Medals and awards

HORBURY WAR RELIEF FUND.

DISPOSAL OF THE BALANCE.

The disposal of the balance of the war relief fund collected in Horbury was finally decided upon at a meeting of the subscribers held at the Co-operative Hall on Wednesday evening. A committee had been formed to consider schemes, and it was this committee which now convened the gathering. Mr Nell, who was voted to the chair, presided over a fairly representative assembly, including Messrs A.R. Briggs, George Thornton, Furness, W. Sykes, J. Mitchell, Armstrong and Hill. The balance came to a trifle over £280.

The names of the men who had been to the front from Horbury were read out. They were as follows: K.O.Y.L.I. – Robert Ernest PAYNE (vol.), Walter HANSON (vol.), Alfred HAIGH (vol.), Samuel MUSGRAVE (vol.), Berry RIPLEY, J. HOLDROYD, W. EXLEY, Luke BLACKER, James BARBER, Andrew BENNETT, George BLACKMORE (vol.), John MURGATROYD, Thomas CHARLESWORTH, Edgar CHARLESWORTH; York and Lancaster: John Henry GOLDTHORPE, John HORNBY, Tom MOUNTAIN (reservist); Royal Engineers: James H. BURTON; Lancashire Fusiliers: Fred’k FLETCHER (reservist); West Riding Regiment: Benjamin HARROP (vol.); Royal Field Artillery: John TORDOFF; and Lister METCALFE, Gus BAINES and Charles Edward HARTLEY, as to whose regiment particulars were not set down. Those who were dead were Cyrus ELAND, Lewis YATES, Samuel COOK and James HODGSON. This made a total of twenty-eight men from Horbury. HARTLEY is still in South Africa.

The Chairman first submitted the two schemes which had passed the committee. The first one was that £10 should be refunded to Ossett for medals given to Horbury men; that the men should receive each a medal (except those who had already had them from Ossett) costing £2, and £3 in cash; that MOUNTAIN and HARROP, on account of illness, should have £5 each extra, that Mrs Yates, widow of the soldier who died at the front, should have £100 paid in small weekly instalments; that the two secretaries (Messrs W.W. Barker and Holt) each have £5 5s; and that the balance should be expended on a commemoration tablet at the new Urban District Council offices. It had since been ascertained that there was no obligation to return the money for the Ossett medals, as inquiries had shown that the money had been subscribed for by the readers of the “Ossett Observer”.

The second and alternative scheme was that £50 should be placed in the bank for Mrs Yates’ benefit, she to receive it at the rate of 2s 6d a week, so that it would not have been expended until the youngest child was fourteen; the men from the front to receive £5 each, partly in medals and the balance in cash, less the ten Ossett medals; the two secretaries £5 5s each; Mountain £5 and Harrop £25, Harrop’s to be paid at the rate of 5s a week until exhausted; £30 to the Soldiers and Sailors Families Association and the balance to the Old Folk’s Treat.

In the subsequent discussion it was stated that Mrs Yates had a pension, and that Harrop, who was in poor health, had a small one; whether the latter’s pension was permanent or not on one seemed to know. The schemes were each debated, some of the assembly approving of one part but not of another, and a resolution or two were proposed. Finally, however, Mr Sykes suggested that the best way would be for the meeting to deal with each matter separately on its merits, instead of limiting their choice to either one or the other of the two schemes. So far, to a great extent the executive committee had done the talking, but the committee wanted the other subscribers to do it, and to put what questions they wanted. The committee did not want anyone to leave the meeting saying it would have been better if such and such had been done in such and such a way, and go away grumbling. “Put us on our defence” said Mr Sykes, speaking to the committee, “and if we don’t give proper answers, take it into your own hands”.

More discussion followed, Mr Hill being strongly of opinion that Harrop, who had a family and who was in a poor state of health, should have £50, the same as the second scheme allotted to Mrs Yates. He proposed the adoption of the second scheme with that amendment. – Mr Thornton, however, supported Mr Sykes’ suggestion that each item should be dealt with separately, until the money was exhausted, and the meeting having adopted this view, Mr Sykes formally proposed that Mrs Yates should receive £50, to be paid in monthly instalments from the bank, at the rate of 2s 6d a week. Mr Thornton seconded and the resolution was carried.

Then came the question of medals for the men. This the Chairman explained, in answer to questions, would come to about £125, if the men who had not already received medals from Ossett had one each costing £2, and also if everyone had £3 in cash added. It was proposed to give medals also to the relatives of the men who had since died. He was sure they would prize such a memorial. – Mr J. Mapplebeck suggested that the men should receive the whole of the £5 in money. He knew many men who had been so short of cash as to have to dispose of medals. Mr Mapplebeck then moved that each man receive £5 in cash, instead of a £2 medal and £3, and Mr S. Cocker, who concurred in his remarks, seconded. – Mr Thornton said the fund was for the relief of widows and children and the incapacitated, if there were any such, and that was the right source for the money to go to. – Mr Briggs rejoined that the money was collected for the relief of the families of the men at the front, and they had been seen to. They had already satisfied their needs, and now they were merely distributing the surplus. He would move as an amendment that the men should have £2 in medals and £3 in cash. “I am of the opinion” he continued, “that although some men may go to their ‘uncles’ with their medals, yet they are much in the minority”. – Mr Armstrong seconded. – Mr Thornton moved a further amendment that the men each receive £3 in cash and to have a tablet memorial in the passage of the new Urban District Council offices. – Mr Briggs: I think the men would prefer to have the memorial themselves, rather than in the “Town Hall”! – Mr Hill did not agree with the memorial being placed in a building where only ten or twelve people would see it. – Mr Thornton, having made his amendment, read that each man should receive £3 in cash, and the question of a memorial be left over for further consideration. Mr Mitchell seconded it. – Mr Thornton’s amendment, however, was lost by six to eight votes, and that of Mr Briggs was then put. Mr Briggs’ amendment was carried by nine votes to six against, and then being put as a substantive resolution, was adopted.

The next business was the payments to Mountain and Harrop. On the motion of Mr Cocker, seconded by Mr Mitchell, it was decided that Mountain should have £10 extra; and on the suggestion of Mr Hill, seconded by Mr Furness, that Harrop should have £50, payable at 5s a week.