Attestation Form definitions

[dougej]

I've come across a term in an attestation form that has me stumped and I hope someone can help me. This is from an Army Form E. 504, Militia Attestation, circa 1904.  On line 6, the question is:

6. What is the Name and Residence of your present (or former) Master?

Master? Is it a reference to an employer, or landlord perhaps? I stymied here. Thanks to anyone who can help.

Doug

 

[charlie962]

Apprenticeship?

[PRC]

Hi @dougej and welcome to the forum

In this case employer - the person who will have to release the man should the militia be embodied and also from whom a reference could be sought as to reliability and personal habits, (i.e. drinking!).

The 1911 Census of England & Wales has two Mr Miller's who were horse dealers and lived in Carlisle.

It could also be the person the man was apprenticed to, but I'm not aware of horse dealers having a formal apprenticeship system so I think that can be ruled out.

Cheers,
Peter

[charlie962]

Peter, you are quite correct, of course. It seems to come from legal definition 'protecting'** employers and employees- eg 

"Master and Servant Act - Wikipedia" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_and_Servant_Act 

** Regulating would be more correct!

 

 

Edited 15 August , 2022 by charlie962

[Keith_history_buff]

I would have thought it related to apprenticeship.

It is a different time period, but during the Napoleonic Wars, Collin Thomas fled from his apprenticeship, and enlisted in the Royal Marines. He was subsequently jailed with 12 months hard labour.
https://www.whodoyouthinkyouaremagazine.com/episode/amanda-holden/

Taking a look at Army Form B 265 from 1907, for men's attestation upon enlistment under Regular terms of service, there is the following warning
'You are hereby warned that if after enlistment it is found that you have given a wilfully false answer to any of the following seven questions, you will be liable to a punishment of two years imprisonment with hard labour.'

I won't list questions 7 to 13 in their entirety, just question 7.

7. Are you, or have you been, an Apprentice?
If so, where? to whom? for what period? and, when did, or will, the period of your apprenticeship expire?

The wording is exactly the same on a Royal Marine attestation form R-105 (revised May 1913) as completed by George Henry Stephen Read, who subsequently transferred to the RAF.





 

[PRC]

2 hours ago, Keith_history_buff said:

Taking a look at Army Form B 265 from 1907, for men's attestation upon enlistment under Regular terms of service, there is the following warning
'You are hereby warned that if after enlistment it is found that you have given a wilfully false answer to any of the following seven questions, you will be liable to a punishment of two years imprisonment with hard labour.'

But those examples are for regular fulltime enlistment, not local part-time enlistment in the Miltia, i.e. pre-1908. A man enlisting in the local militia was engaging in a contract with a local organisation, not an agent (in law) of the War Office. He took his orders and pay ultimately from the Lord Lieutenant of the County, not the British Government.

However you got me thinking and as a quick straw poll I took at look at men from Norfolk with the surname Brown who enlisted in the Militia between 1903 & 1906.  Enlistments were into Militia Battalions of the Norfolk, Lincolnshire, Essex and Suffolk Regiments, as well as a Militia Royal Garrison Artillery unit.

All appear to have enlisted on Army Form E.504. However hardly any two were exactly the same, varying in lay-out, wording and numbering of questions. But when it comes to the specific questions in the employment area of the form then the order if not the exact wording is the same - who is your master, what is your trade, are you an apprentice, and in about 50% of the small survey it also asks if the man has ever been an apprentice.

Applying the good old legal test of what would the man on the Clapham Omnibus make of it, then commonsense would dictate that if Master only applied to Apprenticehip, then the question "Are you an Apprentice should come first". If the answer is "No" then the Master question would be redundant - in modern parlance delete if not applicable.

Thus when Bertie Brown, a Baker, enlisted in the 4th Battalion, Norfolk Regiment on the 26th January 1903 at Great Yarmouth, his E.504 form simply asked if he was an apprentice. (Printers date number 3-01). He says "No" but then has already listed a Master.

But when Arthur Bown enlisted in the 4th Battalion Lincolnshire Regiment at Holbeach on the 7th January 1904, his E.504 form, (Printers run date 5-03), also asked if he had ever been an Apprentice. His reply tells us he has never been an apprrentice, so his earlier reply to having a Master can only really apply to his current employment.

And when Albert Arthur Brown enlisted in a Militia unit of the Royal Garrison Artillery at Great Yarmouth on the 17th March 1906, his E.504 (Printers run date 8-05) had the same question. He too has never been an Apprentice. Being a Waterman he is very likely to be self-employed and thus has no Master.

All images courtesy Genes Reunited.

A more extensive search may turn up a different result, but for now it seems unlikely that so many recruiting serjeants up and down the land, as well recruits, would so misunderstand the question that they didn't get that it only applied to their masters when the recruit was an apprentice.

The Master\ Servant legal relationship quite often seems offensive to modern sensibilities being mixed up incorrectly with master \ slave and a melange of Upstairs, downstairs & Downton Abbey. But as a legal concept it pre-dates English Common law and still forms the basic test in UK employment law of whether someone is truely self-employed or not.

Cheers,
Peter

Edited 15 August , 2022 by PRC
Typos

[Keith_history_buff]

12 hours ago, PRC said:

In this case employer - the person who will have to release the man should the militia be embodied and also from whom a reference could be sought as to reliability and personal habits, (i.e. drinking!).

The key element to take on board.
 

  

4 minutes ago, PRC said:

But those examples are for regular fulltime enlistment, not local part-time enlistment in the Militia, i.e. pre-1908.

A valid point
 

4 minutes ago, PRC said:

All appear to have enlisted on Army Form E.504. However hardly any two were exactly the same, varying in lay-out, wording and numbering of questions. But when it comes to the specific questions in the employment area of the form then the order if not the exact wording is the same - who is your master, what is your trade, are you an apprentice, and in about 50% of the small survey it also asks if the man has ever been an apprentice.

I have tended to see younger men enlisting in the Militia / Special Reserve, so I wondered if the form reflected that a large proportion may be apprentices. In some of the service records that I have seen, I have seen references from the employer, and in other instances the local police have been asked whether the recruit is a good character, which flies in the face of the pre-war Tommy Atkins as a ne-er do well, and that the army would accept any type of character, as reflected in the Rudyard Kipling poem.

 

[charlie962]

32 minutes ago, PRC said:

The Master\ Servant legal relationship quite often seems offensive to modern sensibilities being mixed up incorrectly with master \ slave and a melange of Upstairs, downstairs & Downton Abbey. But as a legal concept it pre-dates English Common law and still forms the basic test in UK employment law of whether someone is truely self-employed or not.

The development of the Master and Servant Acts, initially favouring employers but progressively modified eg acceptance of trade unions, is another of those fascinating detours triggered from a question about a soldier's life.

Charlie

[PRC]

15 minutes ago, Keith_history_buff said:

I have tended to see younger men enlisting in the Militia / Special Reserve, so I wondered if the form reflected that a large proportion may be apprentices.

I believe the same questions crop up on both Regular and Militia enliistments pre 1908, and if someone could source a Volunteers enlistment I suspect you would find it there too. To a certain extent they were all potentially fishing in the same pond.

While I said it shouldn't be mixed up with master \ slave, in many ways it's eay to forget how bound the poor in this country were. They were bound to their parish as the basis of the social security system - hence the very first question on the form right back to Napoleonic times - in which parish were you born. Even if a man hadn't lived there, if he'd not secured the right of residence in another parish. (there was usually money involved), then that birth parish is where he'd be returned.

And an apprentice was bound to his master. Having agreed to take him and accepted the payment, the master then became in loco parentis. It was their permission that needed to be sought for the young man to enlist. And if the young man signed up without permission while still bound by his apprenticeship the master could reclaim him. leaving the Army \ Militia out of pocket.  Unless released by the Master, other than on completion of the apprenticeship, the Master had to be compensated for the outstanding term. Should the militia be embodied then the Master could refuse permission to release him. And as a possession, if the apprentice was damaged or destroyed while going about militia duties, then the Master could demand compensation one suspects, even if the Master had given permission for him to go. Such constraints on flexible use of a member of the milita may even served as a show stopper. Even someone who was no longer an apprentice might still owe a financial debt to his master, throwing up a lot of the same issues.

So these questions weren't being asked lightly. They could a real impact on how useful the potential recruit could be.

Cheers,
Peter