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.

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.

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.

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. I am going to say that n o valid distinction can be made between what the Army calls cowardice and 4

what medical officers would call nervous breakdown. This report speaks of real cowardice, as though there is some distinction between rea l cowardice and some oth er kind of cowardice. I venture to say, psychologically, no distinction whatever can be made between cowardice understood in the Army and what is known as nerve failure, and it is on that basis I propose to argue this case”. 13

Although the 1925 Bill was narrowly defeated by the Conservative led Government, a second Bill was passed four years later under the newly elected Labour Government . It was subsequently rejected by the House of Lords. However, the government was undeterr ed and the Bill was finally granted Royal Assent in 1930. Including mutiny, there were now a significantly reduced number of military offences still subject to the death penalty. It was assumed that the risk of shame for the families of the men involved would simply fade with the passage of time, particularly when compounded by the onset and aftermath of the Second World War. Around 1970, renewed disquiet about the files of the executed soldiers began to circulate again, prompted by academic and public interest. Momentum In 1972, Members of Parliament and historians also began to focus on the issue. Any access to the files or informed debate continued to be blocked. It caused one Labour MP, Don Concannon, to request Parliament’s agreement that the records should be destroy ed. The Minister for Defence, Geoffrey Johnson - Smith, refused to recommend this course of action saying: “The present policy…..attempts to strike a balance between the protection of the innocent from unnecessary pain and the preservation of material that is part of our history” 14 Soon after, books were written which threatened to thwart governmental attempts to keep this matter from the public eye. Published in1974, “The Th in Yellow Line” by William Moore effectively opened up the subject to intense scrutiny. Researched and produced against the wishes of the Department of Defence, his book raised the question of a posthumous pardon for t he men shot at dawn. 15 Then, in 198 3 Judge Anthony Babbington wrote a very factual account titled “ For The Sake Of Example” . Before being permitted to research the still “closed” original courts martial documents held at the Public Record Office, Babbington had to give an undertaking that he would not name those who had been executed. 16 Shock and sadness A third book, “Shot At Dawn”, was printed in1989. Historians Julian Putkowski and Julian Sykes had finally managed to circumvent all the secrecy which guarded the issue. Although not permitted to access any of the sealed trial records, they painstakingly researched other “open” public files to gain their information. “ Shot At Dawn” contains some facts about each soldier, military service and circumstances of their execution. Cathryn Corns and John Hughes - Wilson in their 'Blindfold and Alone' 2001, pointed out that there were still some residual errors in 'Shot At Dawn'.

There was one sad and inevitable consequence following the publication of the book. At last, all 346 soldiers had been named individually. 17 Even after the passage of 70 years, the revelations were an immense shock for many surviving family members who had no knowledge about the death of their relative. It is almost impossible to comprehend the anguish when a family suddenly learned that a soldier had not been killed in action after all. Gathering pace The posthumous Pardon Campaign started to gather strength throughout the 1990’s. It became a very h ighly motivated group, but its efforts were vigorously blocked by the British Parliament and five successive Prime Ministers. The controversy has divided opinion for almost one hundred years. Research shows that it will continue to do so for years to come. The justification used by politicians re fusing to grant a pardon was that it focused so much attention on just 346 men. Instead, the Pardon Campaign deflected attention from the hundreds of thousands of the other war victims, the soldiers who died or had been injured whilst fully carrying out th eir duty. In the twenty first century, many similar activists seek an apology for what they consider to be other historical ‘crimes’ committed by the state. Perhaps these words by a n unnamed judge in 1984 should be carefully considered: “… …history abounds in trials and sentences capable of being see n through later generations as harsh and patently unjust. The view traditionally taken has always been that they must be accepted as part of history and that it is no t the business of ONE generat ion to sit in judgment on the legal process of its forebears, whatever compassion they may feel….” 18 Through careful research into the files of the twenty - five Canadians who were executed, it is easier to understand and subscribe to the views of this judge. By their individual actions, it is also important to realise that some men were certainly far from innocent. They had breached the trust between themselves and thousands of their comrades. Military Enlistment When war was declared in August 1914, Canada had an army of just 3000 Regulars. Within weeks, this number had been augmented by over 33,000 vo lunteers. At enlistment, each recruit and his witness were required to sign three individual parts of a double sided Attestation Paper. 19 It legally bound him to the regulations of the British Army Act and for overseas service. In a sworn Oath, every man d eclared his allegiance to King George the Fifth and gave an undertaking to obey all orders given by superior Generals and officers. When conscription was introduced in 1917, a single sided Attestation Paper was presented to conscripts. One singular omissio n on either document is any reference per se to the British Army. Considering the long queues of patriotic volunteers at every recruitment centre, it is reasonable to speculate little time could be given for more than a cursory explanation of the terms

6 with which they were expected to agree. Faced with volunteers wanting to sign up and ‘do their bit,’ scant effort was probably made by the recruiting officers to seek out even those men who had poor communication skills or were mentally unfit. Quite simply, quotas had to be filled and mistakes happened.

F rench version of the Attestation Paper provided only for Private Lalancette 20

For example, the Oath sworn by Private Léopold Delisle does not have the signature of his witness. Of the five French speaking members of the 22 / French Canadian Battalion who were executed, only Private Joseph Lalancette was presented with an Attestation Paper printed in French. Were the other four actually fluent in English? Or, did they sign a paper they only partly und erstood? Questionable discipline During 1916, there had been a noticeable and widespread deterioration of discipline because all troops were becoming weary and disillusioned. For the Allies, the war was not going well and morale suffered. Beginning on 1 Ju ly 1916, the Battle of the Somme resulted in the loss of over sixty thousand troops on a single day. Between 9 July and 18 November 1916, a total of 6 Canadians we re executed for desertion and 2 for murder. By example, a powerful message was delivered to t he Canadian troops that all capital crimes would be dealt with most severely. There was a fear that the exploits of repeat offenders would permeate the rest of the troops, leading to increased indiscipline and insubordination. Godefroy has note d that the status of the Canadian Army changed in November 1916. Having deployed four divisions into the field of war , it was declared to be a separate entity from the British

Army . The authority for dealing with serious crimes could technically have passe d to the Canadian military: “As eight of the twenty - five CEF soldiers were executed prior to that date, the 7

manner in which these men were tried and executed undoubtedly set a precedent for allowing the British military legal system to continue handling Canadian Field General Courts Martial cases to the end of the war ” . 21 Leniency The Canadians had generally shown a measure of leniency to t heir men. If the responsibility had reverted to them absolutely, is it reasonable to assume that far fewer soldiers may have been executed? Or, was the Canadian Command simply unwilling to take on the role and expectation of following the precedent set by the British Military? The proceedings at a Court Martial came unde r the auspices of the Commanding Officer of each individual. His duties cover ed three pages of Section 46 of the Army Act of 1914. Unlike civilian courts, there was no automatic presumption of innocence. Soldiers only appeared if considered to have been guilty o f the offence for which they were charged. Otherwise, why were they there? As serving soldiers, all Officers, NCOs and men were expected to accept there was a totally diff erent attitude towards crime and punishment which contrasted sharply with civilian justice. When faced with a capital offence and the possibility of eventual execution, should any soldier have to forfeit the protections offered by the civilian justice syst em? Should he accept the denial of his right to “innocent until proven guilty” and what was a clear ly a lower standard of proof in a military court? Courts Martial A General Court Martial was the formal and ultimate legal process through which serious crimes were tried and able to impose a death sentence. Its panel had to be instigated by a General of the Crown. Depending on whether the Court was convened in the United Kingdom or overseas, it consisted of between five and nine officers. The f unction of a FGCM was to dispense a quick and definitive remedy for an offence committed by any soldier whilst on active service. It had a sitting President and no fewer than three officers. However, the commanding officer of an accused soldier was not per mitted to be present. “The real instrument of swift justice on active service was the Field General Court Martial, a curious hybrid of the General, the District and the Regimental Court Martial.” 22 A guilty verdict for Desertion or C owardice would often be handed down in order to stiffen discipline within the guilty man’s unit. It was influenced by the opinion and recommendation of the Brigade Commander. If he considered that an example needed to be made for whatever reason, a death s entence was pronounced. Once the verdict had been signed off, the accused would be invited to make a plea in mitigation. Usually, his words were disregarded. The findings of the FGCM were passed up to either Field Marshall Sir John French or Fi eld Marshal Sir Douglas Haig for ratification and a final decision was made on the appropriate punishment. Executions were frequently carried out swiftly, sometimes within days of the verdict.

Questionable defence Did a man facing a capital crime have the benefit of qualified support in conducting his defence? If the trial had been held in a civil ian court or even at a Court Martial in England, the accused would be allocated a reliable and experienced legal representative. Of course, this option was not p ossible in the field of battle. The Army asserted that the rights of soldiers were displayed on the wall of every guardroom. It was assumed that the accused would be told that he was entitled to have a ‘friend’ present at trial who could speak for him or o n his behalf. However, Officers were discouraged from appearing for their men. Unlike a criminal case in the civilian system, there was no right of appeal for military offences committed in the field. The Commander - in - Chief was the only remainin g hope for a soldier sentenced to death. Under the provisions of the ‘ Army ( Suspension of Sentences) Act 1915’ , he could commute the sentence to prison with hard labour, with the possibility of subsequent further reducti on or suspension in the future. 23 Ho wever, it was paramount that: ”Discipline had to be reinforced to demonstrate that failing to do your duty was not an acceptable attribute in a soldier. A man whose sentence was commuted was as lost to the army as if he had been shot. The man shot as an example to others was more useful to the army than a man languishing in jail far behind the firing line” . 24 There was very little support forthcoming from med ical officers to the accused stood before a court martial. At that time, doctors were unaware of the trauma of shell - shock and were always wary of malingerers. If a mental illness was diagnosed or even suspected, there were fears that it would lead to a rush of men claimin g sanctuary from the trench es. Inevitably, it would become a respectable excuse for being sent to safety behind the lines. The ‘ Van Doos ’ In a seemingly inexplicable outcome, the 22 / Infantry (French Canadian) Battalion had five soldiers executed for Desertion. It was the only unit w hich had more than one member shot at dawn . The records of t hese five men show significantly different levels of indiscipline and rais e crucial questions whether their crimes merited an identical punishment. At the outbreak of hostilities, the Canadian Government authorised the formation of the only French spea king unit. As the 22nd battalion to form part of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, it was familiarly called the ‘Van Doos’ which is a colloquial pronunciation of the French vingt - deux. Commanded by the charismatic L ieutenant Colonel Thomas Tremblay from 1915 to August 1918, he gained a reputation as a leader to be reckoned with. He led his troops through all the major battles, including Courcelette (September 1916), Vimy Ridge (April 19 17) and Passchendaele (October - November 1917). Tremblay consistently urged his soldiers to fight for victory in the name of French Canada and discipline was initially first class. The narrator of the commemorative DVD produced in conjunction with the centenary of the ‘ Van Doos ’ observes: 9

“Colonel Tremblay was perfectly right. He told his men, and soldiers of all ranks knew, that they could not fail. They represented the French Canadian race. In a way, they we ren’t just fighting the Germans, they were also fighting what was happening in Canada, proving that French Canadians were as good as, or better than, the English.” 25

L ieutenant Col onel Thomas Tremblay 26 Major Arthur Edouard Dubuc 27

Why then were five of the twenty five executed Canadians serving with the ‘ Van Doos ’ ? After the Courcelette offensive, Tremblay returned to England for s ome months and handed over control to his second - in - command, Major Arthur Edouard Dubuc. The absence of Tremblay caused a huge dip in confidence and rise of indiscipline amongst the men. When Lt Colonel Tremblay returned in February of 1917, “he found that the devastating casualties of the Somme had been replaced by the tramps and ne’er do wells recruited by other French speaking CEF battalions”. 28

In order to re - establish his authority, Tremblay used the Courts Martial process and the ultimat e penalty of death as a quick way to restore the battalion’s damaged reputation and credibility. A ll five executions took place between April 1917 to May 1918 . The first of these was Private Eugene Perry who had transferred into th e 22 /Battalion from his original 41 / Battalion, disassembled because of its grave disciplinary problems. At his trial, Perry stated that he was too nervous to fight after serving on the Somme. His inadequate defence raises the distinct possibility that he w as suffering shell shock. Perry had merely been AWOL for just seven hours. Nevertheless, he was still found guilty and shot at dawn on the 11 April 1917. Tim Cook writes: “with his record of good service, he should have been let off, but inst ead he was tried and received the death penalty, which was carried out. Perry died not for his crime, but fo r his comrades: the High Command felt that the 22 nd Battalion was a little “windy” and that the men needed their will stiffened.” 29

His execution was carried out just two days before the Vimy Ridge offensive. Without doubt, it was an injustice and gives fuel to the ‘pardons for all’ lobbyists. Why did Sir Douglas Haig not commute

the sentence when considering the leniency shown elsewhere to other persistent deserters? Or, was Perry’s death a convenient “example” to his comrades in advance of Vimy? If so, it completely failed as a wa rning to the 22 / Regiment. Within three months, two more ‘ Van Doos ’ also paid the ultimate price. Private Gustav Comté and Private Joseph Lal ancette were both repeat absentees without leave. Whilst the 22 nd was preparing for Vimy, Comté took off on 4 April and was followed two days later by Lalancette. The Canadians lost almost seven thousand comrades during the capture of Vimy Ridge, but Comté and Lalancette remained absent for five weeks. They were captured together on 18 May, found guilty of Desertion and were placed side by side on chairs at their execution on 3 July 1917. The four th and fifth executions from 22 /Battalion were carried out on two extreme serial offenders. Their extensive records of indiscipline highlight the injusti ce of Eugene Perry’s death for just one relatively trivial offence. T he military career of Private Arthur Dagessé was dotted with periods of syphilis. It is reasonable to speculate that his appalling behaviour was caused in part by this diseas e affecting his mind. By the end of s pring 1917, he had clocked up thirteen convictions on his record, the majority for being AWOL. Arrested in Paris on the 28 April, Dagessé somehow absconded again and stayed free for six months. He was re - arrested in Oc tober 1917. Ironically, Dagessé was wearing the uniform of a sergeant with the Royal Army Medical Corps. His execution finally took place in March 1918.

The ‘Van Doos’ returning from Vimy Ridge in France, May, 1917. 30

Almost from the start of his military service, Private Léopold Delisle flouted regulations. His numerous crimes ranged from insubordination and drunkenness to striking a superior officer. In fact, he was charged with just about the full range of possible transgressions without one word offered in mitigation. It is obvious that no amount of punishment was ever going to make a responsible soldier out of him. After going missing on the 29 March 1918, Delisle was arrested a week later, tried and condemned to death. The sentence w as carried out at 04.24am on 21 May 1918. The Royal 22 / Regiment is still active and celebrated their centennial in October 2014. Currently, the Headquarters is at La Cit adele in Quebec City. Its five B attalions are based throughout the province of Quebec, with two located at Valcartier. In total, the Regiment has received forty - six battle honours including two Victoria Cross holders from the Great War and one from World War Two. The ‘ Van Doos ’ have part icipated in every armed conflict and other missions in which the Canadian Armed Forces has been involved over the last hundred years. Their bravery reflects a pride in Canada but especially of Quebec.

La Citadele , Quebec, the home of the ‘Van Doos’ 31

To be continued……………

Diana Beaupré graduated from Canterbury Christ Church University in 2007 and Adrian Wa tkinson from Hendon back in 1969 . As independent, post - retirement researchers for the past nine years, they have investigated all the 3898 WW1 Canadians commemorated across the UK . Their work can be viewed on their website: www.canadianukgravesww1.co.uk and they plan to complete their project by the end of 2018.

References:

1 Harper, Clifford (1989) The Unknown Deserter – Nine Drawings . Working Press p14 2 Ibid p15 3 Ibid p16 4 Godefroy, A B (1998) For Freedom And Honour . Ontario. CEF Books p27 5 Army Act 1881, Part 1, Chapter 111, paragraph 13 6 Corrns, Cathryn and Hughes - Wilson, John. (2001 ) Blindfold and Alone . London: Cassel & Co. p44 7 Statistics O f The Military Effo rt Of The British Empire During The Great War 1914 - 1920. CPI Anthony Rowe. Eastbourne. Part XX111. (Discipline) Section 2 Table (ii) (c) p643 8 Ibid Table (vi)(a) p648 9 Ibid Table (vi)(b) p649 10 Corms and Hughes Wilson. p441 11 Thurtle, Ernest (Undated) Shootings At Dawn – The Army Death Penalty at Wor k. London. Victoria House Printing Co . Accessed via https://archive.org/details/shootingsatdawna00thurrich 12 Thurtle photograph - http://conwayhall.org.uk/memorial 13 http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1925/apr/01/clause - 4 - abolition - of - death - penalty 14 Corn s and Hughes – Wilson p441 15 Moore, William, (1974) The Thin Yellow Line. Great Britain: Wordsworth Editions 16 Babington, Anthony. (1985) For The Sake Of Exa mple . London: Paladin 17 Putkowski, Julian and Sykes, Julian. (1989 ) Shot At Dawn . London: Leo Cooper 18 Corn s and Hughes - Wilson p459 19 Service files including Attestation Papers for all soldiers in this article were accessed via the Library & Archives, Ottawa, Canada - Finding A id: RG150 - Accession 1992 - 93/166 Military Service Files . 20 Ibid - Private Lalancette 21 Godefroy p5 22 Corms and Hughes - Wilson p90 23 http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1915/mar/16/royal - assent#S5CV0070P0_19150316_HOC_150 . Army (S uspension of Sentences) Act 191 6 24 Corms and Hughes - Wilson p314 25 DVD. Le Royal 22 e Régiment – Un Centenaire Glorieux. 2015. National Film Board of Canada 26 Photograph: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/thomas - louis - tremblay/ 27 Photograph: Major Arthur Dubuc. www.cherisy - castor - 18.fr/295302143 28 Morton, Desmond. (1993) When Your Number’s Up. Canad a: Random House p251 29 Cook, Tim. (2008) Shock Troops, Vol 2. Canada: Penguin p252 30 Van Doos returning from Vimy Ridge in France, May, 1917. Image courtesy of Library and Archives Canada/ PA - 001332 31 Image of La Citadel e, Quebec. http://www.starforts.com/quebec.html