Essential Services

[alan jones]

Hello ,

I am wondering if perhaps a butchers trade may have excused a person from WW1 service as I can't find any trace of WW1 history for a relative ? He was formerly a butcher but went on to be a Superintendant at the local abbatoir . Another relative I was told was excused duty because he was a train driver in Exeter, he was born 1900 so was just eligable but perhaps he was moving munitions ?

Regards

Alan

[Peridot]

Hello ,

I am wondering if perhaps a butchers trade may have excused a person from WW1 service as I can't find any trace of WW1 history for a relative ? He was formerly a butcher but went on to be a Superintendant at the local abbatoir . Another relative I was told was excused duty because he was a train driver in Exeter, he was born 1900 so was just eligable but perhaps he was moving munitions ?

Regards

Alan

Hi Alan

Not sure if this helps but Norman Holding in his World War 1 Ancestry Booklet lists Field Butchers as part of the ASC with some 29 Units in France and reporting to GHQ.

May not therefore have been a reserved occupation.

Regards

Peridot

[sotonmate]

Alan

He simply may not have passed the medical. I can't see it being a reserved occupation as I am sure there would have been enough butchers over (or even under) the recruiting age to handle our domestic needs.

It just might be for the second relative not to have been called up if he was 18 in late 1918.

Sotonmate

[alan jones]

Thank you both for replies, very interesting and does make sense of it

Regards

Alan

[kenf48]

While researching in a local newspaper archive I was amazed at the number of cases, and reasons given to the Deferment Tribunal why they should not serve. There were dozens every week, I can't recall individual cases but a forum pal has posted a couple of typical examples

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/i...aded&start=

I saw many similar cases.

There has been a lot of interest recently in conscientous objectors e.g http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathway...hts/antiwar.htm although like so many other things it becomes skewed through our 21st century perspective. The CO has acquired a sense of honour and martyrdom but many seem to have attempted to avoid conscription and the Army by any legal means.

Not everyone was a willing volunteer, hence conscription and it seems a large proportion of eligible men (one could argue quite sensibly) thought - b***er that!

Might not be a popular view with some of the more sentimental posts on here but the contemporary attitude to the war is to my mind as fascinating as the battles.

Of my relatives, there were four brothers, all involved in the boot and shoe trade, it appears two, including my grandfather, 'volunteered' as a consequence of the National Registration Act 1915, a third joined the Local Volunteer Regiment in June 1918 (probably as a consequence of one of the brothers on active service being killed in May). The fourth brother had to my knowledge, nothing at all to do with the War, I find his motivation equally intriguing.

Ken

[Ian C]

Hi

My Paternal G'Father, Charles Ernest Chambers, was a butcher by trade, if I remember correctly, he was medically graded B1, which I think means he was not fit enough for active service, however, he was put in the ASC as a butcher and was stationed in the Chester area.

Regards

IanC

[peterhogg]

In my research efforts to track down a grand-uncle I have come across volunteer Pte. Robert Hogg 19803 16th Royal Scots who was a butcher by trade so it may not have been a reserved occupation.

peter

[centurion]

A lot of seemingly healthy men failed the medical. Things like flat feet, short sightedness, poor teeth could disqualify men. The army did try and get round this (eg by instituting an army spectacle service so that men with imperfect eyesight could work in clerical and supply areas thus freeing fitter men for fighting) but there would still be lots of men who failed the tests.

[Milner]

When you look at trades and occupations you should also consider that in the early 1900's there would have been multiple Butcher's shops along a typical high street unlike today where the big supermarkets have taken nearly all the trade.

So I very much doubt that it would be a reserved occupation as there would have been plenty of older men to run the shops. I have found no evidence in my own family who owned a number of butchers shops of reserved occupation.

regards

Phil

[Dragon]

Recently I read in the Northwich Guardian, 1916 or 1917, of a butcher whose mother was appealing for him to be excused from serving. He was one of several male family members including brother(s), all of whom were now abroad, and if this son went, there would be no-one left to run the business. It was a well-established family business, but already under strain because of the war.

His mother was in her 70s and neither strong enough nor well enough to carry out the manual work required in the butcher trade, and she appealed that this last remaining son should be excused. If he were to be forced to leave, she would be single-handed, the business would fold and the community would be deprived of one if its last butchers. The appeal was refused.

I'm sorry that I can't remember the specifics, because this isn't my interest, but the story caught my eye while I was looking for something else. It does seem to show that butchers were not routinely exempt from serving.

Gwyn

[Ivor Lee]

Alan

My research would suggest that exemption from service was not clear cut during WW1.

As an example farmers were exempt but not their sones or employees. Dockers were originally exempt although, with the shortage of men, in 1917 it was not unusual for Port Labour Committees to remove exemption certificates.

A man could apply for exemption at a local Tribunal but there was no consistency on who was approved and who rejected. Men undertaking work of national importance could be granted exemption although the definition of national importance interpreted in different ways. At Market Boswort, for example, all 21 men who worked for the local hun were given exemption.

Ivor

[centurion]

At Market Boswort, for example, all 21 men who worked for the local hun were given exemption.

At Hindenburg's request possibly? An interesting point - how many towns had a local hun? What was the equivalent in Germany?

[Ivor Lee]

Centurion

That will teach me to check my typing

Sorry it should be hunt!

Ivor

[Beau Geste]

My search to prove, one way or the other, if Pte 20304 Richard Lofthouse of the 15th Bn The Welsh Regiment was my grandfather has been based on the belief that a "clogger" would never have been exempt from military service during the Great War. It would appear though that that wasn't necessarily the case and that each application for deferment would have been considered on its own merits and that there were no "hard and fast rules" .

In my grandfather's case he was born in 1880 so he would have been in his mid-thirties in 1915/16. He was married with two children and provided for them by running a small shop in Bolton. That business was their only source of income.

Would grounds such as these have satisfied the authorities I wonder.

Harry

[alan jones]

Hello ,

I managed to get a minute today in Exeter and found my relative was already a Superintendant at the Abbatioir and living in there in 1914. I don't know if a position like this might have excused him from service though. I don't suppose there is any records anywhere for people who failed medicals are there ?

Regards

Alan

[bts1970]

My research for Purton uncovered 3 butchers.

The first 2 joined up at the start of the War into the ASC, the third had a deferment tribunal in 1916, he also was soon on his way across the channel with the ASC. The tribunal stated that as there was at least one other Butcher An older gent) working in the shop he was basically not exempt Service .

Bob

[kenf48]

In my grandfather's case he was born in 1880 so he would have been in his mid-thirties in 1915/16. He was married with two children and provided for them by running a small shop in Bolton. That business was their only source of income.

Would grounds such as these have satisfied the authorities I wonder.

Harry

In general terms if he was in his thirties in 1915 he would probably only qualify as a reservist.

Family men with dependents were not encouraged to enlist although many did so.

Ken

[Beau Geste]

In general terms if he was in his thirties in 1915 he would probably only qualify as a reservist.

Family men with dependents were not encouraged to enlist although many did so.

Ken

Thanks Ken. I didn't realise that.

Harry