UNDERAGE ENLISTMENT

[alf mcm]

If a soldier enlisted, and was later found to be underage, would he be punished, apart from perhaps being sent home if he was in the front line, since he would have broken the law.

Regards,

Alf McM

[truthergw]

They don't seem to have been punished neither were they invariably sent home. The army fought a strenuous battle to keep one underage soldier, arguing that he had committed himself by swearing his age on oath. Dodgy grounds and, if I recall correctly, the boy's mum won and got him home.

[Chris Henschke]

I only have one example of a soldier who was found to be underage (after his second WIA). He was employed in a General Hospital for about six months and then returned to his original battalion.

[alf mcm]

Thanks Tom and Chris,

I have an example of a young soldier who was returned home, from France to Australiia, after his mother had written to the Army to tell them he was underage. He didn't seem to get any other punishment, but perhaps he had already had enough. He never re-enlisted.

Regards,

Alf McM

[truthergw]

Underage soldiers were the fashionable thing to deplore at one time. Some reports would have one believe there were armies of boy soldiers in the trenches. They certainly existed because I personally knew two of them but they were more or less restricted to the first year or so in Britain. The Derby scheme and conscription made it a lot harder to fake your age. We tend to forget that a boy, or girl, could go to work part time from the age of 12 and left school at 14. A youth of 17 had been working for anything up to 5 years. That is 21 nowadays. We have soldiers overseas a lot younger than 21.

[eveanne]

I'm presently reading the book about Boy Soldiers of the Great War, and none so far appear to have been punished whatsoever - apart from the fact that a few found it punishing enough once embroiled in the heavy action or battles they became involved in.

Some parents did request their sons be returned home, whilst others were proud to have their young heroes serving.

A very interesting read. The book is by Richard van Emden.

[Ron Clifton]

Section 33 of the Army Act relates to the offence of giving a false answer on attestation. There is a footnote (5) to this Section in the Manual of Military Law, which says that a false statement as to age is not to be made the subject of a charge.

This is direct evidence that underage soldiers were not supposed to be punished as such. From the Army's point of view, a TRAINED lad who had the physical stamina to do the job would not be someone they wished to lose if at all possible, even through imprisonment.

Ron

[alf mcm]

Thanks Tom and Eveanne for your replies. Thanks also Ron, although it does seem strange to have an offence which was not to be punished!

Regards,

Alf

[Ron Clifton]

... although it does seem strange to have an offence which was not to be punished!

Not exactly. The offence was "giving a false answer" and there were several questions on the attestation such as "have you ever been chucked out of the Army or Navy" (not quite phrased like that ). It was specifically a false answer as to age which was not to be made the subject of a charge under S 33.

Ron

[alf mcm]

Thanks for clearing that up Ron.

Regards,

Alf