loujn Posted 25 March , 2018 Share Posted 25 March , 2018 Hi, i am just finishing writing up one of the soldiers named on our church war memorial - William Henry Tolley. I am trying to work out why or if he was obliged to enlist when he did.... He was aged 25 years and 219 days old on his service record. He was married with at least one child by then. He signed his General Service enlistment papers on 24th June 1916. I am wondering if there would have been a reason which made him have to enlist at that time? or could he just have decided voluntarily to enlist? I've done some googling and found that in 1916 if he had been single or later married but had NO children he would have been called up to serve, but can't find anything to include men with children. Can anyone add any insight please? Thank you in advance. Regards, Louise www.fallenheroesww1.blogspot.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Lees Posted 25 March , 2018 Share Posted 25 March , 2018 Do you have access to his enlistment papers? They are different according to the type of enlistment. This page might help if you have the papers - http://gordonhighlanders.carolynmorrisey.com/Recruitment.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 25 March , 2018 Share Posted 25 March , 2018 46 minutes ago, loujn said: Hi, i am just finishing writing up one of the soldiers named on our church war memorial - William Henry Tolley. I am trying to work out why or if he was obliged to enlist when he did.... He was aged 25 years and 219 days old on his service record. He was married with at least one child by then. He signed his General Service enlistment papers on 24th June 1916. I am wondering if there would have been a reason which made him have to enlist at that time? or could he just have decided voluntarily to enlist? I've done some googling and found that in 1916 if he had been single or later married but had NO children he would have been called up to serve, but can't find anything to include men with children. Can anyone add any insight please? Thank you in advance. Regards, Louise www.fallenheroesww1.blogspot.com The military service act 1916 had two sessions, the first covered unmarried men but the second of may 1916 extended it to married men. http://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/soldiers/a-soldiers-life-1914-1918/enlisting-into-the-army/the-1916-military-service-act/the-may-1916-extension-of-the-military-service-act/ Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnumbellum Posted 26 March , 2018 Share Posted 26 March , 2018 17 hours ago, loujn said: Hi, i am just finishing writing up one of the soldiers named on our church war memorial - William Henry Tolley. I am trying to work out why or if he was obliged to enlist when he did.... He was aged 25 years and 219 days old on his service record. He was married with at least one child by then. He signed his General Service enlistment papers on 24th June 1916. I am wondering if there would have been a reason which made him have to enlist at that time? or could he just have decided voluntarily to enlist? I've done some googling and found that in 1916 if he had been single or later married but had NO children he would have been called up to serve, but can't find anything to include men with children. Can anyone add any insight please? Thank you in advance. Regards, Louise www.fallenheroesww1.blogspot.com The Military Service (Session 2) Act 1916 extended conscription liability to ALL married men aged 18-40, regardless of whether they had children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loujn Posted 26 March , 2018 Author Share Posted 26 March , 2018 17 hours ago, Ken Lees said: Do you have access to his enlistment papers? They are different according to the type of enlistment. This page might help if you have the papers - http://gordonhighlanders.carolynmorrisey.com/Recruitment.htm Yes, i do they are on Ancestry.co.uk but the front page is badly damaged. I will attach it below. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loujn Posted 26 March , 2018 Author Share Posted 26 March , 2018 2 minutes ago, Magnumbellum said: The Military Service (Session 2) Act 1916 extended conscription liability to ALL married men aged 18-40, regardless of whether they had children. Oh right thank you that helps me then. I just couldnt find anything which specifically stated the men with or without children. So as he enlisted on 24th June 1916 I can assume he enlisted as he was called up for conscription? thank you for your help Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loujn Posted 26 March , 2018 Author Share Posted 26 March , 2018 16 hours ago, ss002d6252 said: The military service act 1916 had two sessions, the first covered unmarried men but the second of may 1916 extended it to married men. http://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/soldiers/a-soldiers-life-1914-1918/enlisting-into-the-army/the-1916-military-service-act/the-may-1916-extension-of-the-military-service-act/ Craig Thank you Craig, i wasnt sure re the children status, but Magnumbellum has answered stating it didnt matter children or childless. Thanks for your help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mancpal Posted 27 April , 2018 Share Posted 27 April , 2018 My grandad was conscripted in the middle of 1916. He was 36 and married with two children when called up. My mother is certain he would not have served if not for conscription. Its possible your ancestor may have felt the same strong ties with his family Simon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin kenf48 Posted 27 April , 2018 Admin Share Posted 27 April , 2018 (edited) On 26/03/2018 at 14:54, loujn said: So as he enlisted on 24th June 1916 I can assume he enlisted as he was called up for conscription? June 24th 1916 was the date that unattested married men in Classes 24 - 46 (as defined in the Act), were called up for service. He was therefore amongst the first to be called up. The Classes mirrored the Derby Scheme Groups. He was conscripted. In fact an Army Council Instruction issued to recruiting offices stated the mobilisation of 'attested married men' i.e. those who had attested under the Derby or Group Scheme was to be paused to allow the mobilisation of the above Classes. The full text the ACI was 'Classes 24 to 36 will commence to be called up on June 24th 1916 and no individual notices will be issued after June 10th to men in Groups 24 to 36 until individual notices have been sent to the men in the corresponding class. Area Commanders will commence to issue notice papers to men in Classes 24-36 on June 10th in such numbers daily as will ensure the full quota of men being dealt with by medical boards on each day on and after June 24th" Ken Edited 27 April , 2018 by kenf48 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loujn Posted 28 April , 2018 Author Share Posted 28 April , 2018 On 27/04/2018 at 11:28, mancpal said: My grandad was conscripted in the middle of 1916. He was 36 and married with two children when called up. My mother is certain he would not have served if not for conscription. Its possible your ancestor may have felt the same strong ties with his family Simon Simon, so sad. I bet they hated to leave their families. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loujn Posted 28 April , 2018 Author Share Posted 28 April , 2018 On 27/04/2018 at 18:06, kenf48 said: In fact an Army Council Instruction issued to recruiting offices stated the mobilisation of 'attested married men' i.e. those who had attested under the Derby or Group Scheme was to be paused to allow the mobilisation of the above Classes. Thank you ken for your reply. So am I correct in understanding - if a man had already voluntarily attested under the derby or Group Schemes.... these were allowed a temporary reprieve whilst those who hadn’t volunteered were called up? so basically, if you didn’t want to go - you were going anyway? And if you’d volunteered they would keep you for later? i had not heard this before, so thank you for adding this to my knowledge! Thanks again for your time, Louise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin kenf48 Posted 28 April , 2018 Admin Share Posted 28 April , 2018 Not so much a reprieve, ‘attested men’, or those who attested under the Derby Scheme were already in the Army Reserve. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loujn Posted 29 April , 2018 Author Share Posted 29 April , 2018 10 hours ago, kenf48 said: Not so much a reprieve, ‘attested men’, or those who attested under the Derby Scheme were already in the Army Reserve. Ken Ok thanks for the explanation. Louise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now