Jump to content
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Legal Eagle Required re Corporal Punishment


michaeldr
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 4th December 1917 Allenby wrote to Robertson (CIGS)

“The Egyptian native personnel referred to are subject only to the Army Act. Flogging is, therefore illegal. … … … The general behaviour of the Egyptian Labour Corps is very good; but there are now and then cases for the lash. Do you think that it could be specially legalized, ...”

Corporal Punishment was administered on Gallipoli in 1915 in respect of some members of the Zion Mule Corps.

What was the difference between these two units [the ELC and the ZMC] which made corporal punishment legal in one case and illegal in the other?

 

Thanks in advance for any assistance with this question.

Michael

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

I suspect it will be that the ELC was a fully raised military unit, and under the restrictions to punishment under the Army Act, whereas the ZMC were raised as a special volunteer unit that was not just subject to military law.

Wiki has a quote that "The General said he was unable, under the Army Act, to enlist foreign nationals as fighting troops, but that he could form them into a volunteer transport Mule Corp".

More background - https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-zion-muleteers-of-gallipoli




Craig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, michaeldr said:

On 4th December 1917 Allenby wrote to Robertson (CIGS)

“The Egyptian native personnel referred to are subject only to the Army Act. Flogging is, therefore illegal. … … … The general behaviour of the Egyptian Labour Corps is very good; but there are now and then cases for the lash. Do you think that it could be specially legalized, ...”

Corporal Punishment was administered on Gallipoli in 1915 in respect of some members of the Zion Mule Corps.

What was the difference between these two units [the ELC and the ZMC] which made corporal punishment legal in one case and illegal in the other?

 

Thanks in advance for any assistance with this question.

Michael

 

Michael

This PhD thesis about the ELC might be of interest: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/195375093.pdf

TR

 

Edited by Terry_Reeves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Craig & Terry,

I suspect that you are correct Craig and that the nub of this matter lies in the use of the words 'Army Act' – one unit raised within that act and the other without.

I still wonder why this difference though, since both were made up of none British nationals.

That looks like an interesting paper Terry, and I shall have to find more time to go through it thoroughly. A quick glance however, suggests that not everyone was as scrupulous as Allenby and that the lash was in fact used on members of the ELC. A search using the key word 'punishment' brings up several references to the lash, corporal and physical punishments etc etc.

Post-war (21 March 1919) when Allenby was appointed Special High Commissioner for Egypt and the Sudan, and when he had to deal with the civil and political consequences, he was scathing about the way the ELC was treated, including the press-gang methods of recruitment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...