No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 July 2014
“Pacifism + non-resistance are by-products of some central things to which we have to testify.”
Richard Roberts
Although Rev. Richard Roberts was the chairman of the founding conference of the Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR) at Cambridge in 1914, its first general secretary, and the key figure in its early ideology, he has largely been ignored in the secondary literature. Admittedly, Vera Brittain, in The Rebel Passion, sketched an appreciative vignette, but Jill Wallis, in her more recent FOR study Valiant for Peace, mentions him only six times without discussing his ideas. Even Roberts' daughter Gwen's biography, Grace Unfailing, fails to analyze the basis of his contribution. Yet, seven decades after attending the founding FOR conference, its only survivor, Horace Alexander, wrote that, while he could not recall the details, Richard Roberts had impressed him most, for he “got right into [him], and helped [him] find a sure foundation for life.” Alexander's comment points in the direction Martin Ceadel began to develop when he defined pacifism as a faith. But Ceadel restricted that faith to its relation to war, a restriction that was inappropriate for the early FOR. Pacifism, its leading members posited, should pervade all of life, private as well as public. Their conception of the new organization sounded like a worldview, a framework through which they viewed the world. Nevertheless, although pacifism should influence all of life, it was, as Roberts suggested, a by-product rather than the central element. Hence, rather than explicating his understanding of pacifism, at the founding conference Roberts focused on Christ's atonement as the ground of all ethics and as supplying the regulative principle of the Christian's reconciling ministry in the world. From this perspective he drew the conclusion that reconciliation implied a wide range of social activities for which the energies of youth, being used in warfare, should be mobilized in something akin to a Franciscan tertiary order. It was this call for social regeneration combined with evangelism that impressed Alexander. Only in passing Roberts declared the “simple,” pre-1914 pacifism bankrupt, while expecting that reconciliation in all spheres of life would undercut the commonly held view that war was “a hateful affair yet a noble enterprise of Christian chivalry.” This notion of reconciliation, with all that it entailed, became central. Even before the FOR had a conscription committee it had established committees for its rehabilitation of young offenders commune, for education, and for social service. The limited secondary literature has generally ignored these committees and failed to analyze the notion of reconciliation, focusing instead on the by-product and on conscientious objectors. Methodologically, Ceadel defined the FOR as quietist, and compared to the No-Conscription Fellowship (NCF) that would be quite accurate. Indeed, for while the FOR encouraged its members to be politically involved—it had a political group committee—it shied away from being a political pressure group, regarding the NCF tactics incompatible with reconciliation. Although its methodology was quietist, its ideology was radical, aiming at the transformation of society. In order to understand this largely Roberts-influenced reconciliation ideology, it is necessary to take a closer look at Roberts' worldview.
1 Brittain, Vera, The Rebel Passion: A Short History of Some Pioneer Peace-makers (London, 1964)Google Scholar; Wallis, Jill, Valiant for Peace: A History of the Fellowship of Reconciliation 1914 to 1989 (London, 1991)Google Scholar; Norman, Gwen R. P., Grace Unfailing: The Radical Mind and the Beloved Community of Richard Roberts (Toronto, 1998)Google Scholar. See also den Boggende, G. G. J., “The Fellowship of Reconciliation 1914–1945,” (Ph.D. diss., McMaster University, 1986)Google Scholar.
2 Horace Alexander (1889–1990). Private communication to author, dated 10 April 1984.
3 Ceadel, Martin, Pacifism in Britain 1914–1945: The Defining of a Faith (Oxford, 1980)Google Scholar.
4 For worldviews, see Colson, Charles W. and Pearcey, Nancy, How Now Shall We Live? (Wheaton, 1999)Google Scholar; Marshall, Paul A., Griffioen, Sander, and Mouw, Richard J., eds., Stained Glass: Worldviews and Social Science (Lanham, Md., 1989)Google Scholar; Naugle, David K., Worldview: The History of a Concept (Grand Rapids, 2002)Google Scholar; Walsh, Brain J. and Middleton, J. Richard, The Transforming Vision: Shaping a Christian World View (Downer's Grove, 1984)Google Scholar.
5 Roberts, Richard, “The Quest of Christian Duty in War,” in Christ and Peace: A Discussion of Some Fundamental Issues Raised by the War, ed. Fry, Joan M. (London, 1915)Google Scholar. This is a collection of speeches at a Cambridge conference. Alexander referred to an “order of St. John.”
6 Ceadel, , Pacifism in Britain, p. 317 Google Scholar. For one attempt at industrial reconciliation, see den Boggende, Bert, “Pacifism and British Labor Relations: Malcolm Sparkes's Industrial Parliament Scheme,” Fides et Historia 32, 1 (Winter/Spring 2001): 89–108 Google Scholar.
7 See Norman, , Grace Unfailing (which Roberts, is called RR)Google Scholar. An early version of this book can be found at the United Church Archives, Toronto (hereafter cited as UCA, RR).
8 Bebbington, D. W., The Nonconformist Conscience, Chapel and Politics, 1870–1914 (London, 1982)Google Scholar. Norman, Edward, “Church and State since 1800,” in A History of Religion in Britain: Practice and Belief from Pre-Roman Times to the Present, eds. Gilley, Sheridan and Sheils, W. J. (Oxford, 1994), p. 286 Google Scholar.
9 Tawney, R. H., Religion and the Rise of Capitalism (Harmondsworth, 1926), p. 188 Google Scholar. See also Jones, Peter d'A., The Christian Socialist Revival 1877–1914: Religion, Class, and the Social Conscience in Late-Victorian England (Princeton, 1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Part of the church's irrelevancy can be traced back to the time of Charles II, when, according to Michael Mullett, the established church “taught that the social hierarchy and inequalities of wealth were God's will” (“Radical Sects and Dissenting Churches, 1600–1750,” in Gilley, and Sheils, , A History of Religion in Britain, p. 180 Google Scholar).
10 Roberts, Richard, The Church and the Next Generation (London, 1909), pp. 5, 9, 14, 20, 21, chs. 6 and 7Google Scholar. This was probably his third book. Hampton, David, “Religious Life in Industrial Britain, 1830–1914,” in Gilley, and Sheils, , A History of Religion in Britain, p. 312 Google Scholar. Roberts, Richard, The Will to Love (London, 1915)Google Scholar.
11 Bury, J. B., The Idea of Progress: An Inquiry into its Growth and Origin (New York, 1932), p. 346 Google Scholar. See also Nisbet, Robert, History of the Idea of Progress (New York, 1980)Google Scholar. For the Kingdom of God, see Ridderbos, Herman, The Coming of the Kingdom (St. Catharines, 1978)Google Scholar. During the nineteenth century premillennialism resurfaced, but there is no evidence that it influenced Roberts.
12 Campbell, R. J., The New Theology (New York, 1907), pp. 14, 8, 43, 234 Google Scholar. See also Streeter, B. H., ed., Foundations: A Statement of Christian Belief in Terms of Modern Thought (1912)Google Scholar.
13 Roberts, Richard, The Renascence of Faith (London, 1912), pp. 62, 72 Google Scholar, and “Religion in 1950,” a copy of which can be found in UCA, RR Box 3 file 68.
14 Roberts, Richard, Personality and Nationality: A Study in Recent History (London, n.d. [foreword written 10 November 1914]), p. 133 Google Scholar. The Venturer 1, 2 (November 1915): 61 Google Scholar.
15 Orchard, William, “The Kingdom of God is at Hand,” The Venturer 1, 1 (October 1915): 20 Google Scholar; News Sheet, 15 January 1916: 2 Google Scholar; Plowright, B. C., “The Misgivings of a Modernist,” The Congregational Quarterly 9, 3 (July 1931): 289 Google Scholar.
16 Revelation 11: 15. See also FOR archives (British Library of Political and Economic Science, London), FOR 456; 5/6; 30 April 1917.
17 For the Decalog as “constitution of the Kingdom of God,” see Douma, J., The Ten Commandments: Manual for the Christian Life, trans. Kloosterman, Nelson D. (Phillipsburg, 1996)Google Scholar.
18 Personality and Nationality, p. 117.
19 This is clearly stated in his 1929 meditation on the Lord's Prayer, section “Thy Kingdom Come.” In it he acknowledged that he used to think that the Kingdom would come by improving the world, but now believed that it had to be received and accepted.
20 The September statement comes from his speech given at the Llandudno conference; see Friends and the War (London, 1914), p. 36 Google Scholar. Roberts, Richard, The Red Cap on the Cross (London, 1918), p. 74 Google Scholar. Roberts, Richard, For God and Freedom (Sackville, 1945), p. 31 Google Scholar. For a modernist perspective on sin, see Orchard's, William E. 1909 D.D. thesis “Modern Theories of Sin.”Google Scholar With minimizing sin (human flaws were due to the environment) it was possible to regard the human being as essentially good.
21 The High Road to Christ: A Popular Essay in Restatement (London, 1912), p. 11 Google Scholar. For liberal Anglo-Catholic acceptance of higher criticism, see Lux Mundi (1889), edited by Gore, Charles, later bishop of Oxford Google Scholar. For historical development of interpretations, see Hasel, Gerhard, Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate (Grand Rapids, 1972; rev. ed. 1975)Google Scholar; Hasel, Gerhard, New Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate (Grand Rapids, 1978)Google Scholar; Neill, Stephen, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1961 (London, 1964)Google Scholar; Langford, Thomas A., In Search of Foundations—English Theology 1900–1920 (Nashville, 1969)Google Scholar. For further background, see Spinks, G. Stephens, Allen, E. L., and Parker, James, Religion in Britain Since 1900 (London, 1952)Google Scholar; Gilbert, Alan D., Religion and Class in Industrial England (London, 1976)Google Scholar; and Cox, Jeffrey, The English Churches in a Secular Society (New York, 1982)Google Scholar. According to Locke, in Essay Concerning Human Understanding, “He that believes, without having any reason for believing, may be in love with his own fancies,” quoted by Pailin, David A., “Rational Religion in England from Herbert of Cherbury to William Paley,” in Gilley, and Shells, , A History of Religion in Britain, p. 219 Google Scholar.
22 Roberts, Renascence, ch. 8, for his acceptance of miracles.
23 Young, Robert M., Darwin's Metaphor: Nature's Place in Victorian Culture (Cambridge, 1985)Google Scholar; Moore, James R., The Post-Darwinian Controversies: A Study of the Protestant struggle to come to terms with Darwin in Great Britain and America 1870–1900 (Cambridge, 1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bowler, Peter J., Reconciling Science and Religion: The Debate in Early-Twentieth-Century Britain (Chicago, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Lightman, Bernard, ed., Victorian Science in Context (Chicago, 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Vidler, Alec R., The Church in an Age of Revolution (Harmondsworth, 1971), ch. 10Google Scholar; Barbour, Ian G., Issues in Science and Religion (New York, 1966), ch. 4Google Scholar. Maatman, Russell, The Impact of Evolutionary Theory: A Christian View (Sioux Center, 1993)Google Scholar. According to Erich Fromm, some Darwinists were guilty of idolatry, proclaiming evolution a new god” ( The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness [New York, 1973], p. 30 Google Scholar).
24 It is not clear when Roberts first read Henri Bergson's books; but he was familiar with Creative Evolution (Paris, 1907; London, 1911) by 1914Google Scholar.
25 Polkinghorne, John, Belief in God in an Age of Science (New Haven, 1998), p. 40 Google Scholar.
26 Roberts, , Renascence, pp. 89 Google Scholar, 27. For Roberts's views on Nietzsche, , see Personality, p. 45 Google Scholar, Christ and Ourselves (London, 1915), ch. 2Google Scholar; Fry, , Christ and Peace, p. 28 Google Scholar.
27 “Private Invitation to a Conference” 30 April 1911, p. 1, in Cadoux', C. J. Google Scholar archives, Box 5, at Bodleian Library, Oxford. For this paragraph see also “The Story of the Covenant” in Richard Roberts' papers, UCA, RR Box 7. For the writing of the covenant, see Micklem, Nathaniel, The Box and the Puppets (1883–1953) (London, 1957), p. 51 Google Scholar, and Lawson, McEwan, God's Back-Room Boy (London, 1952), pp. 24–26 Google Scholar.
28 For ecumenicity, see Rouse, Ruth and Neill, Stephen Charles, eds., A History of the Ecumenical Movement 1517–1948 (Philadelphia, 1954)Google Scholar.
29 For Cadoux' membership, see Kaye, Elaine, Cadoux, C. J.: Theologian, Scholar and Pacifist (Edinburgh, 1988), pp. 35–36 Google Scholar; Norman, Grace Unfailing, ch. 11; UCA, RR Box 7.
30 Tatlow, Tissington, The Story of the Student Christian Movement of Great Britain and Ireland (London, 1933), p. 230 Google Scholar; see also p. 225, and Henry T. Hodgkin's archives at Friends Library, London, Temp. MSS 355, Box 1 file 19 (hereafter cited as HTH). While Roberts was not an SCM member, he had connections with the organization, speaking, for instance, at the first Welsh SCM conference in 1896.
31 Graham, John W., Conscription and Conscience (London, 1922; New York, 1971), p. 205 Google Scholar. Graham was wrong in equating it with Quakerism. Halliday, W. Fearon, “Is Prayer Reasonable?,” The Venturer 1, 4 (January 1915): 122 Google Scholar. The series continued until June 1916.
32 Ceadel, , Defining of a Faith, p. 317 Google Scholar. The nomenclature could be misinterpreted. It would be better to speak of a mystical approach.
33 Roberts, , Red Cap, p. 89 Google Scholar.
34 UCA, RR Box 5; Busch, Eberhard, Karl Barth (Philadelphia, 1976), p. 83 Google Scholar.
35 For Roberts' involvement in the Movement, see Norman, Grace Unfailing, ch. 7. Vidler, , The Church in an Age of Revolution, p. 143 Google Scholar. In 1907 Roberts wrote in Welsh a book about Welsh socialist and reformer Robert Owen. For the plight of the workers, see Roberts, Robert, The Classic Slum: Salford Life in the First Quarter of the Century (Harmondsworth, 1971)Google Scholar.
36 Roberts, , Renascence, p. 79 Google Scholar; Roberts, , Red Cap, p. 45 Google Scholar.
37 For Marshall, who emphasized moral capitalism, see Soffer, Reba N., Ethics and Society in England: The Revolution in the Social Sciences 1870–1914 (Berkeley, 1978), pt. 2Google Scholar. For Tawney, who emphasized a moralized socialism, see Terrill, Ross, R. H. Tawney and His Times (Cambridge, 1973)Google Scholar.
38 Norman, , Grace Unfailing, p. 72 Google Scholar. Roberts, Richard, The Untried Door (London, 1921), p. 75 Google Scholar. Bebbington, , Nonconformist Conscience, p. 12 Google Scholar, regarded the denial of the distinction between the sacred and the secular as one of the characteristics of the Nonconformist of the period 1870–1914.
39 Roberts, Personality and Nationality, ch. 6; Renascence, ch. 21. Niebuhr, H. Richard, Christ and Culture (New York, 1951), ch. 6Google Scholar: “Christ the Transformer of Culture.”
40 Roberts, , Personality and Nationality, pp. 11, 23, 58 Google Scholar.
41 Roberts, , Red Cap, pp. 11, 21, 29, 36, 50 Google Scholar.
42 For a survey of Christian socialism, see Jones, The Christian Socialist Revival 1877–1914. For FOR support of guild socialism, see Den Boggende, “Pacifism and British Labor Relations.”
43 Green, Andy, Education and State Formation: The Rise of Education Systems in England, France and the USA (New York, 1990), ch. 1Google Scholar; Dent, H. C., Century of Growth in English Education (London, 1970), p. 59 Google Scholar; Cruickshank, Marjorie, Church and State in English Education: 1870 to the Present Day (London, 1964), p. 80–81 Google Scholar; Murphy, James, Church, State and Schools in Britain, 1800–1970 (London, 1971), pp. 90–95 Google Scholar. For Clifford, see Marchant, James, Dr. John Clifford, C.H., Life, Letters and Reminiscences (London, 1924)Google Scholar.
44 See for instance The Church and the Next Generation, p. 34 and Renascence, p. 276.
45 Roberts, Richard, The Church in the Commonwealth (London, 1917), p. 14 Google Scholar. For the changing boundaries of the state and the problems reconciling individuality with majoritarian democracy, see Harris, José, “Political thought and the state,” in The boundaries of the state in modern Britain, eds. Green, S. J. D. and Whiting, R. C. (Cambridge, 1996), ch. 2Google Scholar.
46 For some of the disharmony, see Dangerfield, George, The Strange Death of Liberal England 1910–1914 (New York, 1935)Google Scholar.
47 UCA, RR file 28.
48 Cadoux archives, box 2, 4 January 1903; Springhall, John, Youth, Empire and Society (London, 1977), p. 29 Google Scholar. Daily Telegraph, 7 May 1909: 13 Google Scholar.
49 Roberts, , The Church and the Next Generation, p. 115 Google Scholar.
50 Roberts, , Renascence, pp. 62, 72 Google Scholar.
51 Roberts had interrupted his holidays at Aldburgh to attend the conference.
52 Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan (1651)Google Scholar; see also Lorenz, Konrad, On Aggression (1966)Google Scholar. According to Zarka, Yves Charles, “The Return of Religion in Warfare,” Queen's Quarterly 110, 3 (Fall 2003): 331 Google Scholar, “war is not in itself exclusively a state of open violence or a showdown on the battlefield, but more generally a state of relations among the opponents.”
53 His reminiscence appeared in the American FOR publication Fellowship 9, 1 (January 1943): 3 Google Scholar, and was reprinted in Christian Pacifist (May 1943): 93–96 Google Scholar.
54 Hornsey Journal, 14 August 1914, p. 2 Google Scholar.
55 Fellowship (January 1943): 3 Google Scholar, and Christian Pacifist (May 1943): 93 Google Scholar. Others present were E. Bevan, G. Darlaston, M. Spencer, W. Paton. For others who were bewildered, see such different authors as Tatlow, , Student Christian Movement, p. 506 Google Scholar; Murray, Gilbert, The League of Nations Movement: Some Reflections of the Early Days (London, 1955), p. 3 Google Scholar; Wells, H. G., Mr. Britling Sees It Through (New York, 1916), p. 77 Google Scholar, and Thomson, Basil, My Experiences at Scotland Yard (Garden City, 1923), p. 37 Google Scholar. Even as late as the spring of 1915 Roberts still felt to be “in the fog.” See Roberts, Richard, The Faith For The New Age (FOR pamphlet, n.d. [1915]), p. 5 Google Scholar. “Message” was published on 7 August 1914 by Friends Meeting for Suffering and in The Friend of August 14.
56 UCA, RR Box 2 file 37, letter dated 11 August 1914.
57 The Friend 89, 21 (18 November 1915): 243 Google Scholar.
58 Wood, H. G., Hodgkin, Henry T., A Memoir (London, 1937), p. 150 Google Scholar; UCA, RR file 38, letter Hodgkin 26 August 1914. Hodgkin and Orchard spoke in October to a conference at Lambeth. See also, Robbins, Keith, The Abolition of War: The ‘Peace Movement’ in Britain 1914–1919 (Cardiff, 1976), p. 57 Google Scholar.
59 Temple, William, Christianity and War (London, 1914), pp. 2, 3, 4, 11 Google Scholar. For similar sentiments, see number 5 in the series, Oldham, J. H., The Decisive Hour Is It Lost? (London, 1914)Google Scholar.
60 For Norman Angell, see Angell, Norman, The Great Illusion (London, 1910)Google Scholar and After All: The Autobiography of Norman Angell (London, 1951)Google Scholar; Marrin, Albert, Sir Norman Angell (Boston, 1979)Google Scholar; Miller, J. D. B., Norman Angell and the Futility of War and the Public Mind (York, 1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
61 Roberts, Richard, Are We Worth Fighting For? (London, 1914), pp. 7, 15, 9–10Google Scholar. For a contrary conclusion, see number 9, written by X, The Witness of the Church in the Present Crisis (London, 1914)Google Scholar. For Roberts' further critique of Nietzsche, see Personality, ch. 2.
62 HTH, Box 1 file 16, 19 November 1914.
63 For Hodgkin's comments, see his letter dated 17 November 1914, HTH, Box 1 file 14. The essay was published in 1915 by the FOR.
64 Hornsey Journal, 13 November 1914.
65 HTH, Box 1 file 16, 19 November 1914.
66 HTH, Box 1 file 16, Hodgkin to his father; letter dated 30 November 1914.
67 The Friend 54, 16 (17 April 1914): 263–64Google Scholar.
68 For the SQS memorandum, see Friends and the War, p. 124. The five Free Churchmen, G. H. C. Angus, M. S. Lawson, N. Micklem, W. Paton, and R. D. Rees, became later FOR members. Their original memorandum was published on 7 September, the first day of the battle of the Marne, and partly reissued in Friends and the War, pp. 135–37. See also Wood, , Hodgkin, p. 147 Google Scholar, and Greenwood, John Ormerod, Quaker Encounters, Volume 2. Vines on the Mountains (York, 1977), pp. 189–90Google Scholar. See also, Kennedy, Thomas C., British Quakerism 1860–1920: The Transformation of a Religious Community (Oxford, 2001)Google Scholar.
69 The Friend 54, 41 (9 October 1914): 738–39Google Scholar.
70 The Friend 54, 40 (2 October 1914): 726 Google Scholar.
71 Friends and the War, pp. 53–59. See also “Christ and the World Situation,” pp. 32–39. Roberts may have borrowed the statement that Christianity had never really been tried from G. K. Chesterton, to whom it usually is attributed. Roberts was rather vague about the meaning of fellowship, but his “Catholic spirit” seemed to imply spirituality as well as community.
72 The Friend 54, 42 (16 October 1914): 757 Google Scholar. Wood, , Hodgkin, p. 139 Google Scholar.
73 Fry, , Friends and the War, p. 158 Google Scholar.
74 Roberts, , Personality and Nationality, pp. 12, 7, 112–13Google Scholar. For his objections to secret diplomacy, already denounced by radicals before the war, see pp. 73, 74, 114. Travelyan, Charles, The Union of Democratic Control: Its History and Its Policy (Hertford, 1919)Google Scholar: cover. For the UDC, see Swanwick, Helena M., Builders of Peace (London, 1924; New York, 1973)Google Scholar; Swartz, Marvin, The Union of Democratic Control in British Politics During the First World War (Oxford, 1971)Google Scholar.
75 HTH, Box 1 file 16. Most likely the letter was written before 30 November.
76 HTH, Box 1 file 16, letter dated 14 November 1914.
77 Apparently Hodgkin read and interpreted the memorandum, see HTH, Box 1 file 16, letter 4 December 1914.
78 Fletcher, Sheila, Maude Royden: A Life (Oxford, 1989)Google Scholar. There is little in the book about Royden's connection with the FOR, of which she was briefly a traveling secretary and which she joined to break through her isolation.
79 For minutes of the meeting see HTH, Box 1 file 16. Possibly, the meeting produced a one page “Declaration of Peace,” a copy of which is in this file. For peace army, see Orchard, William, Advent Sermons (London, 1914), p. 251 Google Scholar, where he suggests that the churches should have mobilized Christians and “resolved that before the armies [came] to grips it [should have been] across the dead bodies of all Christian people.” Brinton, Henry, The Peace Army (London, 1932)Google Scholar totally ignored that the concept of a peace army was well-known in the FOR.
80 For the finding of the location, see Cunningham's, Ebenezer reminiscences in Reconciliation 31: 10 (October 1954): 186, and 41, 1 (January 1964): 6Google Scholar. According to Wood, , Hodgkin, p. 153 Google Scholar, it was obtained through Walter G. Bell.
81 HTH, Box 1 file 16, draft p. 3; Lilian Stevenson, HTH Box 1 file 16, undated letter to Hodgkin, which must be dated between 4 and 28 December 1914; Hayman, Eric, Worship & The Common Life (Cambridge, 1944), pp. 146–47Google Scholar; Bartlett, Percy, Quakers and the Christian Church (London, 1942), p. 45 Google Scholar. Malcolm Spencer was secretary of the “Order of the Kingdom” group.
82 Wood, , Hodgkin, p. 153 Google Scholar, Ceadel, , Pacifism in Britain, p. 35 Google Scholar, and Wallis, , Valiant Peace, p. 5 Google Scholar, mistakenly identified Hodgkin as chairman. See Hodgkin's report on the meeting in The Friend 55, 3 (15 January 1915): 46 Google Scholar.
83 The Friend 55, 3 (15 January 1915): 46 Google Scholar.
84 For the NCF, see Kennedy, Thomas C., The Hound of Conscience: A History of the No-Conscription Fellowship 1914–1919 (Fayetteville, 1981)Google Scholar; Vellacott, Jo, Bertrand Russell and the Pacifists in the First World War (Brighton, 1980)Google Scholar. The “order group” represented one pole within the FOR; the other pole was the “political pressure group.”
85 The Fellowship 9, 1 (January 1943): 5 Google Scholar.
86 For the Peace Society, see Ceadel, Martin, The Origins of War Prevention: The British Peace Movement and International Relations, 1730–1854 (Oxford, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Semi-Detached Idealists: The British Peace Movement and International Relations, 1854–1945 (Oxford, 2000)Google Scholar; Robbins, , Abolition of War, pp. 12–15 Google Scholar. Brown, H. Runham, Cutting Ice (Middlesex, 1930), p. 12 Google Scholar, even accused Peace Society members of tending “naturally to support a war.” Pease resigned his presidency of the Peace Society.
87 William E. Wilson to Henry Hodgkin, letter dated 1 June 1918, HTH Box 1 file 14, underlining in the original; Edith J. Wilson to Henry Hodgkin, HTH Box 1 file 16;. undated draft not later than 1916 in HTH Box 1 file 19, p. 4.
88 James, Stanley B., The Adventures of a Spiritual Tramp (London, 1925), p. 106 Google Scholar. James moved in 1917 from the NCF office to the FOR office.
89 For regarding Hodgkin as the FOR's moving spirit, see Kennedy's, Thomas C. entry in Biographical Dictionary of Modern Peace Leaders, ed. Josephson, Harold (Westport, 1985), p. 416 Google Scholar.
90 For the role of women in the peace movement, see Bussey, Gertrude and Tims, Margaret, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (London, 1965)Google Scholar; Wiltsher, Anne, Most Dangerous Women: Feminist Peace Campaigners of the Great War (London, 1985)Google Scholar.
91 Gardner to Hodgkin, HTH Box 1 file 16, memorandum undated; The Friend 55, 2 (8 January 1915): 30 Google Scholar. The Labour Leader, 7 January 1915, p. 2 Google Scholar, has a summary of the conference, probably by attendee George Lansbury.
92 For his resignation, see HTH Box 1 file 16, undated letter. In it he states that there had been differences of opinion before, but that his staunch pacifist position, which he felt he had no right to impose on his congregation, made his stay untenable.
93 Letter to John Skinner dated 8 May 1916; UCA, RR Box 2 file 39.