ELDERLY VOLUNTEERS

[steve chilton]

I have just stumbled across my gt gt granduncle, Joseph Prouten (Prouton) who was born in 1862 joined up in May 1915, he joined the 4th Battalion Royal Berks Regiment, 6th Supernumary Company. He gave his age as 55 and had previous military service but I havent yet been able to decipher the regiment.

In April 1916 he was transferred to the Royal Defence Corps, 267th Pro Coy TF, and in Feb 1917 he was awarded 14 days FP No 2. I think I am correct in assuming that this is Field Punishment No 2 (I like this guy). In Oct 1917 he was discharged as no longer fit for war service, "rheumatism and senility attrib", his character was described as "good".

His eldest son, Albert James Prouten was killed in France on 8 Oct 1918. In Oct 1922 he was found drowned in the River Thames at Earley near Reading.

Obviously a lot more to be gleened from local papers etc when I get the chance, but, my real question is this...

What did Field Punishment no 2 entail and for what sort of wicked deed did a 55 year old solder have to do to get it? Bearing in mind that he was in a Provost Company (if I am reading it correctly). Also, was it usual for people of this age to enlist?

He does have a medal card but it does not have any medals listed but on his pension records it says that he received what looks like the "Defence" medal, was there a defence medal for WW1?

Any answers to above questions gratefully received.

Steve Chilton

[SteveE]

He gave his age as 55 and had previous military service but I havent yet been able to decipher the regiment.

Steve

Looks to me as he was 2570 in the 1st Leinster Regiment (The Prince of Wales's Leinster Regiment (Royal Canadians) to give it its full title).

Steve

[SteveE]

In April 1916 he was transferred to the Royal Defence Corps, 267th Pro Coy TF

In April 1916 he was transferred to 261 Protection Coy. RDC with whom he got the FP No.2 in 1917. He transferred to 267 Protection Coy. RDC in March 1917.

He does have a medal card but it does not have any medals listed but on his pension records it says that he received what looks like the "Defence" medal, was there a defence medal for WW1?

I can't see any references to medals on his record. Is it the section 'Campaigns Medals and Decorations' etc. that you are referring to? If so it says Home 2nd Jun 1915 to 18th October 1917 (i.e. where he served). No Medal was awarded for service at home (except, I believe, in some circumstances for coastal defence etc. which wouldn't have included him).

Hope this helps.

Steve

[doogal]

Field Punishment No1 meant being manacled to a stationary object for a given amount of time per day - this would usually be a cart wheel or similar.

Field Punishment No2 meant "just" being manacled, for a given amount of time per day for the length of the imposed sentence.

Someone else will be able to give you more detail on how long per day and other bits and pieces.

doogal

[Graham Stewart]

What did Field Punishment no 2 entail and for what sort of wicked deed did a 55 year old solder have to do to get it? Bearing in mind that he was in a Provost Company (if I am reading it correctly). Also, was it usual for people of this age to enlist?

Actually he wasn't serving in a Provost Company at all its a 'Protection Company', whose role was guarding vunerable points.

Graham.

[steve chilton]

Many thanks for the replies and deciphering of pension records etc.

It all makes sense once someone tells you what they say.

Thanks again

Steve Chilton

[grantowi]

Steve,

This could your man in 1891 Census,both name and age match but the wifes name dont match up with that on the CWGC site for the son.

Grant

PROUTEN, Joseph Head Married M 28 Coach Builder

Wootton

Hampshire VIEW

PROUTEN, Emma Wife Married F 24

Warfield

Berkshire VIEW

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RG number:

RG12 Piece:

1006 Folio:

39 Page:

8

Registration District:

Easthampstead Sub District:

Bracknell EnumerationDistrict:

3 Ecclesiastical Parish:

All Saints

Civil Parish:

Binfield Municipal Borough:

Address:

Jealotts Hill, Hazelwood Lane, Binfield County:

Berkshire

[centurion]

Its very odd him being given field punishment at all. As the name suggests this was intended only for use in the field where other punishments (such as CB etc) were clearly not practicable. It was primarily introduced when flogging was abolished (in much the same way as 'life' was supposed to replace hanging) to meet the protests (often from soldiers themselves) that if there was no flogging then there was no way of punishing severe malefactors when on campaign. If he was used for second line duties such as guarding installations then the rational for field punishment would not be there as other forms would be available.

[steve chilton]

Gantowi,

Thanks for the interest, I have him on the 1871, 1881 and 1901 census's but not the 1891 so far, in 1881 he was a carpenter and wheelwright so a coachbuilder would seem to follow nicely, the wife doesnt fit though but I will certainly follow up on this. Most of the civil records I have on the "Proutens" in my tree are spelt as such, however, I have come across "Prouton" (as in Josephs military records) Prowting and a few other spellings. Thanks again.

Centurion,

Again, thanks for the input, the handwritten entry "awarded 14 days F.P. no 2" on his pension record is very clear (shame a lot of the rest isnt). I am obviously open to correction but I cant think of what else F.P. no 2 could be.

Steve Chilton

[steve chilton]

Just another query that comes to mind while we are touching on the subject of WW1 pensions, when searching for Joseph Prouton on ancestry it says on the results page that there are 13 images, yet, when I go through them and download them there are only 7. I have read somewhere that when you get the first page if you go backwards instead of forwards you will sometimes find "previous" pages, I have tried this but still only get 7 pages.

Has anyone else come across this before ?

Steve Chilton

[centurion]

the handwritten entry "awarded 14 days F.P. no 2" on his pension record is very clear (shame a lot of the rest isnt). I am obviously open to correction but I cant think of what else F.P. no 2 could be.

I'm sure it is Field Punishment no 2 - I was merely expressing surpise as the regulations clearly stated that this was only to be applied when on active service. However some rummaging around reveals one possible explanation. The regulations keep using the word "may be" (he may be in irons). Looking at some accounts from about 1917 field punishment no 2 was sometimes applied with just the heavy duties bit and no tying up. There is an account of a soldier attached to a hospital close to the front (not a patient) being punished in this way. It may be that FP no 2 was used as a way a commander could deal with an offender and still keep him at work if this was away from barracks. It looks as if a common reason for FP 2 was getting drunk - not ordinary drunk but what the Scots would call stochioius.

The regs

Manual of military law (London : HMSO, 1914)

Rules for field punishment made under S. 44 of the Army Act.

1. A court-martial, or a commanding officer, may award field punishment for any offence committed on active service, and may sentence an offender for a period not exceeding, in the case of a court-martial three months, and in the case of a commanding officer twenty-eight days, to one of the following field punishments, namely:-

Field punishment No. 1

Field punishment No. 2.

2. Where an offender is sentenced to field punishment No. 1, he may, during the continuance of his sentence, unless the court-martial or the commanding officer otherwise directs, be punished as follows:-

a. He may be kept in irons, i.e., in fetters or handcuffs, or both fetters and handcuffs; and may be secured so as to prevent his escape.

b. When in irons he may be attached for a period or periods not exceeding two hours in any one day to a fixed object, but he must not be so attached during more than three out of any four consecutive days, nor during more than twenty-one days in all.

c. Straps or ropes may be used for the purpose of these rules in lieu of irons.

d. He may be subjected to the like labour, employment, and restraint, and dealt with in like manner as if he were under a sentence of imprisonment with hard labour.

3. Where an offender is sentenced to field punishment No. 2, the foregoing rule with respect to field punishment No. 1 shall apply to him, except that he shall not be liable to be attached to a fixed object as provided by paragraph B of Rule 2.

4. Every portion of a field punishment shall be inflicted in such a manner as is calculated not to cause injury or to leave any permanent mark on the offender; and a portion of a field punishment must be discontinued upon a report by a responsible medical officer that the continuance of that portion would be prejudicial to the offender's health.

5. Field punishment will be carried out regimentally when the unit to which the offender belongs or is attached is actually on the move, but when the unit is halted at any place where there is a provost marshal, or an assistant provost marshal, the punishment will be carried out under that officer.

6. When the unit to which the offender belongs or is attached is actually on the move, an offender awarded field punishment No. 1 shall be exempt from the operation of Rule 2 B, but all offenders awarded field punishment shall march with their unit, carry their arms and accoutrements, perform all their military duties as well as extra fatigue duties, and be treated as defaulters.

[steve chilton]

It looks as if a common reason for FP 2 was getting drunk - not ordinary drunk but what the Scots would call stochioius.

Centurion, many thanks for the info and hard work here. I must say, I am getting to like Joseph Prouten. Having done 18 years in the Army and having had the odd "stochioius" moment myself but managing to avoid any FP No2, I think I can quite relate to this guy.

Thanks again

Steve Chilton

[James Blonde]

he was discharged as no longer fit for war service, "rheumatism and senility attrib", his character was described as "good".

Possibly the reason for punishment was he forgot to turn up for duty or wandered off from a duty?

I remember an elderly member of the Reserve Forces (F.C.A.) in the Irish Army who was serving as Camp Orderly Sergeant at Finner Camp, County Donegal, going out the gate in his car at 16:30 (the normal knocking off time)!!

He only realized he was still on duty when his wife asked him at home what he was doing wearing a gun in the house, and hurriedly drove back to the camp, to the relief of the Orderly Officer who was missing his presence, after this he was dropped from the duty roster.

Connaught Stranger