David Walton

Oldham Tribunal 6 July 1916
Reported Oldham Chronicle 8 July 1916

At the Oldham Tribunal on Thursday several more cases of conscientious objectors were heard.

…. David Walton (31), 34, Norfolk Street, Werneth, coach and motor-body maker, appealed on conscientious grounds. He also said that his trade was certified. The applicant said the New Testament forbade any persons injured in any way repaying the injury received. No religious cause is held as sufficient justification for the transgression of Christ's commands to love one another. He had no objection to serving his country beneficially and not harmful to anyone.

Letters were read from several persons bearing out his statements regarding his conscientious objections and Walton withdrew his claim that he was in an exempted trade.
Alderman Middleton : Those views are your individual views?
- Yes, without exception.
You do not make any pretense that they are Wesleyan Methodist views?
- Not in the least. I state in my answers that the Wesleyan Methodists are divided, even the ministers.
Walton said he had been a Wesleyan all his life. he was not aware that any of the privileges of British citizenship included the maiming and killing of any other man.

Councillor Heywood : The question is : Are you prepared to defend the privileges that we have?
- If the question is to defend bloodshed of other people, certainly not.
Councillor Schofield : If you saw a woman being struck down in the street what would you do? would you go over and stop that man?
- That depends on ---
Supposing you saw a bully abusing a woman in the street what would you do? Would you go over and stop that man?
- Yes, to stop him, but I would not go to the extent of injuring him.
Supposing you could not do without injuring him would you leave the woman to be murdered?
- Suppose I did leave the woman to be murdered the religious central point of the woman was not being injured, only the body.
Would you allow the bully to kill the woman?
- Certainly not, but I would try not to kill the bully.
I do not say you would but what would you do?
- I should try and stop him peaceably.
But supposing you could not do it peaceably, and suppose he was kicking the woman in the
street, would you say, "Don't do that." And if he kept on; what then?
- I should interpose between them, and if necessary take the kicks upon myself.
Supposing he kicked you about the street, would you let him kill you?
- No, but I should not injure him.
Councillor Schofield : It is the most remarkable statement I have heard in my life.
Mr. Jackson : In one of your replies you say you do not object to any service so long as you do not injure other people?
- That is so.
Mr. Jackson : - Are you willing to undertake hospital work?
- Yes, and would regard it as a pleasure providing there is nothing in that service contrary to Christian doctrine.
Applicant said he had not appealed on the ground of cowardice, but he did not want to injure. He did not care what service he did, even at great risk to himself, if he did not injure any other man.
Captain Almond : If you go into the RAMC that would suit your purpose?
- Yes, subject to the oath being all right.
Would you undertake hospital work?
- with pleasure. I am not aware that the Good Samaritan ever asked how the wounded man came by his injuries.

Placed to non-combatant service with the RAMC.

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

Pearce List

1911 census - speculative, possibly found in Radcliffe, Manchester - age and occupation fit.

Contributed by Dorothy Bintley