Minimum Age to join the british Army in 1886 ?

[Famer 1899]

Relatively we have a great del of information on the British Army during the WW1 and there are many stories of ancestora trying to join below the minimum age of 18

My specific interest is earler than that - 1886 to be exact

Looking at other forum threads I note sometimes the use of the words 'enrolled' and 'enlisted' - what do these words mean in practice?

My ancestor is 'attested' as a 'boy'  in July 1886 at the age of 14 years and 7 months ! He is 4foot 10 tall and weighs 83 pounds!

He joins the Duke of Cornwallis Light Infantry 2nd Battery and his profession is given as tailor!

I do note though that on Page 3 of his service record (titled statement of the Services) it only begins from 1889 when he reaches 18

However the period of 3 years and 5 months before that is later noted and included as time in calculating his 'GC pay and pension)

What were the age joining rules? what would he have been doing as a 'boy'? He was lucky it seems because before the Boer War of 1899 (when he was 28) his service was at 'Home' which appears to be going back and forward between England and Ireland

By the time of the end of his service in 1907 he has become a 'master tailor' so given his given profession when he joined at 14 years and 7 months of tailor - might I assume he spent most of his 'boy' years learning how to 'tailor' - he wouldn't have fought or been called to fight - would he?

Thanks for your interest and knowledge

Farmer

[Ians1900]

The minimum age at that time was fourteen to join as a 'boy' and eighteen to join as a man. Earlier during the American War of Independence there are instances of 'boys' being aged ten and twelve. Often under eighteens would lie about their ages in order to obtain a 'man's pay', but consequently if they did anything wrong they would either keep quiet and take a man's punishment or confess and have to pay back their pay and perhaps be discharged. Two of my ancestors lied about their ages and one was flogged aged just seventeen.

Boys would work as an apprentice does, but learning how to soldier. Some would be drummers and buglers, some would do other work and your ancestor was chosen to be a tailor. Each Regiment had its own Sergeant Master Tailor assisted by several lower ranks. As adults they would also be part of the Regiment's fighting force, but as a boy your ancestor would not. In battle they would if possible be kept in camp assisting with various jobs, except for buglers who would be with an officer on the firing line.

Enrolled or enlisted is simply a choice of words and there is no distinction between them.

So, your ancestor would have probably continued to be a Regimental tailor.

I hope this helps.

[Andy J2022]

Here's an extract from Queen's Regulations for the Army 1881 on the subject of boy soldiers

[Andy J2022]

Looking at other forum threads I note sometimes the use of the words 'enrolled' and 'enlisted' - what do these words mean in practice?

My ancestor is 'attested' as a 'boy'  in July 1886

The usual term used by the military is enlistment. This refers to the complete process from recruitment, initial assessment, medical examination, attestation and final approval of a recruit prior to his commencing recruit training.
The first two steps were the responsibility of the recruiting 'officer' (frequently a non commissioned officer for step one). The recruiting officer asked the potential recruit a series of questions intended to reveal any former service (and possibly any of bad character), establish the man's declared age and place of birth,  ensure that he was not an indentured apprentice and then to generally assess the man's fitness to be a soldier. Queen's Regulations specifically set the test: would the recruiting officer be happy to accept the man in his platoon? This assessment also included a basic appraisal of the man's physical condition as a preliminary before putting the man before a medical officer for a formal medical assessment. This was done because fairly often the medical officer was a local civilian GP who would be paid for each examination, and the War Office baulked at paying a doctor to declare a man unfit when this should have been obvious to the recruiting officer.
The potential recruit was then taken before a magistrate to be attested, that is, swear allegiance to the monarch of the day and promise to obey those set in authority over the would be soldier. Finally the paperwork was sent off to the approving officer, usually the commanding officer of the particular recruiting region. As is not untypical, the foot guards also had to further approve any recruit destined to join to the Brigade of Guards. 
Following this step the solider would be allocated his regimental number and begin his recruit training. If he was already eighteen or over, his reckonable service for the active service part of his engagement and any good conduct badges he might earn, would date from his attestation date. At that time all soldiers signed up for 12 years, but most soldiers including the infantry were only required to do 7 years active service followed by 5 years on the reserve. Certain branches such as the Household Cavalry had to complete the full 12 years active service, as did boy soldiers, which meant that if they joined aged 14, they would have to complete a minimum of 8 years man's service.
During the first three months in the Army the recruit was on probation and could be discharged for a number of reasons, usually falling under the heading of not being likely to make a good soldier. Conversely a recruit who changed his mind could buy himself out within the same three month period, if he paid £10 (considering his pay was 6d per day, this would represent roughly 4 times what he would have earned during the 3 month period, not allowing for stoppages for food and beer etc).
Once he had completed his recruit training he would join a draft of 20 men and be sent off to join the home service battalion of his regiment.

[Famer 1899]

This was my first post to the site. I was delighted when I got an email telling me I had replies to my post. So I would really like to thank Ians and AndyJ for your time, kindness and knowledge in providing me with such comprehensive answers

I write a small blog for my family on various ancestors so I am a bit of a jack on everything for the past 200 years but the master of none and certainly not this area - so brilliant thank you

Those Queen's Regulations from 1881 Andy, really 'seal the deal'.  Subsequent to posting I have found out more: Before the Childers Reforms of 1881 the 2nd Battalion of the Duke of Cornwall Light Infantry was the 46th South Devonshire Regiment of Foot - in which his father had been a colour sergeant when his service came to an end after 20 years - with an exemplary record

So his father would have had to give his permission but based on the 1881 Queen's Regulations being taken on as a tailor as a boy would have been a rare and coveted position with just one per 200 of the rank and file. So I guess some nepotism would have been at play in order to get my ancestor this position. Assuming the battalion was 1,000 soldiers this would have meant 5 boy tailors between the ages of 14 to 18 - so just one or two a year I assume?

[scrimnet]

Boy soldiers could also buy themselves out during training up until VERY recently.

Adults were always allowed to do it, but the cost was VERY prohibitive.

The reasoning behind it is that each boy (Junior Soldier/ Junior Musician) would cost a lot to train and if they sign up for an extra number of years (6, open 22...ie 6 years with an option to do the full 22 year service) they get extra pay for commitment and that has to be recouped to the public purse.

A false attestation is clearing defined in Kings /Queens Regulations and is an offence under the Army Act...ergo as a Parliamentary Act its the law of the land and is very bad news...ergo the reported 17 year old flogging as per above.

You could be jailed in a civilian jail after being dishonorably discharged. Stating an untruth in the army (lying) is one of the biggest no no's you could commit.

As bad as stealing another mans rations or stealing money from your comrades. In the 1980s if you were caught stealing from your comrades, you fingers would beheld over a table edge and a broomstick brought down upon them...Heavily...Very heavily. This was done by his comrades, usually unbeknownst to the chain of command. A form of army aversion therapy

[Famer 1899]

Dear Andy, Ians and Scrimnet (and everyone else of course!)

One thing I am still not entirely clear on is the taking on of 'boys' during the 1880's

I am clear that 'boys' were taken on to effectively apprentice as buglers, drummers, musicians and tailors under very strict ratio criteria to the number of men of the line in the battalion (see the queens Regulation 1881 - earlier this thread)

However were 'other' boys also signed up for service? If so, if they could not 'bare arms' until the age of 18 and were not musicians or tailors and therefore being trained in those roles, what would they have been doing for 4 years between 14 to 18?

I would like also to ask a couple more general questions

Good conduct pay - it seems to be a rise of one penny- was that one penny a day or week?

Pay- what would the weekly pay of a boy be? and what would the weekly pay of an adult private be?

The Duke of Cornwall Light Infanry 2nd Battalion seemed to be at HOME from 1885 to 1899 (when they were sent to South Africa to fight in the Boer War). My realtive joined in Devonport which I assume was the depot of the DoCLI. Would boys have remained at the depot until they reached 18?

If they were not at the depot but HOME - then what duties would a boy or normal soldier have done at HOME when there were no wars going on (the 1880's/1890's seemed pretty quiet unless you were abroad defending the Empire. though I realise Ireland was part of HOME and was always probably something of a powder keg)

Thanks for your wisdom and ideas on any and all of this queries 

[Andy J2022]

Hi Famer,

The maximum official number of boys in a typical battalion was around 10 at any one time, so roughly 2 per company. Most were either drummers or buglers. These soldiers were not ornamental: they were used to rely orders and mark out the military day with bugle calls.

Good conduct pay was paid at a daily rate. At this time a boy soldier would have been paid 6d per day and an adult soldier one shilling, However in both cases there were official stoppages which meant in reality most only received half of the respective amounts in their hands.

Going on to the employment of soldiers, once they had completed their recruit training they were dispatched to the regular battalions of the regiment (see the extract from QRs 1895 below). It would be wrong to assume that they were not employed during hostilities, they were. In the early part of the nineteenth century there are many stories of heroic actions by boy soldiers on the battlefield, during the Napoleonic Wars and the American War of 1812. The difference was that they were not expected to fight - although I'm pretty sure this rule would have been frequently broken when the opportunity arose.

One particular incident which changed this situation occurred at the battle of Isandlwana in the Anglo-Zulu war of 1879. The following extract is taken from the book Rorke's Drift: The Zulu War, 1879 by James Bancroft

"The dead on the battlefield at Isandhlwana were treated with disgusting savagery. They were disembowelled, and their entrails scattered amongst the debris. Some men were decapitated and their heads placed in a gruesome ring. But one sight more than any other sickened the men who visited the battlefield. The Zulus had seized five band-boys, and either tied them to wagons by their feet and slit their throats, or hung them on butchers hooks by their chins, sliced them up, then cut their privates off and put them in their mouths. Because of this incident boys were never again taken on active service by the British Army".

I'm not sure how true the last statement is - I've found no official statement of policy on the matter - but when the incident was reported in the newspapers, the public reaction was considerable.

The debates in Parliament at the time show that the politicians were more pragmatic. Here's Lord Cranbrook, the Secretary of State for War, in the House of Lords discussing the failures in the Zulu War, on 19 May 1879:

I agree that there is nothing more unfortunate than that a boy who is hardly fit to carry his musket and knapsack should be sent out to hard service abroad, and as that was never meant to be done, a number of the more youthful recruits were sent to the depôts. I do not, however, despair, as some do, of the fighting qualities of young men.
_{source: Hansard 19 May 1879}

The argument was that recruiting suitable men for the Army was difficult and that it was better to have a younger regular army trained and ready to fight, than it was to have an older, less fit army which relied on calling up the reservists when ever there was any serious fighting to be done. By rejecting or not employing willing boy soldiers the Army would lose a lot of people who went on to become career soldiers.

I think the public reaction to the events at Isandlwana did have a major effect on the subsequent employment of boy soldiers in the First and Second Boer wars. However, as is well known, this didn't dampen the enthusiasm of the boys themselves who often lied about their age in order to fight for their country. This was particularly true in the First World War.

[Famer 1899]

This is wonderful information again Andy and I love the use of the Queen's Regulations to support the concepts.

The information on pay is interesting - so a boy earns  about 6 pence a day and a new private (aged 18 ) 14 pence a day (1 shilling and twopence).

I see after two years my relative was entitled to an extra penny a day for good conduct. On another site I read an original extract from a soldier who qualified for an extra 2 pence a day for passing his 3rd class Education in 1904.

My relative does not have a 3rd Class education certificate on his service record so I am assuming (he signed his attestation papers in a strong, copperplate flourish!) his prior education was good enough for him to be deemed to have already reached that level, also, because 2 months later he gets his 2nd class Education certificate per his records.

Assuming he got two pence extra for both and then his good conduct pay of a penny 2 years later he has pushed up his pay from 6 pence to 11 pence by the age of 16! Do you think that could be correct?

I would like to ask you about 'stoppages' that you mentioned. Would these be for indiscretions, breaking of rules etc? or would they be for bona fide things? I don't know but maybe food? uniform?  bedding? I can't believe they had to pay for their own food and space in a barracks but .... maybe I'm wrong?

Many thanks
F 1899 !