There was still an air of tension when Luton Borough Tribunal reconvened at the Town Hall on Friday, March 9th, 1917, after a two-week break in which to seek clarification of any revised orders given to Military Representatives of which they had not been informed.

Deadlock arose on February 21st when Military Representative Lieut H. Gardner told the Tribunal that he had new orders that could not be presented as they were "marked confidential". The effect was that he was to appeal in every case of conditional exemption granted by the Tribunal to men under the age of 31 passed medically fit for 'A' (general service) or 'B1' (garrison duty abroad).

The Tribunal felt that if all cases were to be appealed automatically there was no point in them sitting. They decided that until they had authoritative confirmation of the new directive they would hold no further planned sittings, and adjourned for two weeks. That meant that men who might have been called up would not have their cases heard in the meantime and be delayed joining the Army.

The hearing was extensively reported in local newspapers, verbatim in the Saturday Telegraph. The Tribunal's decision had repercussions right up to Government level in the form of Lord Rhondda, President of the Local Government Board. He was keen to get the Tribunal sitting again, especially as others around the country were threatening to follow Luton's lead, despite a Military Representative at Kings Lynn saying no new guidelines as had been suggested by Lieut Gardner had been issued to him.

Letters were sent from the Town Clerk of Luton (Mr William Smith) to the Area Recruiting Office and the Local Government Board, who in turn approached the War Office as military consternation grew. The letters asked for confirmation as to whether or not the military authorities had issued instructions that Military Representatives were to appeal again all decisions of Local Tribunals granting or confirming exemption to all men under 31 who had been classified fit for military service.

In reply, Military Representative Col Fenwick, at Bedford, wrote that the instructions were "not quite so drastically specific as Lieut Gardner had in his mind. In the interests of he country, I hope the Tribunal will resume the regular hearing of cases. Mr Gardner will continue to carry out his duties with the discretion I attribute to him."

From the Local Government Board came a letter which included the following: "Lord Rhondda understands that the Director of Recruiting has impressed upon Military Representatives generally the importance of appealing in all cases relating to the exemption of young men who are fit for general service, unless they are satisfied after the hearing of the case, that the exemption granted by the Local Tribunal is fully justified by the circumstances.

"Military Representatives have not, however, been instructed that they are to appeal in all cases of this kind."

After reading out this letter, the Town Clerk said: "That is the answer which the Tribunal lay very great stress upon. It justifies their view. There is a positive statement by the Local Government Board, made on behalf of the War Office, that no such instructions as Mr Gardner referred to have been either been suggested in the letter or the spirit."

Finding himself in a corner, Lieut Gardner claimed that he had qualified what he had said on February 21st with the words "except in exceptional cases". Unfortunately seven members of the Tribunal and the Town Clerk said they had not heard him use the phrase and neither was it reported in most local newspapers or even nationally in The Times.

But Lieut Gardner claimed one newspaper, (the Luton Reporter) had reported his use of the phrase. That was not published until the following Monday and it had to devote its editorial column on March 12th to a claim that - despite Tribunal members denying hearing it - the use of the exception phrase by the Reporter was not "the result of outside influence having been brought to bear". Any such suggestion, the newspaper maintained, was "absolutely unwarranted, and we resent the reflection upon our reputation for impartial reports".

Despite its use of the phrase, the newspaper said the words were used by Lieut Gardner at a time when no reporters were taking notes as the proceedings were in the nature of private discussion, of which the Press never take notes. The Reporter's use of it was based on "recollections".

The Mayor (Alderman J. H. Staddon) said the Tribunal was well aware the country needed fighting men but it was a civil court, and the men who applied were entitled to protection when they came before the Tribunal. As far as its duty was concerned, the Tribunal had done it.

Lieut Gardner said the main consideration was to get men into the Army and to do so quickly. "If any action of mine is going to interfere with that process, I shall not at all be averse to another military representative taking my place. I shall be very sorry, because I have done my best in the interests of both, I think, the Army and the country to the best of my ability, and I have always tried to look at the civil side of the question as well as the military side of the question.

"If the Tribunal have any fear that they will find it difficult to work with me for the future, I am not going to stand in the way of the work going on. I shall be sorry if it comes to that personally, on account of our association together, but that can be, in the national interest, the only consideration that is of any value."

The Mayor said there was no desire on the part of any member of the Tribunal that Lieut Gardner should be "shunted," but the Town Clerk said the Military Representative did not always realise that he was simply a party to a case and it was the Tribunal which was the legal body to decide.

Alderman Staddon said he was sorry that after working together so amicably for 14 months there should be this upset, but the Tribunal did not feel that Lieut Gardner should be reported for being a little over-zealous in his desire to do the best for the Army.

Said Lieut Gardner: "The only thing I can say is that perhaps in my generally straightforward way a little injudicious in making a perhaps too direct answer to a direct question. It would have been better, perhaps, if I had refused to make a definite statement rather than answering directly."

With the situation defused, the Tribunal went into committee to decide to resume consideration of cases the following week.