Friction between members of the Luton Tribunal and the military representative over appeals against unanimous decisions in certain cases produced statements from both sides in March 1916. It was the beginning of what would become a long and bitter dispute between the two parties that a year later would involve the Government after the Tribunal refused to sit to adjudicate on cases that would almost invariably be appealed by the military.

In the opening round, Mr Gardner (acting military representative) said it was rather unfortunate the discussions should have got into the Press, because it gave the impression that cases were dealt with in a certain classification and so put his position in a somewhat vague light both before members of the Tribunal and the public. He did not speak personally, but simply and purely as the representative of the military authorities in all the cases that came up for consideration.

The idea that he ought not to object to an appeal against certain decisions must have arisen in the minds of one or two members who expressed that opinion through a misunderstanding of the position. He was there to listen to arguments and decisions, and if he considered a decision was arrived at wrongly it was obviously his right and his duty to appeal against it.

Every case should be taken on its merits and not as a class of case, and if in his opinion the Tribunal had come to a wrong decision, even though a unanimous one, he could not regard it as absolutely absurd to appeal against that decision. If he failed to do so, he would certainly not justify himself or the military authorities who had placed him there.

They were all working for the same object - to strengthen the military forces of the country in order to finish the war as quickly as possible, and they all knew that time was the essence of the situation. It was sure to be the case that from time to time his judgement would differ from that of the Tribunal, and where that happened it was not because her desired to oppose the Tribunal because they had not come to a decision which seemed to them good, but simply because he felt their decision was not a right one.

The Deputy Mayor (Councillor W. J. Primett) admitted the military representative's right of appeal, but said the Tribunal also had rights. After what had been stated in Parliament by the Prime Minister, the President of the Local Government Board and other leading ministers, the rights of the Tribunal must be quite as well protected as those of the military representative.

They were there to do their best in a national sense, and were told to take certain lines. They had gone on those lines and then there were wholesale appeals, for last time they were told several of their decisions would be objected to. They expected cases here and there to be appealed against, but it was intimated that ever so many objections were being sent in, and the Tribunal was wasting its time sitting there and arriving at unanimous decisions if, in the face of what the Prime Minister had said, there were to be wholesale appeals against their decisions. They would never be able to give satisfaction to everybody, and did not try to do it.

Mr Gardner objected to the remark "wholesale appeals".

The Deputy Mayor said that applied in several when decisions were arrived at in the interests of the export trade. They were the cases he was referring to.

Mr Gardner said the Tribunal must remember that the regulations and instructions provided for appeals, and machinery had been set up for that purpose. The applicant as well as the military representative could appeal against the decision of the Tribunal, and it was expected there would be differences of opinion and appeals, for which reason the right was given to make a further appeal to another court.

The Deputy Mayor said that in the cases they had in mind the men were practically put back to finish their season's trade, as they generally had large stocks and season's orders. The Tribunal were in a better position to know what it meant even than Col Fenwick or Mr Gardner.

Mr W. R. Phillips said he thought the Tribunal had acted very fairly. This was a rather peculiar town. They did not wish to obstruct any more than any they possibly could the trade of the town, for a huge industry had been built up. Otherwise, the town had done very well for recruiting.

The Mayor (Alderman J. H. Staddon) said his point was that unless they acted very carefully in dealing with the "small makers" they were going to bring financial ruin to a large part of the trade of the town. That was a most dangerous thing to risk.

Mr Gardener: "I take every case on its merits."

Aldeman E. Oakley said that whatever Tribunal dealt with the appeals could not possibly have the knowledge this Tribunal had of the circumstances. If the Tribunal had been sitting in July or August the return would be totally different, and another Tribunal could not have that knowledge. There would have been a great difference three or four months hence.

Mr Gardner did not want members to have the idea that in appealing he was doing something he was not justified in doing or something or something he was not bound to do by his duties.

Alderman Oakley: "We look on Mr Gardner as being more strictly military than Col Fenwick himself."

[The Luton News: Thursday, March 9th, 1916]