Jump to content
Great War Forum

Remembered Today:

Reserved Occupations


Recommended Posts

Kathy8panes

My maternal grandfather was a Thames lighterman who completed his apprenticeship in 1900. He then served in the Second Boer War from enlistment in London on1 March 1901, arriving in South Africa 19 April 1901 to his early discharge from military duties on 19 April 1902 following his discharge from hospital in England after recovering from typhoid.

 

He was president of the Amalgamated Society of Freemen Lightermen in 1916: I have the medal and 1916 bar with which he was awarded. The conclusion I draw from this is that he did not serve in the armed forces at all during World War 1. There are no records pertaining to him for the war.

 

Therefore, I should like to know whether the job of lighterman might have been regarded as a reserved occupation, since it involved ensuring that provisions were transferred from ship to dock, an important part, I should think, of maintaing food and other supplies during wartime. Since his services were absent during his time in South Africa and while he was convalescent though illness, perhaps it was recognised that people like him were an important part of the supply chain and it wasn't a task that women could do, since it required huge physical strength to wield a 28ft oar, or sweep, to propel and manoeuvre a fully laden lighter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
MerchantOldSalt

Welcome Kathy,

Lighterman was not a reserved occupation during WW1.  I have found hundreds of service records of men enlisted into the Inland Water Transport section of the Royal Engineers who were lightermen, watermen, bargemen, and Merchant Seamen.  Many of them enlisted voluntarily others were compulsorily transferred from Infantry and many other Regiments when the logistic problems facing the BEF and its allies required their services.

 

The IWT was responsible for a Cross Channel Barge Service between Britain and France and also into the canals of both France and Belgium taking material up to depots behind the front line thus relieving pressure on the French Ports and Merchant Shipping, lightermen played a crucial part in this endeavour.  The IWT also served other operations throughout the Mediterranean and Mesopotamia.  

 

I cannot say why your Grandfather did not serve in the military, but with many of the lightermen he represented already in the military you would be correct in assuming there was a very great need for them in the ports of Britain.

 

As some of my ancestors were also Thames Lightermen I would be interested to find out your Grandfather's name.

 

Tony

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Kathy8panes said:

He was president of the Amalgamated Society of Freemen Lightermen in 1916: I have the medal and 1916 bar with which he was awarded. The conclusion I draw from this is that he did not serve in the armed forces at all during World War 1. There are no records pertaining to him for the war.

 

Hi and welcome to the forum.

 

The vast majority of other ranks records were destroyed during the Blitz, and if an individual served in the UK only then they did not qualify for any service medals. This can make it very difficult to track down such individuals.

 

However if you care to share his details like name and year and place of place, (plus anything else you can think of :) then if nothing else the collective brains trust that is the Great War Forum may at least be able to suggest some useful lines of enquiry.

 

Cheers,

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kathy8panes
12 hours ago, MerchantOldSalt said:

Welcome Kathy,

Lighterman was not a reserved occupation during WW1. <snip>

 

I cannot say why your Grandfather did not serve in the military, but with many of the lightermen he represented already in the military you would be correct in assuming there was a very great need for them in the ports of Britain.

 

As some of my ancestors were also Thames Lightermen I would be interested to find out your Grandfather's name.

 

Tony

Hello Tony,

 

Looking at the dates of birth of two of my aunts, one was born May 1916, the other December 1918. There are no family stories around that tell of him serving in the forces. I have checked the certificates I have at home. A cousin passed a box containing family papers (I need to return certain items to him at some point) and his mum's birth and death certificates are in there, but the birth certificate is only the short form kind, so doesn't show my grandfather's occupation. In any case, I would expect it to show his usual occupation and in 1916 he was President of the Association.

 

As for his name: Henry Charles Coppock, known as Harry to his familiars. His father was also a lighterman, William Joseph Coppock. Three of Harry's brothers were apprenticed as lightermen to their dad as well:William Edward James, Arthur Wellesley and Albert Ivor. Albert chose to become a cab driver before WW1 and was a driver during the war as well. W E J was relatively young when he died: 39 in 1909. I need to catch up with some of these great aunts and uncles and order certificates for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kathy8panes
10 hours ago, PRC said:

 

Hi and welcome to the forum.

 

The vast majority of other ranks records were destroyed during the Blitz, and if an individual served in the UK only then they did not qualify for any service medals. This can make it very difficult to track down such individuals.

 

However if you care to share his details like name and year and place of place, (plus anything else you can think of :) then if nothing else the collective brains trust that is the Great War Forum may at least be able to suggest some useful lines of enquiry.

 

Cheers,

Peter

Hi Peter and thanks.

 

Henry Charles Coppock, born Bermondsey 1878. Served in the 2nd Boer War 1901-1902 IY 91st Co. Sharpshooters. Finished a bit early due to typhoid. My mum told me he suffered recurring bouts of malarial fever. Could this be a reason for non-service in WW1?

Link to post
Share on other sites
headgardener

‘Reserved Occupations’ didn’t really exist until WW2. After the introduction of conscription in 1916 men had to apply for an ‘exemption’ to being conscripted. Cases went before a tribunal and exemptions could be granted for a variety of reasons and might be subject to regular review. Your man was already almost 40, did a valuable job which contributed to the war effort, the numbers of available men who could do his job were severely depleted, he had a young family.... all of which would have been grounds for him to apply (apparently successfully) for an exemption.

EDIT: his recurrent bouts of malaria would also have placed him in a lower category (medically speaking - available men were graded according to their fitness for active service with the most fit being more liable to being called up), and therefore further reduced the likelihood that he might be called up

Edited by headgardener
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Kathy8panes said:

Looking at the dates of birth of two of my aunts, one was born May 1916, the other December 1918. There are no family stories around that tell of him serving in the forces. I have checked the certificates I have at home. A cousin passed a box containing family papers (I need to return certain items to him at some point) and his mum's birth and death certificates are in there, but the birth certificate is only the short form kind, so doesn't show my grandfather's occupation. In any case, I would expect it to show his usual occupation and in 1916 he was President of the Association.

 

I’m sure you are aware of things on the genealogy side, but just bear with me as they appear to be slightly different in what I can see from what you have written.

 

On the 1911 Census of England & Wales, the 33 year old Henry Charles Coppock, a General Lighterman on the River Thames, born Bermondsey, London, was recorded as the married head of the household at 326 Southwark Park Road, Rotherhithe,(London), S.E.

He lives there with his wife of three years, Edith Emma, aged 31 and born Dulwich.

So far the couple have had two children, both still alive and both still living with them. They were Edith Helen P., (1) and Kathleen May, (10 months) – both born Rotherhithe.

The address they were living at fell within the St Olave Civil Registration District.

 

The marriage of a Henry Charles Coppock to an Edith Emma Harding was recorded in the St Olave Civil Registration District in the April to June quarter, (Q2), of 1907.

 

The published General Registrars Office quarterly index of births in England & Wales only included the mothers’ maiden name from August 1911 onwards. Checking that for children registered with the surname Coppock, mothers maiden name Harding brings up only six matches in the period up to 1984 (limit of FreeBMD), and the first five, given the timimg and location, are likely to be children of Henry and Edith. They are all shown in the St Olave District.

Q2 1912….Henry W. Coppock

Q2 1914….Arthur J. Coppock (The death of an Arthur James Coppock, born 28th April 1914 was recorded in the Chichester District in Q2 1987)

Q4 1916….Gladys V. Coppock

(The marriage of a Gladys V. Coppock to an Ernest W. Hockley was recorded in the Bermondsey District in Q2 1938. On the 1939 Register there is a Gladys V. Hockley, born 20th October 1916 recorded in the same household as an Ernest W. Hockley, born 2nd May 1914. They were probably married to each other, and were living at 326 Park Road, Southwark. This was one of two households at this address – the other consisted of Henry C. Coppock, Edith E. Coppock, Eileen O Coppock and probably a boarder Edward T. Lewis.

The death of a Gladys Victoria Hockley, born 20th October 1916, was recorded in the Brighton District in Q4, 1988.)

Q1 1919….Eileen O. Coppock

(As above, on the 1939 Register, Eileen O Coppock, born 25th December 1918. was recorded living with her parents at 326 Park Road, Southwark. Also in the household is probably a boarder, Edward T. Lewis. Eileen would later change her surname , probably on marriage, to Lewis, but unusually the date is not shown, (the pages of the 1939 Register available to the public formed the central registry of the National Health Service up until the early 1990’s). The death of an Eileen Olive Lewis, born 25th December 1918, was recorded in the Sutton District of Surrey in Q2 1990)

Q1 1922….Joan B. Coppock.

_____________  

 

It’s the births of Gladys Victoria and Eileen Olive that directly relates to the question of whether your maternal grandfather served. The two dates of birth, 20th October 1916 and 25th December 1918 pretty much straddle the period of the Great War during which any man under 52 would have been considered for military services, such that you were either in the forces, too unfit or carrying out a role that was more vital to the war effort or covered by one of a limited number of exemptions in the power of local tribunarals.Even many of the exemptions were temporary – if the job could be done by a discharged serviceman who had the skills, then the exemption often no longer applied.

 

The later date was also one by which few had actually been discharged, even to the Army Reserve.

 

So if he was serving in the Armed Forces this would be captured by the Fathers Occupation on the relevant birth certificates. This will normally shown Rank and Regiment \ Corps, at a minimum, and sometimes much more. It will also show his civilian occupation as well.

 

The other line of enquiry opened up by the birth certificate for Eileen is that you will very likely have a home address – the same address likely to apply to the electoral registers of 1918 & 1919 for Henry and possibly Edith, if she was newly qualified for the vote. If Henry was in the services he will be referenced on the Absent Voters List, (AVL). The 1918 one, put together in the spring of 1918 hurriedly, usually just has information about service number and unit that was provided by other family members at the same address, but the 1919 one is a bit more thorough.

There is a bit more guidance here on this route to identifying a mans’ unit via the AVL :- https://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/soldiers/how-to-research-a-soldier/finding-soldiers-through-the-1918-absent-voters-lists/

 

Of course it’s not perfect – for a start you’d have to assure yourself these two were indeed daughters of Henry and Edith, although it sounds likely. And the gap between their dates of birth means that Henry could possibly have served and been discharged – but if it was an honourable discharge I’d expect a Silver War Badge to have been issued and there does not appear to be a trace of one.

 

If he was exempted by a tribunaral then you may well find a newspaper report. How these were reported seems to vary around the country. Local newspapers to me in Norfolk and Suffolk and others I’ve had cause to research in the West Midlands report them anonymously, so you might get a “38 year old Thames lighterman, a married father of four from Southwark and a Boer War veteran, applied for exemption from conscription” and then it’s a question of whether the details fit. Other regions just come straight out and name (and shame) the individuals applying to the tribunaral.

 

My reading of the newspaper records of the time would seem to indicate that if the Ministry of Labour had granted a certificate that the individual was doing work of vital importance to the war effort, then this didn’t get anywhere near a tribunaral, and so you won’t pick anything up from the newspaper route.

 

I hope some of that helps – and PM if you’d like any of the personal details removed from a public forum that is routinely scrapped by Google !

 

Cheers,

Peter

Edited by PRC
Typo
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Admin
On 03/08/2020 at 15:31, Kathy8panes said:

Therefore, I should like to know whether the job of lighterman might have been regarded as a reserved occupation, since it involved ensuring that provisions were transferred from ship to dock, an important part, I should think, of maintaing food and other supplies during wartime.

As already mentioned whilst the term 'reserved occupation' was used during the Great War it is primarily a WW2 construct.

Until the enactment of the Military Service Act in March 1916 enlistment was voluntary, therefore if a man did not volunteer he carried on his peacetime occupation as normal.  There was of course great moral pressure, especially on single men to enlist.  The National Registration Act of 1915 introduced the concept of 'starred' or 'badged' occupations but this was abandoned with conscription.

 

On 03/08/2020 at 20:32, MerchantOldSalt said:

Lighterman was not a reserved occupation during WW1.

Not strictly true, it was a 'Certified Occupation' and far more nuanced. The fact that many Port of London employees no doubt enlisted voluntarily in the 'patriotic fervour' that allegedly gripped London in the early days, or were 'combed out' later does not mean a lighterman could not receive exemption from military service.

 

As noted above after conscription a man had to seek a certificate of exemption from military service from the Local Tribunal, these were 'certificated men'.  Special provisions applied in the Port of London designated under the heading in the guidance to the Local Tribunal as 'Transport Trades'.

"(a) PORTS

The following scheme applied at Ports where Port Labour Committes have been set up.  Men engaged in the occupations listed below will, if certain specified conditions are satisfied, receive certificates of exemption from the Board of Trade, acting on the advice of the Port Labour Committee.  Any such transport workers whose exemption cannot be considered by the Port Labour Committees will, when notified to that effect, be dealt with as heretofore by the Local and Appeal Tribunals

(i) Port of London (there then follows a list of those who could be granted a certificate but for clarity)

Men employed in any capacity. manual or clerical, in connection with lighters, barges and tugs in the Port."

 

Pamphlet R105 List of Certified Occupations HMSO 20th November 1916

(free download at TNA)

 

I don't know about Port Labour Commitees,and it appears the Port of London Authority operated a system separate to them, but a similar system operated in the coal mines.  There the trade unions were involved and generally a system of 'last in first out operated' and single men were the first to be 'given up'.  Occupational age limits were another criteria, at his stage of the war these were relatively high for single men, often up to the upper age limit of the Military Service Act of 41, but for married men it could be as low as 25, depending on the occupation.  A footnote to the above guidance stated where no Port Labour Committee was in operation the age at which Reservation begins for both single and married on barges and other craft was 25 years.

 

As the war continued and manpower needs became more acute certificates of exemption became more difficult to secure and various amending Military Service Acts led to changes in those eligible for conscription.  If a man held a certificate of exemption issued by the Board of Trade he was exempt from recruitment to the Army while he remained in that occupation and the Local Tribunal could not intervene.

 

I think you are correct in the assumption he did not serve in the Army in WW1, in fact given his position in 1916 he may have had some form of representation in the granting of exemptions in the PLA.  It might well be worthwhile seeing if they have any archives detailing how exemptions were granted.  Looking at Local Tribunal records is unlikely to glean much information as the exemptions were not granted by them.

 

I can't find any details of the PLA system but this cutting describes the inaugral meeting of the Port Labour Committee at BrIstol published in Western Daily Press 27 June 1916.

(courtesy BNA @ Find  My Past)

Screenshot 2020-08-04 at 21.22.55.png

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kathy8panes

Thank you to all contributors to my enquiry.

 

Gladys Victoria and Eileen Olive were indeed children of Henry Charles (and therefore two of my aunts). There were seven children born to Harry and Edith altogether, including my mother, Joan Barbara, the youngest. I am intending to order the full birth certificates for each of them, after contacting my cousins to check that they are OK with me doing so. I know that the certificate for Gladys Victoria is the short form and I suspect that Eileen's is the same. Therefore, there is hardly any detail on such a certificate.

 

I've looked through the Electoral Rolls on Ancestry. The records on there are incomplete for WW1. However, I listed 1913, 1914, 1915, 1918 and 1919 for Henry Charles Coppock, resident at 326 Southwark Park Road. The new form of ER from 1918 also lists my grandmother, but she isn't listed in the earlier years and I would not expect that. I'm thinking that there might not have been registers for 1916 and 1917, because of the war, but I could be wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kathy8panes
12 hours ago, kenf48 said:

<snip> it was a 'Certified Occupation' and far more nuanced. The fact that many Port of London employees no doubt enlisted voluntarily in the 'patriotic fervour' that allegedly gripped London in the early days, or were 'combed out' later does not mean a lighterman could not receive exemption from military service.

 

As noted above after conscription a man had to seek a certificate of exemption from military service from the Local Tribunal, these were 'certificated men'.  Special provisions applied in the Port of London designated under the heading in the guidance to the Local Tribunal as 'Transport Trades'.

<snip>

 

As the war continued and manpower needs became more acute certificates of exemption became more difficult to secure and various amending Military Service Acts led to changes in those eligible for conscription.  If a man held a certificate of exemption issued by the Board of Trade he was exempt from recruitment to the Army while he remained in that occupation and the Local Tribunal could not intervene.

 

I think you are correct in the assumption he did not serve in the Army in WW1, in fact given his position in 1916 he may have had some form of representation in the granting of exemptions in the PLA.  It might well be worthwhile seeing if they have any archives detailing how exemptions were granted.  Looking at Local Tribunal records is unlikely to glean much information as the exemptions were not granted by them.

 

<snip>

 

On 04/08/2020 at 09:54, headgardener said:

‘Reserved Occupations’ didn’t really exist until WW2. After the introduction of conscription in 1916 men had to apply for an ‘exemption’ to being conscripted. Cases went before a tribunal and exemptions could be granted for a variety of reasons and might be subject to regular review. Your man was already almost 40, did a valuable job which contributed to the war effort, the numbers of available men who could do his job were severely depleted, he had a young family.... all of which would have been grounds for him to apply (apparently successfully) for an exemption.

EDIT: his recurrent bouts of malaria would also have placed him in a lower category (medically speaking - available men were graded according to their fitness for active service with the most fit being more liable to being called up), and therefore further reduced the likelihood that he might be called up

 

I found a BBC article about conscription and certification that makes interesting reading. Henry Charles might have gone through a tribunal to prove his case, but the record of this was probably destroyed in the 1920s, because of the stigma attached to those who did not serve in the forces. Not many tribunal records survive from those times.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Kathy8panes said:

The new form of ER from 1918 also lists my grandmother, but she isn't listed in the earlier years and I would not expect that. I'm thinking that there might not have been registers for 1916 and 1917, because of the war, but I could be wrong.

 

You are right in thinking that there were no electoral registers anywhere in the UK in 1916 & 1917 because of the war, but the non-appearance of your grandmother before 1918 is explained by another reason. The 1918 Representation of the People Act expanded the vote to some women. Although that is what is is remembered for now, the actual big impact at the time is that it extended the vote to all males aged over 21, (over 18 in the case of those serving in the armed forces), which is why the absent voters lists for 1918 & 1919 are such an important source. New electoral registers had to be hurriedly compiled to reflect the new electorate, which is why the 1918 version is less complete \ more prone to inaccuracies than the later versions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1918

https://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/soldiers/a-soldiers-life-1914-1918/the-registration-of-military-voters/

(and many, many others!)

 

If your grandfather remained in the UK as well as contributing to the war effort via his labour, he may also have been a special constable or joined the local Volunteers - a Great War equivalent of "Dads Army".

 

Hope we have been able to help with your search,

 

Cheers,

Peter

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kathy8panes
5 minutes ago, PRC said:

 

<snip>

 

If your grandfather remained in the UK as well as contributing to the war effort via his labour, he may also have been a special constable or joined the local Volunteers - a Great War equivalent of "Dads Army".

 

Hope we have been able to help with your search,

 

Cheers,

Peter

 

 

 

Peter, do you know whether there are extant records for those who served in the Volunteers?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Terry_Reeves
19 minutes ago, Kathy8panes said:

 

 

I found a BBC article about conscription and certification that makes interesting reading. Henry Charles might have gone through a tribunal to prove his case, but the record of this was probably destroyed in the 1920s, because of the stigma attached to those who did not serve in the forces. Not many tribunal records survive from those times.

 

With respect, tribunals came under the Local Government Board which was abolished by the Ministry of Health Act 1919 and who took over the LGBs duties. The records were part of an administrative clear out during the reorganisation and had nothing to with stigma but rather that they

 were no longer relevant.
 

 

 

 

TR

Edited by Terry_Reeves
Link to post
Share on other sites
Kathy8panes
2 minutes ago, Terry_Reeves said:

With respect, tribunals came under the Local Government Board which was abolished by the Ministry of Health Act 1919 and who took over the LGBs duties. The records were part of an administrative clear out during the reorganisation and had nothing to with stigma.

 

TR

Ah, journalists getting the wrong end of the stick. Wonder where they gleaned that idea?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Kathy8panes said:

do you know whether there are extant records for those who served in the Volunteers?

 

Unfortunately the short answer would be I don't know.

 

While locally set up and run, many seemed to have had a loose association with their local regiment, and so on disbandment post-war may have passed over the paperwork. It may now be gathering dust at a Regimental Museum. Others may have handed it over to a local archive. With amalgamations of both Regiments and Library services and adding in the impact of the Blitz in London, that could be a long search!

 

If it was held by any of the formal armed services, (Army \ Navy \ Air Force), as they pretty much had a free hand in deciding what categories of documents to hand over to the National Archive for preservation, I strongly suspect such local volunteer records would not have made the cut.

 

25 minutes ago, Kathy8panes said:

I found a BBC article about conscription and certification that makes interesting reading. Henry Charles might have gone through a tribunal to prove his case, but the record of this was probably destroyed in the 1920s, because of the stigma attached to those who did not serve in the forces.

 

9 minutes ago, Terry_Reeves said:

With respect, tribunals came under the Local Government Board which was abolished by the Ministry of Health Act 1919 and who took over the LGBs duties. The records were part of an administrative clear out during the reorganisation and had nothing to with stigma.

 

5 minutes ago, Kathy8panes said:

Ah, journalists getting the wrong end of the stick. Wonder where they gleaned that idea?

 

Probably forced to read too many Great War Poets in "A"-level English Literature :)

 

Cheers

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites
Terry_Reeves
1 hour ago, Kathy8panes said:

Ah, journalists getting the wrong end of the stick. Wonder where they gleaned that idea?

Kathy

 

Because journalists know  that a good sob story beats a run of the mill one about administrative instructions. 
 

TR

 

 

Edited by Terry_Reeves
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Admin
3 hours ago, Kathy8panes said:

Ah, journalists getting the wrong end of the stick. Wonder where they gleaned that idea?

 

Not only the wrong end of the stick they even got the title wrong, the authority granting a certificate of exemption from military service was the Local Tribunal and men could appeal to the Appeal Tribunal.  They were not Military Service Tribunals.

 

In any event as I pointed out in my original post certificates of exemption in the Port of London were granted by the Board of Trade, the Local Tribunal had no authority over men employed within the Port of London once the exemption had been given on the grounds of 'work of national importance'. 

These were individual certificates issued and personal to, the worker.  There was no blanket authority, but they would need the support of the Port Authority and would only remain in force whilst employed in the Port.

If dismissed from that employment for any reason the man would then have to seek exemption form the Local Tribunal which does not appear relevant to your grandfather. 

 

In England just 24% of men of military age enlisted in the Army between 1914 and 1918 although this is over four million men, on the balance of probability he was one of the 76% who did not serve in the military. 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kathy8panes

Well, gentlemen, thank you kindly for all the information you have provided. This has been a worthwhile post on the forum, certainly from my point of view. It includes a good dose of scepticism too!

Link to post
Share on other sites
headgardener
1 hour ago, kenf48 said:

 

In England just 24% of men of military age enlisted in the Army between 1914 and 1918 although this is over four million men, on the balance of probability he was one of the 76% who did not serve in the military. 

 

 

A very interesting stat.....! I'd never really thought of it in those terms. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kathy8panes

I found this page from The National Archives (at least there were no journalists involved in writing it).

 

These are the Scheduled Trades as reported in the Sheffield Telegraph on 2 March 1917

Scheduled Trades 2.3.1917.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Kathy8panes said:

These are the Scheduled Trades as reported in the Sheffield Telegraph on 2 March 1917

 

 

Nearly fell off my seat when I read that list:)

 

If you read the rest of the article starting from the top of the column, these are the trades in which no new jobs could be offered to males aged 18 or over, and under 61.The Ministry of Munitions died not regard them as vital to the war effort, but certain exemptions applied like discharged servicemen or to complete a government contract.

 

1548119278_SheffieldDailyTelegraph02March1917page4ScheduledTradessourceFMP.jpg.9df6895b2adf60e4bf3c942b4282d3a1.jpg

(Source FindMyPast)

 

Cheers,

Peter

 

P.S. To stay within the T's & C's of the Great War Forum, and avoid the ire of the admins :) can you please acknowledge the source of any images you post.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
Kathy8panes

The Scheduled Trades cutting is provided courtesy of the BNA (direct source).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kathy8panes

To all those who contributed to this thread: I have carried out further research and found my grandfather in all of the available electoral rolls covering WW1. Together with the medallion for 1916 awarded to him as President of the Amalgamated Society of Foremen Lightermen, this proves that he did not serve in the armed forces during the war. It is likely that he would have had to apply for tribunal in 1916 under the Military Service Act on account of recurring malarial fever making him unsuitable for miliary service. He would have continued to work as a lighterman to 1. provide for his family and 2. to help to ensure that supplies continued to be brought across from ship to warehouse whatever else was happening. To keep working and to look after his family was his philosophy in life, which is backed up by the only letter he wrote to have survived a clearing out by one of his daughters. It was written about two weeks after the start of WW2 to the husband of one of his daughters stating that he would continue to work while he could and provide parcels of goods of whatever they needed to the best of his resources.

 

Thank you again for all your contributions. It was a lively and worthwhile discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...