Albert Whittaker Davoll

Chadderton Tribunal 13 March 1916
Reported Oldham Chronicle 14 March 1916

At the sitting of the Chadderton Tribunal the cases of several conscientious objectors were heard. Councillor Carter presided.

…. Albert W Davoll, 45 Robinson-street, Chadderton, aged 20 years, head of the insurance and calculating department of Messrs James Stott Ltd., Coldhurst Hall and Werneth Mills, claimed complete exemption from military service. He had a conscientious objection to undertaking combatant service. He was an office-bearer at Cowhill Wesleyan Church and the religious instruction he had received there and every moral conviction he had, pointed out to him the sanctity of human life. He did not wish to undertake any service which might be contributory or assistant to the war.

The Chairman: You do not want to do any military service at all?
- No.
Still we find you at a mill, doing Government work, getting your living. You are getting your living through the war?
- It is no fault of mine.
Captain Taylor: Is not a man engaged on working material for soldiers quite as culpable as the soldier in the line?
- I am not blaming the soldier at all. I am blaming the authorities.
Captain Taylor: Still in your working time you contribute, you assist in every way you can the combatant service.
The Chairman: To be conscientious you ought to give up your employment.
Captain Taylor: Just as much as a man who lines the communication trenches and takes up ammunition, you are helping. If a man threw a stone through a window which somebody else gave to him for the purpose, is the man who found the stone not guilty?
- If he found it for that purpose.
You are giving munitions for the purpose?
- I am working to exist.
There are hundreds of places where clerks are engaged off munitions?
- But you will find no one taking a man of military age.

The Chairman: You spoke of the sanctity of the human life. We are not out to kill but to preserve and sanctify human life.
Councillor Owen: Is human life the principal possession?
- It is important in the national interests.
Is human life more sacred than home and family relations?
- Yes.
Were the Belgian soldiers and our soldiers justified in resisting the Germans seeing that for a long time more civilians were killed than soldiers?
- By resisting you produce such a state of affairs as at the present time and it des not produce a remedy.
Chairman: Let them come here?
- Yes.
Councillor Owen: Is human life more sacred than the honour of women? Must it be lost, rather than our soldiers take the lives of those who try to dishonour it?
- If you had no war.
But there is war?
- Because you undertake the principles I do not uphold, must I take a share in it?
Applicant said he was not willing to go in a non-combatant corps.
Captain Taylor: The man is engaged on war work. He is reaping the benefits of the was with the work he does.
- I am not reaping the benefits of war.
Councillor Taylor: You are in every substance a war worker in the providing of clothing.
Councillor Owen: What is the difference between the work you are engaged on and a man making bullets?
Applicant: Our work is not destructive like bullets but essentially a peaceful object.
Councillor Owen: The bullet is the last link in the chain.
Applicant said his work was diverted by the war to the wrong path.
Chairman: Are you drawing war bonus?
- Yes but I am not getting any benefit by it.
Chairman: It strikes me differently. Why are you drawing it then?
- If I had wanted, I could have attested and appealed on other grounds.
Captain Taylor: We can take it your opinions are moulded by your requirements.
Councillor Owen: Just as the men engaged in the fighting line he is engaged in forging one of the links of the chain by which the army is supplied, as with bullets, shells, clothes, food.
Councillor Crossley: But he does not object to making personal profit, which is coming from the same source.
Applicant protested that he is not making personal profit.
Chairman: Plenty of men are not making anything out of it.
Applicant: I am contributing to it. Every man must be doing by paying rates and taxes. If you carry your argument out there are no conscientious objectors.

Sent to non-combatant corps.

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

Chadderton Police Court 29 April 1916
Reported Oldham Chronicle 6 May 1916

At Chadderton Police Court on Saturday morning before E Kempsey (in the chair) and John Law: Fred Gadsby, 240 Denton-lane; John Fletcher, 105 Robinson-street; Albert Davoll, 45 Robinson-street and Tom Wrather, 98 Dalton-street were charged with having failed to report at the Swan Hotel, Oldham, when called up under the Military Service Act. All are conscientious objectors and they were represented by Mr H J Berry, solicitor, of Manchester.

Inspector Tindell stated that at three o'clock on Friday afternoon the four surrendered themselves to him at the police station as being absentees under the Military Service Act. They each admitted having received the call up notice, the first three having to report at the Swan Hotel, Oldham on April 17th and Wrather on April 25th.

Mr Berry: Did they give any trouble at all?
- None whatever.
Sergeant-major Bailey asked for the men to be handed over to the military.

Mr Berry called Fletcher to speak for the lot and on oath said the local tribunal exempted them from combatant service and when they appealed at Manchester, Judge Mello referred them to the Pelham Committee.

Mr Berry: He marked your papers in your presence "Pelham Committee"?
- Yes, I saw him write that on the papers and also heard him say it.
Fletcher, continuing, said after they received their notice papers, they went to Major Yarr, the Oldham recruiting officer, and he said he knew nothing about them having been referred to the Pelham Committee. They afterwards saw Captain Almond, who was present at Manchester when Judge Mellor gave his decision , and he wrote a note for Major Yarr stating they had been referred to the committee. He also added to the note "I take it they should join the forces first."

Mr Berry said that if the magistrates were not satisfied, he would like Captain Almond to be sent for to give evidence. He contended that the men, having been referred to the Pelham Committee, they were exempt from the provisions of the Military Service Act. The committee was formed to consider how best to utilise the services of such men in civilian work of national importance and, that being so, the men could not be charged as absentees.

Mr Jackson (assistant clerk): Have the magistrates anything to do with the tribunals?
Mr Berry: No but they have to deal with the facts.
Mr Jackson: We cannot overrule the tribunals. These man have voluntarily given themselves into custody as absentees.
Fletcher remarked that they went to the police to see how they stood. They had had their notices and did not desire to ignore the law.
Mr Jackson: But why did you go to the police?
Fletcher: Because we had been warned at the Swan Hotel as to what would happen.
Mr Jackson: Why didn't you go to the military authorities in the proper way?
Fletcher: Because they said the other day we must first join the army and we could not do that. There was nothing for it except for them to refer us to a civil court and have the matter thrashed out there.

Mr Berry said the Pelham Committee was composed of civilians appointed by the Board of Trade and it was outside the jurisdiction of the military. If Captain Almond said they had been referred to that committee it meant they were really granted exemption from military service.
Mr Jackson: Have you a certificate to that effect?
Mr Berry: The military authorities have.
The Chairman: How is that you have not got Captain Almond here? You have had an opportunity of bringing him.
Mr Berry: I was only instructed last night and have had no chance of getting into communication with him.
The Chairman: But these man knew they wanted Captain Almond didn't they?
Inspector Tindell said they mentioned the matter to him and he promised to give them every assistance but they gave him no definite instructions, as they were in communication with their solicitor.

Mr Berry asked for a witness summons for Captain Almond and asked for the case to be adjourned until he could be present.
The magistrates retired and on returning the Chairman said they had decided to adjourn the case until Monday afternoon and to grant a witness summons for Captain Almond. The defendants should be bound over in the sum of £5 to appear on Monday.

When the defendants again appeared before the Bench on Monday, Captain Almond, who was called by Mr Berry, said he was the military representative for the district in which the men resided. He was present at the Appeal Court when their cases were heard by Judge Mellor.

Mr Berry: Were these men referred to the Pelham Committee?
Captain Almond: Yes, by word of mouth. On the appeal papers there is no mention of the Pelham Committee. The question now is not as to whether they were referred to that committee but as to whether they are absentees or not.
The Chairman: Have you the papers with you?
- Yes I have.
The Chairman: You might put them in.
After looking at the papers the Chairman said the papers simply said the appeals were not allowed.
Mr Berry: But they were referred to the Pelham Committee.
Captain Almond: I have answered that question once.
Mr Berry: And you gave a letter to Major Yarr in which you said they had been referred to the Pelham Committee
- Quite right, but in the meantime these men have to report to their regiment.

Mr Berry protested against Captain Almond offering any opinions. He was his witness and all he wanted from him were the facts. He was called to give evidence not to express opinions.
The Chairman explained that the reason why he was asked to be present was because Fletcher said he saw Judge Mellor write on his appeal form, "Referred to Pelham Committee". He (the Chairman) could not believe it at the time and the papers showed that it was not so.
Mr Berry (to Captain Almond): Did you see judge Mellor write Pelham Committee on the papers?
Captain Almond: There is no writing on them.
Mr Berry: How do you know he referred them to the committee?
Captain Almond: Because, as I have told you, I heard him say it.
Mr Berry: If that is so, it must be endorsed on some papers.
Fletcher said it was a pink form, and not one like those submitted by Captain Almond, on which Judge Mellor wrote Pelham Committee.
Mr Jackson, assistant clerk (to Mr Berry): Suppose that was written on, does it make any difference to your clients? I take it they should first of all answer their notices and until that is done nothing can be be done by the Pelham Committee.
Mr Berry: I submit that is not so because the military oath was one of the things conscientious objectors wished to be excused from. The Pelham Committee was considering what civil work they should take up and it was formed so that men who took up such work could do so without taking the military oath. Work under the Pelham Committee would be valueless if they had to take the military oath.

The magistrates retired and on returning the chairman said they were of the opinion that they were absentees and they would each be fined 40s and detained in custody to await an escort.

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

Salford Hundred Appeal Tribunal 25 May 1916
Reported Oldham Chronicle 27 May 1916

The Appeals Tribunal for the Salford Hundred sitting at Manchester under the chairmanship of Judge Mellor KC on Thursday afternoon heard the cases of a large number of conscientious objectors against military service, combatant and non-combatant remitted from the Pelham Committee.

… A more serious question arose on the calling out of a Manchester conscientious objector. Principal Graham came forward said that he was not present. He was one of several who were under detention … The Chairman said that he was not prepared to deal with the man until he came before him.
Principal Graham: If you would write to the War Office and get them to bring the man here it would put an end to a great injustice.

… Later Principal Graham said that there were two other men in whom he was interested and who were in similar circumstances. These were Davoll and Gadsby, the Chadderton men. They were in Wormwood Scrubs but their fathers were present.

In reply to Judge Mellor, Mr Davoll said that he had received the notice calling on his son to come before the tribunal that day; it was addressed to his home … The Chairman said that the tribunal would decide the cases as soon as they could get hold of the men … It would be better, he thought, to adjourn the hearing until the men were present.

… The matter was left on the understanding that every effort would be made to get the men from out of detention and sent home and in due course be heard by the tribunal.

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

The WO 363 records for Albert Whittaker Davoll survive (held at The National Archives, available online via Find My Past):

2 May 1916 Attested, refused to sign papers.
3 May 1916 Posted to Kinmel Park. 2 - 4 Coy. Non-Combatant Corps,
Regimental Number 916, Height 5 ft 8½ ins
Disobeyed an order
11 May 1916 Court Martial sentenced to 2 years with hard labour
16 May 1916 Sent to Wormwood Scrubs
10 June 1916 Sentence mitigated to 112 days with hard labour.
12 August 1916 Released from Wormwood Scrubs
15 August 1916 Sent home on furlough
22 September 1916 Discharged from the army "having been irregularly enlisted"
[See report of Salford Appeal Tribunal (above) dated 25 May 1916.]

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

Born Oldham, 10 May 1895
Died Middleton, 29 July 1934
Buried Chadderton Cemetery Grave H2 - 126

1911 census
45 Robinson Street, Chadderton, Oldham
Single with parents - only child.
Occ: at school

1939 register Deceased

Contributed by Dorothy Bintley