Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis. Permission is given for a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of the Author. i           The Tool and Instrument of the Military?   The  Operations  of  the  Military  Service  Tribunals  in   the  East  Central  Division  of  the  West  Riding  of   Yorkshire  and  those  of  the  Military  Service  Boards   in  New  Zealand,  1916-­‐1918                           A  thesis  presented  in  partial  fulfilment  of  the  requirements  for  the   degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy  in  History  at  Massey  University                         David  Littlewood   2015     ii   Abstract   The  Military  Service  Acts  that  implemented  conscription  in  Great  Britain  and  New   Zealand   during   1916   permitted   appeals   for   exemption   to   a   Military   Service   Tribunal   or   Military   Service   Board   respectively.   Although   claims   lodged   on   the   grounds  of  hardship  or  occupation  were  by  far  the  most  common,  historians  have   overwhelmingly   focused   on   that   distinct   minority   of   individuals   who   cited   conscientious  objections.  Furthermore,  there  has  been  no  attempt  to  compare  the   structure,  or  the  workings,  of  the  exemption  systems  in  these  two  countries.     By   employing   a   ‘British  World’   approach,   this   thesis   compares   the   operations   of   the   Tribunals   in   the   East   Central   Division   of   the  West   Riding   of   Yorkshire   with   those  of   the  Boards  across  New  Zealand.   It   investigates   the  relationship  between   the  appeal  bodies  and  their  respective  governments  and  militaries,  to  assess  how   far   each   claim   was   judged   on   its   merits.   It   also   analyses   the   appointment   of   personnel  and  the  attitudes  that  the  Tribunal  and  Board  members  adopted  during   their  hearings.  Finally,  this  thesis  considers  the  proportion  of  men  who  appealed,   or  were  appealed  for,  and  the  likelihood  of  them  receiving  a  favourable  verdict.     The  operations  of  the  Tribunals  and  the  Boards  exhibit  some  striking  differences.   Large   numbers   of   Tribunals   were   established   with   diverse   and   locally   chosen   memberships,   whereas   the   personnel   for   the   handful   of   Boards  were   appointed   according   to   a   prescribed   formula.   Moreover,   the   Tribunal   members   received   a   plethora   of   ambiguous   directions,   which,   when   combined   with   a   tendency   to   prioritise   the   needs   of   their   communities,   led   to   significant   inconsistencies   of   procedure  and  decision.  In  contrast,  the  New  Zealand  Government  exerted  strong   centralised  control,  an  approach  that  coincided  with  the  Board  members’  desire  to   achieve  uniformity.       Despite  these  significant  discrepancies,  appellants  in  both  the  East  Central  Division   and   New   Zealand   were   more   likely   to   be   awarded   some   period   of   relief   from   military  service  than  to  have  their  conscription  simply  confirmed.     iii   Acknowledgements   Although  the  title  page  states  this  thesis   is  by   ‘David  Littlewood’,   it  simply  would   not  exist  in  its  current  form  without  assistance.  My  greatest  debt  is  to  my  wife,  Kat,   whose   love   and   support   always  make  me   feel   incredibly   lucky.   Family  members   have  been  behind  me  throughout  and  I  particularly  want  to  thank  my  Dad  for  his   tireless  efforts  obtaining  sources  for  me  in  the  UK.     Every  PhD  candidate   requires  quality   supervision  and   in   this   regard   I  have  been   exceptionally   fortunate.  Associate  Professor   James  Watson  has  done  so  much   for   me  during  my  postgraduate   career,  while  Dr   John  Griffiths   has   been   essential   to   developing  the  comparative  aspect  of  this  thesis.     My  colleagues  in  the  School  of  Humanities  have  given  great  encouragement,  none   more   so   than   Associate   Professor   Kerry   Taylor,   who   has   always   demonstrated   tremendous   faith   in  my  abilities.   I  would  also   like   to  single  out  Dr  Geoff  Watson,   Professor  Glyn  Harper,  and  Sharon  Cox  for  their  invaluable  advice.  The  staff  of  the   Document   Supply   Service   showed   remarkable   patience   with  my  many   requests.   Massey  University  has  been  extremely  generous  with   its   financial  support,  which   played  a  vital  role  in  giving  me  the  time  to  undertake  such  detailed  research.     I   have   experienced   dedicated   assistance   at   all   of   the   repositories   listed   in   the   bibliography.  However,  a  special  mention  must  go  to  the  staff  at  the  Huddersfield   Local   Studies   Library   and   Kirklees   Archives,   who   managed   to   locate   several   previously  undiscovered  treasures  on  my  behalf.     This  thesis  is  dedicated  to  the  individuals  who  engaged  with  the  British  and  New   Zealand  exemption  systems.  While  some  of  their  sentiments  may  appear  strange  or   even   distasteful   to   a   modern   audience,   they   are   surely   best   viewed   as   quintessentially   human   responses   to   a   time   of   great   uncertainty.   I   only   hope   all   those  involved  would  agree  with  at  least  part  of  what  I  have  to  say.     David  Littlewood,  2015   iv   Contents   Page  No.     Abstract                        ii     Acknowledgements                    iii     List  of  Charts                      v     Abbreviations                      vi     Map  One     County  of  the  West  Riding  of  Yorkshire          viii     Map  Two     New  Zealand  Provincial  Districts            ix                         Introduction                        1     Chapter  One     Setting  the  Boundaries:                                      16         The  Framework  of  the  Exemption  Systems             Chapter  Two     Judges  and  Juries:              63         The  Staffing  of  the  Exemption  Systems     Chapter  Three   Independence  or  Compliance?:          98         The  Autonomy  of  the  Appeal  Bodies     Chapter  Four   Holding  the  Balance:              152         The  Attitudes  of  the  Members     Chapter  Five     Willing  and  Eager  to  Go?:            191         The  Appellants     Chapter  Six     Those  Troublesome  Few:            228         The  Treatment  of  Conscientious  Objectors     Chapter  Seven   Work  or  Fight:              261         The  Verdicts  Delivered     Conclusions                                              285     Bibliography                                        293             v   List of Charts   Page  No.     1. Total  and  Status  of  New  Zealand  Appellants           200     2. Appellants  as  a  Proportion  of  Eligible  Population  in  British  Districts   201   and  New  Zealand     3. Representation  of  Occupational  Classes  Amongst  New  Zealand                              209     Appellants     4. The  Boards’  Verdicts  in  Appeals  Lodged  by  Conscientious  Objectors   252     5. Positive  ‘Concrete  Verdicts’  as  a  Proportion  of  All  Verdicts  Delivered   266     6. Types  of  ‘Concrete  Verdict’  Delivered  by  the  Division’s  Tribunals     267     7. Positive  ‘Concrete  Verdicts’  Plus  Dismissals  with  Time  as  a       268   Proportion  of  All  Verdicts     8. Sample  ‘Concrete’  Verdicts  Delivered  by  the  Boards         277     9. Sample  ‘Concrete  Verdicts’  Compared  to  All  ‘Concrete  Verdicts’             279   Delivered  by  the  Boards                                   vi   Abbreviations   AG     Ashburton  Guardian   AJHR     Appendices  to  the  Journals  of  the  House  of  Representatives   ANZ     Archives  New  Zealand   AP     Sir  James  Allen  Papers   AS     Auckland  Star   AsqP     Papers  of  Herbert  Henry  Asquith   ATL     Alexander  Turnbull  Library   BC     Barnsley  Chronicle   BI     Barnsley  Independent   BLTF     Birstall  Local  Tribunal  Files   BN     Batley  News   BodL     Bodleian  Library   C     Colonist   CA     Calderdale  Archives   CSG     Cleckheaton  &  Spenborough  Guardian   CVG     Colne  Valley  Guardian   DDN     Dewsbury  District  News   DEN     Dannevirke  Evening  News   DR     Dewsbury  Reporter   ECAT     East  Central  Division  Appeal  Tribunal   EP     Evening  Post   FS     Feilding  Star   FUA     Farmers’  Union  Advocate   GRA     Grey  River  Argus   GT     Goole  Times   HBT     Hawke’s  Bay  Tribune   HC     Huddersfield  Chronicle   HE     Holmfirth  Express   HEx     Huddersfield  Examiner   HHP     Harris  Hoyle  Papers   HNS     Hawera  &  Normanby  Star   H  of  C     House  of  Commons   H  of  L     House  of  Lords   HORP     Herbert  Otto  Roth  Papers  (Biographical  Notes)   ILP     Independent  Labour  Party   KA     Kirklees  Archives   LA     Leeds  Archives   LGB     Local  Government  Board   MARO     Munitions  Area  Recruitment  Officer   ME     Marlborough  Express   MES     Manawatu  Evening  Standard   MP     Member  of  Parliament   MW     Maoriland  Worker   NEB     National  Efficiency  Board   NZG     New  Zealand  Gazette   NZH     New  Zealand  Herald   NZPD     New  Zealand  Parliamentary  Debates   vii   NZS       New  Zealand  Statutes   NZT     New  Zealand  Times   ODT     Otago  Daily  Times   OO     Ossett  Observer   P     Press   PBH     Poverty  Bay  Herald   PCE     Pontefract  &  Castleford  Express   PH     Pahiatua  Herald   ST     Southland  Times   TBL     The  British  Library   TH     Taranaki  Herald   TNA     The  National  Archives   W     Worker   WC     Wanganui  Chronicle   WDT     Wairarapa  Daily  Times   WE     Wakefield  Express   WSHC     Wiltshire  and  Swindon  History  Centre   WT     Waikato  Times                                                               viii   Map One: County of the West Riding of Yorkshire                                                             Source:  West  Riding  County  Council,  West  Riding  of  Yorkshire  County  Services  Handbook,  Wakefield:   West  Riding  County  Council,  1965.   ix   Map Two: New Zealand Provincial Districts                                                                     Source:  W.H.  Oliver,  The  Story  of  New  Zealand,  London:  Faber  and  Faber,  1960,  pp.  54-­‐55.       1   Introduction     On  7  October  1916,  Albert  Walker,  a  blanket  raiser  from  Dewsbury,  explained  why   he  should  be  exempted   from  conscription   into   the  British  Army.  He  was   the  sole   support  of  his  father,  who  had  been  injured  in  a  textile  mill  accident,  and  a  sister   who   looked   after   the   family   home.   Three   of   his   brothers  were   serving  with   the   forces   and   two   others   had   recently   been   called   up.   In   view   of   this   precarious   domestic   situation,   and   the   sacrifices  made   by   his   family,  Walker  was   granted   a   conditional  exemption.1  Seven  months  later,  Charles  Sneddon  made  a  similar  plea   at  Hawera   in  New  Zealand.  As  well  as  owning  an  897-­‐acre   farm,  he  was  working   his  father’s  property  12  miles  away,  which  carried  400  breeding  ewes  and  40  head   of  cattle.  The  proceeds  from  these  two  holdings  provided  for  his  mother  and  father,   who  were  aged  80  and  71  respectively.  On  the  strength  of  this  testimony,  Sneddon   was  awarded  sine  die  (indefinite)  relief  from  military  service.2  Although  they  both   had   to   renew   their   claims   in   the   years   that   followed,  Walker   and   Sneddon  were   successful   in  obtaining  further  exemption  and  thereby  spent  the  rest  of  the  Great   War  at  home.3     These   accounts   exemplify   a   critical   aspect   of   recruitment   in   Britain   and   New   Zealand,  but  one  that  has  not  been  fully  analysed  by  historians.  While  a  plethora  of   studies  have  discussed  why  so  many  men  decided  to  volunteer,  the  experiences  of   those   who   were   called   up   under   conscription   have   received   relatively   little   scrutiny.4   Even  when   the   implementation   of   the   respective  Military   Service   Acts   has  been  investigated,  scholars  have  usually  focused  on  only  the  distinct  minority                                                                                                                             1  Batley  News,  14  October  1916,  p.  7.   2  Hawera  &  Normanby  Star  (HNS),  19  May  1917,  p.  2,  15  June  1917,  p.  5  and  16  October  1917,  p.  5;   Wanganui  Chronicle,  21  May  1917,  p.  4.     3  HNS,  7  June  1918,  p.  5.   4  John  Morton  Osborne,  The  Voluntary  Recruiting  Movement  in  Britain,  1914-­‐1916,  New  York:   Garland,  1982,  pp.  73-­‐105;  Catriona  Pennell,  A  Kingdom  United:  Popular  Responses  to  the  Outbreak   of  the  First  World  War  in  Britain  and  Ireland,  Oxford:  Oxford  University  Press,  2012,  pp.  143-­‐62;   David  Silbey,  The  British  Working  Class  and  Enthusiasm  for  War,  1914-­‐1916,  London:  Frank  Cass,   2005,  pp.  49-­‐124;  Peter  Simpkins,  Kitchener’s  Army:  The  Raising  of  the  New  Armies,  1914-­‐16,   Manchester:  Manchester  University  Press,  1988,  p.  64;  J.M.  Winter,  The  Great  War  and  the  British   People,  Cambridge:  Harvard  University  Press,  1986,  pp.  29-­‐37;  John  McK.  Graham,  ‘The  Voluntary   System:  Recruiting,  1914-­‐16’,  MA  Thesis  in  History,  University  of  Auckland,  1971;  Jock  Phillips,  A   Man’s  Country?:  The  Image  of  the  Pakeha  Male  –  A  History,  revised  edition,  Auckland:  Penguin,  1996,   pp.  158-­‐63;  Matthew  Wright,  Shattered  Glory:  The  New  Zealand  Experience  at  Gallipoli  and  the   Western  Front,  Rosedale:  Penguin  Books,  2010,  pp.  45-­‐8.     2   of  eligibles  who  expressed  religious  or  political  objections.5  It   is  rare  to  see  equal   significance   placed   on   the   fact   that,   like   Albert   Walker   and   Charles   Sneddon,   substantial  numbers  of  men  appealed,  or  were  appealed   for,  on   the  grounds   that   their  domestic,  business,  or  occupational  circumstances  meant  they  should  not  be   expected   to   serve.   In   Britain,   specially   constituted   Military   Service   Tribunals   determined  many  of  these  cases,  whereas  Military  Service  Boards  were  established   to  hear  every  claim  lodged  by  New  Zealanders.     The  primary  focus  here  is  on  comparing  the  operations  of  the  Tribunals  in  the  East   Central  Division  of   the  West  Riding  of  Yorkshire  with   those  of   the  Boards  across   the  whole   of   New   Zealand.   This   involves   answering   three   key   questions.   Firstly,   how  much  influence  did  the  respective  governments  and  militaries  exert  over  the   appeals   process?   Secondly,  what   proportion   of  men   appealed,   or  were   appealed   for,   and   what   grounds   were   cited   in   support   of   these   claims?   Finally,   what   attitudes  did  the  Tribunal  and  Board  members  adopt  and  how  likely  were  they  to   grant  exemption?     Such   a   comparison   offers   rich   potential   as   an   avenue   of   historical   inquiry.   The   number  of  cases  brought  before  the  Tribunals  ran  into  the  millions,  while  tens  of   thousands  of  New  Zealanders  were  also   the   subjects  of   appeals.6   In  every  one  of   these   claims   the   verdict  was   a   seminal  moment   for   the  man   concerned.   Success   meant  seeing  out  the  war  in  relative  safety,  refusal  would  at  best  strain  family  and   business  arrangements,  and  at  worst   lead   to  death  or  serious   injury  at   the   front.   Arthur  Slack  described  the  occasion  of  his  hearing  as  a  ‘vitally  important  day  in  my   life’,   while   the   anguish   of   witnessing   their   son   being   denied   an   exemption   certificate  proved  too  much  for  one  West  Riding  couple,  who  committed  suicide  a                                                                                                                             5  J.M.  Bourne,  Britain  and  the  Great  War,  1914-­‐1918,  London:  Edward  Arnold,  1989,  p.  212;  Arthur   Marwick,  The  Deluge:  British  Society  and  the  First  World  War,  London:  Bodley  Head,  1965,  p.  81;   Alan  G.V.  Simmonds,  Britain  and  World  War  One,  Abingdon:  Routledge,  2012,  pp.  54-­‐6;  Trevor   Wilson,  The  Myriad  Faces  of  War:  Britain  and  the  Great  War,  1914-­‐1918,  Cambridge:  Polity  Press,   1986,  pp.  398-­‐9;  Damien  Fenton,  New  Zealand  and  the  First  World  War,  1914-­‐1919,  Auckland:   Penguin,  2013,  pp.  34-­‐5;  Ian  McGibbon,  ‘The  Price  of  Empire,  1897-­‐1918’  in  Bronwyn  Dalley  and   Gavin  McLean  (eds),  Frontier  of  Dreams:  The  Story  of  New  Zealand,  Auckland:  Hachette  Livre,  2005,   pp.  239-­‐40;  Paul  Moon,  Turning  Points:  Events  that  Changed  the  Course  of  New  Zealand  History,   Auckland:  New  Holland,  2013,  pp.  137-­‐8.   6  ‘Statement  for  the  War  Committee,  Showing  the  Numbers  of  Men  Due  to  the  Army  and  the   Number  of  those  Remaining  in  Civil  Life.  Also  the  Requirements  of  the  Army  on  1st  October  1916’,   24  October  1916,  CAB  17/158,  the  National  Archives  (TNA);  David  Littlewood,  ‘“Should  He  Serve?”:   The  Military  Service  Boards’  Operations  in  the  Wellington  Provincial  District,  1916-­‐1918’,  MA   Thesis  in  History,  Massey  University,  2010,  pp.  58-­‐9.     3   few  hours  later.7  The  methods  by  which  the  appeal  bodies  reached  their  decisions   are  equally  revealing.  An  oft-­‐stated  complaint  about  Great  War  sources  is  that  they   are   limited   in   their   extent   and  weighted   towards   the  middle   and  upper   classes.8   This  is  not  the  case  for  the  Tribunals’  and  Boards’  sittings,  which  brought  together   individuals   from   every  walk   of   life   and  were   extensively   reported   in   the   press.9   Crucially,   the   burden   of   proof   lay   with   the   appellants,   who   had   to   defend   their   claim  under  questioning  by  providing  evidence  of  the  surrounding  circumstances.   As  a  result,  the  testimony  not  only  facilitates  a  comparison  between  the  attitudes   of  British  and  New  Zealand  men  towards  being  conscripted,  but  also  between  the   policies,  values,  and  imperatives  that  underpinned  the  process  of  determining  who   should  be  exempt.10     There   is   strong   precedent   for   adopting   a   transnational   focus.   The   late   1990s   witnessed  the  emergence  of  what  is  commonly  termed  ‘British  World’  scholarship.   Developed  during  a  series  of  conferences  organised  by  Canadian  Phillip  Buckner,   this   approach   rejects   the  utility  of  purely  national  histories   in   favour  of  drawing   comparisons  between  different  parts  of   the  Empire.   It   also   challenges   the  notion   that   a   rigid   core/periphery   relationship   existed   between   Britain   and   the   Dominions,  and  instead  advocates  the  symbiotic  interpretation  of  ‘Britishness’  as  a                                                                                                                             7  Diary  Entry,  17  January  1916,  Private  Papers  of  Arthur  Ronald  Roy  Slack,  Documents  18453,   Imperial  War  Museum;  Huddersfield  Examiner,  1  December  1916,  p.  4;  Such  was  the  ‘drama’  and   import  of  the  appeal  bodies’  sittings  that  they  have  also  featured  in  works  of  historical  fiction  (A.J.   Cronin,  The  Stars  Look  Down,  London:  Victor  Gollancz,  1949;  Nelle  M.  Scanlan,  Tides  of  Youth,   London:  Jarrolds,  1933,  pp.  268-­‐72).   8  David  Monger,  Patriotism  and  Propaganda  in  First  World  War  Britain:  The  National  War  Aims   Committee  and  Civilian  Morale,  Liverpool:  Liverpool  University  Press,  2012,  p.  12;  Pennell,  A   Kingdom  United,  p.  9;  Silbey,  The  British  Working  Class,  pp.  5-­‐7.   9  The  attendees  at  one  Tribunal  hearing  were  described  by  a  contemporary  as  ‘a  motley  group  of   young  and  old,  clean  and  dirty,  rich  and  poor,  sober  and  –  well  not  drunk,  perhaps  I  ought  to  say   abstainers  and  boozers’  (Will  Ellsworth-­‐Jones,  We  Will  Not  Fight:  The  Untold  Story  of  the  First  World   War’s  Conscientious  Objectors,  London:  Aurum,  2007,  pp.  67-­‐8);  Rather  more  charitably,  the   observer  of  a  Board  sitting  noted  that  ‘The  appellants  themselves  are  of  every  class  and  type  …  The   blacksmith  straight  from  his  forge,  the  labourer  from  the  waterside,  the  bush-­‐man  from  the   backblocks,  rubs  shoulders  with  the  musician,  slaughterman,  flying-­‐school  pupil,  and  ship’s  cook’   (New  Zealand  Herald,  29  September  1917,  p.  1  (supplement)).     10  H.  Cartmell,  For  Remembrance:  An  Account  of  Some  Fateful  Years,  Preston:  George  Toulmin  &   Sons,  1919,  pp.  68-­‐9;  A.J.  Peacock,  York  in  the  Great  War:  1914  to  1918,  York:  York  Settlement  Trust,   1993,  p.  382;  Ivor  Slocombe,  First  World  War  Tribunals  in  Wiltshire,  Devizes:  Wiltshire  Family   History  Society,  1997,  p.  5;  See  also  Bart  Ziino,  ‘Enlistment  and  Non-­‐Enlistment  in  Wartime   Australia:  Responses  to  the  1916  Call  To  Arms  Appeal’,  Australian  Historical  Studies,  41:2  (2010),   pp.  217-­‐8.     4   category   for   analysis.11   As   Katie   Pickles   has   noted,   the   fact   ‘Britishness’   was   promoted  most   extensively   during   times   of   conflict  makes   the   study   of  war   and   society   an  obvious  point  of   interest.12   Several  historians  working   in  Britain  have   readily  embraced  these  concepts,  particularly  when  analysing  networks  of  people   and   shared   cultural   institutions.13   ‘British   World’   methodologies   took   longer   to   gain  a  New  Zealand  foothold,  partly  due  to  the  long-­‐standing  emphasis  on  tracing   that   country’s   supposedly  distinctive  nationalism.14  Recently,   however,   there  has   been   a   growing   willingness   to   re-­‐examine   the   implications   of   New   Zealand’s   imperial   past.15   Indeed,   Giselle   Byrnes   advances  The   New   Oxford   History   of   New   Zealand   as   a   response   to   Peter   Gibbons’   entreaty   to   ‘dissolve   or   decentre   “New   Zealand”   as   a   subject’.16   When   doing   so,   she   promotes   transnationalism   on   the   basis   that   it   identifies   ‘connections   and   linkages   that   are   comparable   with   each   other  and  occur  more  or  less  simultaneously’.17     Despite   these   developments,   the   historiography   of   the   two   appeal   systems   has   remained   almost   totally   confined   within   a   national   framework.   Not   a   single   mention   is   made   of   the   Boards’   operations   in   any   work   that   considers   the   Tribunals.   From   the   New   Zealand   perspective,   the   only   effort   to   relate   the   exemption  process  to  that  in  the  imperial  centre  is  Paul  Baker’s  comment  that  the                                                                                                                             11  Phillip  Buckner  and  R.  Douglas  Francis,  ‘Introduction’  in  Phillip  Buckner  and  R.  Douglas  Francis   (eds),  Canada  and  the  British  World:  Culture,  Migration,  and  Identity,  Vancouver:  University  of   British  Columbia  Press,  2006,  pp.  1-­‐9.   12  Katie  Pickles,  ‘The  Obvious  and  the  Awkward:  Postcolonialism  and  the  British  World’,  New   Zealand  Journal  of  History,  45:1  (2011),  pp.  85-­‐7.   13  Brad  Beaven,  Visions  of  Empire:  Patriotism,  Popular  Culture  and  the  City,  1870-­‐1939,  Manchester:   Manchester  University  Press,  2012;  Kathleen  Wilson  (ed.),  A  New  Imperial  History:  Culture,  Identity   and  Modernity  in  Britain  and  the  Empire,  1660-­‐1840,  Cambridge:  Cambridge  University  Press,  2004;   Angela  Woollacott,  Gender  and  Empire,  Basingstoke:  Palgrave  Macmillan,  2006.   14  W.H.  Oliver,  The  Story  of  New  Zealand,  London:  Faber  and  Faber,  1960;  Geoffrey  W.  Rice  (ed.),  The   Oxford  History  of  New  Zealand,  2nd  edition,  Auckland:  Oxford  University  Press,  1992;  Keith  Sinclair,   A  Destiny  Apart:  New  Zealand’s  Search  for  National  Identity,  Wellington:  Allen  &  Unwin,  1986.   15  Felicity  Barnes,  New  Zealand’s  London:  A  Colony  and  Its  Metropolis,  Auckland:  Auckland   University  Press,  2012;  James  Belich,  Replenishing  the  Earth:  The  Settler  Revolution  and  the  Rise  of   the  Anglo-­‐World,  1783-­‐1939,  Oxford:  Oxford  University  Press,  2009;  Charlotte  Macdonald,  Strong,   Beautiful  and  Modern:  National  Fitness  in  Britain,  New  Zealand,  Australia  and  Canada,  1935-­‐1960,   Wellington:  Bridget  Williams  Books,  2011;  Katie  Pickles,  Transnational  Outrage:  The  Death  and   Commemoration  of  Edith  Cavell,  Houndmills:  Palgrave  Macmillan,  2007.   16  Giselle  Byrnes,  ‘Introduction:  Reframing  New  Zealand  History’  in  Giselle  Byrnes  (ed.),  The  New   Oxford  History  of  New  Zealand,  Melbourne:  Oxford  University  Press,  2009,  p.  2;  Peter  Gibbons,  ‘The   Far  Side  of  the  Search  for  Identity:  Reconsidering  New  Zealand  History’,  New  Zealand  Journal  of   History,  37:1  (2003),  p.  39.   17  Byrnes,  ‘Introduction’,  p.  14.     5   British   experience   provided   a   ‘mainly   negative’   example.18   As   for   the   appeal   bodies,  Baker  argues  that  the  legislation  sufficiently  limited  the  Boards’  discretion   over  conscientious  objectors  to  render  their  hearings  ‘little  more  than  unpleasant   rituals’  compared  to  those  of  the  Tribunals.19  P.S.  O’Connor  places  more  emphasis   on  the  Board  members  when  he  maintains  that  they  rarely  indulged  in  the  ‘kind  of   bloodthirsty  hectoring’  practised  by  their  British  counterparts.20     The  East  Central  Division  of  the  West  Riding  of  Yorkshire  had  much  to  recommend   it  as  a  British  focus.  Under  the  Military  Service  Act  of  January  1916,  provision  was   made   for  Appeal  Tribunals   to  be  established   in  each  county   to  hear  cases   lodged   against   the   verdicts   of   the   district-­‐level   Local   Tribunals.21   However,   due   to   the   large   size   of   its   population,   the   West   Riding   was   divided   into   four   separate   jurisdictions.22  One  of   these  was   the  East   Central  Division,  which   centred  on   the   County   Boroughs   of   Barnsley,   Dewsbury,   Huddersfield,   and   Wakefield,   and   the   Boroughs  of  Batley,  Morley,  Ossett,  and  Pontefract.23  The  attractions  of  this  area  as   a  point  of  comparison   for  New  Zealand  were  substantial.  Their  populations  were   roughly   the   same,   while   a   similar   number   of   people   lived   in   their   largest   settlements:   Huddersfield   and   Auckland.24   Moreover,   the   Division   broadly   contained   the   mix   of   urban   and   rural,   and   industry   and   agriculture,   which   also   characterised  New  Zealand’s  society  and  economy.  As  a  result,   the  relationship  is   between  two  cross-­‐sections,  rather  than  being  skewed  towards  any  group.  A  final,   particularly   significant,   factor   concerned   the   availability   of   sources.   In   1921,   the   Ministry   of   Health   decreed   the   Tribunals’   records   were   not   ‘of   sufficient   public   value  to  justify  their  preservation’  and  should  be  destroyed,  with  the  exception  of   those   pertaining   to   the   Lothian   and   Peebles   Appeal   Tribunal,   Middlesex   Appeal                                                                                                                             18  Paul  Baker,  King  and  Country  Call:  New  Zealanders,  Conscription  and  the  Great  War,  Auckland:   Auckland  University  Press,  1988,  p.  86.   19  Ibid.,  p.  176.   20  P.S.  O’Connor,  ‘The  Awkward  Ones  –  Dealing  with  Conscience,  1916-­‐1918’,  New  Zealand  Journal   of  History,  8:2  (1974),  p.  133.   21  UK,  Military  Service  Act,  1916,  Second  Schedule.   22  Doncaster  Gazette,  18  February  1916,  p.  2.   23  The  Division  embraced  the  Barnsley,  Dewsbury,  Huddersfield,  and  Wakefield  County  Boroughs,   and  the  unions  of  Barnsley,  Dewsbury,  Wakefield  (except  Lofthouse-­‐with-­‐Carlton),  Goole,   Hemsworth,  Huddersfield,  Pontefract,  Saddleworth,  also  the  portion  of  Spenborough  in  North   Bierley  Union  and  Kexborough  in  Penistone  Union  (Barnsley  Independent,  11  March  1916,  p.  5).   24  The  Division  contained  810,454  people  in  1911,  compared  to  the  1,070,910  who  were  living  in   New  Zealand.  That  same  year,  Huddersfield’s  population  was  107,821  and  Auckland’s  102,676   (1911  Census  of  Great  Britain;  1911  Census  of  New  Zealand).     6   Tribunal,   and   the   London-­‐based   Central   Tribunal.25   Thankfully,   this   order   was   ignored  in  a  handful  of  cases,  and  the  records  of  the  East  Central  Division’s  Local   Tribunals  enjoy  an  uncommonly  high  survival  rate.     The  selection  of  New  Zealand  provided  for  a  detailed  comparison.  It  too  adopted  a   fulsome  measure  of  conscription  during  1916,  with  grounds  of  appeal  that  roughly   mirrored  those  stipulated  by  the  British  Act.26  On  the  other  hand,  the  situation  in   the   remaining   ‘white   Dominions’   of   the   Empire   was   so   different   that   drawing   revealing   conclusions   would   have   been   impossible.   No   form   of   compulsory   military   service  was  ever  mooted   for  South  Africa  over   fears   that   it  would   incite   open  rebellion  amongst  the  already  resentful  Afrikaners  and  amongst  the  majority   black  population.27  In  Australia,  the  Labor  Government  of  Prime  Minister  William   Hughes  took  steps  towards  introducing  a  bill,  only  to  be  blocked  by  the  results  of   two   popular   referendums.28   Although   conscription   was   implemented   in   Canada   and   Newfoundland,   this   only   occurred   during   August   1917   and   May   1918   respectively,  and  through  legislation  that  provided  a  whole  swathe  of  loopholes  for   obtaining  exemption.29   The   Tribunals   have   been   surprisingly   neglected   in   Britain’s   Great   War   historiography.  Nowhere  is  this  more  apparent  than  in  the  work  of  Ilana  Bet-­‐El,  the   first   to   concentrate   on   those   men   who   were   conscripted   into   the   army.   She   maintains   that,   while   volunteers   took   an   active   decision   to   join   the   colours,   the   enlistment  of  a  conscript  was  a  bureaucratic  process  ‘marked  by  the  lack  of  choice   or  control  of  the  individual  over  his  own  fate’.30  In  fact,  it  was  the  voluntary  system   that  allowed  individuals  to  postpone  a  decision  on  whether  they  were  willing  and   able   to   perform   military   service.   The   possibility   of   claiming   exemption   from                                                                                                                             25  Ministry  of  Health  Circular  R.  293,  27  March  1922,  MH  47/5,  TNA;  The  Ministry  of  Health   inherited  the  responsibility  for  these  records  following  the  disestablishment  of  the  Local   Government  Board  in  1919.   26  New  Zealand  Statutes,  Military  Service  Act,  1916,  Section  18.   27  Timothy  C.  Winegard,  Indigenous  Peoples  of  the  British  Dominions  and  the  First  World  War,   Cambridge:  Cambridge  University  Press,  2012,  pp.  165-­‐6.   28  E.M.  Andrews,  The  ANZAC  Illusion:  Anglo-­‐Australian  Relations  during  World  War  I,  Cambridge:   Cambridge  University  Press,  1993,  pp.  121-­‐4   29  J.L.  Granatstein  and  J.M.  Hitsman,  Broken  Promises:  A  History  of  Conscription  in  Canada,  Toronto:   Oxford  University  Press,  1977,  pp.  84-­‐5;  Amy  J.  Shaw,  Crisis  of  Conscience:  Conscientious  Objection  in   Canada  during  the  First  World  War,  Vancouver,  University  of  British  Columbia  Press,  2009,  p.  3;   Winegard,  Indigenous  Peoples,  pp.  162-­‐5.   30  Ilana  R.  Bet-­‐El,  Conscripts:  Lost  Legions  of  the  Great  War,  Phoenix  Mill:  Sutton,  1999,  p.  27.     7   conscription  required  every  reservist  to  weigh  up  their  circumstances  and  make  a   definite  choice  whether  or  not  to  appeal.31  Several  other  monographs  mention  the   Tribunals   in   the   context   of   the   Government’s   manpower   policies,   but   without   reference   to   the   proceedings   of   individual   bodies   or   a   detailed   analysis   of   the   different  types  of  cases.32     Studies  that  analyse  the  Tribunals  in  more  detail  have  overwhelmingly  focused  on   the   hearings   of   conscientious   objectors.   During   the   inter-­‐war   years,   several   commentators   established   the   orthodoxy   that   these   occasions   were   marked   by   intolerance,  vitriol,  and  an  unjustified  refusal   to  grant  the  absolute  exemption,  as   opposed   to   relief   from   combatant   service,   which   was   necessary   to   satisfy   the   beliefs  of  many  appellants.33  A   few  recent  apprasials  have  advanced  rather  more   balanced   conclusions.   While   acknowledging   that   some   Tribunal   members   were   unnecessarily  abusive  in  their  questioning,  these  historians  also  suggest  that  most   of  them  did  the  best  they  could  to  implement  fairly  the  loosely  worded  and  poorly   regulated   ‘conscience   clause’.34   Nevertheless,   the   majority   of   investigations   into                                                                                                                             31  Ironically,  the  only  time  Bet-­‐El  mentions  the  right  of  appeal  is  during  an  example  of  a  conscript’s   supposed  passivity  in  the  face  of  the  enlistment  process.  Yet  the  case  mentioned  came  before  the   Tribunals  twice,  with  the  man  being  granted  a  temporary  exemption  on  both  occasions  (Conscripts,   p.  30).   32  R.J.Q.  Adams  and  Philip  P.  Poirier,  The  Conscription  Controversy  in  Great  Britain,  1900-­‐18,   Columbus:  Ohio  State  University  Press,  1987,  pp.  148,  231;  Ian  F.W.  Beckett,  Home  Front,  1914-­‐ 1918:  How  Britain  Survived  the  Great  War,  Kew:  National  Archives,  2006,  p.  39;  David  Bilton,  The   Home  Front  in  the  Great  War:  Aspects  of  the  Conflict,  1914-­‐1918,  Barnsley:  Leo  Cooper,  2003,  p.  62;   Keith  Grieves,  The  Politics  of  Manpower,  1914-­‐18,  Manchester,  Manchester  University  Press,  1988,   pp.  45-­‐6;  Charles  Messenger,  Call-­‐To-­‐Arms:  The  British  Army,  1914-­‐18,  London:  Cassell,  2005,  p.  136;   Denis  Winter,  Death’s  Men:  Soldiers  of  the  Great  War,  London:  Penguin,  1978,  pp.  29-­‐34.   33  W.J.  Chamberlain,  Fighting  For  Peace:  The  Story  of  the  War  Resistance  Movement,  London:  No   More  War  Movement,  1928,  pp.  47-­‐53;  John  W.  Graham,  Conscription  and  Conscience:  A  History,   1916-­‐1919,  London:  George  Allen  &  Unwin,  1922,  pp.  65-­‐89;  Philip  (Viscount)  Snowden,  An   Autobiography:  Volume  One,  1864-­‐1919,  London:  Ivor  Nicholson  &  Watson,  1934,  pp.  403-­‐10;   Adrian  Stephen,  ‘The  Tribunals’  in  Julian  Bell  (ed.),  We  Did  Not  Fight:  1914-­‐1918  Experiences  of  War   Resisters,  London:  Cobden-­‐Sanderson,  1935,  pp.  381-­‐2.   34  Rachel  Barker,  Conscience,  Government  and  War:  Conscientious  Objection  in  Great  Britain,  1939-­‐45,   London:  Routledge  &  Kegan  Paul,  1982,  pp.  29-­‐43;  Martin  Ceadel,  Semi-­‐Detached  Idealists:  The   British  Peace  Movement  and  International  Relations,  1854-­‐1945,  Oxford:  Oxford  University  Press,   2000,  pp.  220-­‐2;  Thomas  C.  Kennedy,  The  Hound  of  Conscience:  A  History  of  the  No-­‐Conscription   Fellowship,  1914-­‐1919,  Fayetteville:  University  of  Arkansas  Press,  1981,  pp.  89-­‐105;  John  Rae,   Conscience  and  Politics:  The  British  Government  and  the  Conscientious  Objector  to  Military  Service,   1916-­‐1919,  London:  Oxford  University  Press,  1970,  pp.  33-­‐67,  94-­‐133;  Keith  Robbins,  The  Abolition   of  War:  The  Peace  Movement  in  Britain,  1914-­‐1919,  Cardiff:  University  of  Wales  Press,  1976,  pp.  79-­‐ 84.     8   the   exemption   process   still   highlight   the   Tribunals’   allegedly   harsh   treatment   of   conscription’s  moral  and  political  opponents.35   Sascha  Auerbach  analyses  a  more  specific  form  of  objection.  He  postulates  that  the   bitterness   generated   by   the   exemption   hearings   of   London’s   East   End   Jews   resulted   from   differing   conceptions   of   citizenship.   For   the   Tribunal   members,   ‘manly  duty  and  membership  in  the  nation’  required  every  eligible  to  take  his  place   at   the   front.36  This   attitude   led   to   conflict  with   appellants  who  emphasised   their   responsibilities   as   family   breadwinners,   and   denied   the   Government’s   right   to   force   them   to   undertake   military   service.   According   to   Auerbach,   the   Tribunal   members’   response  was   to   classify   the   Jews   as   unpatriotic   ‘aliens’  whose   stance   threatened  the  social  fabric  of  the  community.37   Turning   to   the   West   Riding,   there   is   a   study   of   conscientious   objectors   in   Huddersfield   by   Cyril   Pearce.   He   finds   that   a   tradition   of   non-­‐conformist   Liberalism  meant  this  town’s  response  to  the  war  was  largely  one  of  indifference,   with   an   active   minority   protesting   against   British   involvement.38   A   subsequent   strengthening   of   resistance   meant   the   hearings   of   objectors   usually   took   place   before   packed   galleries   of   supporters,   who   so   worried   the   Local   Tribunal’s   members  that  they  consistently  referred  cases  to  the  East  Central  Division  Appeal   body.39   However,   Pearce   somewhat   contradicts   the   notion   that   anti-­‐war   sentiments   had   a  wide   currency   in  Huddersfield   by   admitting   that   less   than  one   percent  of  the  appeals  there  were  based  on  conscientious  grounds.40  He  does  adopt                                                                                                                             35  Lois  S.  Bibbings,  Telling  Tales  About  Men:  Conceptions  of  Conscientious  Objectors  to  Military  Service   during  the  First  World  War,  Manchester:  Manchester  University  Press,  2009,  pp.  29-­‐31;  David   Boulton,  Objection  Overruled,  London:  MacGibbon  &  Kee,  1967,  pp.  123-­‐39;  Peter  Brock  and  Nigel   Young,  Pacifism  in  the  Twentieth  Century,  Syracuse:  Syracuse  University  Press,  1999,  pp.  42-­‐5;  F.L.   Carsten,  War  Against  War:  British  and  German  Radical  Movements  in  the  First  World  War,  Berkeley:   University  of  California  Press,  1982,  pp.  66-­‐9;  Ellsworth-­‐Jones,  We  Will  Not  Fight,  pp.  62-­‐78;  Denis   Hayes,  Challenge  of  Conscience:  The  Story  of  the  Conscientious  Objectors  of  1939-­‐1949,  London:   George  Allen  &  Unwin,  1949,  pp.  43-­‐4;  Caroline  Moorhead,  Troublesome  People:  Enemies  of  War,   1916-­‐1986,  London:  Hamish  Hamilton,  1987,  pp.  31-­‐4;  Peacock,  York  in  the  Great  War,  pp.  376,  517-­‐ 8;  Jo  Vellacott,  Bertrand  Russell  and  the  Pacifists  in  the  First  World  War,  New  York:  St  Martin’s  Press,   1981,  pp.  31-­‐41.   36  Sascha  Auerbach,  ‘Negotiating  Nationalism:  Jewish  Conscription  and  Russian  Repatriation  in   London’s  East  End,  1916-­‐1918’,  Journal  of  British  Studies,  46:3  (2007),  p.  619.   37  Ibid.,  pp.  598-­‐611.   38  Cyril  Pearce,  Comrades  in  Conscience:  The  Story  of  an  English  Community’s  Opposition  to  the  Great   War,  London:  Francis  Boutle,  2001,  pp.  56-­‐97.   39  Ibid.,  pp.  157-­‐71.   40  Ibid.,  pp.  161,  314.     9   a  more  conventional  line  when  describing  how  the  Tribunals  treated  this  group  of   appellants:  the  system  ‘was  ill  conceived,  confusingly  advised,  indifferently  staffed   and,  in  emotionally  charged  times,  incapable  of  the  proper  judicial  detachment  its   duties  required’.41   Nonetheless,  the  last  twenty-­‐five  years  have  seen  a  number  of  works  expand  both   the  depth  and  breadth  of  Tribunal  historiography.  These  studies,  in  common  with   that   of   Pearce,   draw   heavily   on   newspaper   accounts   and   the   few   surviving   Tribunal   records,   which   gives   them   a   decidedly   local   focus.   They   differ   from   Pearce’s  analysis  by  considering  a  cross-­‐section  of   the  men  who  came  before   the   Tribunals,   rather   than   concentrating   on   what   was,   they   unanimously   agree,   the   small  proportion  who  cited  conscientious  objections.42     These  more  inclusive  studies  have  tended  to  challenge  the  ‘traditional’  portrayal  of   the  Tribunals  as  cogs  in  an  impersonal  conscription  machine.  As  part  of  his  thesis   and   subsequent   book,   the   first   full-­‐length   monograph   on   the   British   exemption   system,   James  McDermott   contends   that   ambiguous   guidance   often   required   the   appeal   bodies   to   formulate   their   own   policies.43   With   the   freedom   to   allocate   degrees   of   importance   between   the   army   and   the   community,   some   Tribunals   were  prepared  to  modify,  or  even  ignore,  official  directions  if  they  perceived  them   as  a  threat  to   local   interests.44  For  Adrian  Gregory,   the  Tribunals  were  part  of  an   ‘extremely   complex,   devolved,   and   flexible’   enlistment   system   and   operated   in   a                                                                                                                             41  Ibid.,  p.  170.   42  James  G.M.  Cranstoun,  ‘The  Impact  of  the  Great  War  on  a  Local  Community:  The  Case  of  East   Lothian’,  PhD  Thesis,  Open  University,  1992,  p.  117;  Adrian  Gregory,  The  Last  Great  War:  British   Society  and  the  First  World  War,  Cambridge:  Cambridge  University  Press,  2008,  p.  101;  Keith   Grieves,  ‘Military  Tribunal  Papers:  The  Case  of  Leek  Local  Tribunal  in  the  First  World  War’,   Archives:  The  Journal  of  the  British  Record  Association,  16:70  (1983),  p.  146;  Christine  Housden,   ‘Researching  Kingston’s  Military  Tribunal,  1916-­‐1918’,  Occasional  Papers  in  Local  History,  2  (2004),   p.  6;  James  McDermott,  British  Military  Service  Tribunals,  1916-­‐1918:  ‘A  Very  Much  Abused  Body  of   Men’,  Manchester:  Manchester  University  Press,  2011,  p.  40;  K.W.  Mitchinson,  Saddleworth,  1914-­‐ 1919:  The  Experience  of  a  Pennine  Community  during  the  Great  War,  Saddleworth:  Saddleworth   Historical  Society,  1995,  p.  65;  Ivor  Slocombe,  ‘Recruitment  into  the  Armed  Forces  during  the  First   World  War:  The  Work  of  the  Military  Tribunals  in  Wiltshire,  1915-­‐1918’,  The  Local  Historian,  30:2   (2000),  p.  111;  Philip  Spinks,  ‘“The  War  Courts”:  The  Stratford-­‐upon-­‐Avon  Borough  Tribunal,  1916-­‐ 1918’,  The  Local  Historian,  32:4  (2000),  p.  214.   43  James  McDermott,  ‘The  Work  of  the  Military  Service  Tribunals  in  Northamptonshire,  1916-­‐1918’,   PhD  Thesis  in  History,  University  of  Northampton,  2009,  pp.  9-­‐10  and  British  Military  Service   Tribunals,  p.  4.     44  McDermott,  British  Military  Service  Tribunals,  pp.  1,  5-­‐8.     10   very   public   setting.45   As   local,   often   elected,   dignitaries,   their   members   endeavoured  to  steer  a  middle  course  between  the  demand  to  root  out   ‘shirkers’,   and   the   need   to   protect   the   economy   and   their   own   political   prospects   by   not   acting   too   harshly.46   Likewise,   Robin   Barlow,   Keith   Grieves,   Ivor   Slocombe,   and   Philip  Spinks  each  acknowledge   that   the  Tribunals’  members  were  responsive   to   the   need   for   soldiers,   but   argue   they   often   prioritised   an   efficient   allocation   of   manpower  that  would  not  prejudice  their  district’s  productivity.47     The  Boards  have  received  even  less  attention  than  their  British  counterparts.  Some   studies  of  the  New  Zealand  Home  Front  ignore  the  appeals  process  entirely.  More   common   is   a   focus   on   only   those   few   men   who   cited   religious   or   political   objections   to   performing  military   service.48   It   has   generally   been   acknowledged   that   the   Boards   possessed   little   discretion   in   these   cases.   However,   O’Connor   asserts  that  they  arbitrarily  determined  exemption  should  only  be  given  to  groups   that  possessed  written  articles  against  bearing  arms,  while  Baker  maintains  some   deserving  appellants  were  denied  a  recommendation  for  non-­‐combatant  service.49   The  Boards  have  been  subjected   to  even  greater  criticism  over  how   they   treated   conscientious  objectors.  Gwen  Parsons  claims  they  were  primarily  concerned  with   challenging   an   appellant’s   beliefs,   Ian   McGibbon   finds   ‘humanitarian   arguments   against  involvement  in  war  cut  no  ice’,  and  Graham  Hucker  characterises  the  Board   members’  attitude  as  one  of  ‘disdain’.50                                                                                                                               45  Adrian  Gregory,  ‘Military  Service  Tribunals:  Civil  Society  in  Action,  1916-­‐1918’  in  Jose  Harris   (ed.),  Civil  Society  in  British  History:  Ideas,  Identities,  Institutions,  Oxford:  Oxford  University  Press,   2003,  p.  178.   46  Ibid.,  p.  186.   47  Robin  Barlow,  ‘Military  Tribunals  in  Carmarthenshire,  1916-­‐1917’  in  Nick  Mansfield  and  Craig   Horner  (eds),  The  Great  War:  Localities  and  Regional  Identities,  Newcastle:  Cambridge  Scholars,   2014,  pp.  18-­‐9;  Grieves,  ‘Military  Tribunal  Papers’,  p.  150  and  ‘Mobilising  Manpower:  Audenshaw   Tribunal  in  the  First  World  War’,  Manchester  Region  History  Review,  3:2  (1989),  pp.  24-­‐7;  Slocombe,   ‘Recruitment  into  the  Armed  Forces’,  p.  108;  Spinks,  ‘The  War  Courts’,  p.  212.   48  Barry  Gustafson,  Labour’s  Path  to  Political  Independence:  The  Origins  and  Establishment  of  the   New  Zealand  Labour  Party,  1900-­‐19,  Auckland:  Auckland  University  Press,  1980,  pp.  108-­‐19;   Michael  King,  The  Penguin  History  of  New  Zealand,  Auckland:  Penguin,  2003,  pp.  301-­‐2;  Christopher   Pugsley,  On  the  Fringe  of  Hell:  New  Zealanders  and  Military  Discipline  in  the  First  World  War,   Auckland:  Hodder  &  Stoughton,  1991,  pp.  225-­‐35;  Matthew  Wright,  Reed  Illustrated  History  of  New   Zealand,  Auckland:  Reed,  2004,  p.  266.   49  O’Connor,  ‘The  Awkward  Ones’,  pp.  132-­‐3;  Baker,  King  and  Country  Call,  pp.  173-­‐5.   50  Gwen  A.  Parsons,  ‘“The  Many  Derelicts  of  the  War”?:  Repatriation  and  Great  War  Veterans  in   Dunedin  and  Ashburton,  1918  to  1928’,  PhD  Thesis  in  History,  University  of  Otago,  2008,  p.  36;   McGibbon,  ‘The  Price  of  Empire’,  p.  239;  Graham  Hucker,  ‘The  Rural  Home  Front:  A  New  Zealand   Region  and  the  Great  War,  1914-­‐1926’,  PhD  Thesis  in  History,  Massey  University,  2006,  p.  169.     11   A  few  studies  have  adopted  a  wider  scope.  On  the  one  hand,  James  Belich  and  John   Martin   argue   the   Boards   readily   embraced   the   concept   of   essential   industries,   while  Keith   Scott   asserts  most  Otago   appellants  were   treated  with   ‘considerable   leniency’.51  Yet  such  positive  appraisals  are  rare.  Sonia  Inder,  Lisa  James,  and  Kerry   Stratton  all  claim  the  Boards  dismissed  the  majority  of  cases  lodged  by  agricultural   and  pastoral  appellants.52  In  his  thesis  and  later  book,  Baker  maintains  the  appeal   bodies  were  always  inconsistent  and  more  likely  to  refuse  exemption  than  to  grant   it.53   For   Parsons,   the   fact   the   Boards   dealing   with   Dunedin   and   Ashburton  men   were  ‘cautious  and  even  sceptical  about  the  appellant’s  claims’  meant  few  appeals   were   allowed   outright.54   Hucker   does   concede   that   the   Board   operating   in   Taranaki   considered   each   case   on   its   merits.   However,   he   qualifies   this   by   maintaining   that   most   appeals   were   viewed   with   suspicion,   and   that   verdicts   showed  a  ‘degree  of  inconsistency,  even  indecision’.55     Tribunal  records  are  a  crucial  source   for   the  British  side  of   this   thesis.  While   the   Ministry   of   Health’s   instruction   to   destroy   all   documents   seems   to   have   been   carried  out  for  the  East  Central  Division  Appeal  Tribunal,   its   implementation  was   decidedly   less   thorough   at   a   lower   level.   The   minute   book   of   the   Huddersfield   Local   Tribunal   summarises   the   verdicts   delivered   at   each   sitting,   and   indicates   whether   these   resulted   from   formal   hearings,   or   were   based   on   the   recommendations   of   the   Military   Representative   and   his   Advisory   Committee.   Before   July   1916   the   decisions   are   categorised   simply   as   ‘accepted’   or   ‘refused’.   Thereafter,  more   information   is   available   as   to   the   types   of   exemption   awarded,   but   the  document  rarely  provides  details  on  specific  cases.56  A  greater  depth  can                                                                                                                             51  James  Belich,  Paradise  Reforged:  The  Story  of  the  New  Zealanders  from  the  1880s  to  the  Year  2000,   Auckland:  Penguin,  2001,  p.  101;  John  E.  Martin,  ‘Blueprint  for  the  Future?  “National  Efficiency”  and   the  First  World  War’  in  John  Crawford  and  Ian  McGibbon  (eds),  New  Zealand’s  Great  War:  New   Zealand,  the  Allies  and  the  First  World  War,  Auckland:  Exisle,  2007,  p.  523;  Keith  Douglas  Scott,   Before  ANZAC,  Beyond  Armistice:  The  Central  Otago  Soldiers  of  World  War  One  and  the  Home  They   Left  Behind,  Auckland:  Activity  Press,  2009,  p.  215.   52  Sonia  Inder,  ‘Middlemarch,  1914-­‐1918’,  PG  Dip  Research  Essay  in  History,  University  of  Otago,   1992,  p.  36;  Lisa  James,  ‘Doing  Their  Duty:  The  Impact  of  Conscription  on  Farming  Families  in  New   Zealand  during  the  Great  War’,  Research  Essay  in  History,  Victoria  University  of  Wellington,  2006,   pp.  13,  30-­‐8;  Kerry  Stratton,  ‘“Doing  Their  Bit”:  The  impact  of  the  First  World  War  on  the   Inhabitants  of  Tuapeka  County’,  PG  Dip  Research  Essay  in  History,  University  of  Otago,  1992,  p.  102.     53  Paul  Baker,  ‘New  Zealanders,  the  Great  War,  and  Conscription’,  PhD  Thesis  in  History,  University   of  Auckland,  1986,  pp.  258,  262  and  King  and  Country  Call,  pp.  117-­‐23.     54  Parsons,  ‘The  Many  Derelicts  of  the  War’,  p.  48.   55  Hucker,  ‘The  Rural  Home  Front’,  pp.  172-­‐8.   56  Huddersfield  Local  Tribunal  Minutes,  KMT  18/12/2/52,  Kirklees  Archives  (KA).     12   be  found  in  the  minutes  of  the  Spenborough  Local  Tribunal,  which  supply  the  name   and  verdict  for  every  appeal,  and  in  the  Batley  Tribunal’s  register  of  cases,  which   also  notes  whether   a   claim  was  personal   or   had  been   lodged  by   the   employer.57   The  most  useful   records  are   those  pertaining   to   the  Marsden  and  Birstall   appeal   bodies.   The   former   comprise   the   private   papers   of   Harris   Hoyle,   the   Tribunal’s   trade   unionist   representative,   and   include   overall   statistics   on   the   verdicts   reached,  correspondence  between  Hoyle  and  his  colleagues,  and  annotated  sitting   agendas.58   In   terms  of   the  Birstall  body,   the   surviving  sources   feature   the  clerk’s   minutes,  letters  addressed  to  the  Tribunal  members,  and  agendas  for  each  sitting.59   Clearly   these  documents  divulge  a  wealth  of   information.  Nevertheless,   they  only   cover   part   of   the   East   Central   Division,   and   do   not   detail   the   appellants’   motivations  or  the  rationale  behind  many  of  the  Tribunals’  verdicts.   Newspapers   play   a  major   role   in  mitigating   these   omissions.   Thankfully,   each   of   the   Division’s   principal   towns   has   at   least   one   accessible   publication   for   the   conscription   period,   and   their   combined   coverage   also   includes  most   of   the   less   populous   districts   that   hosted   Tribunal   sittings.   These   newspapers   took   a   great   interest   in   the   exemption   system.   They   described   the   appointment   of   the   Tribunals’   members   and   frequently   reported   on   reactions   to   their   decisions.   Significantly,  each  publication  also  carried  extensive  accounts  of  appeal  hearings,   which  usually  provide  the  only  record  of  what  occurred  in  terms  of  the  questions   asked,  statements  made,  and  the  attitudes  of  the  Tribunal  members.     Several   documents   provide   useful   evidence   regarding   the   influence   of   the   Government   and   the  military   on   the   British   exemption   process.  Most   significant   are  the  fully  preserved  records  of  the  Middlesex  Appeal  Tribunal.  These  contain  a   majority   of   the   statutes,   regulations,   and   instructions   issued   to   the   Tribunals   during  their  operations.60  Any  gaps  in  this  collection  are  filled  by  the  consolidated   circulars  of  the  Local  Government  Board,  which  was  responsible  for  administering                                                                                                                             57  Spenborough  Local  Tribunal  Minutes,  KMT  39/1/2/1,  KA;  Batley  Borough  Council  –  Local   Tribunal  Register  of  Cases,  KMT  1,  KA.   58  Papers  of  Mr  Harris  Hoyle  Concerning  his  Membership  of  the  Marsden  Military  Service  Tribunal,   S/NUDBTW/34,  KA.   59  Birstall  Urban  District  Council  –  Local  Tribunal  Files,  RD  21/6/2,  KA.   60  Middlesex  Appeal  Tribunal  Papers,  MH  47/5-­‐163,  TNA.     13   the   appeal   bodies.61   The   Official   Reports   of   the   two   Houses   of   Parliament,   in   addition   to   the   papers   of   Prime   Minister   Herbert   Asquith,   are   revealing   on   the   passage   of   the   Military   Service   Acts   and   the   controversies   generated   by   the   Tribunals’  decisions.62  Both   the  Cabinet   and  Ministry  of  National   Service   records   divulge  official  policies  on  exemptions,  while  the  files  of  the  War  Office  illuminate   the  military’s  perspective.   A   number   of   sources   also   allow   comparisons   to   be   drawn   with   other   parts   of   Britain.  First  are  the  minute  books  of  the  Halifax  and  Leeds  Local  Tribunals,  which   sat  in  the  West  Central  Division  and  the  North  Central  Division  of  the  West  Riding   respectively.63   A   second   repository   is   the   correspondence,   minutes,   and   final   report   of   the   Central   Tribunal,   which   contain   overall   statistics   regarding   the   exemption  process.  It  also  outlines  those  case  verdicts  that  were  meant  to  inform   the  work  of   the  Local   and  Appeal  Tribunals.64  The   third   set   of   resources   are   the   memoirs   and   letters   of   men   who   worked   as   part   of   the   appeals   system:   Harry   Cartmell,   who   chaired   the   Preston   Local   Tribunal   in   Lancashire;   Neville   Chamberlain,  who  initially  chaired  the  Birmingham  Tribunal  in  Warwickshire;  and   Colonel  Charles  Repington,  who  acted  as  Military  Representative  during  sittings  in   the  Metropolitan   Borough   of   Hampstead.65   Of   final   significance   are   a   number   of   ‘civic   histories’.   Written   by   individuals   who   experienced   hearings   at   first   hand,   these  works  detail  the  constitution  of  the  relevant  Tribunals  and  list  the  number  of   claims  they  dealt  with.66                                                                                                                             61  Local  Government  Board  Circulars,  1915-­‐1918,  MH  10/79-­‐84,  TNA.   62  The  Papers  of  Herbert  Henry  Asquith,  1st  Earl  of  Oxford  and  Asquith,  MSS.  Asquith,  Bodleian   Library.   63  Halifax  Local  Tribunal  Minutes,  CMT  1/2/2/19/1-­‐3,  CA;  Minutes  of  the  Local  Tribunal  for  Leeds   City,  LC/TC,  Leeds  Archives.   64  Central  Tribunal  Papers,  MH  47/1-­‐4,  TNA.   65  Cartmell,  For  Remembrance,  pp.  68-­‐99;  Robert  Self  (ed.),  The  Neville  Chamberlain  Diary  Letters,   Volume  One:  The  Making  of  a  Politician,  1915-­‐20,  Aldershot:  Ashgate,  2000,  pp.  47-­‐8,  102,  107-­‐10,   121;  Lieut.-­‐Col.  C.  À  Court  Repington,  The  First  World  War,  1914-­‐1918:  Personal  Experiences  of   Lieut.-­‐Col.  C.  À  Court  Repington,  London:  Constable  &  Co.,  1921,  pp.  105-­‐6,  120,  127,  129,  144,  203,   297,  330-­‐3,  361-­‐5,  569.   66  F.P.  Armitage,  Leicester,  1914-­‐1918:  The  War-­‐Time  Story  of  a  Midland  Town,  Leicester:  Edgar   Backus,  1933,  pp.  168-­‐72;  Reginald  H.  Brazier  and  Ernest  Sandford,  Birmingham  and  the  Great  War,   1914-­‐1919,  Birmingham:  Cornish  Brothers,  1921,  pp.  27-­‐30;  William  Herbert  Scott,  Leeds  in  the   Great  War,  1914-­‐1918:  A  Book  of  Remembrance,  Leeds:  Leeds  Libraries  and  Arts  Committee,  1923,   pp.  314-­‐9;  George  F.  Stone  and  Charles  Wells  (eds),  Bristol  and  the  Great  War,  1914-­‐1919,  Bristol:   J.W.  Arrowsmith,  1920,  pp.  114-­‐28.     14   Material  on  the  New  Zealand  Boards  has  been  obtained  from  Defence  Department   files.  These  outline  the  methods  used  to  appoint  the  appeal  bodies’  members  and   the   genesis   of   any   instructions   issued   to   them.   Additional   contents   comprise   statements   of   the   Executive’s   policies   on   exemptions,   government   and   Defence   Department  correspondence  with  the  Boards,  general  returns  on  verdicts,  and  the   Board  Chairmen’s  valedictory  reports.  These  records  are  more  revealing  than  the   Tribunal  minutes   and   case   registers   in   terms  of   the   appeal   bodies’   attitudes   and   how   they   were  managed.   However,   they   provide  much   less   detail   on   individual   claims.   Newspapers   are   the   primary   means   of   supplementing   these   files.   The   total   coverage   of   the   consulted   publications   takes   in   nearly   every   town   at   which   the   Boards  heard  cases.  Like  their  British  counterparts,  New  Zealand  newspapers  were   avid   followers   of   the   exemption   process   and   described   sittings   at   length.   These   accounts  are  of  considerable  importance,  as  only  they  detail  particular  appeals  in   terms  of  the  grounds  raised  and  the  testimony  supplied.  Moreover,  an  absence  of   Board   minutes   means   that   newspapers   are   the   sole   source   for   determining   the   verdict  given  in  each  claim.     None   of   the   Board   members   wrote   detailed   retrospectives   of   their   service.   However  John  McCaw  of  the  First  Auckland  Board  did  produce  an  autobiography   that  briefly  covers  his  wartime  activities,  while  Arthur  Rosser,   the   trade  unionist   member   of   the   Second  Auckland  Board,   occasionally   commented  on   the  work   of   that  body  in  his  ‘Trade  and  Labour  Notes’  column  for  the  Auckland  Star.67   Further  information  is  drawn  from  a  number  of  other  sources.  Most  significant  are   the  papers  of  the  Minister  of  Defence,  Sir  James  Allen,  who  took  the  leading  role  in   administering   the   Boards.68   As   a   body   partly   established   to   help   the   Boards   determine  which  occupations  could  release  more  men  for  military  service,  the  files   of   the   National   Efficiency   Board   contain   additional   details.   The   New   Zealand                                                                                                                             67  John  McCaw,  ‘Biography  of  My  Life  for  the  Benefit  of  My  Children’,  1929,  MS  1164,  Alexander   Turnbull  Library;  Rosser  penned  his  newspaper  column  under  the  pseudonym  ‘Industrial  Tramp’   (Auckland  Star,  1  March  1917,  p.  7).   68  Sir  James  Allen  Papers,  ALLEN,  ANZ;  Between  August  1916  and  June  1917,  and  again  between   April  and  October  1918,  Allen  was  the  Acting  Prime  Minister  in  the  absence  of  both  Prime  Minister   William  Massey  and  the  Deputy  Prime  Minister,  Sir  Joseph  Ward  (Baker,  King  and  Country  Call,  p.   227).       15   Parliamentary   Debates   are   vital   to   understanding   the   legislative   and   regulatory   framework   under   which   the   Boards   began   their   operations,   while   several   MPs   articulated  the  misgivings  of  their  constituents  over  the  appeal  bodies’  conduct.   This   thesis   begins   by   examining   the  major   decisions   taken   before   the  Tribunals’   and   Boards’   operations   commenced.   Chapter   One   analyses   the   appeal   bodies’   initial   discretion   to   determine   cases   and   the   extent   to   which   this   was   circumscribed  by   their   respective  governments  and  militaries.  Chapter  Two   then   discusses   the   appointments  made   to   the   various   positions  within   the   exemption   systems,  while  Chapter  Three  investigates  the  degree  of  autonomy  that  the  appeal   bodies  were  willing  to  exercise  once  sittings  were  underway.  In  Chapter  Four,  the   focus   is   on   the   attitudes   the   Tribunal   and   Board   members   adopted   during   hearings.  The  appellants   themselves  are  central   to  Chapter  Five,  which  examines   the   proportion   of   men   who   were   the   subjects   of   exemption   pleas,   and   how   frequently  the  various  grounds  were  cited.  A  narrower  scope  is  adopted  in  Chapter   Six:  how   the  appeal  bodies   treated   the   claims  of   conscientious  objectors.   Finally,   Chapter  Seven  analyses  the  overall  verdicts  delivered  by  the  Tribunals  and  Boards   to  determine  the  relative  likelihood  of  them  granting  exemption.     16   Chapter One: Setting the Boundaries   The  Framework  of  the  Exemption  Systems       The   initial   extent   of   the   British   Tribunals’   and  New   Zealand   Boards’   freedom   to   determine   exemption   claims   was   delineated   by   the   measures   that   introduced   conscription.  Within   these  enactments,   two   factors  established   the  boundaries  of   the   appeal   bodies’   discretion:   the   ability   and   willingness   of   their   respective   governments  to  exert  central  control  and  the  degree  of  influence  possessed  by  the   military.     When  debating  how  far  the  Tribunals’  powers  were  circumscribed,  historians  have   usually   downplayed   the   role   of   the   civilian   government   departments,   while   asserting   that   the   War   Office   held   considerable   sway.   After   the   Armistice,   the   Tribunals   were   regularly   portrayed   as   one   cog   in   a   bureaucratic   conscription   machine.1  However,  some  recent  works  have  dissented  from  this  ‘traditional’  view.   Robin   Barlow   finds   that   the   Government   was   unable   to   ‘exert   any   significant   influence’  and  James  McDermott  contends  that  the  appeal  bodies  were  required  to   exercise   a   great   deal   of   discretion.2  Similarly,   Gerard   DeGroot   argues   that   the   Tribunals   were   left   to   determine   which   workers   were   essential,   while   Adrian   Gregory   describes   an   ‘extremely   complex,   devolved,   and   flexible’   recruitment   system.3  On  the  other  hand,  it  has  frequently  been  held  that  the  military  possessed   substantial   authority.   This   generally   concerns   the   attached   Military   Representatives,   but   several   historians   point   out   that   the   War   Office   also                                                                                                                   1  W.J.  Chamberlain,  Fighting  For  Peace:  The  Story  of  the  War  Resistance  Movement,  London:  No  More   War  Movement,  1928,  pp.  47-­‐58;  John  W.  Graham,  Conscription  and  Conscience:  A  History,  1916-­‐ 1919,  London:  George  Allen  &  Unwin,  1922,  p.  65;  Adrian  Stephen,  ‘The  Tribunals’  in  Julian  Bell   (ed.),  We  Did  Not  Fight:  1914-­‐18  Experiences  of  War  Resisters,  London:  Cobden-­‐Sanderson,  1935,  pp.   381-­‐2.   2  Robin  Barlow,  ‘Military  Tribunals  in  Carmarthenshire,  1916-­‐1917’  in  Nick  Mansfield  and  Craig   Horner  (eds),  The  Great  War:  Localities  and  Regional  Identities,  Newcastle:  Cambridge  Scholars,   2014,  p.  10;  James  McDermott,  British  Military  Service  Tribunals,  1916-­‐1918:  ‘A  Very  Much  Abused   Body  of  Men’,  Manchester:  Manchester  University  Press,  2011,  p.  22.   3  Gerard  J.  DeGroot,  Blighty:  British  Society  in  the  Era  of  the  Great  War,  London:  Longman,  1996,  p.   96;  Adrian  Gregory,  ‘Military  Service  Tribunals:  Civil  Society  in  Action,  1916-­‐1918’  in  Jose  Harris   (ed.),  Civil  Society  in  British  History:  Ideas,  Identities,  Institutions,  Oxford:  Oxford  University  Press,   2003,  p.  178.     17   appointed   Advisory   Committees   to   investigate   every   appeal.4  Rachel   Barker   and   Martin  Ceadel  even  maintain  that  the  Tribunals  themselves  were  under  War  Office   control.5       In   contrast,  New  Zealand  historians  have   tended   to   argue   that   the  Boards  began   their   sittings   largely   free   from  both   executive   and  military   influence.   Paul  Baker   contends  that   the  Government   ‘de-­‐politized’   the  appeal  bodies  and  situated  them   beyond  its  jurisdiction.6  Likewise,  Lisa  James  finds  that  the  Boards  were  intended   to  reach  ‘independent’  judgments,  while  both  John  Martin  and  Gwen  Parsons  claim   that   the   Government   left   them  without   direction   regarding   essential   industries.7   This  view  has  been  partly  contested  by  James  Belich,  who  cites  attempts  to  secure   exemption   for   the   ‘strategic   unions’:   ‘miners,   seamen,   wharfies   and   freezing   workers’. 8  As   for   the   military,   Baker   and   James   both   maintain   that   the   administration  of  conscription  was  placed  outside  the  Defence  Department’s  remit,   a   point   advanced   in   more   specific   terms   by   J.E.   Cookson,   who   states   that   the   Boards   themselves   were   ‘under   civil   control’. 9  Baker   also   downplays   the                                                                                                                   4  Will  Ellsworth-­‐Jones,  We  Will  Not  Fight:  The  Untold  Story  of  the  First  World  War’s  Conscientious   Objectors,  London:  Aurum,  2007,  p.  64;  Cyril  Pearce,  Comrades  in  Conscience:  The  Story  of  an  English   Community’s  Opposition  to  the  Great  War,  London:  Francis  Boutle,  2001,  p.  161;  Ivor  Slocombe,   ‘Recruitment  into  the  Armed  Forces  during  the  First  World  War:  The  Work  of  the  Military  Tribunals   in  Wiltshire,  1915-­‐1918’,  The  Local  Historian,  30:2  (2000),  p.  107;  Those  historians  who  also   comment  on  the  Advisory  Committees  are  Lois  S.  Bibbings,  Telling  Tales  About  Men:  Conceptions  of   Conscientious  Objectors  to  Military  Service  during  the  First  World  War,  Manchester:  Manchester   University  Press,  2009,  p.  30;  McDermott,  British  Military  Service  Tribunals,  p.  16;  John  Rae,   Conscience  and  Politics:  The  British  Government  and  the  Conscientious  Objector  to  Military  Service,   1916-­‐1919,  London:  Oxford  University  Press,  1970,  pp.  62-­‐3.   5  Rachel  Barker,  Conscience,  Government  and  War:  Conscientious  Objection  in  Great  Britain,  1939-­‐45,   London:  Routledge  &  Kegan  Paul,  1982,  p.  12;  Martin  Ceadel,  Semi-­‐Detached  Idealists:  The  British   Peace  Movement  and  International  Relations,  1854-­‐1945,  Oxford:  Oxford  University  Press,  2000,  p.   220.   6  Paul  Baker,  King  and  Country  Call:  New  Zealanders,  Conscription  and  the  Great  War,  Auckland:   Auckland  University  Press,  1988,  p.  117.   7  Lisa  James,  ‘Doing  Their  Duty:  The  Impact  of  Conscription  on  Farming  Families  in  New  Zealand   during  the  Great  War’,  Research  Essay  in  History,  Victoria  University  of  Wellington,  2006,  p.  11;   John  E.  Martin,  ‘Blueprint  for  the  Future?  “National  Efficiency”  and  the  First  World  War’  in  John   Crawford  and  Ian  McGibbon  (eds),  New  Zealand’s  Great  War:  New  Zealand,  the  Allies  and  the  First   World  War,  Auckland:  Exisle,  2007,  pp.  519-­‐20;  Gwen  A.  Parsons,  ‘“The  Many  Derelicts  of  the  War”?:   Repatriation  and  Great  War  Veterans  in  Dunedin  and  Ashburton,  1918  to  1928’,  PhD  Thesis  in   History,  University  of  Otago,  2008,  p.  44.   8  James  Belich,  Paradise  Reforged:  The  History  of  the  New  Zealanders  from  the  1880s  to  the  Year   2000,  Auckland:  Penguin,  2001,  p.  101.   9  Baker,  King  and  Country  Call,  p.  87;  James,  ‘Doing  Their  Duty’,  p.  11;  J.E.  Cookson,  ‘Illiberal  New   Zealand:  The  Formation  of  Government  Policy  on  Conscientious  Objection,  1940-­‐1’,  New  Zealand   Journal  of  History,  17:2  (1983),  p.  122.     18   importance   of   the   Military   Representatives   by   arguing   that   their   role   was   ‘theoretically  …  impartial’.10     Whereas  the  respective  historiographies  imply  more  similarities  than  differences,   the   parameters   under   which   the   British   Tribunals   and   New   Zealand   Boards   commenced   their   operations   actually   had   very   little   in   common.   Political   expediency   led   to   a   British   exemption   system   based   on   a   well-­‐established   tendency   towards   localism   and   decentralisation.   As   the   man   responsible   for   overseeing  the  appeal  bodies,  the  President  of  the  Local  Government  Board,  Walter   Long,  strove  to  protect  their  discretion.  Certainly  some  checks  and  balances  were   put  in  place  to  try  and  moderate  the  number  of  exemptions  awarded,  but  many  of   these   initiatives   actually  made   the   appeals   process  more,   rather   than   less,   local,   and  all  of  them  increased  the  number  of  actors  involved.  The  War  Office’s  Military   Representatives   and   Advisory   Committees   were   undoubtedly   granted   some   important   prerogatives.   However,   they   were   unable   to   refuse   appeals   without   reference   to   the   Tribunals,   and   there   was   always   the   possibility   of   localist   sentiment  influencing  their  actions.         Differing   circumstances   meant   that   New   Zealand   largely   declined   to   follow   Britain’s   example.   It  was   repeatedly   stated   that   the  Boards  would   be   allowed   to   determine  cases  on  their  individual  merits.  However,  political  imperatives  led  the   Government   to   retain   several   means   of   reining   in   the   appeal   bodies.   They   also   prompted  the  Executive  to  make  use  of  these  prerogatives  before  sittings  had  even   begun.  As  Minister  of  Defence,  James  Allen  took  the  leading  role  in  formulating  the   legislative  and  regulatory  framework  under  which  the  Boards  would  operate,  and   established  himself  as  their  de  facto  administrator.     There  is  evidence  of  some  rise  in  militarism  in  British  society  prior  to  the  outbreak   of   the   Great   War,   challenging   long-­‐established   attitudes.   During   the   nineteenth   century,  the  continental  move  towards  conscription  had  been  rejected  in  favour  of   retaining   a   small   professional   army   recruited   through   volunteering.   Suspicions   dating  back  to  the  rule  of  Oliver  Cromwell  and  the  Major-­‐Generals,  the  fact  it  was                                                                                                                   10  Baker,  King  and  Country  Call,  p.  116.     19   largely  recruited  from  minority  groups,  and  the  apparent  security  provided  by  the   Royal   Navy,   meant   that   the   army   was   ‘ignored   and   often   abhorred   by   wider   society’.11  However,   these  attitudes  underwent  some  revision  due   to  a  disastrous   series  of  defeats   in   the  1899-­‐1902  Boer  War,  which,  by  amplifying   fears   that   the   ‘British   race’   was   declining   physically,   encouraged   a   turn   towards   eugenics   and   ‘efficiency’.12  This  was  manifested  in  the  popularity  of  youth  organisations  such  as   the   Boys’   Brigades   and   Boy   Scouts,   each   of   which   stressed   the   values   of   sport,   religion,   and   military   discipline. 13  The   post-­‐Boer   War   period   also   saw   the   emergence   of   the   National   Service   League.   Established   in   1902   to   push   for   the   introduction   of   compulsory   military   training,   this   body   boasted   Lord   Roberts,   Britain’s  most  revered  soldier,  as  its  president.14  Encouraged  by  the  popularity  of   ‘invasion’   literature,   and   a   belief   that   German   naval   expansion   and   imperial   ambitions  threatened  British  interests,  an  estimated  40%  of  young  males  belonged   to  a  youth  organisation  by  1914,  while  the  National  Service  League  claimed  to  have   nearly  100,000  members  in  1912.15       Nevertheless,   pre-­‐war   militarism   lacked   both   depth   and   popular   appeal.   The   primary  aim  of  the  Scouts  was  to  train  citizens  for  the  Empire,  not  to  indoctrinate   militarism,   and   the   martial   outlook   of   the   Boys’   Brigades   was   mitigated   by   a   greater   emphasis   on   social   control.16  Furthermore,   membership   of   a   movement   does  not  necessarily  equate  to  identifying  with,  or  absorbing,  all  of  its  teachings.17   Of   greater   significance   is   the   fact   that  most   adolescent  males  were   not   part   of   a