Great Grandfather

[Digger]

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!

He was serving in India at the time, so presumably he returned home by ship. Would it have taken 3 months though? Or maybe they had to wait for a scheduled ship to arrive and depart. I am assuming that we would have returned on a military ship, would records exist on those? Will try national archives and see what I can find.

No record of his court martial in the Royal Sussex Regiment records.

Despite him being my great grandfather, I am somewhat sceptical that he ‘did his bit’ in WW1. Unfortunately from family anecdotes I understand that he was not a very nice chap, was lazy and he constantly bullied those around him, the only one who stood up to him was his wife, who did not put up with his behaviour. I wonder if she knew his history when she married him! Thanks odness the rest of the family seem to have inherited all their mother's good points.

Thanks you to everyone for all your help, as ever a fount of information.

[Digger]

Thanks odness the rest of the family seem to have inherited all their mother's good points.

My fingers were obviously faster than my brain, that should read thank goodness the rest of the family seem to have inherited all their mother's good points.

[widavies]

Hi Digger,

I hope you find what you are looking for in the archives.

Will

[Andy Wade]

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.

A shilling would have been written like this:

1/-

This means 1 shilling and no pence.

[Tyrim]

Right about the 1/- but there seems to be some figure or letter entered between the 1 and the G. I was wondering whether there might have been some other form that might have been used in script or accounting to signify the amount. It doesn't look anything like a "d" to me nor does it look like an "s".

I also wonder what kind of document this was. It appears to be a ledger but was it posted as the events occurred or compiled later. The writing looks pretty consistant so it looks like one person wrote it, except, possible, for the "Attested Private 26th May83". But why the red ink for the money lines (and date correction) and the blue checks?

[Digger]

Right about the 1/- but there seems to be some figure or letter entered between the 1 and the G. I was wondering whether there might have been some other form that might have been used in script or accounting to signify the amount. It doesn't look anything like a "d" to me nor does it look like an "s".

I also wonder what kind of document this was. It appears to be a ledger but was it posted as the events occurred or compiled later. The writing looks pretty consistant so it looks like one person wrote it, except, possible, for the "Attested Private 26th May83". But why the red ink for the money lines (and date correction) and the blue checks?

This was part of the short service attestation - the statement of services.

Thanks for all the help given.

[David_Underdown]

Try this research guide from The National Archives Looking for records of a British army soldier up to 1913.

Appaerntly his discharge papers may be listed in the catalogue (I'm assuming he wouldn't have a Chelsea pension...).

There's also this British Army: Courts Martial, 17th-20th Centuries

[Tyrim]

Good luck on this Digger.

It's a very interesting thread and I hope you'll keep us informed of what you learn.

Tyrim

[pabbay]

Thinking back to my own service days and the way monetary punishments were handed out could the forfiture note mean 1 days Good Conduct Pay??

[Tyrim]

pabbay

Interesting idea. After some more squinting at the entry, I think the date might really be 26 May 1885 rather than 1883. The blue check mark overshadows what looks like a stroke that would make the number a five rather than a poorly formed three.

Did they reward good conduct with payments after two years in those days? If so, it would jibe nicely with your theory.

tyrim

[headgardener]

Tyrim;

You're absolutely right, it IS '85 - after 2 years without committing a disciplinary offence a soldier would be awarded a good conduct stripe to go on his sleeve and a little bit of money to go with it.

Pabbay;

I think you're also right. '1 penny of good conduct pay deducted' doesn't make sense - 1 day's good conduct pay does.

[pabbay]

I lost a few days pay myself for being naughty!!

[Tyrim]

pabbay

And you thought it was wasted money whereas it was all part of your (and our) education.

About the good conduct stripe-- would he lose that after being convicted by court martial or would he get to keep it since he'd already earned it. It would seem logical that they'd take it away. In the photo he's not wearing one.

tyrim

edit

As I think about it, the stripe must have gone with the pay forfeiture since they were one in the same award.

[headgardener]

About the good conduct stripe-- would he lose that after being convicted by court martial or would he get to keep it since he'd already earned it. It would seem logical that they'd take it away. In the photo he's not wearing one.

tyrim

edit

As I think about it, the stripe must have gone with the pay forfeiture since they were one in the same award.

Yes, it would have been taken away.

He could also have lost it simply for being on a charge which was upheld against him, let alone a CM. And it wouldn't have shown on the photo because his GC stripe was not like a medal in that it would not be worn except on his army uniform during his period of service (i.e. it would only have been worn up to the point at which it was taken away or his period of service ended).

[pabbay]

Not to sure about this, the GC stripe was for the 2 years of "undetected crime" prior to the loss of the 1 days pay. Depending on the severity of the misdemeanour could he not have been fined after the GC stripe was awarded ie he was in a new 2 year qualifying period for his next stripe and the fine related to that new period so he held on to his stripe? The voice of personal experience here again

If the offence was of a more serious nature he could then loose both his stripe and be fined. If any sort of CM was involved he would definitely loose all his GC entitlements but he could also be punished by his CO in the same manner for an offence that did not warrant any level of CM.

Thinking of more modern day service rules for discharging service personnel I am wondering if this chap committed some crime that besides breaking sevice regulations also broke the civilian law. If this was the case the civilian authorities may have asked the Army to deal with him rather than see the Army disgraced in a civvy court. The CM would then have to award, if he was found guilty a sentence similar to that which a civvy court would seek and also it would have to award a service punishment too.

On being found guilty by a CM he would have to serve some time in a military detention centre to satisfy the Army regulations and then be shipped off to a civilian nick to serve out the sentence a French court would have awarded. I have some experience of this happening in more recent times, not to me I hasten to add, where the guilty party managed to break both the service and civvy laws and served time in both types of punishment institutions but whether it happened in WW1 I'm not sure.

[headgardener]

Not to sure about this, the GC stripe was for the 2 years of "undetected crime" prior to the loss of the 1 days pay. Depending on the severity of the misdemeanour could he not have been fined after the GC stripe was awarded ie he was in a new 2 year qualifying period for his next stripe and the fine related to that new period so he held on to his stripe?

I'll be honest and say that I can't be absolutely certain about this, but I have come across so many instances of men's records showing that they had been 'deprived GC stripe' on receiving a much lighter punishment than this chap. I always got the impression that this applied to all GC stripes, but perhaps I've got the wrong impression. So you may well be right, maybe someone with a copy of KR's will help us out here?

In any case, this wouldn't apply to our man here, as he wasn't in long enough to get a second GC stripe.

And he was getting up to no good back in India during the 1880's, rather than France in WW1.

[Tyrim]

It looks like he kept the stripe and monetary reward as long as he was a good boy. But when he slipped, they took it all away.

Exactly 24 months after attesting he received the awards-- stripe and money-- and he started a new eligibility period.

11 months and 17 days later, he was caught at something and they took the award money back. (This would have to be from the first award since there was still 12 1/2 months to go before the second money would be forthcoming.)

9 days later he's confined. But why then? If forfeiture was punishment for the offence wouldn't it have ended there? Why a later confinement? It would seem that there were two infractions. Possibly, resentment over being punished for a minor offense caused him to commit a second, more serious, crime.

The first line on the form shows the attestation date along with the date preceding this confinement. Everything between those dates seems to have been normal with the forfeiture having no effect on them so it couldn't have been a really big thing.

CM gives him 7 months in confinement and this effects his "good" service time.

Free for almost 11 months and then he does something worse and he's back in confinement.

A second CM gives him 5 years, and he's out and probably into civil prison.

[Tyrim]

headgardener

"And he was getting up to no good back in India during the 1880's, rather than France in WW1. "

You're right!

We still have to figure out how he comes to be in a WWI uniform, but his previous service is part of the puzzle.

Tyrim

[pabbay]

KRs and Army Instructions for the relevant time in history will provide most of the answers to his punishment as they will show the scales of punishments that can be awarded for any particular offence and also by whom the awards can be made eg Company Commander, Battalion CO or Brigadier etc.

The leap from a fairly minor misdemeanor being punished by a low level of discomfort up to a full blown courts martial is massive so he must have commited some drastic crime(s) or other unless he requested to be tried by courts martial himself.

If I had to make a guess at his behaviour I would say he was a persistent low level offender whose accumulation of petty rule breaking led to him being punished by the loss of his GC awards because the loss of GC status is not the first step on the punishment ladder. He may of asked for a courts martial himself upon him being apprehended committing a more serious offence or someone in the command chain has ordered him to face the tribunal. He could have been sentenced to a period in detention by an officer at regimental or brigade level without being hauled up in front of a courts martial for being a persistant offender but KIs would show what length of time could be awarded by which level of officer who has heard the case.

On being found guilty by a courts martial he would lose all of his good conduct awards before he was sent to a military detention centre as everyone who is sent there will be at the lowest level of rank possible eg a sergeant who is found guilty by the tribunal would lose his rank and seniority as well as his GC awards and enter the detention centre as a private.

The fact that our man had previously been found guilty by courts martial would be taken in account when sentenced by the second tribunal and so he would expect a more robust sentence when found guilty. If he had been found guilty of a purely Army disipline matter I would have expected the worse thing that would have happened to him would be to be sentenced to a period of detention and then discharched as SNLR, services no longer required, but the fact that he ended up in a civvy prison is suggesting to me that he transgressed over the line in to civil law somehow.

Hope this is not muddying the waters too much.

[headgardener]

Exactly 12 months after attesting he received the awards-- stripe and money-- and he started a new eligibility period.

24 months.... it's granted after 2 years.

[Tyrim]

You're right, Headgardener! I typed it wrong. Thanks for the correction.

I'll try to edit the original to say 24 months.