Appeals by nine Luton conscientious objectors occupied a considerable time at the first public sitting of the Bedfordshire Appeals Tribunal held at Luton Town Hall on Wednesday [March 22nd, 1916], when the Chairman (Mr S. Howard Whitbread) announced that the procedure in the case of conscientious objections would be that the Tribunal would head any statement of facts that an applicant wished to give in addition to his written appeal and evidence, but not speeches or addresses, tending to show that an applicant's conscientious objection was genuine and of long standing.

The Tribunal, Mr Whitbread added, would attach weight to any evidence to the effect that an applicant belonged to some definite and well-established religious body whose views on this question are well known, or to the effect that his opinions had been openly professed for some considerable time; in other words, that they were now opinions adopted lightly and recently or for the purposes of this inquiry.

The result of the appeals was that in every case, except one which was adjourned for a fortnight, the decision of the Local Tribunal was upheld. All but one of the conscientious objectors whose appeals failed asked for leave to appeal further, but the Chairman announced that it appeared from the instructions to the Tribunal that it was not intended that cases should go before the Central Tribunal unless important questions of principle that had not been decided or any special reason why appeal should be allowed. They did not consider that in any other cases they had heard there was either an important question of principle that had not been decided or any special reason why appeal should be allowed, and therefore leave to appeal would be refused.

Another announcement of no little interest that was made by Mr Whitbread is that as a rule the Tribunal will expect all conscientious objectors to take up some work of national importance. "That," said the Chairman, "is a practice we propose to follow."

He added: "In view of the public character of the sitting we do not consider there is any reason for withholding the names of appellants, as has been done at the express wish of the Local Tribunals in all cases, and there fore we give the names of appellants in the 'conscientious objection' cases.

Those whose appeals failed were Ronal Montague Dimmock, ladies' and children's straw hat manufacturer; Hubert Plummer, straw hat manufacturer; Bernard Bonner, painter, plumber and house decorator; Percy Rowland Abbott, straw hat blocker; William Nivven, draper's traveller; Sidney Charles Bell, a sign-writer who said he had given up his work at a munitions factory since the decision of the Local Tribunal; and Harry Edward Stanton, a commercial clerk and warehouseman, who was dissatisfied with exemption from merely non-combatant service.

In the case of Eric Anstee Middle, an assistant in the Borough Surveyor's department, an adjournment was ordered to give the appellant time to be able to show that he was engaged or going to be engaged in some work which they considered of national importance, such as for a railway or dock company.

The military appealed against the absolute exemption granted to a missionary and teacher named John, on the grounds that no man with a genuine conscientious objection could have equivocated as he did in reply to questions; that he had previously used his influence to prevent others engaging in military service, and that he had boasted before the hearing of the case, "You will not catch me in the firing line".

The missionary declared that the charges laid were quite in consonance with those made before the Local Tribunal and were unfounded, and whatever the result of the case he should lodge an action for libel against the assistant military representative.

He was subjected to a searching examination by Second-Lieut Whittaker, R.G.A., on behalf of the military, and there were many lively incidents, the applicant being more than once warned that he was not serving his own interests by the attitude he adopted towards the questions put to him. On several occasions he was firmly ordered to sit down and not interrupt, and when at the end he asked if he might have an opportunity to reply to the charges brought against him because they were rather grave he was told, "Not at present".

After a deliberation in private it was announced by the Chairman that while as a rule the Tribunal would expect conscientious objectors to take up some work of national importance, in this case they thought the applicant was not fitted by his previous training to undertake any work of that sort to their satisfaction, and therefore they confirmed the decision of the Local Tribunal for absolute exemption.

The appeals relating to conscientious objectors occupied over four hours, and 13 other appeals on business or personal grounds kept the Tribunal sitting for another three hours and a half.

The military appealed against an exemption granted to a manager of a straw hat factory until the end of the season, and this was allowed by the Tribunal. The man then complained that he had put in an appeal on conscientious grounds which had not been taken into consideration, and it was left for the military representative and the applicant to take advice as to whether it would be in order for this to be heard.

In nearly all other appeals the decision of the Local Tribunal was upheld, but the manager of a meat shop in High Town was granted a temporary exemption for three months, to enable arrangements to be made for him to be replaced, and a contractor's assistant was given an allowance of six weeks in view of letters received from the military with respect to hutment works which he had in hand.

In the course of the proceedings it was announced that the Tribunal would not give leave to appeal where it was a question of a decision they had come to on certain facts. If there was a question of any great principle affecting a large class of cases they might consider an application, but as they were an Appeal Tribunal, they would not give leave to appeal merely on the question of whether they were right or wrong in their decision.

[The Luton Reporter: Monday, March 27th, 1916]