GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
Karyn Burnham reveals how a fascinating First World War archival discovery shines a light on some of the personal struggles men had with conscription
A First World War archive discovery shines a light on conscription tribunals, Karyn Burnham reveals
While searching the archives for material to commemorate the centenary of the First World War, staff at the North Yorkshire County Record Office made an unexpected and startling discovery. Bundled up in brown paper, untouched for almost a century, were 6,000 North Riding County Appeal Tribunal records, containing the cases of men who sought exemption from military service. These records document, sometimes in heartbreaking detail, the plight of these individuals and their families.
In response to the urgent need for more men on the battlefields of Europe and beyond, the British government took the unprecedented step of introducing conscription in January 1916. Under the Military Service Act, as of 2 March 1916 every unmarried man between the ages of 18 and 41 would be “deemed to have enlisted” for the duration of the war. In practice, the implementation of the Act was far more complicated.
Enlisted or exempted
Rather than enlist immediately, however, a man could choose to ‘attest’. Although this committed him to joining the services eventually, he would be placed into a group based on age and marital status, and was able to continue with civilian life until his group was called up. Alternatively, he could apply for exemption from military service on various grounds, including: being engaged in a certified occupation; that joining the services would leave him or his family in serious hardship; ill health or infirmity; and, famously, conscientious objection.
However, the rules changed regularly. An extensive list of certified occupations was published to aid both the men
concerned and the authorities in determining whether an occupation should be considered of national importance. The list was revised routinely as the need for military recruits grew ever more desperate.
To claim exemption a man needed to present his case before a tribunal in his local area, which was comprised of dignitaries, councillors, and businessmen, as well as a military representative. Tribunal members were often familiar with the men appearing before them, certainly in rural areas. How well you fared at tribunal could have as much to do with your connections – and reputation – as with the merits of the case. If the local tribunal dismissed the claim for exemption, the applicant could choose to lodge an appeal with the County Appeal Tribunal. The final stage in the process was the Central Tribunal in London, but this was complicated because fresh evidence was needed, so for most the County Appeal Tribunal was their last chance. The appeals system was necessarily bureaucratic and the time-scales extremely tight – the process wasn’t meant to be easy.
Lost wartime stories
In the years following the First World War, the Ministry of Health ordered local government boards to destroy all records of the military service tribunal hearings apart from the Middlesex appeal papers in England, and Lothian and Peebles in Scotland, which were to be kept as a benchmark should the government ever need to introduce conscription again. This action more or less expunged a whole area of British social history from the records, leaving historians and genealogists only a tantalising glimpse of how conscription affected not just the men concerned, but the communities in which they lived.
Over the years, a few collections of records have come to light around the country, and the discovery of the North Riding appeal papers represents a significant contribution to our understanding of this turbulent period of British history. In 2016, North Yorkshire County Record Office embarked on the Heritage Lotteryfunded Grounds For Appeal project, to catalogue every record and create a searchable online database.
These records reveal untold stories of men frightened of losing their livelihood and becoming unable to support their families; of local trades and businesses established over generations facing collapse as their skilled workforce was taken away; of farmers struggling to maintain their land, their livestock and their way of life. In the face of such an overwhelming exodus to war, how did communities survive?
The first County Appeal Tribunal cases were heard in March 1916, just days after decisions had been made at local tribunals. North Riding County Appeal Tribunal records from this period reflect a system that was still being tried and tested by all parties. Case number 1, for example, was that of 31-year-old Septimus Thompson, a ‘ beastman’ on his family’s farm near York. As a beastman he was responsible for the management of livestock, which was deemed an exempt occupation in recognition of the national importance of farming. The appeal was made by Septimus’s widowed mother Eliza, who claimed that, of her four sons one was “delicate” and could not work, while another was married and only helped out when unemployed. In effect, she had “two sons and a hired man to farm 150 acres”. On the face of it, this seems a reasonable request, but it was dismissed by the tribunal and Septimus was conscripted into the army. Records show that he survived the war and went on to marry in 1921.
In those early days, the system was also fraught with confusion, as evidenced by the case of 24-year-old Charles Usher, who delivered groceries and supplies to farms on behalf of Wilcocks Stores Ltd in Whitby. His initial application mentions his three brothers; one is described as a “hunchback shoemaker”, while the other two are noted as serving in the Royal Navy. Charles was the
sole support for his sick mother. After the local tribunal dismissed his case, Wilcocks Stores appealed on Charles’s behalf. His job, they claimed, was “necessary to the carrying on of the farm work of the district” and it involved heavy duties that could not be done by an “elderly man or a woman”.
The appeal tribunal was sympathetic and granted him a temporary exemption until October 1916, allowing Charles and his employer to make alternative arrangements. The military representative disagreed with their decision, however, and forced the case to be reheard resulting in the temporary exemption being shortened to July. Military records show that Charles served with the Royal Artillery and survived the war.
Home versus Front
Some of the reasons given in support of an appeal, particularly in the early days before people understood how uncompromising the system could be, may raise eyebrows today. William Cockerill, for example, seemed to be occupied as “assistant manager, bookkeeper, buyer and slaughterman” for a business in York. His employer appealed on William’s behalf, claiming that his own poor health meant he had to take “frequent rests out of the city” and that “female labour is out of the question… as the work is too heavy”.
An unsuccessful appeal made by the father of 19-year-old Horace Horsley said that his son “suffered dreadfully… from sheer nervous fright” at the sound of thunder. Given what we now know of trench warfare, poor Horace must have been terrified the whole time. Thankfully, the records show that he survived the war and lived to be 85.
Another early appeal to test the system was that of Percy Carr, an employee of Rowntree & Co in York. Percy was a mechanical draughtsman, a skilled profession and therefore certified; he was granted absolute exemption from military service by the York tribunal. The military representative was outraged and appealed against the decision, arguing that “the manufacture of… chocolate is not of national importance”. The appeal tribunal dismissed him and the exemption was allowed to stand. Not satisfied with this, the military representative pursued his appeal via the Ministry of Munitions, who agreed with him and instructed Percy that his exemption would be revoked unless he found work in the munitions industry.
Thomas Brookebank, a 33-year-old schoolmaster from Richmond, also fell foul of the military representative. Thomas was solely responsible for the care of his elderly parents and invalid sister, and the family home was tied to his position as headteacher; if he lost his job the Brookebanks would lose their home. The local tribunal agreed that serious hardship would ensue if Thomas was conscripted immediately, so allowed him a temporary exemption of six months to put his affairs in order. The military representative appealed, arguing that no real hardship was apparent and one month would suffice. Fortunately for Thomas’s family, the appeal
The military representative was outraged and appealed against the decision
tribunal disagreed and the six-month exemption stood.
What these cases, and many more like them, demonstrate is the determination of the military representatives to ensure that no man should escape conscription. This fervour is particularly clear in claims made on grounds of serious hardship. Edwin Hutchinson worked as a market gardener in Richmond. He was married with two “delicate” children and supported his elderly parents financially. The rented family home included an acre of orchard; Edwin relied on income from the orchard crop to pay the rent. He was also employed as a joiner, carrying out repair work at Richmond military camp. If Edwin was conscripted, his family could not manage the orchard or pay the rent. The appeal tribunal granted him temporary exemption to November 1916, when Edwin would have to re-apply.
Alfred Watson was married with three children and had ploughed all his savings into his grocery business. If called up immediately, his business would fold and he would lose everything. The local tribunal granted a six-month exemption. This was extended by a further six months to May 1917, in recognition of his situation. Again, the military representative tried to have this quashed, but was overruled.
Cases where temporary exemption was extended could be a source of antagonism for others who were less fortunate. In June 1916, Harry Clayton was granted exemption until November on the grounds that he was the only man left to run the family farm; his two brothers were already serving and he was the sole support for his widowed mother. This was subsequently extended to January 1917, with no leave for further appeal. In desperation, his mother wrote a letter begging the authorities to change their minds as she could not carry on the farm without him, and cited other men in the same situation who had been granted exemption. Her pleas were dismissed and in February 1917 Harry joined the services.
We cannot know how Mrs Clayton coped with running the farm in Harry’s absence, nor whether Thomas Brookebank’s family were able to stay in their home for the duration of his service, but we can begin to have some idea of the scale of upheaval caused by conscription.
Due to the destruction of the majority of appeal tribunal records in the 1920s, it is unclear how many claims for exemption were made nationally from 1916-18, nor what proportion of them were granted. During the recent commemorations of life during the First World War, some focus has been given to conscientious objection and this could influence our perspective on those men who claimed exemption from military service.
What is evident from the North Riding county appeal records and others like them however, is that in most cases, claiming exemption had less to do with refusing to fight for King and country, and more to do with maintaining a way of life. A life worked for, saved for, invested in. In some cases, a way of life that had endured for generations, but could so easily be snuffed out. Those who fought and survived the war would return home to find their land, and their lives, forever changed.