petercharleskennedy wrote:Somewhere I read that the age to serve overseas was twenty "under the amendments made by the Secretary of State for War, Hugh Childers, to the Cardwell Reforms of the Army 1881". Can't find the reference now.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE said, that he understood the noble Earl (the Earl of Morley) had stated that no soldiers would be sent abroad who had served less than one year. He (Lord Oranmore and Browne) believed, however, that a regiment had been ordered on foreign service—namely, to Gibraltar or Malta, containing 300 men, who had only been in the ranks for three months. Was it so?
THE EARL OF MORLEY , in reply, said, that what he had said referred to the despatch of men on active foreign service. Men below the age of 20, and who had served less than one year, had been sent with the battalions which were to form the garrisons at Gibraltar and Malta, replacing the battalions which had proceeded from these places to the field. He saw no objection to this, for these young soldiers would not be sent into the field; but he did not see why they should not be trained at Gibraltar or Malta just as well as at Portsmouth or Plymouth."
A great deal of pressure had been put on the Government in that House and in India not to send young soldiers there, and after considerable discussion it was decided that no soldier should go to India as a recruit who was under a year's service, or under 20 years of age."
SEAFORTH HIGHLANDERS (1ST. BATT.).
HC Deb 06 May 1897 vol 48 c1614 1614
§MR. F. B. MILDMAY (Devon, Totnes) I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can inform the House how many men it was necessary to transfer from the 2nd Battalion Seaforth Highlanders (home coming from India) to the 1st Battalion of the same regiment, now stationed in Crete, in order that the latter battalion might be made up to proper strength for foreign service?
§MR. BRODRICK The relief of the Seaforth Highlanders was carried out in complete accordance with the system of linked battalions. The one linked battalion relieved the other. The battalion coming home left 500 men for further foreign service; these the battalion going abroad took over, leaving at home about 250 men, mostly below the age for foreign service, to complete the home-coming battalion on its arrival. When, therefore, the 1st Battalion was ordered to Crete it was not necessary to transfer any men to it. The battalion was already at full strength of men in the best condition as to age and service."
Last year over 9,000 men were sent to India and of those not a single man was under 20, or of less than one year's service. These facts ought to be taken into consideration by those who only saw the worst of the short service system."
(which begs the question of what happened when both battalions were abroad?).
SWB wrote:(which begs the question of what happened when both battalions were abroad?).
surely they went to the regimental depot (in the UK)?
It might leave the four depot companies stripped of old soldiers
SWB wrote:not always, I have an LSGC to a soldier of the South Wales Borderers who spent 24 years in the UK between 1883 and 1908 - he missed campaigns in Burma and South Africa and postings to Gibraltar, Egypt, Malta and India, how?
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 0 guests