WW1 Generals

[PhilB]

The current Great Expenses Fiddles lead me to wonder about WW1 generals. What was the system for furnishing and maintaining their "second homes" in chateaux in France and elsewhere? Did they have carte blanche or was there an office controlling and sanctioning their outlays? One assumes they didn`t have paid second jobs but were they allowed paid directorships and/or consultancies? Was there any monitoring of outside interests?

[armourersergeant]

Phil,

You cease to amaze me with the questions you think of!

I'm sorry but I have no idea, but assume they scavenged and used what was around (legal plunder).

Regards

Arm

[michaeldr]

Wasn't there someone on the General's staff who was ic Billeting, and did he not pass out chits for goods & services received?

Goodness only knows how long it took them to get any recompence from HMG

[John_Hartley]

I'd like to think they just stole whatever they needed - preferably from little old ladies, whose sons and grandsons had already died for France.

Yes, I know it's more probable that they had someone do the actual stealing for them, but a bloke can have his dreams, can't he? I rather like the idea of Plumer knocking off a nice sofa from a chateau. Now that's what I call liberation. Innit

Or was Phil talking about German generals?

John

[michaeldr]

Reminds me of the story about Washington (he who could never tell a lie)

His expenses were very detailed eg the fence - so many posts at such and such, so many rails at such and such, so many nails at whatever etc etc

Then the next item was simply 'Feeding the Army' followed by a figure with umpteen naughts after it

[Pete1052]

The buildings were requisitioned for military purposes. If the owners were compensated at all I doubt that the funds came from the expense accounts of the senior officers using the facilities. Probably aristocrats and the well-connected stood a better chance of being remunerated than others. Shortly after V-E Day in 1945 my dad's battery stayed in one of the lesser structures built by the Mad Duke of Bavaria. The men were told to clean up their trash because the place was an historic building--having little love for the Germans, the men filled one of the smaller rooms with their empty K Ration cans. When the battalion commander inspected the place to see how well it had been cleaned up he found the room full of trash. The colonel said, "My, the Germans certainly ate a lot of canned goods, didn't they?"

[nigelfe]

This is in France, the BEF paid for everything they used, eg including the stone they quarryed to develop/maintain/repair French roads and railways! Host nation support was definitely billable. The only question is whether the Canadians, etc, paid their wack or the BEF paid for all.

Most regular army officers (actually almost all) had private income, but they would not have soiled their hands with other paid 'work' while serving. I assume KRs has something to say about it. Incidentally before slagging of MPs, it's useful to note that during WW1 some served on the W Front. It's also worth noting that there's always been a few MPs in the TA, and one or two have served in Afghanistan.

[Chris_Baker]

The "Donkey Archive" at the University of Birmingham Centre for First World War Studies website (http://www.firstworldwar.bham.ac.uk/donkey/index.htm) gives you some idea of personal backgrounds of General Officers.

[PhilB]

Most regular army officers (actually almost all) had private income, but they would not have soiled their hands with other paid 'work' while serving. I assume KRs has something to say about it.

I didn`t suspect that generals moonlighted as bouncers or taxi drivers! But what about directorships and consultancies? Or even being an MP - was that permissible in WW1?

[Gheluvelt]

There was some serious money about amongst the Generals. Didn't French borrow several thousand pounds from Haig at some stage? Also, Haig was given a subsantial payment and a title post war. Was it just him, or were others granted this too?

Mike

[Chris_Baker]

Yes, Haig loaned a substantial sum to French.

As to serious money, by no means were all of the Generals, even the most senior, wealthy men. Haig was among the wealthiest, due to his family's long-term development of the whisky business.

[Steven Broomfield]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Jun 15 2009, 10:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But what about directorships and consultancies? Or even being an MP - was that permissible in WW1?

Didn't Hunter-Weston get himself elected at some point?

Incidentally, Phil, even by your extremely high standards, this is a supremely metaphysical debate. Well done. Should get into Classic Threads on the subject matter alone.

[SiegeGunner]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Jun 15 2009, 10:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Or even being an MP - was that permissible in WW1?

A number of sitting MPs served in the Great War and there is a Memorial in Parliament commemorating those who died, together with members of the House of Lords and officials/servants of the two Houses - http://www.parliament.uk/about/history/warmemorials.cfm

[PhilB]

I thought as much. Being an MP surely counts as a second job, so one wonders what the rules were and presumably not just for generals as some MPs would have served at lower ranks. Wasn`t DH a director of the whisky firm?

[tintin1689]

These types of thing (fitting out Chateaux as Headquarters etc) are known as Works Services and were the responsibility of the Royal Engineers.

As it happens I have before me a little book “Surveyors of Works, Royal Engineers – Their History and Development” by Brigadier C F Atkinson FRICS, published in 1969. Which is a subject of Byzantine complexity (in terms of the historical development of their administration between the days of William the Conqueror and the days of Harold MacMillan) and more than a bit technical (in terms of what they actually did).

During the Great War era responsibility for Works Services at the War Office was (theoretically) split between the Director of Fortifications and Works (a senior RE Officer) who was responsible for all works overseas and those at home worth less then £2,000 and the Director of Barrack Construction (a senior Civil Servant) who was responsible for works in excess of £2,000 at home. This system had been set up by the Esher Committee in 1904. As it caused some friction between the two Directors in 1908 the Master General of Ordnance was tasked with annually deciding which projects would be undertaken by which Directorate. This system was actually quite successful, resulting in much more rapid construction of barracks, married quarters etc. Notable accomplishments of the dual system were complexes of barracks at Tidworth and in Egypt, the RFC Depot and Mess, the RAMC HQ and Hospital at Millbank and the rapid re-construction works following the Jamaica earthquake of 1907.

The system employed soldiers and civilians and a rather odd para-military organisation called “Inspectors of Works” recruited from both and enjoying officer status.

The dual system did not stand up to the pressures of war, probably due to the Master General of Ordnance being too busy with his core functions to exercise much oversight of it, and the whole lot was placed under the RE in 1917.

Now as to the expense of these works. In 1913 a Technical Examination Branch was formed at the War Office under an RE Colonel with the task of making independent check on works expenditure. Inspectors of Works and Surveyors Clerks examined bills and compared them with the War Department Schedule of Prices and compared expenditure between the different commands. In its first year it was described as having achieved “spectacular” results in reducing expenditure. It was also described as a “useful deterrent”.

During the Great War it was obviously a case of all hand to the pump as demand for Works Services rocketed. Many qualified civilian Quantity Surveyors were directly appointed as Inspectors of Works. The Office of Works, which performed the works services function for the Civil Service was also roped in, firstly at home (playing a big role with camps in North Wales, Cannock Chase, Oswestry and Sherwood Forest and providing a considerable amount of timber for military use), but later Civil Servants went across to France to help the Army with their buildings, notably an MT Depot and buildings at St Omer.

Perhaps most relevant to this query the Office of Works was responsible for the design and erection of HQ facilities for Eric Geddes, Director General of Transportation of the BEF, at the Chateau Monthuis at Montreuil, Normandy. Under Geddes in the Directorate General were 7 other Generals and a proportionate number of other staff. The 8 Generals had their living quarters, offices and a conference room in the chateau and the rest were based in newly erected buildings in the grounds. The Office of Works caused some embarrassment to General Geddes, whose appointment direct from civil life caused some friction between him and career RE officers, by supplying the Generals with office furniture appropriate to equivalent grades in the Home Civil Service – notably two red leather arm chairs each for their offices and 20 more for their conference room.

[PhilB]

Thanks Tintin for that glimpse into the system.

[Ron Clifton]

Hello all

I suspect that most chateaux were requisitioned furnished, so little would have been required in that respect.

The Allowance Regulations divided all ranks, from senior generals to privates, into twenty separate classes for the purpose of rations, accommodation, fuel, forage etc. Most senior officers, I suspect, used private means to supplement their allowances.

As a previous post has pointed out, the BEF was fighting in a friendly country and would have ensured that proper compensation was paid although the rumour that they had to pay rent for the trenches is almost certainly untrue? The ASC ran a Central Requisition Office and Branch Requisition Offices as a clearing-house for payments of this kind. If we look back at the Napoleonic Wars, the reason that the British rarely had to worry about protecting their L of C was that it was known that they paid reasonable prices, whereas the French simply took food etc without payment and without leaving enough for the inhabitants, and consequently had a lot of trouble on their L of C.

I don't think soldiers (other ranks) were allowed to become MPs, but officers were, and were normally seconded out of their regiments whilst so serving. Winston Churchill served in France whilst an MP and of course many members of the House of Lords also did so. As I recall, Hunter-Weston did not become an MP until after the war but, having private funds, he was often used by Haig as someone who could give visiting VIPs a good meal.

Directorships and consultancies? Somehow I doubt it, at least until they retired (they would not have the time) but a number of retired generals and admirals had lucrative posts with armaments manufacturers such as Elswick, and these contacts were used to cement good working relationships with the firms concerned. It is a practice which continues today.

Ron

[IanA]

I assume compensation was paid to the owners of Hooge Chateau, occupied by Major General Monro, right up to the time when the Germans destroyed it.....

[PhilB]

And, since the owners could fairly claim that British occupation was a contributory cause to its destruction, did we have to repay their losses on its destruction?

I`m not sure about directorships. This extract indicates otherwise though I can`t confirm its veracity:-

Among those who had run the company was Captain Douglas Haig, Field Marshal Haig of World War I fame. His name was used by DCL to market the brand - especially against the anti-drink lobby - and it paid dividends.

http://www.awa.dk/whisky/Haig/index.htm

[Ron Clifton]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Jun 15 2009, 08:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And, since the owners could fairly claim that British occupation was a contributory cause to its destruction, did we have to repay their losses on its destruction?

I wouldn't agree with you there, Phil. I doubt thaty the Germans actually knew that it was a British HQ at the time, and in any case its destruction was an act of war, so the Germans would have been responsible. The situation might have been different if the British deliberately destroyed property to deny it to the enemy.

As regards Haig, I suspect that he was not a director of the family company though he may have been a shareholder. Do you know whether in fact it was a firm (i.e. a partnership), a private limited company (up to 50 shareholders) or a public limited company (with shares quoted on a stock exchange)?

Ron

[PhilB]

You may well be right, Ron. It`s just that I could imagine a French owner claiming "contributory negligence" by the BEF in housing a HQ in their house. It would certainly increase the risk of enemy attention. I take it from the above posts that a building destroyed by WW1 action would not benefit from any payout, insurance or otherwise?

The firm was, I believe, the Distillers Company but that`s the limit of my knowledge. When he was described as "among those who ran the company", I assumed he had a formal executive role.

[Ron Clifton]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Jun 16 2009, 01:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I take it from the above posts that a building destroyed by WW1 action would not benefit from any payout, insurance or otherwise?

Hello Phil

That would have been a matter for reparations post war, as to which the French at least were determined to squeeze Germany "until her pips squeaked." If insurance law then was anything like it is now, an ordinary policy would not cover it, and a national of one state could not sue the authorities of another sovereign state, so any claims would have to be settled at government level.

If Haig was on the board of Distillers, it is more likely that he was a non-executive director than that he took an active part in its management - he simply would not have had the time, especially when he was serving in India or South Africa - but Companies House should still have records of the company's accounts for say 1900 to 1918, probably on microfiche these days. These records would name all the directors, and the shareholders' register should also still exist.

I will have a look in KR to see if there are any specific rules on officers maintaining their commercial interests.

Ron

[Ron Clifton]

I will have a look in KR to see if there are any specific rules on officers maintaining their commercial interests.

Para 448:

Officers, soldiers, and others in military employment, must at all times guard against being placed in such a position as may lay them open to the suspicion of being influenced, in the discharge of their duty, by other than purely public considerations. They are to be scrupulously careful in their relations and are to have no private dealings with army contractors, their agents, or employees.

Para 449:

An officer on full pay is not permitted, without the special sanction of the War Office, to belong to the directorate of any public, industrial, or other company, or to assist or advise any such company or firm in questions relating to their plant, processes, or products. Officers and soldiers are forbidden to act either directly or indirectly as agents for any company, firm, or individual, engaged in trade.

Excerpts are from the edition current in 1914.

Ron

[PhilB]

That`s pretty clear, Ron. No other jobs. One wonders about the serving MPs mentioned above, though, and those officers who were commissioned during the war who already had directorships/consultancies. Any special rules for temporary commissions?

[Ron Clifton]

Phil

"An officer on full pay" is pretty definite and would include both (mainly young) men commissioned during the war and commissions from the ranks - though I can't imagine many of the Turnip Street Workhouse Pals being company directors or consultants! It would even have had some effect on solicitors and the like, under the "advice" restriction. It does not seem to cover public officials - I know of at least one case where a locally-raised company RE was commanded by the Borough Surveyor.

OtherForum Pals who have copies of later editions of KR may be able to clarify but the same rule was there in 1940, having by that time been extended to include soldiers as well.

The 1914 regulations are silent on the question of officers or soldiers becoming or remaining MPs so presumably that was OK, but by 1940 this was no longer permitted, nor could they indulge in any political activity such as canvassing. Since public criticism of Army or Govt policy by serving officers and soldiers was also forbidden, any who were members of either House would also have been inhibited in this respect.

Colonel Driant, who died early on in the defence of Verdun, was of course also a French Deputy, and would have got into a lot of trouble from Joffre if he had lived, for raising military questions in the Chamber.

Ron