Attendance at military service tribunals

[wolvesarchives]

Hi

Does anyone know whether members of the public were allowed to attend Military Service Tribunals? Or were they simply attended by the panel plus the men who came before them?

We have a white feather letter at Wolverhampton Archives that hints that the author of the letter either attended or received information from somebody who attended the tribunal. The local newspaper reports of the tribunals are anonymised, although sometimes you might be able to work out who they were referring to, as they talk about people such as "a 35-year-old man from Heath Town" etc The other alternative, of course, is that the information could have been passed on by a member of the panel.

It would be useful to find out a bit more detail to confirm how the author of the letter would have come by this information.

Thank you very much in advance.

Heidi McIntosh

[Snorbens]

Heidi

I have been involved in a project that has looked extensively at the records of the St Albans City Tribunal.

From late February 1916 onwards, the chairman of this tribunal tried to encourage the general public to attend hearings.

Depending on the context of the application being heard, more than a dozen people could be directly involved in the hearing itself and many others in its preparation. So there was plenty of official channels for passing information and some unofficial channels too no doubt.

Jon

[Terry_Reeves]

The public were entitled to attend however the chairman had the power of exclusion in certain circumstances. This was particularly true the case of rowdyism where groups of supporters of socialists would demonstrate in the public gallery.

See "Conscience and Politics" John Rae, Chapter 6, page 99.

TR

[Magnumbellum]

Yes, as officially constituted public bodies fulfilling a role analogous to that of courts of law, military service tribunals were open to both the general public and the press; there would be seats at the back for the public, and space for the press, possibly with a table.

Names of applicants would be formally read out in public. It was a matter for the press whether they published names. As has been discussed previously on GWF, some local press appear to have adopted a policy of not publishing names, for reasons which have never been disclosed, whereas other papers regularly published not only names but other identifying detail such as the road where the person lived, even if not the actual house number.

It needs also to be borne in mind that conscientious objection applicants comprised fewer than five per cent of the total, so that many of the generality of applicants would preface their application with support in principle for the war whilst explaining the particular problem inhibiting them from enlisting, or at least not yet.

[Derek Black]

They tribunals were well reported by the local press in my town at the time it seems.

No names given, but plenty of info about their life, age, job and where they lived, so no reader would be in any doubt who was before the panel.

[wolvesarchives]

That is really useful, thank you. Our white feather letter refers to "Your gallant + protracted defence against the brutal attacks of the local tribunal", so it seems to imply that the author or one of their associates was present to witness the tribunal.

I will have a closer look at our local press and see if there is any further detail, such as encouraging attendance by members of the public, as mentioned above.

Thanks again.

[Andrew Hesketh]

The local newspaper most relevant to my research gave not only names but also addresses. They also occasionally quoted exchanges verbatim, often as an opportunity to add something in parentheses relating to the audience's reaction - usually laughter. For example, my favourite exchange showing this journalistic tactic ran as follows in relation to a man granted a conditional exemption. The military representative made a comment following the 'verdict':

Military Rep: You don't need to look so pleased with yourself. Do you not wish to go?

Man: Not really, no. (laughter)

To add a slightly more serious and relevant point, the Chairman could (in certain circumstance which I cannot relate because they were not reported) decide to hold the meeting in camera. I haven't encountered many examples, but they do exist.

[wolvesarchives]

Hello

I have just found the following in the local newspaper, the Express & Star on 18 February 1916. At their annual meeting, the Wolverhampton Trades Council resolved to increase the number of Labour representatives on the Tribunal, and "that the sittings of the Tribunal should be public."

This implies that they were not public prior to this date.

I will continue digging...

[johnboy]

It is possible that a family member attended. It may also have been possible for employers to attend to back up the mans statements.

[Magnumbellum]

Hello

I have just found the following in the local newspaper, the Express & Star on 18 February 1916. At their annual meeting, the Wolverhampton Trades Council resolved to increase the number of Labour representatives on the Tribunal, and "that the sittings of the Tribunal should be public."

This implies that they were not public prior to this date.

I will continue digging...

Wolverhampton Trades Council-small.jpg

This requires clarification. Although it was open to Wolverhampton Trades Council to make recommendations about Lanour representation on Wolverhampton MST, the actual appointment of all members of the local MST lay with Wolverhampton Borough Council

[cassie]

The majority of the conscientious objectors I am reseaching seem tho have had their tribunals heard at Wormwood Scrubs which is a long way from Barnsley are these something different to what would have been held in their home town. I have found virtually no mention of tribunals in our local paper?