The First to be Shot
In a cruel twist of fate, the memory of Private 1006 Private Thomas James Highgate, has been scornfully disturbed. The eight-member Parish Council of Shoreham Kent recently denied him a place on the Roll of Honour. Did they know the background to Highgate's case, and if they did, where was their compassion? Julian Putkowksi, author, researcher and military historian, has traced the background to Highgate's execution
Private Thomas Highgate No. 10061, 1st Battalion, Royal West Kent Regiment, had the unfortunate distinction of being the first British soldier to be convicted of desertion and executed during the First World War. His offence, trial and the confirmation of the death sentence all took place on the same day - 8 September 1914.
The trial was hastily sanctioned by General Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien, the commander of 2 Army Corps, who noted that because of the proximity of the enemy, it had not been possible to permit Highgate the authorised time to prepare his defence.
Nor was the soldier either medically examined or provided with a "Prisoner's Friend" [Defending Officer]. The president of the trial, convened at Chateau Combreaux, was Colonel A.B. Dunsterville, commanding 2 Army Corps Troops, assisted by Captain D.C. Miers and Lieutenant A.S. Nicholson, both serving with 1st Battalion, Cameron Highlanders. The prosecutor was the Assistant Provost Marshal, 2 Army Corps.
Highgate, dressed in civilian clothes, declared that he was not guilty of being a deserter. The prosecutor then summoned two witnesses, whose testimony sketched out their recollections of what had happened earlier during the day.
The first was Thomas Fermor, a gamekeeper employed by Baron Edward Rothschild. He recalled that shortly after 8.15 a.m., while searching for a missing bicycle at Medlin, he had encountered an Englishman, Private Highgate, dressed in civilian clothes.
Fermor explained to the court that Highgate had declared, "I have lost my Army and I mean to get out of it." Fermor then told the court that Highgate had then admitted he was serving with the Royal West Kent Regiment. Fermor had emptied Highgate's pockets and discovered a military paybook, which confirmed the soldier's identity and personal details.
Highgate also took Fermor to a woodshed, where the latter had left his military uniform, rifle and ammunition. The weapon and ammunition were missing but the clothing remained. Fermor subsequently took the clothing and Highgate to the Mairie, where French police took the soldier into custody.
The court permitted Highgate to cross-examine Fermor:
Highgate: "Did I say I wanted to get out of it, or that I wanted to find my way out of it?"
Fermor: "He [Highgate] said, I have had enough of it, I want to get out of it, and this is how I am doing it."
The second witness for the prosecution, Captain C.A. Milward, 53rd Sikhs told the court that on 6 September he had gone to Chateau Combreaux near Tournan and had received a telegram [the Army Signal was dispatched at 8.45 a.m.] which instructed him to go to the farm of Monsieur Poirier,
Rue de Martry, Tournan and arrest a deserter.
Milward declared that when he first saw Highgate, the soldier was dressed in civilian clothes - but the officer was unable to recall whether Highgate was wearing a coat at the time. However, Milward did recall asking Highgate why he had deserted. The soldier replied that he had left his bivouac during the morning but could remember nothing further.
Highgate called no witnesses in his own defence. He simply stated:
"I came out of my bivouac with my Regiment this morning, we halted on the side of the road, I fell out on the right to ease myself. [to defecate]. The regiment went on before I was finished. I went on but could not find them, got strolling about, went down into a farm, lay down in an empty house, and have a slight remembrance of putting some civilian clothes on, but do not remember exactly what happened until a man came down to arrest me. I was coming back to see if I could find my clothes and my regiment, but I was taken to the police station before I could get back. When I was asked by the man who arrested me, who I was, I answered him at once and told him who I was."
The Assistant Provost Marshal demanded:
"Why did you say to Mr. Fermor you "Wanted to get out of it and that was how you were doing it", or words to that effect?"
Highgate replied:
"When he came to me, I told him that I was trying to get out of it, meaning that I had lost my way and wanted to get out of the place in which I was, and I wanted to rejoin my regiment. I cannot say why I was in civilian clothes."
It is clear from any critical review of the trial and punishment of Highgate, that the British Army breached its own rules. The British Army's Manual of Military Law (1914), Ch. 3, sec. 13, states that:
"The offence of desertion - that is to say, of deserting or attempting to desert His Majesty's service - implies an intention on the part of the offender either not to return to His Majesty's service at all, or to escape some particular important service."
Did the prosecutor produce evidence to prove that Highgate never intended to return to join his battalion? There was absolutely no evidence heard by the court that confirmed Highgate had intended not to return to military duty, nor did the court ascertain whether the soldier had avoided any particular military duty, e.g. an assault on the enemy.
The court did not even bother to secure a statement or evidence from an NCO or Officer to confirm the time at which Highgate had parted company with his battalion. At most, Highgate could only have been absent for about a couple of hours before Fermor arrived at Medlin. On the other hand, from the proceedings of his trial, he may only have been absent for a few minutes.
What Highgate was alleged to have said to Fermor was simply one man's word against another, given that the soldier challenged the gamekeeper's recollection and there was no independent evidence of what had taken place.
After all, Highgate had kept his army identity papers; he had stated his regimental affiliation; kept possession of his paybook and he had not tried to run away from Fermor. Fermor's statement confirmed that when he challenged Highgate, the latter at no time attempted to deny he was a British soldier. From the gamekeeper's testimony, there was no valid reason why the court should have concluded that Highgate never intended to rejoin his unit.
The evidence of Captain Milward similarly did not reveal anything further about Highgate's motives or the specific reason why the soldier was garbed in civilian dress. If anything, Milward's testimony ought to have caused the court to enquire about Highgate's state of mind but those sitting in judgement were apparently disinterested in Highgate's mental or physical condition at the time he went absent. That Captain E.L. Moss RAMC had pronounced fit for trial before the proceedings opened does not excuse the court's manifest lack of concern about these issues.
What may be inferred about Highgate's change of clothing? The soldier claimed to have remembered little about the change of clothing and perhaps it was simply a matter of changing a pair of faecally soiled army trousers for a less smelly garment. Again, the court did not press the issue of Highgate's dress but on the basis of the court's verdict and the sentence of death, it could be argued that the officers had already concluded that Highgate was guilty from the outset of the proceedings. If the latter is correct then the trial breached the elementary standards of natural justice, whereby a defendant is regarded as being innocent until evidence proves him to be guilty of having committed a offence.
The prosecution was inept. The officer concerned was required by King's Regulations (para. 575) to:
"Bring all the facts of the case fully before the court in evidence, and to take care, especially when the accused is not assisted in his defence, that no material fact i n connection with the offence charged is omitted which would, if given in evidence, tell in favour of the accused."
It is clear from the written proceedings that the prosecution failed to show when and where Highgate had gone absent. At best, all that was proved was that Highgate had become separated from his battalion and was a "straggler" - a contemporary experience shared by hundreds of British soldiers.
And what of the sentence? Again, the Manual of Military Law (para. 583) required the court to have regard not only to the seriousness of the offence but also, "The previous character of the accused". There is no documentary evidence produced to prove that Highgate had been a bad soldier, and no NCO, or officer from the battalion, was called to give evidence about either the soldier's disciplinary record, character or soldierly qualities.
The arrangements for Highgate's execution were almost as hasty as the soldier's trial. Lt. Colonel N.G. Anderson, Assistant Adjutant General and Quartermaster General, 5 Division at Coulommiers at 5 a.m. on 8 September sent an order to Brigadier General Count Gleichen, commanding 15 Brigade. Anderson stated that the "Lieutenant General" [possibly an error? Sir Charles Fergusson, Commanding 5 Division is recorded in the Order of Battle as a Major General] wanted Gleichen to have Highgate's sentence to be promulgated and have the soldier executed, "At once, as publicly a possible."
Ten minutes after dispatching this message, Anderson sent a supplementary message instructing Brigadier General Gleichen to have Highgate executed "As the Brigade group is marching past". Highgate was to be informed of his fate 45 minutes before the time he was to be shot and that a "clergyman" was to be present. Again, the message exhorted, "Carrying out of the sentence to be as public as possible."
Highgate was informed of his fate a 6.22 a.m. in the presence of a Church of England [Protestant] clergyman by Captain J. Monteath, Assistant Provost Marshal, 5 Division. The officer then ordered a burial party and a firing squad to prepare for the execution, and Highgate was killed at 7.07 a.m. in front of a company of men from 1 Bn. Dorset Regiment and 1 Bn. Cheshire Regiment (both part of 15 Brigade). His fate was circulated and publicised to the remainder of the British Expeditionary Force via Army Routine Orders.
Little is known of Highgate's personal life or his family. He was born in Gravesend and was a farm labourer when, aged 17 years and 9 months, he joined the Army on 4 February 1913. When mobilisation was ordered, Highgate was serving with B Company, 1 Battalion, Royal West Kent Regiment, quartered in Richmond Barracks, Dublin. Like the vast majority of soldiers in Britain's pre-war Army, Highgate was unmarried but it seems likely that he had an Irish sweetheart, because on 5 August 1914 he made the following entry in his paybook:
"If I get killed all I have to come from the government for my services I leave to Miss Mary McNulty, 3 Leinster Road, Phibsborough, Dublin."
Private Highgate has no known grave but his name features on the La Ferte-sous-Jarre British military memorial to the missing and the encyclopaedic memorial publication, "Soldiers Died in the Great War" refers to him having "Died of Wounds".
The British Army has always been secretive about capital courts martial and the British Government continues to sustain the shabby myth that Highgate and over three hundred others, executed in a similar fashion, were treated fairly when court-martialled.
In reviewing the manner of his death, military disciplinarians might concede Highgate was "A victim of rough justice" but social historians can afford to be less defensive and acknowledge that Highgate was judicially murdered by the British Army.
At the time the Reverend Barry Simmons carried out an opinion poll. This clearly showed the majority of the citizens of Shoreham wanted Highgate's name included in the memorial. The local branch of the Royal British Legion, on the other hand, sat on the fence. Fourteen votes were cast each way with twelve members abstaining. This, despite the fact that since 1985, it has been the official policy of the British Legion to urge a pardon for the executed soldiers of World War One. The matter was considered again by the Shoreham Council in June 2000 and rejected. They should have been mindful that Highgate was no deserter. The most serious crime he committed was merely being a straggler in common with thousands of other soldiers. His execution was outrageously out of proportion and reflected a justice gone mad.
