Executed at Dawn (4 page)

•
  Leaving a post or patrol without orders.

•
  Breaking into a military store.

•
  Forcing an entry past a sentry or striking a sentry.

•
  Impeding the Provost Marshal and his military police or refusing to assist them when called upon.

•
  Attacking anyone bringing up supplies or damaging property of the country in which he was serving.

•
  Deliberately discharging firearms, drawing swords, beating drums, making signals, using words, or by any means whatever to give a false alarm.

•
  Housebreaking for plundering purposes.

•
  Treacherously giving passwords to unauthorized people.

•
  Diverting, to his own unit, supplies meant for other formations.

•
  Being asleep or drunk on sentry duty or leaving a sentry post without being properly relieved.

•
  Disobeying an order from an officer on duty or striking or threatening an officer on duty.

The vast majority of the men executed had been found guilty of desertion because the possible alternative offence of cowardice would have been much harder to prove. Military Law defines desertion as ‘absence without leave with the intention of permanently quitting the Service, or of evading a particular important duty, such as embarkation or going out in aid of the Civil Power'.

It is also necessary to understand a further and important difference between civilian and military courts. Civilian criminal courts are adversarial, with prosecution counsel pitted against defence counsel in an effort to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and it is the legal teams that decide who gets called as a witness. A judge at the Old Bailey therefore cannot decide to summon a particular witness on the grounds that he or she might think such testimony would help establish guilt or innocence. In contrast, military courts are inquisitorial, in that they set out to establish what happened and as a result the court itself can summon and question any witnesses it considers necessary in the furtherance of that aim. Lastly, and so importantly, unlike in civilian criminal law, there was no right of appeal for those condemned to death by the military.

† † †

The Army Act was enshrined in the
Manual of Military Law
in order to provide a framework that was universally consistent and predictable, and which set out the concepts of discipline in an accepted set of rules to control and order the army's activities, and to regulate the conduct of its members. Corrigan (2004) makes the point that, ‘The only difference between an army and an armed rabble is discipline.' Army discipline comes from training, and then more training, backed up by a set of rules enshrined in military law, ignorance of which, as in civilian law, does not form an acceptable defence.

The types of punishments meted out to soldiers in the First World War are quite likely to be familiar to those who have read Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe novels, which are based on the Napoleonic Wars. Minor matters, such as being unshaven, not saluting a senior officer correctly, or having dirty equipment, were usually dealt with by the non-commissioned officers. Punishments would range from extra fatigues, extra exercise, the offender's confinement to barracks, or the loss of a day's pay. Such offences were generally irritating for all concerned, as were the punishments.

The rules for field punishment were set out in section 44 of the Army Act, and a man could be sentenced to no more than three months by a court martial or twenty-eight days by his commanding officer.

Field Punishment No.1 involved the offending soldier being bound or handcuffed to stop him escaping, and the rules allowed for the prisoner to be attached to a fixed object – without specifying what constituted a fixed object. In practice this led to prisoners being tied to the wheels of a gun carriage as if crucified, for no more than two hours a day, split between morning and afternoon, and for no more than three out of four consecutive days and for no more than twenty-one days in total. This form of punishment was not abandoned by the army until quite late in the war. Unsurprisingly, this form of punishment was very unpopular, not least when it was done in full view of the local population.

Albert Marshall, of the Essex Yeomanry, who was believed to be the last surviving First World War veteran to have fought on horseback, recalled guarding (Taylor-Whiffen, 2003):

… a chap who had been tied to a wheel, without food or water, as a punishment for something. I can't remember what he'd done. But I felt sorry for him so I put my fag up to his lips so he could have a smoke. It was a very risky thing to do because if anyone had seen me they'd have tied me to the wheel as well!

Years later I was walking down Oxford Street in London and I saw him. He recognised me immediately and thanked me. He said he'd never forgotten that fag.

The treatment of this soldier was despite military law specifically stating that punishment:

…should not be inflicted in such a manner as is calculated to cause injury or to leave any permanent mark on the offender; and a portion of a field punishment must be discontinued upon a report by a responsible medical officer that the continuance of that portion would be prejudicial to the offender's health.

Archie Baxter (2014) was a conscientious objector who had served with the New Zealand Army, and recalled what Field Punishment No.1 felt like:

My hands were taken round behind the pole, tied together and pulled well up, straining and cramping the muscles and forcing them into an unnatural position. The slope of the pole brought me into a hanging position, causing a large part of my weight to come on my arms, and I could get no proper grip with my feet on the ground, as it was worn away around the pole and my toes were consequently much lower than my heels. I was strained so tightly up against the post that I was unable to move body or limbs a fraction of an inch. The pain grew steadily worse until by the end of half an hour it seemed absolutely unendurable.

Many officers supported the use of Field Punishment No.1 because they felt that it did at least provide an alternative to what would otherwise be a death sentence. By the end of the war some 60,000 men had been subjected to Field Punishment No.1 (Paxman, 2013). Sir Douglas Haig supported the use of Field Punishment No.1 on the grounds that it was an alternative to imprisonment. In his view, imprisonment would be an attractive alternative to the trenches for men of weak moral fibre, and such men needed to fear punishment, adding the justification that otherwise the ‘recourse to the death penalty would be more frequent'. (Sheffield, 2012)

Field Punishment No.2 involved the offender being turned out in a full pack to be drilled, mostly at the double, sometimes by a military police sergeant, and possibly when the man or men concerned had just come out of the line. Another soldier (Van Emden, 2002) was given three weeks of Field Punishment No. 2, which meant that when off duty he had to spend his time emptying the latrine buckets. Later in the book there will be further examples of how prisoners and offenders were further punished by being involved in executions.

† † †

In addition to the Army Act and the
Manual of Military Law
, there were also the King's Regulations for the Army. All officers were required to study and know these, as they regulated all aspects of military life in a very detailed way. Every soldier would also be clearly told what the capital offences were and the punishment they could expect, when sections of the Army Act were read out on parade, and, in addition, each was given on enlistment an abbreviated, printed version of the capital offences to be kept in their pay book.

When a death sentence had been confirmed, the execution was carried out by the authority of the Army Act. Contained within this very detailed document is information on the constitution and conduct of a court martial, although it contains nothing about the organisation of the act of execution itself. So on what basis were the executions organised? How, for example, was the number of men that made up a firing squad determined, together with the distance they were to stand from the condemned, and whether the condemned should be tied to a stake or made to sit in a chair?

As commander-in-chief, it was Field Marshal Haig's signature on the death warrants; of the 302 men executed, just over 250 were on his watch. Haig's post-war popular image as a ruthless disciplinarian was not one recognised by most under his command.

The
Manual of Military Law
and Army Acts 1881 and 1907, in regard to the death penalty, mention only that the conducting officer needed to apply to the Army Council for directions. This is repeated in the
Manual of Military Law
of 1914, where paragraph 100 states:

An officer who confirms a sentence is responsible for seeing that the sentence is carried into effect, and for this purpose he will, where necessary, obtain the approval above required for a sentence of death and in all cases will give the necessary directions for the execution of the sentence.

The conclusion to be drawn from this is that the Army Act, the
Manual of Military Law
and the King's Regulations for the Army did not provide any form of standard operating procedure to cover military executions. Some research by the Royal Military Police Museum has established that there was also nothing included in the
Regulations for the use of the Provost Marshal's Branch, British Armies in France 1917
(2nd edition).

† † †

Nevertheless, some form of standard operating procedure did appear to exist because Fiennes (2012) reproduced the notes given to his grandfather Edward Montmorency Guilford in December 1917. Guilford was an Anglican chaplain with the 52nd Oxford and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry on the Western Front when he was ordered to attend the execution of Private Joseph Bateman, of the 2nd South Staffordshire Regiment, which took place on 3 December 1917. The notes were a carbon copy, covering no more than a couple of typed pages, which, although a little torn and ragged, were intact and still readable.

These notes were issued as a guide to the arrangements that needed to be made when a death sentence was to be carried out, so that it could be performed as quickly and as humanely as possible, and those parts of the orders relevant to this book are reproduced here:

Confidential

Execution of Sentence of Death by Shooting.

These notes are issued as a guide to all concerned when arrangements have to be made for carrying out a death sentence.

The main object to be effected is to carry out the sentence as rapidly and as humanely as possible.

Site

Select a site for the execution with a place of confinement alongside. The site should afford privacy and there must be some form of stop butt.

Time

Settle day and hour of execution. APM (Assistant Provost Marshal) to inform Divisional Headquarters. The best time for execution is just before daylight, but if this is not feasible, it can be carried out just before dusk.

Prisoner to be handed over to a guard of his own unit. The NCO (Non-commissioned Officer) in command of the guard to be of full rank and to be specially selected. He will receive instructions from the APM.

Promulgation to prisoner

The proceedings will be sent by Divisional Headquarters to the unit and the sentence will be promulgated by an officer of the unit to the prisoner about 12 hours previous to the execution. This should be done on arrival at the place of confinement. The proceedings of the FGCM (Field General Court Martial) will be handed over to the APM.

Chaplain

Ascertain the prisoner's denomination and arrange for services of a Chaplain. The Chaplain will attend the promulgation of the sentence to the prisoner and will inform the latter when it will be carried out. He may remain with the prisoner up to the time the latter is prepared for execution (ie when the APM enters the place of confinement and demands the prisoner from the guard) and will not be allowed further intercourse with him after that time. He may attend the execution and he will afterwards read the burial service. It is undesirable that he should wear vestments.

Medical Officer

Arrange with the Assistant Director Medical Services for the presence of a Medical Officer at the execution.

Grave and Digging Party

To be arranged by unit and will normally be in a recognised burial ground, but if this is not possible it will be chosen near the site for execution and in this case will be concealed from view of the prisoner as he approaches the spot. Digging party to be provided by the unit. The men will not be allowed to loiter near during the execution.

Post and rope

A wooden or iron post firmly fixed in the ground or a staple in a wall should be provided and a rope for tying the prisoner thereto.