A review of the WO 213: Judge Advocate General’s Office: Field General Courts Martial and Military Courts, Registers. Field General Courts Martial (1915) shows officers and men of the 1/9^th Battalion Manchester Regiment were subjected to 32 cases of Courts Martial in Gallipoli and at least two in Egypt in 1916. The range of offences was quite broad resulting in punishments ranging from the loss of one day’s pay to a sentence of death.

In the late 1800s, Military law was codified by the Army Discipline and Regulation Act, 1879, which was subsequently replaced by the Army Act, 1881. This code of military law continued in force from year to year by an Annual Act, known originally as the Army (Annual) Act which both reaffirmed and provided amendments to the Army Act, 1881. In 1915, the practical application of military law applied in Gallipoli was outlined in the Manual of Military Law, published by the War Office, 1914.

The Army Act, 1881 defined, amongst other things, those offences that were punishable by death and those that were not, and offences that were punishable more severely on active service as well as the differences in punishments for officers and enlisted men. In practice, the offences that the men of the 9^th Manchesters were charged with at Gallipoli included Theft, Disobedience, Absence from Camp, Sleeping on Duty, Quitting their Post, Disobeying Orders, Malingering and “Acting to the prejudice of good order and military discipline” – a catch-all offence for anything not explicitly defined in the Act.

In 1915 the British Army recognized three kinds of Courts Martial; Regimental, District and General. Each court held different power of punishments and only the highest, a General Court Martial, could award punishments of penal servitude or death. General Courts Martial required a minimum of five officers, ideally from different regiments and battalions with each having held their commission for at least three years. The president of the court was appointed by the convening officer and could not be below the rank of Major, with a higher rank strongly preferred if available. A Field General Court Martial is an exceptional kind of General Court Martial held overseas or on active service. Due to the exceptional nature of the court a Field General Court Martial required only three officers unless the convening officer was of the opinion that three were not available in which case, they were allowed to consist of only two. However, a court of only two officers could not award any sentence exceeding two years imprisonment or three months field punishment. Regardless, a sentence of death required the concurrence of all the members of the court.

In Gallipoli, verdicts and sentences rendered by the Field General Courts Martial for battalions in the 42^nd (East Lancs) Division were reviewed by the G.O.C. 42nd Division and then by the G.O.C. 8th Army Corps. The courts held the responsibility of prosecuting the cases, rendering the verdicts and applying statutory sentences while the higher authority of the Divisional and Corps quashed, commuted, suspended or endorsed sentences to normalize the court rulings and apply some element consistency.

Let’s look more closely at the offences that were tried and the punishments given out to the 9^th Battalion Manchester Regiment in Gallipoli.

Offence: Theft

The 9^th Manchesters landed at Gallipoli on May 9, 1915 and less than two weeks later two men were tried and convicted of theft. In order to prove the case, the court had to find an intention to steal and that the men fraudulently took property without the owner’s consent with the intent of permanently depriving the owner of said property. Whether the theft was from the military establishment or from a comrade we do not know but we can see that both men received a relatively light sentence of 14 days Field Punishment. Consequently, we can reasonably assume that the offence was proven but not considered particularly serious.

Rank	No	First	Surname	FGCM Date	Theft	FP
Pte	2208	GEORGE	PRICE	21-May-15	X	14 days
Pte	1660	HAROLD	GARTSIDE	21-May-15	X	14 days

Note:

There were two categories field punishment. Field punishment No. 1, which consisted of heavy labouring duties, and being restrained in handcuffs or fetters, and being tied to a fixed object, such as a post or wheel, for two or more hours a day. Field punishment No. 2 differed, in that the offender was not liable to be attached to a fixed object.

Offence: Sleeping on Duty or Quitting Post without Permission

Section 6 of the Army Act 1881, Offences Punishable more Severely on Active Service than at Other Times, point (1) sub-section (k) states:

(1.) Every person subject to military law who commits any of the following offences; that is to say,

(k ) Being a soldier acting as sentinel, commits any of the following offences; that is to say,

(i.) sleeps or is drunk on his post; or
(ii.) leaves his post before he is regularly relieved,

shall, on conviction by court-martial, if he commits any such offence on active service, be liable to suffer death, or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned.

Needless to say, when on active service in a combat zone, any soldier acting as a sentinel who either sleeps on his post or leaves his post before he is relieved commits a very serious offence endangering the lives of his comrades and jeopardizing the safety of his unit. Not surprisingly these offences are clearly called out in the Army Act, 1881 and carry a sentence of death or some other lower but serious penalty. In order to render a death sentence the three officers of the Field General Court Martial must be unanimous in their decision.

Rank	No	First	Surname	FGCM Date	Chg	Hard Lab	Remit’d
Pte	–	–	HARGREAVES	22-Jun-15	S	6m	Susp
Pte	1434	PERCY	LEE	22-Jun-15	S	9m	Susp
Pte	–	J	JACKSON	22-Jun-15	S	9m	Susp
Pte	1915	GEORGE	MURPHY	06-Jul-15	S	24m	Susp
Pte	1644	ARTHUR	ADSHEAD	09-Sep-15	S	Death	Comm
Pte	1693	ALBERT	ORTON	24-Sep-15	S	12m	Comm
Pte	1629	JOSEPH	WHIPP	09-Jul-15	Q	24m	Susp

Notes:

1. The Field General Courts Martial register provides only the surname and initials of the men charged and, in some cases, not even the initial. In the table above, “HARGREAVES” could be either Pte 1580 Norman Hargreaves or (more likely) Pte. 1952 Harold Hargreaves.
2. “J JACKSON” could be any one of three men; Pte. 1891 Joseph Jackson, Pte. 2169 John Jackson or Pte. 2171 John Jackson.

A suspension of punishment meant that the case was periodically reviewed and the punishment liable to be reinstated if the man’s subsequent behaviour warranted it, whereas commuting the sentence, although not erasing the conviction, permanently reduced or removed the punishment associated with it and was therefore not subject to periodic review.

Looking at each of these cases a little more closely:

The first three cases were brought approximately six weeks after the battalion landed in Gallipoli and on the same day that they returned to bivouac after almost 3 straight weeks in the trenches. A period that saw the two bloodiest days that the battalion would experience at Gallipoli. All three cases were for sleeping on post and since the case against Hargreaves resulted in a lower punishment than the others, we can conclude that court felt there were some mitigating circumstances there. Upon review by a higher authority, (the G.O.C. 42nd Division), all three sentences were suspended implying that the charges were primarily brought to make the point to all members of the battalion that potentially serious consequences awaited anyone caught sleeping on post.

But if that was the intent it didn’t have the desired effect because just two weeks later, Pte. 1915 George Murphy was convicted of the same offence and given a substantially harsher sentence of 2 years hard labour. This sentence, like the previous three, was subsequently suspended upon review. And a few days later, Pte. 1629 Joseph Whipp was convicted of leaving his post before being properly relieved, (the only man in the battalion to be so charged in the Gallipoli campaign), and received the same sentence of 2 years hard labour, again suspended upon review.

At this point it’s worth remembering that the Field General Court Martial date was the date of the trial and not the date of the offence, which was of course committed sometime earlier. June saw the biggest casualty figures for the battalion during the whole Gallipoli campaign and apart from a very small draft of one officer and 16 men arriving in late June the first substantial draft of men to bolster the dwindling numbers of combat ready men in the 9^th Manchesters did not arrive until July 23, 1915. This perhaps played a role in the suspension of sentences as every able-bodied soldier was needed.

Pte. 1644 Arthur Adshead was the next man to be tried for sleeping at his post on September 9, 1915 and was found guilty and given a sentence of death. Without the trial transcripts we have no way to know why his case was treated significantly more harshly than the previous cases but the record shows that his sentence was commuted to 10 years of penal servitude. But we also know that Pte. Adshead went on to win the Military Medal in April 1918, (one of four men court martialed in Gallipoli to subsequently be awarded medals for bravery), while still serving with the Manchester Regiment and so we must assume that at some point the military authorities came to their senses and suspended the commuted sentence.

Pte. Adshead was incarcerated at the Gabbari Military Prison in Alexandria where he contracted dysentery and was admitted to the 19th General Hospital on October 16, 1915. He remained in hospital for 31 days eventually being released back to prison on November 15, 1915.

The last man of the 9^th Manchesters to be charged with sleeping at his post was Pte. 1693 Albert Edward Orton. Fortunately, his service record has survived and it contains the following notes:

Deputy Judge Advocate General (DJAG), MEF       September 24, 1915

Tried by FGCM Section 6(1k). When a soldier acting as a sentinel on active service, sleeping on his post in that he, in the field, on 6th Sept 1915 about 10:15pm when acting as a sentry in the trenches was asleep. Found guilty and sentenced to be imprisoned with hard labour for one year. (The Court recommends the accused to mercy on the grounds that he is very young and had been unreasonably overworked). Confirmed by G.O.C. 42nd Division who remitted six months of the imprisonment. Sentence commuted to one of Field Punishment No 1 for three months by G.O.C. 8th Army Corps dated October 13, 1915.

Battalion              October 6, 1915

Awarded 10 days Field Punishment No 2 for absenting himself while on fatigue.

The court’s recommendation conveys two key pieces of information; that he was “very young” and that he had been “unreasonably overworked”.

Pte. Orton was an underage soldier who joined the battalion during the big recruiting drive of February 14, 1914 when he was 17 years old. After serving with the battalion in Egypt from September 1914 to May 1915 he was still only 18 years old when he landed in Gallipoli and would not turn 19 until September 11, 1915. By the military’s own regulations, he should not have been allowed to serve in a front-line combat role but instead should have been posted to a training or other unit behind the firing line. The battalion knew his age, he did not lie on his attestation papers, and deployed him into the firing line at Gallipoli anyway, along with dozens of other underage soldiers. Because of this, Pte. Orton celebrated his 19^th birthday in captivity awaiting trial by Field General Court Martial and probably aware that the last man of the battalion who was charged with sleeping on duty received a death sentence.

Throughout their time on the peninsula the men and boys of the 9^th Manchesters were required to work almost constantly on fatigue duties whenever they were out of the firing line. By September 6^th Pte. Orton had been in Gallipoli for almost 4 months and had endured the most dangerous and difficult living conditions imaginable. The effects of poor food, contaminated water, intense heat and little or no ability to properly rest accumulated in all the men and dozens of them with less robust constitutions and fitness reported sick.  To say that the men were unreasonably overworked was an understatement and in retrospect it would have perhaps been expedient to make sure that men held sentry duty in pairs to prevent sleeping.

It’s also worth noting that Pte. Orton went on to win the Military Medal for bravery in the field in April 1918 while still serving with the battalion.

Offence: Absence from Camp

Section 15 of the Army Act 1881, Absence from Duty Without Leave, points (1) and (3) state:

Every person subject to military law who commits any of the following offences; that is to say,

(1.) Absents himself without leave; or

(3.) Being a soldier, when in camp or garrison or elsewhere, is found beyond any limits fixed or in any place prohibited by any general garrison or other order, without a pass or written leave from his commanding officer.

shall on conviction by court-martial be liable, if an officer, to be cashiered, or to suffer such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned, and if a soldier, to suffer imprisonment, or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned.

Rank	No	First	Surname	FGCM Date	Abs	Field Punish
Cpl	2765	WALTER	TRACEY	27-Jun-15	Q	Ranks
Pte	2719	GEORGE	DEAN	27-Jun-15	Q	60 days
Pte	2713	JOSEPH	TAYLOR	27-Jun-15	Q	60 days
Pte	2802	REGINALD	JONES	27-Jun-15	Q	60 days
Pte	1979	WILLIAM	COYNE	28-Aug-15	X	56 days 2
Pte	1345	ERIC	GOLIGHTLY	28-Aug-15	X	56 days 2

This charge was used against men who had left their trench without explicit permission to do so for any reason, including in the face of an overwhelming assault by the enemy that they stood no chance of repulsing.

On Saturday November 6, 1915 the Ashton Reporter published an article written by an anonymous NCO of C Company which in part recounted some details of the bayonet charge on the night of June 18th:

During the period the company was in this trench “B” Company made an attempt on the 18^th June to clear the Turks out of two small trenches, but they found the Turks in such great numbers that they had to retire, and the Turks charged our trench, which was held by a few of “C” Company and a number of 10^thManchesters, and gained a footing in a part of it. Both Lieut. Wade and Lieut. Connery took part in “B” Company’s attack, volunteering for the job, and led portions of the men, but Lieut. Wade unfortunately failed to return when the company retired. It was a terrible night, and several attempts were made by various units to recover the ground lost, but without success. “B” Company lost heavily, and Capt. Sugden was mortally wounded.

The 9^th Manchesters’ war diary noted that they suffered 9 killed, 17 missing and 33 wounded in addition to the loss of Capt. Sugden and 2/Lt. Jack Wade.

On June 26^th thirteen men of the 10^th Manchesters were court martialed under Section 15; four offences designated as ‘Q’ and 9 designated as ‘X’. All were found guilty and each one was awarded 14 days field punishment number 1. However, one of the nine, Pte. 2176 William Sidebottom has a surviving Service Record (mis-filed) which reveals that his offence was to absent himself from a working party “without leave and before he was relieved”. This implies that only the 4 men whose offence was recorded as ‘Q’ (quitting) were charged for the events of June 19.

The following day, four men of the 9^th Manchesters were also court martialed under Section 15; all four offences designated as ‘Q’.  Almost certainly they too were charged for their part in the events that night. Corporal 2765 Walter Tracey lost his stripe and the other three men were awarded 60 days field punishment number 1. All four had just days before arrived in Gallipoli as part of a small draft and were ill equipped to be thrust into the situation they found themselves embroiled in that night.

Later in the war, one of those men, Pte 2713 Joseph Taylor went on to win the Military Medal for bravery in the field, awarded in June 1918 after he had transferred to the Machine Gun Corps.

In late August, another two men were convicted of the same offence and were each given a sentence of 8 weeks field punishment number 2. One of the men, Pte 1345 Eric Golightly, was at the time only 18 years old and, like Pte Orton who was convicted of sleeping on sentry duty, should not have been in Gallipoli before his 19^th birthday. However, unlike Pte Orton, there is no record of Pte Golightly receiving any clemency from the Divisional or Corps authorities for his age.

Offence: Disobedience

Section 9 of the Army Act 1881, Disobedience to Superior Officer, states:

1. 1. Every person subject to military law who commits the following offence; that is to say,

Disobeys in such manner as to show a wilful defiance of authority any lawful command given personally by his superior officer in the execution of his office, whether the same is given orally or in writing, or by signal or otherwise, shall on conviction by court-martial be liable to suffer death, or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned; and

1. 2. Every person subject to military law who commits the following offence; that is to say, disobeys any lawful command given by his superior officer, shall, on conviction by court-martial, if he commits such offence on active service, be liable to suffer penal servitude, or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned; and if he commits such offence not on active service, be liable, if an officer to be cashiered, or to suffer such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned, and if a soldier, to suffer imprisonment, or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned.

Rank	No	First	Surname	FGCM Date	Chg	HL	FP
Pte	3345	GEORGE	HAMBLETON	09-Sep-15	S.9.1	18m
Pte	517	FRANK	CAWLEY	13-Mar-16	X	6m
L/Cpl	1792	ALBERT	DAVIES	09-Sep-15	Sgt		90d – 2
Pte	885	FRANK	GODDARD	22-Jul-15	SO		42d – 1
A/Sgt	1592	EDWARD	ALLOTT	25-Oct-15	SO

Note:

1. Acting Sergeant Edward Allot was found Not Guilty.

The Manual of Military Law. War Office, 1914 provides some guidance on the nature of this offence:

Closely connected with the offence of mutiny is the offence of disobedience to a lawful command, which is punishable under S. 9 of the Act (a). No offences differ more in degree than offences of this class. The disobedience may be of a trivial character, or may be an offence of the most serious description, amounting, if two or more persons join in it, to mutiny. Accordingly, the object of this section is to enable charges to be framed in such manner as to discriminate between different degrees of the offence.

Pte 3345 George Hambleton joined the 9^th Manchesters on the 9^th or 10^th of January, 1915. He trained in the UK with the 2/9^th Battalion at Southport and then Pease Pottage before landing in Gallipoli on August 22, 1915 as part of the second large draft of men that reinforced the 1/9^th Manchesters. Within two weeks of landing, he must have committed his act of disobedience and was charged with the more serious offence of wilful disobedience. Found guilty he was sentenced to 18 months of hard labour.

Pte 517 Frank Cawley was a long-time member of the 9^th Manchesters attesting on January 6, 1909. He attended all of the battalion’s summer camps from 1909 until the outbreak of war and had re-engaged for four more years on April 1, 1913. He deployed with the battalion to Egypt in September 1914 and landed on Gallipoli on May 9, 1915. His service record shows no evidence of being sick or wounded throughout the campaign and he subsequently deployed to Egypt in 1916 with the rest of the battalion. But something about him had changed on the peninsula and in January and February 1916 he was given 7-days confinement to barracks followed by 14-days of field punishment number 2 for two counts of “inattention on parade”. His service record then contains the following:

Tried by FGCM, El Kabrit, for when on active service March 6, 1916 (wilfully) disobeying a lawful command given by his superior officer in the execution of his office. Sentenced to six months imprisonment with hard labour. March 13 to September 12, 1916.

Sentence of 6 months imprisonment with hard labour now suspended. June 9, 1916.

He was released on June 15^th but he continued to be written up for a series of minor acts of defiance, (late on parade, absent from parade, hesitating to obey an order), during 1916 and 1917. In 1918 he transferred to the 2^nd East Lancs Regiment where he again committed a series of minor infractions (failing to salute the Regimental Sergeant Major, Insolence to the Regimental Police and falling out of line during a march without permission). In 1919, since he was still carrying a suspended sentence, his case came up for review and his commanding officer somewhat remarkably recommended that his sentence should be remitted since “his character has been very good (3 trivial offences) and he has carried out his duties in a willing manner and to the complete satisfaction of his superiors.” And indeed, his sentence was remitted by the Brigadier-General of the 100^th Infantry Brigade on September 11, 1919.

L/Cpl 1792 Albert Davies joined the 9^th Manchesters on February 16, 1914 which was the Monday immediately following the big recruiting drive. All of those men who attended the “Smoking Concert” at Ashton Town Hall on the previous Saturday but ran out of time to attest were told to report to the Armoury on February 16^th. Albert was 17 years and 6 months old when he attested and gave his correct age. Consequently, he was still only 18 years old when he landed in Gallipoli and did not turn 19 until July 7, 1915. So, although he should have been held back in Egypt for two months before landing in Gallipoli, he was 19 years old when he committed his offence in September. He was found guilty and awarded 3 months of field punishment number 2. Based upon this sentence we can conclude that the charge against him was not one of wilful disobedience. Nevertheless, this means that he had just completed his sentence when, on December 19, 1915 he won the Distinguished Conduct Medal.

Pte 885 Frank Goddard was a long-time member of the 9^th Battalion Manchester Regiment attesting in 1909 and by the outbreak of war he was a Lance Corporal. Nevertheless, on July 22^nd 1915 he was convicted of disobedience to a senior officer and awarded 6 weeks of field punishment number 1. Based upon this sentence we can conclude that the charge against him was not one of wilful disobedience.

Offence: Malingering

Section 18, point (1) of the Army Act 1881, Disgraceful Conduct of Soldier, states:

Every soldier who commits any of the following offences; that is to say,

(1.) Malingers, or feigns or produces disease or infirmity shall on conviction by court-martial be liable to suffer imprisonment, or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned.

More specifically, the Manual of Military War, 1914 specifies that Section 18.1b is Feigning or Producing disease or infirmity, (as opposed to malingering).

Rank	No	First	Surname	FGCM Date	Charge	Not Guilty
Pte	2328	WILLIAM	GODDARD	25-Aug-15	S.18.1b	X
Pte	–	J	JACKSON	25-Aug-15	S.18.1b	X
Pte	–	T	McCLUSKY	25-Aug-15	S.18.1b	X
L/Cpl	1553	HAROLD	MORRIS	25-Aug-15	S.18.1b	X

Notes:

1. 1. “J JACKSON” could be any one of three men; Pte. 1891 Joseph Jackson, Pte. 2169 John Jackson or Pte. 2171 John Jackson.
   2. There was no “T McCLUSKY; there was only Pte 2005 Francis (Frank) McClusky and Pte 2072 Henry (Harry) McClusky.

At the time of the Field General Court Martial on August 25, 1915 Major Thomas Frankish, RAMC was attached to the 9^th Battalion Manchester Regiment as its Medical Officer, (M.O.), a role that he filled until he was transferred on August 31^st. It is likely that the charges originated with him but no surviving records exist. Major Frankish was appointed the battalion’s M.O. just before they landed in Gallipoli replacing their long-time M.O. Surgeon Major Albert Hilton who died from meningitis in Egypt in February 1914. Thus, Major Frankish did not know any of the men and was likely not sympathetically disposed towards them. The assumption is that each of these men reported sick in late August, were examined by Major Frankish and summarily put on a charge. Since they were all found not guilty it’s possible that, left untreated, one or more of them became undeniably sicker by the time of the trial and were consequently exonerated.

Regardless of what actually happened, all four men were found not guilty, Major Frankish was transferred to the 1/3^rd East Lancs Field Ambulance shortly thereafter and no more men of the battalion were charged with this offence throughout the remainder of the campaign.

Offence: Conduct to the Prejudice of Military Discipline

Section 40 of the Army Act 1881, Conduct to the Prejudice of Military Discipline, states:

Every person subject to military law who commits any of the following offences; that is to say,

Is guilty of any act, conduct, disorder, or neglect, to the prejudice of good order and military discipline, shall on conviction by court-martial be liable, if an officer, to be cashiered, or to suffer such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned, and if a soldier, to suffer imprisonment, or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned. Provided that no person shall be charged under this section in respect of any offence for which special provision is made in any other part of this Act, and which is not a civil offence; nevertheless the conviction of a person so charged shall not be invalid by reason only of the charge being in contravention of this proviso, unless it appears that injustice has been done to the person charged by reason of such contravention; but the responsibility of any officer for that contravention shall not be removed by the validity of the conviction.

Rank	No	First	Surname	FGCM Date	Chg	HL	Remitted
Pte	1350	GEORGE	WILTON	11-Jul-15	S.40	12m	Susp
Pte	–	J	HAMPSON	20-Jul-15	S.40	12m	Susp
Pte	1658	JONATHAN	POTTER	03-Oct-15	S.40	12m	Comm

Table 1 – Serious Cases of Section 40

Note:

1. “J HAMPSON” could be either Pte 1246 John Hampson or Pte 1836 James Hampson.

Rank	No	First	Surname	FGCM Date	Chg	FP
Pte	–	E	JONES	16-Aug-15	S.40	1m – 2
Pte	2854	FRANCIS	HAWKINS	16-Aug-15	S.40	1m – 2
L/Cpl	2413	HERBERT	PARKINSON	16-Sep-15	S.40	42d – 1
Pte	3378	WILLIAM	HADFIELD	25-Sep-15	S.40	42d – 2
Pte	2174	HARRY	PRATT	03-Oct-15	S.40	56d – 2

Table 2 – Moderate Cases of Section 40

Note:

1. “E JONES” could be Pte 1613 Edward Jones, Pte 1897 Edward Jones or Pte 2073 Everett Jones.
2. The case against Pte. William Hadfield was quashed.

Rank	No	First	Surname	FGCM Date	Chg	Pay
CQMS	108	ROBERT	JACKSON	09-Sep-15	S.40	1d

Table 3 – Trivial Case of Section 40

Section 40 is a catch-all for offences that are not otherwise explicitly called out elsewhere in the Army Act, 1881. The Manual of Military Law, 1914 provides some interesting notes regarding the enforcement of charges under Section 40.

To sustain a charge under this section it is absolutely necessary that the charge should recite the words of the Act. That is to say, there must be charged an “act” or “conduct,” or “disorder,” or “neglect,” as the case may be, “to the prejudice of good order and military discipline.”

But the mere use of these words as a description of certain conduct does not warrant a court in assuming that such conduct is legally an offence. A court is not warranted in convicting unless of the opinion that the conduct charged was to the prejudice both of good order and of military discipline, having regard to the conduct itself and to the circumstances in which it took place.

Neglect must be wilful or culpable, and not merely arising from ordinary forgetfulness or error of judgment, or inadvertence; and where the use of certain words regarding superiors is made the subject of a charge under this section, the words must have been said meaningly, i.e., with a guilty intent.

In other words, to successfully bring a charge and convict a man under Section 40 the court must believe that he wilfully acted, conducted himself, or behaved with disorder, or wilfully neglected to do something the direct result of which was both to the prejudice of good order and of military discipline.

Three examples, amongst many others, provided by the Manual of Military Law, 1929 include; Negligent performance of duties connected with money or stores resulting in a deficiency and loss, Borrowing money from subordinates, and Accepting gifts an as inducement for arranging or excusing duties.

It is apparent from the sentences that the court saw the offences of Wilton, Hampson and Potter to be of a serious nature although it is notable that all three were either suspended or commuted by the Divisional and Corps authorities.

The offences committed by Pte. Jones and Pte. Hawkins resulting in 30 days of field punishment number 2 were comparatively minor transgressions and those committed by Parkinson and Pratt progressively more serious. Pte 3378 William Hadfield’s case was not of a particularly serious nature but his conviction was overturned by the Divisional and Corps authorities which was quite unusual.

Finally, we have the strange case of Company Quartermaster Sergeant (CQMS) 108 Robert Jackson of D Company, an Old Volunteer and holder of the Territorial Force Efficiency Medal. As one of the most senior and trusted NCOs of the battalion it must have been particularly galling and embarrassing for him to be tried by Field General Court Martial. Since no records survive, we have no way of knowing the nature of the charge but the sentence of a loss of 1 day’s pay indicates that whatever it was it should have been dealt with at the battalion level and not by Court Martial.

Officer Field General Court Martial

Lt. James Alfred Parker of the 9^th Battalion Manchester Regiment was court martialed in Shallufa, Egypt on February 14, 1916 for “Disobeying CC”. He was found guilty and sentenced to be cashiered after 12 weeks hard labour. His sentence was remitted to 56 days at which point he was to be returned to the UK and dishonourably discharged from the Army.

The WO 90/6 Judge Advocate General’s Office: General Courts Martial Registers Abroad provides the following details:

Lt. J. A. Parker 1/9th Bn, The Manchester Regt (TF)
Trial Date: 14th Feb 1916.
Where Held: Shallufa
Nature of Charge: Disobeying CC
Sentence: Cashiered & 84 days Hard Labour
Remitted: 56 days

The London Gazette of the 5th April, 1916 carried the following entry:

Manchester Reg’t. Lieut. James A. Parker is cashiered by sentence of a General Court-Martial. 29th Feb, 1916.

James Alfred Parker was commissioned into the 9th Battalion Manchester Regiment as a Second Lieutenant on 8th May, 1914. He sailed with the battalion to Egypt in September 1914 and there was promoted to Lieutenant. On May 9, 1915 he landed on Gallipoli as a platoon commander of B Company. He participated in the bayonet charge of June 18^th and became acting Company Commander when Capt. Harold Sugden was mortally wounded. Just under 3 weeks later he was medically evacuated to Mudros suffering from enteric fever.  He spent the next six months  recovering at Mudros and Alexandria before rejoining the Battalion at Mudros on January 3, 1916. He rejoined the battalion on January 21, 1916 while they were at Mena Camp in Cairo. Although physically recovered, all was not well because just three days later he wilfully disobeyed the lawful orders of his Company Commander and was imprisoned pending a Field General Court Martial. On February 14, 1916 the court was convened in Shallufa where the battalion had now moved and he was found guilty. The sentence was subsequently remitted to 8 weeks by the G.O.C. 42^nd Division and the record shows that after serving just 37 days of his sentence in Egypt he was returned to the UK to be cashiered.

Regimental Court Martial

On March 16, 1916 the 3/9^th Battalion Manchester Regiment convened a Regimental Court Martial at Codford to try a Gallipoli veteran Cpl. 1205 Samuel Eyre with an offence under Section 40 of the Army Act, 1881. Corporal Eyre joined the 9^th Manchesters on July 1, 1911 and was a Lance-Corporal when the battalion deployed to Egypt in September 1914. He served with them in Egypt and landed in Gallipoli on May 9, 1915. Just over seven weeks later he reported sick with enteric fever and was medically evacuated to Mudros and subsequently back to the UK on September 1, 1915. By October he was out of hospital and after a short furlough reported for duty with the 3/9^th Manchesters. By early 1916, all of the 1/9^th Battalion men who had been medically evacuated from Gallipoli, and had sufficiently recovered, joined the 3/9^th at Codford forming an “Overseas Company”.

On March 11, 1916 Cpl. Eyre was absent without leave from Tatoo, (end of day call to barracks), and did not return for 19 hours, for which he was duly reprimanded. Three days later he was court martialed, charged under Section 40 of acting to the prejudice of good order and military discipline for smoking on parade. The court was ordered by Lt-Col. R.B. Nowell the acting Commanding Officer of the 3/9^th Battalion and himself a Gallipoli veteran. The president of the court was Capt. N. Wilkinson of the 3/9^th Battalion and the other two members of the court were Lt. W.T. Forshaw, V.C., and 2/Lt. C.E. Cooke both Gallipoli veterans of the 1/9^th Manchesters. Capt. A.G. Birchenall, Adjutant of the 3/9^th Battalion was the prosecutor. The charge was brought by C.S.M. 806 Cornelius Finch on the orders of 2/Lt. W.J. Ablitt. CSM 339 Mathew James Buckley made a short and mildly positive character statement on behalf of the accused. All three were Gallipoli veterans. There was no officer appointed to aid with the defence. Cpl. Eyre plead guilty and was reduced to the ranks.

Gallipoli Field General Courts Martial Summary

In all, 32 enlisted men of the 9^th Battalion Manchester Regiment were court martialed in Gallipoli, five of whom were found not guilty and one had their conviction quashed. Nobody from the battalion was charged with cowardice or desertion. Half of the remaining cases were for sleeping or leaving without permission while on sentry duty or for leaving the trenches without permission. These cases generally resulted in the harshest penalties of imprisonment with hard labour and in one case death. All of these sentences were either commuted or suspended upon review but the clear intent was to send a message to all in the battalion. Contradicting the implication that this group of men were somehow of low moral fiber it’s important to note that at least two of them were underage and four of them went on to be decorated for bravery in the field.

259 Field General Courts Martial were held during the Gallipoli Campaign, (including a handful at Mustapha, Egypt and a couple at Mudros), for enlisted men of the 12 infantry battalions of the 42^nd (East Lancs) Division. The 126^th Infantry Brigade, that the 9^th Manchesters belonged to, accounted for almost half of those cases and the brigade was responsible for more than half of all the cases of insubordination, disobedience and theft, thanks largely to the contribution of the 1/5^th East Lancs Regiment. On a more positive note, the 126^th Brigade accounted for only two of the nine cases of cowardice that were prosecuted by the 42^nd Division.

Table of “standard” offences of a Field General Court Martial:

Section	Standard Offences
4	Cowardice
12	Desertion
10	Absence and Breaking out of Barracks or Camp
8	Striking or Violence to Superior Officer
10	Insubordination and Threatening Disobedience
6	Quitting or Sleeping on Post
19	Drunkenness
24	Injuring or Making away with Property, etc.
24	Losing Property, etc.
18	Theft
18	Indecency
10	Resisting or Escaping Escort
22	Escaping Confinement

Table of “miscellaneous” offences that the enlisted men of the 42^nd (East Lancs) Division were charged with during the Gallipoli Campaign:

Section	Miscellaneous Offence
S.5.5	Spreading reports intended to create unnecessary alarm and despondency
S.9.1	Disobeying in such a manner as to show wilful defiance of authority
S.11	Neglecting to obey orders
S.12.2a	Attempting to persuade someone to desert
S.18.1b	Feigning or producing disease or infirmity
S.18.2a	Wilfuly injuring yourself or another soldier with the intent to render them unfit for service
S.20.2	Wilfully and w/o reasonable excuse allowing someone to escape who was in their charge or whose duty it was to guard
S.24.5	Ill-treating a horse
S.40	Any act, conduct, disorder, or neglect, to the prejudice of good order and military discipline