Tribunals and Judgements

[Andrew Hesketh]

Would anyone know of any research that suggests the percentage likelihood of tribunals flatly refusing appeals against conscription? Or any research that compares the behaviour of urban versus rural tribunals?

Is there any research?

[johnboy]

Don't know if this helps? Not research but gives results of cases over 2 yrs ,

 

 

[Magnumbellum]

Would anyone know of any research that suggests the percentage likelihood of tribunals flatly refusing appeals against conscription? Or any research that compares the behaviour of urban versus rural tribunals?

Is there any research?

Some clarification is requisite here.

First, local Military Service Tribunals did not consider "appeals" against conscription, as there was no decision against which to appeal. What they considered were applications for exemption. If an applicant was dissatisfied with the tribunal's decision, he had an automatic right to appeal to the County Appeal Tribunal. Misuse of the term "appeal" creates endless confusion.

Second, any research on the topic suggested would need to be extremely complex, as there were several different grounds for exemption, and there were different degrees of exemption possible, ranging from absolute to temporary; furthermore, applicants could apply on more than one ground at the same time, with a tribunal making different decisions on the different grounds, and tribunals sometimes recalled applicants for review after making a decision, Likewise with appeal tribunals. The simplicity implied in the question of one table of cases divided into two lists of YES or NO decisions nowhere existed.

[kenf48]

Acknowledging the complexity referred to above, in "A Nation Under Arms' Sheffield/Simpson offer a global figure that between 1 March 1916 and 31 March 1917 371.500 were compulsorily enlisted while 779, 936 were exempted for various reasons.

They claim the widespread discrepancies in the operation of the tribunals and standards of medical examinations led to the formation of the Ministry of National Service in November 1917. In the following year over a million men of the 2.5 million examined by the Ministry were exempted on medical grounds.

They cite a number of sources including J.M. Winter writing in Population Studies which I believe is incorporated in this book

http://www.amazon.com/Great-War-British-People-Second/dp/1403906955/ref=la_B001IYTOWC_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1397757423&sr=1-8

They also note the proportion of eligible males enlisted after January 1916 fell, most significantly in Scotland from 26.9% to 14.6%, there may be many reasons for this other than regional differences in the operation of the tribunals although there is some anecdotal evidence to suggest regional differences.

Ken

[Andrew Hesketh]

Don't know if this helps? Not research but gives results of cases over 2 yrs ,

Thank you. I will take a look.

[Andrew Hesketh]

Some clarification is requisite here.

First, local Military Service Tribunals did not consider "appeals" against conscription, as there was no decision against which to appeal. What they considered were applications for exemption. If an applicant was dissatisfied with the tribunal's decision, he had an automatic right to appeal to the County Appeal Tribunal. Misuse of the term "appeal" creates endless confusion.

Second, any research on the topic suggested would need to be extremely complex, as there were several different grounds for exemption, and there were different degrees of exemption possible, ranging from absolute to temporary; furthermore, applicants could apply on more than one ground at the same time, with a tribunal making different decisions on the different grounds, and tribunals sometimes recalled applicants for review after making a decision, Likewise with appeal tribunals. The simplicity implied in the question of one table of cases divided into two lists of YES or NO decisions nowhere existed.

I appreciate that the word 'appeal' in relation to an initial application was poorly chosen, however I thought my question was reasonably clear otherwise. I am wondering whether there is any research that may indicate how many applications were, as I put it, 'flatly' refused at the first hurdle. I do understand all of the permutations and issues that you go on to describe. I realise that a straightforward yes/no table would not be possible to create due to the variety of temporary and conditional exemptions available, so this was not what I was asking about.

Perhaps some context may help. I have been compiling records from local newspaper reports for Urban, Rural and County Tribunals over a North Wales District 1916-1918. It is not yet complete, but currently it appears that very few applications were refused at the first stage. When adding applications to appeals I am generating a figure approximating to about 20% in relation to rejections (not including temporary exemptions that simply reached their deadlines). This is significantly higher with the Urban tribunals compared to the Rural tribunals. So, what I'm after is any kind of other research that may indicate whether my results thus far are in line with the results shown by any other research? As you regularly comment on conscription / tribunal related questions, are you able to give a pointer?

[Andrew Hesketh]

.... "A Nation Under Arms' Sheffield/Simpson ....

Ken - many thanks for that detail. I knew I'd read something useful somewhere and couldn't place it. As I type I have my copy by my side, having rooted it from the shelves. Many thanks for reminding me.

[Magnumbellum]

I appreciate that the word 'appeal' in relation to an initial application was poorly chosen, however I thought my question was reasonably clear otherwise. I am wondering whether there is any research that may indicate how many applications were, as I put it, 'flatly' refused at the first hurdle. I do understand all of the permutations and issues that you go on to describe. I realise that a straightforward yes/no table would not be possible to create due to the variety of temporary and conditional exemptions available, so this was not what I was asking about.

Perhaps some context may help. I have been compiling records from local newspaper reports for Urban, Rural and County Tribunals over a North Wales District 1916-1918. It is not yet complete, but currently it appears that very few applications were refused at the first stage. When adding applications to appeals I am generating a figure approximating to about 20% in relation to rejections (not including temporary exemptions that simply reached their deadlines). This is significantly higher with the Urban tribunals compared to the Rural tribunals. So, what I'm after is any kind of other research that may indicate whether my results thus far are in line with the results shown by any other research? As you regularly comment on conscription / tribunal related questions, are you able to give a pointer?

I am not aware of any such research. My anecdotal impression is that, so far as applications on the ground of conscientious objection are concerned, there was a high degree of flat rejection at the first instance, but that is an impression, not based on any counting of cases. If one attempted to count cases, the complexity would begin to emerge in that for conscientious objectors, alongside the number of flat rejections at the first instance, there were a number of exemptions only from combatant service, meaning that the applicant was deemed suitable for military service but would be called up only to the Non-Combatant Corps. Doubtless, according to the official view this was not a flat refusal of an application for exemption, but in the view of many conscientious objectors this was just as much a rejection as a flat refusal - so, how is it to be counted?

[Andrew Hesketh]

Thank you for your reply.

[Moonraker]

Not really relevant to Andrew's original question, but I may as well tack

this link

on here. (It's probably not worth its own thread.)

It relates to "Devizes [Wiltshire] - Military Service Exemption Tribunals WWI".

Moonraker

[Magnumbellum]

Not really relevant to Andrew's original question, but I may as well tack

this link

on here. (It's probably not worth its own thread.)

It relates to "Devizes [Wiltshire] - Military Service Exemption Tribunals WWI".

"Relates to" seems to be the operative phrase, since it is clearly not an analysis of all cases appearing before the Devizes MST.

There is no mention anywhere of grounds for any application, but the notes suggest that the cases are limited to applications for exemption on essential worker grounds, and probably only a sample of those, with no indication of how the sample was selected. The sample is also limited to men liable under the two 1916 Acts, so excludes men who became liable under the 1918 Act.

It is odd that what in itself is a very detailed list appears without explanatory context.

[Moonraker]

The website

lists, parish by parish, a disparate collection of documents (newspaper articles, postcards, lists and so on) of interest to local historians. I agree that some explanation of the Tribunals list and how it was drawn up would be useful. I found it interesting because of the occupations that seemed to merit exemption - most are understandable.

There are usually a couple of items of WWI interest listed under most parishes, such as casualties. Under "Codford" can be found a couple of recent newspaper articles about the annual tidy-up of the Australian badge carved in "Misery Hill" outside the village. But I digress ...

Moonraker

[Moonraker]

Second coincidence of the week. A Google search in connection with Devizes wireless station has just led to two entries in the document to which I linked. In March 1916, William George Buckland, aged 29, single, boot & shoe maker and repairer, self-employed of Maryport Street, Devizes, received two months' exemption from military service; his brother had enlisted 12 months previous and was now in France. "Business depended on him. Carrying out repairs for men at the [Wiltshire Regiment] Depot, Wireless Station and the National Reserve Troops in the area." In March 1917, Buckland was given a qualified exemption.

(First coincidence was when I was wondering how orders etc were printed, only for a relevant thread to open a couple of hours later.)

Moonraker

[John Gilinsky]

Just a very brief and sadly too general response: In Canada the conscription law passed in the House of Commons (Ottawa) in the summer of 1917 to take effect in the fall of 1917. Well over 100,000 men were conscripted BUT only about 25,000 in total ever served overseas outside of Canada. There were many exemptions especially for the farmer's sons due to lobbying, politicking and the ever increasing realization of just how critical food production and food exports were to the Canadian economy. Nicholson's Official CEF history does go into this as do the other standard sources such as Morton, Granatstein (History of Conscription)... most if not all are now online. Hope this helps from a Canadian perspective. Recent research and publication on international humanitarianism and the Great War also focus on the critical needs of Europeans being fed in multiple areas and therefore North America in particular being seen as a huge kitchen or take-out restaurant. Still what is interesting in the North American context are the huge popularity of farmers buying farm tractors to plant, seed and harvest crops in fair measure due to the significant decreases in farm labour based on the war. Hope this is helpful. John

[Petroc]

Not sure of this might be of use and/or interest;

Nick Mansfield & Craig Horner (eds.), 'The Great War; Localities and Regional Identities' (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014) contains a chapter by Robin Barlow on Military Tribunals in Carmarthenshire, 1916-17

Andy

[clive_hughes]

Probably worth adding to the list is:

James McDermott, British Military Service Tribunals 1916-1918: 'A Very Much Abused Body of Men' (Manchester University Press 2011), 272pp. Looks a costly volume at present (about £42 and up, per the Bookfinder.com site), but it is currently available for rather less through the Academic Book Collection site (£13.75 plus carriage).

I bought one from them but haven't digested it yet!

Clive

[Magnumbellum]

Not sure of this might be of use and/or interest;

Nick Mansfield & Craig Horner (eds.), 'The Great War; Localities and Regional Identities' (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014) contains a chapter by Robin Barlow on Military Tribunals in Carmarthenshire, 1916-17

I trust that this is a citation error, and the chapter is actually entitled 'Military Service Tribunals in Carmartthenshire, 1916-17'. The distinction is not minor pedantry. 'Military Tribunal' implies a tribunal comprising military personnel run by the military, whereas the properly named 'Military Service Tribunals' comprisied civilian personnel and were run by local councils under the aegis of the Local Government Board.

[Petroc]

Oh for goodness sake!