Linslade Appeal Tribunal

Grand Cinema, Leighton Road, Linslade [Z1306/72]

Thursday 5th September 1918: Tribunals continue to be held on a regular basis to hear appeals against conscription to military service for men considered to be essential workers. At today’s Linslade Urban District Tribunal a number of exemptions were agreed. Joseph R. Labrum, age 40, a coal merchant at Ledburn Wharf, Linslade, received three months’ exemption with the consent of the Military Authorities on the grounds that he is in a certified occupation. The normal requirement to serve as a Volunteer was waived as he is a lieutenant in the Special Constables. William White, the licensee of the Bedford Arms, was exempted for six months on health grounds. He has been certified as not fit for any kind of service, even as a Volunteer.

There was some complaint that Linslade retailers had been taken by the Army whereas those in Leighton Buzzard had not, with the result that shoppers were being forced to go to Leighton. This time grocer Lewis Lovell of 55 Old Road was exempted for three months on the grounds that his work was of the utmost importance. Other men considered to be in essential occupations included a cattle dealer, a coppersmith carrying out skilled work for Morgan and Company, and the manager of the Grand Theatre. Although Mr. Dyball, aged 33 and single, only passed his medical as Grade 3 he could still have provided useful service to the Army as a clerk. However, he was carrying out the work of two men at the Theatre, and the importance of picture palaces for propaganda work was recognised by the tribunal.

Source: Leighton Buzzard Observe, 10th September 1918

Leighton Buzzard Conscientious Objector at Tribunal

Friends Meeting House, Leighton Buzzard 1969 [Z50/72/2]

Friday 2nd November 1917: William M. Holland of Regent Street, Leighton Buzzard has appeared at an appeal tribunal asking for his conditional exemption from military service on grounds of conscience to be renewed. He explained his reasons in writing:

“I still believe that war is the devil’s business and that Christians should not kill or assist to kill those for whom Christ died. I believe that the war is being continued for territorial gain and the gratification of military pride, and I welcome this opportunity of protesting against the sacrifice of lives to the ambition and vainglory of statesmen and army commanders. It is impossible to believe that this country is fighting for liberty and justice when over 1,200 men are in prison for loyalty to conscience and for claiming that exemption to which they are entitled by Act of Parliament. I would also point out that (1) The genuineness of my case has been recognised by the Tribunal on two occasions by granting exemption from all forms of military service. (2) I have fulfilled the conditions of my exemption.”

Mr. Holland has been a member of the Society of Friends, or Quakers, since 1909, and made his initial appeal for exemption from military service in July last year. Colonel Fenwick, challenging the appeal on behalf of the Army, engaged in a long argument with Holland over his pacifist views. After this was brought to an end by the Chairman the tribunal considered a recommendation by the Advisory Committee that Holland should serve in a non-combatant corps. Holland told the tribunal he was not prepared to undertake non-combatant service and was working 9½ hours a day as a farm labourer. He then produced a protection certificate from the Bedfordshire War Agricultural Committee which had been sent to him last week. The Chairman pointed out that a lot of time and trouble would have been saved if he had presented the certificate earlier, but Holland declared he did not ask for the certificate, did not want to be protected by it and intended to send it back. After lively discussion the tribunal came to a majority decision that his certificate of temporary exemption should be renewed for another six months.

Source: Leighton Buzzard Observer, 6th November 1917

Luton Soldier Dies After Medical Board Passes Him Fit

Soldiers at Bunyan Canteen, Bedford, 1914-18 [Z1306/12/11/5]

Monday 26th February 1917: The funeral took place today of 22 year old Private Ernest Wright, of Buxton Road, Luton. Private Wright had presented himself for medical examination at Luton under the Derby Scheme and was rejected due to years of asthma having affected his heart. In September last year he was again examined, this time at Bedford, and to the surprise of his family and friends he was catalogued B1, fit for garrison duty abroad. At that time he was employed on very light work by Mr Cox, a hat manufacturer. He appealed to the Local Tribunal on the grounds of domestic hardship and physical disability; at this time he had been in bed for three weeks with bronchial asthma, but a doctor’s medical certificate was ignored his claim was dismissed. He joined the canteen department in October, hoping to avoid strenuous work, and was sent to France where his main duties were washing up and attending fires. He frequently wrote letters home telling how ill he felt.

Last Thursday week Private Wright wrote that he had been vaccinated, and had been so ill he had been sent to hospital as he “could not keep up any longer. I have got it stiff this time, but hope to be out at duty shortly.”  On the following Saturday morning his mother received a hospital card informing her that her son had been admitted to hospital at Bury St Edmunds. On the Monday she received a letter from the nurses telling her he was rather ill and that she could visit him. That evening a house surgeon at the hospital telephoned saying it was clear her son had been a lifelong sufferer and that “it was a downright shame that he had ever been passed for service. He will be in this institution for some time, and then get immediate discharge from the Army.”  He felt that there was no immediate danger and that Private Wright was improving, but he suffered a relapse and died at eleven o’clock the same night.

The loss of her son is the third tragedy to afflict Mrs Wright within the space of two years, following the deaths of both her husband and her eldest daughter. She also has a 31 year old daughter who has been a helpless invalid since infancy. She has expressed the hope that the Tribunal will do their best to protect other sons from blunders by military medical men. A number of recent cases have been reported in which it is clear that some scandalous decisions have been made by Medical Boards, although it is believed that Bedford has seen improvements.

Source: Luton News, 1st March 1917

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

Linslade Military Service Tribunal

Vimy bombers under construction at Linslade c.1917 [Z50/72/219b]

Thursday 14th September 1916: This afternoon’s meeting of the Linslade Military Service Tribunal saw a discussion about the difficulty of finding labour, especially for farms. The Tribunal was informed by Captain Green, the recruiting organiser for Buckinghamshire, that the War Office is now asking for another million men by next July, which will undoubtedly worsen the situation. One member of the tribunal expressed surprise that farmers did not make more use of soldiers as labour, though another said he had heard they were more trouble than they were worth. Farmers felt they could not push them the way they pushed their own men, feeling “they must be nice to them and give them a sort of picnic” – this caused amusement, as did the comment that this was “like the women workers”. The military representative said that women had done “splendidly” in some places, but that in this area farmers were not used to them and it was difficult to change local custom.

Captain Green told the tribunal of a new scheme for replacing fit men with men who had previously worked on farms and were only doing duty in labour battalions. This would then release men who were fit for general service. The Chairman thought this a good idea, but one that would be hard to make work. Captain Green said a list of men who could be demobilised from the Army would be sent to the tribunal and they could then be sent back to their original work as clearly “it would be useless to send a chair maker to milk a cow”. When asked whether there really were many men in the area who were eligible for service Captain Green stated that a nearby tribunal had dealt with seventy single men who could not be released for the military because they were the only men left. However, it was felt that this was more likely to be the case in rural rather than urban districts, where very few men were now available. This, it seemed, was the root of the problem. All the men who could be called up had now gone, and it would be necessary to turn to exempted men. A Commission was already sitting to decide what industries must be closed down.

Source: Leighton Buzzard Observer, 19th September 1916

Luton Tribunal Complains About Medical Examinations

Thursday 31st August 1916: The Luton Tribunal hearing appeals against military service has expressed its dissatisfaction with the way in which men are being medically examined at Bedford. The Town Clerk had written expressing concern that two unfit men had been passed for military service and had received a most unsatisfactory reply. A number of other cases had also been noticed, including one man who was not capable even of ordinary volunteering, and another passed fit who was on the verge of consumption. The Mayor remarked that the medical authorities would face serious trouble later if they passed men suffering from consumption. It also seemed that heart disease was not considered sufficient to keep men out of the Army. The Luton Tribunal was not prepared to send men into the Army when it knew they were not getting the examination required by law. A letter has been sent to the War Office and a reply is awaited.

Source: Luton News, 31st August 1916

Leighton Buzzard's Conscientious Objector

Friends Meeting House, Leighton Buzzard 1969 [Z50/72/2]

Saturday 8th July 1916: Leighton Buzzard’s only conscientious objector has appeared at a military tribunal to request absolute exemption from war service on religious grounds. The man, who has not been named, is a 27 year old house decorator living in Regent Street. The tribunal was told that the applicant’s views were of long standing: before the war he had posted peace posters around the town; he had spoken publicly against the war; and he was peace correspondent for the local Society of Friends (also known as Quakers). He stated that not only was he not prepared to fight, but he would also not take part in the war in a medical capacity, knowing that the wounded would be sent back to fight again once they recovered. He would also not help with minesweeping as he would only be allowed to sweep German mines.

The advisory committee recommended that the applicant should be made to serve as a non-combatant. One member of the tribunal said he thought a man holding such views should be put into a boat on the North Sea and left to choose which side he would take; another suggested that the final decision should be left to the County Appeal Tribunal; and a third pointed out that the man was acting within his legal rights. After considerable discussion the decision was taken that his conscientious objection should be accepted and he was released from military service on condition that he would undertake agricultural work.

Source: Leighton Buzzard Observer 11th July 1916

Dunstable Organist Loses Appeal

Priory Church, Dunstable 1906 [Z1130/36/41]

Wednesday 7th June 1916: The organist of a Dunstable Church has had his appeal against the Dunstable Tribunal’s rejection of his application for exemption from military service dismissed. He has been passed fit for the Army but only for sedentary work, a class in which it is considered unlikely that he will actually be called upon to serve. The Appeal Tribunal considered that as the gentleman had been examined twice, with the conclusion that he could serve even though only in a sedentary capacity, the issue came down to whether or not his work as an organist could be considered to be of nation importance. The Tribunal decided that it could not.

Source: Leighton Buzzard Observer, 13th 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.

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

Conscientious Objector Asks Leave To Appeal a Second Time

Wellington Street, Luton 1905 [Z1306/75/10/61/2]

Friday 24th March 1916: Following the block refusal at Wednesday's Bedfordshire Appeal Tribunal to allow those conscientious objectors whose appeals had been refused one of those men, Mr. Harry Stanton has written asking them to reconsider and allow him to take his case to the Central Appeal Tribunal:

From 89 Wellington St, Luton

To Clerk to the Bedfordshire Appeal Tribunal

Dear Sir,

I believe I am allowed under the Military Service Act to make an application in writing for leave to appeal against the decision of the County Appeal Tribunal within seven days of their decision. I do this, in spite of the fact that a verbal refusal of the right of appeal was given, because the whole number of cases where leave of further appeal was asked were taken “en bloc”

The Act states, I believe, that leave of further appeal should only be granted where the case in question involves a principle which may be typical of numerous other cases. I feel that my own appeal is such a one. The Appeal Tribunal, as did the Local Tribunal, seemed quite convinced that mine was a genuine case of conscientious objection, and I claim that it is one of those termed “exceptional” in the instructions from the Local Government Board, and that I am therefore entitled to absolute exemption. Surely the fact that I refused what was to many the easy way out (of acceptance of work under civil authorities) is a further proof that mine is an exceptional case.

However, I do not wish in any way to decry the decision of the Appeal Tribunal. Although I cannot accept it, I believe it to have been the honest opinion of the Tribunal. My sole object is to establish the fact that a genuine conscientious objector is entitled to absolute exemption if nothing else will meet his case.

May I also take this opportunity of thanking the members of the Tribunal for the very considerate attention and hearing which they gave to the cases of conscientious objection.

If you decide to grant me leave of further appeal, and a special form of application for such leave is necessary, I should be pleased if you would send me such a form by return of post, as I believe the time allowed is very limited.

Yours truly, Harry E. Stanton

Source: WW1/AT1

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

Ampthill Rural Tribunal

Sheep at Biscot Mill 1915 [Z1306/75/11/1]

Monday 13th March 1916: The first Ampthill Rural Tribunal sat today and heard fifty applications for exemption from military service. Six of these were from conscientious objectors. The others came from a variety of occupations, although being a rural area the majority related to farm employees.

• A doctor applied for his chauffeur, stating he was absolutely necessary if he was to continue his practice as Medical Officer of Health for 31 parishes. He himself was unable to drive due to his eyesight and the lighting restrictions. Despite advertising in several papers he could not find a replacement. Again, a temporary exemption was granted until June 13th.
• A railway labourer applied to be exempted on the ground of domestic hardship as he supported his widowed mother. He was refused as there was insufficient evidence of hardship.
• A grocer and tax-collector applied for both his son and a labourer. The son managed the business and helped with the collecting. He had two other married sons, one working on munitions and one in the Post Office, a daughter who was not capable of working, and his wife was an invalid. The labourer was his only employee and could not be substituted; he delivered goods and worked on 4 acres of land. This man at attested but had been passed for home service only. Although the father stated he would have to give up the business without his son’s help the application on the son’s behalf was refused, but the labourer was conditionally exempted while in his current employment.
• A farmer of 310 acres applied on behalf of one of his seven sons, who was his horsekeeper and engineer. Two of the other sons had attested but none were actually serviing; an appeal to a higher court for another son had already been refused. The farmer was asked if he was not ashamed to appeal for this young man when he had all those other sons, but said he was not as he could not manage without him. The application was refused.
• A shepherd on a 436 acre farm was needed because the farm had 105 in-lamb ewes and he also helped with milking, building and thatching ricks. Other men had already left the farm to join the army. The shepherd was granted a conditional exemption.

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

Ladies and Linotype

 Diagram of a linotype magazine c.1904 [Wikimedia]

Thursday 9th March 1916: Recruitment tribunals across the country have been meeting to consider applications for exemption from military service. A comment from a member of the Leighton Buzzard Tribunal considering an application from a linotype operator has made the national news, with the following letter appearing in the latest issue of Newspaper World:

"Many amusing and remarkable statements in regard to newspaper working have been made at the meetings of the local Tribunals, but surely the most surprising of all is the one recorded in last week's 'Tribunalities', in connection with the application of a linotype operator, a member of the Tribunal declaring that he had heard of a lady operator becoming skilled in two weeks. Evidently the Tribunal took a more common sense view, for the operator concerned was granted a postponement of four months".

The tribunal member must have an extremely limited understanding of the printing industry. It is generally accepted that men need three or four years to become skilled at operating complicated linotype machines. The extraordinary statement of this particular tribunal member that he had heard of a lady who learned to operate one in a fortnight, has caused indignation among linotype operators across the country, who know from experience just how unlikely this would be. The reality is rather different. A lady in Leighton Buzzard has indeed begun to operate a typesetting machine, but a typograph rather than a linotype. These German made machines are much simpler and considerably slower. After two weeks the lady had shown enough promise to suggest that continued tuition would enable her to work the machine.

Source: Leighton Buzzard Observer, 14th March 1916