Acting on conscience
Phyllida Gardner remembers a relative imprisoned in early 1918
Press censorship came into being as part of the Defence of the Realm Act, which was passed on 8 August 1914, four days after the outbreak of the first world war. In the autumn of 1917 regulation 27C was introduced, stating that it was illegal to print, publish or distribute anything that might be used as propaganda in relation to the war or to the making of peace, unless the names of the author and printer were shown and that it was first submitted to the Official Press Bureau.
Meeting for Sufferings regarded this regulation as a dangerous development and decided not to conform to it. At that time, my great uncle Harrison Barrow, a Quaker businessman, councillor and justice of the peace from Birmingham, was acting chairman of the Friends’ Service Committee. With the support of Meeting for Sufferings, the Committee decided to produce a pamphlet, A Challenge to Militarism, without submitting it to the censor.
The pamphlet outlined the plight of over 5,000 conscientious objectors who had been denied adequate exemption and, after being drafted into the army, had refused to obey orders. They were court-martialled and sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour. About 3,000 accepted conditional release for work under semi-penal conditions. Another 1,000 refused to compromise in any way and received sentences of increasing severity. The pamphlet stressed that before conscription they were ‘among the most active spirits in many forms of social and international service’. Several personal letters and court-martial statements from objectors were also published in it.
With difficulty, a sympathetic printer from Glasgow was found, and the Friends’ Service Committee was named as the author of the document. Over 70,000 copies were produced and widely circulated. No police action was taken until February 1918, when two women were arrested while distributing them outside the Central Hall, Westminster. At their subsequent trial, Harrison Barrow, as acting chairman to the Committee, and Edith Ellis, as acting secretary, gave evidence. They made it clear that the Committee was responsible for the pamphlet, not the two women, who were then acquitted. However, Harrison Barrow, Edith Ellis, and another member of the Committte, Arthur Watts, were then charged with contravening regulation 27C of the Defence of the Realm Act, and brought to trial. The magistrate clearly did not want to convict them. He would have released them if they had agreed to accept the regulations in future, but as they refused he had to pass sentences of imprisonment.
An appeal court followed with a pompous chairman, who was far from understanding, contemptuously stating: ‘It is a deplorable exhibition today; educated men and women are giving utterance to sentiments of the utmost absurdity. Here the country is in the throes of a struggle for its existence, and there are men and women who are not content to consider matters among themselves, but actually go to the extent of disseminating their literature amongst people at large. One can hardly contain one’s self and restrain one’s indignation at such proceedings. The law had been deliberately and wilfully and ruthlessly broken. For the protection of the Empire, and not only the Empire, but the civilised world, it has been decided that there shall be a check put on the publication of certain literature. Here is a body which deliberately flaunts everybody and everything. This bench will not sanction any such proceeding and the conviction is affirmed in every sense. The Appeal is dismissed with costs.’
Harrison Barrow and Arthur Watts were sent to Pentonville prison for six months, and Edith Ellis, having refused the option of a £100 fine, to Holloway prison for three months. The affair gave rise to tensions among Quakers. A considerable number, represented at the trial, disapproved strongly and dissociated themselves from the group’s action. On the other hand, Harrison Barrow’s Monthly Meeting, Warwickshire North, expressed deep sympathy for him and his wife Ethel and assured them both of their loving remembrance and prayers in their time of trial.
Comments
Please login to add a comment
