Muntiny at Blarges
Julian Putkowski
To relieve the pressure on commanding officers and economize on labour, several military prisons were erected on the lines of communication to which men undergoing substantial spells of Field Punishment were sent.
These were really penal labour camps rather than cellblocks and to a surprisingly extent their routine operation relied on a measure of co-operation on the part of inmates. Within their confines and when, neither tied up or undergoing solitary confinement, the prisoners were able to communicate and organise collectively to improve their conditions.
It was just such an initiative that led to the first two soldiers to be executed for mutiny by the BEF, Gunner William Lewis, 124 Battery Royal Field Artillery and Pte. John Braithwaite, 2 Otago Regiment, New Zealand Expeditionary Force.
They were shot together on 29 October 1916, after being tried separately for their involvement in two nominally unconnected mutinies that occurred in No.1 Military Prison, Blargies North Camp, near Abancourt.
The prison was one of a pair that had been established near the small village of Blargies. Both consisted of a rectangular barbed wire perimeter fence enclosing a corrugated iron stockade, within which around three hundred prisoners were confined. The men were herded into about two dozen bell tents or confined in a separate punishment block of some thirty cells.
Facilities were spartan: 36 washing basins, 3 showers, a steam room and a small cookhouse. Discipline was enforced by a staff of twenty-six NCO's under the command of a captain.
The prisoners had been convicted by courts martial and sentenced many to months of hard labour. The latter consisted of being regularly detailed for arduous work in labouring gangs for the Royal Engineers in the vicinity of the prison. The rigidly enforced official range of punishments involved sustained sentences of Field Punishment No.1, - being tied up for a couple of hours a day to poles specially erected for the purpose.
Staff also shackled prisoners with leg irons and handcuffs, isolated them in the punishment block or restricted their rations to No.1 diet – a basic bread and water diet. These punishments were supplemented by the staff physically assaulting prisoners.
At 1.30 pm on 14 August 1916, the majority of prisoners were marched off as working parties. Sixty-seven prisoners, however, refused to move, insisting they wanted to see the Deputy Governor of Military Prisons, Captain A. Barker. The latter recalled what next occurred:
"I went to the parade ground & called them to attention - they came to attention - I asked them what their grievances were. Several of them demanded that some of their party should be released from leg irons & taken off punishment diet. The spokesman of this party at this time were Pte’s McCorkindale & Gunner Lewis... I gave the command that all men willing to travel were to take one pace forward, not a man moved."
After declining to negotiate, the Deputy Governor ordered an armed escort to handcuff the prisoners. The latter then started yelling as Acting Staff Sergeant Aves handcuffed one prisoner and began handcuffing a second. He noted:
"On proceeding to start handcuffing three men came forward viz. Pte. McCorkindale, Gunner Lewis & Pte. Garden... & they demanded in an insubordinate manner that I should take the handcuffs from the man I had put them on. I refused to do this until I got Captain Barker's orders. These three men said, practically together, "Fuck Captain Barker & his orders, he is fuck all now, you will take your orders from us or we will murder you fucking bastard'.”
In order to prevent bloodshed, Barker halted the process and ordered the protestors to occupy half a dozen tents that had been erected in another part of the prison compound. They did as ordered but "went independently not as a military party".
At the trial of seven men held responsible for the mutiny, each defendant explained that the protest had been prompted by the lack of general cleanliness and brutality by the guards. One explained,
"There were about 300 prisoners in the Camp & only from 12 to 14 seats in the latrine. We were only allowed from 1.15 pm to 1.30 pm to use the latrine. Supposing there were 100 men who wanted to use the latrines at a time it would be impossible for them to do so without being late for parade. Our underclothing was in a filthy & lousy & we could not get soap to wash, our blankets were lousy & the mess tins we took food from were filthy. The tents we slept in were also filthy. Our clothing came back from the wash in the same state as we took it off. If awarded punishment we were tied up to a pole, very often men would faint. If they said anything they got a punch in the ribs or jaw from any of the staff NCOs near. If the men complained to Captain Barker he would turn round and say 'That is all right' & walk away."
However, Barker had previously demonstrated that he was prepared to discuss grievances with other groups of inmates. The defendants had witnessed him negotiating with 35 newly-arrived Australian prisoners who had refused to work:
"They stated that they wanted their own private razors & clean clothing & men to look after their tents. This request was granted them."
To satisfy the colonials, who had also secured relief from dietary punishment, they had been given two of the six razors that had hitherto been shared between 36 British prisoners.
Thereafter, Scots troops amongst the British prisoners wanted parity of treatment and similar improvements in their compound, a development that Barker later had admitted was under consideration.
The verbal abuse which broke out as the first two men were being handcuffed had been provoked by the sight of a third prisoner being injured by guards' efforts to shackle him with unsuitably small handcuffs. The onlookers had been incensed when their fellow inmate was flung to the ground and kicked by a staff sergeant.
The staff had responded to the outburst by levelling their revolvers at the prisoners until ordered to desist and unshackle the handcuffed men by Captain Barker.
Facing a potential death sentence, Lewis would have been most unlikely to have admitted being part of a mutinous conspiracy. He therefore maintained that his selection and that of another man, Pte. Daniel McCorkindale, 11 Royal Scots, had been a consequence of being arbitrarily selected by a Staff Sergeant to answer questions after Captain Barker had demanded to know what were the men's grievances.
However, Lewis also claimed that after the protest he had been confidentially encouraged by the staff to persuade the men to escalate their action and demand full parity of treatment with the Australians. Had it been achieved, two hours would have been lopped off the afternoon's work for inmates and camp staff. Lewis declined to respond to encouragement by the staff and refused to continue to represent the protestors in subsequent negotiations.
On 15 August all 300 prisoners had been paraded at 7.00 a.m. and ordered to march off. None moved except for the original 67 protestors, who initially complied with the order but soon returned. Giving evidence at the court martial, Colonel Umfreville, Director of Military Prisons, testified:
"The parade was perfectly orderly but I soon saw that there was an unanimous feeling against going out to work. Seeing this I directed the Governor, Captain Barker to tell each section to appoint one man as representative & I would go into any grievances they had to bring forward. I saw the representatives at 9 a.m. After hearing them in the presence of the Camp Commandant, ... I had the whole parade fallen in, explained to the men how trivial the complaints proved to be & how easily matters might have been righted had they taken the proper action."
Umfreville denied saying that he promised that if the protestors went to work on the 15 August, "Bygones will be bygones" but conceded that subsequent negotiations lasted for two hours. Since none of the men's representatives featured in the trial, the testimonies of Umfreville and Barker remain the only first-hand accounts of the meeting. From the formers testimony it appears that the men complained about general lack of cleanliness, inadequate rations, lack of latrines, poor clothes-washing arrangements, insufficient razors for shaving, and that "Men with skin diseases were not segregated" and that an unidentified soldier had been tied up and beaten by prison staff.
Driver William Peden recalled that after the meeting, Colonel Umfreville had promised:
"As regards washing I will see that you will have it clean & as regards to latrine accommodation I will see you have more seats but tea is not allowed in prison but you can have lime juice at night provided you do not have vegetables during the day."
However, Umfreville's evidence to the court dealt only partly with the men's grievances. He declared complaints about cleanliness were due to a more general water shortage problem that could not be rectified.
He then insisted the remaining issues could have been dealt with as ordinary complaints and dismissed the latrines issue as absurd. Umfreville's disingenuousness may partly be accounted for as a robust defence of his subordinates but he must have known that at least one inmate had been suffering from amoebic dysentery.
Further, on 29 August 1916 the Specialist Sanitary Officer investigating outbreaks of diarrhoea reported that the prisoners' compound was the worst affected area.
Colonel Umfreville exonerated his staff of responsibility for the criticisms expressed by the defendants and directed blame for inciting mutiny on the arrival of unruly Australians:
"The general conduct of the camp apart from some few offences of escaping was perfectly normal until the Australian prisoners arrived. The Australians had no grounds for complaint, they objected to being treated as the British prisoners were treated. No case of ill-treatment of prisoners was reported to me. It is a common thing for prisoners when tied to a pole fainting. We had cases of this. I know of no case of a man being taken to hospital on account of being tied up. There is nothing in regulations prohibiting prisoners when doing F.P.1 not being blindfolded. If it is done it is done for some particular reason, for instance if a man makes faces or played the fool generally he would probably be blindfolded by bringing his "stocking cap" over his eyed if his head could not be turned in another direction. The Camp was usually clean but on the 15th the men had not done their cleaning up work. There is no limit to the time prisoners may be kept in leg irons... the men had shorter hours than any other prisoners in France."
Barker and the staff all denied the brutality alleged by the prisoners. Thus, they affirmed, no prisoner was sent to hospital as a result of being tied up and that Private Thom had not been assaulted. He had cut himself because he struggled and not because the handcuffs were too small.
Cap comforters were pulled over the eyes of prisoners undergoing Field Punishment No.1 if they laughed, or talked to others who had been similarly sentenced. In fact no member of staff had ever been seen to ill-treat a prisoner. By inference, therefore, the mutineers had no reason to complain. The Judge Advocate commented:
"Provocation by a superior or the existence of a grievance is no justification for mutiny though it would of course be allowed due weight in considering the punishment... anyone with the most rudimentary idea of discipline must see that such a method of obtaining redress is contrary to all ideas of discipline."
In spite of the earnest but ineffectual efforts of a legally unqualified Prisoners' Friend, all the defendants were found guilty.
Thom was sentenced to six years' Penal Servitude and the remaining six were to be executed.
The Commander-in-Chief, Sir Douglas Haig reduced the former and commuted the latter to heavy prison sentences, except in the case of Gunner Lewis.
The Execution of Private John Braithwaite - New Zealand Expeditionary Force
The mutiny that led to Pte. John Braithwaite, 2 Otago Regiment NZEF being shot alongside Gunner Lewis took place in the Australian and New Zealand soldiers' compound on 28 August 1916.
The immediate cause of the incident involved an Australian soldier named Private Alexander Little. While having a brief hot shower after a morning's work, the water had been cut off and Little had verbally abused an NCO. Arriving back at the Camp, Staff Sgt. F.E., Shearing, MPSC was ordered by Acting Sgt. Maj. Gill to confine Pte. Little in the nearby Punishment Compound. Shearing recalled:
"I marched Pte. Little to the Punishment Compound about 30 yards away. He came quietly. On marching him to the gate of the punishment compound before the gate was opened Pte. Little shouted out to the Mess Orderly, "Bring my dinner over, this fucking bag of slime is putting me inside". I opened the gate and told Little to go in: he refused to do so and made a good deal of noise. The rest of the Section rushed over in a body... & took Pte. Little away from me."
The thirty of so prisoners who snatched Little from Shearing then raucously dispersed to their tents, the prison staff unable to halt their departure without bloodshed.
John "Jack" Braithwaite (the mess orderly) and three Australians, Pte’s. Mitchell, Le Guier and Sheffield were identified as being in the crowd and were charged with mutiny. Colonel Umfreville did not attend the brief hearing on 6 October 1916, but Barker and his staff gave evidence for the prosecution. The Prosecuting Officer, Judge Advocate, Prisoners' Friend and two of the five officers hearing the case had also been involved in the earlier trial.
The defence unsuccessfully challenged witnesses' evidence of identification but Braithwaite admitted that he had taken a meal over to Little as the crowd surrounded and told the court. He explained:
"My motive in getting Pte. Little away to the tent was really to prevent trouble as I had been given permission to petition General Birdwood on behalf of the Australian and New Zealand prisoners for release to go back to the front. The petition had gone, and we were expecting an answer at any time."
The Commander-in-Chief commuted the death sentences against the Australians to two years' imprisonment with hard labour but confirmed Braithwaite’s.
Braithwaite, an articulate 35-year old ex- journalist, had been repeatedly punished by courts martial for absence before being confined in Blargies Prison and had circumstantially been involved in the negotiations which had earlier secured the razors for colonial prisoners.
Although nominally separate incidents, these two Blargies' mutinies were linked by a number of factors which have been neglected in accounts by New Zealand historians who have been primarily concerned with addressing the equity of Braithwaite's "judicial murder".
Haig reviewed the punishments in both the Blargies Prison mutiny cases almost simultaneously. Colonel J.B. Wroughton relayed confirmation to the Inspector General of Communication on 26 October.
The former suggested that the capital sentences in both trials be reduced to ten years’ penal servitude but was overruled. Though Haig attached his signature confirming the sentences, the draft decisions had already been processed by the Adjutant General's staff.
The sheer volume of papers requiring Haig's attention suggests it was most unlikely he devoted much time to courts-martial decisions. Circumstantially, therefore the decision to execute Lewis was initially decided by Colonel J.B. Wroughton, Assistant Adjutant General, GHQ Personal Services. Though a trained barrister, Wroughton's contribution was informed by his key responsibility, to control the troops, as opposed to the contribution of Brigadier Gilbert Mellor, Deputy Judge Advocate General, whose task was to vet the legal aspects of the proceedings and confirmation of sentences.
At least notionally, Wroughton would have reviewed the sentences in the light of three criteria applied by all confirming officers. These consisted of the convicted man's character, performance in combat and the state of morale in his unit.
However, Lewis and Braithwaite were the most articulate recidivists who were judged to have initiated two of three confrontations that had occurred in the space of a fortnight. Lewis, an old soldier who had originally enlisted in 1908, would have been considered as having no excuse for breaching regulations.
Aside from morbid equity, Braithwaite's death may also be taken as a move on Wroughton's part to demonstrate that service in France demanded more rigorous levels of obedience from colonials than those that had prevailed during their previous service in Egypt.
Aside from location and the collective sense of grievance, what occurred at Blargies involved claims by the prisoners for equal treatment and a measure of recognition that even soldiers under sentence were entitled to negotiate to improve their conditions.
The negotiations that ensued may be interpreted in two ways. Either as a cynical exercise by the authorities to identify ringleaders and kill them or negotiations that broke the prisoners' exclusion from the officers' monopoly of decision-making.
In either case, the potency of the collective protest did not lie in the violence of prisoners' intervention but in their potential to develop a representative structure to advance their bargaining beyond the confines of the prison.
It was the latter that contributed to Wroughton's endorsement of the executions and the development of a policy aimed at segregating Australians from other prisoners.
In November 1916, Colonel Umfreville approved the construction of a separate prison at Les Attaques, specifically for Australian prisoners. Thereafter, claims for parity of treatment by differing groups of prisoners were minimised
