Great Grandfather

[Digger]

My great grandfther was granted and then forteited what looks like 1d G C Pay (photo attached). He is then tried and confined for 7 months, and then again for 5 years, it looks like the initials used are G C M, would this be general court martial? Would he have served the full 5 years before being discharged from the army? If anyone can help I would really appreciate it. Thanks.

[headgardener]

He got into trouble twice;

He transgressed on, or just before, 22nd May '86.

First he is tried by DCM (District Courts Martial), sentenced to 7 months hard labour ('HL'), and was banged up from Jun '86 to Jan '87.

He seems to have transgressed again on or just before 5 December '87. He stands trial at a GCM (General Courts Martial) and is sentenced to 5 years and ignominious discharge. Interestingly he only serves 98 days, and is released on 29th March '88.

Do you know what he did? Is there any evidence in his papers as to why he was released after only 98 days?

[roughdiamond]

According to the info above it's as "headgardner" states, the strange thing is he was released from confinement 4th Dec 1887 and was then confined (jailed) the very next day, 5th Dec till his sentence 18 days later.

He's either got out from his Hard Labour and immediately commited another crime, or he was arrested at the end of his first sentence for a crime he'd commited prior to his first sentence and punished for that.

BTW I can see the mods locking this thread out as it's not WW1 related.

Sam

[headgardener]

According to the info above it's as "headgardner" states, the strange thing is he was released from confinement 4th Dec 1887 and was then confined (jailed) the very next day, 5th Dec till his sentence 18 days later.

He's either got out from his Hard Labour and immediately commited another crime, or he was arrested at the end of his first sentence for a crime he'd commited prior to his first sentence and punished for that.

No mate, he got let out in Jan, he gets confined again (under arrest, in the guardhouse) in December until he stood trial, which is when he got sent down for the 2nd time. So he was on the loose for almost 11 months!

Yes, we'd better make the most of this thread before it gets closed down.

PLEASE tell me that he had WW1 service........?

[Digger]

No mate, he got let out in Jan, he gets confined again (under arrest, in the guardhouse) in December until he stood trial, which is when he got sent down for the 2nd time. So he was on the loose for almost 11 months!

Yes, we'd better make the most of this thread before it gets closed down.

PLEASE tell me that he had WW1 service........?

I have a photo of him with his 3 sons ( sitting in the middle) who all served during WW1, and he is in uniform though by this time he would have been in his 50s. I cannot find any record of his service during this time. Having recently found his record of mis-deeds I must admit to me it makes little sense of his serving in any capacity during WW1. I did think that maybe he was wearing his old uniform. Maybe I am doing him an injustice and by this time he had changed his ways, though family anecdotes say he was not a very nice person. I cannot find any reference to his crimes for which he was discharged from the army.

His 3 sons all survived the war, though 39 members of my wider family did not.

I hope that this thread is not closed down, as my query as to his discharge with ignomony was to lead on to his service or lack of during WW1. Was there a "Home Guard" at that time?

Many thanks to you all for filling in the details.

[headgardener]

Yes, there was a sort of Home Guard during WW1; there was the Volunteer Training Corps, and there was also the Royal Defence Corps. The VTC were essentially a part-time body made up of civilian volunteers. The RDC was a full-time army unit comprised of medically low-grade men. I THINK the RDC mainly carried out Guard duty here in the UK (they certainly didn't serve abroad), and I must admit that I'm not too sure how this differed from the VTC.

The VTC tended to wear a slightly long tunic - can't vouch for the colour of it as I've only seen it in black & white photos (in which it looks light grey), while the RDC wore standard battledress. There are exceptions to the rule about the VTC uniforms, so we can't be absolutely certain about your man, but he looks RDC to me.

The relevance of his old disciplinary record may not be particularly great; by this time (photo probably taken in about 1917) the army was pretty desperate to free up fit, and often not so fit, men for front-line service, so they were happy to hand over the the UK based side of things to much older men. It's also possible that he may not have declared his previous military service, hence his service papers being in the pre-war series of documents at TNA (I assume that's where they came from).

Are you certain that there's no reference amongst his service papers to his various misdemenours? It's not every day that someone gets 5 years and an ignomimious discharge. Maybe someone here can tell you what can be discovered about Courts Martials in the late 1880's. I simply have no idea about this.

And the small head and shoulder picture of the 3rd son, the photo that is stuck onto the larger picture? This was taken post-WW1; looks like he's wearing his BW&VM ribbons.

[widavies]

Hi Digger/Headgardener

Let me state I'm no uniform expert, but thinking outside the box on all available visual evidence and it's just a thought here and I may be wrong. The uniform cut and the shoulder tabs look identical for all the participants, plus the creases and the fit in the fathers uniform lead me to the suspicion that he was wearing one of his sons second uniform just for this staged photo. motive, possibly to show the familys military connections??? Any further thoughts on this observation would be welcomed.

Will davies

[nigelcave]

Judging by the state of the jacket, I doubt if he had been near a parade ground any time recently.

[headgardener]

Certainly possible, but he also looks just like any number of RDC men that I've seen photos of, creased jacket and all. The idea of a military 'themed' photo is possible, but so is the possibility that he's performing some relatively menial guard duty function at a railway crossing somewhere. His jacket also looks like it's a more generous fit than the others, so maybe it was his own. Maybe we'll never know. Unless Digger gets his skates on and gives us some more info about him and his lads....

Come on Digger, how about it? We're obviously champing at the bit!

The son in the centre (the one with the medal ribbons) looks like he's Rifle Brigade (balck buttons, small black 'RB' shoulder title), the son on the R has spurs, and a 'block' shoulder title, so either artillery or ASC in all likelihood.

[headgardener]

There's a shoulder title on the old man's epaulette, too. Looks like a 'block' title. 'RDC' perhaps? Or it's his son's jacket.....

[widavies]

Certainly possible, but he also looks just like any number of RDC men that I've seen photos of, creased jacket and all. The idea of a military 'themed' photo is possible, but so is the possibility that he's performing some relatively menial guard duty function at a railway crossing somewhere. His jacket also looks like it's a more generous fit than the others, so maybe it was his own. Maybe we'll never know. Unless Digger gets his skates on and gives us some more info about him and his lads....

Come on Digger, how about it? We're obviously champing at the bit!

The son in the centre (the one with the medal ribbons) looks like he's Rifle Brigade (balck buttons, small black 'RB' shoulder title), the son on the R has spurs, and a 'block' shoulder title, so either artillery or ASC in all likelihood.

Me again,

The creases look to me as if they're from a uniform that has been folded for a long time. Ex Regular soldiers would never have worn a uniform with such creases especially if he knew he was to be photographed. If he was on regular duties such as sentry duty even without attention such creases would have dropped out in time. It still leads me to the opinion that he was wearing a hastily organised uniform jacket at least.

Will

[JCR]

Could it be an off the shelf jacket handed out by the photographer?

[widavies]

Could it be an off the shelf jacket handed out by the photographer?

Would a photographer not look after his props better!!!

[headgardener]

The creases look to me as if they're from a uniform that has been folded for a long time. Ex Regular soldiers would never have worn a uniform with such creases especially if he knew he was to be photographed. If he was on regular duties such as sentry duty even without attention such creases would have dropped out in time. It still leads me to the opinion that he was wearing a hastily organised uniform jacket at least.

Of course you may be right, we'll never know. He was only a regular for a pretty short time (3 years) and that had been 30 years previous, so I doubt that we should regard him as having been some proud old regular soldier. The uniform does look as though it's just come of the shelf. So maybe that's why?

Come on Digger; more info!

[janecavell]

A sitting for a studio portrait would usually be a well planned affair, giving the sitters plenty of time to decide what they were going to wear and do the ironing so that they looked their best. So the crumpled uniform is curious. Some scenarios might be:

• the photo session wasn't planned so there was no time for ironing: is it a last-minute family gathering before the sons go off to war?
• the father turned up in another outfit, which for some reason was deemed unsuitable so he had to borrow something else
• he chose to wear the uniform, creases and all (as headgardener has suggested, army habits may have worn off after 30 years, and perhaps there was no wife on hand to say "You can't go out looking like that").
• he meant to do the ironing but didn't get up in time

Jane

[Tyrim]

Some random thoughts in no particular order:

Did they wear puttees during his previous service in 1888? If they didn't, his look pretty smart for someone who would be unfamiliar with putting them on.

While his jacket looks terrible his trousers are sharp.

He is wearing appropriate shoes which would be a stretch for someone just putting on a uniform for a picture.

If it was his old jacket, again, could it have been from the '80s? But if it was, under the conditions of his discharge, would they not have torn the buttons off? My Father spoke of seeing a man drummed out and all the military insignia and buttons were torn from the uniform while he stood in front of his old unit.

The jacket looks to me like it's fresh from the quartermasters.

An old regular soldier with his record probably wouldn't care how his uniform looked. And from the look on his face he probably didn't.

It will be interesting to hear more about him!

[Digger]

Some random thoughts in no particular order:

Did they wear puttees during his previous service in 1888? If they didn't, his look pretty smart for someone who would be unfamiliar with putting them on.

While his jacket looks terrible his trousers are sharp.

He is wearing appropriate shoes which would be a stretch for someone just putting on a uniform for a picture.

If it was his old jacket, again, could it have been from the '80s? But if it was, under the conditions of his discharge, would they not have torn the buttons off? My Father spoke of seeing a man drummed out and all the military insignia and buttons were torn from the uniform while he stood in front of his old unit.

The jacket looks to me like it's fresh from the quartermasters.

An old regular soldier with his record probably wouldn't care how his uniform looked. And from the look on his face he probably didn't.

It will be interesting to hear more about him!

Thanks for all your comments. I went through all 8 pages of William Fogden's records, (service no. 1273) and cannot find any reason for the 5 year penal servitude, except one remark in the character on being discharged which was "very bad, has been guilty of acts of insubordination". He was in India from 18th December, 1885 until 30th March 1888, and this covers the time of his confinements, and presumably the time travelling back to England. During his time in India he was treated several times for venereal disease.

I have checked other military records on Ancestry and Find My Past but cannot find any additional records for any of the family during WW1. The information I do have - service no, regiment etc - I got from the medal cards. The information I have is below.

William Harold Fogden 124705 Royal Garrison Artillery Regiment

Herbert Charles Fogden 120766 Gunner & Shoeing Smith, Royal Field Artillery Regiment.

Reginald Garside Fogden 46685 Rifle Brigade I believe he joined up in 1917. The small round photo was indeed added at a later date.

All 3 sons survived, William Harold working at the Chichester Barracks as a Master Tailor with the Royal Sussex Regiment, until his death in 1948. Unfortunately he died when I was 10 months old and I didn't have the chance to know him.

Your help is really appreciated, many thanks to you all.

[headgardener]

Do you know which is which (or should that be who is who?) out of the other 2 in the photo?

Neither is wearing a trade badge, so hard to tell which is the shoeing smith. At a guess, I'd say that the guy on the left was the younger of the two, and possibly the one in the middle was..... the middle one. So I guess that would mean the one on the right was the eldest. Am I right?

I'm sure that there'll be some sort of DCM and GCM records for the period that dad got into trouble; I remember researching a guy who was CM'd in the immediate pre-war period, and there was definately a register of all cases though no transcripts of trials survived. Sounds like he was a surly individual, and I guess that's why he got into hot water. But 5 years?! My g'father had a string of disciplinaries culminating in a CM for striking a superior officer in about 1912, but all he got was a month or 2 inside. So what did your man do to warrant 5 years, I wonder. It had to be more than just basic insubordination.

Keep us posted if you find out any more.....?

[Digger]

Do you know which is which (or should that be who is who?) out of the other 2 in the photo?

Neither is wearing a trade badge, so hard to tell which is the shoeing smith. At a guess, I'd say that the guy on the left was the younger of the two, and possibly the one in the middle was..... the middle one. So I guess that would mean the one on the right was the eldest. Am I right?

I'm sure that there'll be some sort of DCM and GCM records for the period that dad got into trouble; I remember researching a guy who was CM'd in the immediate pre-war period, and there was definately a register of all cases though no transcripts of trials survived. Sounds like he was a surly individual, and I guess that's why he got into hot water. But 5 years?! My g'father had a string of disciplinaries culminating in a CM for striking a superior officer in about 1912, but all he got was a month or 2 inside. So what did your man do to warrant 5 years, I wonder. It had to be more than just basic insubordination.

Keep us posted if you find out any more.....?

Yes the one on the right was William Harold, the eldest, and the one on the left was Herbert the middle son and the shoeing smith, and the added photo was Reginald the youngest.

I will keep looking for information and will post when and if I find any.

[widavies]

So what did your man do to warrant 5 years, I wonder. It had to be more than just basic insubordination.

Keep us posted if you find out any more.....?

Hi Digger/Headgardener,

Lets tackle it differently, why not put out an SOS to find if someone else here on the forum that has some intricate knowledge of the Army Regulations and punishments therein (pre 20th Century), to see if what offences warranted a 5 year punishment period.

Will

[Tyrim]

I located an article published in 1930 which describes a man being Discharged with Ignominy in the 1860-1870 time frame. Although the author says it was almost the last case of "drumming out", it matches my Father's description of a similar event in 1918.

Read it at:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1300...;pg=6197,746823

[widavies]

I located an article published in 1930 which describes a man being Discharged with Ignominy in the 1860-1870 time frame. Although the author says it was almost the last case of "drumming out", it matches my Father's description of a similar event in 1918.

Read it at:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1300...;pg=6197,746823

From Wikipedia.

Discipline and punishmentLegislation resulted in General Orders being issued throughout the army which ended barbarous disciplinary measures, such as branding men convicted of desertion or persistent bad conduct (originally carried out to prevent dishonourably discharged soldiers re-enlisting). The reformers abolished flogging for troops serving at Home, but it survived as a punishment on overseas service until 1881, as officers insisted that extraordinary powers of summary punishment might be required in the field where imprisonment or removal of privileges was impractical (Spiers (1992), pp.73-74)

And in the Army act rule book

The Army Act, first published 1881 and renewable annually, was the culmination of the process of inquiry and was intended to reform and modernise British military law. Yet it bore a closer relationship to earlier British models and to those of the old empires in Eastern Europe than it did to the more progressive ones in Western Europe such as those of France and Germany. The Act outlined a total of twenty-seven capital offences – twelve were punishable by death at any time and fifteen were so punishable on active service only. These are summarised in Tables 1 and 2 :

Table 1 : Offences punishable by death

Table 2 : Offences only punishable by death if committed on active servie

Will

[headgardener]

So, judging by that newspaper article, it's likely that having been discharged from the army the man would be incarcerated in a civilian prison.

Maybe our man here DID serve his full 5 years after all. I thought it was strange that he was let out so soon after having been sentenced.

[Digger]

So, judging by that newspaper article, it's likely that having been discharged from the army the man would be incarcerated in a civilian prison.

Maybe our man here DID serve his full 5 years after all. I thought it was strange that he was let out so soon after having been sentenced.

I will check out the Chichester Newspapers and the Royal Sussex Regiment archives, and see what I can find. If there is any other course of action I can take is known, please let me know. Thanks.

[Tyrim]

Some other points:

"My great grandfther was granted and then forfeited what looks like 1d G C Pay"

In the entry dated 26 May 1883, it looks like it may have been the Queen's shilling rather than 1d since it was given on the day he attested. I don't know how they would have written a shilling but that doesn't look quite like a "d". The 1d forfeiture wasn't until 13 May 1886.

It's interesting that 8 days after forfeiting the penny he was put in the stockade. Could it be that something happened, they made him forfeit a penny and it all sat so badly with him that he did something rash?

It's also interesting that the 20 days he spent in confinement waiting for Court Martial didn't count on his sentence. He really served 7 months and 20 days. I assume the same held true for the later incarceration although it is presumed that he was released from there to the civil authorities.

Another odd thing is the length of time he served after the last Court. Why hold him for 98 days before discharging him? I can't imagine it was on acccount of Christmas, 3 days later. Could he have been out of the country and it took that long to get him back home to England and drum him out?

This is a very interesting thread!