Accompanying wives

[Beth]

My great x 3 uncle, Richard Duty, born 1838, joined the 2nd Battalion 19th Foot in June 1860.
He married whilst on furlo' in December 1861
His wife appears to have accompanied him for the rest of his army life, for his children were born where the battalion was stationed. (The first, in Ireland, in 1863; the second & third in Tonghoo, Burma, 1865 & '67; the fourth in Bangalore in 1869)
His army life seems to have been cut short by illness - he spent the last nine months of his service in the sanitorium at Kussowlie, near Shimla.
He left India for England on 17th November 1870 & was back in his home village by April 1871, when the family was recorded in the census of that year (as Doughty)

I understand that lots were drawn to determine which wives should accompany the battalion on their postings but, if this were the case here, they would seem to have had exceptional luck!

They both came from very poor, agricultural labourer families; I find it impossible to believe that they could have paid for her passage themselves. He was illiterate & remained a private for the whole period.

Did some regiments pay for all wives to come?

I have looked at the pay rolls/muster rolls for the period covering his service & can find no mention of any wives "on the strength"; however women & children are mentioned in the report of the regimental surgeon.

Any thoughts would be most welcome

[FROGSMILE]

My great x 3 uncle, Richard Duty, born 1838, joined the 2nd Battalion 19th Foot in June 1860.
He married whilst on furlo' in December 1861
His wife appears to have accompanied him for the rest of his army life, for his children were born where the battalion was stationed. (The first, in Ireland, in 1863; the second & third in Tonghoo, Burma, 1865 & '67; the fourth in Bangalore in 1869)
His army life seems to have been cut short by illness - he spent the last nine months of his service in the sanitorium at Kussowlie, near Shimla.
He left India for England on 17th November 1870 & was back in his home village by April 1871, when the family was recorded in the census of that year (as Doughty)

I understand that lots were drawn to determine which wives should accompany the battalion on their postings but, if this were the case here, they would seem to have had exceptional luck!

They both came from very poor, agricultural labourer families; I find it impossible to believe that they could have paid for her passage themselves. He was illiterate & remained a private for the whole period.

Did some regiments pay for all wives to come?

I have looked at the pay rolls/muster rolls for the period covering his service & can find no mention of any wives "on the strength"; however women & children are mentioned in the report of the regimental surgeon.

Any thoughts would be most welcome

Regiments did not pay for wives to come and generally only 6 per company were permitted, having been selected 'by lot' , as you have said (the tickets read - 'To Go'/'Not To Go'). That given, it was not uncommon for a few wives to 'stow away' on the troopship (having bribed a crew member in ways that can only be imagined). However, this was never more than a few and they took their lives into their own hands, as they were not rationed (relying on a man to feed them from his own rations) and once they arrived were totally unsupported other than what they could earn by their own artifice.

You can read about all this in some excellent books from the library. I know of at least two:

1. On the Strength: Story of the British Army Wife (ISBN: 0853142319 / 0-85314-231-9)
Veronica Bamfield

2. Following the Drum: The Lives Army Wives and Daughters Past and Present [ISBN-10: 0755312597
ISBN-13: 978-0755312597] Annabel Venning

Also check out this interesting website regarding children: http://www.archhistory.co.uk/taca/history.html

[Peter]

Beth,

More information here:

Researching individual army wives, widows & children, viewtopic.php?f=82&t=463

[Les Waring]

Les Waring here.

You might, if you can get hold of them, consult the first-hand accounts by Ryder, ‘Metcalfe’ and especially Waterfield, which I mentioned on the ‘Good conduct Pay’ thread. There are interesting comments on wives and children relating to topics such as: separation on embarkation of a regiment, voyages to/from India by sea, ‘forced’ marriage of young girls to much older NCOs, implied mass infidelity by wives of another regiment with men of the 32nd (while their husbands were serving elsewhere, of course.) Waterfield, who comments on these topics, never indulged in such practices, naturally; indeed he seems to have been a misogynist, if not an out-and-out misanthropist, not recommending marriage to serving soldiers.

Interesting is the total lack of mention of liaisons/marriages with Indian women; many hundreds of adult males over 12 years in India with the 32nd and nothing! One suspects that this was a taboo topic. My feeling, though I haven’t been able to research it, is that (apart from the obvious attraction of a bounty) many of the men who volunteered to other regiments, especially when their’s were due to return to Britain, did so because they had acquired Indian wives/children who would i) not have their passages ‘home’ paid ii) would be decidedly unwelcome back ‘home’. Swiney (see below) hints as such when he mentions the ‘European’ women of the 32nd massacred at Cawnpore (Kanpur.) Metcalfe certainly waited till he got back to Britain (Ireland?) before very rapidly acquiring a wife, though she gets very little mention in his memoir, not even a name. I suspect that his memoir was dictated to a family member, who would have all the details of family life to hand. Since she seems to have accompanied him to his various postings from there on, I guess that once a wife was ‘on the strength’ she would stay on it for future postings and not be subjected to the lottery.

Again, at least some regiments (I’d be interested in hearing details of others) seem to have taken the education of their children seriously. The 32nd had a Schoolmaster Sergeant, Edward Vaughan, who was recommended for, but did not receive, a V.C., at Lucknow. Mrs (later Lady) Inglis, wife of Lt. Col John Inglis who commanded the 32nd during its later years in India, took an active part in educating and improving the lives of the regiment’s children. Ryder also states that he learned to read and write in the army, his only service being with the 32nd. On the other hand, Metcalfe’s discharge papers state that, after a full career as a professional soldier with the 32nd , he was ‘not in possession of a certificate of education’, on retirement.

Whilst on the topic, I wonder if anyone can come up with info. to ‘beat’ the 32nd’s sad claim to be the ‘most massacred’ in terms of the women and children. The numbers, from the regiment’s depot coy., who died during the two-week siege of Cawnpore or were massacred after the surrender were ‘45 ‘European’ ladies and women and 54 children. ‘ (Swiney p.182.*)I think there were 4 ‘ladies’, whose deaths were obviously more regrettable than those of mere ‘women’ . * Swiney – Historical Records of the 32nd (Cornwall ) light Infantry.

About 30 women, 4 ‘ladies’ and an indeterminate number of children were with the bulk of the regiment during the Siege of Lucknow and I’m trying to identify as many of these as possible, without much luck so far (see my posting on the ‘Original Defenders…’ thread of the ‘Mutiny’ section.) Any help gratefully received.

Whilst the number of women and children who died/were killed on the retreat from Kabul (1842) may have been greater, they ‘belonged’ to a number of units, but perhaps there are cases of mass deaths of wives and children of an individual unit from cholera or other diseases, especially in India or the West Indies.

[grumpy]

Senior NCOs were entitled to be accompanied in the later Victorian period. The census returns for 1901 and 1901 were completed overseas by entire battalions and there are a surprisingly large number of "wives of" and dependants listed therein.

[Beth]

Fear Frogsmile, Peter, Les & Grumpy

Thank you all for your help. The information you give about the 32nd is fascinating Les & I'm looking forward to following up the references given both by you & by Frogsmile.

I have now realised that when I made my first post I was working on an incorrect assumption - having seen that Richard Duty's four eldest children were born overseas between 1863 -69, I automatically assumed that he would have come back to England between postings. This was obviously a silly error, based on what little I know about tours of duty in today's army.

In fact from the pay lists & muster rolls it is clear that after sailing for Rangoon from Cork, on 25th August 1863, Richard did not leave Burma/India again until 17th November 1870. He was always attached to the same regiment, 2nd/19th. At the time of sailing he must have been accompanied by his wife, Emma, & first baby. Emma would therefore only have needed to be lucky in the ballot once.

This raises some other interesting questions though.The battalion did not return to England between being posted in Ireland in the spring of 1861 & leaving for Burma in August 1863. During that period, Richard had two periods of furlough. During the first, from 1st November - 29th December 1861, he married his wife. (Interestingly, his marriage certificate records his occupation as 'labourer' rather than soldier). The second was longer, & ran from 1st November 1862 to 19th January 1863.

Presumably he would have needed permission to marry? Was such permission ever refused?

Given that he married in England, whilst the battalion was stationed in Ireland, would his wife have had any automatic right to join him over there? Given that their first child was born in Ireland in 1863, they evidently found a way. Presumably her husband would have had to find her fare?

When soldiers were given furlo', did they also receive an allowance to pay for their journey back home, or did they have to finance that themselves?

Thanks for any help
Beth

[Les Waring]

Beth.
Les W. here.(It's over 100°F in 'Monte' today, almost as bad as India,though without the flies, cholera and death by dehydration.)

Based only on my knowledge of the 32nd, I think a 'normal' tour of duty overseas, at least in India, was 10 years. The 32nd left Ireland in 1846 and didn't return to Britain until 1859 (at least H.M. (Queen) was there to receive them.) They were however, held back by the Crimean War and then the Mutiny/Rebellion. NCOs,other ranks and, I think, junior officers got no chance to return to Britain during that period unless their time was up.

Senior officers did get leave to Britain,though I'm not sure after how long. A couple did well for themselves there. John Inglis managed to marry Selina Thessiger, whose father's coming into government in 1857, probably didn't hinder his promotion to General and a knighthood, after his own heroic command of the Lucknow Garrison, of course. Maj./Col. William Case got a general's daughter in 1851 (as well as her sister), took them back to India and condemned them both to a life of widow/spinster-hood by getting killed at Chinhat on the day before the Lucknow Siege began. 'My man', Sam Lawrence, was a lowly ensign/lieutenant before Lucknow gave him his chance for glory and, from the muster rolls, seems to have taken every possible chance for leave while no fighting was going on (Irish blood!)but was in India continuously for 10 years.

Ryder completed his period of enlistment and, because he didn't like soldiering in India (a common theme) had to return under his own steam.He managed to pay his way by becoming a servant (his former occupation) of an HEIC (?) officer who was retiring(?) and thus got his passage paid, which was, I suppose, a common strategy. Waterfield, having served his time, was rejected for retirement after serving 12 years because of the Crimea.Eventually he managed to get away, just in time to avoid Lucknow, and travelled back to England with a detachment of sick and 'time-expired' men, so I presume he didn't have to pay his passage, at least he doesn't complain about that, as he (usually justifiably) does about everything else.

Best L.W.

[FROGSMILE]

Fear Frogsmile, Peter, Les & Grumpy

Thank you all for your help. The information you give about the 32nd is fascinating Les & I'm looking forward to following up the references given both by you & by Frogsmile.

I have now realised that when I made my first post I was working on an incorrect assumption - having seen that Richard Duty's four eldest children were born overseas between 1863 -69, I automatically assumed that he would have come back to England between postings. This was obviously a silly error, based on what little I know about tours of duty in today's army.

In fact from the pay lists & muster rolls it is clear that after sailing for Rangoon from Cork, on 25th August 1863, Richard did not leave Burma/India again until 17th November 1870. He was always attached to the same regiment, 2nd/19th. At the time of sailing he must have been accompanied by his wife, Emma, & first baby. Emma would therefore only have needed to be lucky in the ballot once.

This raises some other interesting questions though.The battalion did not return to England between being posted in Ireland in the spring of 1861 & leaving for Burma in August 1863. During that period, Richard had two periods of furlough. During the first, from 1st November - 29th December 1861, he married his wife. (Interestingly, his marriage certificate records his occupation as 'labourer' rather than soldier). The second was longer, & ran from 1st November 1862 to 19th January 1863.

Presumably he would have needed permission to marry? Was such permission ever refused?

Given that he married in England, whilst the battalion was stationed in Ireland, would his wife have had any automatic right to join him over there? Given that their first child was born in Ireland in 1863, they evidently found a way. Presumably her husband would have had to find her fare?

When soldiers were given furlo', did they also receive an allowance to pay for their journey back home, or did they have to finance that themselves?

Thanks for any help
Beth

Beth,

Yes, soldiers did need permission to marry and even after this requirement officially ceased (as a regulation) it continued to be practised in regiments by sheer weight of tradition. Even in the 1980s I appeared formally before my CO to ask permission to marry and he asked many probing questions. At the time of the regulation it was not by any means a given that permission would be granted and inquiries were made about the morals and background of the prospective bride (this reflecting the kind of women to be found frequenting barracks at that time).

Unlike Scotland and Wales Ireland was not a part of the Home Establishment but formed a separate command. This was largely because of the history of troubles there, in particular the great uprising involving Wolf Tone C1798. It would not therefore have been a straightforward matter for him to transport his wife there, although it was possible to get an advance of pay providing he could justify the expense.

It would be wrong to think that all soldiers hated service in India, as a good many of them relished it and prospered well there, often transferring to stay longer if their health remained robust. It was generally those of a gregarious nature who were prepared to immerse themselves in the local culture who did well. I have seen this factor in my own service. There are those soldiers (and often their wives) who stay within the confines of the barracks and try and create a 'little Britain', and there are those who go out and mix with the natives, learning a form of their language and often taking up with local women. There were far more of these in India than is given credit for.

I do urge you to obtain the two books I have quoted above from the library. As well as increasing your knowledge of the time, they will provide you with a list of targeted reading via the bibliographies.

[Beth]

Hi Les,
I envy you your 100 degrees, it's really cold here in England!
Thanks once more for such interesting information about the 32nd. They certainly saw more than their fair share of action didn't they? They seem to have figured in so many of the mid-nineteenth century flashpoints.Taken over their entire tour of duty, their losses from battle must have been pretty large; & that on top of the various nasty diseases that they would have endured.

Things were so different then weren't they? Ten years was a pretty long time to be away in India. My chap was a humble private & remained so for his entire career. He was illiterate when he married in 1861 - I wonder now if he was taught to read & write in the army. According to the muster rolls, he spent more or less his last year in the army "sick in Kussowlie", a convalescent station near Shimla. I haven't been able to find out what was wrong with him, nor can I find his discharge papers - but from the information in the muster rolls he was sent home with other sick & "time expired" men. It can't have been too debilitating though, I'm pretty sure he lived on into his late 60s.

What I didn't think to check when I was in the National Archives was how long his battalion stayed on in India after he left. Compared to the 32nd, the 2nd/19th seem to have had a pretty easy run in Burma/India. Whilst in Burma, my chap was on detachment in Tonghoo. (One company was there, the other nine were stationed at Thayetmyo). He remained in Tonghoo until the end of January 1868, when the whole battalion moved south to Bangalore. As far as I can see, they weren't involved in any major conflicts - shows how variable your chances were I guess.

Thanks again for your help & interesting information
Beth

[Beth]

Hello Frogsmile,

Thanks once again for your informed & helpful comments. I'm looking forward to reading the books you recommended as soon as the library can get hold of them for me!

It's a very interesting & fair comment you make regarding the different attitudes displayed by men (& their wives) to service in India. I seem to remember that in the very early days of the East India Company some of the senior British officers were fairly well integrated into Moghul society. But that as time went on, this became less acceptable. Such a shame.

Thanks again
Beth

[FROGSMILE]

Hello Frogsmile,

Thanks once again for your informed & helpful comments. I'm looking forward to reading the books you recommended as soon as the library can get hold of them for me!

It's a very interesting & fair comment you make regarding the different attitudes displayed by men (& their wives) to service in India. I seem to remember that in the very early days of the East India Company some of the senior British officers were fairly well integrated into Moghul society. But that as time went on, this became less acceptable. Such a shame.

Thanks again
Beth

Yes, there was a fear that they had gone native (as they often adopted the far more comfortable native dress for the climate when off duty), as well as the exoticism of their oiled, bejeweled and often lissome wives, which caused alarm amongst the clergy and their wives. This in turn created a form of scandal back in Britain as the tabloids of the day stirred up a 'Christian' moral outrage that led to a change in attitudes. Soon a system developed of sending suitable potential brides to India and/or encouraging men (officers) to return home and find an 'acceptable' bride. This was eventually one of the many factors that laid a seed in the creation of conditions to set the 1857 mutiny in train, in that the officers became far more distant from their sepoys (native soldiers) than had hitherto been the case.

[Les Waring]

Les W. again.

Another of the methods for 'providing' wives for subalterns, esp.of HEIC regiments, in the period when 'going native' and having a fully Indian wife (or two for more senior officers) was becoming 'unacceptable' (I'd say from about the mid-1840s on) was the holding of dances and tea parties at orphanages for daughters of dead 'European' and 'Eurasian' soldiers and administrators, of which there was a ready supply and the girls were often very young. A quick turn on the dance floor, a cup of tea, and the match was made.

The Mutiny/Rebellion of 1857 was certainly the big turning point for this kind of thing as for so much else. The Army of British India was professionalized and officers had to get 'proper' European wives of an appropriate social standing if they wanted promotion. A social-cultural gap was opened up between Indians and British with far more rigid barriers than had existed before; don't forget that there was a revival within Hinduism, which meant that the separation wasn't all from one side. And the Northwest Frontier, where the bulk of British troops were stationed after the Anglo-Sikh Wars wasn't a place for women; few Europeans would tolerate or survive it, local women were (and still are) not to be seen, or else.

[Beth]

Again thank you Frogsmile & Les for your interesting & informative comments. Sadly 'moral outrage' of one sort or another often seems to get in the way of people developing an understanding of another people or culture; in India, with the mutiny/rebellion, the results were especially unfortunate, to say the least.

[Maureene]

Some further information on some previous comments:

Interesting is the total lack of mention of liaisons/marriages with Indian women; many hundreds of adult males over 12 years in India with the 32nd and nothing! One suspects that this was a taboo topic

The FIBIS Fibiwiki has a page called Public Health which includes some links about prostitution in British Army cantonments in India. Included is an online report called The Queen's Daughters in India by Elizabeth W. Andrew and Katharine C. Bushnell 1899 which is an investigation and report by two American missionaries into the government sanctioned brothels in British Army cantonments
http://wiki.fibis.org/index.php?title=Public_health

Whilst on the topic, I wonder if anyone can come up with info. to ‘beat’ the 32nd’s sad claim to be the ‘most massacred’ in terms of the women and children. The numbers, from the regiment’s depot coy., who died during the two-week siege of Cawnpore or were massacred after the surrender were ‘45 ‘European’ ladies and women and 54 children. ‘ (Swiney p.182.*)I think there were 4 ‘ladies’, whose deaths were obviously more regrettable than those of mere ‘women’ . * Swiney – Historical Records of the 32nd (Cornwall ) light Infantry...

Whilst the number of women and children who died/were killed on the retreat from Kabul (1842) may have been greater, they ‘belonged’ to a number of units, but perhaps there are cases of mass deaths of wives and children of an individual unit from cholera or other diseases, especially in India or the West Indies.

A link on the FIBIS Fibiwiki page "78th Regiment of Foot" says "The regiment lost, between the 1st September 1844 and 30th April 1845, 3 officers, 532 men, 68 women and 134 children, - total 737 souls "
http://wiki.fibis.org/index.php?title=7 ... nt_of_Foot

What I didn't think to check when I was in the National Archives was how long his battalion stayed on in India after he left. Compared to the 32nd, the 2nd/19th seem to have had a pretty easy run in Burma/India. Whilst in Burma, my chap was on detachment in Tonghoo. (One company was there, the other nine were stationed at Thayetmyo). He remained in Tonghoo until the end of January 1868, when the whole battalion moved south to Bangalore. As far as I can see, they weren't involved in any major conflicts - shows how variable your chances were I guess.

Toungoo was considered a considered a Frontier Station.
http://wiki.fibis.org/index.php?title=Toungoo

The FIBIS Fibiwiki page 19th Regiment of Foot has details of deployments
http://wiki.fibis.org/index.php?title=1 ... nt_of_Foot

1861 Ireland
1863 Burma
1868 India
<1876> India: Ranikhet
1876.06 at sea
1876 England
Regiments.org

Cheers
Maureen

[Beth]

Thanks for all this interesting information Maureene, I'll look carefully at the fibis website.
Beth