Butchers Must Share Slaughtermen

Yirrell’s butcher’s shop, Old Road, Linslade c.1900 [Z50/74/15]

Tuesday 21st November 1916: The military authorities are concerned that too many butchers have succeeded in obtaining exemption from military service for their men and have suggested that Leighton Buzzard’s butchers should share slaughtermen. The Leighton Buzzard tribunal feels that the number for whom exemption has been requested could easily kill two or three times the number of cattle and sheep consumed in the area. At its most recent sitting the tribunal gave temporary exemption to just two slaughtermen employed by firms in Hockliffe Street, and warned local businesses that they must come to mutual arrangements to share employees. On hearing this news one of the employers said it would be a “rum business” and would never work.

Most butchers are already shorthanded and can reasonably claim that they have already supplied a full quota of men for the Army. Much of their work beside slaughtering can only be done by men of sound physique, most of whom are of military age. However, it would certainly be preferable for them to work out their own arrangements rather than have too many requests for exemption refused and be forced to close or depend on meat supplies bought already dead.

Source: Leighton Buzzard Observer, 14th and 21st November 1916

Music Hall Artiste Arrested

Palace Theatre, Mill Street, Luton 1919 [Z1306/75/10/44/1]

Wednesday 6th September 1916: William Northcliffe, a travelling music hall artiste from Blackpool, has appeared at Luton Borough Court charged with being an absentee under the Military Service Act. Captain Alston of the Recruiting Office visited the Palace Theatre last night together with a police inspector, and had asked the manager to show him behind the scenes to see if any men of military age were performing. They had found Mr. Northcliffe who produced his registration card and said he was aged 38. When asked whether he had an exemption certificate he said he had not. He said that he had never received a conscription notice, and that he did not realise he was obliged to respond to the proclamation calling up men of military age. The magistrates decided that Mr. Northcliffe should be handed over to the military authorities, but that no fine would be imposed.

Source: Luton News, 7th September 1916

Luton Conscientious Objectors Expect Death Sentence

Wednesday 28th June 1916: Two conscientious objectors from Luton are in France where they expect to be sentenced to death for refusing to serve. The death sentence has already been passed on four men, though it was commuted to ten years penal servitude, and another thirty men are expecting to receive the same punishment. The two men are Quaker Harry E. Stanton and Bernard Bonner, an International Bible Student.

Mr Stanton has described his experiences to his mother, who lives at Wellington Street in Luton. He was assigned by the Local Tribunal to non-combatant service, and his appeal against this was dismissed. He was called up for March 8th and was handed over to the military on March 11th. At the first barracks to which he was sent he was subjected to various forms of coercion and threatened with a rifle by an N.C.O. who told him he “would be the end of him”. He refused to be examined or to strip, and was sent to another location where he was again punished. After another move he was put in detention for seven days for refusing to drill. According to a friend “He had rather a stiff time – ninety-six hours’ bread and water diet, with an interval of twenty-four hours’ ordinary prison food. It pulled him down a good deal, as he is not naturally strong. I found him, however, facing his difficulties with great fortitude – contented and happy in the course he is feeling it right to take in the service of truth, and grateful to his gaolers for any little kindnesses they show him.”

Mr Stanton was expecting to be court martialled, when he and sixteen others were sent to France on May 8th. They have been at Boulogne for most of the time since then. In his letters to his mother his only complaint has been that the room in which they were confined was dark and he could not read and write properly. He told her “Keep a brave heart whatever happens – right will triumph some day”. Before he left home he told her that if he had to be shot he would be. Bernard Bonner’s experiences have been very similar to those of Mr. Stanton. He appears to have been at Felixstowe, where the men had been sentenced to 28 days detention and had been put in irons and on a diet of bread and water On 19th June he wrote a letter from the Field Punishment Barracks, Boulogne, which was quoted in the House of Commons on Monday:

“Things are moving very slowly. We twelve have been court martialled, and four are on the way back to the homeland. They have received a very heavy sentence, as we also expect. They were read out on the 15th, and the sentence was death, but commuted to ten years’ penal servitude. Think of that for one’s convictions! … Amongst [the other conscientious objectors] are seven other I.B.S.A. men. They are fine fellows. We are now all together in one room, and our food has been changed since the time of the 28 days finished on the 8th, so conditions are a little better. … I expect my situation has caused many who before did not think about me to enquire how I am, as it must have done all over the country, who thought that such could not happen.”

 Source: Luton News, 29th June 1916

Request to Farmers

Milkmaids at Biddenham, 1916 [WW1/WA5/2/4]

Monday 19th June 1916: Rowland E. Prothero, the Charirman of the War Agricultural Committee for Bedfordshire has requested that Bedfordshire farmers consider the scheme for instructing women and girls in milking which has been drawn up by the Agricultural Education Sub-Committee of the County Council. He writes:

“Milkers are already difficult to find; in the near future they will become still scarcer. It is proposed that pupils should be taught on the farms by practical teachers, chosen by the farmers, and paid by the Education Committee. It is hoped that farmers who own cows will help the movement by giving local women and girls the opportunity of learning to milk, and so increasing the number of milkers in the county.”

 Any farm willing to help is asked to send his name to the Director of Education at Shire Hall, or to Mr. Trustram Eve, Secretary to the War Agricultural Committee. The latter committee also reminds all “starred” men, and all those who have not attested voluntarily, that if they wish to be exempted from military service they must apply for a certificate of exemption before June 24th. 

Source: Leighton Buzzard Observer, 20th June 1916

Dunstable Tribunal

Belladonna (or deadly nightshade) [Wikimedia]

Wednesday 31st May 1916: Tribunals continue to sit around the county to decide on applications for exemption from military service. At Dunstable today the father of a married chemist appeared to support his son’s claim for exemption. The applicant collects and prepares medicinal herbs, of which he has expert knowledge. Many of these have become very scarce since supplies from Germany were cut off with the outbreak of the war and he has spent much time searching for these with great success. Several of the drugs are almost impossible to obtain in the market, and he has been able to supply large quantities to the War Office. Last year the father and son had been able to supply two tons of belladonna root, which had increased tenfold in value since 1914 due to its scarcity and medicinal value. The applicant had four brothers serving and had himself only been passed for home service, due to having had malaria while living abroad. The Tribunal granted him conditional exemption.

A number of other men who had been passed fit only for home service were also given conditional exemption. These included a rural postman who cycles 28 miles a day and has an invalid wife and no relatives; a 40 year old ploughman and horsekeeper; and a journeyman baker in delicate health who was said to be indispensable to his father.  Another young baker was less fortunate and was refused, despite being the only support of his widowed mother; the Chairman of the Tribunal agreed it seemed hard that he must go and was given permission to appeal. The case of two men employed at the whiting works was adjourned as it appeared they were only there thanks to a blunder. Applications had been sent to the Munitions Office for badges for four employees, but a mistake had been made and the wrong names submitted; two men who were over age had received exemption certificates, and the two applicants had not.

Source: Luton News, 1st June 1916

Alfred Yeo Addresses Small Businessmen at Luton

Alfred Yeo [Wikimedia]

Monday 22nd May 1916: At a meeting held at the Luton Plait Hall Mr. Alfred William Yeo, M.P. for Poplar, has told Luton’s small traders that they should be proud of the part they played in winning concessions from parliament for small businesses owners in respect of the requirements for military service.[1] The attendance was considerably smaller than it had been for last week’s meeting; as one gentleman put it, “They wanted something then: they’ve got it now and they don’t care.”  Luton M.P. Cecil Harmsworth was unable to attend but send a telegram reading: “In Dublin for some days. Best wishes for success of meeting.”

The Chairman, Councillor A. A. Oakley, said the most vital point was that a man could not leave his business in the hands of his wife if he had a family, as regardless of her ability she would not be able to manage both home and shop successfully. If forced to serve in the Forces he would probably be faced with ruin on his return. It seemed likely to be a long war and a strong economy would be needed quite as much as military strength. The Luton Tribunal should take heed and carry out the law with the least possible hardship to the small trader and business man.

Mr. Yeo spoke for an hour, to frequent applause from his audience. As a business man himself his concern was to do his best in regard to things of the utmost importance to the commerce and industry of the country; he was not there to defend the shirker. Luton had led the support for his amendment to the Military Service Bill; but unfortunately competition from a second proposed amendment from another Member of Parliament meant that neither had been included. His concern was for “the man who by his own grit, gumption, and unaided effort builds up a snug little business worth more to him than money”; such men should be taken by the army only as a last resort. He paid tribute to the Luton Borough Tribunal which was already acting on the instruction to spare small business men even though the Bill was not yet law

Source: Luton News, 25th May 1916

---

[1] The final version of the Military Service Act did not include formal concessions, but instructions were issued to Tribunals that the circumstances of small business men could be considered exceptional.

Chequers Inn, Eaton Bray

Wednesday 17th May 1916:  An application for the transfer of the license of the Chequers Inn, Eaton Bray from Leonard Charles Durrant to Walter Long was discussed at Leighton Buzzard yesterday. Mr. Long said he was 32 years old, and had no previous experience in managing a public house. When asked if there was any reason why he should not go to the Front he replied that he expected he would be called on, but had not attested. The Chairman of the Bench was surprised that he wanted to take on the responsibility of a licensed public house when he would have to go, but he explained that his wife would look after it in his absence. He also added that he had four children. Despite this he was certain that she would manage it all right, although she also had no experience.

The Chairman said he was a brave man to sink his savings into a business of which he knew nothing, but Mr. Long was clear that he wished to proceed. He was told “It will be no good coming to the Tribunal saying you have invested your money in a public house and asking for exemption from service on that account” and that he was “running a big risk to take this house and then leave your wife in charge”. Mr. Long did say he had a “slight idea” that he would not pass the Army medical examination. The Bench agreed to grant temporary authority for a month; Mr. Long was to report back in a month’s time on his position regarding military service.[1]

Source: Leighton Buzzard Observer, 23rd May 1916

---

[1] Licensing records show that Mr. Long remained the licensee of the Chequers until 1920.

Meeting of Small Traders at Luton

Sunday 14th May 1916: Around a thousand shopkeepers and owners of one-man businesses from the Luton area met this afternoon at the Plait Hall, in support of a proposal that the sole heads of businesses should be exempt from military service. The work of the tribunals, despite the best efforts of those involved, had led to some grave injustices. While nobody could claim that a one man business was likely to be of national importance, small businesses in the aggregate were. Big businesses depended a great deal on small businesses, and vice versa.

To give a man a month to dispose of a business which had taken years to build up, and into which all his capital and savings had been sunk, was not fair. There needed to be a definite and unmistakable clause in the Military Service Act under which owners of one-man businesses should not be forced to shut down. There were only a few cases in which it was possible to leave wives to run a business, and closure was often the only option if the owner was conscripted.

Cecil Harmsworth, the Luton M.P. had proved very sympathetic to this cause, and lobbying by representatives of small business had succeeded in converting 171 members of Parliament to their way of thinking. A deputation of around 50 men has been appointed to visit the House of Commons tomorrow where they will communicate the views of the small traders to Mr. Harmsworth; they are also expected to attend a conference with Mr. Alfred Yeo, the member of parliament for Poplar who has proposed an amendment to the Military Service Bill in their favour.

Source: Luton News, 18th May 1916

Absent Without Leave at Biggleswade

Three Counties Asylum, Arlesey 1906 [Z1130/2/40a]

Friday 5th May 1916: George William Cocking, described as an attendant and aged 23 or 24, has appeared at a special sitting of the Biggleswade Magistrates charged with being an absentee under the Military Service Act. He admitted he had attested under the name of George William Topham at Eastbourne. He had since registered at the Three Counties’ Asylum in Arlesey and been ordered to report on 7th March, but he was away at the time. He had subsequently reported himself at both Hitchin and Biggleswade. He admitted that he “supposed” he was absent from the Army Reserve. He had not made any application to the Tribunal for exemption, but said he had been discharged from the Eastbourne Asylum as consumptive [suffering from tuberculosis]. He also admitted that he had changed his address at Eastbourne without notifying the authorities. His admission that he was an attested man who had used a false name earned George Cocking a fine of forty shillings, to be deducted from his future pay. He was then handed over to the military authorities.

Source: Biggleswade Chronicle, 5th May 1916

Luton Conscientious Objectors Arrested

Conscientious Objector Memorial, Tavistock Square Gardens, London

[Wikimedia Commons]

Friday 21st April 1916: Five conscientious objectors from Luton have been arrested as absentees under the Military Service Act for failing to comply with notices to report for military service. All five had applied unsuccessfully to Local Tribunals for exemption, and their Appeals against refusal had also failed. Appearing before the magistrates they explained that they had failed to report as they had conscientious objections to serving as combatants, but the Magistrates’ Clerk pointed out that his was of no consequence to the court as the magistrates were bound to carry out the law. The five men were remanded to await military escorts. They were named as Sidney Charles Bell of 23 Ashburnham Road; Bernard Bonner of 20 Park Street West; Montague Ronald Dimmock of 92 New Town Street; Harry Edward Stanton of 90 Wellington Street; and Hubert R. Plummer of 15 Ashburnham Road.

Source: Leighton Buzzard Observer, 18th April 1916

A Tale of Two Brothers

Billingsgate Market 1876 [Wikimedia]

Friday 7th April 1916: The County Appeals Tribunal held yesterday at Luton had to deal with a confusing case in which the papers of two brothers from Leighton Buzzard had become mixed. One of the brothers is married and the other single, but the Tribunal had some difficulty establishing which of them was which. After efforts were made by the applicant and his solicitor to establish his identity, the Tribunal agreed that the man whose appeal against military service they were considering was 24 years old, single and partly responsible for the support of another, younger brother and a sister. At the Local Tribunal his brother had been given four months’ exemption, but his own application had been dismissed.

The applicant said that he and his brother had two shops, a fish and game shop which they managed between them, and a fruit shop in another part of the town which was managed by their sister and had been started so that she could help to support herself. Three of their employees had left and enlisted, and although they had tried to find replacements they had been unable to do so; it was stated that if the applicant was not exempted the business would have to close. He acted as salesmen and delivered country orders on a motorcycle, while his brother attended Billingsgate market three times a week – the Tribunal were told this was absolutely necessary as “if you want good stuff you must go and choose it yourself, or you have anything palmed off on you”. However, a member of the Tribunal pointed out that many retail dealers, with considerably larger businesses, ordered their goods by telegraph. It was also suggested that if the applicant’s younger brother was employed by the business he could take over the motor cycle deliveries. The appeal was refused on the grounds that one of the brothers must go, and the applicant appeared the most suitable.

Source: Leighton Buzzard Observer, 7th April 1916

Married Men Protest at Leighton and Luton

Castle Street, Luton c.1916 [Z1306/75/10/8/3]

Thursday 23rd March 1916: A large audience of attested married men gathered at Castle Street Hall in Luton on Monday night to complain they had not had “fair play” in the way they were being treated in the government. They had been assured when they attested under Lord Derby’s scheme that they would not be obliged to serve until all the unmarried men had been called up. However, the delay between the completion of the recruiting scheme and the introduction of conscription had allowed large numbers of single men to go into reserved trades. As a result married men were being called up much sooner than expected. To add insult to injury, conscripts appeared to be receiving more favourable treatment than attested men. Mr. Hugh Cumberland who chaired the meeting declared “the whole thing had been a bungle from beginning to end, all because the Government had not faced the music, and the only fair way now was to have conscription for everybody.

There were other reasons the Government’s pledge to send unmarried men first had not been carried out besides the delay in introducing the Military Service Bill. The number of conscientious objectors came as a surprise – one speaker said he had no idea there was so much conscience in the country and “the blasphemous, disgusting statements made by many of them made him sick”. A resolution was tabled which included a request that all notices calling up groups of married men be withdrawn until “all single men engaged since August 15th last in reserved occupations, and not actually indispensable, and those sheltering themselves under the plea of conscientious objection, are called up for service, or until a revision of the Military Service Act so as to include all men of military age”. It also requested “that adequate provision to meet domestic and business obligations of married men when called up, be made”. The resolution was carried enthusiastically and was to be sent to the Prime Minister, Lord Derby, and Luton M.P. Mr. Cecil Harmsworth.

Yesterday evening another meeting was held at the Temperance Hall in Leighton Buzzard with over one hundred attested married men present despite bad weather. It was stressed that this was not a meeting of disloyalists, or a “stop the war” meeting. The men were asked to speak “as if a German spy were present, and to make no remark that would tend to please him. Two resolutions were passed. The first recorded the opinion of the attested married men of Leighton Buzzard, Linslade and district that “pledges which form an essential part of their attestation contract have not been and are not being kept” and demanded that “single men should be dug out of munition works and Government offices before any of the married groups are called up”. The second asked that any married man called up for the Army “should be freed from all anxiety as to the financial position of his dependents during his absence”. These resoltuions were also to be sent to the Prime Minister, Lord Derby, and the local Members of Parliament. The meeting closed with a vote of thanks to the Chairman and the singing of the National Anthem.

Sources: Luton News 23rd March 1916; Leighton Buzzard Observer 28th March 1916

Conscientious Objectors at Bedfordshire Appeals Tribunal

Luton Town Hall 1911 [Z1306/75/10/23/8]

Wednesday 22nd March 1916: The Appeals Tribunal for Bedfordshire sat for the first time today at Luton Town Hall to hear appeals against the decisions taken by tribunals in respect of applications for exemption from military service. All the morning and part of the afternoon was devoted to hearing appeals by conscientious objectors. The Chairman stated that he was looking for evidence that an applicant’s conscientious objection was genuine and of long standing, and would attach weight to any evidence that the applicant belonged to a religious body with well-known views on this question, or to proof that his opinions had been openly expressed fro a considerable period of term.

The first applicant, who appeared to have left the Church of England because he did not want to take on parish work and had a grievance against the vicar, was dismissed as a “bona-fide shirker”. The second case to be heard involved a member of the Society of Friends who had been ordered to undertake non-combatant service by the local tribunal, but who believed to play any part, even as a non-combatant, would be as bad as being a soldier and carrying a rifle. He refused to accept exemption on condition that he would accept employment in some work which the Tribunal considered of national importance and his application was refused.

The longest case was an appeal by the military representative against the absolute exemption of an individual who described himself as an “ambassador of God”. It was alleged that the man’s conscientious objection was not proved, that he had equivocated in reply to questions, and that he had used his influence to prevent others engaging in military service. After discussing the case in private, the decision of the local tribunal was confirmed and the man exempted. One case was adjourned for a fortnight to give the applicant time to prove that he was to be engaged on work of national importance, such as for a railway or dock company. The majority of the remaining cases were also refused, including an appeal by a member of the International Bible Students’ Association who stated he was prepared to accept “the extreme penalty” for refusing to serve.

All the conscientious objectors whose appeals were refused asked permission to appeal to the Central Appeals Tribunal. They were told this would only be possible if an important question of principle was raised, which in these cases it was not.

Source: Luton News 23rd and 30th March 1916

More Conscientious Objectors

Christadelphian Lecture Hall, St. Loyes St, Bedford c.1910

[Z1306/10/56/1]

Thursday 16th March 1916: The tribunals which sat this week at both Bedford and Ampthill heard a number of applications from conscientious objectors.

At Ampthill a provision merchant claimed exemption on dual grounds, both as a conscientious objector and as the sole support of his parents. He also had a sister, who was due to be married at Easter, who looked after the business while he was out getting orders and carried on the drapery department. He also had a lad to help him. His conscience had troubled him from boyhood and he did not think killing was right, though he would be willing to go with the ambulance. He was a Wesleyan, not a Quaker. Another man applied for total objection as a believer in the sacredness of human life and the brotherhood of man. He would not send men abroad and would not have a Navy; he did not think men ought to go and fight. Both these applications were refused, as was that of another man who stated that if he had the option of killing or being killed he would be killed, and that if he had to go into the trenches he would rather go without a rifle than with one.

At Bedford a Christadelphian applied on grounds of conscientious objection. This man was an engineer engaged in shell manufacture. Although he would rather “suffer the extreme penalty” that affirm or swear to support any institution in the taking of human life, he was compelled to make whatever his employer undertook to manufacture. He was granted conditional exemption so long as he continued to be employed in munitions work. A 19 year old student at the Royal College of Science said he objected to taking part in the war, but recognised that he must make a concession and so would be willing to take part in work such as mine-sweeping which was destroying instruments of war. He stated “I cannot see any point in the war. It seems to me pure destruction for no end. I do not believe the ownership of land is of sufficient importance”. He believed that at this time the nation was wrong to take up arms and he could not imagine a war in which it would be legitimate to take part. His application was refused. Another applicant who objected on similar grounds was passed for non-combatant service after stating he was willing to work in the Army Service Corps but not to swear an oath.

Source: Bedfordshire Times, 17th March 1916

A Plucky Ploughgirl

Women's Land Army Poster 1917 [Wikimedia]

Saturday 11th March 1916: The work of women on farms, a frequent topic of conversation in recent times, was mentioned in a couple of cases heard at the Luton Rural Tribunal this week. A farmer in the Dunstable area appealed for his son who has been discharged from the Bedfordshire Yeomanry as a time-expired man after serving at Ypres and Loos. When he returned there was no other man on the farm except the father, who was being helped by one of his daughters. This young lady had driven a five-horse double plough all through the autumn, and was out ploughing with five horses again yesterday. The chairman of the tribunal commended her as a “plucky girl”. After hearing these circumstances the military representative changed his mind and withdrew his opposition to the appeal and the son was given a conditional exemption.

Another farmer had a rather different attitude to women on farms. He applied for exemption for two employees. When asked if he could get women to do the work he said he had help from some of the village women in the hay season, but did not think women could stand farm work in the winter. He told the tribunal “If it comes to women working on the farm I shall clear out”. Asked if he was not fond of the ladies he replied, “I am fond of them to a certain extent, but not fond enough of them o put up with them as regards labour”. One of his worker also maintained his mother and was conditionally exempted while employed on the farm; the other application was refused.

Source: Luton News, 9th March 1916

Advice to the Medically Rejected

Thursday 2nd March 1916: Now that conscription is being introduced the War Office has found it necessary to clarify the situation in respect of those men who have volunteered for military service but have been rejected on medical grounds. The following announcement, which is to be displayed on posters across the country, has been issued:

“Where a man considers he is exempt from military service on the ground that he has offered himself for enlistment and has been medically rejected for military service since 14th August 1915, he must produce a rejection certificate duly completed and signed, which is recognised as good by the military authorities. If a man cannot produce such a certificate, he must (unless he has duly applied to a local tribunal for an exemption certificate) report himself as directed on the notice paper, Army Form W.3,236.”

Source: Bedfordshire Standard, 3rd March 1916

Conscientious Objectors at Luton Tribunal

Christadelphian Lecture Hall, St.Loyes St, Bedford, 1910 [Z1306/10/56/1]

Saturday 26th February 1916: Today the Luton Tribunal has heard the cases of a number of conscientious objectors who have asked to be excused from military service. Some of these men are employed at munition factories; as a result the Tribunal was very sceptical of their cases, considering that if a man’s conscience forbade him taking the life of another in battle, it was odd that he was content to make his living producing weapons for other men to use. A Christadelphian appealed to the principles of his religion which caused him to oppose war, but was told to stick to tangible facts as to why he should not become a soldier. He agreed that he was working for a firm which produced items for the Government, but argued that as a civil clerk employed by a civil firm he could leave if he was ordered to do anything which went against his conscience. It was pointed out that although the company did not make munitions, they did make vehicles which were part of the supply chain for shells to the trenches. He requested that if the Tribunal decided to refuse his application it should state its reasons for refusal in writing and made clear his intention to appeal to the Appeals Tribunal in the event his application was rejected.

One of the applicants stated that he absolutely objected to being made to kill his fellow men, and that he had a horror of killing animals or even insects. He would not even kill a spider he found in his room. He argued that if everyone held his opinion Germany would never have gone to war – he was told to consider that “if all English people held the same opinion there would have been no war, for Germany would have been over here”. Asked if he objected to killing vermin, he replied that he had never had any vermin on him; after further questioning he admitted he might kill rats or mice under exceptional circumstances. He also stated he would not like Germany to win as they were “the worst of the civilised nations of Europe”, but did not think it possible that they would. His application for exemption was refused.

Source: Luton Times, 2nd March 1916

Military Service Tribunals

Military Service Act Poster, 1916 [Wikimedia]

Thursday 24th February 1916: Tribunals have begun sitting in the county to decide on applications for exemption from military service under the Military Service Act. This will come into effect on March 2nd and will introduce conscription; following that date any man between the ages of 18 and 41 who has not yet attested or applied for exemption will be deemed to have enlisted for the duration. Yesterday the tribunal for the Borough of Luton dealt with 45 appeals, sitting from 2.30 until after 8.00 p.m. with only a short break for tea. Most of the cases dealt with men whose labour was said to be essential to a business. In several of these the applications were in respect fo small straw hat factories where there was only a single man left, whose departure would result in closure of the factory. Rather than risk the sudden loss of a number of these small businesses disrupting this important industry, the tribunal granted temporary postponements to allow them time to wind up their affairs. One gentleman wrote to withdraw an appeal he had made on his son’s behalf, explaining he had managed to make alternative arrangements and his son had already enlisted. Another applicant asked for postponement until April saying “I do not want any favours. We have to beat the Germans, and I wish I could go as well as this young man”.

The first meeting of the Leighton Buzzard Tribunal took place on Tuesday evening to consider applications under both the Military Service Act and the voluntary Derby Scheme. A batch of nine applications came from Messrs. Bullivant and Co., wireworkers for their employees; they were all exempted as they are engaged in government work, even though most are young, single men. A farmer and a blacksmith were both exempted as they are in reserved occupations. The case of a clerk said to be indispensable to a decorator and the only son of a dependant widowed mother caused much discussion. The application asked for him to be placed in a later group [1], but this proved not to be possible and the application was refused. Another contentious case was that of Ernest James Saunders, the surveyor and sanitary inspector to the Leighton Buzzard Urban District Council. The advisory Committee decided he should serve and the surveyor himself wished to join the forces. However, the Council argued forcefully that his work made him indispensable and a postponement was granted.

Source: Luton News, 24th February 1916

---

[1] Under the Derby, or Group, Scheme, men were placed in groups according to age and marital status and the groups were called up in a fixed order. 

Luton Unions Vote Against Conscription

Two charabanc parties in Waller Street, Luton c.1920 [Z1306/75/10/60/5]

Monday 24th January 1916: A meeting of Luton trades unionists was held at the Winter Assembly Hall in Waller Street last night to discuss the possibility of conscription and other issues related to the war. The meeting was called by the Luton Trades and Labour Council to decide how they should vote at the Trades Union Congress to be held at Bristol. A vote was taken at which it was decided by the narrowest of margins that the delegate should vote against conscription. The resolution passed was:

“That this conference of the Labour Party declares itself in opposition to any form of compulsory service for war purposes, believing that its incidence would bear unevenly upon the people; and further calls upon the Labour Praty in the House of Commons to resist to the last any and every attempt to fasten upon the nation a system of conscription which in practice has been a deadly foe to the organised workers of Europe for generations.”

The proposer of the resolution, Mr. Murray Janes, argued for the association of the voluntary system with national liberty, and also maintained that conscription was not necessary. His seconder declared that it would be used by the upper classes to forcibly restrict workers and that the incompetence of those in command meant those conscripted would simply be cannon fodder. Speaking against the resolution and in favour of conscription Mr. J. Mabley pointed out that Lord Kitchener believed it was absolutely necessary, and that it would be unfair to married men who had enlisted with a guarantee that single men would be sent first. Even if conscription proved the thin end of the wedge it was better than being ruled by Germany. His statement that “if the country was fit to live in it was worth fighting for” drew applause from the audience. Further arguments were put forward that supporting the Bill would help to bring “this detestable war” to an end, and that the Munitions Act had already led to what was effectively conscription of workers who were forced to stay in their place of employment unless they received papers releasing them. Despite these arguments against it the resolution was passed by 92 votes to 91. A further resolution calling for “the immediate repeal of the Munitions Act as being a gross interference with the rights of the workers” was passed unanimously.

Source: Luton Times, 28th January 1916