New Army Units Raised in London 1915

[Perth Digger]

I am sure that this has been done before on here, but there are three questions to be answered before the Pals idea can be finally put away.

 

1. How exactly at the time was a Pals battalion officially defined?

2. Outside the War Office, who denominated battalions as Pals, and which ones?

3. How many battalions are known to have had very large groups of original recruits from factories, other workplaces, societies, sports clubs etc, or are we looking just at men enlisting from one town or district? Or both? I mean large groups, enough to fill two companies (50% of an infantry unit).

 

Mike

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Perth Digger said:

I am sure that this has been done before on here, but there are three questions to be answered before the Pals idea can be finally put away.

 

1. How exactly at the time was a Pals battalion officially defined?

2. Outside the War Office, who denominated battalions as Pals, and which ones?

3. How many battalions are known to have had very large groups of original recruits from factories, other workplaces, societies, sports clubs etc, or are we looking just at men enlisting from one town or district? Or both? I mean large groups, enough to fill two companies (50% of an infantry unit).

 

Mike

 

   I think some examples of London units at company strength may be worth asking  Forum "pals" (Ooops) to chip in with.  I am not aware that any unit  was officially designated by the War Office with the tag-"Pals". I note from the list  posted by Graham that no unit is named at all with the word "Pals" in it.  This may partly colour the historical record- those units popularly known as "Pals" are those of 1914. My contention is that there are just as many "Pals" units raised in late 1914 and the Spring of 1915 which do not, in historical memory, have a "Pals" tag with them   But an ammunition column, pioneer battalion or field ambulance may be just as much " pally" as anything from Accrington et al.  It just struck me that many of the London battalions were "pals" but have sunk into obscurity-I think probably because they were not front-line infantry units and thus a little dull. Also, infantry units tend to have heavy casualties at one go- as with 1st July 1916. Thus, the folklore of  undue loss. eg-an artillery unit subject to German counter-battery work may have ended up with just as many casualties come 11/11/18 but they were sustained bit by bit by bit. The memory of losses in "Pals" battalions is not just the historical memory of locality but also the function of the those generally known as "pals" - front line infantry-and,thus, subject to very heavy losses at one go.

    Here, the anonymity of conscription may have been a disguised blessing-t o stop undue loss to any one locality-as it was conscious policy with the army of the Second World War. 

[Guest]

For a definitive study of Pals battalions I would recommend Kitchener's Army: The Raising of the New Armies 1914-1916 by Peter Simkins. Itis an exceptional piece of research and an interesting read to boot. It has a chapter dedicated to the pals Battalions

 

Separately, unless one can define "Pals" one can not really begin to understand the concept. The phrase was allegedly originally used by Lord Derby who is popularly recognised as the initial driver of the concept. Simkins points out that Rawlinson and Maj Hon Robert White preceeded Lord Derby's initiative by a few days, moving to raise what became the 10th Bn Royal Fusiliers discussed above. 

 

What does come across quite clearly from Simkins' work is the concept when translated into reality could rarely create single battalions forma single class of man. There are of course exceptions such as 17th Bn Northumberland Fusiliers allegedy completely raised from employees of the North Eastern Railways. This (and a few others) were the exceptions rather than the rule. On closer inspection most Pals battalions were an agglomeration of smaller sized sub-units at Platoon or Company level whcih might have had a single profession e.g Coal Miners or common background (schools).  The 12th Bn KOYLI was raised by the West Yorkshire Coal Mine Owners' Association. This means that the battalion was a patchwork of groups of men from over twenty collieries. The implications are that while small groups would undoubtedly be 'pals'it would be difficult for one group of miners to know another group from a different Coal Mine. 

 

"Rothwell Courier, September 12th 1914 THE MINERS’ BATTALION. Active progress is being made with the formation of the Miners’ Battalion, which the West Yorkshire Coal Owners’ Association have offered to provide as one of the regiments for lord Kitchener’s Army. Col. J.R. Shaw, of Cantley Hall, Doncaster, has received authorisation from the War Office to proceed with the raising of the battalion, which is to consist of 1,200 healthy men between the ages of 19 and 35, enlisted under Lord Kitchener’s new army scheme for three years’ service or the duration of the war. Lord Kitchener has specially directed that the battalion shall be designated the “Pontefract Battalion of the King’s Own (Yorkshire Light Infantry).” It had been contemplated in the initial stages that it should be known as the Coal Trade or Miners’ Battalion, but this proposal has been over-ruled by the authorities."

 

Simkins demonstrates how the concept was interpreted differently by various municipal and corporate bodies. There is no clear definition and 'Pals' appears to have been a term popularised by the press and applied liberally to most, possibly all Locally Raised Units, regardless of the fragmented constituent parts. 'Pals' is a word that obfuscates a far more complex reality; in reality while many battalions were raised in short order, a number struggled to meet their targets. Simkins points out that when conscription started the Pals concept was not repeated. The scheme met with varied success.

 

It is worth repeating: Some of the TF Battalions in the London Regiment fitted the Pals concept far better that some Locally Raised units. Some 235,000 men enlisted in the Tf in the three four months of the War and an additional 129,000 by the beginning of February - over 364,000 in total or enough for over 40 TF battalions.  According to Simkin, some 36 of the 83 recruiting districts in the Uk recorded higher total enlistments for the TF than for Kitchener Unitas and the Special Reserve. Ten, mostly Ireland had no TF representation. If these ten are excluded the TF recruited more men in nearly half the remaining 76 recruiting districts.

Edited 19 September , 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

55 minutes ago, QGE said:

It is worth repeating: Some of the TF Battalions in the London Regiment fitted the Pals concept far better that some Locally Raised units. Some 235,000 men enlisted in the Tf in the three four months of the War and an additional 129,000 by the beginning of February - over 364,000 in total or enough for over 40 TF battalions.  According to Simkin, some 36 of the 83 recruiting districts in the Uk recorded higher total enlistments for the TF than for Kitchener Unitas and the Special Reserve. Ten, mostly Ireland had no TF representation. If these ten are excluded the TF recruited more men in nearly half the remaining 76 recruiting districts.

 

    Your post crossed with  my looking at Elliott Taylor and Barney Alston "Up the Hammers!"  The West Ham Battalion in the Great War 1914-1918" which is good on the local connections of the original enlistments of early 1915 and their subsequent fates and fortunes. One question that does arise with TF  elements. I would expect no other from a TF in peacetime- it is a truism that a unit raised by locale must have a strong local base. What intrigues me is what happened in the first months of the war. I have followed 7th Essex on this- Burrows is illuminating on many things but leaves hints as to problems to give an informed but uncritical record. It is no surprise that TF battalions had a rush to the colours-it would be a surprise if there were not. 7th Essex ended up submerged with non-suitable recruits, especially those who had not taken (and,perhaps, subsequently would not take) the ISO.  I suspect that part of the exercise was not only to sort out the TF battalions into second and third but to regularise recruiting . It looks as though locally here in the East, that recruiting at TF bases stopped early in 1915-I cannot trace a casualty where the service file has survived whose enlistment is at Church Hill, Walthamstow or any other TF base -nor any whose SDGW gives a place of enlistment that is a TF base. The  exception is HAC- in part because it's Vellum Book is so easily available on FMP. A question that arises is how far the TF in August-September 1914 took on allcomers. Were any re-directed to other units even then or just kept for second and thir line units? I cannot recollect any of the TF volunteers being drafted into other units. 

   What was a surprise was the lack of advertising by locality for these new units. I looked at the main local government publication for 1915-"Local Government Chronicle" but there was nothing- nor anything in the minutes of my 3 local councils (Ilford,Wanstead,Woodford).  

*  (As an aside-as it is Great War related- the Local Government Board had to slap down an overzealous council in 1915- it wanted to take wives to court for non-payment of rates, when the husband-ie the person sent the rate demand at his home address- was already a POW in Germany. Who says Jobsworths are a post- Esther Rantzen phenomenon!)

 

 

[Guest]

The 22nd (Service) Bn Royal Fusiliers (Kensington) has an interesting history. It was rather late out of the blocks and struggled to recruit. While there is some evidence of 'pals' from the same firms joining together, they were only a very small part of the make up.

 

Separately attempts to raise a battalion of Colonials resident in the UK from the remnants of 2nd King Edward's Horse also stalled and in desperation it gradually reduced the 'Colonial' qualifications. Despite this all attempts failed. After some negotiation the Colonials and the 22nd Bn joined forces, the expatriate Colonials forming most of  A and B Companies and the originals of the 22nd's recruiting efforts forming most of  C and D Companies. Within this there appears to have been a class division between C Company (middle class) and D Company (working class). Some of the latter were East End dockers and stevedores - nowhere near Kensington....The recruiting base was very fragmented.

 

The CO asked the men what they wanted the Battalion to be called; A and B wanted 'Colonial' or 'Imperial' in the title and C and D took the CO's alleged suggestion that if they chose 'Kensington' the Borough would take them on. The rest is history and to the disappointment of the Colonials the Battalion became the 22nd (Service) Bn Royal Fusiliers (Kensington).

 

I think it is a good illustration of how some high ideals about locally raised unist or 'Pals battalions' were on occasion very difficult to translate into reality. Anyone interested in exploring the Kensingtons might have a look at "The Kensington Battalion: Never Lost a Yard of Trench" by G I S Inglis

Edited 21 September , 2017 by Guest

[Perth Digger]

Martin

The Kensington battalion raises some interesting points. To start with, when looking at London Service battalions attention has to be given to the size of borough populations. Kensington's was 172,000, but when in 1915 Wandsworth raised a battalion much more quickly than Lewisham it must have been partly because of the much greater population in Wandsworth (over 300,000 to Lewisham's 160,000). Another point is that the boroughs with a greater proportion of middle-class men probably lost many of them to the army very quickly from August 1914, before local Service battalions were properly organised. LRUs, unless specifically aimed at a particular social or economic group (rather than being raised by a Borough), may not have had the same social cachet among the young middle classes as the more prestigious regiments or even the TF. Why join a battalion starting from scratch when you could join one with social prestige and a long history? 

 

Deptford is another matter. Its ability to raise over 2000 men in two months in 1915 suggests that, as a much poorer community, many did not enlist in the first months of the war and thus had a 'surplus' in 1915. They may also have had a larger proportion rejected as unfit when the army was in a position to pick and choose, but later many of these passed muster in different circumstances. 

 

Clearly, Kensington was a Locally Raised Unit but not a Pals battalion. 

 

It's a pity that we don't have enlistment numbers per month for London boroughs.

 

Mike

[Perth Digger]

Another strange thing about the Kensington Battalion is that it is the only unit raised in 1914 by a London Metropolitan Borough Council committee. There was also the 10th Royal Fusiliers raised by the Mayor of the City of London in August 1914, but all the other 28 boroughs failed to move until asked by the War Office in February/March 1915. All the other  London LRUs raised in 1914 were by individuals or other city- or nation-wide Associations. This places the failure of Kensington to raise a full battalion on its own in a new light, perhaps?

 

Mike

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Perth Digger said:

Another strange thing about the Kensington Battalion is that it is the only unit raised in 1914 by a London Metropolitan Borough Council committee. There was also the 10th Royal Fusiliers raised by the Mayor of the City of London in August 1914, but all the other 28 boroughs failed to move until asked by the War Office in February/March 1915. All the other  London LRUs raised in 1914 were by individuals or other city- or nation-wide Associations. This places the failure of Kensington to raise a full battalion on its own in a new light, perhaps?

 

Mike

 

       I am not sure about this in toto. There was an enthusiasm  in the Metropolis to raise units in 1914-  but UI am not sure I agree that 27 Metropolitan boroughs did nothing. Is it possible that with a reliisation come.c September 1914 that ad hoc raising would result in long-term chaos, that boroughs were asked to mark time?   And that the early 1915 schemes were the end product of marking time. And that sorting out the territorials into 2nd/3rd or whatever was done as well.

[Perth Digger]

I didn't say they did nothing, GUEST, just that they didn't try to raise their own units. Most of them eg, opened their town halls for recruiting and I'm sure they actively supported other units being raised, especially the local TF. Maybe some borough records would have a letter from the WO asking them to hold off, but I've not seen any evidence that they wanted to raise units. West Ham Borough tried to in September 1914, but the WO told them to hold off (West Ham was in Greater London, not Metropolitan London). Permission was given on 29 December. See Taylor and Alston's book on the WH Battalion, pp. 12-14.

 

Mike

[Graham Stewart]

I think that you’ll find that the word “Pals” has become synonymous with those Locally Raised Battalions, which were formed under conditions as demanded by the War Office in 1914. The term may not, in reality, be related to such units as the Tyneside Scottish, who recruited from, in the main, mining communities of Northumberland and Durham.

 However while the term “Pals” may not be found in the War Office Instructions(later Army Council Instructions), the word itself dominated the press coverage of the raising of Liverpools first “City” Battalion.

The headline of the Liverpool Echo of the 29^th August 1914 reads;-

“PALS BATTALION”

 

Success of Lord Derbys Scheme

 

 The first two paragraphs go on to say;-

“Lord Derbys scheme for a battalion of Liverpool business and professional men has succeeded beyond belief. At two meetings held last night at St. Anne Street, Drillshed, some fifteen hundred men volunteered, and a telegram was sent to Lord Kitchener stating that the battalion was full.”

“It is especially intended to become a “pals battalion” composed of men who have worked together in business in this city.”

 From this moment onwards the term stuck in regard to those units, not just infantry battalions, which were raised locally, particularly in the North and Midlands.

Those of you who have access to period newspapers from August 1914 will be amazed at the number of times and in how many newspapers the word “Pals” appears in conjunction with the formation of “Locally Raised Battalions”, as they were officially termed.

 What is also made clear is that the War Office had no input into the formation of these “Pals” units, everything was placed in the hands of the individual “raisers” or committees, who had to abide by the W.O. terms and conditions. Nor are “Pals” to be associated with all of those other New Army battalions raised up and down the country in Regimental Depots.

 Going through War Office Instructions for the period in reference to Locally Raised Battalions makes interesting reading and is often accompanied with the names of new units and their raisers, as well as date of recognition. It is also fair to say that not all of those units which were proposed by raisers or committees were raised, as noted in W.O.I. 358 of the 26^th September 1914;-

(iii)“The formation of the Irish Battalion, Liverpool Regiment, will not be proceeded with.”

This appears to have led to a number of men from Liverpool who had wished to join this now defunct unit, to move over to Tyneside to enlist into the Tyneside Irish.

 All-in-all I think it would be wrong to be dismissive of the term “Pals” in relation to these units, even though technically it wouldn’t be suited to all Locally Raised units. The word may not have appeared in official instructions, but it was certainly burned into the hearts and minds of those who lived through this period and those who served with them.

 

 

Edited 23 September , 2017 by Graham Stewart

[Guest]

On 22/09/2017 at 14:57, Perth Digger said:

I didn't say they did nothing, GUEST, just that they didn't try to raise their own units. Most of them eg, opened their town halls for recruiting and I'm sure they actively supported other units being raised, especially the local TF. Maybe some borough records would have a letter from the WO asking them to hold off, but I've not seen any evidence that they wanted to raise units. West Ham Borough tried to in September 1914, but the WO told them to hold off (West Ham was in Greater London, not Metropolitan London). Permission was given on 29 December. See Taylor and Alston's book on the WH Battalion, pp. 12-14.

 

Mike

 

   Hi MIke-Poor language by me.  Of course, every town hall was busy from Day 1. What I meant was that just because no "Pals Battalions" emerge in London in the latter part of 1914 does not mean that town halls (=Mayor and Corporation) did not press, nor wished to press for them.  Looks to me that there was some sort of "Hold Your Horses" missive somewhere.   I must go back to some old notes - who was the responsible official at the War Office to answer municipal enquiries-that is,for the raising of new units- and how were they approved and taken on by WO. The Military Secretary? DG Recruiting?  My memory has gone blank on this.

     I had Taylor and Alston in front of me on 13th Essex but even with that being outside the LCC area, it still seems unlikely that  none of other Metro. boroughs did not want to do the same. Of course, some correlate very closely indeed with territorial units-and it would be folly to expect a Mayor and Corporation to compete against a terrier unit on the same ground.

     How odd that London was a medium sized "state" by itself and despite all the work on the war, we still have no real idea how London's contribution to the war actually gelled together, let alone how it evolved-let alone (part II), who did it and how.  

On 22/09/2017 at 23:23, Graham Stewart said:

All-in-all I think it would be wrong to be dismissive of the term “Pals” in relation to these units, even though technically it wouldn’t be suited to all Locally Raised units. The word may not have appeared in official instructions, but it was certainly burned into the hearts and minds of those who lived through this period and those who served with them.

 

   No wish to diminish the better-known "pal's battalions", nor to query how they were raised.   But there is a mythical aspect to it. I listened yesterday to Peter Hart talking about artillery in the 1917 battles - fascinating (in between the "warm language" and battles with his laptop). But the same point came out- the 1914 Pals are all infantry battalions and a big battle gives the recurrent history of unmitigated slaughter. But as Hart stressed, the war was,overall, an artillery slog- with the infantry bearing the casualties of it. The oft-quoted figure of 58% fatalities caused by artillery came out again- part of the myth of the Pals is that we have no comparative statistics-even guesses-as to how many casualties the infantry inflicted on the artillery-and vice versa. In that sense,the artillery won. Thus, the 1915 pals battalions- largely airbrushed out of history as they were artillery, ammunition column,pioneer,etc were, in the perspective of the whole war, more important than the 1914 infantry ones.

     Thanks for the reference to  WOI 358-that is the first time I have picked up a reference to a proposed unit being turned down-which is indicative of the "guiding hand" of the WO from very early on- effectively, permission to raise-followed later by formal takeover by the WO for the Army.