How difficult would it have been to wait until January 1917 to enlist?

[LJP]

I'm looking for folk's views on two brothers I'm researching for a WW1 memorial blog.

Both enlisted in January 1917 on the same day but to different regiments, both in their early 30s, they had a younger brother who enlisted in 1915 and survived the war. Both were working at the Botanic Garden in Edinburgh, one as a photographer, the other as an assistant in the herbarium from what i can work out (working with mosses - I'll need to check if that involves sphagnum).  The man in charge at the Garden publicly stated at the start of the war that every man fit to serve should go.

With the conscription act coming into force a year earlier, how is it possible for them to have been allowed to wait for so long before enlisting? Surely they'd have been automatically enlisted in early 1916? I've looked at the tribunal records for Edinburgh and can see no mention of them so it looks as if they did not apply to be exempted - i can see no reason why they would what with their younger brother already in the army. Both did serve in the end, one ended up in the Machine Gun Corps and was killed at the beginning of the German offensive in March 1918, the other after a stint on the front ended up in the Royal Flying Corps working with aerial photography.

Is this an unusual situation or quite common? I'm just wondering what the take on this is from people with more overall experience of researching WW1 soldiers?

thanks!

[Lawryleslie]

I think the answer lies in "attestation/enlistment" vs "call up". I researched the service records of all 13 men from Brixton Devon who died in WW1 and I remember one soldier in particular, Gunner Herbert Manning,  who "attested/enlisted" in Dec 1915 but was not "called up" until March 1917. I believe it was fairly common occurrence.

He had no special occupation as he ran a drapery store in Topsham. He was 35 years old when he was called up.

Edited 2 March , 2018 by Lawryleslie

[LJP]

thanks! seems bizarre though to have them wait so long? my records certainly say "enlisted" though - and what would be the chances of this happening to two brothers who have enlisted in two different regiments being called up on the same day in 1917 though?  i find it strange enough that they enlisted on the same day but to two different regiments - you would imagine that they'd enlist in the same one? it just seems a bit unusual? i don't know...

[Lawryleslie]

There was a thread few years ago that I have found regarding the issue.

 

 

[LJP]

A-ha - so, they could have attested in early 1916 under the Derby scheme, but weren't actually called up until a year-ish later? i still find it a co-incidence it's on the same day - maybe the army as a whole called men up in batches? one a month, say? thanks, Lawryleslie, this is really useful - when you say your man was a Gunner, would i be right in saying he was RGA? i noticed that came up in your attached thread too - my photographer was RGA, a Bombardier, until he transferred to the RFC. The other brothers were Royal Scots until transferred to other regiments.

Edited 2 March , 2018 by LJP
wrong word and spelling mistake

[Gardenerbill]

The Long Long Trail has infromation on the Derby Scheme including tables of dates/ages/status that show when a man was called up. My Grandfather attested under the Derby Scheme in December 1915 but wasn't called up until June 1916. Here's a link:

 

Derby Scheme LLT

Edited 2 March , 2018 by Gardenerbill

[rolt968]

I notice that you said that you had looked in the Edinburgh Military Service Tribunal records and not found them. Do you mean the records held at the Nation Records in Edinburgh? If so remember that these are the records for the county appeals tribunal - one step up from the local tribunal. If so it is possible that they had exemptions which were eventually not renewed and they did not appeal against the ruling.

 

I would not place too much store by what the man in charge said about joining up. As it became more difficult to run the Botanic Gardens as men left he may have changed his ground a bit.

 

RM

 

Edit: Incidentally I have seen one long deferral under the Derby scheme. I don't have the record to hand. The man concerned was a mining engineer and was was not called up until late 1917 if not 1918.

Edited 2 March , 2018 by rolt968

[Lawryleslie]

1 hour ago, LJP said:

A-ha - so, they could have attested in early 1916 under the Derby scheme, but weren't actually called up until a year-ish later? i still find it a co-incidence it's on the same day - maybe the army as a whole called men up in batches? one a month, say? thanks, Lawryleslie, this is really useful - when you say your man was a Gunner, would i be right in saying he was RGA? i noticed that came up in your attached thread too - my photographer was RGA, a Bombardier, until he transferred to the RFC. The other brothers were Royal Scots until transferred to other regiments.

Yes LJP he joined RGA and went to Prees Heath in Shropshire for trench warfare training before going to Lydd Camp in Kent which was where the RGA were barracked and undertook artillery training. He was posted to 376th Siege Battery and then transferred to  203rd Siege Battery early 1918. He died from a penetrating head wound at 47 Casualty Clearing Station at Drury in France on 14th August 1918.

Of the 13 men I researched Herbert Mannings Service Record was the most complete with the exception of two men who fought for the Canadian Expeditionary Forces and were killed at Vimy Ridge. The Canadian Military Archives are very, very good.

[LJP]

thanks everyone - this is all totally new to me - i'm wondering about the local tribunals - where can i find out about these? (you're right rolt968 - i was looking at the National Records)

i've looked at the Derby chart i was sent the link to by Gardenerbill and i'm still puzzled at two brothers, 3 years apart enlisting in January 1917 on the same day - the chart implies that they'd be in different groups according to birth year, and likely called up separately at different times in mid 1916 - this was really bugging me - i can't help thinking that there must have been something delaying their sign up, and once it was dealt with, they've gone to their separate regiments and done it at the same time- i was concentrating on their jobs and i know that there was no reason there to not sign up or to delay, but then it occurred to me that there might have been an issue at home, and at this point another thought occurred to me - i know their father was alive on the 1901 census, but it's their mother listed in the soldier's effects ledger for the brother killed. i've just looked up their father's death on Scotland's People, and lo, he died at the end of June 1916, at home, of a cardiac arrest whilst suffering from stomach cancer. the middle brother, the photographer, was present and registered the death. so, have i got it now? is this a good enough reason do we know? could the two brothers have been granted a period of delay whilst they helped care for their parents and family during their father's illness, and then another 6 months or so to deal with the aftermath before they both felt they could enlist or join the regiment they'd attested to? (neither of their service records seem to have survived WW2 unfortunately)

what do you think?

Another thought - i think i have their enlistment dates from Garden records, so it might not be the exact date they enlisted or were called up, but rather the date they left the Garden with the intention of enlisting... (now i'll be wondering why they chose different regiments...)

thanks again everyone for your help!

[rolt968]

I'm afraid I would be surprised if compassionate deferral was granted to both brothers. Was there something like a family business involved? Even so I would be surprised if both brothers were deferred.

RM

[Gardenerbill]

8 hours ago, LJP said:

now i'll be wondering why they chose different regiments...

 

I think by 1917 you couldn't choose a regiment you went where you were told.

[ss002d6252]

59 minutes ago, Gardenerbill said:

 

I think by 1917 you couldn't choose a regiment you went where you were told.

You're right - by 1917 the army decided where you went. I suppose a man could always ask if he wanted but the army had the say.

Craig

[TEW]

Are your records that say enlisted service records? Can you post name/number details. There are forum members who could well spot things that could have been missed. You can frequently find forms (B.103) that were printed up with Enlisted which have been altered in pencil to say; called up, joined, deemed to have been enlisted or mobilized. Then there's the Service Reckons From part.

 

Other sheets EG Statement of the services of list; Attested, Army Reserve & Mobilized dates which may or may not have been amended which may cause confusion.

TEW

[LJP]

thanks again everyone - it's complicated isn't it? i'm hoping the blog post i'm writing is going to make an interesting one, and i just want to do a good job of it.

James Christopher Adam is the eldest brother, born in 1882, i believe he initially enlisted with the Royal Scots as Private 38963 on the 17th January 1917, and later transferred to the 59 Co Machine Gun Corps (Infantry) as Private 97844, entering France around Dec. 1917, kia 21/03/1918, age 36, de Ruvigny's says enlisted, but that might not mean anything?

Robert Moyes Adam is the next brother, born in 1885,  enlisted Royal Garrison Artillery, 17th January 1917. Rank: Bombardier. Later, Royal Flying Corps/Royal Air Force: Lieutenant. Service in field in Flanders, twelve months. Demobilised, 3 February 1919. there are two numbers on his medal record card, 13065 and 136056; 136056 and Gunner is what i have on the Victory medal roll, right above Gunner Bastard, believe it or not, I wouldn't mess with him...

their father was a minister, Rev. John Adam, so no family business there as such...

i think it still comes down to why both of them, two brothers, went/enlisted/were called up on the same day (assuming my records are correct of course) and a year after the conscription act had kicked in - it just seems bizarre to me...

thanks,

L

[rolt968]

I think this might shed some light on both Robert's deferral and his allocation to unit.

From Special Qualifications in Robert Moyes Adam's RAF officer's record (findmypast):

“Experience in Laboratory Royal Bot. Nic. Gar. (sic) under H. M. Office of Works where all work done concerned research problem bearing on Agriculture and Botany. Knowledge of recording by means of Photography (all branches) scientific problems in both (sic) Botany, Zoology and Geology.”

 

Presumably his skills and the researches it supported led to his deferral.

 

His skill as photographer would be of value to both the artillery and the RFC/RAF.

 

He gave his previous occupation as " Civil Servant in the Laboratory of the Royal Botanic Gardens from 1 July 1903 to 17 January 1917".

 

RM

 

 

Edited 3 March , 2018 by rolt968

[LJP]

i wonder if James was able to come up with something similar to get the same deferral then? work was going on at the garden with the timber supply dept. and we were involved in the push to identify and collect vast quantities of sphagnum moss that James may well have been involved in.  maybe they did it to spend more time with their dad? i suppose we'll never know?  i do have contact with Robert's descendants - I'll write up my blog as best as i can and send it to them and see if they can cast any light on this. I suppose it's not the be all and end all - it just struck me as potentially unusual as i was writing their story....

thanks!

L

[Martin Lepley]

If I was you, I would look in a local Newspaper. In Southend, Essex, England, parts of the local tribunal was reported in the newspaper. Sometimes they only mention occupation of the person and sometimes by name. For me, Southend Library held microfilms of the papers. You might be lucking if you can  find a local newspaper in Scotland that also reported them.

1916 06 24 Southend Telegraph - TRIBUNAL.pdf

[LJP]

thanks for the newspaper advice Martin - i tried looking at the Scotsman online archive (most of my research is done during unsociable hours!) and found tribunal reports there - usually anonymous, but searching using 'garden', 'agricultur', scientific', etc, couldn't find anything. i found reading through the cases fascinating though, many really poignant, and after reading through a pile of them i'm finding it even harder to understand why there was a delay of a year with my brothers! it seems to have been a remarkably hard thing to do.

I'm struck though by how 'together' the brothers are - I'm assuming the reason for the delay is something they have in common, but perhaps that's why I'm struggling to find it, maybe it wasn't, but they certainly left the garden together, and i was curious about why they chose different regiments, but as pointed out above, they didn't - they presumably went to sign up/enlist/serve together and it was the army that chose their regiments and separated them

thanks again for your help,

L

Edited 6 March , 2018 by LJP
missed a bit out

[kenf48]

Men initially reported to the  local Depot on mobilisation, in January 1917 the 3rd Battalion Royal Scots was a training reserve unit based in Edinburgh. 

 

Consider the surviving service record of 38977 William Liles Amos, gardener and overseer aged 40 and resident at the Lodge, Hermitage of Braid, Edinburgh.  He attested under the Derby Scheme on the 29th November 1915 and was posted to the Army Reserve the following day.  Called up in his Group in June 1916 he was declared permanently unfit, among other minor ailments he had very poor eyesight.  This was typical of many men who attested under the Derby Scheme.  In his final report on the Scheme Lord Derby estimated at least 40% of the single men and nearly half the married men who attested and were not in 'starred' occupations were medically unfit.  However as you are aware the Scheme effectively ended with the introduction of conscription in March 1916 when every male between the ages of 18 and 41 and ordinarily resident in mainland UK was deemed to have enlisted.  The Derby Scheme was not a great success, less than half of the approximately 2 million single men available for service actually attested.

 

However we can assume your brothers like Pte Amos did attest and were initially called up in their group where they were medically examined and were either declared unfit or secured an exemption, through their employer, from military service.  However by 1917 the manpower shortage was acute and in April the Government introduced the Military Service (Review of Exemptions) Act which gave formal power to, as the title suggests, review any exemptions granted by the Local Tribunal.  

 

Nevertheless prior to the Act becoming law from January 1917 the Military Representatives on Local Tribunals across the country demanded that large numbers of  exemption certificates should be reviewed.  Although they could do this at anytime there seems to have been greater impetus in January 1917, probably on instructions from the War office.  Notices were sent to employers advising them that where they considered the review and subsequent call up would have a detrimental effect on their business they should contact the Recruiting and Substitution Officer at the Recruiting Office who would facilitate substitution, often by women. These reviews were undertaken in batches and there were instructions that men should be sent before a medical board at the rate of twenty a day.  Initially the reviews were for single men under the age of thirty, i.e. soldiers for the front, then married men and the remaining single men.

 

Returning to Pte Amos any exemption he had was withdrawn and he was  mobilized on the 16th January and joined the Royal Scots Depot the following day when he would have been allocated his number.  Two days later he was posted to the 3rd Battalion.  Still clearly unfit (Category B2) he was posted to the Labour Corps for home service on the 8th June 1917. There is also a record of 38902 Bradley, from Glasgow again a Derby recruit (17/1/1916) mobilised to Royal Scots Depot 15/1/1917 and posted to 3rd Battalion on the 17 January 1917. He was discharged as medically unfit (mentally dull and confused) in April 1917.

 

These are just two examples among many in the records who attested under the Derby Scheme in late 1915 and who had previously received an exemption which was withdrawn in January 1917.  The records rarely make mention of any previous exemption prior to mobilization.

 

The brother who went to the MGC would, in all probability have followed a similar path to Pte Amos and at the end of basic training (minimum 12 weeks) been posted to the MGC at Grantham for further training before being sent to France.  The other brother was posted to the RGA but as in the case of James only overseas service in a theatre of war would be shown on any Medals and associated paperwork.  Unless you know for certain he was a direct enlistment to the RGA it's quite possible they were both mobilised to the Royal Scots Depot initially and Robert was posted to the RGA a couple of days later, perhaps when his skills were recognised.  

 

Speculative, but it may also have been one brother lost his exemption and the other gave up his to join with him.

 

 

Ken

[Martin Lepley]

17 hours ago, LJP said:

thanks for the newspaper advice Martin - i tried looking at the Scotsman online archive (most of my research is done during unsociable hours!) and found tribunal reports there - usually anonymous, but searching using 'garden', 'agricultur', scientific', etc, couldn't find anything. i found reading through the cases fascinating though, many really poignant, and after reading through a pile of them i'm finding it even harder to understand why there was a delay of a year with my brothers! it seems to have been a remarkably hard thing to do.

I'm struck though by how 'together' the brothers are - I'm assuming the reason for the delay is something they have in common, but perhaps that's why I'm struggling to find it, maybe it wasn't, but they certainly left the garden together, and i was curious about why they chose different regiments, but as pointed out above, they didn't - they presumably went to sign up/enlist/serve together and it was the army that chose their regiments and separated them

thanks again for your help,

L

 

Personally, I have found that the online newspapers were not as good as the local ones in the library, but that might just be my luck. Having said that, it is good to have the ability to use searches electronically online, compared to reading through microfilm. The Scotsman sounds more like the national paper and not the local paper. I have found that the national (or county newspapers) tended to report the tribunal appeals, as opposed to the initial tribunals.

 

The documented tribunals are very interesting thought and there seemed to be much laughter, at the expense of the people appealing.

 

I believe that if conscripted, you did not get a choice to which Regiment you joined. Maybe if you signed up in 1915 under the Derby scheme you could choose but if you did not then they may have chosen to put the men wherever it was needed.

 

There is also another possible reason. This is the "pals" battalions, where whole villages joined in to the same Regiment / Battalion, and when the battalion suffered major losses, whole villages were decimated so this was not later done. I guess two members of the same family are better put in separate Regiments to improve the chance of one of them surviving.

 

The final possibility is that one of the Brothers had a particular skill that one of the Regiments particularly needed.

 

[LJP]

thanks Martin and Ken - i'd love to have the chance and the time right now to look through the local papers - The Scotsman is indeed a national - but some great stuff there - funny you mention the laughter, there was a bit of that reported too! i'm not sure if i'll be able to get the chance to go out and track down anything more local, but you're right, there may well be something there.

Ken - i love your example - it's great to read about the existing service record from a similar example, and it sounds really close to my brothers doesn't it?  As i said above, their employer, Isaac Bayley Balfour did state that every one fit should serve - there's an instance where he refuses to support a plant collector's claim that his propagator should not serve as he's needed to grow the seeds collected - without him the expedition to collect the seeds would be a waste of time and money - Balfour refuses on the ground that he's publicly stated that no-one's indispensable - saying something like 'you will find me a broken reed on that point as i have publicly stated...

“no-one in my Garden including myself was indispensable.  I have been taken at my word and excepting Mr. Harrow and a youngster who was discharged from the Army after some months’ service I have not a man looking after my plants who would have been allowed to come near them in the old days…”

But look at the date - it's the 9th February 1917 - just after he's lost the Adam brothers - so maybe if the plant collector had asked a year earlier he'd have got a different response??? 

thank you so much! i'll have to get on and write this blog now!

Leonie

[rolt968]

There is one rather curious thing in Robert Moyes Adam's RAF Officer's Record.  Although he gives his address as 17 West Brighton Crescent, Portobello, Scotland, he gives his employer as HM Office of Works, Storey's Gate, Westminster, London.

Did you know that Robert Moyes Adam was married? Next of kin Mrs R Adam at the address above. (Annie Muir Stewart MacLean, marriage 1911, Newington).

 

It is also worth remembering that unless they appealed against call up/ mobilisation/ conscription nothing would appear in the records of the local Military Service Tribunal. If they simply accepted and went there would be no case for the MST.

 

I suspected that Robert might have an army officers' record for his time in the RFC. He does:

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C1185750

That should have is original attestation form. It might also have the referees for his commission.

 

RM

 

Edit: His commission as a 2/Lt RFC is here (London Gazette):

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/30444/supplement/13451

(With effect from 4 December 1917.)

Edited 6 March , 2018 by rolt968

[LJP]

thank you again- this forum has been so brilliant! i did know he was married but for some reason i was ignoring it as i think i assumed it was after the war - now I'm thinking about it, i don't know why, as i spotted his marriage details in a Scotland's People search a couple of days ago and surely the date must have been there - i'm not multitasking very well at the moment at all.  this changes things again really, doesn't it...

HM Office of Works was the Botanic Garden's Governing Body, so that checks out. pretty much the only WW1 records we hold in the archives at the Garden are the service record cards put together for/by the Office of Works that were used to add names to the Office of Works War Memorial that i believe is now situated in the HM Treasury building in Westminster.  I was hoping to pay it a visit a couple of weeks ago during a short trip to London but it looked as if it would be tricky to get in, and in the end i ran out of time and wasn't able to have a go at seeing it.  i know that J.C. Adam is the first name on it. what bothers me is that one of our men is missed off the Office of Works memorial as he started working for us on the 8th August 1914, and therefore wasn't on staff at the start of the war - but that's a different story... 

looks like i'll need to visit the archives at Kew too one day! i've begun a request to get the service record copied and looking forward to seeing what's there. Thank you so much for spotting that - i assumed because it wasn't on Ancestry it was one of the ones destroyed during WW2 - i assume that these records are a slightly different 'batch', being Flying Corps rather than army...?

[rolt968]

7 hours ago, LJP said:

thank you again- this forum has been so brilliant! i did know he was married but for some reason i was ignoring it as i think i assumed it was after the war - now I'm thinking about it, i don't know why, as i spotted his marriage details in a Scotland's People search a couple of days ago and surely the date must have been there - i'm not multitasking very well at the moment at all.  this changes things again really, doesn't it...

HM Office of Works was the Botanic Garden's Governing Body, so that checks out. pretty much the only WW1 records we hold in the archives at the Garden are the service record cards put together for/by the Office of Works that were used to add names to the Office of Works War Memorial that i believe is now situated in the HM Treasury building in Westminster.  I was hoping to pay it a visit a couple of weeks ago during a short trip to London but it looked as if it would be tricky to get in, and in the end i ran out of time and wasn't able to have a go at seeing it.  i know that J.C. Adam is the first name on it. what bothers me is that one of our men is missed off the Office of Works memorial as he started working for us on the 8th August 1914, and therefore wasn't on staff at the start of the war - but that's a different story... 

looks like i'll need to visit the archives at Kew too one day! i've begun a request to get the service record copied and looking forward to seeing what's there. Thank you so much for spotting that - i assumed because it wasn't on Ancestry it was one of the ones destroyed during WW2 - i assume that these records are a slightly different 'batch', being Flying Corps rather than army...?

No, although part of the officers' records were (was?) destroyed in WW2, for most officers there is a file (which was not stored at Arnside Street) at Kew but has not been digitised. Exactly how much is in the file varies, depending on how much it has been "weeded" since WW1. I actually thought there might not be one since he has an RAF file. Since he was commissioned from the ranks with a bit of luck there should at least be his attestation form and perhaps documents relating to his commissioning.

 

RM

[LJP]

hi everyone, just a wee update - i wrote the blog and posted it on the 21st March, the anniversary of James's death - i hope it's ok - i did the best i could with the info I had (or understood!), but the relatives I know were excellent in providing plenty of pictures for it - Rolt968 - I've been in touch with the National Archives and am waiting for the scans - will be interesting to see if that adds anything. i did check Robert M Adam's photo logs that he kept prior to leaving the Garden - page after page of photographs of details of plants taken using microscopes - tricky work and vital to the taxonomic work going on at the Garden - i'm working on the basis that this was important enough for a delay in 1916, but not by 1917. what's puzzling me now is that there are occasional batches of entries in Adam's handwriting sporadically between January 1917 and February 1919 -  how did he manage that? but I'm leaving that one for another day...

thanks everyone for your help!

https://stories.rbge.org.uk/archives/28160

L