Attestation under the Derby Scheme

[Yarnold66]

Hi,
I am wishing some clarification as to the terminology and process when a man chose deferment under the Derby Scheme.
My great uncle attested in late November 1915 and was in the 2/5th Royal Sussex come February 1916.  When he attested would he have chosen or been informed of his eventual unit or did he not learn until he was notified of his mobilization date?
Also would it be correct to say that he attested and was later mobilized or am I missing a stage?
Many thanks for any replies.
Phil   

 

[Gardenerbill]

My Grandfather also attested under the Derby Scheme in Decmber 1915 at Fulwood barracks Preston the form (B2512) was signed by the recruiting officer of the Loyal North Lancs. Due to his age and occupation he was not called up until June 1916. The certificate of approving officer section at the bottom of the form is signed by the commanding officer of the Loyal North Lancs. He did basic training with the LNL before being posted to the 9th Battalion of the East Lancashire Regiment.

 

Do you have his servcie records?

[ss002d6252]

43 minutes ago, Yarnold66 said:

Hi,
I am wishing some clarification as to the terminology and process when a man chose deferment under the Derby Scheme.
My great uncle attested in late November 1915 and was in the 2/5th Royal Sussex come February 1916.  When he attested would he have chosen or been informed of his eventual unit or did he not learn until he was notified of his mobilization date?
Also would it be correct to say that he attested and was later mobilized or am I missing a stage?
Many thanks for any replies.
Phil   

 

Who is the man ?

Craig

[Yarnold66]

Pte Arthur Henry Powell 3806 & G/17969

[kenf48]

On 26/06/2018 at 13:47, Yarnold66 said:

Hi,
I am wishing some clarification as to the terminology and process when a man chose deferment under the Derby Scheme.
My great uncle attested in late November 1915 and was in the 2/5th Royal Sussex come February 1916.  When he attested would he have chosen or been informed of his eventual unit or did he not learn until he was notified of his mobilization date?
Also would it be correct to say that he attested and was later mobilized or am I missing a stage?
Many thanks for any replies.
Phil   

 

 

A man who attested under the Derby Scheme was given a a payment for one day and placed on the Army Reserve 'B', therefore although his mobilisation was deferred he was effectively in the Army.  Men who attested under the Scheme were recruited for General Service and allocated to units as required.   There was a local bias in that men usually reported to the nearest Depot on mobilisation, from there they could go to a training unit of that Regiment or, if they were over subscribed. elsewhere. Once they got to France posting was even more haphazard.  As this poster indicates all they knew for certain was which group they would be in and the order in which they would be called up.

 

 

The scheme was 'sold' on the premise most men would join the infantry where the need was greatest but there was also a promise made that married men would be given preference for home service and units such as the RAMC.  The expectation was that these older married men may not even have had to serve, the first 100,000 would be young single men, then the next 100,000 the single men in the next age groups and so on until by the time the last Group was mobilised there would be no need for their services.  

This did not reflect reality and like all politician's promises was unsustainable and by 1916 married men were conscripted under the terms of the Military Swevice Act (No 2).

 

As noted in the poster once attested they would be given an armband i.e.https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/30078876

 

Although there were no interim stage between attestation and mobilisation once attested a man could appeal to a local tribunal for further deferment, there are many examples of Derby men not being called up until late 1917.

 

 

 

The scheme was considered 'fairer' than universal conscription as young single men would be called up first.  It was, as predicted by those who favoured conscription, not a great success.

 

Ken

 

 

 

[Yarnold66]

Hi Ken,

Many thanks for your response.

Phil

[Sue L]

Hi

 

Apologies for jumping on the back of this topic but I am wondering if someone can clarify the difference between "enlisting" and "attesting"?

 

The posters above talk about "enlisting before 11th Dec" so should I describe a man who did so as having enlisted or attested before being mobilised at a later date?

 

Also what happened after 11 Dec 1915?  I am researching men who enlisted/attested in 1916 or 1917 but were mobilised at a later date.  Which is the correct verb to use??

 

Many thanks

 

Sue L 

 

[ss002d6252]

33 minutes ago, Sue L said:

Hi

 

Apologies for jumping on the back of this topic but I am wondering if someone can clarify the difference between "enlisting" and "attesting"?

 

The posters above talk about "enlisting before 11th Dec" so should I describe a man who did so as having enlisted or attested before being mobilised at a later date?

 

Also what happened after 11 Dec 1915?  I am researching men who enlisted/attested in 1916 or 1917 but were mobilised at a later date.  Which is the correct verb to use??

  

Many thanks

 

Sue L 

 

Attestation was the process of completing the forms etc required to enlist in to the army. In real terms it's pretty much interchangeable.

Conscripted after 1916 under the MSA1916 and the called up/mobilized as and when required.

 

Craig

[Sue L]

thanks

 

Sue