William Cockcroft

Oldham Tribunal 6 March 1916
Reported Oldham Chronicle 11 March 1916

Several claims for exemption under the Military Service Act on conscientious grounds were heard on Monday before the Oldham Tribunal, the Mayor presiding….

…. Five members of the Oldham ecclesia of the Christadelphian Church [Frank Bamford, William Cockcroft, Albert Geatley, Walter Geatley, Herbert Greenall] put in claims of absolute exemption on conscientious grounds. A statement was presented on their behalf to the effect that the religious body to which they belonged had always had "a religious conscientious objection", based on the Bible, to any form of military service.

Christadelphian, it was stated, was adopted in 1866 as a distinctive appellation for a body of religious believers who were seeking exemption from military service in the American Civil War. Part of their tenets was that as, "being in the world but not of it" they must consistently abstain from politics and military service. Their church was not now adopting a new attitude, as its literature for the last 50 years would prove. The lads were accompanied by their parents and elders of the congregation. They had not appointed any one of them to speak on their behalf, so the Mayor ruled that the elder people could not be heard. But the young fellows were quite able to present their case such as it was.

Their names were Frank Bamford, of 124 Brompton-street; Walter Geatley, 9 Hawthorne-road; Albert Geatley, 9 Hawthorne-road; William Cockcroft, 23 Churchill-street and James Herbert Greenall, 51 Hartley-street, all of Oldham.

Councillor Schofield, who presided for a few minutes at the opening of the hearing of these claims, asked the lads if their objection to service extended to non-combatant service and if they would speak of hospital service as military service?
- Yes.
Two of the applicants, it appeared, are working as instrument makers at the works of Messrs Ferranti Ltd., Hollinwood, a controlled establishment and engaged on work connected with the supply of munitions. Councillor Frith put it to them that they were helping in war work. If they had so strong a conscientious objection against connection with war, even to refusing non-combatant work, why had they not followed out their professions and got away from Messrs Ferranti's work? The reply was that they were on civil employment. The meters they made were for houses. It was pointed out to them that they could not tell if the meters were for domestic use or were connected to the supply of munitions and war material.

Councillor Frith: If you object to military service of any description, you must object to making munitions?
- We do not take the military oath to do that work.
Councillor Frith: But you know it is to supply the army with things to kill people with?
- We do not believe in taking the military oath.
Councillor Frith: Are you working overtime at Ferranti's?
- Yes.
Councillor Frith: Surely you could find a job in which you would be certain you were only doing civil work? Why don't you say, "I am not going to do that work"? Why not get another job? That seems to me to be the logical result of your position.
Applicant: If you take it that way it doesn't matter what job a man is on at present. Even if he is not dong war work, he is only releasing someone to do that work.
The Mayor: What objection have you to non-combatant service?
- You come under military service. You have got to take the oath.
Councillor Frith: In Ferranti's you did not take the oath but you are in a controlled establishment, which is equivalent to it, I suggest. Did you not know that there is a way of leaving that shop, only you would have to lose six weeks' work.

The Mayor said to the two instrument workers that, in effect, they were working in connection with munitions of war and evidently if military service touched their consciences, it did not touch them so much that they would give up their profitable work. The Act gave to the Tribunals certain powers, which they might use mildly, and seeing that they objected to entering the army as soldiers, he would ask them the fair and reasonable question: would they go to bind up the wounds of the men who were hurt, or nurse those who were sick, instead of helping to make something by which other men would be shot?
Applicant: That work is helping to make them so that they can go and fight again.
The Mayor: Well, you are making something now to help kill other people. You would be making a much greater sacrifice for good by doing the other thing I have suggested instead of helping in the work that is doing all this destruction. Mind you, I do not think you are doing wrong in working at Messrs Ferranti's.
Councillor Frith remarked that he did not think they were wrong but it was inconsistent.
Councillor Schofield said that as the young men before the Tribunal based their argument on Scriptural grounds, perhaps the parable of the Good Samaritan would appeal to them. The Good Samaritan found a man lying hurt by the wayside, most probably a Jew and the Jews were a fighting nation. Christ did not say that the wounded man should be left to suffer because he might fight when he recovered.
- The answer to Mr Schofield's application of the old story to the circumstances of the time, was typical of the attitude of mind in which this question of service is approached by the conscientious objector. It was that the Good Samaritan did his work of mercy as a civilian, he did not wear khaki.
Councillor Schofield: That man had something better than khaki, he had Christ in his heart.
- Another objection to the Scriptural argument was that the explicit instructions of Christ to His disciples was that they were to flee from the siege of Jerusalem when it came. These lads were attempting to do the same.

Councillor Schofield asked them if St Paul, one of the noblest and greatest of the followers of Christ, had thought that to be a soldier was wrong, he would have given to the world that splendid epistle to the Ephesians, with the analogy of the spirit against evil and the warfare of the soldiers against the enemy: "Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day and having done all, to stand."
The reply was that St Paul had said that the weapons of their warfare were not carnal. The words about the armour of God, the shield of faith and so on, were merely symbolic.
The Mayor put it to them again that they could not say that they would be doing more harm by succouring the wounded and the sick than they had been doing in their work, for which they were getting good wages. If they were working in a munitions establishment they could not argue the thing consistently. The public would see the inconsistency, naturally.

One of the five said his point in reply was that no one could avoid helping in the war, directly or indirectly. They had to pay taxes and they had to live. But they held that they would not come under the control of the military authorities on any consideration. They objected to being sent out to patch men up to go and fight again.
Alderman Hirst: Has your society seriously considered the question in relation to non-combatant service under the present circumstances?
The reply was that their literature would show their attitude.
Councillor Heywood: If we had all been of the same opinion as you are, you would have been German conscripts now.
- No, God would have protected us.
Councillor Frith: Supposing our navy was smashed up and England was invaded, would you take up service?
- No.

Captain Almond, on the matter of the military oath, said that the men did not need to take an oath. Automatically on March 1st they became liable to service. No doubt in the eyes of the lads before the Tribunal and their elders he belonged to the Devil, as a soldier. He had his way of thinking and they had their way. He held that their way of thinking was not fair to the lads of Oldham who were called out to service at the beginning of the war and to leave their mothers, some of them widowed. Some of those lads had died. He had seen some among them laid out for burial, shattered by shrapnel, pierced by a bullet. Could he think it fair when he came to Oldham and listened to talk such as they had heard that afternoon? If ever he went back to the firing and said that there were men in Oldham who refused even to help to save the wounded, what would the lads at the front say? If the objectors had not altered their attitude before the men came back from the front, he did not care what happened to them. The fact was that so long as the British Navy remained supreme, so long would these gentlemen be willing to stay behind and shelter behind it. He did not think it right that other women's sons should have to go out to fight for them, hiding behind the Navy.

"We owe allegiance to no king but Jesus Christ," one of the Christadelphian lads remarked.
Captain Almond: May I say it without offence: if Christ were on earth to-day I believe he would be in khaki or wearing an armlet.
The Mayor said to them that he was afraid they were over-stepping the bounds of conscience. Christ was explicit enough: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's." Would they allow him to express his sorrow that they could not see their way, without being forced to it, to enter the combatant service. Their view was a strained view. If he saw suffering, and was a Christian, it was his duty to relieve that suffering. They ought to reconsider their position. He was not blaming anyone who conscientiously objected to fighting the enemy but they were not dealing with that position. The lads before him had an opportunity, under the Act, to take part in good work - to comfort, to heal, to console. It could not matter to them who caused the suffering. As he saw it, their Christian duty was to take up this service of ministration and succour.

The claimants for exemption retired and the Tribunal decided, almost at once, that they must go to non-combatant service.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Manchester Appeal Tribunal 29 March 1916
Reported Oldham Chronicle 1 April 1916

The South-east Lancashire Appeal Tribunal, meeting in the Town Hall, Manchester on Thursday afternoon, heard appeals for total exemption from military service made by a number of young men from Oldham, conscientious objectors, who had been sent to non-combatant service by the Oldham Tribunal and in a few cases to combatant service.

…. William Cockcroft, of 23 Churchill-street, a member of the Christadelphian Church, wrote that he had promised allegiance to the King of kings, Jesus Christ, and he ought to obey God rather than man.

Appeal dismissed.

[No report has been found of William Cockcroft appealing at the Oldham Tribunal but there is reference in earlier tribunals to Christadelphians who are not named.]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oldham Police Court 27 April 1916
Reported Oldham Chronicle 29 April 1916

Four absentees under the Military Service Act were brought up in custody at the Oldham Police Court on Thursday …. William Cockcroft (23), traveller, 23 Churchill-street , Oldham ….

Cockcroft had been ordered to present himself on Tuesday and had not done so. Sergeant Major Bailey asked for leave to withdraw this case for the time being.
The Chief Constable said that the man was a Christadelphian.
It transpired that there was some question of the position of Christadelphians under consideration and the case was withdrawn.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

He has an entry on the Pearce List.
The Pearce List of over 17500 WW1 Conscientious Objectors can be found on the Imperial War Museum's website.

He was sent to Work of National Importance under the Pelham Committee and from 13 August to 8 October 1918 was working on a farm where he suffered an accidental injury which resulted in a double hernia. He was then sent to do clerical work in a Controlled establishment.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Born Oldham, 4 April 1893
Died Ashton under Lyne, 28 December 1968

1911 census :
386 Huddersfield Road, Oldham
Single, age 17, with parents, 2 older sisters, 3 younger sisters and 2 younger brothers.
Occ: Carter in the business [father was an employer and wholesale manufacturing confectioner]

1939 register :
1 Medlock Road, Woodhouses, Failsworth
With wife Helen and possibly one child redacted
Occ: Commercial traveller.

Contributed by Dorothy Bintley