Private Lawrence D Elford
Attempts are underway to claim that Field Marshal Haig took the greatest of care when confirming the death penalty on any soldier. One has to ask if this is evident in the case of Private Lawrence D Elford of the 7/8 King’s Own Scottish Borderers?
Pte. Lawrence D. Elford, aged 28, was executed at 5.50 a.m. at Bracquemont in Northern France on 11 October 1918. Captain B. Holland, Deputy Assistant Provost Marshal, 15 Division commanded the firing squad. Elford's death was certified as being instantaneous by Lt. John A. Pettey, the Medical Officer attached to Elford's unit, 7/8 Battalion, King's Own Scottish Borderers.
Elford was only the second soldier of his regiment to be executed during the First World War and he is last Scottish soldier to be executed for having committed a military offence. Exactly how Elford came to be shot by his comrades can be deduced from the written proceedings of the court martial, which had earlier found him guilty of desertion and recommended that he be executed. The details of his trial, including details about his military service, were classified secret by the War Office and concealed from public scrutiny for eighty years. The dossier draws attention to the penal system that was used to discipline the rank and file during the First World War and the manner in which personal tragedy contributed to the demise of the last Scottish soldier to be executed for a military offence by the British Army.
Elford joined the army as a volunteer on 17 August 1915 but was not drafted to serve overseas until February 1916, when he was sent to France. Details of his early experience of active service with the King's Own Scottish Borderers remain unknown but on 15 September 1916 he was wounded in action.
Exactly how severely Elford's health was affected is unclear, however he was sent back to the United Kingdom, where he was attached to the 3 (Reserve) Battalion KOSB at Duddingston Camp, near Edinburgh. On 22 December he committed his first disciplinary offence by going absent without leave until the police arrested him in Paisley on 3 January 1917. A couple of days later, his battalion commander punished Elford with a fortnight's confinement to camp and loss of pay.
Elford immediately went absent but after a fortnight he surrendered himself up to the police in Paisley. While being escorted back to face punishment for his second offence, he appears to have changed his mind about facing up to the consequences of his absence. En route to Duddingston, he gave his escort the slip and fled back to Paisley, where he was eventually re-arrested by the police on 4 February.
Whatever prompted Elford's repeated visits to Paisley, his motives failed to impress the District Court Martial that was convened to try him for his misbehaviour, and on 16 February he was punished with six months' detention. A few days before the end of his spell in jail, Elford joined a draft of reinforcements and was sent back to France, where he joined 7/8 Battalion KOSB.
Conventionally, NCO's serving with combat battalions were disinclined to welcome reinforcements from detention camps or men who had previously been wounded, for both were regarded as being either untrustworthy or potentially unreliable in action against the enemy. However, Elford appears to have given them little opportunity to exercise their judgement of his character, for on 3 July 1917, he was accused of having struck one of his NCOs. At his subsequent trial by Field General Court Martial, Elford denied committing the assault but he was found guilty and sentenced to 15 years penal servitude.
However, Elford was not confined in a military prison. Instead, his sentence was suspended and he was returned to his battalion. With the exception of having to undergo a sentence of three weeks' field punishment (rigorous drill and fatigues), awarded after he failed to obey an order on 25 October, the remainder of 1917 appears to have been otherwise unexceptional for Elford.
In February, after taking part in the battle of Arras, Elford was incapacitated by an enemy gas shell. After medical treatment, circumstantial evidence suggests that he recovered at No. 10 Convalescent Depot, at Ecault, near Boulogne he was then returned to his battalion. He seems to have soldiered on until 16 April, when after taking part two days bitter fighting around Arras , Elford went absent without leave for a couple of days. When he returned to duty, he was ordered to undergo three week's field punishment by his commanding officer.
While undergoing field punishment soldiers were still expected to continue to carry out their duties in the front line, so Elford accompanied his battalion into battle on 23 April, when the British 3 Army resumed its offensive against the German positions at Geumappe, opposite Arras. Once his combat duties ended, Elford's sentence resumed under the supervision of NCO's detailed to administer the field punishment. He was still in their custody on 16 May at Trafalgar Camp, when 7/8 battalion KOSB were again ordered to proceed to the trenches. Elford rejoined his company and shortly after 8.00 p.m. he was issued with a set of equipment and warned to be ready to prepare to move off to the front line.
Instead of marching off in the direction of the enemy, Elford went absent without leave and travelled in the opposite direction, towards Boulogne, where he was eventually arrested in the Rue Thiers by Military Police on 14 June.
During the First World War it was very rare for an absentee from the British Army to be detained for more than a few days before being returned to their unit and court-martialled. However, Elford was not sent back to his battalion until 12 September and further week elapsed before he was his tried for desertion by a Field General Court Martial presided over by Major W.R. Cooper, 9 Battalion, Royal Scots. The two members of the court were Captain H.G. Crawford, 13 Battalion, Royal Scots and Second Lieutenant J.L. Turing, 8 Battalion, Seaforth Highlanders. They were assisted in their deliberations by a Court Martial Officer, Captain R.C. Cutter, Royal Fusiliers and the prosecution was conducted by the adjutant of 7/8 Battalion KOSB, Lieutenant J.K. Ballantyne.
For most of the war, the Army did not bother to ensure soldiers facing capital offences were provided with a defending officer or prisoner's friend. However, after an outcry in the House of Commons at the beginning of 1918, efforts were made to ensure that defendants were provided with some assistance in pleading their cases. Elford was defended by Lieutenant A.A.F. Carnachan*, a Scottish Horse yeomanry officer detailed to serve with 7/8 battalion KOSB.
From the three pages of hand-written proceedings, it is apparent the entire trial cannot have lasted longer than twenty minutes. Three prosecution witnesses testified about the duration of Elford's absence, wholly unhampered by any cross-examination from Carnachan. At the end of his brief testimony about Elford's arrest, the court asked the third witness, a military policeman, two questions about Elford's dress at the time of his apprehension. The policeman could not recall whether Elford was wearing his regimental cap badge and shoulder titles but he maintained that Elford had not been wearing a belt.
In his own defence, Elford submitted a written statement. Verbatim, it stated:
Sir, I No.21654 Pte. L. Elford A Coy 7/8th Batt. KOSBds. wishes to make the following statement regarding the crime I am now charged with. I received a letter from my sister dated April 30th 18 announcing the death of my father, my sister states in the letter that she also sent a telegram to me addressed to No. 10 Convalescent Dept. Eucolt Nr. Boulogne also stating the death of my father, the telegram I never received to this date. I received the above stated letter on the 2nd of May. She then forwarded in a registered letter to my battalion with documents relating to my fathers death. I was then ordered by the police sergeant to sign my name for the registered letter. I obeyed and when I had signed my name for the letter, it was taken away again and handed into orderly room at my battalion. The night I was detailed for proceeding to the trenches, I made application to receive my registered letter but was refused, as I was a prisoner. I have never received that letter yet, and by information received I have learned that the letter, as only just been returned home from the battalion on the date 13th. 18, after the letter being kept in orderly room for four months. My mind being troubled with the great shock of the death of my father, also at the [news?] my wife was laying in the Huddersfield infirmary awaiting an operation, I went away not realy thinking of what I was doing. I have now been warned the serious crime I am charged with, and I hope the court will look into my case. I also ask that I might be given a transfer to another unit as I find it very hard for me to soldier with this battalion, Sir a transfer to another unit would be the making of me a good and useful soldier."
The court withdrew, deliberated for a while and decided that Elford was guilty. From an entry in the trial dossier, it appears that the court initially decided to sentence him to two years imprisonment with hard labour. However, "2 years I.H.L." was crossed out, initialled by the president of the court, and Elford was instead sentenced to death.
The written proceedings were then circulated for comments from a succession of ever more senior officers. The officer commanding 7/8 Battalion KOSB, Lieutenant Colonel Sutherland, noted:
"While Pte. Elford served with this battalion he at no time gave any assistance to his superiors in the execution of duty. His chief efforts were exerted towards avoiding duty in the trenches. I am of the opinion that Pte. Elford's act was deliberate, and I see no reason why the sentence imposed should not be carried out."
Brigadier General V.M. Fortune, commanding 146 Infantry Brigade, the officer who sanctioned the trial, added his remarks on 25 September. The brigadier admitted that "The crime of which Pte. ELFORD has been found GUILTY is not prevalent in his battalion and the state of discipline in the battalion is very good", implying that there was therefore no need to have the sentence carried in order to intimidate the remainder of the battalion. However, he agreed that Elford's crime had been "deliberate" and said that he could see no reason why the sentence should be carried out.
In their addenda, Brigadier General E.B. MacNaughton, commanding 15 (Scottish) Division simply added that he was of the opinion that Elford's crime was deliberate and the officer commanding 5 Army, General Birdwood was similarly disinclined to exercise mercy:
General Jeudwine, the commander of 1 Corps, sealed Elford's fate by insisting:
"In view of the fact that the offence was deliberately committed, the bad character of the prisoner, and the unliklihood, as shown by his record, of his being any use to his country. I recommend that the sentence should be carried out
Finally, on 7 October, Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig sealed Elford's fate by scribbling "Confirmed" on the trial schedule.
Those who passed judgement on Elford appear to have wholly ignored his initial period of service in France. It is also clear that his commanding officer's damning allegation about Elford persistently avoiding service in the trenches is ill-substantiated. Far from dodging his duties while on active service, his disciplinary record indicates that prior to May 1918, other than when hospitalised for wounds, Elford had only been punished on one occasion for going absent without leave. His absence had lasted two days and two and a half hours and that the offence had occurred shortly after he had been discharged from hospital and in the immediate aftermath of a major action in which he had taken part.
Of course, many soldiers were convicted of desertion and executed after having been absent for far shorter periods of absence than Elford's. It would also have been surprising if the court or confirming officers would have overlooked his conviction for assaulting of an NCO but there is little to suggest that Elford was incapable of further service as a soldier. Far from damning the condemned soldier, the inference that Elford was a worthless man demeans the British officer class who subscribed to the military eugenics that masqueraded as justice during the First World War.
Since responsibility for executing Elford rested with the Commander-in-Chief, there is merit in considering Haig's practice of decimation, executing 10% of those condemned to death during his period in command of the British Expeditionary Force. It cannot have been because the British Army's morale was low or because efforts to defeat the enemy were not bearing fruit. Quite the opposite, for on 6 October the Field Marshal had been informed that the Germans had been negotiating an armistice. Haig's endorsement of Elford's execution was therefore gratuitous.
Elford's remains were re-interred after the war and his grave is nowadays located in Noeux-les-Mines Communal Cemetery Extension
Copyright © Julian Putkowski
