Albert Geatley

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.

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

South East Lancashire Appeal Tribunal, Town Hall Manchester, 30 March 1916
Reported Oldham Chronicle 1 April 1916

The South-east Lancashire Appeal Tribunal sitting in two sessions at the Town Hall Manchester on Thursday afternoon, heard appeals for total exemption from service made by a number of young men of Oldham, conscientious objectors, who had been sent to non-combatant service in most cases by the Oldham Tribunal and, in a few cases, to combatant service. Judge Mellor K C presided over one section and Mr J M Yates K C over the other.

Albert Geatley, 18 years of age of 9 Hawthorne-road, employed at the works of Messrs Ferranti, Hollinwood and a member of the Oldham ecclesia of the Christadelphian Church, appealed on the ground of a conscientious religious objection to all military service.

Judge Mellor: What are the Christadelphians may I ask? I am very ignorant.
Geatley: He is a brother of Christ. He is one that endeavours to follow the example of Christ as laid down for us in the New Testament.

A statement of the Christadelphian position was attached to the appeal form, which set out that the name was adopted in 1865 as a distinctive appellation for a body of believers seeking relief from military service in the American Civil War. They did not participate in politics or military service. The community was not one which could be suddenly augmented at the beginning of a war by people who wished to escape from military service. No-one was admitted who did not satisfy the examiners that he or she was at one with the community on particular points of doctrine.

Chairman: How long have you been a Christadelphian?
- Since I was 16.
Chairman: Was your father one?
- Yes, and my mother and grandfather and grandmother.
Chairman Do you mean to say that the Christadelphians object to going to help in the hospitals?
- Yes they object to anything under the military law.
Chairman: Even to assisting wounded men? It seems to me so astounding. I cannot understand it. You are Christians are you not? Christ came here to help the fallen and the down-trodden. You do not hold with that?
- Apart from military control, we do hold with it.
Chairman: You never find that Christ drew a distinction between a sick soldier and a sick civilian.
Mr J Calvert: (a friend with Geatley): We have no evidence that he did not.

It was then mentioned that since the appeal was sent in, Geatley had been moved to another department and was now working on munitions. The establishment is a controlled one.

Chairman: But does it not seem to you inconsistent? I don't like judging anybody unless I have to do it professionally. But it does seem astonishing that men should make munitions and yet object to use them.

Mr Calvert admitted that an inconsistency did appear but Geatley had followed the occupation of an instrument maker from the time that he went to Messrs Ferranti's works and he had been recently transferred to the fuse department. They had thought it inconsistent to make an appeal for his exemption on the ground of his work.

The Chairman asked what the youth was going to do? Was he going to retire from munitions work, or was he going on with that work and yet holding the doctrine set out in the appeal.

Mr Calvert: He can leave, if it meets with your approval.

The Chairman said that the tribunal had to find out if he had a conscientious objection and when they found people doing inconsistent things, how could they trust what was said as to conscience. He was sorry to find a young fellow expressing these objections against helping wounded men.

In giving the decision of the tribunal, Judge Mellor said that they thought the facts in the case were a little peculiar. But undoubtedly this young fellow had not taken up this attitude for the sake of avoiding military service, though the ideas expressed were somewhat strange. The tribunal could not help seeing the inconsistency into which he had been forced. They did not want to turn him out of the shell making place, for he might be of some use there.

Labour representative: You have a task on to get your conscience to harmonise the two positions.

Absolute exemption from service was granted.

Walter Geatley, 21 years of age living at 9 Hawthorne-road also appealed for exemption. He is working at Messrs Ferranti's works.

Labour representative: Can you think conscientiously that you are correct in making munitions of war and yet object to take any part in nursing the sick or in war in any shape or form?
- Yes sir.
Labour representative: I would like to see how you harmonise the two positions, I cannot.

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

Born Oldham, 17 May 1897
Died Huddersfield, 4 June 1980

1911 Census :
16 Under Lane, Grotton, Oldham
With mother and brother Walter
Occ. Cotton spinner's piecer.

1939 Register 108 Lord Lane, Failsworth
With wife Ellen, no children listed
Occ. Tool maker (Engineers)

Contributed by Dorothy Bintley