PUNISHMENT IN THE BRITISH ARMY

NZ Truth, Issue 602, 30 December 1916, Page 3

PUNISHMENT IN THE BRITISH ARMY

AH AGITATION FOR ABOLITION OF " CRUCIFIXION " ROBERT BIATCHFORD'S APPEAL Generals Believe Abolition Would bcrease Death-penalty Sentences

Cables from London during the last few days state that questions have been asked m the House of Commons concerning the nature of what is called "field punishment No. 1" or "crucifixion" as the Tommies term it. It is a form of punishment to which men are sentenced for serious breaches of discipline H in the field." It is as humiliating as it is severe, and is inflicted as follows: The prisoner is strapped to the spokes of a gun-car-riage wheel, the legs extended apart, and the arms more or less elevated and extended. A strap is also passed round the throat and round the waistThe punishment is . not common, is 6eldom inflicted for more than one hour at a time, and only m the most aggravated of cases is it repeated twice for the one offence, and then only after a considerable interval between the first and second occasion. These facts show the wisdom of obeying orders m the British Army. An agitation is now no foot m the Old Country to have it abolished. As usual, tho guardian of Let-a-bee is loud m bis protests against its abolition. Mr. J. L M&cpherson, Parliamentary Under -Secretary to the War Office, protested against a member describing field punishment No. 1 as "crucifixion." Practically all generals agreed that it could not be abolished. General Sir Douglas Haig believed that its abolition would lead to an increase m the death-penalty sentences. Tho following is the redoubtable Robert Blatehford's contribution to the discussion, and appeared m the Manchester "Sunday Chronicle": Mr. Lloyd George, who discovered that a Hun was a Hun almost immediately after the "great friendly na- ; tion" had begun to commit the most j fiendish of atrocities m France and

Belgium, has now discovered tho British Army and the British people. Comparing hla opinions of the British people before the war and since the war began, Mr. Lloyd George said: We know that amongst us we had a man here and a man there with a heart of gold, who was capable of darlnj? and enterprise, and had voJor firing hla soul; but we never knew that we h*d thousands, nay, millions, of them spread all over the land. In the highest and In the humblest homes. That waa the revelation of the w«tr — ft treasure, on Inexhaustible treasure, hidden In the hearu of iho humblest men ... we nover know It. It gave a new pride to humanity. And ho on. Last March, Mr. Lloyd

George was still m the dark. He said then: We are fighting Germany, Austria, and drink, and the greatest of these deadly foes is drink. I congratulate him upon hig enlightenment. I hope he will not backslide from his newly-found grace. But I may, I think, be pardoned for protesting that the "treasure of the humble," which Mr. Lloyd George has just discovered, and over which he manifests so much wonder and delight, was known to some of us fifty years ago, SHALL W& ACKNOWLEDGE THE DEBT? When I speak of John Bull's debt to Tommy Atkins, I have m mind the debt which the British nation owes to the British Army, a debt which I flaim should be met both honorably and gladly; let tho cost be What It j may. Our men, the best of our blood and flower of our youth, have gone out, from home and from the Colonies, have gone out as volunteers. We can never do enough for those who come , back, nor for the dependants of those who do not coma back. I put the case as a Briton. Just as it was singlo men first, and young i men first, and then married men of 'military age, to go to war, so it should be single men and young men and married men first when they come I home. The soldiers and the sailors ' | who return after the war, both the ! [ hale and the maimed, and those who have fallen m the war, are the men who have saved the Empire. To thbse men we owe our property, our liberty, and our lives. Are we going 1 to acknowledge the debt, or are we going to allow a fow mean and selfish persons to persuade us to sneak out of it? THEY MUST BE PDT FIRST. If we win the war, who will have won it? The sailors and the soldiers, officers and men. Now so long as one sailor or soldier is m want no superior person should be allowed to remain rich. To allow a hero, lamed or blinded m the war, or the loved wife or children of such a hero, to exist m penury, while a Cabinet Minister, a music-hall artist, or a financier is paid £5000, or £500,000 a year, would be a disgrace to the nation and to the Empire. I put it to our readers, as a proposition based on common-sense and common honesty, that the first man for a job, and the first man for a meal, and the first man for honor should be the man who has fought for as all. The idea that the returned hero should be given what is left when the rest of us have had all we desire is an idea which may lurk In the boggy , backwater of some superior person's mind, but it is a base end a rascally and a damnable idea, and the Booner we recognise it as such the better. There ifl a V.C back injured from the war, selling newspapers m the streets of a Scots town. He gets, I believe, 12s or 16s a week from a grateful country. That is not good enough. If the nation cannot afford to pay that hero more than 16s a week then no man m the kingdom, from the Prime 'Minister downwards, ought to have more than 16a a week. If we cannot accept such a proposal let us have the decency to shut up und blether no more about "tho treasure" of the national genius and valor. STUPIDITIES IN THE ARMY. Do we not bear sometimes doubts expressed as to the men back from tho war being reinstated m the positions which they left to fight for us? No such doubt ought to be possible amongst, honest or just people, Who has a right to a place m any business equal to that of the soldier who has fought to keep the business and its owners alive? The fact is that we have not yet as a nation realised tho truth that our Volunteer Array has done moire and deserves mar©- than any mere civilian. We have not yet learned to honor our soldiers and sailors, nor to treat thorn properly after they so devotedly served ' us. I Even m the Army itself our splendid : volunteer fighting men are not always treated with the respect and j consideration which any clerk or laboring man m civil life would demand, and obtain. That ia because the base spirit of an ancient and savage tradition has not been thoroughly purged from the service. Some brutalities and stupidities which still remain to tho discredit of the Army will have to so when tho war ia over. It were wiser to ret rid of them now. 1 will give one example; but first let mo say something of the quality of our soldiers. Some few years ago General Sir lan Hamilton, speaking with warm commendation of the rank and nitt of the Army, told me that the discipline was splendid. His actual words were: The men are steady and willing, wonderfully efficient. There are hardly any punishments, and the discipline Is splendid. Major Corbett-Smlth saya of th» "old contemptibles": Their eelf- reliance, their conni dene* In and affection for their | officers were evidenced m a hunj * drod wnya; while officers, for their i part, had perfect confidence In ! thulr men. and know that however I Impoatiiule an order intent soem } It would b« carried puU The j force was, In short, one bit happy I family. ! Of tho new urmlw, Kitchener's men. j a»U ih« Territorial*, nearly every officer «pettka m th* mom ElowliiK terras. I will quote from tlmt thrllHn« book. "Tho Great Advance:." The Colonel of ono regiment saiU: Man for man, the Germanw cannot approach (hem fur uplrit and j sheer gttlfamry. Their moral \va* I simply' «upurb. Really, one do«au't want tv oxatftferale or b« fubjotne.

but no lesser word will serve. They could noi have been liner — no soldiers could. A wounded major said: They ■were absolute perfection. No veterans could have been finer. They jumped into that hail of lead as though it were water and they wanted a swim. Another officer said: Here is something finer, higher, and mors enduring than any enthusiasm, valuable though enthusiasm is. This, m as few words as may be, is discipline grafted on essential decency and British goodwill. It is the ancient invincible brand of British discipline (as different from the Boche variety as a Hun is from a gentleman and a soldier), superimposed upon a sound British sense of duty and the finest products of modern science and technique. A HELLISH PUNISHMENT. Well, then, the old professional army and the new armies are extolled by their own officers as perfection. The men are brave, resolute, intelligent, clean, cheerful, full of kindness and mercy. They are attached to their officers. They work like a baud of brothers, now let us ponder the following letter: Sir, — Did you know one of the | punishments m the army is crucifixion? It is imposed when the men lose their gas helmets. Mrs. — — has learned that her son, with five others, lost their gas helmets m a marsh. They were tied by the neck, waist, hands and feet to cart wheels for one hour; when' released her son was dead. He -was. on the eve of coming home, having joined the second day of the "Pal*- (Corn Exchange Section), and served his country for nearly j two years. I have known that gentleman by repute since he was a boy, and a better all - round man never lived; a joy and a pride to his home, . The soldier to -whom that letter refers was a volunteer, a man of forty years of age, who left a good position to serve his country. No doubt he, like thousands m the ranks, might have had a commission had he wished. And he was treated m that savage and degrading mannAr There Is not one word to be said for such a punishment. Stupid martinets of the bad old school will protest /that discipline cannot b* maintalnedLwithout a kind of savage severity which the Huns call frightfulness. It is not true. A hundred years ago a soldier at the Tower was sentenced to 500 lashes. Imagine It! 600 lasooa with a cat o" nine tails; 4500 lashes. And that sentence was defended by the mentally-constipated military bodies of the day as ''necessary and just severity." Our hoys go because our cause is right; we let our boys go because our cause i 8 right. They go to flght for their country and for civilisation, not to be Insulted and tortured by fools. I have said that we who remain at home owe our lives and all that makes life worth living to the sa lions at sea and the soldiers at the front. We cannot ever repay our debt; but we can do our best; and as an earnest of better things to follow we might demand through the proper channels the Immediate abolition of crucifixion from the army, and, If possible, the punishment of the chuckleheaded Hun who first introduced it. It la only about fifty years since flopring was abolished m the army; I think It is less since it was abolished m the navy. But it is abolished; and the discipline m both services is finer than it ever was In the past We can do without the cat m our army and we can do without^the contemptible form or torture cailea crucifixion, or field punishment.