The ‘recruiting muddle’: married men, conscription and masculinity in First World War England*

ABSTRACT

Interviewed many decades after the end of the First World War, Mary Morton recalled vividly how her mother’s family had made no secret of their contempt for her father’s conduct during the conflict: he was – they thought – a ‘bounder’. Tellingly, they condemned not his continued civilian status, but the fact that he had volunteered, despite his responsibilities as husband and father. Historians have long recognized the powerful pull of military masculinities during the First World War, as well as the denigration of civilian men and masculinities: this article suggests that the wartime experiences of married men like Mary Morton’s father complicate this picture of hegemonic and subordinate masculinities. They, it was widely agreed in the early years of the conflict, had responsibilities that tied them to the home front; it was unmarried men’s duty to ‘go first’. In May 1916, however, the pressing need for military manpower led to the introduction of conscription for all men, without reference to marital status. This article explores the underlying shift in understandings of manly conduct in wartime, from a belief that married men had responsibilities that kept them from enlisting, to a new emphasis on the equality of duty among all physically fit men of military age, irrespective of domestic responsibilities.

KEYWORDS:

• First World War
• conscription
• domesticity
• military service
• married men
• single men
• masculinity

Acknowledgments

I am very grateful to the University of Wolverhampton’s Centre for Historical Research for their support of this research am warm thanks are also due to Alison Toplis for her sterling work on the press for this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. IWM, Documents 2249, October 14, 1914.

2. See, for example, Hämmerle, Überegger and Bader Zaar, ‘Introduction’; Ugolini, Civvies, especially chapter 4; Bibbings, Telling Tales, especially chapter 2; Gullace, ‘The Blood of our Sons’, chapter 5; and Cullen, ‘Gender and the Great War’, especially 229.

3. The concept of hegemonic masculinity is discussed in Connell and Messerschmidt, ‘Hegemonic Masculinity’, 829–59; Tosh, ‘Hegemonic Masculinity’ 41–58. A more recent discussion by Connell is ’The Study of Masculinities’, 5–15.

4. For example, Schippers, ‘Recovering the Feminine Other, 85–102.

5. Explored, for instance, in Chisholm and Tidy, eds. Special Issue on ‘Masculinities at the Margins’.

6. Ahlbäck, Manhood, 244.

7. Geva, Conscription, Family and the Modern State.

8. Fathers’ protective role is discussed, for example, in King, Family Men, especially chapter 2; Strange, Fatherhood, especially chapter 1; and Tosh, A Man’s Place, especially chapter 4.

9. Married men’s wartime duties are discussed in King, Family Men, 164–5; Gregory, The Last Great War, 94–5. For the continued significance of home and family after enlistment see Meyer, Men of War, chapter 1 and Roper, The Secret Battle, part 1.

10. Precise figures on the marital status of servicemen do not seem to exist, but estimates suggest that they were not only predominantly young, but also mostly single: it has been suggested that two thirds of those who died were bachelors. Roper, The Secret Battle, 5; and Winter, The Great War, 83.

11. Adams, ‘Asquith’s Choice’, 257. The pledge was noted, for example, in IWM, Documents 11335, 29 January 1917. The Derby scheme is generally interpreted as a final effort to obtain sufficient manpower for the armed forces without conscription: men between the ages of 18 and 41 were called upon to ‘attest’ their willingness to serve and were placed in ‘groups’ on the basis of age and marital status, but could then return to civilian life. The groups would be called only when required, with earlier groups made up of younger, unmarried men. Simkins, Kitchener’s Army, 150–1.

12. Adams and Poirier, The Conscription Controversy, 131–2.

13. Ibid., 133.

14. Lord Derby’s ‘Report on Recruiting’ is discussed in The Times, January 5, 1916, 4, 8, 9. The report showed that 2,184,979 men had attested, although Lord Derby warned that large numbers would have to be deducted, including men who were exempted because of their occupation.

15. The Times, January 5, 1916, 9; and The Daily Mirror, January 5, 1916, 2.

16. Ibid. Few disputed the numbers, although see, for example, Sir John Simon’s House of Commons speech, reported in The Daily Mirror, March 16, 1916, 2.

17. The Times, January 6, 1916, 9.

18. Adams and Poirier, The Conscription Controversy, 140–1. A Labour conference on 6 January 1916 voted overwhelmingly against the bill. See The Times, January 7 1916, 6. Here too, however, some voices were raised in support of married men’s preferential treatment. The Daily Mirror, January 7, 1916, 3; and The Herald, January 15, 1916, 4.

19. The Times, March 1, 1916, 8, 9; and The Daily Mirror, March 3, 1916, 2; March 6, 1916, 2.

20. The Daily Mirror, March 8, 1916, 2.

21. IWM, Documents 6570, March 3, 1916.

22. The Daily Mirror, March 9, 1916, 2. Widely reported meetings were held the same day in Cardiff and Portsmouth, The Times, March 9, 1916, 5; Nottingham Evening Post, March 7, 1916, 5; and Grantham Journal, March 11, 1916, 7.

23. The Daily Mirror, March 10, 1916, 2; March 13, 1916, 2; and The Times, March 13, 1916, 5.

24. The Times, March 13, 1916, 5.

25. Ibid., March 11, 1916, 7.

26. Ibid., March 14, 1916, 7. See also Nottingham Evening Post, March 14, 1916, 5. Biner was the founder of the ‘People’s Fairplay League’, which stood for ‘Freedom, fair taxation and fairplay’ and strongly opposed temperance. Biner, Seven Years.

27. The meeting was widely reported. See, for example, Nottingham Evening Post, March 15, 1916, 1; Lincolnshire Echo, March 15, 1916, 2. ‘Indignant meetings’ held ‘throughout the country’ were mentioned in IWM, Documents 15 March 6570, 1916.

28. The Times, March 15, 1916, 5; Lincolnshire Echo, March 15, 1916, 2; and Grantham Journal, March 18, 1916, 7.

29. The Daily Mirror, March 20, 1916, 2; The Times, March 16, 1916, 5. Gibson Bowles was a well-known political figure, described in an editorial of The Burnley News as a ‘lively critic of things in general’. The Burnley News, March 18, 1916, 7. His main interest was the Navy, and the naval blockade was a central issue of his bye-election campaign.

30. The Times, March 16, 1916, 9.

31. Ibid., March 17, 1916, 9; March 23, 1916, 9; The Daily Mirror, and March 22, 1916, 3.

32. The Times, March 21, 1916, 9.

33. IWM, Documents 12249, March 19, 1916.

34. The Times, March 23, 1916, 5.

35. Derby Daily Telegraph, March 27, 1916, 2; and The Times, April 5, 1916, 5.

36. The Times, March 29, 1916, 5. This figure should be treated with caution, although it is clear that the Union attracted considerable, if ephemeral, support.

37. See, for example, The Times, March 25, 1916, 5; March 27, 1916, 10; March 31, 1916, 5; April 1, 1916, 3; April 3, 1916, 5; April 4, 1916, 5; April 4, 1916, 6; April 15, 1916, 5.

38. Ibid., April 17, 1916, 10.

39. Ibid., March 30, 1916, 8.

40. Ibid., April 27, 1916, 7; April 28, 1916, 6, 8, 10. The bill dealt with time-expired servicemen, Territorials and men whose certificate of exemption had expired.

41. The Daily Mirror, April 26, 1916, 3.

42. IWM, Documents 4899, April 28, 1916.

43. The Daily Mirror, April 28, 1916, 3; May 4, 1916, 2. See also Adams, ‘Asquith’s Choice’, 263.

44. MacDonagh, In London, 98.

45. The Times, June 24, 1916, 8.

46. The Daily Mirror, June 6, 1916, 2. British subjects, that is, who were ‘between the ages of 18 and 41, single or married, unless exempted by a tribunal, badged as a munition worker, or medically rejected as unfit’. The exclusion of all women from military citizenship could clearly be taken for granted.

47. BSC, Ms. Eng. Hist. e.110, September 15, 1915.

48. Ibid., Ms. Eng. Hist. e. 121, February 20, 1916.

49. Derby Daily Telegraph, March 6, 1916, 3.

50. BSC, Ms Eng. misc. c.171, October 31, 1915; Ms Eng. misc. c.175, March 31, 1916.

51. See, for example, The Times, January 6, 1916, 5; March 10, 1916, 5; and March 24, 1916, 9.

52. Derby Daily Telegraph, January 1, 1916, 2.

53. Nottingham Evening Post, March 9, 1916, 3. Similar notions of masculine duty are explored in Gullace, ‘The Blood of our Sons’, chapter 2.

54. The Times, February 25, 1916, 9. On 24 March Crush was one of the speakers at the meeting organised by the National Union of Attested Married Men at Manchester’s Free Trade Hall and became its vice-chairman. The Times, March 25, 1916, 5; and April 29, 1916, 5.

55. BSC, Ms Eng. misc. c.177, May 14, 1916.

56. BSC, Ms. Eng. Hist. e. 92, December 1, 1914. See also Wall, ‘English and German Families’, 93–8.

57. IWM, Documents May 25, 1916. Although see also March 30, 1916, when he condemned the attested married men who were ‘doing their utmost to avoid serving the country’.

58. The Herald, March 25, 1916, 3. Other contributors were less sympathetic. Ibid., March 18, 1916, 5; March 25, 1916, 12.

59. Details of a scheme to assist recruits (except officers) with their civil liabilities, including rent, mortgages, rates, taxes and school fees, in addition to the normal separation allowances and up to £104 per annum, were announced in mid-May. The scheme covered all men who had joined up since 4 August 1914. The Times, May 1916, 5; andMay 18, 1916, 8.

60. The Daily Mirror, May 13, 1916, 2.

61. The Times, March 24, 1916, 9.

62. The Daily Mirror, March 2, 1916, 5.

63. Nottingham Evening Post, March 8, 1916, 5.

64. IWM, Documents 4899, November 30, 1914.

65. Ibid., May 2, 1916.

66. BSC, Ms Eng. misc. c.163, January 10, 1915.

67. Ibid., Ms Eng. misc. c.173, December 9, December 10, 1915, December 11, 1915.

68. Ibid., Ms Eng. misc. c.183, November 29, 1916.

69. Ibid., Ms Eng. misc. c.193, September 10, 1917.

70. Van Emden, The Quick, 21. Most participants to public debates over conscription were men, but women’s responses – both public and private – to the repeated association of femininity with dependence and implicit equation with childhood would certainly repay further investigation.

71. The Daily Mirror, January 1, 1916, 7.

72. Quoted in Nottingham Evening Post, January 5, 1916, 3.

73. See also Derby Daily Telegraph, January 4, 1916, 6; and The Times, January 1916, 3.

74. The Times, April 5, 1916, 6.

75. Ibid., April 29, 1916, 5.

76. IWM, Documents 1335, September 17, 1915.

77. IWM, Documents 98/28/1, March 23, 1916.

78. Nottingham Evening Post, March 15, 1916, 1.

79. Derby Daily Telegraph, March 16, 1916, 2.

80. The Daily Mirror, March 13, 1916, 2.

81. The Herald, March 25, 1916, 52.

82. The Times, March 2, 1916, 9; March 3, 1916, 9.

83. Nottingham Evening Post, March 22, 1916, 5.

84. Lincolnshire Echo, March 6, 1916, 4.

85. Ibid., March 10, 1916, 3.

86. From a speech given to an attested married men’s meeting in Darlington by Richard Luck, a barrister. Lincolnshire Echo, March 25, 1916, 2.

87. Derby Daily Telegraph, March 15, 1916, 2.

88. From a speech by Will Dyson to a Married Men’s League meeting at Tower Hill. The Daily Mirror, March 14, 1916, 2.

89. The Daily Mirror, January 5, 1916, 2.

90. The Times, January 5, 1916, 9.

91. IWM, Documents 6570, March 21, 1916.

92. The Times, March 16, 1916, 12.

93. Ibid., April 19, 1916, 10.

94. Ibid., March 15, 1916, 10.

95. Ibid., March 16, 1916, 14.

96. Ibid., February 25, 1916, 14. Similar comments were made by companies as diverse as The Merchants’ Marine Insurance Company and Spiller and Bakers, a Cardiff-based flour milling company. Ibid., February 10, 1916, 13; and May 8, 1916, 14.

97. The Herald, March 18, 1916, 6.

98. The Daily Mirror, February 28, 1916, 5.

99. Ibid., March 3, 1916, 5.

100. The Times, January 5, 1916, 9.

101. Lincolnshire Echo, May 9, 1916, 2.

102. Nottingham Evening Post, March 11, 1916, 3.

103. IWM, Documents 4899, March 11, 1916.

104. IWM, Documents 5744, March 6, 1916, March 25, 1916, April 3, 1916. In April 1916 the East-Central Appeal Tribunal granted Lockwood a temporary exemption.

105. BSC, Ms. Eng. Hist. e.122, March 18, 1916.

106. Derby Daily Telegraph, March 6, 1916, 2.

107. The Times, March 18, 1916, 9; and March 28, 1916, 9.

108. BSC, Ms Eng. misc. c.175, March 7, 1916.

109. Hansard Commons Debates, January 5, 1916, vol. 77, cols 956–7.

110. Lincolnshire Echo, January 11, 1916, 2.

111. The Daily Mirror, January 3, 1916, 7.

112. The Times, April 19, 1916, 10.

113. The Times, April 28, 1916, 6. For the notion of sacrifice in wartime rhetoric, see Winter, ‘Paris’, 3–24.

114. The Daily Mirror, May 24, 1916, 2.

115. Ibid., May 18, 1916, 5.

116. The Times, March 30, 1916, 9.

117. Quoted in Lincolnshire Echo, January 25, 1916, 2.

118. Connell and Messerschmidt, ‘Hegemonic masculinity’, 845.

119. IWM, Documents 11335, March 20, 1916.

120. The Daily Mirror, June 2, 1916, 11. See also IWM, Documents 4899, September 21, 1916.

121. Nottingham Evening Post, July 29, 1916, 3.