Nelson & His World

Does anyone happen to know the minimum age for enlistment as a Private in the Marines in 1805?

Tony

I just took a quick look at the Ayshford Trafalgar Roll. It gives ages in 1805 but doubtless some were fairly raw recruits so I think this gives a good pointer.

There were - wait for it - 3 Marine drummers at Trafalgar aged 10, 12 & 13.

There must have been exceptional circumstances re boys who could serve as drummers.

Then there was just one aged 11 with the rank "Boy". That is very much a one-off and I am guessing it might be an error??!!

Then loads and loads, with the ranks of Boy or Private kick in at age 14.

So I am thinking that the normal recruitment age was 14 - with some exception for the Drummers.

MB

Amongst the "seamen" there was one boy aged 8 years and three aged 9 years.

MB

Mark,

Interesting post. We presume that the Ayshford Roll is correct, but it would seem to be at variance with what I have read elsewhere. As opposed to the army who did traditionally employ drummer boys, this was seemingly (according to my reading) not the case with the Royal Marines where drummers were recruited as 'adult', ie. presumably around sixteen. I can't remember the reference, but I'll see if can find it again. Contrary to this, there are other references to marine drummers as young as ten.

Kester

Further to Tony's post I was deliberately looking at the younger age-range. So I just opened up the database again and looked at all the Marine drummers.

There are 45 that have an age shown against them - and the spread is actually quite large.

10 - 1
12 - 1
13 - 1
14 - 3
15 - 7
16 - 4
17 - 5
18 - 4
19 - 4
20 - 3
21 - 3
22 - 1
24 - 2
25 - 1
26 - 1
27 - 1
28 - 1
29 - 1
39 - 1

Just wondering if anyone has ever worked out the average age of all the men at Trafalgar. I suppose it would be the low 20's. would certainly be an interesting project

MB

My question was prompted by the ages listed in the Ayshford Trafalgar Roll, which for marines, as ages are not shown in the muster books, are calculated from the the enlistment date and the age at enlistment in the Description Books (ADM158). I was surprised to find that at the ages of 15, 16 and 17 there were both Marines enlisted as Boys and also Marines enlisted as Privates. I was expecting to see a cut off age below which they enlisted as boys and above which they enlisted as privates. Why were some enlisted as one and some as the other?

By the way, while it does not calculate average ages, the Ayshford Trafalgar Roll does include some graphs of the age distribution of various categories of men (in the FAQ section). Looking at them, although there were more men in their early twenties than any other age band, I would guess the average would be in the late twenties, as there were many more seamen aged over thirty than under twenty. The age distribution for marines is quite different, with a much greater proportion below twenty, a much flatter distribution of ages between 15 and 30., but a steeper drop off above the age of 30.

Tony

I would have said that the age had to be 14 - and that all the 14 year-olds on the ATR had only enlisted in the months prior to Trafalgar.

Then I flicked through a few books, including Roy and Lesley's "Jack Tar" - and in there they refer to a boy who joined the Marines in 1795 aged 12.

So now I simply don't know.

It does make you realise that there is no comprehensive book available about the Marines during the Nelson era. Assuming there is not one out there that I missed. That sounds like a book waiting to be written??!!

MB

Mark,

Now there's something for you to get your teeth into!

From the list then, it looks as though the majority of drummers were between the ages of 15 and 21, before the number drops down again. In the piece that I read the author may have been generalising as, obviously, there were drummers at a much more 'tender age' than that. I would also imagine that it may also have been usual that a drummer, who had reached the age of 21, either went on to play another instrument or, more likely, was expected to become a private, ie. with a 'shooting stick' rather than a drum stick.

Tony,

I would imagine that a youth was recorded as either a boy or a man, depending purely on the judgement of the recruiting sergeant(?) or whoever made the entry. I imagine there may have been regulations as how a record was made, but they perhaps were not always followed and it might have been intially difficult to assess a young man's age – nothing new there then!

Thanks, both, for your input. But their age (or at least their stated age) was known - it was recorded at the time of enlistment - so why enlist one sixteen year old as a private and another as a boy?

But there appears to be something different (other than rank) about the status of boys and privates. I have come across the comment against a private 'joined as a boy before enlisting as private'. For some other privates the date recorded as the date of enlistment is later than the date they joined as a boy. In other words boys don't seem to class as enlisted.

Brian Lavery, in Nelson's Navy states that 'in 1804 , the regulations were altered to allow the recruitment of boys, who were to be paid as men on reaching the age of fifteen'.

There seems to have been confusion as to whether marines were enlisted indefinitely, or for a fixed period, or for the duration of the war. I am wondering whether boys were enlisted for a shorter period, and thus whether a recruit might elect to be recruited as a boy - even though this might perhaps be at a lower rate of pay and perhaps not be eligible for the bounty?

Another possibility is simply that the ages in the description books were inaccurately recorded. The notes to the Ayshford Trafalgar Roll do comment that they sometimes differ from the ages of the same men in other records.

Brian Lavery also states that: 'Drummers were senior to privates, being paid at the maximum rate for a private of fourteen years service in 1808. Unlike the army, the marines do not seem to have used boys in this role.' - Perhaps this is the reference you are looking for, Kester.

On second thoughts, Kester, you might be on the right track here! In 1804, the regulations were also changed to reduce the standards for men, so that those of more than 5ft 2in were to be accepted. Doing a very quick check on a very small sample of sixteen-year-olds, those recruited as private are all 5ft 2in and above, and those recruited as boy are all 5ft 2in and below.

Tony,

Well I would imagine that, human fallibility being what it is, the incorrect recording of a boy's age could be something that simple! However, I would agree there would seem to be confusion regarding the whole area of recruitment. The quote by Lavery is probably the one I was remembering.

I found the following factsheet on the Royal Marines Band site. You will see that it touches on a few things, which might have a bearing on the discussion:

http://www.royalmarinesbands.co.uk/refe ... s_hist.htm

At a meeting of the Privy Council held in July 1804, the Admiralty proposed - as a result of the shortage of recruits for the Royal Marines - that

"we may be authorized to give the necessary orders for enlisting into H M corps of Royal Marines, stout boys of promising appearance, between the ages of thirteen and sixteen years, from five feet to five feet two inches high; That they be allowed a Bounty upon their final approval at Head Quarters…sufficient for their equipment but not exceeding half the amount allowed to recruits in general; That they be allowed pay at the rate of sixpence a day, and be embarked on board Your Majesty’s ships as soon as possible after joining Head Quarters in the proportion of one to eight of the party established for a Ship of each class…and that when they attain the age of seventeen years, and are of the stature prescribed…the Captain of the Ship on board of which they are embarked, judging them capable of performing the duty of an efficient Marine, shall with the concurrence of the senior officer of the Royal Marines of such Ship, cause them to be to be brought upon the effective strength of the Detachment.”

The proposal was agreed and enshrined in an Order in Council.

Seventeen was presumably the minimum age for normal enlistment.

Privates, incidentally, were paid between 8 and 10 pence a day according to length of service and drummers 10 pence a day.


Brian

Brian,

Thanks for that. Your quote above would seem to concur with my earlier surmise that when no longer drummer boys, individuals tranferred to being marine privates. I would agree though, 17 sounds a much more likely age!

There are are also one or two telling sentences in the fact sheet from the RM Bands website: 'The early drummers were little more than boys, some being as young as ten when taking the 'King's shilling', the term given to enlistment. They were taught the fife as well as the drum but unlike today were completely separate from the band being first and foremost soldiers.'

As regards a drummer's pay, the factsheet goes on to say, 'In 1797 a drummer's pay (which incidentally was the same as a Cpl) was one shilling a day on shore and 8 old pennies a day whilst at sea.'

Thanks Kester!

It is notorious of course, that few things in the Georgian Navy were what they seemed - particularly the confusion between formal rank and real authority. The existence of 'Servants' and 'Able Seamen' who turn out to be sprigs of the aristocracy, for example; and the confusing use of the word 'captain' to describe both the lordly person who held post rank and humbler one who did not, but merely happened to command an often tiny vessel.
This business of 'Drummers' is equally puzzling. If Drummers were largely boys, then how come their pay was so high? The details and tables given in the 'Regulations and Instructions for His Majesty's Service at Sea' as codified in 1808, which are freely available and loadable on the net, show clearly that drummers received the same pay as privates of ten years service ie 10 pence a day. Odd if they were little boys! Perhaps in reality the 'rank' of 'Drummer' could only held by men (viz over 17?), though 'appointments' to the job could be given to younger folk who retained their substantive rank, and pay, as boys if they were younger?

And what was so responsible about being a Drummer that it was able to command such a comparatively high rate of pay? Particuarly if the job could be done adequately by a little boy.

If any members of this Forum are drummers , I hasten to apologise for any slight!

Brian

Thanks, Brian, for the details of the Order in Council for the recruiting of boys. That certainly seems to confirm that from 1804 it was size that determined whether those marines below 17 were recruited as privates or as boys. Of those aged 16 and 17 in the Ayshford Trafalgar Roll, as Mark observed, the vast majority had been recruited in late 1804 or 1805, but there are a handful of 17 and 18 year old privates that had been recruited in 1803 at the age of 15 and 16. Whether that was within the regulations is entirely another matter!

My original query was prompted by the possible age discrepancy in the information on the Minotaur marine private who BabaAndrew has posted about in the member's forum.