Rushden Echo, 3rd March 1916, transcribed by Gill Hollis
Rushden Local Tribunal
Appeals Under Lord Derby’s Scheme
Shoe Trade Applications
The Local Tribunal for Rushden sat at the Council Buildings on Monday evening, when there were present: Messrs. T. Swindall, J.P. (chairman), F. Knight, J.P., C. Bates, G. Miller, J.P., C.A., and C. Cross, C.C., with Mr. G. S. Mason (hon. clerk). The Recruiting Officer for East Northamptonshire was presented by Mr. John S. Mason. All the cases dealt with were those of attested men under Lord Derby’s scheme.
An appeal was made by the son of a boot manufacturer, the applicant, a single man, said he had charge of the bottom-stuff department, supervised the machinery, and carried out the duties of a foreman. His younger brother, who was married, looked after the upper department. The father, senior member of the firm, had taken no active part in the management for some time. Many of their hands had gone and their places were filled by lads and girls, which caused more work to devolve upon applicant.
The Tribunal could not entertain postponement, but if applicant considered he was in a reserved occupation he could apply to the Recruiting Officer.
A clicker applied for exemption on the ground that he was an only son that his father was too unwell to do much work, that he was practically the sole support of the home, and that he was required also by his employer on Government work.
The Recruiting Officer did not consider the man was indispensable to the employer, who had made no formal appeal.
A letter was read from the employer stating that, while he could not say that the applicant was indispensable, yet the man was engaged chiefly on Government work and they would be very glad to have his services.
The Clerk: We can only deal now with the family reasons, as the employer has not formally appealed.
Applicant said that his mother was engaged in outside work, and if he had to go the mother would have to give up the position, as he did most of the work.
The Tribunal held that the family reasons given were not sufficiently strong, and the appeal was refused.
A boot manufacturing firm appealed for an employee who is in charge of the rough-stuff stock-room and who takes in and checks the rough leather and gives it out to the workmen.
The employers’ representative: We have had 64 enlisted. This man has sole control of all the rough-stuff leather. He has to feed all the pressmen. Before the war we had two men, this one being the under-man. The top man has enlisted, and now this man takes his place. There is not another firm which has lost as many men as we have.
For the Recruiting Officer, Mr. John Mason contended that an older man could do the work. The duties could soon be learned by another man.
The firm’s representative: The man would have to understand leather.
The application was not granted, as it did not come within the scope of any of the four reasons under which alone postponements could be made.
“Home Broken Up”
Another applicant claimed, “My widowed mother is wholly dependent upon me. In case I have to go, it means my home being broken up.”
Mr. John Mason, for the R.O., said that the employer made no appeal. As to the family reasons, the applicant had a brother at home, the brother being the holder of a war badge.
Under such circumstances the Tribunal held that the domestic reasons did not apply, and refused postponement.
“The Only Partner”
An application was made by a boot manufacturer, who had been postponed from Group 5 to Group 13, and is now called up. He asked to be exempt, if possible, as, he said, “I am the only partner in the business trading as --------------, making chiefly officer’s hand sewn boots, both riding and marching, and cannot see how to leave it, as it would mean practical ruin to me.”
Mr. John Mason: The Recruiting Officer cannot consent, the business reasons being inadequate. The applicant’s father could manage the business.
Applicant: I wrote to Major Markham, the Recruiting Officer, who replied: “You appear to be in an exempted occupation, and I therefore request you apply to the Local Tribunal for an exemption certificate.”
The Clerk: Have you a copy of the letter you sent to Major Markham, as that would help the Tribunal to appreciate the Major’s reply?
Applicant said he had not a copy.
After deliberation in private, the Tribunal granted postponement for one month, but stated that no further application to be set back would be entertained.
Brothers as Partners
A working partner in a business appealed on the following grounds: “I am in business with my brother. We have lost three men and are left to work the business on our own, being unable to procure any labour. If either of us leaves, it will mean closing the business.
Mr. John Mason said the R.O. could not assent, as the applicant’s father and brother were in the business.
Applicant: My father has nothing to do with the business – he works for us, in another department.
Mr. John Mason said that an older man could do the work of the applicant.
The applicant was refused.
A finisher applied for postponement on family grounds, as his mother was consumptive, and he was required to keep the house on.
Mr. John Mason urged that the applicant was not necessary to keep the home going.
The Tribunal held that there were not sufficient grounds for an extension of time.
A man applied for postponement on the following grounds: “I am a working partner, indispensable to the business, and family partly dependent upon me. The business is carried on by my brother and me, and we have no other labour.” His widowed mother was dependent upon the business.
Mr. John Mason said the Recruiting Officer considered the applicant was not essential to the business. The applicant had been married after the date entitling him to be grouped with the married men.
The appeal was not allowed.
A baker and confectioner applied for postponement for an employee, and said that one man had gone and this man partly replaced him. If he lost this man he would have to give up the confectionery trade and part of the bread business. The man had been passed for home defence only.
One month’s postponement was allowed.
Rushden Echo, 10th March 1916, transcribed by Gill Hollis
Lord Derby’s Regret - The Call to Married Men
Lord Derby, speaking at Manchester on Tuesday after inspecting a number of motor-ambulance cars presented to the Red Cross Society by the cotton and brewing industries, said that the question of married men’s attestation was interesting them all at the present moment. He adhered to all he said in his recent speech in the House of Lords.
The married men were being called up long before they expected to be and long before he expected, but he should be casting a slur on their patriotism if he believed that they were not going to come forward when called upon. In good time, he was perfectly certain, they would get all the single men, but unless the married men came forward there might be a shortage which would be absolutely fatal.
“I regret this early calling of the married men more than I can say,” Lord Derby added, “and I should regret it still more if I thought the patriotism of the married men was only skin deep and that they would not come forward to play their part in this crisis. I am receiving the assistance of all the Government departments and I have no doubt we shall succeed in securing an army sufficient for our purpose made up for the most part of single men, and at the same time leaving behind all who are essential to the carrying on of the industries of the country.”
|Boot & Shoe Trades Journal, 10th March 1916, transcribed by Kay Collins
Officers' Bootmaker, To Serve.—An attested Rushden man, described as a boot manufacturer, who had already been postponed from Group 5 to 13, asked for exemption, as 'I am the only partner in the business, making chiefly officers' hand-sewn boots, both riding and marching. I cannot see how I am to leave, as it would mean practically ruin to me." The recruiting officer held that the business reasons were inadequate. Postponement for one month was granted, so that the applicant could make other arrangements, but it was said that no further postponement would be made.
17th March 1916
Local Tribunal For Rushden - Many Applications Dealt With
Case of A Conscientious Objector - Considered In Private
The Local Tribunal for Rushden had a long sitting in the Council Chamber on Wednesday evening, the proceedings lasted from 6 until after 9 p.m. There were present Messrs. T Swindall, J.P. (chairman), F. Knight, J.P., C. Bates, G. Miller, J.P., C.A., and C. Cross, C.C., with George Mason as hon. clerk. The Recruiting Officer for East Northants was represented by Mr. John S. Mason.
A cow-keeper and dairyman, doing his own work, milking and calf rearing, applied for absolute exemption on the ground of family and business reasons. He said he occupied 20 acres of land, besides which he carried on a dairyman’s business.
Mr. John S. Mason, the Military Representative, opposed, on the grounds that it was not essential that so many of these milk businesses should be carried on. The applicant had a brother who had been discharged from the Army and who could conduct the business.
Applicant, who said that his father was 67 years of age, and that his brother was not well enough to conduct the business, was granted two months’ extension.
A boot manufacturing firm applied for postponement for a boot and shoe laster, 35 years of age, on the ground that he was the only hand laster they had for making samples and odd pairs, and that he was the only man who could be utilised in case of a break-down in the lasting department.
The Advisory Committee did not assent as they did not consider the man indispensable.
The Recruiting Officer said it could make no difference to the firm if they stopped making odd pairs.
The firm’s representative said that no other man could be relied on in case of a breakdown, and the firm had never appealed for a man before.
One month’s extension was allowed.
A shoe-hand and market gardener asked for exemption so that he might dispose of the crops and sell his pigs to advantage. Applicant said he had stuff on his land which had been growing nearly 12 months. He had two tons of produce and his pigs were doing well. He occupied 110 p. of land. His father was 67 years of age.
No extension was granted.
A boot manufacturing firm applied for total exemption for a pressman, 18 years of age, on the ground that he was indispensable.
The Military Representative: If you appeal for a man of his age, where shall we be? Can you say this man is indispensable?
The Firm’s Representative: Nobody is indispensable, not even the Kaiser, though he is the biggest man on earth, according to his own showing.
The application was refused.
Three Out of Four
A tradesman asked for exemption for an assistant on the ground that he was indispensable, all the other eligible men having gone.
The Advisory Committee suggested that the man could be replaced by someone not of military age.
Applicant said he had lost three hands out of four.
The Chairman: You have had two months to replace this man. No further time can be allowed.
Two men in business for themselves were allowed a couple of months in which to dispose of stock or make other arrangements.
On the case of a conscientious objector being brought forward, Mr. C. Cross proposed that such cases be heard in private, and this course was adopted.
The applicant in this case volunteered for non-combatant work, and the Tribunal therefore absolved him from combatant service.
A wholesale fruit and potato merchant applied for exemption, and stated that he was his own horse-keeper, drayman and motor driver. He had entered a long time ago into a contract to purchase a large quantity of seed potatoes, which were not yet to hand.
The Advisory Committee’s report was that they did not consider the circumstances sufficiently exceptional to justify exemption.
A month’s extension of time was allowed.
The manager and salesman for a tradesman asked for absolute exemption. He said his brother was killed in the South African War, which brought about the serious illness of his mother, 68 years of age. Applicant added that he was her sole support.
The applicant was refused on the ground that there would be no financial hardship inflicted upon the mother.
The two working partners of a firm of curriers and leather dressers, started nine months ago, applied for postponement. It was stated that the work was mainly leather dressing for other firms.
One partner was granted a month’s postponement, and the other withdrew his appeal.
Changed His Shop
A boot manufacturer claimed total exemption for a man employed on screwing, sewing and stitching.
The Military Representative said that the man could not be held to be indispensable as he had moved from one factory to another many times.
Applicant: We cannot find another man.
The application was refused.
Rushden Echo, 7th April 1916, transcribed by Gill Hollis
Many Boot Factory Appeals Refused - The Position of Starred Men
The Local Tribunal for Rushden sat for three hours at the Council Buildings on Monday night, when there were present: Messrs. T. Swindall, J.P., (chairman), F. Knight, J.P., C. Bates, G. Miller, J.P., C.A., and C. Cross, C.C., with the Clerk (Mr. George S. Mason). Mr. John S. Mason was the military representative.
A shoe manufacturing firm claimed exemption for a clerk on the grounds that he had complete charge of the general office and was familiar with the details of Army and Admiralty contracts.
The Advisory Committee stated that the firm had two other confidential clerks, which they (the Committee) regarded as sufficient.
One month’s postponement was granted.
A newly-started boot manufacturer applied for exemption for a foreman pressman, as being indispensable. He had only this man and a youth.
The Advisory Committee said the firm had been started only a few months, and the business could not be so essential as to keep men from joining the colours.
The appeal was refused.
Applicant: I shall appeal to a higher Tribunal.
The Proper Course
The Clerk mentioned during one case that when once a man is “starred” he can only be “unstarred” by the Tribunal. The proper thing for a man in a certified occupation to do was to wait until he had his papers calling him up, and then appeal within eight days. The Tribunal would not have half the work if the men in certified occupations did not send in appeals. A number of “badged” men also appealed unnecessarily.
No New Businesses
A heel manufacturer appealed on the ground of business responsibilities.
The Advisory Committee in this case stated that the applicant was starting in new premises and on a new business, and they did not consider this was the time for new enterprises.
Applicant said he started his present business three years ago.
Three months’ extension was granted.
A firm appealed for a man on the ground of numerous contracts, urging that he was a skilled workman, impossible to replace.
The Military Representative contended that he was not indispensable.
Postponement for three months was granted to a dental surgeon who appealed on the ground that he was meeting a public requirement and on the business and domestic grounds.
A timber merchant, etc., who had just purchased a business, was granted one month.
The Advisory Committee said the man must have known he would be called up.
The applicant said he did not think he should be called on to serve in the Army, as he was married. Therefore, he did not think it risky to purchase the business.
A hairdresser and tobacconist was granted a month in which to arrange his affairs.
Applicant said he ran the business himself, without an assistant. If called up, it would mean losing his business, and it was impossible to sell a business now.
The Advisory Committee did not consider any serious hardship would ensue. The premises were on a weekly tenancy.
A boot manufacturing firm applied for a tacking machine operator, aged 20, as he was the only man on that machine.
The Advisory Committee held that a man of 20 could not be indispensable.
Application refused, the Clerk stated that unless there were special reasons to the contrary the Tribunal were told not to grant exemptions in the case of men under 30 years of age.
A boot manufacturing firm applied on behalf of a heel scourer, as he was the only heel scourer they had, and up to now they had never had fewer than two.
The Advisory Committee held that it was not of national importance that the man should be retained in his occupation.
No postponement was allowed.
A boot firm appealed for an order clerk on the ground of technical knowledge. – Refused.
A leather dresser applied for exemption for an employee. The man had been working for another employer until recently, and the Tribunal held that he was not indispensable.
A boot manufacturer applied for two men. One, a foreman, was granted two months; the other application was refused.
In another case a heel trimmer was appealed for. The Advisory Committee held it was no longer necessary that the man should be employed in a certified operation. – Refused.
No exemption was granted in the case of a man who examined and passed all boots made by the firm, on the ground that the foreman should do that.
A firm appealed for a heel scourer and bottom scourer, aged 20, and married, and stated that they had no one else to do the work.
A Hard Case
An applicant under the Military Service Act on domestic grounds, his father was blind and an invalid. One brother had been killed and two brothers were now serving. He was the only one left to earn anything.
Mr. John Mason: This is a very hard case indeed.
Six months exemption was granted, the decision being received with applause by the public.
Rushden Echo, 14th April 1916, transcribed by Gill Hollis
Shoe Trade Cases - Postponement for married men
The Local Tribunal for Rushden sat at the Council Buildings on Monday when there were present Messrs. T. Swindall, J.P. (chairman), F. Knight, J.P., C. Bates and C. Cross, C.C., with Mr. G. S. Mason (hon. clerk). Mr. John S. Mason was the military representative.
A boot manufacturer appealed for postponement for two men. Both were married men, but one had no children, while the other had a young family. The former was granted a month and the latter three months.
A shoe manufacturing firm applied for exemption for a clicker. It was stated that they had only a small number of clickers left, and the Tribunal granted two months’ postponement.
A firm applied for exemption for an operator on a bottom scourer, and two months’ extension of time was granted.
On the recommendation of the Advisory Committee postponement has been granted in a large number of cases, Mr. John Mason (the military representative) giving the Tribunal full details of the reasons for such postponements.
Rushden Echo, 5th May 1916, transcribed by Gill Hollis
Rushden Local Tribunal - Many Exemptions Granted
On the Advisory Committee’s Recommendation
The Local Tribunal for Rushden sat at the Council Buildings on Monday evening, when there were present Messrs. T. Swindall (chairman), F. Knight, J.P., C. Bates, G. Miller, J.P., C.A., and C. Cross, C.C., with the hon. clerk (Mr. George S. Mason). Mr. John S. Mason was the Military Representative.
Exemption - In 24 cases the Advisory Committee recommended exemptions for various periods, and in 23 of the instances the Tribunal concurred.
Pattern Cutter - A boot manufacturing firm applied for exemption for a pattern cutter and designer.
The firm’s representative said their turnover weekly was 4,500 pairs of boots. This was the only man they had to do this work. They never bought any patterns.
Mr. John Mason: With the Russian order it will not be necessary to have a pattern cutter.
One month’s exemption granted.
Certified Occupation - A man formerly in a certified occupation was called upon by the military authorities to show cause why his certificate should not be taken away. It was shown that he did not enrol as he had enlisted in August, 1914, and had been discharged from the Army as medically unfit.
In a similar case the employer stated that the man had twice enlisted and had been rejected each time.
The Clerk pointed out that the man was not now in a certified occupation as he was only 22 years of age, and he must be 25 years old to be certified in his particular operation. He was not entitled to retain his certificate, though he could appeal for exemption as being medically unfit.
Rushden Echo, 12th May 1916, transcribed by Gill Hollis
Boots for The Russian Army - Home trade not to be considered
The Local Tribunal for Rushden sat at the Council Buildings on Monday evening, when there were present Messrs. T. Swindall (chairman), F. Knight, J.P., C. Bates, G. Miller, J.P., C.A., C. Cross, C.C., with the hon. clerk (Mr. George S. Mason). Mr. John S. Mason was the Military representative. Mr. Eady Robinson (Higham Ferrers) attended to watch the agricultural interests.
Russian and Home Orders
In view of the large order for boots for the Russian Army it was decided to postpone a number of shoe applications.
It was hinted that in future the home boot and shoe trade would not be considered by the military authorities. It was intended that most of the single men under 25 years of age should go. The manufacturers were being interviewed by the military, and an arrangement on this point should be arrived at. It was felt that these men had no encumbrances and should go first.
A dairy farmer, cowman and general stock-breeder applied for absolute exemption. He owned six cows, and retailed the milk.
The Advisory Committee held that it was not necessary in the national interests that the applicant should be retained in his present employment.
Mr. Eady Robinson said the best time for dairymen was coming on. It was hard times, after going through the winter, to send the man away when the time to make a bit of money had come.
Three months’ exemption was allowed.
A carrier and carter, who applied for exemption, said he conducted the business and he also looked after the business for his brother, who was in the colours.
It was stated that the applicant was the only carrier from Rushden to Wellingborough.
Two months’ exemption granted.
A potato salesman, who had twice previously been granted postponement, again applied, and stated that he could not find a customer for his business.
A professional sportsman, now engaged in a shoe factory, applied for exemption on domestic grounds, stating that he supported his invalid mother.
It was held that with the army allowance, and with lodgers she took in, the mother would be none the worse off.
The application of a manufacturer for a heel trimmer was refused.
A currier and leather dresser, who applied on domestic grounds, said that his mother was suffering from pneumonia, but now had a turn for the better.
Allowed a fortnight.
Rushden Echo, 19th May 1916, transcribed by Gill Hollis
Shoe Trade Cases Dealt With - The Russian Army Boots
The Local Tribunal for Rushden sat at the Council Buildings, Rushden, on Wednesday night, when there were present Messrs. T. Swindall (chairman), F. Knight, J.P., C. Bates, G. Miller, J.P., C.A., and C. Cross, C.C., with the hon. clerk (Mr. George S. Mason). Mr. John S. Mason was the military representative. Mr. Eady Robinson (Higham Ferrers) watched the interests of agriculture.
About 150 cases of married men occupied the attention of the Tribunal. The cases were mainly those of the boot and shoe operatives engaged on the Russian order. About eight were postponed, and in the bulk of the other cases two months’ exemption was allowed.
Rushden Echo, 26th May 1916, transcribed by Gill Hollis
Shoe Trade Cases Dealt With
Postponements -In View of the Russian Order
The Local Tribunal for Rushden sat at the Council Buildings, Rushden, on Monday night, when there were present:- Messrs. T. Swindall (chairman), F. Knight, J.P., C. Bates, G. Miller, J.P., C.A., and C. Cross, C.C., with the hon. clerk (Mr. George S. Mason). Mr. John S. Mason was the military representative. Mr. Eady Robinson (Higham Ferrers) watched the interests of agriculture.
A working butcher, who had sent in a personal appeal, did not appear. Appeal dismissed.
A shoe manufacturer appealed for an edge-setter and for a screwing machine operator. The former’s appeal had been adjourned at the last Tribunal, and it was now decided he must report himself at once. The other man was given two months’ exemption.
Another shoe firm appealed for an operator on a lasting machine, aged 25, saying that he was essential to the carrying on of the business. He was granted one month’s extension pending arrangements with the military authorities about the Russian order.
An edge-setter, aged 25 and married, was given one month.
Another shoe worker, aged 31, the only son of a widowed mother, appealed on domestic grounds, saying that he came from Canada just before Christmas to support his mother. – The Chairman said that the mother was having allowances from other sons in the Army. This man was not married. – The Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
An operator on a brushing machine, whose appeal had been adjourned at the last Tribunal, had his appeal dismissed.
A married man, aged 31, a departmental coster and timekeeper, was appealed for by a firm of shoe manufacturers, who stated he was one of three clerks they had at the beginning of the war. One of the three had already gone and another was expecting to go almost at once, so that this married man would be the only one left. Two months’ exemption granted.
A single man, 33 years of age, a currier, who had a mother in ill-health, had already had one month’s exemption which had now expired. In answer to the Chairman, he said that his mother was improving. – No further extension allowed.
A cow-keeper, etc., whose brother was ill, had four cows, two heifers and 20 acres of land in his own business. He was exempted until Sept. 30th.
A shoe firm appealed for a clicker, aged 19, engaged on Army work, whose appeal had been adjourned from May 13th. – One month’s exemption.
A clicker, aged 25, who asked for absolute exemption, said he was married in November last, and had been employed by his firm for 12 years. The Clerk said he was 24 years old on August last and also single then and would therefore be described as “24, single.” – Appeal adjourned for a fortnight.
A shoe packer aged 23, appealing on domestic grounds had already been put back twice, and was allowed no further exemption.
A boot and shoe firm appealed for an operator on sewing, stitching, screwing and loose-nailing machines, aged 20. The firm said they could not execute the full Russian Army order without him. He was not badged. – Adjourned for a fortnight.
The same firm appealed for a hand-laster, aged 28 and married, on the same grounds. – Two months’ exemption.
A traveller, aged 44, single, appealed on domestic grounds, having had two previous exemptions. His father died in January and left the business (which was fairly flourishing) in his hands, as he was the only son. His mother was taking all the money from the business in adherence to his late father’s wish. The appellant had a sister at home, but she was married and her husband, a soldier, was in France. He said that his mother was very upset, but he would be quite willing to go if he could be sure that his mother was receiving support. He did the travelling in his spare time. He had tried hard to find someone to replace him but failed. – The Clerk said the case was made more difficult as, when the father was ill, the young man took charge of the business, and had acquired an insight into it, and it would be difficult to replace him. – One month’s exemption was granted in which time the appellant must try to find a substitute.
A clicker, aged 32, married, with three children all under 10 years old, said that at the outbreak of war he and his four brothers all offered their services to the military authorities, and he and another brother were rejected. Since then he had tried to enter other branches of the service, including the motor-cycle and machine-gun sections, but had not been accepted. – He was granted two months’ exemption.
The appeal for another clicker, aged 25 and married with no children, who had already been granted two months’ exemption, was dismissed.
A butcher appealed for his son, aged 18, a slaughter man, etc. The boy had been medically examined once, and rejected. – Adjourned for three months, as he is not yet liable to be called up.
A married man, aged 30, who was in partnership in the shoe trade with his brother, appealed for himself, said it would be a serious matter if he were called away. They were doing 300 pairs of boots a week and his brother was suffering with muscular rheumatism, which came on at intervals. – Two months’ exemption.
A trading firm appealed for a married man, aged 32, in the grocer business. He managed a branch, and had two boys under his charge. He was one of six for whom the firm had appealed, four out of six having been allowed exemption. – This man was one of the two, said the military representative, who, it had been arranged, should go. – The firm’s representative said that in the arrangements with the military representative he had not committed himself in any way, and denied that he had agreed to those two men going. All the six men were holding important positions. – The Tribunal considered that the two men should go.
Rushden Echo, 2nd June 1916, transcribed by Gill Hollis
Shoe Trade Cases Dealt With
Postponement - In View of the Russian Order
The Local Tribunal for Rushden sat at the Council Buildings, Rushden, on Monday night, when there were present: - Messrs. T. Swindall (chairman), F. Knight, J.P., G. Miller, J.P., C.A., and C. Cross, C.C., with the hon. clerk (Mr. George S. Mason). Mr. John S. Mason was the military representative. Mr. Eady Robinson (Higham Ferrers) watched the interests of agriculture.
In all there were 139 cases before the Tribunal. Most of these were connected with the boot and shoe trade, and, in view of the Russian Army order, exemption for three months was granted in every case, on the recommendation of the Military Representative, endorsed by the Advisory Committee.
Several cases of one-man businesses came before the Tribunal and, in view of the instructions received from Mr. Long, exemption for two months or more was granted in each case.
The Tribunal in each instance urged the importance of the men joining the Volunteer Training Corps, in order that they might secure some military training.
Rushden Echo, 9th June 1916, transcribed by Gill Hollis
A Number of Shoe Trade Cases - Position of Youths of 18
The Local Tribunal for Rushden sat at the Council Buildings, Rushden, on Monday night, when there were present:- Messrs. T. Swindall (chairman), F. Knight, J.P., G. Miller, J.P., C.A., and C. Bates, with the hon. clerk (Mr. George S. Mason). Mr. John S. Mason was the military representative. Mr. Eady Robinson (Higham Ferrers) watched the interests of agriculture.
A shoe manufacturer applied for absolute exemption for a clicker, aged 25, a single man, who he said, was engaged absolutely on the Russian order. – Mr. Bates asked how many of the firm’s clickers were cutting civilian work. – Appellant replied that there was only one so engaged. The firm lost five employees last week for whom they did not appeal. – The military representative said that all appeals for single men of 25 would be opposed. – Case adjourned for a fortnight.
Another shoe firm appealed for a single man aged 20 employed as a stitcher. – The military representative said that this was not a certified occupation. It would be if the man were 26. – Appellant said that the man of whom they were appealing was the only one they had left engaged on that work. If any leniency was to be shown in such cases his firm desired to take advantage of it. – The Chairman said that the tribunal considered that the man ought to go, and the appeal was dismissed.
A boot manufacturer appealed for a Consol operator (a certified occupation). The man, he said, is a widower, and most essential to the business. He was, in fact, doing another man’s work beside his own. –Three months granted.
A youth, aged 18, was appealed for by the same firm. – In this case the Chairman pointed out that the Tribunal had no option but to dismiss the appeal, but the military authorities would not take the youth until he was 19. He should, however, report himself at Kettering, when he would be sent back to his work. They suggested that he should fit himself for military duties by joining the V.T.C. – Appellant said that he would inform the youth of the Tribunal’s recommendation.
An appeal by a boot firm for a hand laster aged 28 was dismissed.
The same firm appealed for a heel finisher, aged 26, a married man with two children. – The military representative: “How many badged men have you between the ages of 18 and 25?” – Appellant: “Two. – The military representative observed that it was never intended that men between the ages of 18 and 25 should be badged, but unfortunately Tribunals had no jurisdiction in the matter. – In reply to Mr. Bates, appellant said that he was engaged entirely on the Russian order. – One month’s exemption granted, the Tribunal expressed the hope that in the meantime the employer would endeavour to replace the man.
A boot manufacturer applied for a clicker, aged 35 and single, engaged on army work, and who had already been once put back. – The military representative pointed out that this employer had five men in his works between the ages of 18 and 25 years. He had given an undertaking to release two of these, and another one in a month. – A further three months was allowed.
An appeal by a boot manufacturer for a middle insole sorter, aged 27, married, with no children, and whose wife is in regular employment, was dismissed.
The same firm appealed for a clicking machine operator, aged 30, single, and the only man they had left on the clicking machines. –The military representative pointed out that the man appealed for had made a personal appeal on domestic grounds to the Higham Ferrers Tribunal, where his appeal was dismissed. He reported himself to the military authorities, who sent him back to his work. Apparently he had been overlooked. – The Chairman said that under those circumstances the Tribunal could not deal with the case. The man must await his call from the military authorities.
An appeal by the same firm for a last slipper was dismissed.
A boot manufacturer appealed for a revolution press worker, aged 18. – Appellant stated that the youth had reported himself to the military authorities, who had sent him back to his work. – Appeal dismissed, the chairman remarking that the youth would be called up by the military when he was wanted.
In the case of a single man, aged 32, who had been recommended by the Advisory Committee for three months’ exemption, the Tribunal considered that the case should be heard, and it was accordingly adjourned until June 20th.
A painter and paper-hanger appealed for his only man, aged 27 and married. – Appellant’s wife, who appeared, said that her husband had just recovered from a long illness, and was now away from home for the benefit of his health. She produced a medical certificate bearing out her statement. Her husband was dependent upon the man, for whom he appealed, for the carrying on of his business, and if he were taken he would have to close down. – Three month’s allowed.
A poultry farmer, aged 28, married and who also described himself as a secretary of a private company, and woodworker on the War Office and Admiralty lists, made a personal appeal, asking for temporary exemption until after harvest. – Appellant stated that until the war broke out he was dependent for income upon investments. These had gradually disappeared, and he therefore commenced poultry farming. – Appeal dismissed, appellant stated that he should appeal to the County Tribunal.
A theatre proprietor appealed for his engineer and electrician, a married man, aged 30. The man, he said, was also working for Messrs. J. Cave and Sons. – The Chairman: “Cannot you get an older man?” – Appellant: “It is absolutely impossible; they are asking from £2 10s to £4 per week. This man is no ordinary man; he is a skilled engineer, and consider that as he is serving two masters and taking another man’s place, it is an exceptional case. He is working about ? hours per day. If the man is taken I shall have to shut up I am afraid.” – The Tribunal granted one month’s exemption expressing the hope that in the meantime the man would be replaced. – Appellant “Is this the best you can do? – The Chairman: “Yes.”
A farmer’s appeal for a married man aged 37, described as a general smith and entire horse keeper, was dismissed appellant not appearing.
Rushden Echo, 16th June 1916, transcribed by Gill Hollis
Exempted Men - Expected to Join V.T.C.
The Local Tribunal for Rushden sat at the Council Buildings, Rushden, on Friday night, when there were present: - Messrs. T. Swindall (chairman), F. Knight, J.P., G. Miller, J.P., C.A., and C. Bates with Mr. W. L. Beetenson (deputy clerk). Mr. John S. Mason was the military representative.
A boot manufacturing firm applied for a welting machine operator, a single man aged 25. It was stated that the man is supporting his mother, who is a widow, and also two sisters who have been widowed through the war. He is the sole support of the home. – Three months’ exemption was granted, the Chairman stating that the Tribunal’s decision was based entirely upon the “family reasons” above mentioned.
A grocery firm appealed for a married assistant, aged 24, who had already been put back one month. Appellant said that the man was the only assistant they had, and although they had advertised for another man they had received no applications. – The Military Representative said that the man’s aged was against him. – Appellant asked whether it would help matters if the man joined the V.T.C. – The Tribunal granted a further two months’ exemption, this to be final, and recommended that the man at once join the V.T.C. It was intimated that in instances where men have been granted temporary exemption, their acceptance or non-acceptance of the tribunal’s recommendation to join the V.T.C. would be taken into consideration in regard to any subsequent appeals for a further extension of time.