To Pardon Or Not to Pardon? the Twenty Five Great War Canadians Shot at Dawn – Part One

To Pardon or Not to Pardon? The Twenty Five Great War Canadians Shot at Dawn – Part One by Diana Beaupré and Adrian Watkinson _________________________ Three hundred and forty six soldiers were shot at dawn by the Bri tish Army during The Great War. Of these, twenty five were Canadians, all volunteers, unmarried and with ages ranging from nineteen to thirty seven. They were executed between March 1916 and August 1918. “ On trial ” 1 “ Awaiting the verdict ” 2 “ The execution ” 3 Watershed At 5.43am on Sunday 26 March 1916, 25 year old French - Canadian Private Fortunat Auger was led out of his cell in Steenwerck, Belgium and tied to a post by his shoulders, knees and ankles. Now blindfolded, this serial offender should not have been too surprised at his fate because he had defie d all the odds during his military service. As the circle of white was pinned to Auger’s chest over his heart, he faced members of his own unit. They were standing with their backs to him awaiting the order to turn, aim and fire. A firing squad t ypically consisted of between 6 to 12 men. With just one rifle randomly loaded with a blank cartridge, each member could always console himself that he had not delivered the fatal shot. According to Henry Williamson of London Rifle Brigade and Tarka The Otter fame, the man with the blank cartridge would have known by the recoil whether it was 'loaded with ball or not' . A signal rather than a verbal command was always given, designed to help the prisoner at the point of no return. Somewhat perversely, the military displayed these two examples of sensitivity during the final moments of Private Auger’s life. Thus, he became the first Canadian serviceman to be executed by the military and used as an “example” to his fellow soldiers. 1 This forlorn scene was to be pla yed out with another 24 Canadians. Some of their deaths raise questions as to the legitimacy and moral right of the Military to carry out executions for the crimes of Desertion and Cowardice. However, in analysing the background to the charges brought on these two sp ecific counts, were 23 of the soldiers actually deserving of a retrospective pardon in 2006? Auger had volunteered in September 19 14 and was serving with the 14/ Royal Montreal Infantry Battalion. At attestation, he had declared his occupation to be “Architect Carpenter”. Auger’s unit was part of the First Expeditionary Force to arrive in England before Christ mas 1914. Subsequently, the 14/Battalion was posted to France and sustained huge casua lties in the Ypres gas attack of April 1915, quickly followed by a further large loss of life at the battle at Festubert. Between November and early December 1915, Auger went ‘Absent Without Leave’ (AWOL) twice and charged accordingly. Having absconded for a third time in December 1915, he was tried for ‘Desertion’ by a Field General Court Marti al (FGCM), but found guilty only of being AWOL and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment. Perhaps Auger’s life would have be en spared if he had remained in jail and reflected on his behaviour but he was released and returned to his unit during the first week of January 1916. Just three days later, he went AWOL yet again. Although the reasons for his action s are unknown, it c ould perhaps justifiably be argued Auger had adopted something of a cavalier attitude and thought he could beat the military disciplinary system. This man had got away with going AWOL three times in quick succession without any dire consequences. On 11 Jan uary 1916, he once again found himself on trial at a FGCM and pleaded guilty to Desertion. Finally, Auger’s luck had expired and he was sentenced to death. So, what might have changed in the thinking of the Officers trying his case? Having suf fered many cases of military indiscipline and cr ime over the previous year, 14/ Battalion had undergone a change of Commander. “Unit discipline problems including Auger’s absences, began just after Lieutenant Colonel F Fishe r took command of the battalion ” . 4 After being in control for only five months, Fisher was swiftly replaced on 18 March 1916 by Major R P Clark , MC. With this change at the top, there was an inevitable tighte ning of order. Clark had responsibility for signing off the death sentence on Pr ivate Auger just eight days after he assumed command. His decisio n was intended to serve as a s evere warning to the rest of 14 / Bat talion that such behaviour would not be tolerated. British, Canadian and other Commonwealth troops were brought tog ether under the Imperial banner. Therefore, they were all subject to Sections 175 and 176 of the British Army Act in respect of the procedures surrounding military regulations. This relationship was confirmed by the Governor General of Canada on 9 August 1 914 and deemed necessary to enable him to raise the First Canadian Expeditionary Force. 2 Courts Martial In addition to several graduating levels of military punishment there were four types of Courts Martial. Each of these was restricted as to the maximum penalties they could levy and the severity of mi litary crimes they could try. These were a Regimental (RCM), District (DCM), General (GCM) or Field General (FGCM) Courts Martial. One apparent anomaly highlighted during the research for this article is the vast difference between the penalties imposed for the seemingly twin offences of going ‘Absent Witho ut Leave’ and ‘Desertion’. However, it is clear that the determining factor was one of “intent ”. The distinction is explained in the Army Act which states: “The offence of desertion implies an intention on the part of the offender either not to return to his Majesty’s service at all, or to escape some particularly important service.” 5 There is further clarification of ‘ Desertion’: “It is obvious that the evidence of intention to quit the service may also be so strong as to be irresistible, as, for instance, if a soldier is found in plain clothes on board a steamer in the case there cou ld be no doubt of the intention ” 6 It is documented that there were 304,262 7 Imperial soldiers court - martialled for serious crimes in The Great War. Of these, 36,388 8 were found g uilty and a death penalty handed down to 3080 9 . Considering these vas t statistics, why did a mere 309 men receive the ultimate penalty for strictly military offe nces? In addition, 37 men were convicted of murder and would likely have been executed under civilian law. Confining these figures to only t he 650,000 Canadians who fought in the CEF during The Great War, why were just 23 singled out for execution on the grounds of either Desertion or Cowardice? Example The death of Private Auger was a defining moment. Prior to March 1916, many Canad ians had simply walked away from their posts and units. Whether they were AWOL or had actually deserted, none of them were executed. Of the 25 Canadian volunteers who were shot at dawn, 22 were found guilty of desertion, 1 for cowardice and 2 for murder. Was there an equality of seriousness underpinning the charges against each man or a much more random and arbitrary yardstick individually applied to them? Should an established ‘custom and practice’ have alerted each soldier that he was about to go beyond the point of no return? Or, did military or political considerations influence the decisions made by their commanding officers? At face value, the fate of Private Auger should have set the benchmark of unacceptable behaviour for all other Canadian soldie rs. If making an example of him was the intended purpose, it did not succeed. 3 Pardon Debate In 1919, the War Office stipulated that all death penalty trial records were to remain confidential for one hundred years. The decision was met by initial condemna tion and characterised as a wish to protect the identity of the Officers who had been responsible for carrying out the verdicts of the Courts Martial. However, the War Office was also mindful of the social stigma that would have attached to the families o f the 346 executed soldiers. Unaware of the ir men’s fate, some were led to believe their relative had actually been killed in action. Since 1917, the Im perial War Graves Commission took responsibility for “individually and equally” commemorating all Comm onwealth war dead. Although granted access to the files of the executed men, it affirmed that: “the greatest care will be taken to prevent any leakage of the information”. 10 Irrespective of military rank or record, each service man and woman is uniformly commemorated by name on a headstone or memorial. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission continues to ensure their cause of death remains undisclosed on their headstones. C ampaign er For several years after the Great War, rumblings continued about the whole question of military executions. It was an issue which would simply not go away. One of the principal activists was Ernest Thurtle MP who wrote the undated pamphlet “ Shootings at Dawn – The Army Death Penalty at Work” in which he advocated the abol ition of the death penalty for military offences . 11 Elected to Parliament in 1924, he was instrumental in the Labour Party adopting as party policy the abolition of capital punishment for desertion, cowardice and certain other military offences. Ernest Thurtle. MP 12 (© National Portrait Gallery) Speaking during a parliamentary debate on 1 st April 1925, Thurtle outlined his case: “I want to come to the real heart of the question; that is, the question raised in the report as to whether there have been miscarriages of justice owing to the failure to distinguish between real cowardice and physical breakdown.

Load more