Pension entitlements

[Ed McKie]

Does anyone know how long a soldier would have needed to have served to qualify for a pension from the army in the 1870s ?
Would seven years have been long enough ? Have not been able to identify how long they signed on for in those days.

Cheers..Ed

[Geoffers]

This TNA research guide gives some information on pensions
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/RdLeaflet.asp?sLeafletID=15

Up to 1883, soldiers were discharged on pension for either disability or on completion of 21 years service. After 1883, discharge could be for limited periods of engagement.

Geoffers

[Mythology]

But, while it is (as far as I am aware - I'm no military expert!) not relevant to Ed's case...

Don't believe everything you read on TNA leaflets.

With regard to Disability Pensions (Chelsea out-pensions, labelled "Cavalry and Infantry" in the catalogue) in WO116, that leaflet states:
"for disability, 1715-1882, in WO 116"
The only other reference to WO116 is in the Royal Artillery stuff:
"1833-1913 Royal Artillery pensions WO 116/125 to WO 116/185"

So - no records for Disability Pensions (Chelsea out-pensions) after 1882. :(
They seem to have forgotten that when the Royal Artillery stuff finishes, the ordinary "Cavalry and Infantry" stuff then re-starts at WO116/186, and, like the "Length of Service" ones in WO117, goes right up to 1913.
And, yes, I did point it out to them - about six or seven years ago, when, completely ignorant of army records so following their leaflet, I was unable to find my fellow, who I had a service record for, until a more knowledgeable friend said "Oh - that leaflet's [self-censored]" and pointed me in the right direction.

(Not that my fellow was actually disabled - he was awarded a Special Campaign Pension, and I guess they didn't know what to do about those, as WO116/242 is where it turned up, not in WO117, which I'd already checked.)

[Ed McKie]

As Myth said, the leaflet doesnt help much, except to confirm that my grandfather would not have got a pension as such just for service, and as far as I know he did not have a disability., I have a fairly full record of his service gleaned from the pay books of the 101st Regiment of foot, but no attestation papers or the like with which to identify his place of birth. Oh well, I was just thinking out loud really, am almost resigned to not knowing.

Chjeers..Ed

[Mythology]

"no attestation papers or the like"

Generally speaking, Ed (things do get lost, of course!), the two go together - they kept the service records for those with a pension, and binned the rest.

I do wonder, though (out of idle curiosity, he's nothing to do with me!) whether or not there's a service record for a Philip Copeman of the 70th Foot who did 6½ years and then bought himself out in December 1865.
He's in the pension *register* in 1909 just above my fellow. If anyone's looking for him, it says that he's aged 68, born in Norwich, and he was living in Sydney, New South Wales in 1909, but...
He seems to be there because he *applied* for a pension, but the application was evidently turned down - it has "Ineligible now for the award of a Campaign pension" (plus some other scribble that I can't read on the photocopy) scrawled where the pension amount would normally be, so it wouldn't surprise me if his service record got binned.

[Ed McKie]

"no attestation papers or the like"


He's in the pension *register* in 1909 .

Pensions Register ?? What is this Myth, havent come across previous mention of this. Have often wondered about what records there are of pensioners actually drawing their pensions, but have always drawn a blank on details.

Cheers..Ed

[Mythology]

That's what WO116 and WO117 are, Ed - they're registers, not individual folders like the service records.
Darned big ones at that - I don't suppose they're all exactly the same, I haven't exactly looked at a lot of these, so to say that I'm no expert would be an understatement, but the few brief lines for my fellow are scrawled across a double page spread, each page being about 14½ inches by 20½ inches - if I tried to scan these two pages on my cheapo ordinary A4 scanner, I'd need to do eight scans altogether.

The heading is (my emboldening) mostly printed...
CLAIMS TO PENSION SUBMITTED TO CHELSEA BOARD on
with the date stamped in...
30 SEP. 1909

Now, the general rule is "no service record, no pension" and, conversely, "no pension, no service record" - but the fact that it's a register of applications "submitted" rather than pensions actually *granted* does make me wonder whether the aforementioned Philip Copeman is an oddity or a reasonably common occurrence - and what they did with the service records of those who applied, so are in the register, but were turned down.

[Mythology]

The columns are (left-hand page):

Registered
Chelsea No.
Regiment
Rank
NAME and Regimental Number
SERVICE [divided into...]
-- Former Corps
-- Class for Pension [divided into...]
---- Wt.
---- I.
---- II.
---- III.
---- IV.
---- V.
-- Total
Board's decision - Pension in Pence
Foreign Service [divided into...]
-- Station
-- Y.
-- M.
Character
G.C. Badges

[Mythology]

and (right-hand page):

DISABILITY OR CAUSE OF DISCHARGE - Medical Report
Age at date of commencement of Pension
Description at date of Discharge [divided into...]
-- Height [divided into...]
---- Ft.
---- in.
-- Hair
-- Eyes
-- Complexion
Place of Birth, Trade and Intended place of Residence
Date of cessation of Service
Date when Pension begins
Date when Temporary Pension ends
DISTRICT
Date of sending out - A.F.D. 400 and A.F.D. 453

[Mythology]

Oh - and a slight correction. Re Philip Copeman, I said "he was living in Sydney, New South Wales in 1909".

That isn't what it says. The "DISTRICT" column says "Sydney N.S.W." but, as there's no "Intended place of Residence" shown for him (presumably they didn't bother as he was turned down), he may not have been in Sydney itself. My fellow has "Warley" in the "DISTRICT" column, but "High St Billericay Essex" as the "Intended place of Residence", which is where he was in 1909, not where he went to when he came out in 1868, so unlike "Trade", this evidently refers to the current situation not the situation at time of discharge.