mikebriggs Posted 19 April , 2007 Share Posted 19 April , 2007 In search through the Pension Records I came across this entry. Private Harry Bull of Chesterfield enlisted into the 3/6th Battalion Sherwood Foresters on the 20th July 1915 aged 19. He was discharged on 22nd July because he was 'irregularly enlisted' King's Reg’s Para 393 (ii) I've check the King’s Reg’s and the offer no more insight Thoughts anyone Thanks Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Clark Posted 19 April , 2007 Share Posted 19 April , 2007 I venture that his enlistment was not lawful for some reason or other. Perhaps he was found to be medically unfit or his enlistment papers were not properly endorsed etc.. I've never come across this term before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 19 April , 2007 Share Posted 19 April , 2007 Perhaps he was some kind of civil/public servant, some of whom were prohibited from enlisting without the prior consent of their employer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebriggs Posted 19 April , 2007 Author Share Posted 19 April , 2007 Perhaps he was found to be medically unfit Thanks Neil That got me thinking and I found this Not sure what it is though. Also he was 5' 1", which was below the 5' 3" minimum - perhaps another reason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebriggs Posted 19 April , 2007 Author Share Posted 19 April , 2007 Perhaps he was some kind of civil/public servant, some of whom were prohibited from enlisting without the prior consent of their employer. Thanks SG He was a miner, as were many of the Derbyshire TF men..........but agree they might have been a reserved occupation by July '15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Clark Posted 19 April , 2007 Share Posted 19 April , 2007 I think that some men were rejected for lack of height in the early stages of the war however these men were later enlisted into Bantam battalions. These battalions went on to give sterling service throughout the world... One would imagine his height would have been picked up quite easily. I can't quite make out the comment re minor medical defects, perhaps someone with a medical knowledge will be able to help out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Morgan Posted 19 April , 2007 Share Posted 19 April , 2007 I would hazard a guess that the recruit was under-age, having enlisted without his parents' knowledge and his family had raised the matter while he was still training in the UK. The slight defect referred to is, "Small Physique." Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T8HANTS Posted 19 April , 2007 Share Posted 19 April , 2007 There is also the possibility that he had already enlisted with another Battalion. Had not been called up immediately, got bored or impatient, regretted his original choice, etc. So he then went an enlisted again hoping for a better deal. I have come across reports of this happening elsewhere. Gareth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redescort Posted 19 April , 2007 Share Posted 19 April , 2007 Mike Looks like Small Physique Ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebriggs Posted 19 April , 2007 Author Share Posted 19 April , 2007 Dear all Many thanks for the thoughts - they all seem very reasonable to me Tom, I thought about the possibility of him being under age and equipped with his details I hit the census records - unfortunately the site is 'down' at the moment (at least for me)............but it does remain a distinct possibility. I'm certainly thinking along the lines of height vs. under age (I can't see him on the MICs as enlisting later in the 15th (Bantam) SF though..........) cheers Mike Agree with all it does say "small physique" - many thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punjab612 Posted 19 April , 2007 Share Posted 19 April , 2007 Mike I think you may have an underage man here. Quick look at 1901 Census has a Harry Bull aged 3 living with his parents, Edith & Henry Bull (a bricklayer) at her parents house - 40 Staland (?) Street, Chesterfield. Don't know if this fits in with any names or addresses you have. If this is the guy he would be 17 in 1915 on enlistment Hope this helps Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebriggs Posted 20 April , 2007 Author Share Posted 20 April , 2007 Thanks Peter His mother was named Edith, although they were not living at that address by 1914 I think that you might have cracked it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apwright Posted 20 April , 2007 Share Posted 20 April , 2007 The birth of Harry BULL was registered in Chesterfield RD in Apr-May-Jun 1898 so, yes, he would have been 17 in July 1915. Adrian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebriggs Posted 20 April , 2007 Author Share Posted 20 April , 2007 Thats great - many thanks to everyone I've manged to view the Census records and its Sterland Street in Brampton (a few streets from where my grandad was living in 1914!) It looks like he lasted 3 days in the Army before his mum brought him home I'll have to see if he re-enlisted later in the War In the meantime here is a 1914 map of Brampton in Chesterfield. Sterland Street is top middle, Furnace Hill at the bottom. In between is Alma Street where my granddad and his brother (Tom) lived. Tom later enlisted into G Guards cheers Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daggers Posted 20 April , 2007 Share Posted 20 April , 2007 Great cooperative example of what this forum can do! Daggers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 21 April , 2007 Share Posted 21 April , 2007 Mike I think you may have an underage man here. Quick look at 1901 Census has a Harry Bull aged 3 living with his parents, Edith & Henry Bull (a bricklayer) at her parents house - 40 Staland (?) Street, Chesterfield. Don't know if this fits in with any names or addresses you have. If this is the guy he would be 17 in 1915 on enlistment Hope this helps Peter It was lawful to enlist at 14, but those under 18 were 'boys' and paid 8d per day. I am surprised that he was not retained, but as a 'boy'. Perhaps mum had a big handbag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apwright Posted 21 April , 2007 Share Posted 21 April , 2007 It was lawful to enlist at 14, but those under 18 were 'boys' and paid 8d per day. I am surprised that he was not retained, but as a 'boy'. Perhaps mum had a big handbag. There is also a Harry Leslie Bull, born Chesterfield RD in Jan-Feb-Mar 1903, who would have been only 12, but I thought that would be pushing the "Small Physique" bit rather too far? Still, you never know! Adrian 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