Time Expired men returning home 1915 and 1916

[ddycher]

All

As part of my ongoing research into TF battalions in India I have been trying to gauge the impact of the time expired release of men. I think I am seeing a surprisingly high number of men in 1915 and 1916 actually choosing not to rejoin and returning to the UK. I had previously put down the dwindling strength of the TF battalions in 1915 into 1916 to sickness and drafts that had been sent to Mesopotamia but now no matter how I look at the situation I keep coming back to the fact that many more men returned home than I had previously considered.

Does anybody have a better sense of the scale of the time expired releases in the TF during this time ? I have searched the forum and the subject has been discussed numerous times but typically with respect to what time expired meant rather than whether it had caused any significant issues. I know there were cases of men being "compulsorily kept on" when a bounty was paid to them by the Army. However I can find no ref's or guidelines on how this was applied or how successful it was in retaining men in India.

Specific to my immediate area of study, ie. the Devons, men who returned to UK time-expired late 1916 were given leave and then sent back to India. What degree of compulsion was used I have been unable to determine.

As always any insights would be appreciated.

Regards

Dave

[Patrick ODwyer]

I can't really help but I know of one TF man who was TE from Egypt in 1916 and out of the army for about 6 months. He was then granted a temp. commission. I wonder if these men were picked up by conscription also?

[PPCLI]

Hi Dave,

Some numbers for the 1/5 K.O.Sco.Borderers at Gallipoli:

150 of original contingent of 990 ORs eligible for discharge time-expired (~15%)

20 killed/died at Gallipoli

18 discharged xvi no longer physically fit

Of the 112 remaining, 80 took the option (over 70% and 8% of original battalion)

32 re-enlisted, of which 9 were subsequently killed

Of the 32 who turned down the option, 6 were kia (slightly more favourable stats than those time-expired/re-enlisted)

The high uptake (over 70%) may be a reflection of the poor conditions prevalent at Gallipoli. Perhaps 8% of the total battalion is only a small proportion, but a number of these men were senior NCOs and others were experienced and held in high regard. I have read one account (war diary, I think) of strenuous efforts by officers c.Jan 1916 to persuade several men to stay on, but to no avail.

edit: I've always wondered how so many of those time-expired men managed to avoid conscription.

Hope this is of interest.

Stuart

[ddycher]

Stuart

This mirrors what I am seeing in my own study.

A very high percentage of senior NCO's who had been with the battalions since their reconfiguration in 1908 apparently choosing not to turn down the option. This seems consistant across those drafted to Mesopotamia and those remaining in India (it is however different to accurately determine where they were at the time they time expired).

I have tried, unsuccessfully I must admit, to track down many of those who went home with respect to subsequent war service. But it seems, atleast in this case, that far from all of them when back into service. Again this would seem to correlate with what you have seen in the 1/5 K.O.Sco.Borderers. I appreciate the sanity check - was starting to think I was imagining things.

All that said I can find almost nothing in any reference material on this.

Regards

Dave

[ddycher]

All

Some further thoughts :

At the declaration of war all service commitments were automatically extended by one year. This meant that time expired men started to come up late in 1915.

I have been looking at four possible scenario's :

1. A man could extend on three months notice or for the duration. My current understanding is that men were encouraged by means of a month leave and a bounty to rejoin in their regiments for the duration of the war.

A.O. 297/1916, enabled a 15 pound bounty to be paid to soldiers of the Territorial Force who were serving on mobilization if they were retained in the service beyond the date on which they would have been due for discharge. This was due after they had served the extra year required by the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act.

Although time-expired men are not entitled upon retention of service under the M.S.A. to one month's furlough. Every effort was made, however, to grant to N.C.O.'s and men, time expired and retained in the service, a month's leave. This leave was sanctioned "provided the exigencies of the Service permit". Men retained under M.S. A. 1916 (Session 2) were entitled to leave of absence under A.C.I. 646 and 869/1916 on the termination of their engagement provided they are recommended by their C.O.'s.

2. Returned home did not rejoin : I had been struggling to understand why such a large number of the men I was looking at did not appear to have subsequent military service after discharge. Most of these now fit into the following group. A man aged over 41 at termination of his engagement could not retained against his wish if he has twelve years' service. Hence pre-war / pre TF NCO's leaving in 1916/1917 were frequently exempt from further service.

3. Returned home, subsequently rejoined. Army Order 79/1916 stated that ranks between Cpl and Warrant Officer, Class 2, who had been discharged after the commencement of the War, were permitted to re-enlist in their old regt's. This was in order that he might complete twenty-one years with a view to a subsequent pension. These I have been able to locate via their MIC / Service records where a second pre 6 digit regimental number was assigned.

4. Returned home commissioned : A significant number of time expired men were subsequently recommended for commissions. I have now located a number of these in my study group. I have not as yet been able to compile a definitive list but the number of cases I am finding is growing.

Again any further insight would be appreciated.

Regards

Dave

[jmta04]

Hello Dave.

Having read your post and responses has helped answer some of my own questions. My grandfather, James Collis joined the 5th East Surreys (Territorials) in 1910. The battalion went to India in 1914. As volunteers, James and his brother (Harry served in the same battalion) were volunteered to transfer to 2nd Norfolks, were wounded at Ctesiphon and evacuated to hospital at Basra. At this point, James returned to India, I had assumed to the East Surreys, but by now he was a year over his original terms of engagement (your post explains this). James next appears back in England in June 1916 where he re-engages for the duration of the war in the 8th East Surreys.

I realise this does not add to what you know, but would appreciate your own opinion as you obviously have far more knowledge on the subject than myself.

Is it likely James would have been returned to the 5th East Surreys in India, would he have been sent to a base depot, or would India have just been part of his route on his journey home?

Would James have been given the option to return to England at the end of his period of engagement or could he have re-engaged and stayed with the 2nd Norfolks or 5th East Surreys in the Mesopotamia or India if he so desired?

Would he have still been eligible for his bounty and month leave on his return to England if he re-engaged (a strong incentive for opting to return home, I would have thought)?

Many thanks for an interesting and helpful post.

Regards,

Scobie

[ddycher]

Scobie

Apologies - this thread dropped off my top 10 and I lost track of it. Will go through what you have posted today and try to get back to you with anything I come up with.

Regards

Dave

[ddycher]

Scobie

Far from an expert in these matters I have tried to comment given similar experiences I have seen elsewhere. Hope it helps :

**************

James Collis joined the 5th East Surreys (Territorials) in 1910. The battalion went to India in 1914.

As volunteers, James and his brother (Harry served in the same battalion) were volunteered to transfer to 2nd Norfolks, were wounded at Ctesiphon and evacuated to hospital at Basra.

At this point, James returned to India, I had assumed to the East Surreys, but by now he was a year over his original terms of engagement (your post explains this).

>> Typically the Time Expired TF men did not come up as an issue until during the efforts to relieve Kut. By this time your Grandfather and his brother were probably med evac’d to India. This would have meant that they would have made their choice of extension whilst recovering in India. <<

James next appears back in England in June 1916 where he re-engages for the duration of the war in the 8th East Surreys.

>> This could mean that James he had chosed to extend and was on furlough or he chose not to extend. Men from both catagories returned to the UK in the first half of 1916 <<

I realise this does not add to what you know, but would appreciate your own opinion as you obviously have far more knowledge on the subject than myself.

Is it likely James would have been returned to the 5th East Surreys in India, would he have been sent to a base depot, or would India have just been part of his route on his journey home?

>> Early volunteers to the 2nd Norfolks and 2nd Dorsets were attached rather than transferred. Once wounded or invalided they typically went to hospitals in India and then either to the Norfolks / Dorsets depot's on convalescence or back to their original units depending upon the immediate need for drafts. <<

Would James have been given the option to return to England at the end of his period of engagement or could he have re-engaged and stayed with the 2nd Norfolks or 5th East Surreys in the Mesopotamia or India if he so desired?

>> Up until April 1916 he would have had the choice. Before the passing of the Military Services act it was relatively common for a furlough to be granted and for them to return to India if they chose to extend within the Battalion. After the enactment his return to original unit would no longer have been guarenteed. <<

Would he have still been eligible for his bounty and month leave on his return to England if he re-engaged (a strong incentive for opting to return home, I would have thought)?

Many thanks for an interesting and helpful post.

>> Yes he would have been entitled if he extended before the date of the Military Service Act. <<

>> Hazarding a guess I would say he is most likely to have voluntarily extended and would have gone to the Reserve Bn on the completion of his leave. This would have seen him come back into the 5th (Res) Bn., East Surreys. At this time there would be no guarantee that from here he would have made it back to the first line. After April 1916 the Military Service Act allowed for transfer / posting as required. Even as in this case outside of the TF. <<

***************

Regards

Dave

[PPCLI]

Hi Dave,

I'm afraid that I can't really add very much further detail on those men who took up the option of being discharged time-expired. The main reason for this is that very, very few service files (single figures) from my battalion of interest are to be found in the WO 363 series. Quite a good number of time-expired men's files are found in WO 364, but these do not record any further service information on men who (I know) re-enlisted. It is therefore difficult to interpret much further.

Regards your four categories, I can offer:

1. & 3. Seems to be a bit of a combination as far as I can determine. There were many men eligible for discharge who do not appear to have taken the option; I assume they got the £15 bounty, but no records for these men have survived. Not sure how the furlough would have worked for men stationed in Egypt? A good number of men re-enlisted in their old battalion in July/August 1916, after being discharged between January and April 1916. From the few records I have, they appear to have been awarded the £15 bounty. So although now under the MSA and having been discharged for several months, they appear to have been allowed to re-enlist with their old battalion and were paid the bounty.

2. Of eligible men, only about 10% were overage. Still don't know how the others avoided the MSA. A lot would have worked in munitions etc., but still thought more would have been called up again.

4. None (there are a couple of time-expired Sgts commissioned, but they had never previously served overseas)

So, not a whole lot more detail for you, but it's about the best I can do based on the lack of extant service files.

Cheers,

Stuart

[ddycher]

Thanks Stuart

This seems like one of those research threads that simply runs out of steam. Looks like I will have to park it for now and dust it off again later if anything new breaks.

Thanks again for your help.

Regards

Dave

[Ski]

Dave,

From "With the 2/4th Wilts to India";

April 1916...on Tuesday night our "Time expired" men went- 15 of them. It makes one feel a bit envious to think that they will be home again in about a months time. But the majority of us whose time was up-myself included- have decided, and I think wisely, that we would rather see it out with the Battalion

August 1916...transport arrived from England..As some of the troops who had just disembarked marched by, judge my astonishment to hear yells of recognition from twenty or thirty of them.....found them to be men from the 1/4th and 2/4th Wilts who had gone home as time-expired, only to be called up again, transferred to the Dorsets, and sent out to India once more in a draft for that Regiment!....one man who had left us at Kirkee twelve weeks ago!

Hope that is of some help,

Regards,

Lee

[ddycher]

Lee

Helps alot - thank you.

Further supports that alot of returning time expired from the East actually ended up back in that theatre very quickly in 1916.

Regards

Dave

[jmta04]

Hi Dave.

Thank you so much for your answers to all my questions about my grandfather James Collis. You have come up with so much more detail than I could possibly have hoped for. I now have a far clearer idea of the probable events leading to his return to England and why he would have made certain decisions that he did.

Best regards, and again, many thanks,

Scobie