Field Punishment

[Roger H]

One of the 311th Brigade RFA men that I am researching is recorded as having been sentenced to two separate Field Punishemnets. On the 20th December 1916 (whilst with B/308 Brigade) he ws given 7 fays Field Punishment Number 2 for not wearing his steel helmet whilst at his gun position. Then on the 5th April 1917 (now with 311th Brigade) he was awarded 28 Days Field Punishment Number 1 for "ill treating a Government horse"

I have looked at the LLT definition of Field Punishment and have reproduced it here:

"Field Punishment Number 1 consisted of the convicted man being shackled in irons and secured to a fixed object, often a gun wheel or similar. He could only be thus fixed for up to 2 hours in 24, and not for more than 3 days in 4, or for more than 21 days in his sentence. This punishment was often known as 'crucifixion' and due to its humiliating nature was viewed by many Tommies as unfair. Field Punishment Number 2 was similar except the man was shackled but not fixed to anything. Both forms were carried out by the office of the Provost-Marshal, unless his unit was officially on the move when it would be carried out regimentally i.e. by his own unit".

I have looked at the record carefully and magnified it, and it definately reads Field Punishment Number 1 for the ill treatment of the horse. Was 28 days such punisment common for that sort of offence? Perhaps I should add that in between the two field punishments, the man in question also forfeited two days pay for "malingering"!

Roger

[Muerrisch]

I see no reason why not. The army [all armies] were totally dependent on horse power.

Officers were taught: look after your horse, then your men, then yourself.

[squirrel]

I have seen instances of FP2 awarded for galloping a horse - movement was usually by trotting when not in action.

[Roger H]

Guys - thanks for your views.

Roger

[Old Tom]

There may have been options. My father, also in RFA, and his mate were charged with failing to clean harness; they went for a swim instead. His OC said 'will you accept my punishment or would you like to transfer to the Trench Mortar battery'. He spent the rest of the war with mortars. I hope this tale has not been enhanced by too much telling.

Old Tom

[centurion]

In an earlier thread on the subject there is a Hansard report of a question raised about a man being sentenced to 90 days FP1 for exceeding the speed limit in France with a horse drawn vehicle. The answer given was that doing this put French civilians at risk and a number of children had previously been killed by galloping horses pulling vehicles. Warnings had been issued and ignored. Also this was cruel to the horses and the sentence was appropriate.

[bob lembke]

Could have been worse. Drawing and Quartering had been abolished in 1870.

Bob Lembke

[CGM]

A previous thread can be found here

[Roger H]

A previous thread can be found here

Thanks for the link(s).

Roger

[wheelsjbl]

From the Australian War Museum

[Ron Clifton]

Hello all

Commanding officers' summary punishment powers included the award of FP (1 or 2) up to a maximum of 28 days. Courts martial could award FP for up to three months.

Ill-treating a horse in a battery of RFA could certainly affect the ability to deploy its guns in the most effective ways. It may be that careless treatment of horses had become common, so an example was needed. And the nature of the ill-treatment was not stated - for instance, was it negligent or deliberate? In the case cited by centurion, previous warnings had obviously not been heeded so an example became necessary.

Old Tom - as the TMBs were nicknamed "suicide clubs" it probably wasn't seen as a soft option! One is reminded of the choice given to convicts in the 18th and 19th centuries: Do you want to be transported to the colonies, or do you want to join the Army?

Ron

[Simon Mills]

Roger,

While I was researching my grandfather's war record with 106 Brigade RFA, I came across his service record and found many references to the various punishments to which he was subjected during his service. Field punishments seem to be relatively common, and in Alf's case were inflicted for anything from not complying with an order through to neglect of duty while sentry on horse lines.

I contacted the Royal Artillery Museum at Woolwich to see if they could differentiate between the various grades of punishment in the RFA and I received a useful response from Paul Evans, one of their librarians, which gave the following information:

F.P.1 "Field Punishment Number 1" – tied with your back to the wheel of a gun carriage, arms outstretched from dawn to dusk on public display.

F.P.2" Field Punishment Number 2" – all off duty time spent in full kit moving at the double under instructions from the Guard Staff.

As to the length of the individual punishments, it seemed to vary (the most common length of punishment being about a week) but interestingly there was an entry in my grandfather's B.103 form dated 18th October 1916, when he was sentenced to 42 days of Field Punishment No. 1 after being found guilty at a Field General Court Martial for using threatening language to his superior officer. As it happens, fourteen days were later remitted by Major General John Edward Capper (GOC 24th Division) at the end of the month. I have absolutely no idea why the sentence was reduced but if anyone has access to a copy of Capper's diary then it may provide an interesting clue?

Simon.

[Old Tom]

While not being sure of the detail the general principle of Courts Martial was that they were convened (i.e. an order setting up the court, its membership and the charge(s) it was to deal with) by a formation commander, probaly a Brigadier General in this case, and the sentence that was awarded was referred for confirmation to the next higher command (the divisional commander in this case. I would suppose that the divisional commander, advised by his senior A staff officer (AA&QMG), decided that the punishment was too severe. This may have been because of reasons such as some Army policy,to be comparable with other court martial findings in the division, or because of knowledge of the mans unit and the members of the court.

Old Tom

[Ron Clifton]

F.P.1 "Field Punishment Number 1" – tied with your back to the wheel of a gun carriage, arms outstretched from dawn to dusk on public display.

As it happens, fourteen days were later remitted by Major General John Edward Capper (GOC 24th Division) at the end of the month. I have absolutely no idea why the sentence was reduced but if anyone has access to a copy of Capper's diary then it may provide an interesting clue?

Simon

"From dawn till dusk" is definitely wrong. Maximum two hours in one day (see Roher's original post) and not more than three days in every four.

There were around 150,000 FGCMs during the war, or an average of about two per division per day. It is most unlikely that Maj-Gen Capper would have commented on a single, relatively minor, case in his personal diary. It may be that Capper wished all defaulters to be back in their units in readiness for a major attack, or that he felt that 28 days (the maximum a CO could award summarily) was enough.

Ron

[Simon Mills]

Tom/Ron,

Thanks for the feedback. I'm surprised to hear that there were something in the region of 150,000 FGCMs during the war, and maybe just a little disappointed -- and there was me thinking that my grandfather was the member of a relatively exclusive little club...

From what I can see in the record the officer who confirmed the court martial was the CRA 24th Division -- not sure of his name. I'm not sure what to say about the dawn til dusk reference as I can only go by what the librarian at the Royal Artillery Museum wrote. I don't know how many hours per day that my grandfather was tied to the wheel, but it's interesting to note in his service record that by the end of November 1916, when his sentence would have been just about up, he was admitted to hospital suffering from influenza. On top of that he was hospitalized once again barely one month later, this time suffering from some sort of fever (Pyrexia?).

Whether or not any of this was due to the extensive period of field punishment is pure speculation on my part, but apart from this he seemed to have a relatively illness-free military experience.

Simon.

[truthergw]

Simon

"From dawn till dusk" is definitely wrong. Maximum two hours in one day (see Roher's original post) and not more than three days in every four.

There were around 150,000 FGCMs during the war, or an average of about two per division per day. It is most unlikely that Maj-Gen Capper would have commented on a single, relatively minor, case in his personal diary. It may be that Capper wished all defaulters to be back in their units in readiness for a major attack, or that he felt that 28 days (the maximum a CO could award summarily) was enough.

Ron

Agreed. I think what is meant is, between dawn and dusk, that is, not at night.

[Ron Clifton]

I'm sure that is right. I think Paul Evans is one of our Forum pals and I don't think he would have got it wrong.

If your grandfather was ill towards the end of his sentence, that might well explain why the remaining 14 days were remitted. A medical officer could suspend FP if the man was clearly in poor health, and it would have been a bit vindictive to let him go to hospital and then put him back in FP afterwards.

Ron

[Simon Mills]

Hello Ron,

That's an interesting thought, but having checked the dates it appears that General Capper remitted the fourteen days on 30th October 1916 (one week after the court martial), whereas according to his B.103 my grandfather didn't fall sick until 15th November. If I read it right then he was in hospital from 15th to 30th November, but I have no idea as to whether or not he was made to complete the Field Punishment after being returned to duty.

Hopefully you're right, in that they wouldn't have been vindictive enough to do that to him, particularly as his return to hospital only three weeks later would indicate that he was still not fully fit.

S.

[Retlaw]

Private 35441 James Mitchel was tried by F.G.C.M. 17-01-1917.

Sentenced to 2 months field punshment No 1, for threatening a

superior officer, sentence confirmed 18-01-1917

Retlaw.

[bushfighter]

Looking at Field Punishment from the perspective of an infantry officer during the Great War, it was definitely useful and practical.

The preservation of discipline - always a fragile factor during intense operations - was maintained, justice was seen to be delivered, and the guilty man was kept in the unit and available for normal (and doubtless unofficial extra) duties.

I believe that white South African troops and their officers objected to it in East Africa as it was too degrading to the status of whites when blacks could witness it, but the theatre military management considered that the maintainance of discipline was the priority, and the objections were over-ruled.

Harry

[Magnumbellum]

It needs to be borne in mind that the context of Field Punishment was to provide for circumstances where other punishments such as confinement to barracks or detention in detention barracks could not be applied. For more serious offences, including remitted capital sentences, a man could be sent back to Blighty for imprisonment in a civil prison.

Remission of a small part of a punishment was by no means uncommon.

[Janissary]

Magnumbellum,

ref your comment that:

"For more serious offences, including remitted capital sentences, a man could be sent back to Blighty for imprisonment in a civil prison."

this is incorrect.

A soldier would only be committed to a civil prison if convicted by civil (or, in some cases, military) court for a purely civil crime - murder (not of a fellow soldier), rape, sexual assault, robbery, burglary, etc.

If convicted of a military offence that entailed a period of detention, even a capital offence where the sentence of death had been commuted to a period of penal servitude, that sentence would be carried out in a prison in the theatre of operations. Commander-in-Chief BEF ordered in 1916 that any soldier sentenced to a period of military detention on the Continent was to serve his sentence there in the theatre of war. This was designed to deter men from committing serious offences with the intention of being sent home to the UK for imprisonment.

The same rule applied for the AIF, CEF and NZEF.

Graham W

[Ron Clifton]

A soldier would only be committed to a civil prison if convicted by civil (or, in some cases, military) court for a purely civil crime - murder (not of a fellow soldier), rape, sexual assault, robbery, burglary, etc.

Hello Graham

A soldier convicted of a miltary offence and sentenced to either penal servitude or imprisonment could be sent to a civil prison. See Sections 59 to 66 of the Army Act, and in particular 59, 62, 63, 64 and 66.

There were military prisons in the field, and in the UK which could be used too.

The law today may not be the same, but that is how it was in 1914-1918. I cannt speak for the AIF, CEF or NZEF but if they were subject to the British Army Act, the same would apply to them.

Ron

[truthergw]

A soldier could be imprisoned in military prison such as the infamous ' Glasshouse' at Aldershot.

[keemaj9a]

My grandfather was subjected to FP No 1 in France on 16th Feb 1918 by a Field General Courts Martial, for being AWOL for 5 days. It could be argued that his punishment was illegal as it could only be applied to soldiers on "Active Service" ie during war, and most people believe WW1 ended in 11th Nov 1918. However technically speaking the war did not end until the signing of the Treaty of Versaille in June 1919, I presume makimg his punishment legal .In reality it shoud be the Great War of 1914-1919. According to my grandfather's records he fought the Germans in France for two years from 1916 to 1918 and then fought with his superior officers from 1918 untl discharge in 1921. He was in the Machine Gun Corps 101 Company 8th Battalion.

The rules relating to FP No1 were changed on 1st January 1917 following a number of allegations that the punishment was not being applied properly. For example it was alleged that some soldiers were suspended by their wrists with their feet barely touching the ground and within the range of enemy fire which was illegal. The following comes from http://www.firstworl...dpunishment.htm

12th January 1917

Sir,

I am commanded by the Army Council to inform you that they have had under consideration the question of the method of carrying out Field Punishment No. 1, with special reference to paragraphs 2 (

and 2 © of the Rules for Field Punishment (

Manual of Military Law

, page 721), and they have decided that, with a view to standardising the method in accordance with which a soldier may be attached to a fixed object, the following instructions will, in future, be strictly adhered to:-

With reference to paragraph 2 (

, the soldier must be attached so as to be standing firmly on his feet, which if tied, must not be more than twelve inches apart, and it must be possible for him to move each foot at least three inches. If he is tied round the body there must be no restriction of his breathing. If his arms or wrists are tied, there must be six inches of play between them and the fixed object. His arms must hang either by the side of his body or behind his back.

With reference to paragraph 2 ©, irons should be used when available, but straps or ropes may be used in lieu of them when necessary. Any straps or ropes used for this purpose must be of sufficient width that they inflict no bodily harm, and leave no permanent mark on the offender.