Private’s Downing, Burton and Jones 6th Bn. South Lancashire Regt.
Julian Putkowski
On 6 February 1917, Private Thomas Downing’s unit, 6th Battalion, South Lancashire Regiment, 13th Division was in the firing line in Mesopotamia. At 1 a.m. Sergeant Miller ordered the soldier join five other men on sentry duty in a forward position (a dried up watercourse) for a couple of hours.
At 2.45 a.m., the NCO, accompanying 2/Lt. A.G. Jackson, arrived to check the sentries and discovered Pte. Downing and Pte. Burton seated with their backs against the parados, asleep. Sergeant Miller noticed that Downing’s rifle was a leaning against the opposite side of the trench before awakening Burton with a kick in the leg. Downing awoke immediately afterwards.
On following day, 21 year-old Pte. Downing was charged with sleeping at his post and tried by Field General Court Martial. The court was presided over by Lt. Col. Macnaghton 6 Bn. King’s Own Royal Lancashire Regiment, assisted by Captains F.C.C. Briggs and O.A. Reid, King’s Liverpool Regiment. In spite of the gravity of the offence, Downing was unassisted in presenting his defence and pleaded not guilty.
After Sergeant Miller and Lt. Jackson had given their evidence, the court was informed by Company Sergeant Major F. Woollett that the accused man had neither reported sick nor been detailed to carry out any fatigue duties since midday 5 February.
Downing’s defence was very brief:
“I was tired on the morning in question. I was awake until about 2.30 a.m. when a patrol of the East Lancs. went through the line returning to their lines in the rear.”
Good Soldier
The court closed to consider its findings and then heard about Downing’s service record. His record sheet noted that he had joined the Army as a volunteer on 15 August 1914. They were also informed he had been wounded in August 1915 while serving at Gallipoli and had taken four months to recuperate. On arriving in Mesopotamia he had again been declared an invalid and sent to recover in India, finally returning to join the battalion in November 1916. Lt. Col. Charlton, the officer commanding 6 Bn. South Lancashires reported:
“While serving with the battalion he has always done his work in a soldierly manner and has never given the slightest trouble.”
General O’Dowda, commanding 38th Infantry Brigade, took a less positive view, commenting:
“There appears to be no extenuating circumstances beyond his character. I therefore consider the sentence should be carried out.”
No Excuse
Three days later, on 10 February, the proceedings were examined by the 13th Division commander, Major General Cayley, who remarked:
“There are no extenuating circumstances but in view of Pte. Downing’s excellent record and as an appreciation of the good work by his battalion during the present operations, I recommend that the sentence be commuted to 5 years P.S. and that it be suspended.”
Later the same day, Lieutenant. General Marshal, commanding the 3rd Indian Army Corps expressed his views in a memorandum:
“In view of the fact that the accused (together with a fellow sentry) was found sitting down in the trench, I am unable to see any extenuating circumstances and do not recommend any suspension of sentence in this case.”
Rude Awakening
The trial of 24 year-old Private Robert Burton was also held on 7 February. It was conducted separately to that of Private Downing but the same officers sat in judgement; Burton was undefended and pleaded not guilty; the same witnesses gave evidence for the prosecution.
Sergeant Miller repeated his version of events, adding that he had kicked Burton awake after being ordered to do so by Lieutenant Jackson. In his testimony, Jackson swore that Miller had merely spoken to Burton and that the latter had not been on fatigues earlier on 6 January. In response to cross-examination by the court, Jackson also categorically denied that the sleeping soldier had been woken up in any other manner than verbally.
Sick and Tired
Company Sergeant Major Woollett also testified that Burton had not reported feeling sick nor had he been on any fatigues since midday 5 February. In his own defence, Burton declared:
“I have been out with my battalion since the beginning but recently have been much troubled with indigestion and pains in may head. I wanted to stick the thing out and so have not reported sick. I have been feeling very tired and run down recently.”
Burton had joined the Army as a volunteer on 24 August 1914 and had an unblemished military record, facts confirmed by Colonel Charlton, who added, “He has always done his work and has never given any trouble. He was with the transport all through the hot weather 1916.”
The timing and confirmatory remarks about Burton by generals O’Dowda and Cayley were identical to those they had made about Downing’s case. The Corps commander, Lieutenant General Marshall wrote:
“The actual fact of Private Burton being found sitting down shews such utter want of appreciation of his duties as a sentry, responsible for the lives of his comrades, that although the accused bears an excellent character I am unable to recommend suspension of sentence.”
Condemned
On 14 February, the Judge Advocate General, 1st and 2nd Indian Army Corps affirmed the legality of findings of what had been two very brief trials – on the basis of the written transcripts, neither in their entirety could have taken more than twenty minutes apiece. The Army Commander-in-Chief, General Maude, who had formerly been the officer commanding 13 Division during the Gallipoli campaign, then confirmed the execution of both soldiers. The shooting of privates Downing and Burton was carried out at Nahr Bassouia on 19 February 1917.
Deserter
A week later, Private Richard Jones, a 40-year old married man from Widnes was executed, probably in the same secluded location where Downing and Burton had been killed.
Jones had joined the 6 Bn. South Lancashires on 28 August 1914 but his service record was less than perfect. He had been punished for leaving his barracks while a defaulter and had also been absent without leave six times during 1916.
Finally, after yet again going absent, Jones was charged with desertion and faced trial by Field General Court Martial on 2 February.
Prosecution
His trial was presided over by Lieutenant. Colonel R.M.M. Davy, 6th Bn. East Lancashire Regiment, assisted by Major W. Cragg, 6th Bn. Loyal North Lancashire Regiment and Captain E.C.C. Briggs, King’s Liverpool Regiment. Jones pleaded not guilty and in spite of his poor disciplinary record and the gravity of the charge against he faced, he was unassisted by a defending officer.
Half a dozen witnesses for the prosecution detailed what Jones had done. The proceedings opened with his battalion’s adjutant, Captain P.W. Ward producing for the court a certificate of arrest signed by Captain Guthrie, the Port Commandant at Imam-al-Mansur, a village on the banks of the River Tigris. Dated 27 January, it recorded:
“On the afternoon of January 23rd 1917 Pte. Jones asked me for a railway pass to Sheikh Saad as he had to go there to bring up some transport. As he had no kit or equipment with him I asked for his paybook, took down his name and number and wired to the regiment concerning him, and instructed the provost sergeant to arrest him pending answer being received. the following morning he was handed over to an officer of then South Lancs.”
Jones had originally been reported absent from the trenches shortly after midday on 21 January. Leaving behind his rifle and equipment, he had gone to 39th Field Ambulance, where he was medically examined by Captain G.H. Davy, Royal Army Medical Corps.
Medical Check
The written proceedings recorded Davy’s evidence to the court martial:
“Pte Jones reported sick at 39th F.A. without a sick report from his unit. That the accused complained of sore feet, that he examined the accused’s feet carefully and found nothing the matter with them. When he told the accused he would be returned to his unit the next day, that on same evening the accused complained of dysentery, and that he examined the accused’s stool and found no dysentery, that he discharged the accused to duty on the morning of 22nd January.”
Jones was then escorted back to his battalion’s transport lines and detained but some hours later he again went absent without leave and travelled to Imam-al-Mansur.
Very Poorly
In his own defence, Jones simply said that he had been suffering with sore feet and had been, “Feeling very poorly for several days.”
Unfortunately for Jones, this excuse was unsupported by any documentary or other evidence from his battalion’s medical records. Lieutenant E.L. Hopkins, the unit’s medical officer, appeared as a prosecution witness and stated that Jones had not reported sick at any time for the preceding four months.
Jones was found guilty and sentenced to death.
Useless Soldier
Unlike Burton and Downing, Jones was not given a favourable assessment of his character by his commanding officer. On the contrary, Lieutenant Colonel Charlton was scathing:
“I have personally known No.10764 Pte. R.M. Jones since the day of his enlistment. During the whole time he has given continual trouble. Both kindness and disciplinary action has been without avail. He is the most useless soldier that I have ever come across.”
Brigadier General O’Dowda confirmed the court’s sentence of death, reasoning, “The Character from the accused’s Commanding Officer is attached and in view of the character I cannot recommend commutation.”
Major General Caley, Lieutenant General Marshall and the Army commander also agreed that Jones was to be shot.
However, on 16 February Lieutenant Stanley Crawford, the Deputy Judge Advocate General (1st and 3rd Indian Army Corps) sent a memorandum, expressing his concern about some of the evidence admitted against Jones. Crawford wrote:
“The Court have accepted a written statement as to the accused having attempted to procure a railway ticket from Imam to Sheikh Saad instead of hearing the evidence from the Post Commandant of Imam-al-Manur himself. The document was of course, entirely inadmissible, the statement it contains was unsworn, and the accused could not cross-examine. The evidence, had it been properly tendered would have been of the greatest importance in determining the intention of the accused. It is most unfortunate that in any case a Court should attempt to admit evidence in this manner, contrary to all principles of military and ordinary law, but it is particularly regrettable in a case involving the extreme penalty and in respect of the most important piece of evidence. It is however, too late now to rectify matters. the trial has been held and though revision of Finding and Sentence before confirmation is allowed under the Army Act, no fresh evidence is permitted to be taken.”
Sufficient Evidence
Concerning Jones’ activities on 21 and 22 January, Lieutenant Crawford reviewed the evidence of prosecution witnesses and concluded:
“These circumstances would seem to justify the inference that the accused meant to leave the trenches; that, finding he could not gain his object by reporting sick, he absconded. This would amount to desertion in fact and in law, and though I cannot help feeling convinced that the Court allowed themselves to be largely influenced by the illegally admitted document before referred to, yet I am of the opinion that there was sufficient legal evidence apart from this document to support their Finding.”
Jones’ observations were endorsed by the Judge Advocate General and the Army Commander and a copy was relayed via Brigadier General O’Dowda to Lieutenant Colonel Davy and Captain Briggs (Cragg had been wounded and evacuated on 10 February).
Regrettable Error
Nothing is known of the court martial panel’s reactions but on 21 February O’Dowda responded by commenting in a memorandum:
“The error is regretted, but it was considered that the document in question was legal evidence under Army Act section 163 (j), the fact of whether the man surrendered or apprehended being immaterial.”
As far as the condemned man was concerned, O’Dowda’s riposte was probably posthumous because a death certificate signed the newly promoted Captain E.L. Hopkins confirmed Jones’ execution at 7.00 a.m.
The army informed the relatives of these men, bluntly and explicitly about the cause and manner of these men’s deaths. Worse still, the traumatised families were denied pensions normally provided in the case of soldiers who died on active service.
Widnes
Circumstantial evidence suggests that in Widnes, anguished dependents of the three dead men were compelled to seek financial assistance from the local Board of Guardians - the miserly social security system. So it was that the manner of their deaths came to the notice of the local press. Wartime censorship gagged adverse comment in the but the “Widnes News” complained about the brutal manner in which relatives were informed by the authorities about the men’s deaths.
“Man on the Bridge”
The War Office was criticised by an anonymous columnist, “Man on the Bridge” in the “Widnes News” at the end of March. Then, a week later, on 5 April, “Man on the Bridge” returned to the subject:
“Apropos the comments made here last week on the manner in which a certain military decision was announced to a soldier’s parents, it is now revealed that the case was not single or isolated. Two other notifications of a precisely similar kind have been received by immediate relatives of Widnes men, with distressing effect, as can be well imagined. It is only fair to the Town Hall authorities, who are invariably consulted by people in difficulty as to Army matters, to say that as soon as the first of these harrowing cases came to light, the Records Office was written to with the request for the specific Army Council order by which it was required that these deaths should be notified to relatives in the unfeeling way they are being notified. The reply at once gave the reference number of the Army instruction which authorises disclosure of the offence and the decision of the court martial… Seen in the light of the splendid voluntary recruiting record of Widnes and also the country generally, these happenings leave a most unpleasant impression.”
Neither the War Office nor the Army reacted publicly to the guarded criticism which was voiced by “Man on the Bridge” However, behind the scenes the Cabinet was alarmed and these men’s deaths and further executions carried out in the following months produced a political crisis.
In November 1917 the War Office was forced to amend the notification to relatives, so families were told the man had died on active service but not that he had been executed.
To prevent destitute and traumatised dependents causing a fuss by trying to claim assistance from the local council, the men’s families were allocated pensions.
Aftermath
British soldiers continued to be punished for falling asleep - but they were no longer executed. After the war had ended Parliament changed the law and ended Army executions for all military offences other than murder, mutiny and treason.
However, the War Office and later the Ministry of Defence witheld the men’s campaign medals and also witheld details about individual cases from both the men’s families and the public for over three-quarters of a century.This sustained period of concealment has rendered it impossible to initiate a judicial review these cases until very recently. This is a point rarely conceded by those who complain that these men’s cases have passed a notional but usually unstated ‘sell by’ date and that a judicial review would amount to ‘rewriting history.’.
