Fraudulent enlistment

[knittinganddeath]

Does anyone know of any academic articles, books, book chapters, or academic projects on the subject of fraudulent enlistment in the British military during the Great War?

Thanks for any help!

[FROGSMILE]

On 08/06/2023 at 15:08, knittinganddeath said:

Does anyone know of any academic articles, books, book chapters, or academic projects on the subject of fraudulent enlistment in the British military during the Great War?

Thanks for any help!

In what sense do you mean ‘fraudulent’?  The most common enlistment on a false premise was declaring an age that the individual concerned knew to be false.  This was mostly declaring an older age than was true, but there were also many cases of the opposite.  In the case of the underage the motive most commonly seems to have been that they didn’t want to miss what they thought would be an adventure, especially where friends and / or family were going, and for older men it seems to usually be to obtain employment (especially older veterans), although there were also cases of fathers simply wanting to join sons.

If this is indeed what you had in mind, I know that the number underage was much greater than originally thought (and that was already a substantial number).  A published study was carried out by Richard Van Emden, titled Boy Soldiers of the Great War.  He has apparently published a revised edition of that work fairly recently.  In addition a forum member has done an excellent study focusing on a particular regiment or formation (I forget which) that I found especially striking and a great eye opener.  It is still accessible here somewhere. I hope that at least gives you a steer.

Incidentally fraudulent enlistment was not just a ww1 phenomenon and it had been such a large problem for the old (prewar) regular army - where serial enlisters chased enlistment bounties of ready cash - that it was made a “prevalent offence” carrying a prison sentence with hard labour.  Nonetheless, it was a problem that never went completely away.  It was a system that encouraged corruption, as pro-rata government cash was divided between recruiting sergeant, doctor, magistrate and recruit, for every single man enlisted.

Edited 9 June , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[knittinganddeath]

@FROGSMILE Thanks for your reply! I meant any kind of fraudulent enlistment that could result in a court martial. My main interest is in men who used fake names, although -- having trawled Google Scholar all day yesterday -- it looks most work on this general topic is about age-swapping. I did find Richard van Emden's book and a few other articles, but not as much as I had hoped. A regular Google search actually gave many hits that led back to GWF (there's nothing Great War-related that the forum hasn't discussed in detail!) but the problem is that for this particular project I need to cite published papers

[FROGSMILE]

6 minutes ago, knittinganddeath said:

@FROGSMILE Thanks for your reply! I meant any kind of fraudulent enlistment that could result in a court martial. My main interest is in men who used fake names, although -- having trawled Google Scholar all day yesterday -- it looks most work on this general topic is about age-swapping. I did find Richard van Emden's book and a few other articles, but not as much as I had hoped. A regular Google search actually gave many hits that led back to GWF (there's nothing Great War-related that the forum hasn't discussed in detail!) but the problem is that for this particular project I need to cite published papers

Unfortunately it’s an aspect of the ww1 era that only received detailed academic attention as the centenary of the war approached.  Of course like so many other interesting aspects and niche areas it has been deeply hindered by the destruction of the great majority of individual service records in the WW2 Blitz on the Arnside Street storage area in London (catastrophic for researchers and historians subsequently).

Edited 9 June , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[depaor01]

I was always puzzled by the enlistment papers requiring only "apparent age" details. I suspected that this might be because someone who was under age, but looked sturdy enough to serve, could be accepted. Ergo more recruits and no awkward questions. Was this the reason?

Dave

[knittinganddeath]

39 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

the destruction of the great majority of individual service records in the WW2 Blitz

Yes, I figured this would be an issue. I don't think it will be insurmountable (at least I hope it won't) but it is indeed very inconvenient. Am hoping that MIC and pension records will fill in some gaps but am also not expecting miracles.

 

Just now, depaor01 said:

enlistment papers requiring only "apparent age" details.

Thanks for this -- extremely relevant!

[FROGSMILE]

On 09/06/2023 at 18:57, depaor01 said:

I was always puzzled by the enlistment papers requiring only "apparent age" details. I suspected that this might be because someone who was under age, but looked sturdy enough to serve, could be accepted. Ergo more recruits and no awkward questions. Was this the reason?

Dave

That’s a really good question Dave and I don’t know the answer.  You have made me curious as to whether that caveat was just a WW1 development (as I’m inclined to suspect) or whether it also appeared on prewar enlistment documents.  I can’t recall seeing that wording previously.

Edited 15 June , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[rolt968]

2 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

In what sense do you mean ‘fraudulent’?  The most common enlistment on a false premise was declaring an age that the individual concerned knew to be false.  This was mostly declaring an older age than was true, but there were also many cases of the opposite.  In the case of the underage the motive most commonly seems to have been that they didn’t want to miss what they thought would be an adventure, especially where friends and / or family were going, and for older men it seems to usually be to obtain employment (especially older veterans), although there were also cases of fathers simply wanting to join sons.

If this is indeed what you had in mind, I know that the number underage was much greater than originally thought (and that was already a substantial number).  A published study was carried out by Richard Van Emden, titled Boy Soldiers of the Great War.  He has apparently published a revised edition of that work fairly recently.  In addition a forum member has done an excellent study focusing on a particular regiment or formation (I forget which) that I found especially striking and a great eye opener.  It is still accessible here somewhere. I hope that at least gives you a steer.

Incidentally fraudulent enlistment was not just a ww1 phenomenon and it had been such a large problem for the old (prewar) regular army - where serial enlisters chased enlistment bounties of ready cash - that it was made a “prevalent offence” carrying a prison sentence with hard labour.  Nonetheless, it was a problem that never went completely away.  It was a system that encouraged corruption, as pro-rata government cash was divided between recruiting sergeant, doctor, magistrate and recruit, for every single man enlisted.

In Boy Soldiers Richard Van Emden also looks briefly at serial enlisting.

Edited 9 June , 2023 by rolt968

[FROGSMILE]

18 minutes ago, rolt968 said:

In Boy Soldiers Richard Van Emden also looks briefly at serial enlisting.

Quite right too rolt968, it had been the most prevalent problem for the Army before the war, albeit on a much smaller scale.

Edited 9 June , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[PRC]

4 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

You have made me curious as to whether that caveat was just a WW1 development (as I’m inclined to suspect) or whether it also appeared on prewar enlistment documents.  I can’t recall seeIng that wording previously.

Sample enlistment from 1870 in the section dealing with description shows "Age Apparently"

And the same section from an 1882 enlistment now has an explanatory note that is anything but explanatory!

Both images courtesy of Genes Reunited

Cheers,
Peter

[FROGSMILE]

10 minutes ago, PRC said:

Sample enlistment from 1870 in the section dealing with description shows "Age Apparently"

And the same section from an 1882 enlistment now has an explanatory note that is anything but explanatory!

Both images courtesy of Genes Reunited

Cheers,
Peter

Thank you Peter, I really appreciate your digging that up, as I was really curious.  After considering the wording it seems to me likely (if not obvious) that it reflected the fact that very likely a majority of men from working class families wouldn’t have had access to their birth certificates even if one existed.  It also throws new light on how many under and over aged enlistees there must / might have been in the decades either side of the Anglo/Boer War that ended in 1902.

NB. Given the explanatory notes one can only assume that there must have been an official, graded scale of physical attributes for young men aged 19.

Edited 9 June , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[Keith_history_buff]

4 hours ago, depaor01 said:

I was always puzzled by the enlistment papers requiring only "apparent age" details...

An interesting observation.

A quick look at part of the image of an attestation from 1875, W.O. Form 497, states as the third question "What is your age? __ years __ months", and I do believe the threat of  hard labour for false information would seem to be the "stick" for truthful information. On his description, on the reverse, it states "Age, apparently" too. (812 Alfred Aldridge, born 1857 Hoxton, WO 97)

A quick look at an attestation from 1900, Army Form B 217, states as the fourth question "What is your age? __ years __ months", and the threat of two years imprisonment with hard labour for false information would seem to be the "stick" for truthful information for the next seven questions, but age is not one of them. (6851 Edward Mitchell, South Wales Borderers, WO 97)

A quick look at an attestation from 1908, Army Form B 265, states as the fourth question "What is your age? __ years __ months", and the threat of two years imprisonment with hard labour for false information would seem to be the "stick" for truthful information for the next seven questions, but age is not one of them. (9990 William Hunt, South Wales Borderers, WO 97.)

A quick look at an attestation from 12 February 1914, Army Form B 265, states as the fourth question "What is your age? __ years __ months", and the threat of two years imprisonment with hard labour for false information would seem to be the "stick" for truthful information. (11119 James Jones, born at Clydach Vale.)

That said, I'd see falsely declared ages as a victimless crime during peacetime, whereby the recruit was able to commence overseas service, and the adventure that entailed, sooner rather than later.

[rolt968]

10 hours ago, Keith_history_buff said:

That said, I'd see falsely declared ages as a victimless crime during peacetime, whereby the recruit was able to commence overseas service, and the adventure that entailed, sooner rather than later.

One aspect of enlisting underage in peacetime which I knew but had not really thought of before. If someone enlisted as an adult when he wasn't it would affect both his rate of pay and how long he had to serve (since years of service wouldn't begin until he was an adult).

Returning to the original question. I think that Andea Hetherington has a bit about serial enlisters in her book on desrters, but can't immediately find my copy to check.

RM

[PRC]

15 hours ago, knittinganddeath said:

I meant any kind of fraudulent enlistment that could result in a court martial.

I've not been an academic researcher, but my working life did involve a great deal of researching and I suspect there is a lot in common. As well as the bread and butter stuff, management would hit me with vaguer stuff and with limited time I had to do a rough and ready assessment of whether it was the best way to use me as a resource.

So on being asked something like this I would ask myself is there any evidence, even just anecdotal, that the British Army ever carried out a court-martial during the Great War on the basis of fraudulent enlistment? The nearest I've come to anything matching that is for officers, but usually the Army sorted out it's own mess by persuading them to resign their commission, rather than court-martial, or they were caught out by the civil powers committing other offences and were cashiered on the basis of conviction. But that is not "enlistment" the criteria stated here.

Who stood to benefit from such a policy? If the Army had a willing combatant, the tendency must have been not to look too closely. Other than that is it a moral compass, doing the "right thing" motivation? What other justification would there be for a court-martial on this basis alone?

Why would the Army use scarce resources in wartime to proactively look for fraudsters? If they didn't then it will only come to light in the most blatant of cases - conviction by the civil powers for example which led to the individual being linked to a previous persona. That wouldn't be likely to happen in a Theatre of War as the local civil power would hand them back for punishment unless the Army consented for them to be trialled in a civil court, and even then the civil investigation might well struggle to establish a linkage to other names used in another country.

Why would the Army overturn probably centuries of past practice - not just the underage \ overage, but criminals and those fleeing marital \ maintenance responsibilities - just because it was wartime? Cynical generals & politicians since the first human civilisations have probably worked out that the young in particular are mouldable, and a testosterone tendency to recklessness and immature risk assessment can be channelled into military derring-do - to the benefit often of the Army and the individual.

Where would such court-martials take case?  Unlikely in the field as it would almost certainly not be seen by itself as prejudicial to military discipline. Back in the UK if a soldier owned up and there were no other black marks against them then I very much suspect the Army would find a way to fudge it. And if court martials took place in the UK then I suspect the chance of finding surviving paper work \ records will be much lower - no DAAG records for example.

Was there any incentive for the individual themselves to come clean?  Other then to avoid combat there would be little incentive - the criminal punishment on the enlistment form would work as a disincentive once a man was in. And there would have been no guarantee as the war went on that fessing up would have been enough in itself to get a man thrown out.

At that point I'm probably be coming to the conclusion that I'd be trying to prove a negative - that there were no such court martials. The degree of proof for a negative is always higher - there is always one more resource that can be checked out and who knows what lies hidden away in a regimental museum archive or someones personal papers like an officer who sat on the board of such a court-martial. So, challenging from a research perspective and a nice intellectual brain tester, but a real time-hoover if time is the constraint. And while proving a negative might win you kudos amongst fellow researchers, it's unlikely to satisfy the requestors, (in my case managers who wanted their prejudices \ gut feelings confirmed) or funders if you're in academia.

Apologies in advance if there are lots of known cases!

Cheers,
Peter

[Keith_history_buff]

11 hours ago, Keith_history_buff said:

A quick look at an attestation from 12 February 1914, Army Form B 265, states as the fourth question "What is your age? __ years __ months", and the threat of two years imprisonment with hard labour for false information would seem to be the "stick" for truthful information. (11119 James Jones, born at Clydach Vale.)

This record can be accessed via FMP.
I accessed this courtesy of, and copyright of, Ancestry, from their WO 364 records.
© 1997-2023 Ancestry.com

Original document is in the custody of The National Archives UK
 

[rolt968]

19 minutes ago, PRC said:

I've not been an academic researcher, but my working life did involve a great deal of researching and I suspect there is a lot in common. As well as the bread and butter stuff, management would hit me with vaguer stuff and with limited time I had to do a rough and ready assessment of whether it was the best way to use me as a resource.

So on being asked something like this I would ask myself is there any evidence, even just anecdotal, that the British Army ever carried out a court-martial during the Great War on the basis of fraudulent enlistment? The nearest I've come to anything matching that is for officers, but usually the Army sorted out it's own mess by persuading them to resign their commission, rather than court-martial, or they were caught out by the civil powers committing other offences and were cashiered on the basis of conviction. But that is not "enlistment" the criteria stated here.

Who stood to benefit from such a policy? If the Army had a willing combatant, the tendency must have been not to look too closely. Other than that is it a moral compass, doing the "right thing" motivation? What other justification would there be for a court-martial on this basis alone?

Why would the Army use scarce resources in wartime to proactively look for fraudsters? If they didn't then it will only come to light in the most blatant of cases - conviction by the civil powers for example which led to the individual being linked to a previous persona. That wouldn't be likely to happen in a Theatre of War as the local civil power would hand them back for punishment unless the Army consented for them to be trialled in a civil court, and even then the civil investigation might well struggle to establish a linkage to other names used in another country.

Why would the Army overturn probably centuries of past practice - not just the underage \ overage, but criminals and those fleeing marital \ maintenance responsibilities - just because it was wartime? Cynical generals & politicians since the first human civilisations have probably worked out that the young in particular are mouldable, and a testosterone tendency to recklessness and immature risk assessment can be channelled into military derring-do - to the benefit often of the Army and the individual.

Where would such court-martials take case?  Unlikely in the field as it would almost certainly not be seen by itself as prejudicial to military discipline. Back in the UK if a soldier owned up and there were no other black marks against them then I very much suspect the Army would find a way to fudge it. And if court martials took place in the UK then I suspect the chance of finding surviving paper work \ records will be much lower - no DAAG records for example.

Was there any incentive for the individual themselves to come clean?  Other then to avoid combat there would be little incentive - the criminal punishment on the enlistment form would work as a disincentive once a man was in. And there would have been no guarantee as the war went on that fessing up would have been enough in itself to get a man thrown out.

At that point I'm probably be coming to the conclusion that I'd be trying to prove a negative - that there were no such court martials. The degree of proof for a negative is always higher - there is always one more resource that can be checked out and who knows what lies hidden away in a regimental museum archive or someones personal papers like an officer who sat on the board of such a court-martial. So, challenging from a research perspective and a nice intellectual brain tester, but a real time-hoover if time is the constraint. And while proving a negative might win you kudos amongst fellow researchers, it's unlikely to satisfy the requestors, (in my case managers who wanted their prejudices \ gut feelings confirmed) or funders if you're in academia.

Apologies in advance if there are lots of known cases!

Cheers,
Peter

Would inaccurate statements on the attestation form alone need to result in a court martial? In peacetime (at least) I have seen forms of men who were simply dismissed for inaccurate statements on the attestation from, quoting a clause in King's Regulations. Serial enlisters would be different and I have seen inaccurate statemenst on the attestation in a group of charges for a court martial.

RM

[Uncle George]

16 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

That’s a really good question Dave and I don’t know the answer.  You have made me curious as to whether that caveat was just a WW1 development (as I’m inclined to suspect) or whether it also appeared on prewar enlistment documents.  I can’t recall seeIng that wording previously.

The first page of Robertson’s memoir:

 

[PRC]

56 minutes ago, rolt968 said:

Would inaccurate statements on the attestation form alone need to result in a court martial? In peacetime (at least) I have seen forms of men who were simply dismissed for inaccurate statements on the attestation from, quoting a clause in King's Regulations. Serial enlisters would be different and I have seen inaccurate statemenst on the attestation in a group of charges for a court martial.

Court martial is the criteria @knittinganddeath has stated they are working to, and that straight away takes it beyond the run of the mill mis-statment as to age cause for discharge and the like.

I could see how the specific fraudulent statement made on enlistment might be included in the list of charges if the army was effectively throwing the book at someone, and using it as further evidence of bad character and unreliability as a witness, but I suspect, (gut feeling that there will not be a single instance where that is the sole or even lead charge the court martial was asked to consider. A serial enlister would also be a serial deserter, and I would suggest that, with potentially a far higher tariff than the civil criminal penalties at stake for making a fraudulent statement on enlistment, desertion would be likely to be the lead charge for the army trial. It would also keep his punishment in house.

Happy to be proved wrong as I have no expertise of military law and administration.

Cheers,
Peter

[knittinganddeath]

@PRC Thank you for your thoughts. You make some very good points. The topic is a bit of a hydra to say the least and I'm still figuring out how to get it under control. For example, I had not given much thought to serial enlisters before this thread, but now I think they may be quite an interesting group.

You also made me realise that I've defined fraudulent enlistment too narrowly. Initially it seemed easier to go with the military's definition but now I see that I'm actually interested in any lies that were told upon enlistment, especially concerning name, age, and gender, and regardless of whether they resulted in a court-martial or not. On that note, @Perth Digger did some work on this a few years back (thread here) and discovered that c-ms for fraudulent enlistments did indeed take place, although they seem very few in the grand scheme of things. As you said, the military would have little interest in pursuing a c-m if the soldier was not causing other trouble.

[FROGSMILE]

1 hour ago, Uncle George said:

The first page of Robertson’s memoir:

 

Thanks uncle George.  I should have remembered that passage, but my excuse is that I read it around 30-years ago.  Where does the time go…🤔

Edited 10 June , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[Perth Digger]

This may be useful.

Mike

https://www.academia.edu/40900001/Military_Discipline_in_the_Royal_West_Kent_Regiment_in_the_Great_War

[FROGSMILE]

One other particular caveat that I can recall as being a concern of the Army during attestation related to young enlistees who were already undergoing an articled apprenticeship.  Apparently there were a sufficient number of these for the Army to penalise those who made a false declaration having fled their masters via enlistment.  I don’t know if the prevalence of such offences has ever been measured and recorded.

Edited 10 June , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[PRC]

32 minutes ago, knittinganddeath said:

I'm actually interested in any lies that were told upon enlistment, especially concerning name, age, and gender, and regardless of whether they resulted in a court-martial or not.

With my genealogy hat on, (and so back in my comfort zone I foresee several cans of worms ahead of you. With adult literacy and numeracy far from universal you will find yourself trying to work out what is a lie, what is economical with the truth and what is down to life circumstances - and how do you keep those subjective distinctions rigidly separated so that you are not constantly revisiting the cases you have already looked at.

Most of us I'm sure have researched a soldiers with army records using some variation of the forenames at odds with what can be found in the civil record and\or some variation of the spelling of the surname - only to find contemporary newspaper reports showing that is it effectively a known as name in their family and community. Does that make it a lie by the standards of the time?

And children who have been "adopted" by stepfathers \ extended family \ neighbours and have taken their surname.  Until 1927 it's likely that +99% of those were totally undocumented and so the only legal basis to the name would be "common usage". Does that make it a lie? Or if the soldier concerned reverted to his birth name does that make it a lie - particularly if you can't know for certain if they made the change in their civil life before there was any idea of signing up.

Birth name versus baptised name - they vary just often enough to make it an issue, and thats before you factor in clerical errors and illiteracy, (and of course subsequent transcription errors on genealogy sites when you can't see the source document or it no longer exists). Is the use of either to enlist a "truth" or is one a lie.

Age can be consistant with census returns but inconsistant with the original birth registration. Were the parents mendacious when the child was young, innumerate or following that fairly standard practice of saying, for example, that if someone had had the seventeenth birthday they were now in their eighteenth year. They could put their hand on a stack of bibles and swear it was true and solemly mean it, but the basis of the calculation was at odds with what the army was asking them to state.

I would suspect gender differences, by which I presume you mean women serving as men, is likely to be an area that has been researched. I suspect it may be as a result of personal memoirs being used as a source as I cannot image many armed forces would want too much preserved showing how they had been duped.

Will be interesting to see what you decide to run with.

Cheers,
Peter

[kenf48]

2 hours ago, knittinganddeath said:

I'm actually interested in any lies that were told upon enlistment, especially concerning name, age, and gender, and regardless of whether they resulted in a court-martial or not.

 

Three examples from newspapers courtesy of BNA:

Serial Enlistment, September 1915:

 

As an aside George Coppard noted after attesting at Croydon, "On arrival at Stoughton...a roll call took place and there were two or three absentees. Could it be they attested merely to get two shillings and ninepence?"

Under age sent home from France Bedfordshire Times 4 August 1916:

It appears the Army either ignored false statements as to age, as in the excerpt above a man's age on enlistment was his "Army Age", and when discovered they either sent them home or they were posted on Base Details at Etaples.

George Coppard (again) was aged sixteen and seven months when he attempted to enlist in August 1914.  He was told by the recruiting sergeant to "come back tomorrow when you are nineteen".  He duly did so and was attested.  In his memoir he reproduces a letter sent by the Record Office at Hounslow to an uncle when the family were seeking his discharge due to his age, the response was  "...beg to state his age on enlistment was given as 19 years and seven months, that. his therefore his official age, and it is regretted that your request for his discharge cannot be aceeded to." 12th February 1916.

and finally a rare example of gender misrepresentation from the notorious Mill Hill Medical Board August 1916 (widely syndicated):

Same event Birmingham Daily Post 15 August 1915 slightly easier to read:

 

it is not clear whether she attested but her motivation seems clear, apparently no penalty ensued.  

These are random examples saved in pursuant of my interest in recruitment and the Local Tribunals. They provide evidence that the authorities would pursue fraudulent claims in the civil courts where money was involved, from the Major's comments it seems quite common unlike misrepresentation as to gender.

It is likely that with the introduction of the Military Service Act when men who came within the terms of the Act were all, "deemed to have enlisted" as with under age soldiers whilst not completely ended, fraudulent enlistments would be greatly reduced.

 

 

[knittinganddeath]

@kenf48 Thank you for these examples! I'm surprised by the relatively short sentence for the serial enlister -- I found a case in Wales of men who kidnapped ducks in 1915, and who got 2 months hard labour. Your observation about the law getting involved primarily when money was on the line is very useful.

@PRC Thank you for this information, I didn't realise the problem of (il)literacy was so widespread. Maybe I'm spoiled by reading German documents. I can still work with the topic, but the angle will change. Must think about it more.

 

6 hours ago, Perth Digger said:

This may be useful.

It is, thank you!