TF War Medal - unusual evidence of qualification

[clive_hughes]

Hi folks,

in looking up the WO 363 service record of a peripheral Anglesey casualty recently, I found he was awarded the TFWM and pair but with some unusual twists.

The soldier was Essex-born Spr (later Cpl) 673 (later 558014) Albert John HOCKLEY of 1st London Divisional Signal Company RE (TF). He enlisted in 1912 and served on the Western Front from 16 February 1916 onwards with the 56th Div. Signal Coy., being demobilized in May 1919 and died of illness in London in February 1920 (war grave at Woodgrange Park Cemetery, East Ham, Essex). He married an Anglesey girl in 1915, hence my interest.

His file is significantly water-damaged, only one leaf of the bound attestation/service record surviving, but some of the correspondence and other pieces also escaped the Arnside Street blaze.

Amongst them is his Army Form E.624 by which he undertakes the Imperial Service obligation. He was embodied on 5 August 1914, but this form is dated 18 January 1915. Up to now I'd have assumed that a man who hadn't signed this before 30 September 1914 wouldn't have received the TFWM despite being a serving Territorial in 1914 and fulfilling the other criteria.

In his file is a letter dated 22 April 1922 from the RE Records Office to one of his former officers - Major Gordon Kennard MC TD - stating that Hockley would have qualified for the TFWM as a serving Territorial on the outbreak of War; but that he hadn't signed the form before the cut-off date. Had he made a verbal agreement to serve overseas before 30 September 1914? Goodness knows how the Major could be confident of such a thing, but his terse response a few days later confirmed that Hockley had indeed verbally volunteered within the time frame. The medal was duly issued to his widow.

On checking this with Howard Williamson's recent and magisterial work on British WW1 medals, he quotes the Army Order 143 of April 1920 which sanctioned the TFWM, which includes (Section 2.b.i) the proviso that recipients Undertook either verbally or by written agreement, on or before the 30th September 1914, to service outside the United Kingdom... So written evidence was the more usual, but there must have been many cases like his where corroboration was sought years afterwards.

...And so to another issue relating to his E.624. In April 1917 his father-in-law wrote to the RE Records from Anglesey effectively complaining that Hockley's entitlement to a month's leave for signing the form hadn't yet been granted! Far from dismissing the suggestion outright, the Records Office replied that if he hadn't received it, it would appear he was still entitled to that privilege; and the issue was passed to his commanding officer for action. If anything happened, the remains of the file do not include further information. I have not come across any previous mention of this "privilege" - has anyone else?

Clive

[David Porter]

Clive,

I think the leave of one month refers to his re-engagement as he would have been Time Expired in 1917 (having enlisted in 1912).

It may have been four weeks but not everyone was granted it at the appropriate time, some having it delayed to the war end.

See - Time Expired Soldiers

I've also come across corroboration of verbal agreements where the E.624 was signed much later than September 30, 1914.

Herbert C. Wilmott of Somerset RHA signed his on February 18, 1916 but still got his medal after a letter from a former officer.

The War Office had initially refused it until this evidence was produced.

[clive_hughes]

Thanks David,

I imagine there must have been quite a few "verbal" agreements. I know from the newspapers that members of the Denbighshire Hussars Yeomanry (possibly the local squadron) were paraded outside a hotel in Bangor, Gwynedd in 1914 and asked to literally step forward and volunteer. Most did so; though from conversations I had with a former Yeoman who was present it appears a couple refused, despite being pressured to change their minds. I suppose the rest had to fill in their E.624 forms at that point or shortly thereafter.

I concur with the "month's leave" explanation as well : father-in-law must have meant a different Form, and it's more likely re-enlistment than a reward for taking the Imperial Service obligation!

Clive