FIERCE controversy has been aroused by the revelation that 69 boys in the Royal Navy were caned during the past 12 months. The boys were given up to 12 strokes on the buttocks with a cane for offences ranging from stealing to being absent from duty.
  The Royal Navy calls this corporal punishment part of "our tradition, like the issue of a daily rum ration". Said a navy spokesman: "Don't forget at one time we flogged them round the Fleet, used the cat-o'-nine-tails and made the men walk the plank."
  Yet in contrast the R.A.F. has never sanctioned corporal punishment for its cadets and apprentices and the Army abolished it in 1956, even though it has four times more boys in uniform than the Senior Service.
  And 300 Royal Navy boys stationed at H.M.S. St Vincent at Gosport, Hants, are not subject to caning because they serve with adult ratings and the Navy has decided it would be wiser not to introduce the punishment in such establishments.
  Those who are caned are at the all-boy shore bases of Ganges (1,700 boys) at Shotley (Suffolk) and Fisgard (440) at Plymouth, Devon. They are aged 15 to 18.
  Last week in Parliament Mr Anthony Crosland, the Education Minister, expressed his opposition to corporal punishment and said it was rapidly dying out in our schools.
  A Navy department spokesman commented: "We cane boys just like any decent public school. At the moment we have no intention of stopping this practice.
  "Generally, boys are caned only for anti-social behaviour and only with the Captain's approval. The actual caning is usually done by someone like a chief petty officer. There are no regulations controlling the size of the cane.
  "No clothing is removed and the punishment is administered under medical supervision."
  Of the 69 boys who were caned, 22 were punished for stealing, 18 for improperly leaving the establishment, 10 for assault, six for disobedience, four for offering violence, three for striking a superior, two for bullying, and one for contempt, willful damage, indecency and absence from place of duty.
Abolition
  A spokesman for the Army, which has 10,065 boys compared with the Navy's 2,600, said: "We abolished corporal punishment in 1956 by order of the Army Council because we considered it to be a progressive step. We have no reason to regret this decision."
  Mr Harry Howarth, Labour MP for Wellingborough, Northants, is to ask Mr Denis Healey, the Minister of Defence, to abolish all corporal punishment in the Services.
  He said: "These canings are disgraceful. No wonder 15-year-old boys who sign on in the Navy for long periods are unhappy and want to get out.
  "The situation is even worse because the other two Services maintain discipline without caning.
  "I found out boys were being caned when a parent came to see me to discuss his son's education. I thought that sort of punishment went out with Nelson."
  If Mr Healey turns him down, Mr Howarth intends to force an adjournment debate or to introduce a Bill under the 10-minute rule.
  "It would mean changing the Queen's Regulations," he said. "Most of the Cabinet are against corporal punishment. Boys in the three Services should be treated exactly the same."

  For such a story to "paint an overall picture" of what was going on in the navy, a comparison has to be made with like-for-like conditions at HMS Ganges in a relatively near time-frame period, to ascertain whether punishments were on the increase or in decline, and perhaps of greater importance, whether they were more or less severe than in times past. As you have seen, 69 canings were administered and for the reasons stated. Of these offences, there were 18 cases of boys improperly leaving the establishment, colloquially known as doing a "runner". That a boy who has properly left the establishment but doesn't return, proverbially known as AWOL or Desertion, can be considered in the same way, is not in doubt. The relatively near time-frame period I have chosen is 1954. By comparison 1954 transcends 1967 in terms of misdemeanours and associated punishments by a margin large enough to render the 1967 figures insignificant and of no real consequence or concern. The comparison is cognisant of the numbers of boys borne on the books during each period, with both periods more or less the same, differing little - although the navy was smaller and thus required fewer recruits, by 1967 Ganges was training a larger percent of the navy's requirement including the technical branches. In 1954, no fewer than 176 boys did a "runner" (some of them more than once) and 12 boys deserted, making the overall figure 188. Ganges had an average of 1750 boys (ranging from 1600 to 1900) and the total number of punishments returned were 1850, more or less 1 punishment per boy per annum. Nearly 260 boys were caned, many receiving the maximum of 12 cuts, and one boy, Boy 2nd Class J. BEAUMONT J926340 (during my time at Ganges) received the most severe punishment ever (recorded) administered at Ganges - in five days, he received 24 cuts (Monday and the Friday) for doing two "runners" back-to-back, with, believe it or not, a spell of No 11's punishment in between. As you will read in great detail, BEAUMONT was discharged as unsuitable for naval training. Incidentally, post-war Ganges figures never reached the 2000 mark, but in the period 1936 to 1939 the figures were respectively 2425, 2500, 2500, 2675 getting on for 1000 more boys than in 1954 - where the hell did they put them all ?

  In each and every year a report on the HEALTH OF THE NAVY is compiled and submitted to Their Lordships. This report (see below) covers the year 1936. To see the 'ill health' statistics of the Establishment in 1936 scroll down to Training Establishents Boys - HMS Ganges.

  It is a bulky report many pages thick, which covers every aspect of illness, disease, accident, injuries caused at work, injuries caused by violence against the person, deaths from medical conditions, from falling off motor bikes, from choking on ones own vomit, from suicide etc, and discharges from the Navy to civilian life because of incapacity. However it is not as interesting as these titles suggest, and it 'plays' with numbers and not names or ranks/rates of the men involved. It does, as one might expect, reflect the weaknesses of the body and our vulnerability to death and disease. The report could so easily be that on the health of the inhabitants of a small town, albeit, all of them male, and in some obvious ways, it makes the report a little less comprehensive on human failings/failures: women also have failings but they are not listed in this report!

  Nevertheless, it does show all the shore establishments and ships from every part of the globe, indicating the number of sick, injured, and those committed to hospital. It also shows the average complement of each ship and establishment, and that in itself is very interesting. It is these pages which I have copied from the document along with the front cover of the report.

  The abbreviated report is sent to you in PDF format which you can find here 1936 sick lists but before you open it, just a few observations. To help you navigate the PDF file, I have prepared on 'off screen' script which you can find in this file Points to Look for. Open it and then print it.

  Keep well and don't be a statistic of some organisation's "Health of the......report" !

  So, clearly, times had change (moved on 14 years since my time) and one would expect conditions to have become less severe and more tolerant as these News of the World figures show. OBVIOUSLY, Ganges was getting easier in 1967 just as it was easier for me in 1953 compared to a boy 14 years before me in 1939. However, could it be the case that our parents, WW2 hardened, were less likely to go running to their MP to complain, and perhaps we boys, born pre-WW2 were more likely to "take it on the chin" than the juniors of the middle to late 1960's did ? Before leaving this section let us look at some percentages. Take the number of boys under training to be 1800, so in 1967, "runners"/deserters score 0.01 and canings 0.04, and in 1954, "runners"/deserters were 0.104 and canings 0.144, or put another way:

  However, at this point it is important to know that the 1954 'run away from Ganges' figures were not necessarily the result of an over-harsh regime, and they were attributable to a rule change issued by the Admiralty to take effect on the 1st March 1954, which forbad caning for first offences unless desertion could be proved. The ruling "opened the flood gates" to boys temporarily affected by homesickness (for example) who seized the opportunity of breaking-out half hoping that their crime would be seen as a prank without an ulterior motive of desertion. Nevertheless, boys were becoming more bolshie and the overall crime rate was on the increase, pushing hitherto innocuous crimes up the punishment level and rendering more and more boys open to cuts (No 20 punishment) for non-running away offences. There was also an added complication which preoccupied many a boys mind, in that in the same month (March 1954) the Admiralty introduced a Discharge by Purchase scheme but few would benefit in the early days of the scheme. It is reasonable to say that the morale of the boys at Ganges during the period 1953-1955 was at a low point, and that "blind obedience" was becoming unfashionable leading to volatile situations. The two Captains most involved, The Earl Cairns and Michael Le Fanu (who we rather rudely but with great affection later called the 'Chinese Admiral') were both absolute gentlemen, kind to a fault, much admired and respected, rightly went on to higher things after their appointments. The Earl Cairns was promoted to Rear Admiral and maintained a high profile in naval matters (even after retirement) and Michael Le Fanu became my Captain on HMS Eagle our largest ever warship and aircraft carrier, and still so today, circa 2009. His early death was a great shock to the navy.

  Over the years, there were several newspaper stories about corporal punishment in the armed services. For balance, here are a few more of them:-

Newspaper Stories about Corporal Punishent

  Additionally, there were several boys who made the head lines simply because their parents, and in some cases their MP's, believed their ridiculous stories and challenged, ultimately, the Captain of HMS Ganges and his officers as to their decision making. As we go along, I will mention the most dramatic of them which ended up in Parliament.

  Just reading some of these pages I have, brings me much melancholy and answers questions I have been asking myself for nearly 56 years. Why, for example do so many ex boys say that they liked their time at Ganges when I hated just about every minute of it. The official answer says that a very large proportion of Ganges boys came from either single parent families or were orphans and being in Ganges provided them with more happiness than they had experienced at home. Nothing could be further from the truth in my case. It also transpires that I was one of the last of the groups to join the navy with a reasonably high achieving overall RT (recruiting) score: I joined on the 13th October 1953. On the 1st November 1954, one year later, the navy had to lower the RT score from 45 to 35, thereby opening the gates to a much less able boy which was to bring with it its own training problems. This led to there being AC boys, GC1 boys and GC2 boys, the latter one imagines to be a bunch of very low calibre ratings! A point to mention here is that in 1954, four out of every five breakouts (runners) were GC boys, and persistent or dedicated "runners" were from the GC2 level. For some boys, it would seem that they were haunted by letters from their mother (single, abandoned or divorced) asking "why did you go away and leave me ?", or "I wish you were here to give me money as I can't manage on what your father gives me." Some of what you will read you will find unpalatable, almost unacceptable, especially when the head of Naval Law (NL) says that caning boys for breakouts is and has been for several years illegal, and an abuse by several Captains of Ganges. There is a section which explicitly states "The investigation resulting from the caning twice within a week of Boy Beaumont has revealed that at HMS Ganges at least the authority given in 1936 has been abused. It is clear that Ganges are now caning for simply breaking out. The 1936 document specifically stated that breaking out is a boyish prank and should not be punishable with cuts, whereas, deserting (difficult to prove) is. Another highly contentious statement reads "It only needed Mrs Beaumont to go to her MP and complain that her son had received a total of 24 cuts within in a period of 5 days, for us to have another newspaper campaign on our hands - this time on the grounds of cruelty." Naval law also pointed out that the navy were the only organisation which still administered the punishment of caning: it wasn't awarded in the Army, the RAF or by civilian courts, and as such, the navy stood the chance of being dragged through Parliament as a Dickensian force. It is this last reminder which made the News of the World's report shocking, not necessarily that 69 boys had been caned. I wonder what the press would have made with the norm (in the 30's and 40's) being 6 cuts for smoking ?

  Now we know that flogging in the navy stopped in 1883 and moreover, we know that discipline thereafter was just as hard. We also know that the navy were not slow in coming forward with other harsh punishments and they remained in several forms for the remaining part of the 19th century. Men's punishment in the various fleets were not normally given to boys, especially those concerned with prison and cells or deprivation of food, but loss of pay and leave restrictions were not unique to men only.

  It would be grossly unfair to say that Their Lordships were uncaring about boys discipline and associated punishments, but I am confident that I can get away with using the word ambivalence for many of the admirals. What went on in BTE's* (Boys Training Establishments) produced the future men for the fleet and the admirals were well pleased.

  * There were several of them Ganges, Impregnable, Fisgard, and from 1927, St Vincent. Ex St Vincent boys should note that St Vincent started its naval life as 'HMS Ganges Overflow'. After the Royal Marines moved out of Forton Barracks in 1923, the barracks remained empty for nearly four years until boys from a "bulging" Ganges were trained there (to the Ganges syllabus) in Gosport. Shortly afterwards, it became an autonomous Command and trained only boy seamen and Fleet Air Arm ratings during the war, with the boys going to the Isle of Man to HMS St George.

  They were also preoccupied with the needs for an operational fleet as the troubles in Eastern Europe came to the fore and Germany became more and more aggressive towards the enemies of Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey particularly Serbia. WW1 wasn't too far away! However, none of this concerned the commanding officers and their officers in the BTE overmuch, for they in their turn, were preoccupied with meeting a quota and the conveyor belt must not stop, except during main leave periods, when maintenance could be done. With the best will possible, they 'tampered' with the welfare of the boys, and when the BTE crime rate fell punishments were moderated to become less severe, but when they increased, boys were positively harshly treated. Remember that even in the 1950's/early 1960's, that most dreadful of all punishments, group punishment, was regularly used and to an adverse affect on the vast majority of innocent boys. Younger members will know of the 'Shotley Routine' (the ultimate group punishment) almost as a throw-away statement, but I, although fortunately never a victim, remember it vividly. I was in Rodney Division with, as it were, our front doors in the long covered way. Our back door was directly opposite the laundry and between it and us, was the infamous laundry-hill. Laundry-hill was a major venue for those poor boys undergoing Shotley Routine, and we looked upon them (or at least I did) with pity and horror at their plight. The fear of cuts filled one full of awe, but the fear of this beastly punishment offended ones very being as inhumane. What Ganges used for punishment (especially the use of the cane) came from the very start of the birth of the RNTE (Royal Naval Training Establishment) in 1905 and the rules were more or less the same right up to the 1930's.

  Of considerable importance was the cessation of the birch to punish boys and this occurred before RNTE Shotley was opened. However, birching was retained to punish homosexuals. The petty officer instructors, as you will read, commented that the boys were more disobedient than they were when this punishment tool was in vogue, and that they were generally disrespectful towards the training staff. That there is/was a fear of the birch, appears to be irrational vis-à-vis the cane, as quite clearly stated in the newspaper article above 'Corporal Punishment In The Navy' when the writer states (under Birching, third paragraph) that the birch hurt less than the cane.

  It is the following document which sent a "spanner into the works". A letter from the Captain of HMS Ganges Captain E J Hardman Jones OBE Royal Navy. Note the address of Ganges (Harwich Essex) - most peculiar ? - and that cute telephone number - you can just imagine the little village lady switchboard operator saying "Woolveston 5...whose speaking please ?" or "Hello, Harwich 43... who would you like to speak to?" Unlike Harwich which is opposite Ganges on the other side of the wide and tidal River Stour, Woolveston is on the same piece of mainland as is Ganges, but by foot, a very long hike away. Note the wide distribution to just about every naval outlet in and around Chatham because he considered the subject to be very serious.

1931 Captains Letter

  The John Bull Magazine article referred to in the PDF file above refers to the treatment of Boy 2nd Class Edward BENNETT JX 125040. That story will become apparent in the following PDF file. Note the mistakes in the letter which must have further annoyed the Captain - one overtyped corrected letter and one typing mistake in the misspelling of the word 'true'. The story had many flaws as well as being a pack of lies, chiefly because it referred to a single case (which was never proven) and because it was published five years after the alleged event took place in HMS Ganges. Its story came from Hansards, the Daily Record of speeches and proceedings in the Houses of Parliament. When the story was first mooted (which in itself was a full year after the person involved had been discharged from the navy) a prospective parliamentary candidate decided to latch onto the case thereby suggesting to the voters that he had their interests at heart (and private simmering grievances too). He went on to win the seat and a couple of years on, brought the matter to the attention of the House. It was widely believed that the editor of John Bull lacked a suitable story befitting the imagine of the magazine for that issue, and so went for the sensational.

Response 1 to 1931 Ganges letter

  The 'Extract from Board Minutes' enclosed in the PDF above, comes from N.L. = Naval Law Department. The First Lord is a civilian who is the Head of the Board, senior to all its admirals. He expresses concern about the number of the canings in the two BTE's (Ganges and St Vincent) carried out by Captains following the old rules set in the early 1900's. His concern is so great he is going to get the Board to consider the whole question. This affair involved the Admiralty, the British Legion and Parliament.

Rules for Canning Boys in the Navy

  A very important read covering the period from the earliest times in Ganges up and till 1930. The RULES for and the REASONS why.

Caning Percentages and New Rules for Caning

  Actual punishment figures separating canings from other punishments. Note at the bottom of page 2 that in 1929 (under the old rules) there were 4426 boys in the Royal Navy and 4747 punishments were administered. Shocking reading really ! Note also one page 1, under HMS Ganges, the very high percentages of caning especially in 1927, 28 and 29. In 1927 particularly, no fewer than 36% of the boys were caned this representing 289 boys out of an average of 803. Again, in 1927 (a very bad year) the "All punishments" figure is 142% of 803 boys meaning that 1140 punishments of all kinds were meted out. Observe the relatively few boys in Ganges compared to the middle years of the 20th century with over twice as many boys training. The remainder of the file gives one a good insight into the reasons for and subsequent production of an Admiralty Fleet Order (AFO) although in this case a Confidential one (CAFO). The new rules are succinct and unambiguous and they very much "tied the hands" of the over strict captains. What it does mean of course, is that if you know of anybody who received cuts after this watershed, then you will know that they deserved their punishment because no captain would run the risk of exceeding his authority or "even sailing too close to the wind" on the subject matter. Others, in addition to the Board Admirals and the Commanders-in-Chief, were watching and waiting to pounce!

Boys caning in view of John Bull and Bennett's claims

  This is the only Admiralty case involving a Ganges ex boy who took the navy to Parliament: it is therefore a unique story.

  This file was originated in the NL Division (Naval Law) of the Admiralty. Note (page 2) that it covers the new rules and restrictions adopted in 1930 and with it, the new type of monthly returns for C's-in-C scrutiny, and on page 3, two further subjects namely the John Bull magazine story and the claims made by ex Boy 2nd Class Bennett (one year after he had been discharged as being unsuitable for the navy) and five years after discharge, the case coming to Parliament.

Ex Boy Bennett's claim of flogging and cruelty at Ganges

  Boy 2nd class Edward BENNETT joined HMS Ganges in 1925 and seven months later he was discharged as totally unsuitable for navy life. Evidently he waited just over a year to make any form of meaningful complaint against his dismissal, but eventually, almost three years on, his complaint caught the imagination of a 'prospective Parliamentary candidate' running for election. His motives were probably honourable, although he used the event to demonstrate that he had the interests of his would-be voters at heart. Even before the General Election United Kingdom, 1929, the prospective candidate Fred LONGDEN (standing for Deritend, Birmingham) had written to the Captain of HMS Ganges, bringing to his attention the "rather terrible case" of young Bennett. The letter needs no further explanation except to say that the reference to "Suffolk Station" means No 5 Suffolk Street Birmingham (the address of the recruiting office). His claims of ill treatment are of course possible especially against some of the petty officers of those days, although the birch is a non-starter (unless of course he was immoral or a homosexual). Cuts, with an ordinary type schoolmasters cane, were always administered in groups of 6, never fewer, and no person was ever punished for having cigarettes (or using them) for their own sake, but was punished because the rules said you were not allowed them full stop. Thus he was punished (if at all) for disobedience. Bennett's claim was used for the story in the John Bull magazine published in June 1931. Out of context but necessary informative adage: ALL Boys who had joined Ganges in 1953 were born before WW2. ALL Children at school in the 1940's and early 1950's were eligible to be caned at school for trivial offences by their headmaster without fear of parents complaining, such was the trust in society at large. ALL Children were open to "abuse, measured by today's standards" in the home, either from strict (but good and well intentioned loving parents) or from the cruel, often inebriated father, who cared naught for all things. Policemen also where given parental authority to chastise erring juveniles, and doffing ones cap to the likes of local Doctors was the accepted norm at least in the back waters of the Yorkshire Dales. Joining the navy and hearing about punishments given with the cane, were not as off-putting as one might imagine, and moreover, whether it was called respect or diffidence, boys of those times accepted the norms of Ganges routine. Looking back, through the mirror provided by the social standing demonstrated by many of those boys today, there was not only an academic difference but a social difference also between the various groups of boys. Ganges, like all levels of eco-social society had 'good quality boys' training alongside boys of demonstrably 'poor quality boys', and I claim that our officers and senior rate instructors treated us as one group, namely as 'mediocrity' biased to the side of poor quality.

Admiralty answer to the would-be MP

  On receipt of Mr Longden's letter, the Captain of HMS Ganges acknowledged it. He then seeks advice from his C-in-C, who in turn, without answering the letter, passes it to the Admiralty for action. Note the rather curt reply using the one word "Sir", leaving Mr Longden in no doubt that the Admiralty distances itself from the current mental/physical state of the complainant.

A new file is started to decide a defence against Mr Longden

  Page 1 says a great deal when the Head of Naval Law states that he doesn't want to enter into a discussion with a person who has no legal or obvious connection with the complainant. There is of course much duplication of material in these files, but please be aware that there are several Divisions within the Admiralty dealing with this problem each producing minutes, draft letters and letters proper. Note that on Bennett's Medical Examination for Entry, Surgeon Captain MacDonald also signs for Bennett on the Certificate. C.L. means Civil Lord. On page 10, Naval Law says "It seems to me it might be prudent (in our interest not the complainants) to have this all medically reported on. This would ascertain the present condition if only to dispose of what is hinted at that his condition is due to caning or ill treatment at Shotley". He goes on to say "The case at present seems to be an unsupported, post hoc (after this) propter hoc (on account of this)........etc". Again, "There is no medical evidence of the reason of his present condition. It seems desirable that we should get all the medical evidence possible." Bottom of page 11, Naval Law says "In view of AG (above signature initials) support (spelt incorrectly) submitted whether to reply (indicating ?) liability on the ground of non-attributably to the service; and leaving to the other side the task of making out their medical case. Possibly at a later stage further medical exam might be advantageous , but to ask for it now might raise false hopes & be interpreted to imply that we were anxious on the score of the point of attributably. Submitted". On page 12, bottom comment, Head of Naval Law, he says " If you see no objection it is proposed to support an answer as in the added draft. If they should submit medical evidence on which can be founded a prima facie that the present illness is attributable to naval service, it would then be proposed to have the boy medically examined on our account. The draft reply was approved and subsequently sent.

Letters from and to Mr Fred Longden MP By the autumn of 1929 there were more letters exchanged between the Admiralty and the MP. Another clutch of letters concerning Fred Longden MP

  You will see that Fred Longden has consulted a private medical opinion namely a Doctor Markow concerning ex Ganges Boy BENNETT. The results of the medical inspection revealed that BENNETT's condition was not inherited from his parents. By inference, he continues to suggest that BENNETT's condition is due in total to his period of ill treatment and brutality within HMS Ganges.

HANSARDS. MP Longden and others in Parliament

  The opening letter from Fred Longden gives notice that he will speak in the House on the adjournment of the days business. When there is no Parliamentary time voted for a private member to bring a matter to the House, the adjournment is his/her only way of being given a slot to speak. However, it is not popular with MP's who have already spend many hours in the House that day dealing with official Government business - they have to stay behind, and of course many do not being too busy for trivia (as they see it). Thus the opening statement in this Hansards Report made by Longden is "I deeply regret to detain the House at this hour....."

The Admiralty case based on the knowledge that a question is to be asked in the House.

  The opening letter is also the opening letter in the file above (Hansards.....) but is included to make sense of the Minutes published. As you will have read in the HANSARDS file, the Naval Secretary speaking in the house, offered to reopen the case if there was any new information to hand. He pointed out that the event was a long time ago and that the petty officers of BENNETT's time (1925/6) were not known and could not therefore be interviewed. The business in the House was adjourned at 19 minutes to 11 o'clock (2241) and Longden would not be given another chance for a second adjournment. From hereonin, any progress could only be made by lobbying the Admiralty either in person or by a continuing stream of letters, but the Admiralty stuck to their guns and the case petered out. Ex Boy BENNETT did not get a pension or a disability allowance (which at 32s 6p per week) would have been generous in the extreme, bearing in mind that my own father was 19 in 1926 and his take home pay was £1-13s-9d.

  This was the first case involving a Ganges boy (current or ex) who took the navy to Parliament involving Their Lordships in the Admiralty, the press and of course the general public.

  Virtually up to and until JUNIORS were recruited instead of BOYS, so that is prior to 1957, punishments in the Royal Navy rarely moved with the times, and never kept pace with the changing attitudes of "socially correct" (today, in 2009, that's now plus "politically correct") Great Britain who was moving away from harsh civilian punishments. Arguably, the harshest of all was hanging (or, the death penalty) and on this score I have used Great Britain on purpose because it abolished hanging in 1969 whereas Northern Ireland (under the emergency powers Act) abolished it in 1973: (for those of my readers who are not familiar with our Island(s) Nation, Great Britain is England, Wales and Scotland and when Northern Ireland is added, the four of us become the United Kingdom). The last death sentence ordered by a Court in the UK was in 1973, passed upon William Holden for the capital murder of a British soldier in Northern Ireland. The sentence was not carried out. However, to get a better picture of punishments in the United Kingdom, one needs to know the dates of the last hangings in each of the separate four countries, temporarily elevating Wales from a principality to a country. In England it was a double hanging (for the same murder) of two men one in Liverpool and one in Manchester both at 0900 on the 13th August 1964. In Scotland the occasion was on the 15th August 1963 in Aberdeen, the victim a man. In Northern Ireland it was in Belfast, a man, on 20th December 1961 and finally, in Wales, in Swansea a man was hanged on the 6th May 1958.

  The Royal Navy (Admiralty Courts) had the jurisdiction over all offences committed on the high seas which were outside the jurisdiction of the courts of common law - such as murder, piracy, and felony on the high seas, and this bizarre horrific murder of a naval boy was an example, plus others.

  Sailors in naval uniform and commanded by naval officers who were serving in the WW1 trenches with the Naval Brigades of the RND (Royal Naval Division) came under Army discipline as this extremely sad story shows. It is taken from the War Office files, this one WO 141/41 of 1919-1920. Execution of four men of the Royal Naval Division for alleged murder of a German soldier War Office: Registered Papers (Special Series) Date range: 1919 - 1920. Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives.

  The Admiralty Court also had authority to administer discipline in the Royal Navy; but since the Naval Discipline Act of 1866, that authority has been administered by naval courts-martial. That situation remains except that Royal Navy personnel who are accused of murder are tried and punished as though they were civilians. That also applies if the punishment for the crime committed is life imprisonment. However, there were other crimes which carried the death penalty which were inter alia, "arson in royal dockyards", "treason and piracy with violence" and "espionage", although there was a lesser penalty for less serious espionage which was 14 years in prison. In 1971 death for arson in royal dockyards was abolished and much later on, in 1998, life imprisonment replaced hanging for treason and piracy with violence. The NDA (Naval Discipline Act) of 1957 reduced the scope of capital espionage from "all spies for the enemy" to spies on naval ships or bases. Note is this file that the sections 78, 79 and 80 on death are still there but purposely left blank 1957 Naval Discipline Act (NDA) - please note that the hyperlinks within the pdf have been disabled. This 1957 NDA also started a new era of naval discipline, although in fairness, it didn't filter down to Boys at Ganges post 1957 and so they didn't benefit by it, the status quo remaining, meaning that these boys suffered virtually the same as say, 1954 recruited boys did. Later, the Armed Forces Act 1981 abolished the death penalty for espionage.

  We have already seen that the navy kept the cane and caned its personnel long after the army and the air force had abandoned these punishments and of course after schools had stopped such corporal punishments. Other punishments too had been 'designed' as long ago as the 1920's and were still extant when Ganges closed, in one form or another, regularly practiced in the Royal Navy BUT MUCH WATERED DOWN. In a moment I will show you a list of those which affected a boys' training establishment, the majority of which, in the early 1950's, involved deprivation, extra work, and physical punishments. The punishments of old, still extant at Ganges in NUMBER FORM ONLY were much less severe by the start of the 1970's.

  In the early 1950's (and, as I have generously stated above, ongoing from that point) the standard punishment for boys (men in the fleet had different punishments) were as always, rolling forward with amendment after amendment to QRAI (Queens Regulations & Admiralty Instructions) latterly known as QRRN where Admiralty Instructions are supplanted by Royal Navy, QRRN CHAPTER 19 AND 20 ARTICLE 1953 as follows;-

  Notice that this early 1950's list of punishments is almost devoid of explicit money (or pay) penalties but full of 'aggro' and harsh punishments. Implicitly of course, if one were to lose ones badge boy extra money (No 4B punishment) one would lose money, so compare this list with that issued as yet another amendment to (QRRN Chapter 19 and 20 et seq) of 1970. Although this page will reappear as an integral part of the next pdf file, it is published here as a stand-alone 'comparing' punishment document.

In 1970, the above punishment list looked like this:-

  Wow, look at all that money, and no cuts, nor harsh treatments as of yore? Boys now have become conscious about money and what it can buy. In the early 1950's there was nothing to buy except the odd sticky bun, and although cigarettes (Woodbines in open top paper packs of five) were available in the NAAFI, it was ILLEGAL TO SMOKE. Modern TV programmes are written by ex Ganges boys, at least Porridge was (?), where "snout" (tobacco) is the currency of survival behind bars. In this programme, cigarettes are traded for favours and mark my words, Ganges ran on exactly the same lines. Running parallel with "snout" was what was to become known to us as we joined the fleet as a "rubber" (a term not used in Ganges during my time) which simply meant that you borrowed money with an interest pay-back option. Failure to meet the commitment of the option chosen rendered one to becoming a target by the lender or his appointed mafia. It is a fact that this "habit" continued when into the fleet proper, where "bars" (a dictionary word) and "half a bar" were common expressions of currency.

  My next story involves money - that junior rates get too much of it, as the navy enjoyed better pay rises than hitherto awarded.

  A very shrewd Ganges Captain picked up this point (excessive cash) which again, unlike my time (53-55) at Ganges was aligned to generous leave ashore, albeit in unattractive venues like Ipswich, Harwich, Dovercourt, Fexlixstowe (and others). He saw that these boys were purchasing personal things, like films for personal cameras, fu fu, posh soap (where we were issued with pussers-hard) nutty, sandwiches, attending movies, sending home generous allotments, and overall, they had an independence not seen in HMS Ganges in former times. It was time to introduce a new punishment which would DIRECTLY HIT the POCKETS of Ganges trainees, where, clearly, the new punishments shown above, had ever increasing little effect on misdemeanours.

  Our man is Captain M J BUTTON Royal Navy and this is what happened. He was the Captain who resided in Ewarton Hall in the period 1969-1971. These pictures were taken in January 2009 at the Captains House (his married quarter)

  The group picture (well over 100 years of Service if the photographers time is added) shows John Eilbeck on the left Ganges 1949 and again as an CPO Instructor in the mid 1960's, Mike (Charlie) Challinor centre (joined Victoria Barracks 1951) and me on the right Ganges 1953. The photographer was Preston Willson, Victoria Barracks 1954.

  Note in this file below the signature (last page) of P. HILL-NORTON (if you are able (by virtue of age and service>) to appreciate it!). Peter Hill-Norton , Lord Hill-Norton, became an Admiral of the Fleet and was the very first such person to have his own TV programme, mainly about naval gunnery. He used to appear in his bath, full centre screen, where he would address his audience about the WW2 virtues of the Royal Navy - impressive stuff as I recall. I served with his son Nicholas Hill-Norton who went on to become a Vice Admiral. A talented naval family without doubt. Here is the file about punishing juniors by depriving them of their "massive" fortnightly pay, something that hurt them far more than "jankers". GANGES new 1970 Financial Punishment. Their pay (page 3) when compared with mine for a Boy 1st class in 1954 (fortnightly pocket money - column two) of £10-0-0 GBP, makes my £0-7-6 <37½p> look rather sad!

  Throughout the many years Ganges (at Shotley Gate, not at Shotley, which is a village some two miles distant from the main Ganges gate situated in Caledonia Road, as is common place when referring to the establishment) viz, 1905 to 1976, many tens of thousands of boys and men were trained, the boys from 1905 to 1940 (approximately) and from 1946 (approximately) to closure (although recruitment stopped some time before the closure) and the men, as HO's in the WW2 years, many hundreds of letters would have be written home complaining about conditions in HMS Ganges. Many of these would have invoked a response by parents who wrote to the Captain seeking clarification on the points raised in those letters. Clearly, the vast majority of these were politely answered and soon after, the matter was closed. Surprisingly few were recorded for posterity. Those that have been, cover subjects which had they fallen into the wrong hands (the press for example) could have been profoundly embarrassing for Ganges and the royal navy. Already on this page, we have covered a unique story dating from the mid 1920's which involved Parliament, a new set of punishments extant from the 1930's followed by a settling-in period, the gearing-up for war and subsequently the cessation of boys training at HMS Ganges until approximately 1946 which for all practical purposes brings my continuing story into the 1950's. I say that advisedly because events show that the "complainers of petty incidences" were few from 1939 until the late 1940's at a time when most people were pre-occupied with the ramifications of the war, counting the cost of human and materiel losses, and all, civilians and sailors alike making the best of bad job, hoping and longing for better days to come.

  Two such cases of notoriety occurred in the first half of the 1950's but before I tell you of these, it is important that you understand this general statement which will become obvious to you as you read your way through the following documents. Between the watersheds of 1930 and 1954 (remember that before 1920 punishments were harsher) one had every chance of being punished unfairly and illegally whilst at HMS Ganges. This abuse could not, and did not continued in the royal navy (and therefore at HMS Ganges) after 1954. The word illegally needs to be clarified. Captains of HMS Ganges had misinterpreted the "spirit" of the 1930 caning rules, and not the rules themselves, and they had administered severe punishment when the rules suggested an alternative measure.

  The first case revolves around BOY FIRST CLASS J.C. WILSON JX 912355, whose case took up a disproportionate amount of the Admiralty time to resolve the issue.

  John Christopher Wilson hailed from Leeds and joined the navy at the same recruiting office as I did, exactly one year before me in October 1952 - but unlike Wilson, I don't come from Leeds. He was a GC Seaman, did twelve months at Ganges, and a month after I joined Ganges, he was drafted to sea to the aircraft carrier HMS Indefatigable on the 10th November 1953. According to one of his mothers letters of the 22nd September 1954 he had been discharged from the navy, invalided 3rd May 1954 - see last page of file.

File 1, is the loose leaf cover of the Admiralty file started on Boy Wilson. There is, of necessity, some duplication on letters etc.

File 2, is a Blake Divisional letter to Wilson's father telling him of his sons unsettled ways. Wilson's father was ex royal navy and ex merchant navy and was disabled. Wilson - first hint of unhappiness.

File 3, indicates that there is a letter missing from the file from Mr Wilson in response to the letter in File 2 above. This file, again from Blake Division shows that Boy Wilson is settling down.

File 4, is a rather sad and pathetic letter from Wilson's mother claiming abject cruelty in the way her son was treated Letter from mother

File 5, a letter from the Captain of Ganges (my Captain in my time) The Earl Cairns RN., stating the punishments given to Boy Wilson. The letter is all-telling with a desertion, a period in cells in close-custody, 7 days No11A's (one hell of a punishment in itself) and 6 cuts for his desertion. The punishments are separated by many weeks indicating that he was not a permanent "pain in the arse" or a despicable "skate" (one who feigns situations to get them out of doing a duty). If, as stated, this was desertion then the punishment of cuts was appropriate, but had it been a "runner" then he was wrongly punished. This was an important issue and the Captain had to be happy in his mind that the Boy was leaving without permission fully intending never to return to HMS Ganges or the royal navy per se. For a first offence today, leniency would be exercised and the boy would not be caned (were caning still extant) but not so in those days. This, as you will soon read, was central to the Admiralty in telling Captains of BTE's that caning was only to be used on the worst cases and not for simply doing a "runner". However, File 6 below is unequivocal in that the Boy had desertion on his mind. Ganges letter to C in C NORE