The first public sitting of the local Tribunal for the Luton Rural District area too place on Friday morning [February 25, 1916]. Several of the appeals naturally concerned the farming industry.

One appeal had reference to two two sons of a farmer who already had one son at the Front and was himself under the doctor's hands as a result of overwork and anxiety, brought on by the labour difficulties caused by the departure of hands on military service.

With a farm of some 600 acres and many head of cattle, he has left only three able-bodied men, two of whom are nearly 60 years of age, and two boys, besides his two sons. As proof of the impossibility of getting more men he represented that he has had standing empty since October a cottage previously occupied by a horsekeeper whose place he had been unable to fill. If he lost his sons he would be without an engine driver for the threshing, stockman or shepherd, and it would inevitably mean that he would have to sell all the livestock on the farm, except horses, and content himself with cultivating what part of the land he could, leaving the remainder to go uncultivated.

The sons were given an exemption conditionally upon them remaining in the occupation described on their appeals.

A six months postponement, with the opportunity to renew appeal after that time, was granted in the case of a young ploughman employed by a farmer having two farms of about 375 acres, situated some distance apart.

There were eight men and two boys employed on the farms prior to the war, and the employer said he was very pleased to allow his men to enlist until the number got so small that he was now left with only one ploughman for each farm, and one other man. He had no women or boys employed and, in fact, he said he did not think the woman in his district wanted much work. The Chairman (Mr Ben Hartop, a farmer from Stopsley) agreed that this was also his experience as far as women and work on the land was concerned.

The ploughman was stated to have been in the service of his employer ever since he left school, and was the best man on the farm, being as good as two men to him. He had said he wanted to go and serve his country at first, but his father had persuaded him not to in view of the fact that all of his three brothers as well as the husband of his only married sister had gone. A younger sister was also in munition works, and it was remarked that the family had a good record.

Six months postponement was therefore not objected to, the Chairman observing that the production of food was the chief thing next to fighting, if it did not rank equal.

The father of a young man who was described as a farm labourer, but was stated to have managed his father's small holding of some 26 acres for some years, claimed that his son ought to be exempted as much as any man in the country, for the reason that there was more to do on the holding than he could manage. The father is employed in skilled work on an adjoining estate with another son as his labourer, and assists on the holding before going to his work and after leaving it, and he stated that at the present time he very often has to work until ten o'clock at night.

The stock, he said, was a great deal more trouble than it would be for a farmer who had buildings to keep it all together, and when the sale of the stock was suggested he argued that this would not be doing much good for the country. This view did not commend itself to a member of the Tribunal, who pointed out that the probability was that somebody else would take over the land and carry it on. An alternative urged was that the father could get release from his employment for the time being and take over the management of the holding. Because of this, the son was retained in his group.

"You are having a very easy time of it," was the comment of one of the members of the Tribunal in the case of a man who described himself as a stockman but who turned out to be one of five men employed on about 75 acres and had nothing more to do than fee the pigs and perform a few off jobs "between times".

In the course of the examination of this applicant it turned out that he had considerably overstated the area of the farm in the first instance, and also stated the quantity of arable land. It was pointed out to the applicant that members of the Tribunal knew the farm and were aware of the true facts of the matter, and inaccurate statements did not tend to assist the case of the appellant.

There was another case in which a young man was stated to come into Luton from one of the villages to work as a blocker in the straw trade and also act at home as the keeper of the stock on a small holding for the family.

He has two brothers serving in France, but there are sisters at home and, as the stock turned out to consist of pigs, it was suggested that the sisters could attend to this. Appellant expressed the view that it was not very nice work for girls to do, but the Chairman said he was afraid there were a good many having to do it.

It was remarked that farmers had stated that the girls were more trouble to look after than the stock, but the young man was held to serve in his group.

A firm in the district which was stated to be supplying to the Government 75 per cent of the output at their works claimed the exemption of a member of the indoor staff, who was performing a branch of work which required a trustworthy man to deal with and several months training to adapt a man to it.

Facilities were stated to have been given to the employees to enlist, and 35 per cent have enlisted and receiving a weekly allowance from the firm. All other eligibles had attested, but as the work carried on by the firm is regarded as of national value, it was considered that this employee could not be released.

The firm's representative pleaded that a difficulty in the way of getting a good substitute was that men could not be obtained, and women would not serve at the factory because of the locality in which it was situated.

The Tribunal, however, granted only a month's postponement, it being felt that this would give time for a substitute to be trained.

A young man who was claimed for as being indispensable to he business of his father in that he had been brought up to the requirements of the threefold business carried on, frankly admitted, when asked if he did not want to go to the war, that he did not care much about it, and it was remarked that he appeared to have more courage in telling the truth about it.

The father, on the other hand, stated that he wished he could go back about 48 years to go and see what he could do with great willingness. He claimed, however, that he and his wife were absolutely dependent on the son, but no more than a month's postponement was granted to allow of arrangements being made for the provision of a substitute.

"If I go the clock would stop," declared a house decorator who is the only son to carry on an old-established village business belonging to his father, and has also worked up a connection of his own in the locality. He had been up twice previously and offered to enlist, but was rejected each time, and in December he was told he need not apply any more.

At that time there was another employee in the business, but this employee had since enlisted and left him to carry on single-handed, and he thought if he attested he would have a chance to appeal. "Then you didn't attest because you wanted to go and fight," the appellant was asked. He replied: "Well, I am willing to do my bit, but if I go there is no one left to carry things on." He was put back for a month.

A labourer working in Luton and living in a village close by appealed as the sole support of his father, who has been an invalid for 14 years, and his mother. He has two married brothers who have been serving since the early days of the war, and appellant is the only one left at home to earn any money.

It was stated that the appellant had been unable to get married because of the dependence of his parents, and he was granted six months postponement with an opportunity for another appeal.

"Butlers are a luxury," was the comment of the Chairman upon an application made by a mistress in respect of a servant who was described as in this category. The man declared that he was not a butler but a manservant, because a butler had two footmen and he added that he was the only manservant in the house and a maid could not do what he had to do for his mistress.

The Tribunal, however, held that manservants as well as butlers are luxuries, and disallowed the appeal.

[The Luton Reporter: Monday, February 28th, 1916]