] - despite a disabled man previously and continuing to being able to get pension allowance(s) for his child(ren) to typically age 16 [under Art 2 - at a proportion matching the man's % degree of disability] - could actually thereafter get a pension allowance for his wife [under Art 1A] = up to 10/s pw [or a proportion matching the man's % degree of disability] for as long as his disability continued.

Naturally this was subject to the usual provisos that marriage after discharge or after the end of the war did not count, nor commonly did marital separation [some discretion for the Minister to grant an allowance as a wife to the woman].

A woman living as a man's wife ['Un-married wife' - provided Separation Allowance as a wife had previously been drawn] could get the man an allowance for her = up to 7/6 pw [or a proportion matching the man's % degree of disability]

M

Edited 7 July by Matlock1418

[Matlock1418]

To keep on / return to the original CO track of this tread.

As CO were nominally soldiers, albeit recalcitrant ones, it would be interesting to understand if disability and/or wife/widow & dependants' pension rights were provided, retained or forfeit for a CO and their wife/widow & dependant(s) [always assuming disability and/or death were not due to serious negligence or misconduct by the CO since these were two standard reasons for exclusion]

???

M

[FROGSMILE]

On 07/07/2024 at 10:17, Matlock1418 said:

To keep on / return to the original CO track of this tread.

As CO were nominally soldiers, albeit recalcitrant ones, it would be interesting to understand if disability and/or wife/widow & dependants' pension rights were provided, retained or forfeit for a CO and their wife/widow & dependant(s) [always assuming disability and/or death were not due to serious negligence or misconduct by the CO since these were two standard reasons for exclusion]

???

M

It all depends on service status.  Any man who “refuses to soldier” and is obdurate (i.e. cannot be persuaded to return to duty) is charged, found / pleads guilty and is sentenced initially to a period of detention.  During that confinement he forfeits his pay and however many days of pensionable service.

He retains that non-person status (militarily) for as long as the situation prevails.  At end of sentence the whole thing would start again and a much longer sentence can be awarded involving imprisonment in a civilian penitentiary.  These are the types of circumstance Frances has already written about in other threads, as it’s something she’s been studying for some time.

Where things would change is in those instances where a more moderate stance was taken and service accepted in a medical capacity that categorically negated conscription.  There were some field ambulances set up specifically engaging such men.  Frances will be able to explain it more fully.

Edited 11 July by FROGSMILE

[Matlock1418]

17 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

It all depends on service status.  Any man who “refuses to soldier” and is obdurate (i.e. cannot be persuaded to return to duty) is charged, found / pleads guilty and is sentenced initially to a period of detention.  During that confinement he forfeits his pay and however many days of pensionable service.

He retains that non-person status (militarily) for as long as the situation prevails.  At end of sentence the whole thing would start again and a much longer sentence can be awarded involving imprisonment in a civilian penitentiary.  These are the types of circumstance Frances has already written about in other threads, as it’s something she’s been studying for some time.

Where things would change is in those instances where a more moderate stance was taken and service accepted in a medical capacity that specifically negated conscription.  There were some ambulances set up specifically engaging such men.  Frances will be able to explain it more fully.

Thank you FS for your post. I understand the loss of pay and loss of pensionable service [for Army service pension purposes] aspects but for the other pensions it still seems a bit less clear to me.  For example Royal Warrants and one of the bibles for pensions, Hogge and Garside's War Pensions and Allowances, singularly fail to even mention, let alone directly address, CO.

So far my very brief trawl of Hansard has also not revealed direct comment on the subject(s) of this thread - discussions and comments on sentencing & punishments and treatment of individuals including force-feeding, illness and/or the death in prison, taxation, voting rights of CO etc. were discussed - but I have not see pensions either = ???

I suspect I probably know the potential answer/stance taken by the then contemporary establishment but I have never seen the situation officially articulated.

Having read many of Frances' previous treads/posts etc, on interesting aspects of the then contemporary and now contemporary views on aspects of past life that seem to have rather disappeared under the carpet.  I look forward to what she might have to comment.

M

[FROGSMILE]

1 hour ago, Matlock1418 said:

For example Royal Warrants and one of the bibles for pensions, Hogge and Garside's War Pensions and Allowances, singularly fail to even mention, let alone directly address, CO.

I totally understand that, but the principle is the same, no military service, no pension, and as a conscientious objector specifically refused service I really doubt that there’s any complicated answer to this.  The principles are pretty clear and I can see no circumstances how a CO - if he stayed a CO - could complete any military service that would earn him, or his family, any kind of pension.  They are entirely contradictory principles.

Edited 7 July by FROGSMILE

[Matlock1418]

1 minute ago, FROGSMILE said:

I totally understand that but the principle is the same, no military service, no pension and as a conscientious objector specifically refused service I really doubt that there’s any complicated answer to this.  The principles are pretty clear and I can see no circumstances how a CO - if he stayed a CO - could complete any military service that would earn him, or his family, any kind of pension.  They are entirely contradictory principles.

As might also be my suspiscion ... it just, so far, doesn't seem to be contemporaneously mentioned.

M

[FROGSMILE]

Just now, Matlock1418 said:

As might also be my suspiscion ... it just, so far, doesn't seem to be contemporaneously mentioned.

M

Perhaps because the principles are blindingly obvious.  That is not meant as an insult to you.  I just think you’re habitually so close to trees that in this instance you can’t see the wood.

[Matlock1418]

1 minute ago, FROGSMILE said:

Perhaps because the principles are blindingly obvious.  That is not meant as an insult to you.  I just think you’re habitually so close to trees that in this instance you can’t see the wood.

I happily take that comment as a discussion point, as have been my posts - so no problem and I don't think we are falling out over anything.

I make a similar point, also without intended insult - you commonly reflect on what was specifically written in contemporaneous Army Regulations etc.

I understand there is often plenty of room for implied and expected interpretation in Army Regulations and Royal Warrants, but it just would be rather nice to see something documented if it was to have had such a significant effect on some men and their wives & dependants.  After all CO were debated in Parliament so why not such discussion and or record documented more widely elswhere?  Maybe there is nothing, or maybe it will yet surface.

Being a CO certainly wasn't a 'bed of roses' and there were a number of cases where treatment, some might suggest mistreatment, might have lead to serious consequences so ... ???

I am now interested to see if Frances can offer any more insight.  We shall both have to wait and see if she can/does.

M

[FROGSMILE]

3 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

it just would be rather nice to see something documented

I think you look at regulations with a contemporary eye.  With computerisation they have become very wordy and attempt to cover every eventuality.  I saw that begin to happen and it struck me because it was so starkly different from how things had been previously.  Earlier regulations, the one’s I was brought up with, worked on the principle of writing only what was essential and relevant.  I repeat that no service equals no pension.  I don’t understand why you feel that should be explicitly explained in verbiage. In what circumstances can you possibly imagine a CO earning a disability pension if he refused to serve? 

[Matlock1418]

1 minute ago, FROGSMILE said:

think you look at regulations with a contemporary eye.  With computerisation they have become very wordy and attempt to cover every eventuality.  I saw that begin to happen and it struck me because it was so starkly different from how things had been previously.  Earlier regulations, the one’s I was brought up with, worked on the principle of writing only what was essential and relevant.  I repeat that no service equals no pension.  I don’t understand why you feel that should be explicitly explained in verbiage. In what circumstances can you possibly imagine a CO earning a disability pension if he refused to serve? 

I do understand the different prisms of 100+ years ago and now.

I actually might more expect pensions being specifically and explicitly excluded back then [after all the contemporary RW clearly refer to "serious negligence or misconduct" - and both of those appear 'blindingly obvious' reasons for exclusion from a pension]

But as you ask for a reason - I can give a few hypothetical scenarios:

From Hansard debates there are examples that might potentially have lead to serious consequence.

• carrying heavy weights on a man's front and back and to also perform hard labour [labour to no real material benefit for man or nation] - perhaps causing musculo-skeletal injury
• being kept in a small and damp confinement - perhaps leading to musculo-skeletal and/or disease
• being force-fed, with potential for misdirection into lungs - perhaps with consequential lung damage
• Being kept on a minimal diet, etc.

Should there be differentiation caused by those treatments/some might say mistreatments by the Nation?

I am not really wanting to debate that sort of evaluation of the moral subject or else we might get in to the matters of dealth penalties, corporal punishment etc.  [and I certainly don't want to go there in this thread]

I thought the pension subject might have been of interest to Frances and others - and so just posted on the pension subject in two parts.  Clearly the second part is considered contentious by you.  I am now just wondering if anything, either way, was anywhere recorded about such pension matters for CO.

M

[FROGSMILE]

On 07/07/2024 at 13:07, Matlock1418 said:

I do understand the different prisms of 100+ years ago and now.

I actually might more expect pensions being specifically and explicitly excluded back then [after all the contemporary RW clearly refer to "serious negligence or misconduct" - and both of those appear 'blindingly obvious' reasons for exclusion from a pension]

But as you ask for a reason - I can give a few hypothetical scenarios:

From Hansard debates there are examples that might potentially have lead to serious consequence.

• carrying heavy weights on a man's front and back and to also perform hard labour [labour to no real material benefit for man or nation] - perhaps causing musculo-skeletal injury
• being kept in a small and damp confinement - perhaps leading to musculo-skeletal and/or disease
• being force-fed, with potential for misdirection into lungs - perhaps with consequential lung damage
• Being kept on a minimal diet, etc.

Should there be differentiation caused by those treatments/some might say mistreatments by the Nation?

I am not really wanting to debate that sort of evaluation of the moral subject or else we might get in to the matters of dealth penalties, corporal punishment etc.  [and I certainly don't want to go there in this thread]

I thought the pension subject might have been of interest to Frances and others - and so just posted on the pension subject in two parts.  Clearly the second part is considered contentious by you.  I am now just wondering if anything, either way, was anywhere recorded about such pension matters for CO.

M

Perhaps you’re too young to remember or understand ‘Crown Immunity’ and how it applied to the Armed Forces.  It existed for centuries right through until the government of Tony Blair ended it**.  It would have precluded any legal obligation towards injury and awarding a pension by the War Office / HMG. It was a different world.

Erratum: it was actually suspended in 1987 and along with the European Human Rights Act and the application of Health and Safety At Work (a side effect of the Crown Immunity suspension) it turned military life upside down.  The after effects and implications were huge.  I’ve never forgotten it and all the extra pain in the proverbial it caused for me and many others.

Edited 11 July by FROGSMILE

[Matlock1418]

Just now, FROGSMILE said:

Perhaps you’re too young to remember or understand Crown Immunity.  It existed for centuries right through until the government of Tony Blair ended it.  It would have precluded any legal obligation towards injury and awarding a pension by the War Office / HMG. It was a different world.

I do understand the basics of CI but the provision of pensions for disability and death were the earlier start of a 'new age'

Shortly after, in the War Pensions Act,1920, there being provision for potential restoration of forfeited pensions [S.7] and a pension for widows & children moving from a Royal favour to a Statutory right [S.8].

There was much change afoot.

M

[FROGSMILE]

2 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

I do understand the basics of CI but the provision of pensions for disability and death were the earlier start of a 'new age'

Shortly after, in the War Pensions Act,1920, there being provision for potential restoration of forfeited pensions [S.7] and a pension for widows & children moving from a Royal favour to a Statutory right [S.8].

There was much change afoot.

M

Afoot perhaps but not in train.  COs were far from a priority and this whole subject has seemed pointless and a classic example of a modern civil servant looking at the past through the prism of today.

[FrancesH]

Hello, chaps!

Having been otherwise occupied over the last 48 hours (nothing to do with elections, musical and family commitments) I was surprised and interested to see how things had developed on this thread. The only comments I feel qualified to make would concern COs who either died, or were left significantly impaired by their period as 'soldiers'. As both Matlock and Frogsmile will be aware, COs who were not granted exemption but persisted in their stance were given a service record as though they were ordinary soldiers, of which a significant number have survived. They are referred to in all official army documentation as 'Private So and So', and regarded not as civilians refusing to serve, but conscripted soldiers refusing to obey. As 'soldiers' serving time in civilian prisons, they forfeited all army pay, and the only references to pay I've seen in these service records simply state that the man concerned is not receiving any! Evidently, I would have thought, their dependents are also therefore not receiving any support.

Those who incurred injury or indeed death whilst in prison, in a Home Office work camp, or, indeed, whilst in custody in an army guardroom, did so either as a result of the individual's refusal to obey an order; or in a small number of cases by brutal treatment by individual service personnel; or by being given work which endangered or even ruined their health. 

Emmanuel Ribiero is a good example of the former situation. An account of his case will be found at https://menwhosaidno.org/men/men_files/r/ribiero_e.html. Basically he not only refused to obey army orders (to put on a uniform, 'fall in', etc, as did all absolutist COs) but went on hunger strike rather than do so -- a situation new to the army authorities. He was transferred to an army hospital and force-fed for 14 months, and was eventually released on grounds of ill-health by order of the Secretary of State.

Henry Firth agreed to be sent to a work camp under the Home Office scheme which was, at least officially, intended to employ COs on 'work of national importance', and was despatched to Dartmoor. (The prison had been emptied of regular occupants: to qualify it as a 'work camp' COs were permitted to wear their own clothes and cells were not locked.) Firth came from an impoverished background and was already 'a bag of bones' after about nine months in prison. He was put to work in the quarry at Dartmoor (there were other less arduous areas of employment) and quickly became seriously ill. The work camp's doctor refused to give him any treatment apart from castor oil, citing the harsh lives being led by soldiers in France. Firth became very weak and emaciated, and eventually died. After death it was found he had undiagnosed diabetes. (Firth is one of the men who, having entered Wormwood Scrubs for assessment by the Central Tribunal in March 1917, will be discussed in my forthcoming article in Stand To! later this year.)

In neither of these cases, or any other I have seen, is there any suggestion of any payment of any kind of pension, or disability allowance in the men's service records. I would very much like to know how their wives managed whilst COs were in prison, but so far have found virtually no direct evidence, even after reading my way through many issues of Tribunal, the No Conscription Fellowship's newspaper.

Local Quaker meetings acted as what we would call food banks for the families of serving soldiers where mothers were finding it hard to cope on what they received (following the established Quaker wartime principle of offering support to those who need it, regardless of their political or religious background). I am sure that Quakers would also have offered support to families of COs, and would be most interested if anyone can offer any evidence (documentary, or anecdotal from their own family's experience) on this point. 

[FROGSMILE]

29 minutes ago, FrancesH said:

Hello, chaps!

Having been otherwise occupied over the last 48 hours (nothing to do with elections, musical and family commitments) I was surprised and interested to see how things had developed on this thread. The only comments I feel qualified to make would concern COs who either died, or were left significantly impaired by their period as 'soldiers'. As both Matlock and Frogsmile will be aware, COs who were not granted exemption but persisted in their stance were given a service record as though they were ordinary soldiers, of which a significant number have survived. They are referred to in all official army documentation as 'Private So and So', and regarded not as civilians refusing to serve, but conscripted soldiers refusing to obey. As 'soldiers' serving time in civilian prisons, they forfeited all army pay, and the only references to pay I've seen in these service records simply state that the man concerned is not receiving any! Evidently, I would have thought, their dependents are also therefore not receiving any support.

Those who incurred injury or indeed death whilst in prison, in a Home Office work camp, or, indeed, whilst in custody in an army guardroom, did so either as a result of the individual's refusal to obey an order; or in a small number of cases by brutal treatment by individual service personnel; or by being given work which endangered or even ruined their health. 

Emmanuel Ribiero is a good example of the former situation. An account of his case will be found at https://menwhosaidno.org/men/men_files/r/ribiero_e.html. Basically he not only refused to obey army orders (to put on a uniform, 'fall in', etc, as did all absolutist COs) but went on hunger strike rather than do so -- a situation new to the army authorities. He was transferred to an army hospital and force-fed for 14 months, and was eventually released on grounds of ill-health by order of the Secretary of State.

Henry Firth agreed to be sent to a work camp under the Home Office scheme which was, at least officially, intended to employ COs on 'work of national importance', and was despatched to Dartmoor. (The prison had been emptied of regular occupants: to qualify it as a 'work camp' COs were permitted to wear their own clothes and cells were not locked.) Firth came from an impoverished background and was already 'a bag of bones' after about nine months in prison. He was put to work in the quarry at Dartmoor (there were other less arduous areas of employment) and quickly became seriously ill. The work camp's doctor refused to give him any treatment apart from castor oil, citing the harsh lives being led by soldiers in France. Firth became very weak and emaciated, and eventually died. After death it was found he had undiagnosed diabetes. (Firth is one of the men who, having entered Wormwood Scrubs for assessment by the Central Tribunal in March 1917, will be discussed in my forthcoming article in Stand To! later this year.)

In neither of these cases, or any other I have seen, is there any suggestion of any payment of any kind of pension, or disability allowance in the men's service records. I would very much like to know how their wives managed whilst COs were in prison, but so far have found virtually no direct evidence, even after reading my way through many issues of Tribunal, the No Conscription Fellowship's newspaper.

Local Quaker meetings acted as what we would call food banks for the families of serving soldiers where mothers were finding it hard to cope on what they received (following the established Quaker wartime principle of offering support to those who need it, regardless of their political or religious background). I am sure that Quakers would also have offered support to families of COs, and would be most interested if anyone can offer any evidence (documentary, or anecdotal from their own family's experience) on this point. 

Thank you for taking the time to layout that interesting rundown Frances.  What you’ve said is wholly in line with what I’ve read, both in books and your recent articles, plus in what I thought was an excellent drama, made in New Zealand, which I mentioned to you before.  Like you, I’ve not seen any evidence of a Quaker foodbank, nor any inkling of what happened to CO’s wives.  I imagine that they were expected to fall back upon the support of their parents and in-laws.  There was such a strongly felt anti sentiment about CO’s among the general public (who as you’ve mentioned in the past were losing their own loved ones) that the authorities took a very hard line, and the firm view that the COs had brought matters down upon themselves, prevailed.

Edited 7 July by FROGSMILE

[Matlock1418]

Frances,

Thank you for your post [and indeed for starting this thread which I shall continue to follow with interest]

So far we currently all seem to be ending at the same place = Probably not much public support or official sympathy leading to no pay and/or no pensions for men and their wives & dependants [likely forfeit due to "serious negligence or misconduct"] = Hard times in a different age.

I look forward to reading your article in Stand To!

M

Edited 7 July by Matlock1418

[Matlock1418]

Again, slightly jumping on the CO bandwagon a bit more using several prior mentions as my cover: It must not be forgotten that the Quakers had a parliamentary influence in getting the "Conscience" clause added to the Military Service Act 1916 in the first place.

And, admittedly now somewhat more gratuitously, that: At a time when 19 year old returning servicemen had newly gained an electoral vote, CO were afterwards disenfranchised from a vote for 5 years.

N.B. I am not seeking a political debate here [so the moderators should hopefully fear naught] - just making a further observation or two on the subject of CO in a different age.

M

[FrancesH]

You're absolutely right about the role of Quakers in getting the Conscience clause added, in the persons of Arnold Rowntree and Edmond Harvey, and indeed about the disenfranchisement.

In conclusion (possibly! who knows?) I'd like to quote Clifford Allen, Chairman of the No Conscription Fellowship, addressing 2,000 former COs in 1920:

"Every one of us must be only too conscious of how terrible is the comparison between the anguish of those who have died and been mutilated in the war and the test to which we have been subjected… Not one of us would dare to compare our suffering with that of the men who were actually engaged in warfare."