Branding or Tattooing?

[bootneck]

I have read a reference on the Forum that Australians checked recruits during the war for any D or BC tattoos in case they had been discharged from the British forces. As far as I was aware branding (or more acurately tattooing) was abolished in the 1870s, so I am curious if it somehow still took place in some form or another after this date.

regards

Bootneck

[Terry_Reeves]

The system of branding was abolished in 1872. Another method of trying to prevent the fraudulent enlistment of deserters and those of bad character included ordering recruits to be vaccinated on the inner part of the arm - the vaccination leaving a mark. This was first tried in 1859, but was discontinued only three years later,after discontent amongst the troops. There were however several (unsuccessful) attempts to resurrect that system but the idea was finally given up after the medical authorities argued that "the marks of a successful vaccination were generally slight and hardly characteristic, and the revaccination absolutely failed in a considerable number of cases."

In 1887, the British Military Attache in Paris drew to the attention of the British authorities the Bertillonage or Anthropometry method, adopted by the French prison authorities five years previously. This consisted of classifying individuals by measuring seven distinctive points of the body. Although the British penal system was to adopt a version of this method, the military medical authorities turned it down on the grounds that the measurements of young recruits who had not attained their full physical development would not provide an accurate record.

The question was taken up again in 1901 by the Director General of Recruiting, which this time included the use of finger-printing, and which had been adopted in 1894 for British prisons. This was turned down because it was felt that the public in general associated finger-printing with criminality, although it was felt that it would be useful when a soldier was first committed to prison. Although this method of identification was accepted by a committee of enquiry, it was restricted to men imprisoned by Court-Martial or Commanding Officers punishment and was not applied to recruits. However, Broderick, the Secretary of State for War, put back its introduction for 12 months, and in the event it was not carried through.

In 1909, the Inspector of Military Prisons and Detention Barracks recommended that fraudulent enlistment might be deterred by only finger-printing those men "committed to a detention barrack or prison, or discharged with ignominy by Court-Martial or for misconduct." Sir Ian Hamilton, then Adjutant-General, whilst welcoming the proposal, doubted that it would be workable as a general principle. The following year the Commanding Officer of the Gosport Detention Barracks, brought before the Army Council a letter written by a man who was referred to as a "professional deserter" . This man, Private S Stacey, had enlisted into the Essex Regiment in 1902 and quickly deserted, subsequently serving fraudulently in the Middlesex Regiment, King's Shropshire Light Infantry and in 1910, the Dorsetshire Regiment. Stacey (if that was his real name of course) describes in detail how he managed these enlistments and ends his letter "However I have finished with the Army now. Not that I have disrespect for it for I would fight for old England tomorrow if there was a war, but the Army does at present not require my services. Let us hope they never may."

Finger-printing was never adopted, but I just wonder if Mr Stacey tried his hand again in 1914?

Source: "Adoption of the Finger-Print System in the Army to Prevent Fraudulent Enlistment" Precis for the Army Council - Number 476, 1910.

TR

[bootneck]

Terry

Thank you for the information.

Having checked the post on the forum which I mentioned in my earlier post I see that that the information came from an article on enlistment standards on the AWM website. Interestingly, having checked the article, the reference to checking for 'branding' marks is in the WW1 section rather than that for the Boer War.

regards

Bootneck

[SiegeGunner]

Thanks to TR for a very interesting exposition on a subject that I suspect most of us will have been unaware of. Just as texting has revived the techniques used years ago in telegrams, I gather that a digital version of the Bertillonage system is now used to analyse the linguistic quirks and formatting characteristics of posts from contributors suspected of being reincarnations of members ousted from the forum. Plus ça change ...

[auchonvillerssomme]

Ref HL Deb 28 March 1878 vol 239 cc105-11 105

LORD ELLENBOROUGH

'the term "branding" being a purely civilian expression, to denote what was properly termed by the Articles of War "marking"—the word "branding" never being used by an officer'

Mick

[tim_oz]

Bootneck

Checking for the letters D or BC or the signs of corporal punishment were among the list of conditions that the Medical Officer who inspected the man on enlistment certified that they did not have. A copy of the section in the AIF attestation papers is attached. As the forms were in use before the war I suspect that these provisions were carried over from earlier colonial documents and no one questioned if they may have still been relevent.

Tim B

[bootneck]

Tim

Thank you for posting the relevant part of the attestation form. It was most informative.

Mick

Thanks for pointing out that the official term was 'marking' rather than 'branding'.

It is interesting that on the TNA online catalogue, the RM service papers in ADM 157, branded is actually used.

regards

Bootneck