A Lutonian who claimed to be a conscientious objector and had advised another man to claim likewise was told at a Tribunal on Wednesday, March 8th, 1916, that he had laid himself open to prosecution and imprisonment with hard labour for interfering with the process of recruiting.

He was one of two cases down for "reconsideration" after a claim had been made by the military representative for a revision of the certificate of postponement granted a fortnight earlier. He had claimed exemption on the ground of conscientious objection to warfare, an attitude which he had first adopted about three years ago. He also agreed that another man working with him claimed on the same grounds, but he did not agree that they drew up their claims together. His own appeal was sent in the day before the other man filled his in. The other man knew what he wanted to say, but did not know how to say it and had called at his house about it.

You told him to make the claim on conscientious grounds? Yes.

And it is a fact that until you told him to make a conscientious objection claim he had no thought of doing so? No, he did not know what to put on the form.

He had no idea of making a claim on conscientious grounds until you put it into his head? He told me he objected.

You told him to make a claim that he had a conscientious objection to bloodshed? Yes.

And he never had any conscientious objection to bloodshed until you told him? I asked him if he really and truly objected to bloodshed, and said, "You don't want anything to do with it, do you?" and he said "No."

It was submitted that this was a direct suggestion to the other man, and he was asked: "Why did you want to suggest anything to another man about his conscience? I asked him whether he was really and truly conscientious.

Why did you mention conscience? Because there is a claim for conscience.

Do you think if you had not suggested a conscientious objection he would have filled up that part of the form? He would if he had understood what he could claim upon.

If that is the case, how came it before he left this room he acknowledged that he had no conscientious objection against the war? He has told me since that he made a mistake in saying that.

As a fact you must acknowledge that neither of you had the least conscientious objection except in so far as it suited your purposes? You had no conscientious objection to Germany fighting France, or to Turkey fighting Russia, but you have a conscientious objection against yourself going out to fight the Germans, and that was the case with both of you? You do not mind the Turks and the Russians killing each other, but object to the Germans killing you? This is the measure of your conscientious objection.

After being told he had put himself in a dangerous position by inducing another man to put in a claim to a conscientious objection in order to avoid military service, the man replied that he was very sorry if he had done anything wrong, and if he had done so he had done it ignorantly.

Afterwards, the Tribunal decided to withdraw the man's postponement certificate as an example to others. The other man was not called before the Tribunal.

A considerable number of conscientious objectors appeared during the sitting, including some accused of having an artificially manufactured conscience.

Among the latter was a former Baptist now belonging to no denomination who said he was going to stick to his principles, even if it meant death for refusing to take part in the war. His appeal was disallowed.

Another objector, describing himself as a Freethinker, was accused of wasting the time of the Tribunal after saying it was only supposition that the Germans would have invaded England had they not been opposed. He said he was prepared to go through the matter to the end, for life without conscience would not be worth living. He was retained in his group.

A 20-year-old man who had attended meetings of the Society of Friends (Quakers) but was not a member, not were his parents as he had claimed, was retained in his group.

An objector who did not want to give his religious persuasion but then said he was a member of the Society of Friends, was recommended for non-combatant service.

A local member of the International Bible Students' Association who quoted extensively from the Bible to support his case, was told there were plenty of quotations which were just the other way about and he had quoted only parts that suited his purpose. Appeal disallowed.

An objector calling himself a Rationalist was told his was another artificially manufactured conscience and was retained in his group.

A signwriter who appealed on conscientious grounds admitted that he had been getting his living by working a munition works was accused of earning "blood money" and retained in his group.

Other objections failed after the Mayor (Alderman J. H. Staddon) said: "In the course of the next week or so we have to consider married men's claims, which are far more serious than those of single men. Unless there are exceptional circumstances we cannot possibly leave single men behind."

[The Luton News: Thursday, March 9th, 1916]