Recruiting Memorandum & A.O.

[Peter35]

 

I have a man

 

“selected under Recruiting Memorandum 67, dated 2?*/8/1914, Para. 7,

 

and Army Order II dated 29/8/14”.

 

* cannot read second digit.

 

Does any member hold the Memorandum and / or AO?

[Peter35]

Bumping this:

 

I have a man

 

“selected under Recruiting Memorandum 67, dated 21/8/1914, Para. 7,

 

and Army Order II dated 29/8/14”.

 

 

and adding from another:

 

“Para 7 of Recruiting Memorandum 67, dated 21/8/1914,

 

and Army Order 339 September 1914”.

 

Does any member hold the Memorandum and / or Army Orders?

[kenf48]

I don't have the Army Order but these were often published in the newspaper (usually syndicated from the Times)

 

This was top of the shop from the Dundee Courier 31/8/1914 Does that fit your man?

Image courtesy BNA on FMP

 

As for the Memorandum that was probably circulated to Recruiting Office(rs) and may be more difficult.

However the Hampshire Indedpendent references the 'Recruiting Memorandum" so you never know  published 29 August 1914

Image BNA on FMP

 

I think they were basically administrative instruments for recruiting to the 'New Army'  and noted differen T & Cs to the Regulars

[Peter35]

Thank you, Ken.

 

Didn't occur to me to search Newspapers!

 

While the Hampshire Independent extract doesn't give me what I'm after, from that information I take confidence what I'm after must be somewhere close by.

 

I'll start working my way through Newspaper Collections, starting with The Times.

 

Regards,

[kenf48]

You're welcome, just noticed typo in my post Dundee Courier was 31/8 not 21/8 (now corrected).

 

The only problem with the newspapers is they don't usually give the number of the A.O. but it is often possible to make an inference.

 

There is of course a full set for the Great War period at TNA in W0/23; 1914 IS WO/123/56 

I know there are pals on here who have photographed them all, but they do not appear to have noticed your post.

[Terry_Reeves]

This is from Army Administrative Instructions, 1914. It may provide a clue:

 

[Peter35]

Ken and Terry,

 

Thank you both.

 

I always find the Gale Newspapers’ collections and TNA difficult. No different this time. Searching Army Orders, W0/23 and WO/123/56 yields two irrelevant results for the AO and Nil results for the others. I’ll persevere with both while hoping some Pals stumble across my Post.

 

My interest is with respect to Armourer Sergeants. My suspicion is that the above AO / Recruiting Memoranda specifically refers to Armourers (/ Armament Artificers / specialist trades) who typically within a twenty four hour period signed a Conditions of Pay, Service etc, completed the “Special Test” and were Attested.

[kenf48]

1 hour ago, Peter35 said:

My suspicion is that the above AO / Recruiting Memoranda specifically refers to Armourers (/ Armament Artificers / specialist trades) who typically within a twenty four hour period signed a Conditions of Pay, Service etc, completed the “Special Test” and were Attested.

 

There is a piece in the Portsmouth Evening News dated 31 August  1914 that says, "The War Office will enlist armament articifiers and armourers up to sixty years of age for the Army Ordnance Corps.  Ex-men of the Corps may join if not over fifty. All others will be taken at from 19 to 45 years."  It's just a footnote in a piece on recruitment, no reference.

Also reported in the Nottingham Evening Post 29 August as ' sign of the times'

This piece went into a bit more detail as to the process but sadly once again the only reference was 'the War Office'.

 

I did find a couple of references to Recruiting Memorandum 71 for saddlers and smiths for the ASC which basically said they could wear glasses and have false teeth (apparently the biggest cause of failing the medical for tradesmen was poor teeth) and would be required to do a simple trade test before being posted to the BEF.

 

Frustratingly not R.M.67.

[Terry_Reeves]

I have a number of men in my RE database in a similar position. The oldest was a pre-war regular, Charles  Prendegast who who was 61 when he enlisted on 2nd  October 1914. He went on to be commissioned 26.2.17.

 

TR

[Peter35]

Thanks Ken. It’s exactly that sort of thing.

 

In the case of my two men here, one was a Gunsmith who three days after presenting at a Labour Exchange was enlisted as a ‘qualified’ Armourer. The other was a Fitter by trade who had to undertake the Special Test before Attestation and subsequent training as an Armourer.

 

Having said that, your snippet is very interesting. All the Conditions of Pay, Service etc I’ve seen enlist between 21 and 60 years. I’ve never come across the distinction / restriction between “ex men” and “all others”

 

….. which is interesting in itself. If “ex men of the Corps” over 50 years can’t join and “all others” over 45 can’t join, then who falls in the category: “(45 / 50) up to sixty years of age”? Given ‘ex Armourers’ over 50 most certainly Reattested, “ex men” must refer to men over 50 who hadn’t served as Armourers ( / Armament Artificers)

[kenf48]

This is the Nottingham Evening Post Article 29th August

Sorry bit rushed goes over two columns fyi

 

 

Image courtesy BNA on FMP

[Peter35]

Thanks Ken

 

..... and it confirms theory about “ex men”.

 

FMP's Newspaper collection definitely friendlier than Gale's. 

Edited 15 January , 2021 by Peter35

[Keith_history_buff]

Very interesting to read about these various age limits in place at different times.