Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Hackney Gurkhas


Gareth Davies

Recommended Posts

Uniform Arguments.

 

My copy of the May 1915 Army List shows the 10th (County of London) Bn London Regiment (Hackney) (TF):

 

Uniform - Scarlet

Facings - White

 

The Jan 1913 Army List (the first 'Monthly' list I can find) also has Scarlet and White. 

The Dec 1918 Army List (the last Monthly list I can find) also has Scarlet and  White. This is two years after its change to a TF Battalion of the Rifle Brigade in 1916

The Battalion was disbanded at the end of the War and re-raised in 1920.

The Jan 1937 Army List also has Scarlet and White. At this stage it was part of the Royal Berkshire Regiment TA

 

It would appear that when the original 10th Bn (Paddington Rifles) was disbanded and their place taken by the 10th Bn (Hackney) in 1912 the battle honour and uniforms did not make the transition. The 10th Bn (Hackney) is one of only two exceptions in the London TF not carrying any Battle Honours pre Great War. This would suggest there are no ceremonial links between the 10th Paddington Rifles (which carried "South Africa 1900-02") and the 10th Hackney other than using the same number. I think it also explains the occasional confusion over the Hackney 'Rifles'. It does not appear to have any connection with Rifles until 1916 under the Rifle Brigade, but notably no change in title. The affiliation ceased in 1918-19 when the Battalion was disbanded. 

 

I am reasonably confident that the Hackney battalion never wore Rifle Green. I hope this has made some headway by at least eliminating one theory. 

 

Martin

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Martin, certainly blew my little theory out of the water (post#9)

 

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Knotty said:
10 minutes ago, QGE said:

Uniform Arguments.

 

My copy of the May 1915 Army List shows the 10th (County of London) Bn London Regiment (Hackney) (TF):

 

Uniform - Scarlet

Facings - White

 

The Jan 1913 Army List (the first 'Monthly' list I can find) also has Scarlet and White. 

The Dec 1918 Army List (the last Monthly list I can find) also has Scarlet and  White. This is two years after its change to a TF Battalion of the Rifle Brigade in 1916

The Battalion was disbanded at the end of the War and re-raised in 1920.

The Jan 1937 Army List also has Scarlet and White. At this stage it was part of the Royal Berkshire Regiment TA

 

It would appear that when the original 10th Bn (Paddington Rifles) was disbanded and their place taken by the 10th Bn (Hackney) in 1912 the battle honour and uniforms did not make the transition. The 10th Bn (Hackney) is one of only two exceptions in the London TF not carrying any Battle Honours pre Great War. This would suggest there are no ceremonial links between the 10th Paddington Rifles (which carried "South Africa 1900-02") and the 10th Hackney other than using the same number. I think it also explains the occasional confusion over the Hackney 'Rifles'. It does not appear to have any connection with Rifles until 1916 under the Rifle Brigade, but notably no change in title. The affiliation ceased in 1918-19 when the Battalion was disbanded. 

 

I am reasonably confident that the Hackney battalion never wore Rifle Green. I hope this has made some headway by at least eliminating one theory. 

 

Martin

 

 

Yes, I think it does.

 

Anyone for the blade/knife option?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Gareth Davies said:

 

 

Yes, I think it does.

 

Anyone for the blade/knife option?

 

     We have already been there on posts that were deleted.  There is no evidence whatsoever  :

 

i) That as  persons from the Hackney area of London, they carried more edged weapons in civilian life 

 

ii)  That 10th Londons- carried any variation in bayonets/any other edged weapons than those that were standard issue for any British infantry battalion of the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they are deleted it makes it very hard to read them.  But even if they were visible, can we discount it just because we can't find any evidence?  The self appointment of the title in/post Gallipoli seems to be the most likely but there is no evidence to support that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gareth Davies said:

If they are deleted it makes it very hard to read them.  But even if they were visible, can we discount it just because we can't find any evidence?  The self appointment of the title in/post Gallipoli seems to be the most likely but there is no evidence to support that.  

 

    I agree with you wholeheartedly on both points;  (And assumed you had read the previous posts pre-zapping)

 

1)  You are correct to say that lack of evidence does not preclude this- It should stir all of us to look just that little bit harder. If 10th Hackney had  some sort of localised variation in weaponry, I would be surprised it had not been noted anywhere before on this Forum. If-perhaps-the nickname attaches to 1/10th in Palestine, 1917+, then one must ask not only why is it not flagged up somewhere-but also why it was not noted as a characteristic in pre-Palestine service (Bad grammar there!)  in 1914-1916.

 

2)  "Yarn of a Yeoman" adds considerably to the line that it was a localised use in Palestine. Again, as the book was published in 1930, then I think:

   i) It strengthens the 1917 Palestine argument BUT:

  ii) It suggests that it was a localised use-One cannot discount that an odd reference to the term "Hackney Gurkhas" was not picked up from "500 of the Best Cockney War Stories" by "Yarn of a Yeoman". Again, contemporary reference would be the clincher-pre 1918

 

          A small point on this nickname and others- How many men does it take for a term used as casual banter to transmogrify into a accepted nickname? Just because Private Bloggs recounts that Private Whifflesnooks used the name is not "general" use. Military history is plagued by the over-use of nicknames-  I look at the wall of military history publications in the bookshop at TNA and think that every unit, every ship, every general, etc,etc had a standard , catchy nickname..For the Great War, this is certainly not represented in the contemporary literature as I know it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the absence of evidence does not mean there isn't an undiscovered source (is that a triple negative?), this Battalion's martial nickname seems to be singularly difficult to nail down.  There is no doubt in my mind that it is a Great War construct, however few outside the Battalion  seem to have made any reference to it, which again (to me at least) suggests it is self-selected. My speculation. 

 

If anyone could be bothered, a forensic trawl of the diaries and published histories of the Battalions that served left, right and centre of the Hackney Gurkhas would probably settle the debate. If the nickname was in common usage, the neighbouring units would have picked up on this. To save some of the hard yards none of the Battalions in the same Brigade or even the same Division (including the Brigade Headquarters and the Divisional Headquarters) made reference to this during Gallipoli. To my knowledge it is not mentioned in any published history of any battalion that served alongside the Hackney Gurkhas (my Regimental histories are digitised, OCR's and word-searchable). Hackney and Gurkha don't ever appear on the same page never mind the same sentence in the "Essex Units in the War 1914-19: 4th,5th, 6th, 7th & 8th Battalions" for example...of the History of The Norfolk Regt, or the History of the Northamptonshire Regiment, or the history of the 1/5th Suffolks or the Bedfordshires etc etc.or (to my knowledge in any of the known literature of the Isle of Wight Rifles - Bart and other might be able to confirm.

 

The Division remained intact thoughout the war, so there is a continuous timeline against which we can stress-test this theory; If the 10th London's were known universally as the Hackney Gurkhas where is the evidence in the literature of the 11 battalions that fought alongside this East London branch of the 'bravest of the brave'?

 

The ORBAT for the EEF in Egypt and Palestine shows the 2/3rd Gurkha Rifles, part of 23rd Indian Infantry Brigade attached to 54th (Est Anglian) Division (TF).... It might be worth establishing if Gurkhas (the real ones) were co-located at any stage during their Middle Eastern sojourn. Trying to establish when the Hackney Gurkhas served close to the Gurkha Rifles might help focus the research. In the EEF I cant see any other Gurkha unit present. The OH Egypt and Palestine indicates the 10th and 11th Indian Divisions were in theatre. 11th Div was broken up before the Hackney Gurkhas arrived in Egypt and 10th Indian Div was broken up on 7th March 1916, leaving only a small window of overlap. I don't have the Orbats for the constituent Indian Infantry Brigades: 28th (left by Nov 1915 so can be discounted), 29th (same Brigade at Gallipoli -  14th Sikhs and three Gurkha Battalions) left in March 1916), 30th (left by March 1915 so again can be discounted), 31st (Jan-Feb 1916). Again given the lack of activity by the Hackney Gurkhas, it seems unlikely that there was any act of martial prowess that would anchor the nickname in Egypt in early 1916. It is worth remembering the vast areas these formations were operating in and the likelihood of encountering a Gurkha unit. 

 

A risk of stating the obvious, the proximity of the four Gurkha battalions at Gallipoli was recorded. It would be interesting to see if the 10th Hackney Gurkhas ever encountered the 2/3rd Gurkha Rifles in Egypt and Palestine.

 

Any mistakes are mine. MG

 

References:

 

OH Egypt and Palestine by MacMunn and Falls

Duty and Fidelity: The Indian Army August 1914-1921 Part 1 by Chris Kempton.

 

 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin-2 points on this- Agreed that wartime us is limited and probably from within 10th Londons-probably even just one company...one  platoon....one section....  Old Bill and his mate.

   The proximity of being next to a Gurkha unit is interesting and  credible. Supported by the record? Could this nickname track back to Gallipoli.....

 

"500 of the Best Cockney War Stories" has the earliest known use thus far- one man of the 2 citations there was Frederick Fitch, 1/5th Norfolks It struck me that the nickname might possibly have originated because the 10th Londons had arrived in sunny climes earlier than 1/5 Norfolks and there was just joshing between units-one nut-brown,the other raw chicken white. Alas, the service history of 1/10 London and 1/5 Norfolks rules that out- Both went through Gallipoli and thence to Egypt,etc- Alas, 1/10 London landed on 11th August 1915-but 1/5th Norfolks on 10th August 1915.. Blast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 1/5th Suffolks TF (163rd Inf Bde, 54th Div) left a rather nice and concise history. They called themselves the "Lucky Suffolks" -  a nickname I would suggest that is difficult to find anywhere outside their own published history. 

 

The Suffolks mention the 1/8th Gurkha Rifles in the Advance from Gaza (March  1918) so it seems fairly clear that there were more Gurkhas in the field than just 2/3rd Gurkha Rifles. One interesting aspect was a period when the Divisional device was discussed and identification flashes were first issued. One symbol suggested for the Division was a [mad] March Hare.This was considered a "gross insubordination" as the GOC was  Maj Gen S W Hare. Instead the device chosen was an umbrella blown inside out as a reference to 'putting the wind up Umbrella Hill' during a raid on the position on 27th July 1917. At the same time a broken spur was the device chosen for the dismounted Yeomanry Division. So it seems a healthy discussion on names and symbolism occurred in July 1917. ...just one page later the history mentions the "10th Londons"  relieving the Battalion on 29th Sep 1917. No allusions to Gurkhas at all. 

 

OH Egypt and Palestine mentions 10th Londons just once: Pages 338-339 in the action of 19th April 1917 

 

"the 10/London made the greatest advance of all that black day. The right half battalion endeavouring to keep touch with the 4/Northampton became separated from the left and was held up in front of the Turkish works, but the left, faced by no connected line of trenches fought its way across the Gaza-Beersheba road at 08:30 am. By rifle and Lewis-gun fire it drove out of action a Turkish infantry gun which was hastily withdrawn to the ridge North of Ali Muntar. .... The left of the 10/London was now completely isolated there being a gap of 800 yards between it and the right half battalion while it was far ahead of the 52nd Division on its left. Two machine-gun sections were pushed out to cover the left flank on the Wadi Mikaddeme but the position remained hopelessly exposed. The situtaion was somewhat eased by the subsequent advance of the 52nd Division's right but the party was eventually forced to fall back across the road. A counter-attack by two Turkish battalions compelled the whole battalion to fall back another 600 yards but was then brought to a standstill, the machine gun sections on the Wadi Mukaddeme swinging round to fire North-East and doing considerable execution...."

 

If the nickname was triggered by an event, this action or the one at Kidney Hill in Aug 1915 at Gallipoli would appear to be the most likely starting points. 

 

Col D  - as an aside while cross-checking this action in the 1/5th Bn KOSB history their account mentions a number of tanks "Tiger" in front of 1/5th  KOSB and "War Baby" leading the  1/4th RSF which I have no doubt you know well but you might  find an infantry perspective interesting. 1/8th Scottish Rifles history also covers the action well but no mention of Tanks or Hackney Gurkhas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 1/10th do get a few more mentions in the 2nd volume of the OH, in Pt 1 for their actions in Nov & Dec 17, and in Pt 2 for 1918, but I don't think these actions were the trigger.  

 

Thank you for the tank info. I have looked at a number of the infantry WDs to get their perspective but not the whole set and not the KOSB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, QGE said:

Uniform Arguments.

 

My copy of the May 1915 Army List shows the 10th (County of London) Bn London Regiment (Hackney) (TF):

 

Uniform - Scarlet

Facings - White

 

The Jan 1913 Army List (the first 'Monthly' list I can find) also has Scarlet and White. 

The Dec 1918 Army List (the last Monthly list I can find) also has Scarlet and  White. This is two years after its change to a TF Battalion of the Rifle Brigade in 1916

The Battalion was disbanded at the end of the War and re-raised in 1920.

The Jan 1937 Army List also has Scarlet and White. At this stage it was part of the Royal Berkshire Regiment TA

 

It would appear that when the original 10th Bn (Paddington Rifles) was disbanded and their place taken by the 10th Bn (Hackney) in 1912 the battle honour and uniforms did not make the transition. The 10th Bn (Hackney) is one of only two exceptions in the London TF not carrying any Battle Honours pre Great War. This would suggest there are no ceremonial links between the 10th Paddington Rifles (which carried "South Africa 1900-02") and the 10th Hackney other than using the same number. I think it also explains the occasional confusion over the Hackney 'Rifles'. It does not appear to have any connection with Rifles until 1916 under the Rifle Brigade, but notably no change in title. The affiliation ceased in 1918-19 when the Battalion was disbanded. 

 

I am reasonably confident that the Hackney battalion never wore Rifle Green. I hope this has made some headway by at least eliminating one theory. 

 

Martin

 

I completely agree on all points Martin, bar a minor revision on the longevity of the 10/LR (Hackney) RB affiliation - see below.

 

I thought me linking to my London Regiment full dress uniform topic in Post #26 on 03 Aug had cleared the uniform issue up ages ago!

 

The first post therein contains this ...

3rd (County of) London Brigade    
9/LR (Queen Victoria's) Rifle Green Scarlet
10/LR (Paddington Rifles); disbanded 1912  Rifle Green Black
10/LR (Hackney)  Scarlet White
11/LR (Finsbury Rifles)  Rifle Green Scarlet
12/LR (The Rangers)  Rifle Green Scarlet

 

I can confirm the 10/LR (Paddington Rifles) were not affiliated to the RB between 1908 and their disbandment in 1912.  Prior to this they had been 1881-1892 5th VB, then 1892-1908 4th VB of the Rifle Brigade.

 

On disbandment, the remaining personnel of the Paddington Rifles were absorbed by 3rd (City of London) Battalion, The London Regiment (Royal Fusiliers).  3/LR also took over the Paddington Rifles drill hall at Harrow Road alongside their existing drill hall at Edward Street, Hampstead Road (lost in Blitz – now Varndell Street NW1) behind Euston Station.  By the time of the 1916 Army List, 3/LR are listing Harrow Road as their main drill hall.

 

The newly raised 10/LR (Hackney) never wore rifle green, did not contain any former members of the Paddington Rifles, did not take over the battle honours of the Paddington Rifles, did not have 'Rifles' in their official title, and had their own drill hall at The Grove, Hackney, later Hillman Street, Hackney - pretty much the same actual location behind Hackney Town Hall.

 

10/LR (Hackney) were affiliated to the Rifle Brigade under AO 250 of 1916.  They were disembodied in early 1920, but almost immediately re-constituted, still with affiliation to the RB.  This was further confirmed in AO 49 of 1926.  They were transferred to the Royal Berkshire Regt in 1929.

 

I'm 99% certain there was no continuity/connection between the two incarnations of 10/LR in any way.

 

I must admit to being puzzled as to why the 10/LR (Hackney) were linked to the RB in 1916 in the first place and am quite surprised they did not follow a similar path to 7/LR (redcoats) whose affiliation was transferred in 1916 from KRRC to the Middlesex Regt (AO 325 1916).

 

 

I've done extensive digging into the 10/LR Hackney drill hall.  I wanted to explore whether an earlier rifle volunteer unit was using the hall before 10/LR were newly raised in 1912.  Thought this might cast light on Gareth's quest.

 

Its address is given variously as ...

49 The Grove, Hackney (Jan 1913 Monthly Army List)

49 -57 The Grove, Hackney (Stepping Forward London - The History of London's Volunteer & Auxiliary Forces)

27 Casterton Street, Hackney (1915 London Post Office Directory)

Hillman Street (Stepping Forward London)

 

Looking at historic maps, there is clearly a large hall present in the in-fill between Casterton Street and The Grove (aka Hackney Grove) and this is marked as a drill hall by 1914.  The new town hall built 1934-6 to the west of the original site caused the demolition of The Grove and the creation of the new Hillman Street.  This opened a frontage for the seemingly enlarged drill hall onto this new street - see the 1949 map.

 

1914                                                                                                                    

598ce0cfaf45b_10thLondonRegt(Hackney)-drillhalllocation1916-01.jpg.6c2330fe3fe2fab87aaf50e5ebe7ff1a.jpg 

1949

598ce0cdbf433_10thLondonRegt(Hackney)-drillhalllocation1949-01.jpg.5c3197f2b5b53ccf8d7953d2cec42283.jpg

 

The only image I have found of the drill hall is from the bombing of Casterton Street in the Blitz on 17 Apr 1941 taken from the roof of the new town hall looking west with the drill hall on the right hand side and the railway embankment beyond the ruins of the far side of Casterton Street.  There appears to be an air raid shelter in the centre foreground :

598ce8e29b786_10thLondonRegt(Hackney)-drillhallbombing17Apr1941-01-Copy.jpg.74a25e0feb94e4c16f8e157e4c9e8314.jpg

Source: Hackney Archive here and here

 

 

At 27 Casterton Street, the 1910 London Post Office Directory lists the "Orion Gymnastic Club, S.B. Woods, Hon. Sec." of which the VCH has ...

 

"Orion gymnastic club, founded in 1868 in Mile End and named after a rowing club, moved to St. Thomas's hall and in 1883 to a new building in Casterton Street. Debts led to the gymnasium's acquisition as a drill hall in 1912 "

[VCH: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/middx/vol10/pp65-73#p20]

 

 ... which aligns perfectly with the raising of 10/LR (Hackney) in 1912 and suggests that they were indeed the first volunteer unit in the building.

 

The VCH goes on to describe the volunteer units in the Hackney area thus ...

 

"The 9th (later 4th) Essex Rifle Volunteers had their headquarters in 1872 and 1890 at 51 Mare Street and in 1892 at 208 Mare Street, where the 7th Battalion of the Essex Regiment remained until c. 1913. The 10th (Hackney) Battalion of the County of London Regiment had its headquarters in Hackney Grove (later Hillman Street) c. 1913 and soon had its orderly room at no. 208 Mare Street and a drill hall in Casterton Street. On the building of the third town hall a new headquarters was provided in Hillman Street, used by the 5th (Hackney) Battalion of the Royal Berkshire Regiment in 1937 "

[VCH: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/middx/vol10/pp65-73#p25]

 

The "third town hall" was that built 1934-6.

 

9th Essex RVC, 4th Essex RVC, 7/Essex were all incarnations the same unit of course.  As were 10th Londons and 5th Royal Berkshires.

 

The VCH has derived the dates used above from entries in the various London directories.


51 Mare Street was on the corner of Mare Street and Ash Grove a little to the S of the current location of that address and about three quarters of a mile to the south of "our" drill hall in Casterton Street. 

 

208 Mare Street was on the E side of Mare Street two plots north of the junction with the then Devonshire Road, now Brenthouse Road, and approx 220m to the SE of "our" drill hall in Casterton Street.

 

The 1910 London PO Directory confirms Essex Regiment (7th Battalion) (Territorial Force) at 208 Mare Street, but has 51 Mare Street as a Home for Deaf and Dumb and Blind Children run by Dr Barnardo's.  No sign of anything TF in Hackney Grove though. The 1915 edition lists 10th (County of London) Battalion, The London Regiment (Territorial Force) at 208 Mare Street.  The Jan 1917 Monthly Army List has 10/LR (Hackney) at 208 Mare Street, Hackney.

 

Unfortunately the VCH is at odds with Ray Westlake's Rifle Volunteer "bible", which has 9th Essex RVC forming in 1880 in Silvertown down by the Thames and E of the Lea.  Renumbered 4th Essex RVC in 1880 and HQ moved to Leyton in 1900.  The unit was 4th VB of the Essex Regt 1883 to 1908 when they became 7/Essex.  The 1913 Army List has 7/Essex based at Park Road, Leyton.

 

Westlake has no mention of Hackney connected to the Essex RVCs, so at best anything at Hackney from the 9th / 4th Essex RVC can only have been a company of the corps and not the overall HQ.

 

Whatever, all sources do seem to agree that while 10/LR (Hackney) and 7/Essex may have briefly shared Orderly Rooms at 208 Mare Street, the only unit to use the drill hall at Casterton Street was 10/LR (Hackney).

 

As regards uniform, Westlake has 4th Essex RVC in green with green facing up to 1902, when they changed to scarlet and white regardless of their rifle volunteer traditions, so neither 7/Essex nor 10/LR were in rifle green after 1912.

 

Westlake's only mention of RVC units in Hackney is a company of the 1st Tower Hamlets Rifle Volunteer Brigade RVC, exact location not given.  This corps' original HQ was in Dalston, but had a spell at Lamb Lane in Hackney from 1860 about half a mile S of our drill hall in Casterton Street.  They were a VB of the Rifle Brigade until 1904 when they affiliated to the Royal Fusiliers eventually becoming 4/LR (and redcoats).  I do not think they're relevant to Gareth's quest.

 

All this means I think we can be pretty confident that the newly raised 10/LR (Hackney) did not pick up the traditions of an earlier volunteer unit from the locality, nor those of the Paddington Rifles.

 

Mark

.
 

Edited by MBrockway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, MBrockway said:

 

I completely agree on all points Martin, bar a minor revision on the longevity of the 10/LR (Hackney) RB affiliation - see below.

Mark

.
 

 

Mark - many thanks for the comprehensive response. Some nice detail on drill halls. Thank you for highlighting the later (post War) association with the RB. 

 

It sounds as if we are in furious agreement that the Hackney battalion had no RVC heritage and started its existence from scratch in 1912 in Scarlet and White, taking no traditions, battle honour or uniform from the disbanded 10th Paddington Rifles. I wonder if this was because the 7th Essex who relinquished the recruiting area and whose men transferred were already Scarlet and White. It would have been logistically easier. It also had no change in title when it became a TF battalion of the RB in 1916. We know with 100% certainty that its uniform remained Scarlet and White. The evidence is in the Army Lists from 1912 right through to WWII...Scarlet and White....so we can be 100% sure they never adopted Rifles traditions or Rifle Green. It is inconceivable (to me at least) that the Army List would make a mistake for the best part of 30 years.

 

Semantics of "TF Rifle Brigade"' aside, it is noteworthy that the Hackney battalion was presented Colours after the Great War which hang to this day in the Ironmongers Hall in the Barbican; this is consistent with a 'redcoat' battalion and on its own would suggest there was no Rifles tradition. Happy to be corrected but I am not aware of any serving 'Rifle' battalion being presented with Colours.

 

I sense we are on the same page. Unless someone appears stage left with official documentary evidence to the contrary, I think this line of enquiry has been exhausted. 

 

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, QGE said:

 

Mark - many thanks for the comprehensive response. Some nice detail on drill halls. Thank you for highlighting the later (post War) association with the RB. 

 

It sounds as if we are in furious agreement that the Hackney battalion had no RVC heritage and started its existence from scratch in 1912 in Scarlet and White, taking no traditions, battle honour or uniform from the disbanded 10th Paddington Rifles. I wonder if this was because the 7th Essex who relinquished the recruiting area and whose men transferred were already Scarlet and White. It would have been logistically easier. It also had no change in title when it became a TF battalion of the RB in 1916. We know with 100% certainty that its uniform remained Scarlet and White. The evidence is in the Army Lists from 1912 right through to WWII...Scarlet and White....so we can be 100% sure they never adopted Rifles traditions or Rifle Green. It is inconceivable (to me at least) that the Army List would make a mistake for the best part of 30 years.

 

Semantics of "TF Rifle Brigade"' aside, it is noteworthy that the Hackney battalion was presented Colours after the Great War which hang to this day in the Ironmongers Hall in the Barbican; this is consistent with a 'redcoat' battalion and on its own would suggest there was no Rifles tradition. Happy to be corrected but I am not aware of any serving 'Rifle' battalion being presented with Colours.

 

I sense we are on the same page. Unless someone appears stage left with official documentary evidence to the contrary, I think this line of enquiry has been exhausted. 

 

Martin

Furious agreement?: YES! Absolutely :rolleyes:

 

Colours?: Yes - an excellent and subtle point.  Quite correct too.  No rifles regiment carried colours in the form of a standard.  Battle honours were carried on the badges, which is why the senior regiments had different badges to the affiliated militia and VF/TF battalions, who at most had South Africa 1900-1902 in their badge cross arms (KRRC-style) or wreathes (RB-style).

 

Essex Regt relinquishing Hackney area?:  This would make sense.  I don't want to re-open the debate about East End vs. East London vs. North London, but all my researches so far point to Hackney definitely being in the historic county of Middlesex, not Essex.  I am rather puzzled as to why the local rifle volunteers in Hackney were neither Middlesex RVC nor Tower Hamlets RVC, both of which would seem more logical.

 

It's also puzzling as to why the anomaly of the RB affiliation didn't get resolved in Oct 1916 when the similar anomaly of the 7/LR's KRRC affiliation was resolved by a new affiliation to the Middlesex Regt.

 

Is there evidence for Hackney locals from the 7/Essex forming the rump of the newly raised 10/LR (Hackney) battalion?  It's certainly an attractive hypothesis given the two battalions appear to have made use of 208 Mare Street as their Orderly Room (and thus, probably the battalion HQ).  I'll do some further work on the PO Directories and Army Lists to see if I can date the occupancy of 208 Mare Street more precisely.

 

As relating to the matter in hand, I think you're quite correct: 10/LR (Hackney) have no rifles ancestry whatsoever and the Hackney Gurkhas epithet does not come from anything rifles related, uniform or tradition.

 

Mark

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snippet on the 10/LR (Hackney) and 10/LR (Paddington Rifles) battle honours...

 

TF MIlls on his old Regiments.org website, states the Paddington Rifles' South Africa 1900-1902 battle honour was "inherited by the 1912 regiment, and later withdrawn".

 

No reference cited unfortunately,  Anyone know of an authority for this?  Presumably deep in Army Orders or ACI's in the 1912-1914 period I assume?

 

Certainly the 1913 Army List does not list the South Africa 1900-02 battle honour in the 10/LR (Hackney) entry.

 

Stepping Forward London has the South Africa 1900-02 battle honour awarded to the Paddington Rifles carried forward by The Rifles.

 

The Rifles also carry forward the Great War battle honours carried by 10/LR (Hackney).  I assume this is via the 10/LR -> 5/Berkshire -> Duke of Edinburgh's Royal Regiment -> Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment -> The Rifles lineage.

 

 

Mark

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

As most of the other LR battalions had nicknames, I wonder if this was one given by the media to make reading articles easier to understand. It seems the name didn't exist in official paperwork like the Army Lists so the next step would be to go through the newspapers of the time. I wouldn't be surprised to hear of a phrase like "they fought like Gurkhas" and that name stuck.

 

Glen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MBrockway said:

Is there evidence for Hackney locals from the 7/Essex forming the rump of the newly raised 10/LR (Hackney) battalion?  It's certainly an attractive hypothesis given the two battalions appear to have made use of 208 Mare Street as their Orderly Room (and thus, probably the battalion HQ).  I'll do some further work on the PO Directories and Army Lists to see if I can date the occupancy of 208 Mare Street more precisely.

 

 

I just found this in notes given to me by Pal Wienand Drenthe on the London Regiment lineages ...

 

Quote

10th London Regiment (Hackney)
Raised 17 Oct. 1912 with HQ and A - H Coys at The Grove, Hackney as 10th (County of London) Bn, The London Regt (Hackney) taking three companies from 7th Bn, The Essex Regiment (Bron van verwijzing niet gevonden), to replace former 10th Bn.

 

Embodied 4 Aug. 1914; renumbered as 1/10th. To corps of the Rifle Brigade 7 Jul. 1916.


Reduced to cadre 27 Sep. 1919 in Egypt and disembodied 5 Mar. 1920. Reconstituted 7 Feb. 1920 as 10th London Regt (Hackney) with HQ and A - D Coys at Mare Street, Hackney

(the emboldening is mine)

 

Unfortunately Wienand was not able to find an authoritative source for the absorption of these companies from the Essex Regt: Bron van verwijzing niet gevonden is Dutch for Source of reference not found.

 

We're clearly on to something anyway.

 

Can anyone add more detail on 7/Essex personnel transferring in when the new 10/LR was raised?

 

Thinking further on Martin's idea that the new 10/LR was derived at least in part from the Hackney elements of 7/Essex, re-using a recently freed-up London Regiment battalion "slot" would certainly be a neat resolution of the anomaly of Hackney being historically in Middlesex, but having its volunteers in the Essex Regt.

 

Mark

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not really relevant, and may have been answered (in which case, apologies), but why, exactly, did a TA unit from Hackney end up as a TA Battalion of the Royal Berkshire Regiment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MBrockway said:

 

Can anyone add more detail on 7/Essex personnel transferring in when the new 10/LR was raised?

 

Mark

 

Mark - as mentioned previously; "Essex Units in the War 1914-1918: 4th,5th, 6th, 7th & 8th Bns" by Burrows includes the pre-war history and states that on the creation of the TF;

"The 7th Battalion also lost companies being transferred to the 10th County of London Regiment. For this reason Col G T B Cobbett VD and Major E J Walker were gazetted to the new Hackney Battalion."

 

The Companies transferred were A, B and C Coys (implied from Westlake's research). Note that the 4th VB Essex Regt (the direct predecessor of the 7th Bn TF) did wear Rifle Green until 1902 - some 19 years after becoming a VB of the Essex Regiment. This slow transition was not uncommon and I think directly linked to budget constraints of the Administering bodies. When enough uniforms were worn out, the local TF could divert money to re-clothe the unit in the same uniforms as the parent Regiment's scarlet and white.

 

I would hazard an educated guess that the Territorial & Reserve Forces Act of 1907 effectively started a process that tidied up the boundaries by delineating them along the ancient Ceremonial County boundaries; EEssex regained some units from other counties: The Saffron Walden Corps dropped its connection with the Cambridge VB and the Waltham Abbey Corps ceased to be part of the Hertford Battalion. Both were incorporated into the Essex TF in 1908. It is also worth noting that Essex lost Companies based in Suffolk in 1911, so the process of consolidating within the Territorial boundaries took some time and traffic was two-way across the boundaries. 

 

Prior to this it is clear that ancient ceremonial County boundaries meant little to the establishment of affiliated RVCs. Essex's units and boundaries were clearly il-defined with regards to four neighbouring counties; Middlesex (later County of London), Cambrigdeshire, Hertfordshire and Suffolk. In this context the Hackney link does not seem unusual. 

 

If K WMitchinson is any guide, the residual records for the London TF are in the London Metropolitan Archives

 

Martin

 

Edit; An important part of the paper trail: the authorisation of 'Hackney' in the title.

 

 

 

 

Hackney.jpg

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Steven Broomfield said:

This is not really relevant, and may have been answered (in which case, apologies), but why, exactly, did a TA unit from Hackney end up as a TA Battalion of the Royal Berkshire Regiment?

 

Steven,

 

This quote from Colonel Francis, CO of the 5th Royal Berkshire Regiment on or around the time of the changeover, reveals all:

 

"In 1921 when I first went to the 10th London Regt I found the officers wore the mess kit (except badges) of the Essex Regt. The adjutant was drawn from the HQ pool but on this occasion was a Sherwood Forester. The Staff came from the Rifle Brigade. The Regt was a Line Regt. It was however allied to and formed part of the Rifle Brigade. This all appeared to not make sense. His Majesty's permission for a change was sought and gave the condition that all ranks agreed. We then sought a Line Regt to take us. We found the Royal Berkshire Regt had but one Territorial Bn and its Depot was within easy reach of London. We therefore approached the Colonel of the Regt, Gen Sir Felix Ready and were in due time received into the fold as the 5th Bn The Royal Berkshire Regt TA."

 

Regards,

 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MBrockway said:

Furious agreement?: YES! Absolutely :rolleyes:

 

Colours?: Yes - an excellent and subtle point.  Quite correct too.  No rifles regiment carried colours in the form of a standard.  Battle honours were carried on the badges, which is why the senior regiments had different badges to the affiliated militia and VF/TF battalions, who at most had South Africa 1900-1902 in their badge cross arms (KRRC-style) or wreathes (RB-style).

 

Essex Regt relinquishing Hackney area?:  This would make sense.  I don't want to re-open the debate about East End vs. East London vs. North London, but all my researches so far point to Hackney definitely being in the historic county of Middlesex, not Essex.  I am rather puzzled as to why the local rifle volunteers in Hackney were neither Middlesex RVC nor Tower Hamlets RVC, both of which would seem more logical.

 

It's also puzzling as to why the anomaly of the RB affiliation didn't get resolved in Oct 1916 when the similar anomaly of the 7/LR's KRRC affiliation was resolved by a new affiliation to the Middlesex Regt.

 

Is there evidence for Hackney locals from the 7/Essex forming the rump of the newly raised 10/LR (Hackney) battalion?  It's certainly an attractive hypothesis given the two battalions appear to have made use of 208 Mare Street as their Orderly Room (and thus, probably the battalion HQ).  I'll do some further work on the PO Directories and Army Lists to see if I can date the occupancy of 208 Mare Street more precisely.

 

As relating to the matter in hand, I think you're quite correct: 10/LR (Hackney) have no rifles ancestry whatsoever and the Hackney Gurkhas epithet does not come from anything rifles related, uniform or tradition.

 

Mark

 

 

      Mark-As I have just sauntered past the location in the afternoon sunshine, 7th Essex is Church Hill, Walthamstow.  I have nothing at all to suggest that Mare Street, Hackney was ever used.  We have a local WFA meeting next Thurs.-put the word out then for info.

    

       "Essex County Chronicle" of 26th September 1913 has:

 

"Essex Regt. The headquarters of the 7th Essex Regt. have been transferred from Park Road, Leyton, to Church Hill, Walthamstow."

   I am not sure that Mare Street was used post-Haldane.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, QGE said:

If K WMitchinson is any guide, the residual records for the London TF are in the London Metropolitan Archives

 

     Do you know what the Mitchinson reference is (Don't have his Territorials book)-  I have had a good work through LMA's online listing  and I am aware they have stuff -mostly printed-that is "off system" but I can't see anything that helps this thread. Some good material listed on drill halls

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are a couple of quotes from a brief history of the 10th London Regiment which was printed The Royal Berkshire Regiment's journal "The China Dragon" in 1937 which shed some more light on topics raised in previous posts. 

 

Transfer of personnel from the 7th Essex to the newly formed 10th Londons.

 

"On the formation of the Territorial Force in 1908 the Volunteer forces in Hackney consisted of Battalion Headquarters and three Companies of the 4th Volunteer Battalion, The Essex Regiment, who had presumably come into the recruiting area  on the occasion of the Hackney Rifle Volunteers moving out to Hoxton. The Essex unit had a history dating back to 1859 and on becoming T.F. they were redesigned the 7th Battalion The Essex Regiment and shortly afterwards, owing to their being in the London area, it was decided to withdraw the Hackney Companies and concentrate the whole Battalion in Walthamstow. When this happened the loyal enthusiasm of the Borough of Hackney, headed by its then Mayor, Aldermen and Councillors petitioned the Army Authorities to be allowed to raise a new Battalion with Headquarters in Hackney, arguing amongst other things that owing to the recent disbandment of the 10th London Regiment (Paddington Rifles) a new London Regiment would be needed to fill the gap in the 3rd London Brigade. Eventually permission was granted, rather reluctantly, and in 1912 the new unit was formed under the command of COl. G. T. B. Corbett, V.D., who with two or three officers and about 120 other ranks from the 7th Essex Regiment, became the nucleus of the new unit called the 10th (County of London) Battalion, The London Regiment (Hackney)."

 

(An example of one of those transferees who were there at the formation of the 10th Londons is Sergeant J. H. James from Hackney who died on board the the Hospital ship Essaye on 19th August 1915 from wounds received at Suvla Bay on 15th August 1915. He had over 20 years of service, originally with the 4th VB Essex Regiment and afterwards in the 7th Essex Regiment. He is recorded as one of the first to enrol in the newly formed 10th London Regiment in 1912). 

 

The Nickname "Hackney Gurkhas."

 

"The Regiment is proud of its nickname of the "Hackney Gurkhas," although its origin is obscure. It was originally given to the 1st Battalion about the time when they were at Norwich and they carried the name throughout the War, but the 2nd Battalion also seem to have come into the inheritance and took it to France with them and it has stuck ever since."

 

Steve

 

Hackney001.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

     Do you know what the Mitchinson reference is (Don't have his Territorials book)-  I have had a good work through LMA's online listing  and I am aware they have stuff -mostly printed-that is "off system" but I can't see anything that helps this thread. Some good material listed on drill halls

LMA TA/14  - the reference was to two companies of teachers serving in the 10th Londons whinging about hard work during camp... the date is 1911 which would imply the Paddington crew rather than Hackney.

 

To avoid confusion....all it does is confirm some material relating to the London TFis at LMA. There are dozens of LMA references in the endnotes relating to various battalions of the London Regiment TF

 

"England's last Hope: The Territorial Force 1908-14" by K W Mitchinson. page 65 end note 38.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/10/2017 at 12:57, Gareth Davies said:

 

 

Yes, I think it does.

 

Anyone for the blade/knife option?

 

The only reference to edged weapons that I have ever come across relating to the 10th London Regiment is from "Khaki and Rifle Green" by Lord Dunalley (as mentioned elsewhere on this thread). It relates to an exercise undertaken by 162 Bde in 1915, shortly after they had moved into the Hatfield area. 

 

"We had one disastrous brigade day in Hatfield Park. The two London battalions* were operating against the two county battalions** whom they hated. De Winton, being left in charge of the operation, must have unwisely allowed the two forces to come to close quarters with fixed bayonets. Luckily there were no fatal casualties."

 

His next line is a masterpiece of understatement:

 

"Still, it was the stretcher bearers first experience of the real thing."

 

There is just no evidence to suggest that the 10th Londons carried anything other than standard issue knives and bayonets in action. 

 

One point of interest from the above quote is the clear reference to the animosity felt between certain battalions of this brigade around about the time that it is thought the nickname "Hackney Gurkhas" emerged (see previous post). Given this information I feel there is a possibility that this nickname may have originally stemmed from the 1/10th Londons' pugnacious attitude and aggressive dealings with other units in the pubs and dance halls in the Divisional area in Norfolk and later Hertfordshire rather than from their later exploits on the battlefields of Gallipoli and Palestine. 

 

Steve 

 

* 1/10th and 1/11th Londons, 

** 1/4th Northants and 1/5th Bedfords

(Apologies for stating the obvious to some of you!)

 

Edited by Steve B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Steve B said:

"The Regiment is proud of its nickname of the "Hackney Gurkhas," although its origin is obscure. It was originally given to the 1st Battalion about the time when they were at Norwich and they carried the name throughout the War

 

Very interesting Steve !

 

Was the time they were at Norwich in 1915, before they went to Gallipoli ? If so, it pre-dates them seeing any action at all, or bearing comparison with anyone other than UK troops through immediate physical proximity.

 

Bart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...