"One hundred years ago we were expected not to take emotions and feelings into account," says Hardman Lea, rationalising the response. "When making decisions such as these, we simply did what was needed.

"Nowadays, we constantly scrutinise decisions before, during and after we make them. It is interesting to pose this question in the abstract, but it’s another thing entirely if it actually happened. And whilst there would undoubtedly be initial opposition, when push came to shove we’d likely change our opinions, like the men of 1916."

However, Hardman Lea warns, even if the population did support the return of conscription, logistical difficulties would soon arise when civilians started being called up.

"An interesting question that arose during this debate was whether or not women would be required to conscribe if the legislation was reintroduced," says Hardman Lea. "The female role was much more formal 100 years ago, but times have changed. Women now serve in the Armed Forces, so if conscription came back in, should they be called up?"

This, another of the questions the author posed, elicited a mixed response among those polled. Whilst 57 per cent of respondents answered that 'yes', women should be conscripted, a notable 43 per cent thought otherwise. "Women are less aggressive", "women have occupations that would be invaluable on the home front" and the frank "they don't belong" were among the anonymous responses to the gender issue.