The first Local Tribunal of 1917 took place at the Clerk’s Office on Thursday evening, 4 January, when the usual members were joined by Mr A Hazeldine, secretary to the Raunds Manufacturers’ Association, Mr J C Wilson, solicitor, and Captain Wright, recruiting officer.  

Captain Wright explained the arrangements that had been come to between the Manufacturers’ Federation and the recruiting authorities whereby all men, married or single, Class A, under the age of 31 years, were to be released, with the exception of a few cases where men should be temporarily retained to teach other labour. The arrangement covered everybody in the shoe trade, whether partners, directors, clerks, or managers. Hitherto there had been a different agreement between operatives and others, and it was thought that in releasing a percentage of men favouritism had existed. He asked the Tribunal to confirm the arrangements that had been made.  

Mr Wilson also spoke on behalf of the manufacturers and with respect to the friendly relations that existed between the Federation and Capt Wright. The lists of the various firms were gone through and generally accepted. Other cases for consideration were:   A farmer appealed for two men, both married, 29 years of age, the appeal in both cases being dismissed, the men to be retained until substitutes were provided. Another farmer appealed for his two sons, both single, one 22 and the other 20 years of age; the appeal for the eldest was dismissed, as was that of the youngest, but with the man to be retained until a substitute was provided.  

A smallholder and poultry farmer, 27 years of age, appealed, and the case was dismissed. The District Co-operative Society appealed for two men, both married, one a coal carter and the other a cowman. The former was given exemption until 31 January and the latter was dismissed, the man to be retained until a substitute was provided.   A smallholder and laundryman, 32 years, married, was exempted to 31 March. A young man, 18 years and 7 months, made a personal appeal. His father had been a prisoner of war since 15 May, 1915, and he was the only son. The appeal was dismissed.  

A carrier, married, who had recently sold his business and now worked in a shoe factory, was exempted to 31 March, as were: a motor and cycle agent, 41 years, married; a cycle agent and repairer of boot machines, 39 years; a cartage contractor, 30 years, married, Class B1; and a hairdresser and tobacconist, two businesses, 33 years of age.  

Finally, the Gas Co appealed for their fitter and mechanic, 32, married; and a firm of grocers appealed for their assistant, 36 years, married, Class C2. Both were also exempted until 31 March.   

On Wednesday, 17 January, the local boot and shoe industry received a body blow with the announcement by the Government that they had revised the list of certified occupations in the trade. With effect from 1 February foremen under 27, married, and under 30, single, would no longer be designated as “certified”; likewise, any other class of workmen in these categories, whatever his age, would no longer be certified.
 
Also today, at the latest meeting of the Thrapston Rural District Tribunal, held at the Workhouse, a Stanwick clicker, working at Raunds, 31, married, asked for exemption until 31 March on domestic grounds. It was stated that this case appeared to come under the arrangement made with the military authorities and one month (final) was granted. On hearing this, the appellant said “Thank you very much. I am quite willing to join up in a month” to which a Tribunal member replied “That’s a very nice spirit”.

Meanwhile, a Chelveston boot and shoe operative, 29, married, employed at Raunds, also appealed for temporary exemption on domestic grounds (the state of his wife’s health). He had organised a War Savings Club at the factory, there were 128 members, and he was secretary. He was an ambulance man, and should like to join the RAMC when his wife’s health was restored. He was given a two month exemption.

The Raunds Tribunal met on Thursday evening, 18 January, those present being Messrs John Adams, JP CC, A Camozzi, G E Smith, W Gates, E Batchelor, W Asbery, J Hodson, W Agutter, W F Corby (Clerk), and J Shelmerdine, JP, (military representative).  

A motor mechanic and agent, appealed for his son, single, 18y7m, who was an instructor in the Flying School at Hendon, and was also finishing his training as a pilot. This was considered for some length, and eventually adjourned for a fortnight.

The appeal of a milk vendor, 28, married, who was confined to his bed owing to an accident, was also adjourned, this for a month so that the appellant could attend. A carter and general agricultural labourer, 39, married with four children, was given exemption to 30 April, as was the branch manager of a grocery and provisions store, 40, married, and passed for B1.  

A boot operative, released by agreement with the manufacturers and military authorities, appealed personally. He was a married man, 28, with one child. His wife was in consumption, and unable to get upstairs without help. The case was adjourned, the applicant to present a medical certificate to the next meeting.

Another operative and mechanic, released by his employer, who was also a cycle agent, appealed on business grounds and was given 14 days exemption to allow him to get examined and to clear up his business if passed as Class A. A blacksmith appealed for his son, single, 29, the only one he employed. He had been medically examined and passed for C2. He was given exemption until 30 April.  

A boot manufacturer appealed for two men released by agreement with the military authorities, who had been examined and sent back as Class B1. They were given until 31 March, the same as the other factory employees. A single man, 32, appealed on conscientious grounds – he had been a member of the “No Conscription Fellowship” since its foundation. His appeal was dismissed!  

Finally, another manufacturer appealed for an employee who had been released, and on examination was passed in Class B2; he was given exemption until 31 March.

At the County Tribunal held at Northampton on Friday, 19 January, there was a protest at the latest War Office directives on certified occupations in the boot and shoe trade by Mr James Gribble, a member of the Executive Council of the National Union of Boot and Shoe Operatives. Mr Gribble suggested that the new instructions should be entirely ignored “if a manufacturer showed that the taking of a particular man into the Army would stop an important machine, and thereby jeopardise the output of the factory!”

The Local Tribunal met again in the Clerk’s office on the evening of Thursday, 1 February, with Mr John Adams, JP CC, in the chair, when another host of appeals were presented for consideration.  

A farmer appealed for three of his employees, all married: a waggoner and stockman, 32; a yardman and stockman, 37, with only one eye; and a horsekeeper, 29, class C3. The former was exempted until 1 May, while the other two were granted conditional exemptions.  

A lift manufacturer, married, 31, and a grocer and general dealer, 29, married, a one-man business, were both given until 31 March; an organist and music teacher, 41, married, was given until 30 April on the condition that he then undertook work of national importance.  

A firm of grocers, provision merchants and butchers appealed for five of their employees: a butcher and slaughterman, 25, married; a store manager, 33, married; a manager and buyer of a drapery department, 37, married; a manager and buyer of a grocery and provisions department, 39, married; and a baker and bread deliverer, 41, married. Exemption for all was granted to 31 March, the employers to make some arrangements in the case of the first two, and the other three to be examined by the Army Medical Board.  

An employer appealed for his chemist and druggist, single, 25, who was given exemption until 31 March, or earlier if a suitable substitute was provided. A boot manufacture appealed for a married man, 24, employed on a Consul Laster. The man had been passed for class C3 and was given until 31 March.  

Also granted exemptions until this date were: a machine sawyer and joiner, 35, married, employed by a firm of builders and contractors; a boot manufacturer’s hand laster, 37, married, passed for B2, and a machine welt sewer, 27, single; and a manufacturer’s chauffeur and gardener, 38, married.  

Finally, a firm of grocers and drapers appealed for their vanman deliverer, 36, married, who was given three months exemption.
 
At the Rural Tribunal held at the Thrapston Workhouse on Wednesday, 7 February, the case of the Thrapston bank cashier and ledger-keeper, aged 36, who for five days each week was in charge of the Raunds sub-branch, was again considered. It was mentioned that a junior clerk had just joined the forces, leaving the Thrapston manager with only two lady clerks (in addition to the cashier being appealed for). Conditional exemption was granted until 30 June.        

The cases of several Raunds men were presented at the County Tribunal on Friday, 9 February:  

Jonas Allen, 27, married, smallholder; this man had had several exemptions, but the Raunds Tribunal refused the last application. The applicant said he farmed fourteen and a half acres, all depending on his own energy. He had 36 pigs at the present time. He was granted final exemption until 28 February.  

Harry Sibley, 30, married, and Enos Owen Coles, 29, married, both mechanics. These appeals were made by the employers of the two men. Sibley was employed by messrs Taylor and Co, and Coles by Messrs John Hollowell and Sons. Mr J C Wilson, Kettering, appeared in both cases, which were taken together.  

Sibley, it was explained, looked after the gas engine and electric installation, gas plant, etc, and did machine repairs. Coles was described as a capable mechanic, and kept the machines in order. Mr Wilson said that there was an agreement between the recruiting officer and the Manufacturers’ Federation that mechanics under 31, if the only one in the factory, should be exempted not later than 31 March. The Raunds Tribunal refused exemption to both men, on the ground that they were not mechanics within the meaning of the agreement between the manufacturers and the recruiting officer.  

Mr Wilson said that the Shoe Manufacturers’ Federation would probably shortly apply to the tribunals to review the cases where certificates were renewed. Mr Gotch said “It is a fact that I am shortly going to appeal against all these men exempted. Unless I am otherwise instructed, I am not going to appeal against mechanics in this revision, but against every operative.” Sir Ryland Adkins asked “Have you gentlemen considered employing one of these men jointly and releasing the other for the Army?” Mr Taylor said that his engine was overloaded, and the man had to be at it about every quarter of an hour.  

The Court postponed the case for two hours to enable the employers to confer on the Chairman’s suggestion. After the luncheon interval it was reported that in these cases the employers considered it impracticable for one man to serve them both. The Tribunal gave two months’ exemption (final) to both men, and advised the employers to train men to take their place.    

The Raunds Appeals Tribunal was next held at the Council School on Monday evening, 21 February, when Mr T Warth, agricultural representative, joined the usual collective.  

Before the business commenced the Clerk informed the members that their chairman, Mr John Adams, had been appointed a magistrate for the county, and the members congratulated Mr Adams upon his appointment. Mr Adams thanked them for their congratulations.  

The Clerk reported that the decisions of the County Tribunal with respect to three appeals against their decisions had come to hand. One had been given to 30 June; one to 1 June; and the other one had been dismissed.  

With respect to one of the appeals, the Chairman said that neither himself nor his firm had had anything to do with it. When the man asked him about it he told him that he was released according to age, and that he would be no party to the breaking of the agreement. He wished the members to know this, because he (the chairman) had heard it was said that he was at the back of the man’s appeal, which was without foundation, as they had taken no steps whatsoever.  

A farmer appealed for his assistant, 18, Class A, the only one employed on the farm. The man looked after three horses. He had over 150 ewes and lambs on the farm; exempted for fourteen days (final). A farmer and milk vendor, 38, B1, farming 31 acres, with four horses, 12 head of cattle, pigs, and poultry, was exempted to 31 July. A farmer appealed for his milkman, married, 40, with five children; exempted to 31 July.  

The military asked for the review of a certificate of an agricultural labourer who had been granted conditional exemption. He was a married man, 40 years of age, with eleven children; exemption to 31 July was granted. A personal appeal was made by a man who was rejected when attested, and had never received a pink form. He asked for time to be examined by the Medical Board, and a month was granted.  

A sorter in a boot factory, 31, appealed. He had four children under four years, his wife was lame, and one child suffered with paralysis. The case was adjourned for consideration with the other boot factory cases. A firm of boot manufacturers appealed for four men: one 18, single, C2; one 28, married, C3; another 39, married; and the other 29, married, Class A. The first three were adjourned to be considered with the factory cases, and the latter was dismissed.  

Another employer appealed for a factory hand, married, 38, and this was also adjourned to the next meeting.   Finally, a letter was read from the War Office with respect to the release of men in the lower categories, and a copy was ordered to be sent to the secretary of the Raunds Manufacturers’ Association and to the general secretary of the Boot and Shoe Operatives’ Union asking them to submit the names of men in the lower classes.      

Four Raunds foremen appeared before the County Tribunal on Friday, 9 March: George William Knighton, 30, married, foreman clicker and pattern cutter, employed by Messrs Adams Bros; Arthur B Pettit, 28, married, foreman and mechanic, employed by the St Crispin’s Productive Society; and Percy Cuthbert, 27, married, foreman of the machine room and Ernest Frederick Pentelow, foreman of the clicking room, employed by Mr Owen Smith.  

These were all general service men making their personal appeals. They were all represented by Mr J C Wilson who said they were engaged on work of national importance, but they were released under the agreement with the manufacturers. Knighton was also a teacher at boot making classes run by the County Council, and his case was adjourned for a month. The other appeals, however, were dismissed.  

At the Raunds Tribunal held in the Wesleyan Schoolrooms on Thursday, 15 March, a review of exemption certificates was carried out. The usual members were joined by Messrs J A Gotch, JP, of Kettering, military representative; J C Wilson, of Kettering, solicitor to the Manufacturer’s Association; and A Hazeldine, secretary of the Raunds Manufacturer’s Association, and a large number of men whose certificates were being reviewed.  

Questions were asked by two members on how it was that young fellows, whose appeals they dismissed two months ago, had not been called up yet. They, as members of the Tribunal, were constantly being confronted with the question “How is it that so and so is still here when older men have had to go?” The Tribunal had dismissed cases, and if the men had not been called up the Tribunal ought to know the reason, if there was any, why they had not gone.  

On the subject of Agricultural Work, the Chairman said that he understood there were 250 men available at Northampton for agricultural work, 75 had already been sent out leaving 175. He asked could not some of these be sent to Raunds to release some of the single fit men? - Mr Gotch promised to look into the matter.

The Chairman then explained that the meeting had been called to review the certificates of men under military age employed in the boot trade, as requested by the military authorities, and called upon Mr Gotch to make a statement. Mr Gotch read a statement for the reasons of making applications for the revision of all men conditionally exempted to 31 March in Categories A and B1, except foremen.  

Mr J C Wilson followed with a short statement on the position of the manufacturers. He was sure that the local military authorities did not like to take this step, and they had no complaint against Mr Gotch. He asked them to deal with the applications in the same way as the other Tribunals, and to defer their decisions until every man had been before the Medical Board, so that they would be in a position to know what categories they were in.  

The meeting was then adjourned until the men had been examined. The Chairman thanked Mr Gotch for his presence, and was glad to know that no blame was attached to the local military authorities.  

On the following day, Friday, 16 March, Sydney George Stanton, 22, single, a horse-keeper of Raunds, appeared before the County Tribunal. This was an appeal by his father and employer, Mr Nathaniel Stanton, farmer. Mr J Prentice appeared for the appellant and conditional exemption was granted under the substitution clause.  

At the Local Tribunal held on Thursday, 22 March, the following cases were considered upon an application for review by the military authorities: A farm bailiff, 33, married; a horse-keeper, 28, married, who also does the ploughing and looks after the agricultural machinery; a married farmer, 37, farming 350 acres; a horse-keeper, 25, married, who looks after 14 working horses and two extra for carting purposes; a butcher, 36, married; a pork butcher, 32, married; a baker and confectioner, 34, married; a gas stoker, 39, married; and a currier, married. All were given conditional exemption until 30 June, and to be medically examined in the first eight cases, and the latter was granted absolute exemption, the man producing a birth certificate proving that he had passed his 43rd year.  

Six cases were then considered upon application for review called for by the Army Council: A butcher, married, 25, had his conditional exemption reduced to one month final; a cartage contractor and car proprietor, 30, married, Class B1, was exempted to 30 April; a grocer and general dealer, married, 30, Class A, was exempted to 31 May final; a chemist and druggist, 25, single, B1, was given until 30 April or earlier if a substitute could be provided; a blacksmith, 28, single, Class C2, was exempted to 30 June; and a gas stoker, 28, married, was exempted until 30 April, or earlier if substituted. All men were to be examined by the Army Medical Board.  

A farmer appealed for a young man, 18, single, the only one he had beside a boy of 12 years, who does the milking and looked after the stock – exemption was granted until a substitute was provided. Another farmer appealed for an assistant who managed the farm, and looked after the horses, and did the ploughing – as he was 18 and single, the case was adjourned for a month for him to go before the Army Medical Board. A firm of curriers appealed for one of their employees, married, 39, who was given conditional exemption to 30 June, and to be medically examined in the meantime.  

A plumber and house decorator appealed for his son, married, 32, Class A, the only employee he had and who managed the business. The man was given conditional exemption until 30 April. A hairdresser and tobacconist, 28 married, appealed; he had been rejected twice, and was now passed for Class C1 – he received three month’s conditional exemption. A firm of boot manufacturers appealed for a hand sewer who was given exemption to 31 March.  

A personal appeal was made by a young married man, 27, a foreman in a boot factory, on the ground that he was in a certified occupation; he could work all the machines in the room, and when any of the men were away he could keep their machines going – his case was dismissed. Finally, an assistant overseer appealed for his clerk, 36, married, with four children, and was granted exemption to 30 April, the man to be medically examined in the meantime.      

A week later, on Thursday, 29 March, the Local Tribunal met again and a letter was read from the secretary of the National Union of Boot and Shoe Operatives with reference to the release of C2 and C3 men to take the place of the general service men who were being called up. The suggestion was approved. The Military Representative stated that he had been instructed to press for the release of all men in the boot trade in Classes A and B1, for school teachers in Classes A and B1 under 31, and for those in all other occupations passed in Classes A, B1, B2, C1 and C2. A number of cases were then reviewed:
 
A farmer, married, 34, farming 460 acres, who did his own milking and shepherding was given exemption until 30 September; a baker, corn and offal dealer and farmer, married, 36, was also exempted for a similar period. The Co-Operative Society appealed for their butcher and bread deliverer, married, 41, Class B1; the manager of their grocery and provisions store, married, 40, C1; the manager of their drapery and outfitting department, married, 37, B1; and the manager of their branch grocery store, married, 33, A1. Exemptions were granted in the first three cases to 30 June and in the last case to 30 April, for other arrangements to be made.
 
A blacksmith appealed for the only employee he had, married, 37, and exemption was granted to 30 June; a motor and cycle agent, married, 41; a cycle agent and repairer of boot machinery, married, 39; and a tailor and outfitter, married, 36, with seven children, were all also exempted until 30 June; as was a grocer’s and draper’s assistant, married, 36, Class C1.
 
A firm of builders and contractors appealed for their carpenter, sawyer, joiner and machinist, married, 35, out of the 14 they employed of military age he was the only one they had appealed for – exemption to 31 May was granted. A boot heel manufacturer, married, 32, busy on work for the Allied Governments, also the sole support of his widowed mother; a master butcher and slaughterman, married, 35; and a laundryman and small holder, married, 33, were also exempted until 31 May.
 
The Gas Company appealed for their fitter and mechanic, married, 32; and a general labourer and gardener appealed on personal grounds, he was a widower, 39, with four little girls, one of whom was partly a cripple, the housekeeper, his sister, was also in a delicate state of health – exemption for both was granted to 30 June.
Finally, the boot factory cases, of which the military authorities had asked for a review, seeing that the period of exemption expired on 31 March, were all discussed. All the applicants for exemption who had not been examined by the Army Medical Board were requested to be so before they made a further appeal.
 
At the County Tribunal on Thursday, 12 April, George William Knighton, 30, married, made a personal appeal on the grounds that he was the only technical instructor in the shoe trade in the Raunds district – his open exemption was extended to 1 June.
 
Two other town men also made appearances in front of the committee: Thomas Hasseldine, 27, married, a lasting room foreman. This was an appeal referred from the Raunds Tribunal and was supported by Mr W W James. The ground of the appeal was that the man was in a reserved occupation and Mr James said that the applicant felt aggrieved that other men in the same factory not being in reserved occupations were allowed to remain in work. However, the appeal was dismissed in the hope that the Local Tribunal would reconsider this case with the other shoe cases next week.
 
John Baker, 30, married, a grocer and hardware dealer, was supported by Mr James Prentice who asked that the finality of the Raunds exemption to 31 May should be removed. He added that the man started in business before the war and asked for more time to make arrangements so that his business could be carried on in his absence. The final exemption was duly extended to 30 June.
 
The Local Tribunal next met on Monday, 23 April, in the Council Schools with Mr John Adams, JP CC, in the chair. Before the business commenced the Clerk informed the members that their chairman had been appointed a magistrate for the county, and the members congratulated Mr Adams upon his appointment – Mr Adams in turn thanked them for their congratulations.
 
The Clerk reported that the decision of the County Tribunal with respect to three appeals against their decisions had come to hand. One had been given to 30 June; one to 1 June; and the other one had been dismissed. With respect to one of the appeals, the Chairman said that neither himself nor his firm had had anything to do with it. When the man asked him about it he told him that he was released according to age, and that he would be no party to the breaking of the agreement. He wished the members to know this, because he (the chairman) had heard it was said that he was at the back of the man’s appeal, which was without foundation as they had taken no steps whatever.
 
A farmer appealed for his assistant, 18, Class A, the only one employed on the farm. The man looked after three horses. He had 150 ewes and lambs on the farm. The man was exempted for fourteen days (final). A farmer and milk vendor, 38, B1, farming 31 acres, with four horses, 12 head of cattle, pigs, and poultry, was exempted to 31 July. A farmer appealed for his milkman, married, 40, with five children – exemption was also granted to 31 July.
 
The military representative asked for the review of a certificate of an agricultural labourer who had been granted conditional exemption. He was a married man, 40 years of age, with eleven children. Exemption was granted to 31 July. A personal appeal was made by a man who was rejected when attested, and had never received a pink form. He asked for time to be examined by the Medical Board and one month was granted.
 
A sorter in a boot factory, 31, appealed. He had four children under four years, his wife was lame, and one child suffered with paralysis. His case was adjourned for consideration with the other boot factory cases. A firm of boot manufacturers appealed for four men: one 18, single, C2; one 28, married, C3; another 39, married; and the other 29, married, Class A. The first three were adjourned to be considered with the factory cases, and the latter was dismissed. Another employer appealed for a factory hand, married, 38, and this was also adjourned to the next meeting.
 
Finally, a letter was read from the War Office with respect to the release of men in the lower categories, and a copy was ordered to be sent to the secretary of the Raunds Manufacturers’ Association, and to the general secretary of the Boot and Shoe Operatives’ Union, asking them to submit the names of men in the lower classes.  

The Local Tribunal met again on Wednesday, 2 May, when a letter was read from Mr E L Poulton, general secretary of the Boot Operatives’ Union, stating that the letter sent to him by the Tribunal with respect to the release of men in lower categories had been sent to the local officials at Rushden.  

Mr Wilson (on behalf of the Manufacturers’ Federation) said that last time he was before them he came with an arrangement by the manufacturers and the military authorities; this time he was not able to present any arrangement. He asked them to accept the principle as accepted by the neighbouring Tribunals of Kettering, Desborough, and Rothwell.  

He asked for conditional exemption for men below category B1 of all ages and occupations, temporary exemption to the end of June for all married men over 35 (without finality condition), conditional exemption for foremen and mechanics over 27 married and 30 single.   

A joint committee of the Manufacturers and the Boot Operatives’ Union had met, and had decided to release two-thirds of the men in Class A and B1, and to ask for one-third of the men found to be indispensable, which Mr Wilson remarked was a very elastic term and difficult to decide. Mr Wilson emphasised that fact that it was on the assumption that they were allowed the one-third that they were prepared to release the others.  

After the statement by Mr Wilson, several questions were asked, after which Mr Gates proposed that only one-third be released, but did not find a seconder. Mr Agutter then moved that the suggestion as put forward by Mr Wilson be accepted, and this was carried.  

All the lists were then gone through, and the following men were released: R Coggins and Sons Ltd, 4 and one a month final; W Lawrence, 5; Neal and Gates, 1 and one a month final; C E Nichols, 3; Regulation Boot Co, 5; Owen Smith, 3; St Crispin Productive Society, 5; Tebbut and Hall Bros Ltd, 2 and one a month final; Adams Bros, 8.  

There were four other cases for consideration. Mr Wilson appealed on behalf of a manufacturer who was unable to attend. The appeal was on behalf of a cashier, secretary, manager, and foreman (31, married). They had lost two partners from the business, and this man had to superintend the management of the rooms in addition to his ordinary work. Three months exemption granted.  

Another firm of manufacturers appealed for their clerk and foreman (32, married), who had the management of the factory, including the buying etc. Three months exemption granted.  

Yet another firm of manufacturers appealed for their chief and confidential clerk, bookkeeper, and manager of the office (33, married), who was responsible for 3,300 invoices and a wage expenditure of over £32,000 a year. Three of their staff were now serving. The same firm appealed for their works manager, mechanic etc (married, 36), who had the supervision of all the machines in the factory. Two months exemption was granted in each case. It was suggested to the firm’s representative that they arrange to release one of them at the end of that period.

The Local Tribunal met again just 8 days later, on Thursday, 10 May, and the Clerk reported that the military had appealed to the County Tribunal against all those exempted in Classes A and B1, and the manufacturers had appealed for those they had agreed to give up if the military authorities did not appeal against the others.   There were 141 appeals in the first case and 40 in the latter, making a total of 181 appeals lodged against their decisions at the last meeting. Mr Camozzi said that it was not fair for them to sit for four or five hours and then for the military authorities to appeal wholesale, after they had considered the cases on their merits.  

Other Appeals: the first case for consideration was the review of a certificate, asked for by the military authorities, with respect to a farmer’s son (single, 21), who on 4 January was given exemption until a substitute was provided. This was dismissed, and it was decided to point out to the military that the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for them to find a substitute in January last.  

A farmer appealed for his waggoner and stockman (married, 32), exemption granted to 31 July, and to go before the Army Medical Board in the meantime. A carter and smallholder (39, married, four children), who put in most of his time on the land working for smallholders etc, was granted exemption to 31 October, as he was engaged on work of national importance. A cartage contractor (31, married), who was engaged in carting work to and from the stations and to the various factories in the district for the boot trade; adjourned to 31 May.  

A plumber, painter, house decorator, etc, appealed on behalf of his son (32, married), the only man he employed, and who carried on the business; adjourned to 31 May, the employee being unable to attend the meeting owing to illness. The Co-operative Society appealed for a manager of one of their branch grocery and provision stores (33, married); Exemption granted to 30 June (final). A chemist and druggist (25, single), was appealed for by his employers. He had been exempted to 30 April for a substitute to be provided; conditional exemption granted until a suitable substitute is provided.  

An organist and teacher of music (married, 41, Class B3), willing to do work of national importance, was exempted until 31 October. The Gas Company appealed for a stoker (31, married, Class B2). Conditional exemption was granted as he was in a certified occupation, and in a low medical category. A firm of grocers and drapers, etc, appealed for their horsekeeper and vanman (36, married, with an invalid wife and three children); exempted to 31 July.  

The Clerk to the Tribunal appealed on behalf of his brother (married, 37, four children), the only clerk he employed. In addition to being the clerk and collector to the Urban District Council, he was the assistant overseer in four parishes, and assessor and collector of income tax in seven. Extra duties arising out of the war left the ordinary detail work of these various offices largely in his brother’s hands. The latter was himself also the assistant overseer for a fifth parish, and was acting as local registrar of marriages for one on service, and doing the clerical work of the surveyor’s department in the absence of the surveyor, also on service. Exemption granted until 31 July.             

At the County Tribunal on Friday, 11 May, a Raunds farm hand, Thomas B Wingell, 18, single, was represented by Mr J Prentice, who said that the lad was the only man left on the Glebe Farm and that he had suffered from consumption. As his employer was leaving the farm at Michaelmas, he was granted final exemption to 29 September.   

The next Local Tribunal meeting was on Thursday evening, 31 May, with the following attendees: Messrs John Adams, JP CC (in the chair), A Camozzi, E Batchelor, W Asbery, W Gates, G E Smith, W F Corby (clerk), J Shelmerdine, JP (military representative), and T H Warth (agricultural representative).  

Mr Asbery asked the agricultural representative if the figures quoted by him at their last meeting with respect to a farmer who appeared before them were correct, as he had been informed they were not. The representative said that he could not recall the figures, but they were supplied to him by the farmer, and he only had his word for it.  

The Distributive Co-operative Society asked for leave of a further appeal for a manager of one of their branch stores, and this was granted. The same society appealed for their horsekeeper (married, 41); and exemption was granted.  

A farmer appealed for his horsekeeper and a general labourer, both 39 years of age, and married. These had been granted exemption on the 4th of January last until a substitute was provided, and now had their calling up papers, but the substitutes had not been provided. The military representative said it was for the employer to apply for substitutes; the agricultural representative said that it was for the military to find them – the military representative: “That’s my order, sir”. Mr Warth said he wanted some documentary evidence of that, they had only the statement of the military representative. When he (Mr Warth) made a statement he was prepared to prove by evidence. He had a circular dated 5 May last, and was not talking without a book – Mr Shelmerdine: “I’ve finished with it”. The agricultural representative said that 700 acres are to be ploughed up in Raunds, and they wanted some men to cultivate that. The Tribunal considered the applications, and decided to adhere to their decisions of 4 January.  

A farmer appealed for his son (single, 18). He farmed 750 acres, 360 of which were arable and under crop. He had 250 sheep, 182 cattle, 14 working horses, 10 young horses, and 210 pigs. The son understood all the machinery, and took charge in his absence. The farmer had also to make surveys of all fields in four parishes, and was away a considerable time – Dismissed, subject to substitution.  

A butcher (36, married), who also slaughters for other butchers in the district: One month. A boot heel manufacturer (32, married), who was making heels for the British and Allied Governments, ten employees (females), who also supported his widowed mother, was exempted to 30 June. A laundryman and smallholder (34, married), who farmed nine acres, eight of which was wheat, was exempted for a similar period. A hairdresser and tobacconist (33, married), who had closed one shop down, and also lost the assistant in the shop he managed himself, was also exempted to 30 June.  

A cartage contractor (31, married), conveying Government work to and from various factories; and a plumber and house decorator, etc (32, married), were also exempted to 30 June. A watchmaker and jeweller (35, married, B3), received three months exemption. An operator on a puller-over machine (31, married), appealed on personal grounds; he had previously been rejected, but had passed for Category B1 – Appeal dismissed.  

A manufacturer appealed for two of his employees, previously rejected, and now passed in a low category; conditional exemption granted. A manufacturer appealed for an edge-setter (married, 39), previously rejected, now classed B2; conditional exemption granted. The same firm appealed for a currier’s labourer (41, married), previously rejected; three months exemption, and to be examined by the Army Medical Board in the meantime. The same firm appealed for their secretary and manager (41, married), who was responsible for the office management; exemption for three months granted.  

Another manufacturer appealed for his clerk and foreman (25, single), previously classed C3, now classed on A on re-examination; adjourned to the next meeting. A Co-operative boot society appealed for a clicker (33, married), previously rejected, now classed C2; conditional exemption granted.  

A builder and contractor appealed for his carpenter, joiner, sawyer, and machinist, the only one who could do the work (35, married); fourteen had left to join the Colours, and this was the only man he had appealed for, and the only one of military age left; exemption granted for two months.  

At the close of the hearing of the appeals, Mr Gates asked the Tribunal to accept his resignation as a member. The Chairman remarked that he was just about to lay before the Tribunal a letter he had received from Mr G E Smith, another one of their number. The letter read as follows:  

“In view of the latest pronouncement respecting the enlistment of men of my own age, and considerably over, I feel that I cannot any longer retain my seat upon the local Tribunal. I therefore ask you to accept my resignation. I would take this opportunity of expressing my sincere thanks for the courtesy and patience with which the members have listened to the expression of my views, and that it is with sincere regret that I feel compelled to relinquish my seat.”  

The Chairman observed that at the time of the formation of the Tribunal he held very strongly that no one of military age ought to be a member of it, and he was still of the same opinion. He felt he must, to be consistent, resign also. Several of the other members also remarked that they should not sit on the Tribunal when the age of conscription was raised. The subsequent discussion revealed the fact that Mr Gates was the only member over the proposed new age limit for military service. It was ultimately resolved that the resignations should be sent on to the Urban Council for their consideration and advice.       

A meeting of the Raunds Council was held in the Council School on Thursday evening, 7 June, specially convened to consider the resignations of Messrs Walter Gates and G E Smith as members of the Local Tribunal and the intimation of the other members within the proposed extended age limit for military service of their intention to follow suit.  

The Chairman, Mr A Camozzi, JP, explained that he had authorised that the meeting be called in response to a request from the chairman of the Local Tribunal, who was of the opinion that the situation arising thereon might be dealt with without delay. He had personally come to the meeting with an open mind, although if the military age was extended to 50 by conscription he should most certainly not continue to sit on the Tribunal to deal with a man of his own age.  

Mr John Adams, chairman of the Local Tribunal, felt that the resignations should be dealt with at once, and that the members of the Tribunal should make up their minds what they intended to do. Personally, until the age under conscription was extended he would set aside any personal disinclination to continue, and agree to do so.  

Mr Shelmerdine expressed the opinion that if the members who had handed in their resignations would consider the best interest of the town they would allow them to be withdrawn. He did hope that the Tribunal would not resign as a whole, for he felt sure it would be a mistake in the town’s interest. It would mean putting the whole thing in the hands of the military.  

Mr Gates could not see his way to continue to act as a member of the Tribunal. The long meetings were too much for him. Mr Smith also declined to withdraw his resignation. He did not want to act at the outset, but was persuaded to do so, but he must refuse now to change his attitude. Messrs Hodson and Asbery intimated that unless Messrs Smith and Gates continued to serve they would resign also.  

Mr Batchelor felt that he had been able on the Tribunal to serve the interests of the members of the union he represented, and was prepared to continue until the age under conscription was raised. As the youngest member of the Tribunal and a single man it placed him in a difficult position if the other members presented their resignations.  

Repeated requests to Messrs Gates and Smith to withdraw proving unavailing, and Messrs Asbery and Hodson agreeing to continue for the time being, it was proposed by Mr John Adams, and seconded by Mr W Agutter, that the resignations of Messrs Gates and Smith be accepted. This was agreed to. The question of filling the vacancies was discussed. Messrs James Adams and A Hazeldine declined the invitation to serve on the Tribunal. Ultimately it was decided to leave the matter over until the next Council meeting.  

At the County Tribunal on Tuesday, 12 June, Bertie N Stanton, 21, single, horsekeeper, and Sidney G Stanton, 23, single, horsekeeper, both employed by their father, M Stanton, farmer, appeared. The younger brother had been given substitution exemption by the Local Tribunal and the elder by the County Tribunal. The military appealed against the Raunds Tribunal’s decision.  

The father said he was prepared for the lads to go if satisfactory substitutes could be found. There worked 117 acres of land, 54 arable, and the work was done almost entirely by the family, including the wife and daughter. The agricultural representative supported the cause of the father. The younger son was ordered to join up on 15 July, the elder‘s case was adjourned a month, with a view to the provision of a substitute.  

Also appearing was George W Knighton, 32, married, a foreman clicker and pattern cutter employed by Messrs Adams Bros. His representative asked for further exemption as the man was a technical instructor in clicking under the County Council; the case was dismissed!  

At the next County Tribunal, on Friday, 15 June, the important question of policy in boot cases was considered; with the need of the military for men greater than ever. The meeting was held exclusively for boot and cases and 554 appeals were presented, including from Raunds: Tebbut and Hall, 12; Owen Smith, 15; Adams Bros, 48; St Crispin’s, 19; R Coggins, 28; John Horrell and Son, 9; Neal and Gates, 4; Walter Lawrence, 14; C E Nichols, 13, the Regulation Boot Co, 20; as well as 2 from J J Peck, of Stanwick, and 8 from the Unity Boot Society, of Ringstead.  

On the question of policy, the Tribunal resolved that “The Tribunal consider that the time has come when unmarried men under 41, and married men under 35, if passed ‘A’ or ‘B1’, should go into the Army unless occupying positions which are indispensable to the carrying on of necessary business. Men claimed as indispensable will be subject to particular investigation and obviously, those firms employed in Government work are entitled to special consideration, as compared to those chiefly engaged in private trade.”  

The firms were, in general, agreeable to these terms and the cases were all dealt with on these lines.  

The next Raunds Tribunal was held in the Council School on Wednesday evening, 27 June. The military representative asked the Tribunal to give their decisions some degree of finality, as some of those who would be before them that night had been before them a number of times, and it was a regular promenade. The Army wanted men more then ever, and he would have to press for the ‘A’ and ‘B1’ men.  

A clerk and foreman, 25, single, produced medical evidence in support of his application. He was previously in Class ‘C3’ and on re-examination passed in Class ‘A’ – ordered to go before the Central Medical Board; a clerk, Class ‘A’, to a firm of boot manufacturers produced a certificate from a specialist, and asked to be allowed to go before the Central Medical Board, and this was also granted.  

Mr Hodson, who came in late, was asked by the Chairman if he did not notice the time of the meeting. Mr Hodson replied that he had noticed how the Tribunals throughout the county had been treated, and he did not think that it was worth losing half an hour from work to attend at the commencement.  

A farmer and milk vendor appealed for his working farm bailiff, 34, married, the only man he had – exempted to 30 September, subject to the substitution scheme.  

The Distributive Co-operative Society appealed for six of their employees, the managing butcher, ‘C3’, 39, married; their managing baker and confectioner, ‘B1’, 34, married; the manager of their grocery and provision store, No.1 Branch, 40, married, ‘C2’; the manager of their grocery and provision store, No.2 Branch, 33, married, ‘A’; their baker and bread deliverer, 41, married, ‘B1’; and the manager and buyer of the drapery and outfitting department, 37, married, ‘B1’.The manager of the No.2 Store was exempted for one month, and the baker for a similar period. The other four were exempted to 30 September.  

A blacksmith appealed for his man, the only one he employed, 37, married, who was exempted to 30 September; a motor and cycle dealer and repairer of factory machines, 40, married, was also exempted for a similar period; a pork butcher, 32, married, ‘B3’, was exempted to 30 September; a hairdresser and tobacconist, 29, married, ‘C1’, was exempted to 30 September; a butcher and grazier, 36, married, ‘B2’, was exempted to 31 August; a master tailor and outfitter, 37, married, with seven children, Class ‘A’, was exempted to 31 August.  

A laundryman and smallholder, 34, married, a hairdresser and tobacconist, 33, married, a butcher, 36, married, a boot heel manufacturer, 32, married, a plumber and house decorator, 32, married, all Class ‘A’; and a cartage contractor, 31, married, ‘B1’, were all exempted to 31 August (final). The above six were all one-man businesses.  

A butcher appealed for his only employee, who was a slaughterman and went round with the cart, 28, married, ‘B2’. This man had offered himself twice and was sent back on both occasions. The employer’s son, Class ‘A’, had gone without him appealing for him – case adjourned to the next meeting.  

A general labourer and gardener, widower, 39, made a personal appeal. He had four young children (girls), one being a cripple, and his sister (his housekeeper) was more or less an invalid – adjourned to the next meeting, and to be examined by the Army Medical Board in the meantime.  

There were six boot factory cases. The men had been re-examined and passed in low categories for consideration, and were all granted conditional exemption. A blacksmith appealed for his son, 30, single, ‘C2’, exempted to 30 September; two single men, factory hands, ‘B1’, both of whom produced certificates from their doctors saying they were not fit for military service, were ordered to be examined by the Central Medical Board.  

There were 12 personal appeals by men whom the manufacturers had released. Two of these were single men of 40 and 35 years of age, and the others were all married men under 35 years of age – exemption granted to 31 July (final) in each case.  

Fifty-three firms appealed to the County Tribunal on Friday, 29 June, including from Raunds: Tebbut and Hall Bros; Owen Smith; Adams Bros; the St Crispin Productive Society; R Coggins and Sons; John Horrel and Son; Neal and Gates; Walter Lawrence; C E Nichols; the Regulation Boot Co; and J J Peck, of Stanwick, and the Unity Boot society, of Ringstead.  

The decisions invariably gave the employers slightly over a third of the eligible men on the lists, regarding them as “indispensable to the business”. These men were given 6 month open exemptions, the others were given final exemptions up to 12 August, according to age, and the military were instructed not to call up the men until the expiry of 14 days after the set date.                 

More shoe trade appeals were dealt with at the County Tribunal on Friday, 6 July, on the same lines as per the previous week, including those from two Raunds factories out of the 102 firms represented.  

On Wednesday, 11 July, the County Tribunal handled and adjourned fourteen appeals referred to them from Rushden. The town’s own Tribunal had recently had some “communication” with the Local Government Board and War Office and had, as a result, come out “on strike” for reasons unpublished!     

The Raunds Tribunal met in the Council Schools on Thursday evening, 12 July. Present were: Messrs John Adams, JP CC, in the chair, A Camozzi, JP, J Hodson, W Asbery, E Batchelor, W Agutter, and the clerk, Mr W F Corby, Lieutenant Miles (Kettering) and Mr J Shelmerdine, JP, (military representative).  

The Clerk reported that the military authorities had appealed against a decision given at the last meeting and that the six men to whom were granted conditional exemption to August 31st (final) had all appealed to the County Tribunal, and that four out of the twelve to whom they granted exemption to July 31st (final) had also appealed.  

The military representative said most of the appeals before them that evening were of men whom the manufacturers had released and now had made a personal appeal. He would like to impress upon them that there was room for every man in the Army who was fit for civilian work – A member: Has a man released by his employer got a right of appeal? – Lieutenant Miles: A man has a right of a personal appeal. He knows when his period of exemption expires according to his certificates, and he should ask his master if he is appealing for him again, and if not, then he has the right of appeal.  

A butcher appealed for his employee (married, 29, B2). This man did the slaughtering and went round with the cart, and was the only one he employed. His son had joined up without him appealing for him, and he hoped to keep this man, being in a low category – Exemption granted to September 30th.  

A farmer and horse dealer (37, married), was exempted to October 31st; a horsekeeper (25, married) was appealed for by his employer, who farmed 360 acres of arable land and had 14 working horses – exemption to October 31st, subject to substitution; a motor and cycle agent (41, married), was exempted to September 30th; a gardener and general labourer (widower, 39, had four young girls, one of whom was a cripple, and his sister, who keeps his house, was more or less invalid – exempted to September 30th.  

A pressman (29, married) appealed on personal grounds; he had four children, the eldest just turned four years, and was partially crippled, and his wife was lame – exempted to August 15th (final); a boot clicker (married, 33), who had served ten months in the trenches, and was discharged, asked for temporary exemption, and was given to August 15th (final).  

A married man (29), boot clicker, produced a certificate from the doctor and asked to go before the Central Medical Board, and this was granted; a married man (31), hand boot laster and bird fancier, asked for temporary exemption to dispose of his birds – exempted to July 31st (final); a railway clerk (married, 33), the sole support of his father (who was paralysed) and his mother (except for the old age pension allowance to his mother), was exempted to September 30th.  

A factory hand (married, 31), appealed on the ground of his wife and child being in delicate health – exempted to July 31st (final); a foreman clicker (29, married), appealed on the grounds of being a foreman, but had been released by his employer – appeal dismissed; a boot operative (32, married), who suffers from chronic bronchitis, produced a certificate from his doctor and asked to be examined by the Central Medical Board, to which course the Tribunal agreed.  

A boot laster (38, married, three children); one child had just finished going to the Hospital, and he was waiting to take his youngest child to a London hospital to undergo several operations. He asked for conditional exemption to provide proper nourishment for them. His wife was also delicate. He had one acre of allotment planted – exemption granted to September 30th; a hand-sewn boot maker (married, 35, six children under 14) appealed on domestic grounds. His wife was in delicate health and suffered from catarrh in the throat. He had two acres of allotment. Three of his brothers were joining up at the end of the present week, and he would be the only one to help support his parents – exemption granted to August 31st.  

An edge-setter (36, married, four children), with four poles of allotment, and also looked after both his brothers’ allotments who were serving, appealed. Since putting in his appeal one of his brothers had been killed and the other wounded – exemption granted to August 31st.  

A boot laster (34, married, two children), wife suffering with bad legs, was exempted to July 31st (final); a boot operative (31, married) produced a certificate from his doctor and asked to go before the Central Medical Board, to which the Tribunal agreed; a firm of grocers appealed for an assistant (35, married, C3) – conditional exemption was granted; three boot manufacturers appealed for men passed in low medical categories, and were granted conditional exemptions.  

At the County Tribunal on Friday, 20 July, ten Raunds appeals were heard: the case of Sydney C Stanton (23, single) a horsekeeper was reviewed on the application of the military representative, who stated that he thought it was a case for a substitute. The Chairman said that apparently this man could not go into the Army without the consent of the War Agricultural Committee. Mr Prentice, who appeared for the employer, said that another son who had till July 16th (final) would not be released at present. Mr Woods said that the War Agricultural Committee recommended that both boys should stay till after the harvest. In giving three months (final) the Chairman said they thought the younger boy should go at once, and that this one should not go until the harvest was over.  

Ernest Gaunt, a hairdresser, whose business Mr Prentice said, was the best of the kind in Raunds, appealed against the final decision of the Local Tribunal. He previously had two shops, one of which he had closed. The appellant was passed Class A, but three years ago he had suffered from gastric ulcers – appeal dismissed.  

In the appeal of Walter Coles, carter, from the certificate of the local Tribunal to August 31st, Mr Williams claimed that he was in a certified occupation, and asked for an open exemption. The local Tribunal expressed the opinion that as the men out of the boot factories had to go this man should – appeal dismissed.  

Wilfred Davis (36, married), butcher, appealed against the “final” exemption to August 31st given by the local Tribunal. He did his own slaughtering, and slaughtered for Mr Shelton, of Finedon, who previously employed four men who had been released for the Army – September 30th (final).  

The father of Hugh Sykes (32, married) appealed against the final exemption to August 31st. The appellant, who was ill, is a plumber, and the son, who appeared on his behalf, said his father was dependant upon him. If he had to go into the Army his father would be left destitute – until September 30th (final).  

Frederick W Dix, smallholder and laundry-owner, appealed against the final exemption to August 31st. Mr Williams said Dix was the champion skater. In addition to the laundry, he did motor-hauling. He joined the Army as a motor-driver early in the war at 6s-0d a day. After he passed his tests they offered him 2s-4d a day, but he refused it, and got his discharge – the exemption was extended to September 30th (final).  

The exemption of Sidney Hazeldine, to July 31st (final) was extended to August 31st (final). John Johnson appealed against the finality of his exemption to July 31st. He was single, and had an invalid mother 73 years of age – he was given to August 31st (final). The appeal of Arthur Mayes against final exemption to July 31st was dismissed.  

The military appealed against the open exemption to July 31st of Sidney S W Wright, manager of the Co-operative Store at Raunds. It was suggested by the military that as there were two other branches of the Co-operative Society in Raunds this one could, if necessary, be shut – the exemption was made final but the military were instructed not to call him up until August 31st.  

At the County Tribunal on Tuesday, 24 July, E W Chambers, 32, heel builder, was represented by Mr H W Williams, who appealed for the applicant. It was said that he was doing work for Army contracts and for Marine boots, in all 8,000 pairs a week and was the support for his widowed mother – given 3 months final.

The next meeting of the Raunds Tribunal was held in the Council School on Thursday evening, 26 July.  

The Clerk reported that the military had appealed against one of their decisions at their last meeting, and that nine men had appealed to the County Tribunal. The decisions of the County Tribunal on these cases were given.

A circular was read with respect to agricultural cases, and the military representative stated that a certificate would be issued to the War Agricultural Committee for the indispensable men.  

A clerk and factory foreman, who had been before the Central Medical Board, and classed B3, was granted conditional exemption. A farmer appealed for his waggoner and stockman (32, married), and was given conditional exemption.  

The following were personal appeals of men released by the manufacturers: A Hargrave man, who worked at Raunds, appealed on domestic grounds. He was a married man, 32 years of age, with seven children under 11 years of age, and his wife was in delicate health. Exemption granted to September 30th (final). A licence holder, of Dean, employed at Raunds, asked for temporary exemption. He was under a three months tenancy, and had given notice to quit at Michaelmas; Exempted to October 15th (final).  

A Hargrave man, (married, 35), employed at Raunds, and a smallholder in his spare time, asked for temporary exemption to get his crops off; exemption granted to September 30th (final). A shoehand (married, 31), appealed on the grounds that 12s-6d per week was not enough to keep the home on. The Chairman remarked that they were not in a position to increase it; Case dismissed. A Ringstead shoehand, employed at Raunds (married, 38, two children), who assists a farmer in his spare time; Exempted to August 31st (final). A shoehand (married, 38), asked for exemption on the grounds of his wife’s health and was exempted to August 31st (final).  

A clicker (married, 35, four children), was also granted a similar exemption. A hand laster (married, 37, six children, five under 11 years), he had 18 poles of allotment to attend to. Exemption was given until August 31st (final). A hand sewer (37, married, two children), five brothers in the Army, and three more called up, was exempted to August 31st (final). Another hand sewer (35, married, four children), two brothers in France, was exempted for a similar period.  

A hand laster (married, 38, eight children), appealed on domestic grounds, he had an allotment, and produced his own vegetables, and thought that it was more benefit to the country for him to stay at home and keep his wife and family, than that the country should keep the ten of them. Exemption was granted to September 30th (final).  

A firm of boot manufacturers appealed for a single man (25, C3), and was given conditional exemption. A married man produced a doctor’s certificate and asked permission to go before the Central Medical Board, and this was granted. Finally, a pressman also asked for permission to go before the Central Medical Board but had no doctor’s certificate. It was decided for him to be re-examined at Northampton.  

At the County Tribunal of Friday, 27 July, Alderman F H Thornton JP appeared for the Northants Union Bank, who appealed against the finality given by the Thrapston Tribunal to the 3 months exemption of Percy F Rushton, 37, married, who is a cashier looking after the Raunds branch five days a week and the Thrapston branch one day. Ladies were able to do clerical work, but could not substitute for cashiers. He pointed out the difficulty attending the identification of signatures. The finality was removed.  

The Raunds Tribunal met again on Thursday evening, 23 August, first considering the Medical Board cases:  

W H Sawford (single, C2), hand sewer; Herbert V Clark, clicker (married, C2); Fred J Whitney (married, C2), Consol laster; Fred Sanders (married, C2), operator; Albert E Weekley (single, discharged): these cases had been before the Central Medical Board and passed in low categories, and were given conditional exemptions, being under a lower category than B1 and working in a boot factory. Albert Weekley was discharged by the Central Medical Board.  

Arthur Gaunt (36, married), hand sewer; Frank W Warner (41, married), hand laster; Arthur Copperwheat (35, married), operator; Joseph W Hensman (38, married), operator on tacking machine; and Edgar J Vickers (39, married), hand laster, produced certificates from their doctor, and were recommended to be examined by the Central Medical Board.  

There were a number of cases for consideration, being personal appeals of men released from the boot factories, most of whom appealed on their domestic position or asked for time to get the produce on their allotments. Herbert E Cooper, hand laster (41, married), 30th September (final); Ralph Mayes, hand sewer, (35, married), 30th  September (final); H W J Cope (29, married, three children, and his wife seriously ill), 31st October (open); George H Weekley, hand laster (38, married), 30th September (final); Jesse Sawford, hand sewer (37, married), case dismissed, but not to be called up for 14 days.  

Charles Holyoak, hand laster (41, married, six children under 13, and produce to get off 40 poles of allotment), was exempted to 31st October (final); Bartlett A Turney, publican and hand laster (40, married), was exempted to 30th September (final); Herbert W H Coney, hand laster (41, married), 30th September (final); Ernest Haxley, hand laster and smallholder (35, married), 30th September (final); Ralph Gilbert, boot clicker (38, married), was represented by Mr W W James (Wellingborough) who said that his client had a grievance because he was released and a younger man retained by his employer. The Tribunal informed Mr James that the man alleged to be retained was appealing there that night, and that the appeal should have been on personal grounds. Mr James consulted with his client, who said there were no personal grounds of appeal – case dismissed.  

Arthur Thomas Haddon appealed on his domestic position. He also had some allotments and was attending to his brother-in-law’s allotment, who was a wounded soldier, exempted to 30th September (final); Leonard Ekins, hand laster (35, married), (single under the Act), 30th September (final); George Stock, clicker (31, married, three brothers serving, and a widowed mother), 30th September (final); Arthur Lack, hand sewer (35, married, four children), 30th September (final); Mark Richards, hand laster (38, married, two brothers serving), exempted to 30th September (final); Richard B Berry, foreman in packing room (31, single, invalid father and mother unable to do much work), case dismissed; Charles J Allen, hand laster (38, married, six children, one suffering with hip disease), 30th September.  

Thomas Coles (40, widower, four children), exempted to 31st October (open); John T Yerrill (30, married), asked for time to get produce off his allotment, he also kept pigs and poultry, 30th September (final); Ralph Pentelow, hand laster (38, married, four children), 30th September (final); Fred Robinson, hand laster (38, married, classed C3 on attestation and A at Northampton), asked to go before the Central Medical Board – adjourned for a medical certificate to be produced at the next meeting; George Brittin, hand laster and smallholder (39, married), who assisted his mother-in-law (innkeeper), 30th September (final); Lot Groom, hand laster (41, married, 50 poles allotment and poultry rearer, one son serving in Egypt), 30th September (final); William A Arnold, hand laster (40, married), appealed on domestic grounds. He had four children, three brothers serving, and had recently lost his eldest brother, who lived with his widowed mother; he also made and repaired boots for his brother’s children, 31st October (open).  

Alfred Burton (40, married), hand laster (nine children, one son serving, 80 poles allotment), applicant thought he would be better serving his country by working for his family than by fighting for it – 31st October; Ralph Mitchell, engine attendant (41, married), was exempted to 30th September (final); George H Kirk, hand laster (widower), exempted to 30th September (final); Alfred G T Coles, finisher (34, married), 30th September (final); George J Whitmore, hand laster (41, married), 30th September (final); Thomas Smith, hand sewer (39, married), asked for exemption to get in the produce of allotment, also kept pigs and poultry, four brothers serving in France, 31st October (open).  

Percy Bridgeford, clicker (23, married), (single under the Act), appealed on the grounds that he did not believe in fighting and would not take part in combatant service. He was prepared to join the remounts as he had been used to horses. He would also do any work of national importance – case dismissed.  

And finally: Thomas Clarkson, hand laster (39, married, wife in delicate state of health), exempted to 30th October; Frank Kirk, hand laster (41, married, five children under 13), 30th September (final); and C Phillips, hand laster (41, married), kept pigs, poultry and breeding sow, also exempted to 30th September (final).                                                              

The Raunds Tribunal met again one week later on Thursday, 30 August when an application adjourned from the last meeting for the production of a medical certificate was considered. The applicant had asked for leave for further appeal on account of his wife’s illness, and he appeared before the committee, but was unable to produce a medical certificate – his application was refused.  

Joseph Chambers (married, 40), hand laster, produced a medical certificate and asked to go before the Central Board – Application granted.   Fred Robinson (married, 38), hand laster, Class C3 on attestation and A at Northampton, asked to go before the Central Medical Board. Applicant did not produce a doctor’s certificate, and as he had been raised from Class C3 to the Tribunal decided to ask the military authorities for applicant to be re-examined at Northampton.  

The military representative said that it was brought up at the meeting of the Advisory Committee about men who lived in other districts making personal appeals to that Tribunal because they worked in the town. The Clerk said that they had had the question before them at one of their meetings, when Lieut. Miles was present, and he (Lieut. Miles) said that the man had a right of appeal at the Tribunal in the district where they worked and where the employers had appealed for them. With respect to workmen in the boot trade from the parishes of Chelveston, Ringstead, Hargrave, and Stanwick who worked at Raunds, that Tribunal was in a better position to know the cases than the Thrapston Rural Tribunal, who had only one representative this side of Thrapston. The members of the Tribunal were of the same opinion.  

A farmer appealed for his milkman (40, married, six children): Three months exemption; a farmer (38, married), farming 51 acres, with only a lad to help, was exempted to the end of the year.  

The Distributive Co-operative Society appealed for their horsekeeper (42, married), who looked after eight horses: Three months exemption; the same society appealed for their bakery manager (35, married). Out of 20 men of military age 13 had joined up and two were rejected: Exempted to 30th September.  

Harry Webb (36, married, six children), wife in delicate state of health and ordered to go away for a change by her doctor. Applicant also farmed two acres of allotment: 31st October (open).  

Thomas William Morris (36, married, B1), asked to be allowed to go before the Central Medical Board: Applicant produced a medical certificate in support, and the application was allowed.  

Richard Smith (married, 40, six children under 14) asked for time to get produce in from his allotment, and was allowed to 30th September.  

Robert G Hasseldine (36, married, B2) butcher and grazier of 45 acres of land, was exempted to 31st December; John Sanders (37, married, seven children), master tailor, was exempted to 31st October; A firm of boot manufacturers appealed for their secretary and manager (41, married), who was exempted to 31st December, 1917; A firm of builders and contractors appealed for their carpenter, machine sawyer and joiner (married, 35), the only man of military age in their employ: 31st October; A firm of grocers appealed for their horsekeeper and vanman (36, married), with a wife in a very delicate state of health: Exemption granted to 31st December, 1917.  

At the County Tribunal at Northampton on Friday, 14 September, a personal appeal by H Roberts, 31, Class A, married, of Raunds, a hand-sewer, was dismissed, but the military were asked to grant time. A similar course was adopted in the case of Charles Phillips, 41, married, Class A, who made a personal appeal. George Britten, 39, married, Class A, a sea-boot maker, asked for time to get his crops in and plant his land – appeal dismissed, but applicant not to be called up until 15th October.  

One week later, at the County Tribunal of Friday, 21 September, a Raunds conscientious objector, by the name of Percy Bridgeford, was called. A member of the Raunds Tribunal explained that the man would not appear because he was arrested at Raunds that morning.   Sir Ryland Adkins asked “Does his conscientious objections extend to private property?” when it was stated that the man had been arrested on a charge of stealing leather, and that when Raunds Tribunal dismissed his appeal he said that he would not enter the Army – he wanted to “clink it”. The appeal was dismissed.  

Other Raunds cases: Ralph Gilbert, 38, married, clicker, made a personal appeal on the grounds that the employer was retaining a man, 31, Class A, and releasing the applicant. The other man was retained by an Admiralty card. Mr James, for the applicant, asked for time to get his crops from his allotment. The appeal was dismissed, but the man was not to be called until 15th October.  

The military appealed against the Local Tribunal’s exemption to John V Spicer, 35, married, sawyer and wood worker for Messrs Smith and Son. It was said that the man was now ill. The appeal was dismissed, the man to be re-examined before his time expires.  

In the following three cases, the military appealed: Harry Webb, 36, married, welt-sewer, who originally appealed on domestic grounds – an invalid wife and six children. The military appeal was dismissed; Albert Richardson, married, horsekeeper – the appeal was also dismissed; John Sanders, 37, married, tailor and outfitter – this appeal was dismissed, the man to be re-examined.  

Meanwhile, at the County Tribunal at Peterborough this week, Henry Grainger, 31, Class A, grocer’s manager and traveller, of Benefield, employed by Messrs Camozzi, of Raunds, appealed against the final exemption given him by the Local Tribunal. It was stated that Grainger was in sole charge of the shop, interviewed travellers, and bought the stock. Already six men had joined the Colours, and they were now extremely dependent on four or five young girls. Grainger was the only man on the premises, worked from 15-16 hours a day, and put in several drills with the Volunteers. The business supplied very largely the Oundle Schools, and unless this man was retained the business would have to close down – he was given exemption until 31st October (final).

The Raunds Tribunal met again on Thursday, 27 September, and before the ordinary business of the meeting the Chairman congratulated Mr Agutter on the distinction that his son had gained in France (awarded the Military Medal), and was glad that the son of one of their colleagues had distinguished himself by his gallantry on the field of battle. The other members of the Tribunal supported, and Mr Agutter thanked them for their congratulations, and was sure that his son would do his bit as long as he was able.  

Applications for leave to further appeal were made by Percival Bates, Fred Gates, H E Cooper, and G H Weekley. These were all dismissed, but it was decided to ask the military authorities not to call them up for 15 days, to enable them to get the produce off their allotments.  

E Haxley, H W H Cole, Leonard Ekins, Mark Richards, Lot Groom, and John Yerrell asked to go before the Central Medical Board, and produced medical certificates in support of their application. Permission was granted to the first four, and the next two were given permission to be re-examined at Northampton.  

The Clerk reported that five applicants who had been before the Central Medical Board since the last meeting had notice to attend that night. These attended before the Tribunal. Two had been finally rejected, and the others passed C1. These were given conditional exemption, the same as other cases in the boot trade.  

The military asked for the review of a certificate granted to a young fellow, 18 years of age, and the certificate was withdrawn.  

A farmer appealed for his farm labourer (married, 38); conditional exemption granted. A farmer (35, married) appealed. He farmed 480 acres of land, and also reared a number of cattle; conditional exemption granted.  

A boot clicker, who had been discharged from the Army (24, married), passed C2 on re-examination, produced a certificate from the doctor and asked for permission to go before the Central Medical Board, and this was granted.  

A boot laster (39, married) and a general labourer and gardener (40, married) appealed on domestic grounds, and exemption to December 31st in both cases was granted. A watchmaker and jeweller (36, married, B3) was exempted for a similar period.  

A butcher appealed for his slaughterman and assistant, the only one he employed; it would be impossible to keep on the business without a man – December 31st. A blacksmith appealed for his employee (37, married); another blacksmith appealed for his son (30, married, C2), and both were exempted to December 31st.  

A baker, offal dealer, and farmer (37, married) was exempted to December 31st. A cycle agent and repairer of boot factory machines (40, married); a motor and cycle agent (42, married); and a pork butcher (32, married, B3) were also exempted to December 31st.  

A clerk in the Midland Railway goods office appealed on domestic grounds (34, married). He was the sole support of his father and mother, who lived with him, except for his mother’s old age pension. His father was paralysed, and it would be a serious hardship if he had to go. He was the only child; exemption granted to December 31st.  

The Distributive Co-operative Society appealed for their drapery manager (37, married, B1); their baker and bread deliverer (41, married, B1); their manager in bakery department (35, married, B1); and their grocery and furniture manager (40, married, C1). Exemption to December 31st in each case granted. This firm had released 15 employees (five of whom had been killed), and were understaffed at the present time.  

A boot manufacturer’s superintendent (36, married) asked for further time to clear up affairs, and exemption for one month was granted.  

Mr W F Corby, clerk to the Tribunal, clerk to the Raunds Urban District Council, and rate and tax collector for seven parishes, appealed for his clerk, his brother, Fred A Corby (37, married), the only one he employed. His brother was also assistant overseer for Tichmarsh, registrar of marriages, and deputy registrar of births and deaths. Since the surveyor to the Urban District Council had joined up eight months ago he was responsible for the clerical work of the surveyor’s department, and since the last appeal he had been appointed executive officer to the local Food Control Committee. Exemption to December 31st.   

The next Local Tribunal was held on Thursday, 11 October, and permission was given to Charles Holyoak, 42, married, and Charles Phillips, 41, married, to make a further appeal.  

Three personal appeals of men who had been before the Central Medical Board were considered. Two of them, both Class B1, were granted exemption to 31 October, and the other, B2, was given conditional exemption to bring him into line with other boot factory cases.  

Two men who had been re-examined at Northampton were classed B1 and B2. The former was exempted to 31 October, and the latter granted conditional exemption. Ernest Putt, hairdresser and tobacconist, 29, married, C1, who worked 50 hours a week in a boot factory, was exempted to 31 December.  

A firm of boot manufacturers appealed for one of their employees who had been twice rejected and was now classed C2 – conditional exemption. Another firm of boot manufacturers appealed for an edge-setter, 26, single, C1 – conditional exemption granted.  

A motor cycle agent appealed for his son, 18, A. The applicant said he was very busy and wanted his help, also he would like time to get him in his own trade in the Army. He had tried to get him in the Motor Transport and Royal Flying Corps, but being Class A, they would not have him; appeal dismissed.  

Finally, a thatcher appealed for his son, his only help, 18 single. Exemption to 31 October granted.  

At the County Tribunal at Northampton on Wednesday, 17 October, F C Hatton, 36, married, of Raunds, a boot foreman in a rough leather department, made a personal appeal. The man had not been medically examined. He said that he was formerly a manufacturer, and was burnt out, and so he went into a factory at Rushden. Exemption granted to 17 November.  

At Northampton on Monday, 29 October, Arthur Gaunt, 38, married, of Bythorn, made an appeal supported by Mr J Prentice. He was released by his employer at Raunds under the manufacturer’s agreement. He had been re-examined, and was classed B2. He was the only shoe repairer in Bythorn; granted exemption to 31 December, final.  

Lot Groom, 41, married, B1, a hand-laster of Raunds, made a personal appeal for re-examination. The applicant has a son serving in France, and helps his brother, who has 15 acres of arable land. The appeal was dismissed, the man not to be called up until 30 November.  

An appeal was made for Albert F Gaunt, 18, single, A, of Raunds, an apprentice to a motor engineer, employed by his father. Mr J Prentice, for the father, asked for a re-examination as the lad had weak and deformed feet. He was now doing aviation work at Peterborough. The case was adjourned for a medical examination.

The Raunds Tribunal met again on Thursday, 8 November, when George Betts, married, 38, a hand laster, appealed on personal grounds. He had eight children under 16 years and was granted exemption until 31 December; Strangward Woolley, farmer, married, 37, presented a certificate from the Board of Agriculture, and was given conditional exemption; William Peck, farmer and carter, appealed for his man, C2, and conditional exemption in this case was granted; and Fred Harrison, smallholder and carter, 38, married, four children, was exempted to 28 February 1918.  

The review of the certificates in the cases of Harry Burton, 41, bread deliverer, and Walter Davis, baker, both employed by the Raunds Distributive Co-operative Society, was asked for by the military authorities. Mr R Lawrence, secretary of the society, appeared for the employees, and the cases were dismissed.  

Mr J Hodson called attention to the two cases above. The military authorities appealed against their decisions at their last meeting, but were too late, as the exemption certificates had been issued to the men. The military then asked for the review of the certificates. If it had been on the other hand, and the men had left it too late, they would have lost their chance. He thought this was hardly fair.  

The military also asked for the review of the certificate of conditional exemption granted to Fred A Newbery, chemist, single, 26, employed by the executors of the late Mr J Gant. The certificate was ordered to be withdrawn at the end of the present month.  

The following men who had been before the Central Medical Board for examination appeared before the Tribunal: Charles Allen, married, 40, C2, hand laster; Mark Richards, married, 38, C2, hand laster; Ernest Haxley, married, 35, B2, hand laster; H W H Cole, married, 41, B1, hand laster; Leonard Ekins, married, 36, A, hand laster; and Fred Kirk, single, 25, clicker. The first three were given conditional exemption owing to their low category, and to bring them into line with other boot cases. Cole was exempted to 31 December (final); Ekins’ appeal was dismissed; and Kirk had been finally rejected by the Central Medical Board.  

William T Tomblin, married, 36, pressman, and J V Spicer, married, 36, carpenter and machine sawyer etc, were given conditional exemption; both being on the rejection Reserve.  

A widow appealed for her son, 18, single. The eldest son had been serving and was now wounded. This was the only son at home bringing anything into the house. The applicant asked for time until her next boy would be able to start work, as he would be 13 years of age in February. The Tribunal sympathised with the applicant in the struggle she had had, and exempted the son to the 31 January 1918 (final).  

Thomas Clarkson, married, 39, appealed on the grounds of his wife’s health; exempted to 31 December.  

Thomas Smith, 39, married, three children, hand sewer, appealed. He had four brothers in France, one in training, and two brothers in America, expecting to join the American Army. His wife had a brother killed, one missing, one a prisoner of war, and one in Salonika. He kept pigs and poultry, and had an allotment; exempted to 31 December.  

William A Arnold, hand laster, 41, married, appealed on the grounds of his wife’s health; he also had a son 11 years of age in consumption, and a widowed mother; exempted to 31 December.  

H W Cope, widower, 40, three children, was exempted to the end of the year; Thomas Coles, pressman, 41, married, was exempted for a similar period; Harry Webb, 36, married, six children under 14, and a delicate wife, was granted exemption to 31 December. Alfred Burton, hand laster, married, 41, nine children, one serving, was also exempted to 31 December.  

J Archer, organist and teacher of music, married, 42, son serving in Mesopotamia, was exempted to 31 January, it being suggested to the applicant that he should undertake some work of national importance; and finally, John Sanders, tailor etc, 37, married, seven children, C1, was exempted to 28 February 1918.  

The Local Tribunal met for the last time in 1917, one month later, on Thursday, 13 December, when two cases were again adjourned pending the result of re-examination.  

Two applications were then considered as follows: Lot Groome, hand laster, married, 40, had his application refused, but was ordered not to be called up until 1 January; Arthur Neale, 42, married, a horsekeeper for the Co-operative Society, was granted conditional exemption on the motion of the Chairman, Mr John Adams, JP, CC.  

Finally, the Tribunal decided to send a vote of congratulation to Captain Miles on his promotion, and wishing him success in his new office.  

THUS ENDED THE LOCAL TRIBUNALS FOR 1917.       

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

GO TO 1918

GO TO 1916

RETURN TO START OF 1917

RETURN TO HOME PAGE