questions about law

First question, does the army have articles of war like the navy?

Second, would camp followers come under that law? Or maybe only if they were on the strength?

Third, for whatever's not covered under army law, would they follow regular English law?

Heh, if Lambert dies within six months of the attack, and if Jenny is found to have been the one to stab him, it could very well become a capital murder case under the "Stabbing Act" of 1603 (not repealed until 1828). Of course, that has to involve the stab victim not having struck a blow first, and Vickery did see them kicking her. Not sure if he'd be able to positively identify Lambert as one of the kickers though. It's also "excuseable" homicide if a woman (or her husband or father) kills an attempted rapist - but that wouldn't wash with a woman who's a whore, because basically there was no such thing as raping a prostitute. (Ugh.)

And itwould be the defendant's job to produce evidence to defend herself, to argue that it wasn't murder but rather justifiable homicide - pretty much guilty until proven innocent.

Not that I'm protesting against Lambert's death. I have no problem with my character being branded a murderess. She, on the other hand, may just have to commit a real murder to make up for earning that label (Pye). Trial for murder would be fun.

Right, so.

"The Mutiny Act was reauthorized each year until 1879. The Mutiny Act was soon modified to allow courts-martial for other crimes besides mutiny, sedition, and desertion. Modifications to the Mutiny Act soon allowed courts-martial trial of soldiers for acts prohibited by the Crown’s articles of war, as long as the articles conformed to the Mutiny Act in 1718. Civilians who were closely associated to the military, such as victuallers, could also be tried by courts-martial."

The Army was also governed by the Articles of War, similar to the Navy. I don't know how much it all applied to camp followers, though. It is probable that common law applied in any instances now covered by army law, yes. But I'm no expert!

Links:

Articles of War 1757
Crime and Punishment in 1812

Common law meaning British law?

ps - that's the navy Articles of War there.

Or it could just be a part of him that dies and falls off rather than the whole of him. That way the dear provost may still be alive, Jenny Ross too, but the lot might just begin to hate each other worse than cats and dogs.

I think he's really going to die.

But also apparently it could be a capital offense to maim someone. I'm not sure if this counts as maiming...

But in defense? Defense to prevent being beaten up, if for nothing else? Jenny was pretty maimed herself too.

I know that's the Navy Articles. There isn't an Army version that I could find.

This book looks awesome.

An historical account of the British Army and of the Law Military
AS DECLARED BY THE
Ancient and Modern Statutes, and Articles of War
FOR ITS GOVERNMENT :
WITH A FREE COMMENTARY ON THE MUTINY ACT
And the Rules and Articles of War,
ILLUSTRATED BY
VARIOUS DECISIONS OF COURTS MARTIAL.
BY E. SAMUEL.
1816

I love Google books.

And I've already learned something new. People aren't allowed to ride in wagons unless they're sick or injured and approved by an officer. Oops. Not that I've been riding in the wagons much. Just that once when we had the night march, I think. Though maybe some sutler types own their own wagons.

Who's to say Vickery wouldn't have approved it, after that incredible journey to come up, not only to the column, but to the Riflemen in the van of it?

I am definitely adding that to the Sources list when I get back in this evening. Just so know.

"The types of transgressions and appropriate penalties were listed in the Articles of War, which was supplemented by the unwritten British “Customs of War,” which dealt with conduct on a practical, day-to-day level, addressing appearance, kit repair, and general company expectations. Theoretically, this was intended to make the disciplinary code consistent across all regiments.

Minor transgressions were, naturally, handled on the spot, informally and immediately by NCOs and officers, who meted out blows with fist and cane or punished soldiers with extra drill. More egregious, but non-capital offenses, were tried by regimental courts martial; proceedings were recorded solely at the discretion of the company officers and were not subject to review. Thus, the majority of the crimes and outcomes were never officially acknowledged, and most of the accounts for those that were have been lost...

Capital crimes, such as desertion, murder, rape, assault, gross insubordination, and striking an officer, were handled by general courts martial. These events were required by law to be officially transcribed. At this level, there were few acquittals as the amount of evidence was usually substantial, or the event would never have progressed past company or battalion-level justice. Moreover, the accused often acknowledged his guilt in hopes of leniency, meaning the principle responsibility of the courts was to mete out punishment.

This officially sanctioned justice was, for the most part, accepted by the men. The system of British military justice, however, was based primarily on minor punishments, administered at the level of the regimental courts. It is here that the “devil’s clause,” came in. This catch-all gave the regimental commander the ability to have regimental courts try soldiers for offenses not prescribed in the Articles of War. Offenses could be small, such as a dirty kit, being tardy for roll call, losing army equipment, being slow to respond to a command, or any number of similar mistakes. The clause allowed penalties on “all crimes not capital” to be decided as the court saw fit. Flogging became the punishment of choice, with the number of lashes to be administered left to the court’s discretion. It was this sometimes arbitrary system of discipline and retribution to which most soldiers objected. They viewed it as a source of abuse and suffering, having little to do with fairness or justice."

All for the King's Shilling, 137-138.

Hi reaper!

So is there a separate Articles of War for the army? I've only ever been able to find them for the nayv. And do you know how those laws affected the civilian followers and sutlers and such? I've heard of women being punished but I don't know the particulars.

I'd heard about some sort of Articles of War for the Army (thanks to a certain Bernard Cornwell, whose research is impeccable!), but I've never been able to find a copy to refer to. From what you've said above, it looks as though they run on similar lines, which would make sense.

That's actually immensely helpful - and I had no idea that recording the proceedings of a Regimental Court Martial was at the discretion of the Company officer. I would have thought that the presiding officer would have been responsible for recording the trial and its verdict and sentence.

You learn something new every day!

Below are some examples of offenses. I've never come across any data referring to civilians being tried. Nor have I come across any soldier accounts that I can recall that describe the army punishing civilians. My best guess would be that offenders (camp followers, wives) who erred egregiously would be simply drummed out of camp. In many ways that, in of itself, could be nearly a death sentence or at least hugely risky for solitary figures (with little to no money or food and no language skills) abandoned in a foreign land.

Type of charge Percent of cases
Robbery and theft 36.2
Misbehavior on duty 26.8
Absent without leave 14.4
Misconduct toward military superiors 12.4
General misconduct 6
Misconduct while in hospital 4

Disposition of case/ Number of cases/ Percent of cases

Brought to court martial 323/ 100

Acquitted 39/ 12
Found guilty 284/ 88
Sentenced to corporal punishment 280/ 87
(99% of guilty)
Pardoned 78/ 24
(27% of sentenced)
Part of sentence remitted 68/ 21
(24% of sentenced)

Table 6: Regimental courts martial records 44th Foot, 1778-1784

All for the King's Shilling, 138.

Sorry: I can't get the data columns to align! I hope that this information proves helpful!

Thanks - looks like good info. And I wouldn't worry too much about getting it to line up properly. We can read it, which is the main thing!

Less serious offences included various punishments. 'Bootings', as mentioned, loss of alcohol ration, cancel of furlough are some common ones.

Defaulters trying to claim sickness were given an emetic in the 51st when under Mainwaring's command.. One drunk was dragged through a water feature tied to sober him up and presumably teach him a lesson whilst entertaining the unit.

Extra drill might also see the miscreant being made to carry his arms upside down and his coat reversed (22nd Regt).

A servant in the Light Dragoons who stole alcohol from the officer's mess was given an emetic and made to wear an arm band with the word 'Rogue'.

In the Rifles, punishments could include cobbing, fining, having your coat turned (in practice this meant paying fourpence to the tailor for the dubious privilege of wearing a large letter C sewn to your sleeve).

At Shorncliffe Barracks in Kent, one incorrigible was made to wear a smock with a large cross painted on the front and back... and explained it to the bemused locals as a new regulation that the Catholics had to abide by!

Dear Havercake Lad,

I would very much like to see the sources for the punishments you described.

Kindest regards,

Ed C.

Reversed coat worn for extra drill. This is from 'Memoirs of the Extraordinary Life of John Shipp'. (He also ddescribes what solitary confinement was like).

The cook with the 'rogue' badge who was fed an emetic is from 'An Astonishing Fellow' , a biography of Sir Robert Wilson (he was in favour of a man's comrades administrating a 'booting' rather than a flogging.)
Capt Tomkinson of the Light Dragons mentions a man being booted for deserting his comrades to go plundering at Waterloo. ( Referenced in Tactics and the Experience of Barttle in the Age of Napoleon' by Rory Muir.)
Mainwaring administring salts to defaulters in the 51st is mentioned in 'the Letters of Private Wheeler'. This officer also decided to 'water' the alcohol of his men who was intoxicated on duty. Having the defaulter, Doherty, tied to a rope dand dragged backwards and forwards along a canal during the Walcheren invaision. The officer even sentenced his horse to a deductionof its corn ration for being skittish under fire at Fuentes d'Onoro..but its not reciorded if this threat was made good !
Offical Regulations for the army also allowed for defaulters to have a cannon ball chain to their legs around the camp.