Rushden Echo, 2nd February 1917, transcribed by Gill Hollis
Boot and Shoe Trade Cases
The Local Tribunal for Rushden sat at the Council Buildings, Rushden, on Monday night, when there were present: Messrs. T. Swindall (chairman), G. Miller, J.P., and C. Bates, with Mr. W. L. Beetenson (deputy clerk). Mr. John S. Mason was the military representative.
A boot and shoe manufacturer, aged 26, married, applied for exemption. Under the voluntary system, he said, he was rejected three times, on account of old injuries to his knees, which would prevent him marching. He had also been rejected at Coventry, but the medical board had now passed him for general service. Besides running his own factory he was also engaged at times in teaching “green” labour on the consol. Three of his brothers had joined the Colours, and he volunteered with them and was rejected. It was stated that applicant only started in business for himself when he had been rejected a third time. - Several of applicant’s workmen had been granted exemption until March 31st, and a similar exemption was given in this case.
An engineer to the boot trade, 28, married, had entered an appeal. A certificate was put in from the War Office to show that applicant was engaged in experiments connected with boots for the Army, and the case was adjourned.
On the direction of the military representatives at Kettering three months’ exemption was granted in the case of a married man, engaged in dispensing under the National Health Insurance Act.
A horse slaughterer applied for exemption for his son, 25, single, the only man he now had. His business, he said, extended for a radius of many miles, and was essential in the interests of the public. He was told that he must find a substitute. A fortnight’s exemption (final) was granted.
|Rushden Echo, 9th February 1917, transcribed by Kay Collins
An Appeal was made at the meeting of the Northants Appeals Tribunal on Monday by Mr. Harry Linnett, 39, married, fried fish dealer, whose appeal had been dismissed by the Local Tribunal. It was now stated that Linnett is working 40 hours a week in a shoe factory, and he was thereupon given three months' exemption, with leave to make a further appeal at the expiration of that time.
|Rushden Echo, 9th February 1917, transcribed by Kay Collins
Draper's Military Appeal - The Northamptonshire Appeals Tribunal on Monday considered an appeal by Mr. William Roe, of Rushden, aged 37, married, of the firm of Messrs. Roe Bros., drapers, High-street, Rushden. Applicant's brother, it was stated, has received conditional exemption. Since his appeal at Rushden was dismissed by the Local Tribunal, applicant has been examined by the Military Medical Board and passed in Category B3. — Three months' exemption was now granted, with leave to appeal again.
Rushden Echo, 16th February 1917, transcribed by Gill Hollis
Rushden Horse Slaughterer’s Appeal
Mr. J. C. Parker appealed for the exemption of Sidney Chettle (25, single), a horse keeper and horse slaughterer, in the employ of his father, George Chettle, Duck-street, Rushden, who also has a small farm and eight head of cattle. The Rushden Tribunal had granted 14 days (final).
Mr. Parker asked for further time, and put in a petition signed by 58 farmers, and also letters showing the military had no substitute to offer. The business would have to be given up if this man went.
Mr. Marlow: The largest business of this kind is carried on by ladies.
Mr. Parker: Yes, sir, in the management, but not in the handling and cutting up of carcases.
Exemption to March 9th (final).
Rushden Echo, 16th February 1917, transcribed by Gill Hollis
The Military Authorities And The Boot Manufacturers
At a sitting of the Rushden Tribunal on Monday 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 Mr. George S. Mason (hon clerk), and Mr. W. L. Beetenson (assistant clerk), and Mr. John S. Mason (military representative). Major Bramwell was also present.
A personal appeal on the ground that he is in a certified occupation was made by the foreman (aged 30, married) in the finishing department at a boot factory. Mr. J. S. Mason: I do not contest this case at all. He is in a certified occupation. Conditional exemption granted.
A milkman appealed for his stockman and milker (aged 30, married). The employer is physically unable to do the milking. – Conditional exemption.
A partner in an engineering firm made an appeal, and produced an order from the Government for a number of machines for perforating the broad arrow on Army boots. Applicant, aged 28, is married. Adjourned for medical examination.
An appeal on domestic grounds was made by a boot operative (28, married), whose wife is extremely ill. Exemption until March 31st.
A domestic appeal was made by a boot operative who has three brothers serving with the Forces, two others having been killed, and his father being blind. Applicant, who is trying to keep things going at home under exceedingly difficult circumstances, was given exemption until May 31st.
A tradesman (30, married), conducting his own business, was granted exemption until March 31st.
Shoe Trade Cases
Mr. Wilson, solicitor, of Kettering, appealed for a number of boot and shoe manufacturers, and on their behalf asked for exemption for some operatives under 31 years of age, who had been placed in categories lower than A, but who had not been medically examined when the lists were compiled under which such men were exempted until March 31st by arrangement between the boot manufacturers and the military authorities.
Mr. Wilson reminded the Tribunal that, under the arrangement referred to, no claims were to be made by the manufacturers for men under 31 years of age medically classified as fit for general service, with the exception of mechanics; and that all men over 31, and also all under 31 who are in categories B or C, were to be exempted. Unfortunately, the whole of the men had not at that time been medically examined, and consequently it had to be assumed that all such were in category A1. Since the lists were compiled, the men had been examined by the Medical Board, and the manufacturers were now appealing for all men in categories B and C. The manufacturers contended that such men came under the arrangement made with Captain Wright. Similar applications to this were being made in various parts of East Northants, and, in all, out of 700 men released, 50 were being applied for.
Mr. John Mason: These men, not having been medically examined, were assumed to be in class A1. They were therefore not indispensable. They gave us to understand that all men not on their lists were to go. The manufacturers thought such men were in class A, and now they find they are not, they say they are indispensable.
Mr. C. Bates: How many orders for boots have been issued by the War Office and the Admiralty since these lists were prepared?
Mr. Wilson: I cannot say.
In reply to Mr. John Mason, Mr. Wilson said: This is a give-and-take arrangement. We were to keep men who were in categories lower than A. Had these men been examined prior to the preparation of the lists they would be exempted under the arrangement. It was known that all the 700 men would not be fit medically for general service. It was understood by Captain Wright that a percentage of these men would be returned. Mr. Sharwood, who is here, can verify this.
Mr. Sharwood endorsed Mr. Wilson’s remarks in this respect.
The Tribunal then dealt with each case on its merits. In each case where a man was passed in class B1, the appeal was dismissed. In all the other cases exemption until March 31st was granted, bringing them into line with those on the lists.
A boot firm appealed for a mechanic (aged 27, married), passed class A1, and exemption was granted until March 31st.
Rushden Echo, 9th March 1917, transcribed by Gill Hollis
Interesting Cases From Rushden
Exemption For B1 Men
Mr J C Wilson appealed on behalf of employers for six shoe operatives from Rushden, who had – owing, it was urged, to lack of opportunity for classification – been regarded as A men in considering the position, but were now B1 men. B1 men, under the arrangements now under revision, were allowed to March 31st. The cases were as follow:
Harry Tyman (24, married), Irchester, puller-over, employed by Messrs. Sanders and Sanders, Rushden; Thomas William Denton (26, married), Rushden, ink-setter; Arthur Tyson (28, married), Rushden, pressman, employed by Messrs. John Cave & Sons, Ltd.; Daniel E. Tomlin (26, married), clicker, Rushden, and Arthur George Berrill (25, married), clicker, employed by Messrs. Jaques & Clark; and Francis Roddis (25, married); clicker, employed by Mr. Wm. Claridge.
Mr J A Gotch (the military representative) said these men had been released when they were supposed to be A men, as their employers considered they could be spared. Now that they had been found to be less physically fit, and been placed in a lower category, the employers seemed to think they were better able to do their work.
Mr J C Wilson pointed out that under an agreement between the manufacturers and the military authorities B1 men were exempt till March 31st, and he asked that these men should be allowed to stay until then.
Mr Gotch admitted that he did not see how the men could be got into the Army until March 31st, and the Tribunal granted a final certificate to that date.
|Rushden Echo, 16th March 1917, transcribed by Gill Hollis
Boot and Shoe Trade Cases
At a sitting of the Rushden Tribunal on Monday 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 Mr. George S. Mason (hon. clerk), Mr. W. L. Beetenson (assistant clerk), and Mr. John S. Mason (military representative).
A hairdresser, etc. (35, married), passed in C1, was granted three months’ exemption.
All the other cases dealt with were those of men under the age of 31 who had previously been granted exemption, but whose certificates had to be reviewed by order of the authorities.
In the case of the branch manager of a leather factor, who had been granted conditional exemption, the certificate was revised to exemption for two months. The principal of the firm has two sons (one at Rushden, and the other in the trenches), and he had no eligible men of military age in any of his branches. He did a considerable business in Army leathers, and had some big contracts still running.
A similar course was taken in the case of an engineer and fitter (26, married), the only turner in the employ of an engineering firm. It was stated that, owing to the employment of “green” labour in the factories, there were more breakdowns than ever.
In the case of a hand-laster (29, married), who had been exempted until March 31st, the certificate was allowed to remain unchanged, and the same course was taken in the following instances, in which exemption until March 31st had been given before: The manager of a grocery store, whose wife is critically ill; the only remaining partner in a retail business of considerable importance; the manager of a cycle and motor engineering works, with six retail depots; a currier and leather dresser (21, single); and an operator on a stitching and screwing machine for the trade, passed first in Class B1, afterwards, on re-examination, in B2.
The case of a fitter and plumber to the Gas Co. (25, single), B2, previously granted exemption until a substitute is found, was now adjourned until March 31st.
A horsekeeper and mineral water salesman (aged 20, single) C2, had his exemption reduced from May to March 31st.
A chemist’s assistant (23, married), has his exemption similarly reduced.
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, 20th April 1917, transcribed by Gill Hollis
Rushden Local Tribunal - Interesting Cases
Tuesday: present Messrs. T. Swindall (chairman), G. Miller, J.P., C.A., and C. Cross, C.C., with Mr. Geo. S. Mason (hon. clerk), and Mr. John S. Mason (military representative).
A master carpenter, plumber, painter, etc., (33, married), was given exemption until June 30th.
A mineral water manufacturer appealed for a man (21, single), passed in C2. Exemption until June 30th.
A firm of cardboard box manufacturers appealed for a departmental manager (30, married). The firm’s representative stated that they were engaged on direct Government work, and, with 61 females, they had only five males. Allowed until June 30th.
A heel maker, working for himself (35, married), appealed on business grounds, and also as a conscientious objector, basing his objection to war on the Ten Commandments. Granted to June 30th.
The case of a married man, 31, in business for himself, was adjourned.
An outfitter, tailor, etc., aged 39, in Category B1, appealed on the ground that his was a one-man business. It was stated that he was a first=class clicker. Exemption until June 30th on condition that he puts in half-time in factory at clicking.
A firm of boot manufacturers appealed for a clerk and cashier. As the man was classed C3, exemption was given until June 30th.
In one case a medical certificate was put in to the effect that the appellant was not well enough to appear. Adjourned.
A father appealed for exemption for his son (18, single) a pupil teacher, to enable him to sit for the Oxford Senior Examination in July next and thus obtain the necessary qualifications to admit him into the teaching profession after the war. The appeal was supported by a representative of the County Education Committee. It was stated that the youth is in a Cadet Corps, and is thus getting military training meanwhile. July 31st (final).
A boot manufacturer (30, married), in partnership with his brother, made an appeal and stated that he was acting as a foreman in one of the departments. His brother, passed C3, was not well enough to take full charge of the business. They were engaged wholly on Army work. Adjourned for a month.
An appeal on domestic grounds was made by a young man (21, single), who said his three brothers were serving and he was the only support of his widowed mother. The Chairman said that though this was a hard case the appeal would have to be dismissed on account of the applicant’s age.
An appeal was made for a screwing and stitching machine operator (29, married), B2, engaged on Army work. Allowed until June 30th.
A Co-operative Society appealed for a grocery stock-keeper (31, B2), who had charge of all the foodstuffs coming in. June 30th.
Exemption for 14 days (final) was granted in the case of a painter and house decorator, passed for general service.
An appeal for a sanitary plumber (38) was adjourned for a month.
An appeal of a currier (25, single), class A, was dismissed.
A firm of cardboard box manufacturers asked for exemption or the manager of the cutting room (33, married), the only man in the department. June 30th.
The appeal of a married man, 26, on domestic grounds was allowed until April 30th.
|Rushden Echo, April 27th 1917, transcribed by Kay Collins
Northants Appeals Tribunal
Interesting Cases from Rushden
Publican turns Clicker – The Teaching Staff
The County Tribunal sat on Tuesday at Northampton, Mr. Stopford Sackville presiding.
Mr. J. L. Holland, Clerk to the County Education Committee, supporting the appeal of John Dunbar (25, unmarried), of the Newton-road school, Rushden, the only male emergency teacher left to the committee, said the committee was endeavouring to arrange by substitution for the released of the three or four men left. A man discharged from the Army had reported for service, and he proposed, subject to the discretion of the committee, to use him in order to release an A man under 30. Mr. Dunbar was in category B1, and if he had to go it would be necessary to use the discharged man as substitute for Mr. Dunbar at Rushden Newton-road chool, and to retain the A man in his present post.—Three months’ open exemption was given, with an intimation that in that period arrangements should be made to release the man.
James Boyce (30), horsekeeper, stacker and thatcher, employed by Mr. Blackwell, was given exemption to June 1st.
Frank Wilkins (39), licensed victualler, Wagon and Horses Hotel, Rushden, also working part-time as a clicker, appealed from a decision of the Rushden Tribunal. Mr. A. J. Darnell supported the appeal.—Two months (open).
In the case of James F. Nix (26), married, watchmaker and jeweller, Rushden. Mr. J. Prentice (Northampton) appeared for the applicant, who asked for time to arrange for finishing the work in hand belonging to customers and for dealing with his stock. —Exemption to June 15 (final).
George Page (26), wheelwright and blacksmith, Rushden, was appealed for by his employer, Mr. Marriott, who said that to help matters he allowed this man to spend time each day in milking.—Exemption granted to June 1st (final).
Mr. George, solicitor, appeared for Albert J. Oliver (37, married), foreman clicker, Rushden. Mr. George said the employers, the Tecnic Boot Co., were in the arrangement with the military, which would come before Rushden Tribunal at the next meeting, when all their employees would be dealt with. It transpired that in the tentative arrangement Oliver would be retained by the company and one man named Knight, aged 36, released.—The case was adjourned for a fortnight.
|Rushden Echo, 4th May 1917, transcribed by Kay Collins
Appeal—Yesterday, at the Northants Appeals Tribunal, Charles H. S. Jones (18), journalist, Rushden, appealed for exemption on conscientious grounds. Appellant said he was opposed to war between nations because it was rushing to brutal barbarism. He based his objection to war on Socialism and the Christian teaching he had received. As a Sunday school teacher and church worker he could not reconcile Christianity and Socialism with warfare. The Rushden Tribunal reported that in their view his appeal was on purely political grounds. A member of the Tribunal: How long have you held these convictions? Appellant: Ever since I began to think for myself.—The appeal was dismissed. Appellant was granted leave to appeal to the Central Tribunal.
|Rushden Echo, 18th May 1917, transcribed by Kay Collins
Ironmonger’s Appeal—The Northamptonshire County Appeals Tribunal on Monday were asked to reverse the decision of the Rushden Local Tribunal in refusing to grant further exemption in the case of J. Lindsey Clipson, a partner in the firm of Messrs. Clipson Bros., ironmongers and builders’ merchants, Rushden. Applicant is 24 years of age, and single, carrying out, in addition to his business, the duties of organist of the Park-road Baptist Church, Rushden. It was stated that the other partner in the firm, Mr. Harold Clipson, joined the colours in 1915, and further, that there is now no other ironmongery business in the town—Exemption was granted until July 15th, final. Mr. Williams, solicitor, appeared to support the application.
|Rushden Argus, 25th May 1917, transcribed by Kay Collins
Rushden Tribunal - Hairdresser Exempted
Mr. E. J. Woolston, hairdresser and tobacconist (33 married), Wellingborough-road, Rushden, said it would be impossible to obtain a manager. He had been passed “A” but went with two others who were passed “A” and have since been discharged from the Army. He had had the business for four years, and it was one of the oldest established in the town.—Two months.
15th June 1917
Personal Appeals By Shoe Trade Employees
Non-Combatant Service for Conscientious Objector
Monday, present Messrs. T. Swindall (chairman), F. Knight, J.P., Geo. Miller, J.P., C.A., and C. Cross, C.C., with Mr. Geo S. Mason (clerk) and Mr. John S. Mason (military representative).
Lieut. Miles, recruiting officer for the district, attended the Tribunal.
Mr. Ingle, leather merchants, Leeds, appealed for his son, Robert Ingle, married, the manager of the Rushden branch, and stated that they were supplying leather almost exclusively for Army work. His son was putting in five or six hours a day motor ploughing. – Exemption for three months, subject to the motor ploughing being continued on an average of five hours a day.
The proprietor of “The Rushden Echo” appealed for Bernard Tomkins, sub-editor, reporter, etc., category Ci, a corporal in the Volunteers, the only man left on that side of the business, and showed that Gen. Geddes, Director of Recruiting, held that it was essential on public grounds that sufficient men should be left for the proper continuance of weekly newspapers. – Three months’ exemption.
The same applicant appealed for W. S. Middleton, stone-hand and maker-up, a certified occupation. – Two months, final.
A personal appeal was made by Charles James Payne (29, married), living at Irchester, foreman in the rough-stuff room at Messrs. James Hyde’s factory, Rushden. The case was adjourned until June 19th, in order to see the result of appeals in similar cases to the County Tribunal.
The same course was adopted in the following cases:- Fred Spencer, foreman clicker; Percy Evans; Thomas Sidney Perkins (41, single), Railway Hotel, a clicker at Messrs. E. Claridge’s; Arthur Cartwright, 34, married, bottom squasher; Frank Horsford, 33, boot repairer and stitcher; John Hibbins, 33, married, a clicker on Government work for Messrs. Nurrish & Pallett; Fredk. Barwick, 42, single, B1, laster for Mr. G. Selwood; Herbert Clayton, 34, edge-setter, etc.; Horace Penness, 26, married, operator on Hercules levelling machine; and Frank Lewis, 31, married, sole attacher on Army work.
Two months’ final exemption was granted in the case of George Reeves, category A, who appealed on the ground of his wife’s ill-health.
William Knightall, 32, class A, made a person appeal. The Chairman said there were not sufficient grounds for the personal appeal, but the employer’s appeal would go to the County Tribunal.
Three months’ exemption was granted to Wm. James Neville, newsagent, etc., 31, married.
Horace George Sanders, 32, married, clicker on Army boots, appealed on the grounds of his wife’s health. – Dismissed; the employer’s appeal coming before the County Tribunal.
Mr. W. W. George, solicitor, Wellingborough, appealed for Fredk. Arthur Perkins, boot manufacturer at Abington-Avenue, Northampton, and also foreman at Messrs. Cave’s factory, Rushden. He was 30 years of age, married. Medically rejected in the first instance, he had now passed B1, and on his rejection he started as a manufacturer in a small way. A medical certificate was put in from Dr. Milligan. – Adjourned for medical re-examination.
Robert Ernest Fensom appealed for his son, aged 18, operator on Pull-over. He had four sons serving, and this son was helping on allotments. – Exemption until October 30th.
The Co-operative Society appealed for Alfred J. Odell, baker, B2. – Exemption until the military authorities provide a substitute. Similar appeals were made by two other master bakers, Mr. Wright and Mr. Tilley, and were treated in the same way.
A personal appeal was made by Francis Glidle, 30, single. Five brothers joined the Colours, two having been killed; applicant is the only son at home, and his father is blind. – Three months.
An appeal on conscientious grounds was made on behalf of T. A. C. Hurst, 18, pressman, by his father, who said the lad belonged to the Salvation Army and would take any form of service except combatant. The boy believed there was no law, moral or divine, which justified war. – The Tribunal granted a certificate of exemption from combatant service, and Hurst asked that he might be put into Red Cross work. Lieut. Miles: That must be left to the posting officer. The Chairman: We hope they will put him into Red Cross work.
Three months’ exemption was granted to Bertram Booth, 38, B1, chief clerk at the M.R. goods depot at Rushden.
W. H. Dix, baking powder manufacturer, 37, married, C3, was granted three months’ exemption.
Rushden Echo, 22nd June 1917, transcribed by Gill Hollis
Rushden Tribunal - Protests Against Military Treatment
Shoe Trade Cases again Adjourned
A meeting of this Tribunal was held on Tuesday night at the Council Chambers, when there were present Messrs. T. Swindall (chairman), F. Knight, and G. Miller, with the Clerk (Mr. G. S. Mason) and Mr. J. S. Mason as military representative.
Mr. Knight introduced the subject of the way in which the Tribunal was treated by the military authorities. It seemed to him that it was a waste of time for them to sit there. That Committee was appointed with the idea that everybody in the town should be represented – the Labour party, shoe manufacturers, shopkeepers and the traders generally – and they had to consider fairly the cases that came before them, both from a business standpoint and in regard to the hardships which might fall on individuals. With regard to the trade in the district, he did not complain on the whole as he thought they were treated with a fair amount of consideration for a time. Recently, however, the case had completely altered. In dealing with cases now, some people might think the Tribunal were a little more severe than need be, but they had to have regard to the need of the Army for men. But at their last meeting the military appealed against every case. If the opinion of the Tribunal were of so little importance, it looked as if their work had come to an end, and that it was useless to sit there. He saw Mr. Bates that morning and he took the same view exactly.
The Chairman said he quite agreed with the remarks of Mr. Knight. It seemed as if every decision they arrived at was appealed against. If they gave time to an applicant the military appealed, and if they dismissed an appeal the military gave time. He thought the Tribunal should strongly protest. Their work had not been agreeable work, but they had done their best, and for his own part if things were to go on the same he would have to resign his position.
Mr. Miller was of quite the same opinion. They had always had in view the requirements of the military authorities, while they had done their best to consider the position of those who appealed to them.
It was unanimously agreed that a protest against the treatment of the Tribunal should be sent to the Local Government Board, and the Chairman announced that all the cases which had been adjourned from the last meeting would be again adjourned till the Tribunal got a satisfactory reply from the Local Government Board.
Mr. D. Elliott, representing the County Education Committee, attended to support appeals on behalf of two local school teachers – George Wills (30), acting headmaster at the National School and Harold Hales (30), of Hayway School. He stated that the Education Committee had tried to get five substitutes, but had only been able to get two.
The Chairman: We cannot have the schools left without a headmaster.
Mr. Elliott said Mr. Saddler was practically in charge of two schools.
Mr. Knight: You can’t get some of the older teachers back I suppose – those who joined up early?
Mr. Elliott: I’m afraid not; they seem to find them useful.
Mr. J. S. Mason: But the Education Authority appeal for all men of any age. I think you ought to set a better example.
Mr. Elliott: The Education Committee encouraged all young men of the staff to join up, but the staff has now been so reduced that there are hardly enough to work the schools, and the Committee are forced to appeal.
The Chairman: Well, we cannot, as a Tribunal, send these men into the Army until substitutes can be provided. Temporary exemption will be granted unless substitutes are found by the military authorities.
Rushden Echo, 29th June 1917, transcribed by Gill Hollis
Rushden & Higham Ferrers Cases
Farm Workers not to be Called Up
Latest War Office Instruction
Forty-six cases were down for hearing at the County Appeals’ Tribunal at Northampton on Friday last, Brixworth with twelve cases and Rushden with eight being most productive. Sixteen of the appeals were military ones. There were present: Colonel Stopford Sackville (in the chair), Sir Charles V. Knightley, Sir Ryland Adkins, M.P., Mr. A. E. Marlow, Mr. O. Parker, Captain Cook (military representative), Mr. Woods (agricultural representative).
Captain Cook mentioned the receipt of instructions that men who are certified by the War Agricultural Committee as having been on the land whole time since March 31st will not be called up for the present. Under these circumstances it was agreed that certified cases in the Tribunal list should stand adjourned while this instruction is in force. A number of cases were then dealt with by adjourning them for certificates to be produced from the War Agricultural Committee.
Messrs. Holt Bros., farmers of Teeton and Higham Park, near Rushden, resisted the military appeal against the exemption of Frank L. Lundie, aged 20, single, the only man in charge of seven horses on the Teeton farm. It was stated that there were four brothers on the farm, all of military age, and only one had offered himself for service.
In answer to Sir Charles Knightley, one of the members of the firm said he was not ashamed to ask for Lundie, as he thought he and his brothers were serving their country in producing food. – July 31st (final).
The cases of five Rushden foremen, who had made personal appeals, were considered together: Arthur G. Bradshaw, Edward H. Morgan, and Thomas A. Austin, for whom Mr. George appeared; and Arthur G. Knight and Walter Mayes, for whom Mr. Darnell appeared.
It was said that the five cases would come before the Tribunal next Tuesday with other shoe cases. The appeals were adjourned for a week.
Joseph Edward James (33, single, A), butcher, Rushden, appealed for an extension of the Rushden Tribunal’s allowance to June 30th (final). Mr. A. J. Darnell supported the case.
Questions were asked as to the man’s brother (a butcher at Chelveston) being able to carry on this business, but J. E. James did not think it possible. – August 1st (final).
Rushden Boot Manufacturer
Sidney Robinson (30, married), who is partner with his brother in a shoe manufacturing business at Rushden, and also acts as a working foreman, asked for exemption. He declared that the business run by his father and two brothers over military age had nothing to do with this business. It was impossible for the brother Roland to carry on without him. They had a contract for the Russian ankle boot.
Mr. Parker: Remember, you are under heavy penalties if the contract is not finished to time.
The applicant said that the Government had promised them further work. They had 41 employees, and turned out 700 or 800 pairs a week.
Mr. Marlow: You work jolly hard then.
Exemption granted to July 31st (final).
Working Partner at Rushden
An appeal against the decision of the Rushden Tribunal was made by Horace C. C. Knight (29, married), foreman and partner in the firm of Knight & Lawrence, boot manufacturers, Rushden.
Mr. George (Messrs. Morgan & George) appeared, and claimed that his client was unfit for general service. He was practically a cripple. Moreover, he had recently injured his left hand, by which his thumb was badly injured and could not be used.
The appeal was dismissed.