Source: File:
Harold John "Jack" Tennant.jpg. [online] see an original image at:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Tennant> Accessed: 22 January
2016].
The deadly deed
had already begun,
In regard to
accusations of desertion -
As given to the
under secretary
Of State for War,
the Liberal Scottish
Politician Harold
John Jack Tennant.
The matter raised
came from event
Of court martial,
that had taken
Place a year
before in France -
Private Thomas
Hope, An Irish
Soldier with the
2nd Leinster Rgt.
Private Hope on
duty on the front
Line was given
orders - being
Detailed to make
his way back
To the rear line
to collect rations;
The soldier did not reappear.
Some weeks passed
until Hope
Was discovered - to be promptly
Court-martialed
for desertion.
It was heard how
on his impulse
Was a reaction to brothers deaths.
Was a reaction to brothers deaths.
Both Thomas
Hope's brothers
Had been killed taking part
In action - In distress he fled
On 23 December
1914 to be
Placed on trial 14
February 1915.
A statement at
the time given
By Government,
laid out
Fact how that it
was known
To all soldiers that any
acts of
Desertion had a
death penalty.
Almost one year after, business
of the House of Commons Friday
12 January 1916, included
of the House of Commons Friday
12 January 1916, included
a renewed challenge, that came
From Mr Farrell
to Mr Tennant.
The resultant faulty military trial
ended in Private Hope's sentence
To death - his name contrary
ended in Private Hope's sentence
To death - his name contrary
To his situation
- to be informed
Barely 12 hours
before the act.
Mr Farrell raised accusations
Of Hope's
deserting duty post -
How the trial
lacked any gravity
Of the situation
being conveyed
To Private Thomas
Hope.
There was the
belief how Hope
Was only told of
his execution
Sentence, only an
hour before -
Mr Farrell therefore
challenged
The reliability
of the court's action.
Had any advocate been
provided
To Hope? Or lawful
interval given
For any decision
to be reviewed?
Did sentence
reflect regulations?
Or take regard of
prior bravery?
Farrell said Private
Thomas Hope
Had proved
himself in trench
Fighting, to show
he was neither
A shirker or a
coward - a reply
Came from
secretary in writing.
The worded reply
of Mr Tennant
Told how Private
Hope charged
With minor misdemeanors,
along
With desertion,
at field general
Court-martial; 14
February 1915.
In reference to
evidence of Hope
Being absent from
trenches,
Between 23
December 1914,
Until 9 February
1915, sentence
Was later passed
on 14 February.
The advice was
that a review
Had been made
over 13 days,
When Commander in
Chief
Confirmed,
according to law,
The death
sentence on Hope.
The Secretary of
state stated
How the accused
had not given
any type
of evidence - Nor any
reference to acts of bravery
reference to acts of bravery
Being raised during
Hope's trial.
Mr Tenant’s reply
suggested how
Obvious it was; that any court
Martial cannot be subjected
To any kind of
counsel - in any
Field of war military law was final.
by Jamie Mann.
Anon.,1916. Sentence of Death - A Case at the Front. The Daily
Telegraph, [online] 22 January 1916.
P.6. Col.3. Available at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ww1-archive/12108572/Daily-Telegraph-January-22-1916.html
[Accessed: 22 January 2016].
Mann, J., 2016. 100 years Ago - Poems by Jamie Mann. [letter] (Personal
communication, 22 January 2016).
#WW1 #WW1centenary #GreatWar #WW1poem #GreatWar #WW1centenary
#worldwarone #worldwaroneremembered #WW1London
No comments:
Post a Comment