The Process of Military Recruitment
In order to understand grandad’s experiences of the war, and those of his family, we need to first understand a little of the process of recruiting men to the military in the first world war.
The Tribunal System
I had thought that all adult men had been in the military apart from those who were conscientious objectors. This was not the case. I had not realised that a whole system of Tribunals existed to consider those who, for various reasons, sought exemptions to military service. For more detail about how the tribunals operated see the book about Joseph Blackburn below.
Military Service Tribunals
Councils established Military Service Tribunals to hear applications for exemption from conscription during World War 1. Although not strictly recruiting bodies, they played an important part in the process of conscription. A scheme, developed by Lord Derby in 1915, initially established these but they continued on a statutory basis following the passing of the Military Service Act in 1916.
The Scale of the Tribunal System was Massive
There were 2,086 local Military Service Tribunals, staffed by local dignitaries, with 83 County Appeal Tribunals to hear appeals by applicants not happy with the local Tribunal decision. A Central Tribunal in London served as the final court of appeal.
Only a Small Proportion of Cases Heard by Tribunals Involved Conscientious Objectors
Although they are best known for the way they dealt with conscientious objectors, most of the Tribunals’ work dealt with domestic and business matters. Only around two percent of cases related to conscientious objection.
Grounds Considered by Tribunals
According to the Military Service Act of 1916, grounds that Tribunals could consider were:
(a) on the ground that it is expedient in the national interests that he should, instead of being employed in military service, be engaged in other work in which he is habitually engaged or in which he wishes to be engaged or, if he is being educated or trained, for any work, that he should continue to be so educated or trained; or
(b) on the ground that serious hardship would ensue, if the man were called up for Army Service, owing to his exceptional financial or business obligations or domestic position; or on the grounds of ill-health or infirmity; or on the ground of a conscientious objection to the undertaking of combatant service.
Exemptions Given by Government Departments
In addition, Government Departments could grant exemptions to men who were employed or engaged or qualified for employment or engagement in any work which wass certified by the Department to be work of national importance.
More Men Received Exemptions from Military Service Than Served with the British Army Overseas
A very large number of men applied. By the end of June 1916, 748,587 men had applied to Tribunals. Over the same period, around 770,000 men joined the army. Most men received some kind of exemption, usually temporary (between a few weeks and six months) or conditional on their situation at work or home remaining serious enough to warrant their retention at home. As of May 1917, 780,000 men were exempt with 110,000 pending. In addition, at this point there were also 1.8 million men with exemptions granted by the government, for example, those working in war industries. Combined, these exemptions covered more men than were serving overseas with the British Army.
There was such a Local Tribunal established in Kirkby. I researched this fairly extensively from a newspaper archive and compiled a blog on the topic. Material from that research of specific relevance to the personal experience of my family is included here.
Medical Grading – Two Systems
Two different systems of medical grading appear to have been in use at the time. It is not clear if one was an older system or if one grading was used for an initial medical with another used by the Tribunal itself. There was a change in how the medical assessments were carried out, in November 1917. Before that time, the military conducted medicals but, after that, they passed to civilian control. Based on evidence from the Kirkby Tribunal, it does appear that these systems may have been used at different times.
One of the Systems Used Numbers 1-4
One of the systems used numbers from 1 to 4. While most references I have seen related to this use roman numerals, the newspaper reports of Kirkby Tribunal did not. Nevertheless, I have assumed it was the same system.
Under this system, grade III meant that the person had marked physical disabilities and was considered fit only for clerical work. Grade IV meant that the man was totally and permanently unfit for military service.
The Other System Used a Combination of Letters and Numbers
The other system used a combination of letters and numbers as shown below:
|A||Able to march, see to shoot, hear well and stand active service conditions.|
|Al||Fit for dispatching overseas, as regards physical and mental health, and training|
|A2||As Al, except for training|
|A3||Returned Expeditionary Force men, ready except for physical condition|
|A4||Men under 19 who would be Al or A2 when aged 19|
|B||Free from serious organic diseases, able to stand service on lines of communication in France, or in garrisons in the tropics.|
|Bl||Able to march 5 miles, see to shoot with glasses, and hear well|
|B2||Able to walk 5 miles, see and hear sufficiently for ordinary purposes|
|B3||Only suitable for sedentary work|
|C||Free from serious organic diseases, able to stand service in garrisons at home.|
|Cl||Able to march 5 miles, see to shoot with glasses, and hear well|
|C2||Able to walk 5 miles, see and hear sufficiently for ordinary purposes|
|C3||Only suitable for sedentary work|
|D||Unfit but could be fit within 6 months.|
|Dl||Regular RA,RE, infantry in Command Depots|
|D2||Regular RA,RE, infantry in Regimental Depots|
|D3||Men in any depot or unit awaiting treatment|
Concerns about Fairness and Objectivity
People raised concerns about the fairness and objectivity of the system. These concerns included that some men were given an unduly positive medical grade. From the work of the Kirkby Tribunal, there were many examples where applicants considered their medical grading too positive. In addition, In the case of J J B McKinley, a 33 year-old, market gardener, he had a partly paralysed right arm and was classified C2. One of the Tribunal commented that the Medical Board “wanted kicking” for such a classification. The Tribunal granted him total exemption on medical grounds
There were other cases where men were accepted into the military on one basis (e.g. grade III), could have that grading changed (e.g. to grade I) so that they ended up directly in the firing line. This happened to Frank Seville’s brother Horace. He was initially considered unsuitable for foreign service because of problems with vision. But, he was later posted to Salonika on the basis that the vision problem was corrected with glasses. Albert Lockwood was a carter with East Kirkby Co-operative Society. He appealed to the Kirkby Tribunal and was classified C1, that is, suitable for home service. However, he was killed in action on 25 March 1918.
Grandad’s Poor Health
There are many entries in grandad’s diary concerning his relatively poor health. In February 1915, he noted being examined by a doctor. He started exercising as a result. He recorded using various remedies including Zam-Buk for his knees, some “embrocation stuff”, Doans backache pills, bone marrow, a porous plaster, a medical coil, a magneto machine, St Jacob’s oil, iron jelloids, Hall’s wine, Regelax and some Dr Cassels tablets.
A Small Slight Youth
Grandad was a small, slight youth. In June 1914, he weighed 7st 1¼lbs (45kg) and measured 5ft 2½ins. He had a height and weight card from September 1913 and this was among mum’s papers. This gave his height then as 5’ 1¼” and his weight as 6st 11lbs (43kg). He also recorded problems with his teeth. In January 1917, he had at least ten teeth out. He had dentures made in March 1917 and had them repaired and modified in January, June and July 1918.
Discharged on Medical Grounds
In August 2015, grandad filled in “degesteration forms”. I assume this was some kind of deregistration form in relation to military call up. In June 1917, he recorded that his papers came from Mansfield and, in July 1917, he went to Mansfield to be examined. As a result of this, he wrote the single word “discharge”. At the end of July 1917, his discharge papers came from Derby . In January 1918, he received a doctor’s bill of one guinea for his certificates. As far as I can see, grandad never appeared before Kirkby Tribunal. Indeed, his diaries make no reference to appearing before any Tribunal.
So, it seems grandad was discharged from military service on health grounds. But, there was then the matter of what happened to his brothers. In January 1917, he noted that “Cyril & Len went to Derby”. This may have been related to Tribunals and could have been an appeal at the County Tribunal although, in the case of Kirkby Tribunal, such appeals presumably would have been heard in Nottingham. It is therefore also possible that this trip was not connected to Tribunals at all.
Len Parkin – Conditional Exemption
On 1 February 1917, grandad noted that “Len got Cond Ex at Mansfield”. I assume that this means a time-limited conditional exemption.
However, I reviewed a newspaper article concerning the meeting of Manfield Tribunal on 1 February 1917 and there is no record of Len’s case being discussed. I wondered if it was possible that the article omitted a case or that grandad mixed up either the place or the date?
So, I searched for Parkins attending Tribunals in Nottinghamshire around that date. I found an article in the Mansfield Reporter and Sutton Times of Friday 9 February 1917 which reported on a meeting of Blackwell Tribunal which had taken place in Mansfield on Thursday. I wonder if it was referring to the previous Thursday, 1 February, as if it had been the 8th, would it have said yesterday or last night? This article noted that John Leonard Parkin, a 28-year old married bootmaker from Wharf Road in Pinxton, had been granted a conditional exemption.
So, it turns out that Leonard was seen at a Tribunal in Mansfield in February 1917 but it was the Blackwell Tribunal not the Mansfield one.
Len Parkin – Discharge
In June 1918, “Len got discharged at Nottm”. I have not been able to find any news article confirming this. However, I have assumed that this followed a hearing at the County Tribunal.
Why Was Len Discharged?
It is not clear why Len was discharged while others in the family were called up. One factor may have been that, from May 1918, Len had been running the Pinxton business on his own. It is also possible that the decision to take this business on by himself might have been influenced by the pending Tribunal appearance. One thing I had not realised was that bootmaking was considered work of national importance, particularly in a mining area, see Kirkby Tribunal blog.
The first time grandad’s diary mentioned Cyril in relation to a Tribunal was in May 1917. However, there is no diary for 1916. So, if Cyril went to a Tribunal in 1916, there would have been no record of this in grandad’s diary.
According to a report in The Mansfield Reporter and Sutton Times of Friday May 19 1916, at a Tribunal meeting on 16 May 1916, “the managing partner of a bootmaking and repairing concern appealed. He was 25 years old and his father was the senior partner but was not scholar enough to look after the business himself, and knew nothing of the retail trade. He asked for three months to get over the coming busy time – No exemption at all was allowed.”
Although he is not named, I think this may refer to Cyril. The role and relationship between the son and the father would fit Cyril and Henry Parkin. Cyril was born in December 1890. So, in May 1916, he would have been 25. On balance, I suspect it was him but I don’t know for sure.
Grandad noted in his diary, in May 1917, that Cyril went to Mansfield for his medical examination and was “passed grade III”. He also noted that on 4 June 1917, Cyril saw Dr Battle and also went to the Tribunal. I found a report of that hearing in the Mansfield Reporter and Sutton Times of Friday 8 June 1917. Cyril was supported by a Mansfield solicitor, Mr R H Wiggins.
Represented by a Solicitor
It was not unusual for applicants to be represented by someone else, commonly a relative, employer or a solicitor. However, this did lead to some criticism in the media that some solicitors were profiting from the Tribunals, see Kirkby Tribunal blog.
Robert Henry Wiggins
I think he may have been Henry Parkin’s lawyer as he acted for him in 1910 in a court case against Henry Goadby, see Chapter 47. He was born in 1875 in Surrey. He married Ethel Lottie Halford in 1901. In 1911, he was living at “Magdala”, The Park, Mansfield with his wife and their three children Ethel Irene Carrie (b1903), Halford Berridge (b1906) and Harry Desmond (b1908). They had five servants, two nurse, an under nursemaid, a cook and a house parlourmaid. It appears that he may have moved from the area as, in 1921, he and his wife were living in Poole. They had two more daughters, Barbara (b1911) and Betty Clara (b1914). In 1939, he appears to have still been living in Poole but he was now married to Hilda Elizabeth. He died in 1957.
Cyril at the Tribunal in June 1917
At the Tribunal hearing, Cyril’s was given as 26 and he was described as a boot dealer’s manager. His medical classification was given as C2. Reference is also made to reports from other medical men and presumably Dr Battle would be among them. The application was based on their work being of national importance. The case of a brother who was exempted on that basis was cited and presumably this refers to Leonard. Henry Parkin noted that he had no-one else to do the clerical work. However, the application was disallowed.
The County Tribunal in Nottingham Was On Strike
Grandad noted, on 18 June 1917, that Cyril appealed to Nottingham but the Tribunal was “on strike” on the 19th.
The Case of Joseph Blackburn
Initially, I was surprised to find that a Tribunal was on strike but found one fairly well-documented case of such a strike which relates to the case of Joseph Blackburn. In this case, the local Tribunal, in Thornton, decided that an exemption should be given on the basis that Joseph was a market gardener. However, the exemption was overturned by the Central Tribunal who considered that he was merely a “hawker” of fruit and vegetables and he was sent to the front. The Thornton councillors were outraged and vowed not to entertain any more military service appeals until Joseph was sent home. However, he was not. He was killed in action in August 1918.
Tribunal Strikes Were Not Uncommon
However, in looking into the Kirkby Tribunal in more detail, it became clear that such Tribunal strikes were not uncommon. I have found evidence of such strikes in Derby, Mansfield, Nottingham and Sutton. Commonly, they arose because the Tribunal was unhappy about how it was being treated by the War Office, other Tribunals and/or their Military Representative. There were other reasons though. For example, in November 1918,, there was a strike over the proposed amalgamation of Ilkeston, Heanor and Ripley Tribunals.
Kirkby Tribunal Went on Strike
While I have not yet found information about the strike at Nottinghamshire County Tribunal which affected Cyril, I have found details of a strike by the Kirkby Tribunal which is relevant here.
On 23 June 1917, the Gazette and Echo reported that 25 applicants, who had attended the Tribunal the previous Tuesday, the 19th had had the benefit of a postponement because the Tribunal was on strike. The Chairman highlighted two cases over which the Tribunal was unhappy. The first related to a local colliery clerk who had been allowed three months by the Tribunal. He then appealed to the Colliery Tribunal who exempted him. The second case was of a conscientious objector who the Tribunal had recommended for non-combatant service. However, the War Office had not called him because of his religious beliefs.
The Tribunal’s first sitting after the strike was on Monday 16 July 1917. The Mansfield Reporter and Sutton Times reported that the Chairman made a brief statement explaining why they had been on strike which focused on the intervention of the Colliery Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the matter at an end. The Chairman emphasised that if anyone was unhappy with a decision of the Local Tribunal they could appeal to the County or Central Tribunal.
Cyril Appears Before the Tribunal Again
Grandad noted on 31 July 1917 that Cyril “went to Derby”. As with previous trips, it is possible that this related to the Country Tribunal in Derby but it might not have done. However, it does seem that, for whatever reason, family appeals to County Tribunal took place in Derby and not in Nottingham as I might have expected.
I found a news report in the Mansfield Reporter and Sutton-in-Ashfield Times of Friday 27 July 1917 concerning a Tribunal meeting which had taken place on the 24th and, at which, Cyril had had a further hearing.
He was described as a manager and buyer and his medical classification was given as C2. He was again represented by the solicitor Robert Henry Wiggins. Mr Wiggins noted that Cyril was only asking for time. He also noted that unfit men had gone into the army only to be sent out again. They submitted two further medical certificates and recounted a story whereby Cyril had previously been rejected by the military saying that the army doctors refused to have him “at any price”.
Part of the application was that “he had never been right since an accident as a boy, when he had sustained a broken leg. He could not walk far without a rest, and he was not satisfied with his present medical classification”. The Military Representative took objection to this saying that the applicant had not complained about his medical classification when he appeared before the Local Tribunal in May. He had then gone to the County Tribunal and also had not complained there. The application was refused.
Further Appeals Are Unsuccessful
Grandad noted, on 10 August 1917, that “dad went to Derby” which I have assumed was related to an appeal for Cyril to the County Tribunal although I have not found any newspaper report of this. After this, on the 13th, grandad noted that “Cyril went to Derby Passed in C1 Domestic”. My interpretation of this is that the County Tribunal agreed to a new medical assessment but that this assessment passed Cyril one grade higher than his previous assessment (C1 as opposed to C2).
It then seems that the County Tribunal declined the application. Grandad noted , on the 14th, “Cyril came from Derby in khaki”, i.e. in army uniform. He was then sent to barracks in Nottingham the following day but was granted a permit to come home on the 21st. In April 1918, grandad recorded that Cyril had 14 days leave and, in September, he was promoted to corporal.
Cyril’s Military Records
Based on Cyril’s military records, his service numbers were 91895 and 17332 and he initially joined the Sherwood Foresters but was quickly transferred, on 15 August 1917, to the Army Pay Corps. He had enlisted on 11 December 1915 but his service reckoned from 13 August 1917 which was the day he came home in khaki from Derby. The service record notes that he was promoted to Corporal on 15 August 1918 which is a little ahead of the date of September that grandad noted. He was demobilised on 8 March 1919, see Chapter 12. Interestingly, on his discharge documents, his medical category is given as C3. His medical history form appears to be stamped as both C2 and C3. Under slight defects, he is noted to have “marked genu valgum” (knock knees) and “poor physique”.
On 8 September 1915, grandad simply records that his friend “Len Teece was missing”. Len’s name is recorded among those killed in the war on the Trinity Sunday School memorial in Kirkby and also on the main Kirkby War Memorial.
The Teece Family Lived in Kirkby
From other sources, Leonard Teece had been born in 1897 in Hucknall. His father (Philip) was a coal miner. His mother was called Annie (nee Holland). Leonard had two brothers – James William and Frank. As of 1911, they lived in Milton Street in Kirkby-in-Ashfield.
Killed at Gallipoli
Leonard enlisted with the sixth battalion, Lincolnshire regiment. He was killed in action on 9 August 1915 at Gallipoli. He was 19 when he died. His name is commemorated on the Helles Memorial in Turkey along with 20,770 other names.
A Soldier Who Died of Wounds
On 29 September 1915, grandad noted that there was “a Milertary [sic] Funeral a soldier who died of wounds”. However, he did not name the soldier.
On 10 June 1918, grandad’s friend Willie Clover “joined the colours”. On 7 November 1918, just four days before the signing of the armistice, “Billy Clover got wounded”. I have as yet been unable to find anything about how serious his wounds were or what happened to him.
Willie Clover Survived the War
Willie Clover appears to have survived the war as, in October 1921, grandad bought him a wedding present. He married Elizabeth M Cuddy in Mansfield in Q4 1921 and they had five children – William H (1922), Ronald (1923), Dorothy M and John (1926 ) and Joseph D (1928). Grandad noted going with him to Colwick to the Nottinghamshire show in June 1922. In 1929, he became unwell. Grandad and/or grandma visited him in hospital in March, April and May of that year. He died in October 1929 aged just 30. Grandad went to his funeral and visited his grave.
So, towards the end of the war, grandad and his brother Len had been discharged from military service. Cyril had been called up and was serving locally as a corporal. Joe had received his call up. Of his friends, Willie Clover had been injured and Len Teece had been killed.
Grandad recorded that a number of discharged soldiers “started to learn the trade”, i.e. shoemaking with one starting in 1917, two in 1918 and one in 1919.
Buying Old Army Boots
In addition, the business bought in a large number of old army boots. It is not exactly clear where these came from. But, presumably, they were from dead or injured soldiers. A whole grading system existed, presumably based on quality, which determined price.
Grandma’s Side of the Family
I have less information about anyone on grandma’s side who served in the first world war.
Arthur James Cirket Ford
On mum’s extensive Cirket family tree, there is reference to an Arthur James Cirket having been killed in action in France. He was the son of Sarah Jane, the sister of grandma’s father Charles, and her husband James Alfred Ford. So, he would have been grandma’s cousin.
Cirket as a Middle Name
Arthur James was born in 1892 and, of course, his surname was Ford, so Cirket was presumably a second middle name.
Died of Wounds
He died on 5 March 1916. He is buried at Lapugnoy Military Cemetery in France. He is also remembered on a war memorial at Elstow Bunyan Meeting House. A corporal in the 5th Battalion, Northamptonshire regiment, he died of his wounds. His brother Stanley Edgar Graham Ford, named his first son David Arthur Cirket Ford.
Arthur Charles and Ernest Webb Bowler
The Elstow Bunyan Meeting House war memorial mentions two Bowlers. Arthur Charles Bowler was the son of Christopher Ernest Bowler. He died on 17 November 1916 aged 20. He is buried in Contay British Cemetery in France.
The other Bowler is Ernest Webb Bowler who was in the Machine Gun Corps. He died on 26 November 1916 and is buried in Bailleul Communal Cemetery Extension, Nord. I don’t know if and how he is related to our family but, as a Bowler from Elstow, he is likely to be related in some way or other.
In August 2022, Jo and I visited Elstow. We attended a service at the church where the memorial is.
Interestingly, there is also another memorial outside the church. There is overlap of the names on the two memorials. Eight names appear on both memorials – Stanley A Blain, Arthur C Bowler, Ernest W Bowler, Joseph S Caves, Arthur Cox, Donald C Gordon, Frederick C Robinson and James W Wells. But, there are three names on the village memorial that are not on the church one. They are Ernest H Bygrave, Richard F Chillery and Joseph E Goddard.
Arthur Ford’s Name is Only on the Memorial in the Church
Arthur Ford’s name only appears on the church memorial and not on the village memorial. The same is true for Frank E Jakes. One possible explanation is that people attended the church who were not from Elstow. However, Arthur Ford was from Elstow or at least his mother was. According to the 1911 census, the family lived in Kempston, some four miles from Elstow. Arthur was working as an elementary teacher. Perhaps, his mother was considered to have left Elstow when she married. So, he was not counted as coming from there. Also, according to the 1911 census, the record for his mother Sarah shows that she was born in Elstow but his shows that he was born in Bedford.
Among mum’s photographs, I found some of grandma’s brother Ray in uniform. I discovered that he served in the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Regiment, the Sherwood Foresters. I also found out that, on 7 January 1918, he was transferred from No 11 Casualty Clearing Station to No 2 Casualty Clearing Station. From the original records, it appears he had influenza.
I came across a photo in one of mum’s albums that I have found extremely intriguing. From the other photos that are with it, it seems to date from 1949 or 1950. It shows the Portsmouth Naval Memorial in Southsea with a group of people standing in front of two cars. It is annotated on the back and says “off Southsea near Portsmouth. The war memorial for the naval losses in 1914-18. Ted’s name is on the panel facing the camera, the Cirket family & two cars”.
Panels 9 to 16
From a map of the site, the visible panels seem to be numbers 9 to16. However, there is no-one with the name Cirket anywhere on the memorial and I was unable to find any reference to a Ted or Edward Cirket in any of mum’s papers. I tried multiple lines of enquiry over several months, including reviewing all the Edwards listed on the memorial to see if any seemed familiar. I drew a blank.
Another Line of Enquiry
Then, I wondered if perhaps mum had visited the memorial with the Cirkets who lived in Hastings when she visited them in either 1949 (see Chapter 40) or 1950 (see Chapter 52). Perhaps Edward could have been related to grandma’s sister-in-law Doris.
Her maiden name was Wright. She was born in 1905. Based on the 1911 census, she lived in Hucknall with her father Joseph and her mother Mary.
Joseph Edward Wright
She had two older siblings, Joseph (b1893), who was working as a coal miner (road repairer below ground), and Rachel (b1895). Intriguingly, her brother’s middle name was Edward. Given that he had the same first name as his father, whose middle name was Armstrong, it seems plausible that he would have been known as Edward or Ted.
He Was a Royal Navy Seaman
I then found a record of a Joseph Edward Wright who had been a British Royal Navy seaman. His birth date was 4 May 1893 and his place of birth Alfreton, Derbyshire. Viewing the original record, he worked as a pony driver in a colliery. It seems he joined the navy on 13 March 1912, that is before the war started. His service number was SS3878.
Shore-Based Training in 1912
Joseph Edward Wright’s naval record was as follows. From 13 March 1912 to 15 May 1912, he was at HMS Victory I which I believe refers to shore-based training in Portsmouth.
HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Superb
He then returned to HMS Victory I for two days, presumably for further training before going to the shore establishment HMS Excellent for six months from 4 November 1914 to 13 May 1915. Might this have been for further training?
HMS Blake, HMS Broke and HMS Hecla
From 14 May 1915 to 8 May 1916, his record noted that he served on Blake (Broke) and then from 9 May 1916 to 31 May 1916 on Hecla (Broke). I don’t quite understand these records but it may be that the unbracketed name is a shore accounting base and the name in bracket a seagoing ship. However, it seems that HMS Blake, Broke and Hecla were all navy vessels during WW1. But, Blake and Hecla were both described as depot ships.
Killed at the Battle of Jutland
He was killed in action at the Battle of Jutland on 31 May 1916. Fire from the German battleship Westfalen hit HMS Broke killing 50 crew and injuring a further 30. The helmsman was killed and this caused HMS Broke to collide with HMS Sparrowhawk leading to the loss of the latter.
Buried at Sea
In a record of British Armed Forces Overseas Deaths and Burials, Joseph Edward Wright was recorded as buried at sea. His father’s name was given as Joseph Armstrong Wright who, at that time, was living in Rotherham. I confirmed that his name is indeed on the Portsmouth Naval Memorial on panel 14.
Battle of Jutland
John William Wilson
Visit to Portsmouth Naval Memorial
In September 2022, Jo and I managed to visit Portsmouth and went to visit the memorial. We found the memorial to Ted and also for John William Wilson whose “death penny” I have. We also visited the National Museum of the Royal Navy and found out more about the Battle of Jutland. We had a go at recreating the photo that mum had in her album which triggered my interest in this story.
Another Intriguing Photo
I also found another photograph among mum’s papers. She did not know who was shown in it. It is simply labelled “Your Old Sport, still smiling 1917”. It is clearly a photograph of a soldier from the First World War.
Initially, I thought it might have been Cyril, grandad’s brother as I knew from the diaries that he was drafted in 1917. However, with some help from the Kirkby Living Memory Facebook group, I discovered that the cap badge in the photograph is from the Royal Artillery. However, Cyril was briefly in the Sherwood Foresters and then in the Army Pay Corps. So, it seemed unlikely that the photograph was of Cyril.
I also found a record of a James H Parkin who was in the army from 1914 to 1920 initially as a gunner in the Royal Field Artillery and then with the Labour Corps .
Royal Field Artillery
The Royal Field Artillery was one of three regiments within the Royal Artillery in World War One. The other two were the Royal Horse Artillery and the Royal Garrison Artillery.
The Labour Corps
The Labour Corps was in operation from 1917 to 1918 and consisted of men with experience of picks and shovels, e.g. miners who might be unfit for fighting.
Is the Photo of James Parkin?
My suspicion is that this photograph is of grandad’s older brother James (Jim). However, grandad’s diaries say nothing about any military service Jim might have done during the first war. But, there is a note to say that Jim started work at the Summit in March 1920. So, this would fit with him leaving the army at that point. The fact that he served in the Labour Corps might indicate that he had prior experience as a miner.
Edith Searson Recalled the War
In her book(let) “I Remember” (from p23), Edith Searson describes her experiences of the first world war. Her family farmed in an area adjacent to one the government chose for a new air base at Cranwell. She described going to the funeral of the first trainee pilot killed there and also Zeppelins coming over to bomb the airfield. She recalled a number of young men killed during the first world war. They included a farmhand, Sam, her cousin, Richard and a farmer’s son, Harry.
Her brother, Alfred, served in the war. She describes in detail journeys she used to make to Sleaford by bike to collect letters from him. Eventually, letters stopped coming from him. He died on 31 July 1917 aged just 21. He was a private in the Lincolnshire Regiment and he is remembered at the Ypres (Menin Gate) Memorial in Belgium.
I got some details of the experiences of the Newcombe family of the first world war from Helen Jay. William Newcombe served as a Bombardier in the Royal Field Artillery. His service number was 82032. He died on 9 October 1916 and he is buried/remembered at St Sever Cemetery, Rouen B 16 61. The memorial at Trinity Methodist Church, see Chapter 8, also includes his name. William’s older brother Phil also served in the first world war. His service number was 61099 and he reached the rank of Corporal in the West Yorkshire Regiment. Albert, Frank and Phil Newcombe all received temporary exemptions to military service from Kirkby Tribunal.