Rifleman Robert Barker
Of Robert Barker’s early life little is known[1]. However, on 8 June 1914 he enlisted as a volunteer and joined a Territorial Army formation, 1/6 Battalion, City of London Regiment. [2] He was mobilised at the beginning of the war and underwent several months training with his battalion before being sent overseas. During January and February 1915, while at Watford in Hertfordshire, Barker either missed or was late for parade on half a dozen occasions. As a consequence he had accumulated a month’s punitive detention before the battalion was despatched to France in March.[2][3]
As part of 140 Brigade, 47 Division, the battalion to which Barker belonged took part in a succession of major offensives and by mid-1916, over a quarter of the rank and file had been killed and many more had been wounded. Barker evidently tried to avoid either possibility but on 8 June 1916 he was found guilty of desertion and sentenced to death. Details of the offence remain unclear but it was a curious coincidence that documentary evidence from the Secretary of Territorial Force Association was of pivotal importance in securing his conviction and that the proceedings coincided precisely with the second anniversary of the rifleman’s enlistment. Fortunately for Barker, his death sentence was commuted to five years’ penal servitude, which was then suspended on 12 June. His service during the ensuing weeks was unexceptional, other than being fined 5/- for being drunk during an epic eleven-day long march performed by 47 Division at the beginning of August.[3][4]
The division’s move from Vimy to Albert was part of the prelude to the British 3 Corps’ engagement in the battle of Flers-Courcelette. The 47 Division had already been decimated, with battalions chopped up by enemy artillery and machine gun fire when on 15 September, 6 Bn. London’s were sent into action. They were ordered to traverse the hideous nightmare that was High Wood and seize the enemy position at Cough Drop. Their contribution to the battle was what passed for a success, for the sole survivors, one officer and thirty-eight men (including Barker), actually succeeded in occupying Cough Drop Trench.[4][5]
Knee deep in mud and pounded by enemy shells, the occupants of Cough Drop Trench were pinned down for a couple of days. On the afternoon of 18 September, the men were ordered to stand to but Barker refused to leave his “funk hole” and covered himself in bundles of empty sandbags. The following day, Barker and his party were again ordered to stand to, when the pitifully few survivors of the 15 Bn. London’s fled back past from an abortive bombing attack on enemy positions at nearby Drop Alley. Instead of obeying, Barker clambered over the parados, and ignored his NCO’s orders to return to his post.[5][6]
Barker was subsequently charged with cowardice and tried by a Field General Court Martial at Henencourt on 28 September. The officers of the court were all from the London Regiment, though none were serving at the time with the defendant’s battalion, and Barker enjoyed the assistance of a defending officer. In addition to Barker’s adamant refusals to stand to, prosecution witnesses remarked on the comparative absence of enemy shelling (as opposed to rifle fire) and that in spite of being within earshot, the soldier’s flagrant defiance of their orders to return to Cough Drop Trench.[6][7]
Barker presented a long and detailed explanation for his conduct, insisting that he had gone back to warn the surviving Lewis gunners in position 45 metres behind Cough Drop Trench that the Germans were coming. He remained with the Lewis Gunners, cleaning his rifle and was prevented from returning to Cough Drop Trench by the combination of enemy shelling and being unable to traverse trenches congested with men from the 15 and 6 Bns.
While waiting to be relieved, Barker claimed that he had obeyed an order to charge the enemy and after being trapped by a sustained burst of fire from enemy artillery, he had taken cover in a shell hole until it was safe enough to retrace his steps to Cough Drop Trench. By the time he reached the latter position, the occupants had been relieved, so Barker had gone back to 4 Field Ambulance in order to get his eyes bathed, as they had been discharging. A day later, he returned to the battalion headquarters at Henencourt.[7][8]
Barker admitted that he had only emerged after thrice being ordered to come out of his ‘funk hole’. Under cross-examination by his defending officer, Barker also candidly conceded that his initial refusal to leave his “funk hole” was because, “I had temporarily lost my nerve.” However, he declared that his departure from Cough Drop Trench had been solely in order to warn the Lewis gunners and that he had tried to rejoin his unit as soon as he had been able to do so. He also insisted that he had been receiving medical treatment for his eyes before going into action. Even so, under cross-examination by the prosecuting officer, Barker conceded that he had not been specifically ordered to warn the Lewis gunners.
Four witnesses who testified for the defence generally corroborated Barker’s account. They confirmed that until alerted by the rifleman, no warning from any other quarter had been given of an enemy attack. They conceded that Barker had been rather tardy in cleaning his rifle but agreed that a British shell barrage falling short had delayed his departure and that when he left them he had headed back in the direction of Cough Drop Trench. Finally, one of the prosecution witnesses, recalled to give evidence, stated that during the night of 18 September Barker had dutifully done his turn on sentry duty in Cough Drop Trench. However, the court decided that Barker had been a coward and sentenced him to death.[8][9]
At the end of the month Brigadier General Viscount Hampden, commanding 140 Brigade and the 47 Division commander, Brigadier General W.H. Greenly both agreed that the battalion had behaved with utmost gallantry and had displayed “splendid fighting spirit” during the battle. [9][10]They might have added that there were so few survivors they might as well augment their reinforcements by sparing Barker. Instead, both considered there were no extenuating circumstances and confirmed the death sentence.
Hampden evidently felt strongly about the matter and on 3 October supplemented his confirmation with a strongly worded memorandum. It gratuitously reiterated his conviction that Barker was a coward, and extended the following appreciation of his character:
“The man is a degenerate and from reports I have received does not seem to realise the gravity of his offences. For this reason his presence in the ranks is a danger. I do not feel justified in recommending any remission in the sentence under the above circumstances, but regret having to make this decision as I have a very high opinion of the fighting qualities of all ranks in the 6th London Regt. They are cheery and trustworthy however unpleasant and difficult the conditions may be in which they are situated and the spirit of the battalion is excellent.”[10][11]
On reading Hampden’s memorandum, General Pulteney, commanding 3 Corps reported on 8 October that because of Barker’s mental condition and the fighting qualities of the battalion, there was no need to proceed with the execution. However, General Rawlinson, Commanding 4 Army and Field Marshal Haig disagreed with Pulteney and confirmed the sentence.
Barker’s trial was most unusual for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that he was assisted by a defending officer and supported by witnesses. From the written proceedings, his trial must have taken about an hour, far longer than was usual for a Field General Court Martial. This was partly because in addition to Barker, eight witness gave evidence and most were cross-examined, albeit briefly. Moreover, the defendant spoke at length, presenting a logical and lucid account of his motives and movements. That he was not found innocent of the charge is unsurprising because Field General Courts Martial convicted nine out of every ten soldier-defendants.
The confirmation process was also unusual because it raises questions about the motives of the officers involved.Viscount Hampden’s memorandum firmly directed attention for the ultimate failure of the offensive to advance more than two kilometres onto the shoulders of his brigade’s assault troops. Aside his decisions being informed by aristocratic authoritarianism, Hampden must also have been rather unsettled about his own position. This was because his immediate superior, Major General Barter, who had commanded 47 Division since the beginning of the war, was sacked immediately after the battle ended on 22 September. The division’s battle casualties had topped 4,500, so Pulteney blamed Barter for a “Wanton waste of men”. Greenly, who confirmed Barker’s death sentence, took over interim command on 28 September and was succeeded in his turn by Major General Gorringe.
Gorringe had arrived to take up his new responsibilities on 1 October and was immediately told by Haig that 47 Division’s “lack of push” had been responsible for the debacle at High Wood and that they needed to be schooled in “Discipline and Digging. “ Hampden’s memorandum, addressed to Gorringe and forwarded to Pulteney would have matched the mood of Rawlinson and Haig.
So why then did Pulteney demur? The mostly likely explanation is that the execution of Barker would have eased the burden of incompetence directly imposed by Pulteney on the highly aggrieved Major General Barter. By sparing Barker and affirming the valour of the troops, Pulteney ensured Barter remained a scapegoat.
Barter’s reputation was eventually restored by an informal inquiry and he was later knighted by the King. Barker’s execution was delayed until 4 November, mainly because 47 Division moved to the Ypres Salient while the confirmation of his sentence was being deliberated. The confirmatory document in Barker’s Field General Court Martial recorded that the rifleman was killed at Busseboom at 6.45 a.m. by a firing squad organised by Major R.A. Hall, the division’s Assistant Provost Marshal.[11][12]
However, two local Belgian civilians, including one who watched the execution taking place, later maintained that the twelve-man firing squad had refused to open fire, and that Barker’s brains were blown away by a bullet from an officer’s revolver. The eyewitness also reckoned that the firing squad were themselves punished for refusing to obey orders but these allegations remain uncorroborated from contemporary British Army sources.[12][13]
The Commonwealth War Graves Commission register and a number of books about executions during the First World War identify the executed man as No. 1731 Robert Loveless Barker. However, the CWGC identification is uncorroborated by the family of Robert Loveless Barker, the Register of Births Marriages and Deaths or the First World War Medal Roll (WO329), all of which indicate the executed man’s middle name was not Loveless. No. L/31720 Robert Loveless Barker, 153 Royal; Field Artillery, 36 Division, b. Limehouse 31.7.97 was wounded on three occasions during hostilities and fortunately survived the war.[13]
[1] Ongoing research indicates he is most likely to have been one of a trio of men born in London during the 1890's.
[2][3] Ibid, WO 71/507.
[3][4] Ibid.
[4][5] WO 95/2729, War Diary: 6 Bn. London Regt., 15-16.9.16.
[5][6] Op. cit., WO71/507.
[6][7] Ibid.
[7][8] Ibid., Note: 4th London Field Ambulance:Discharged from Hospital – 6 Lon. Regt., 1731 Pte. R. Barker, (sd.) W.Cowie, Major RAMC(T), 22.9.16.
[8][9] Op. cit., WO71/507
[9][10] Ibid.
[10][11] Ibid.
[11][12] A.F. Becke, Order of Battle of Divisions Pt. 2A (HMSO, London 1936), p. 69; T. Norman, The Hell they called High Wood (William Kimber, London 1984) p. 235.
[12][13] P. Chielens and J.J. Putkowski Unquiet Graves / Rusteloze graven (Francis Boutle Publishers, 2000), pp. 33-34.
[13] Robert Barker to J.J. Putkowski, 18.8.06.
Copyright: © J.Putkowski
This text contains original research and has been made available by the author/s to the SAD campaign website on the strict understanding that when subsequently reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, the authors' intellectual copyright must be acknowledged.
