§ MAJOR SIBTHORPsaid, he would beg to ask the hon. Under Secretary for War, whether it was ever contemplated by the Governments of France or Turkey to give a medal to the officers and soldiers of the British army in the East? and, if so, whether such medal had been declined by the British Government? also, whether the new medal, the order of merit, was likely to be issued; who were to be the recipients thereof; whether it was to be given 640 for future services only, or to be accorded to those officers and soldiers already mentioned in the various despatches since the commencement of the late war?
§ MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, that Her Majesty's Government had the greatest satisfaction in accepting the offer made by the Emperor of the French to confer the war medal of France on the English army which had served in the Crimea. The medals had been transmitted to this country, and directions had since been given for their distribution to the troops. He understood that the Sultan of Turkey also intended to bestow a medal on the British army in the East; but no official communication to that effect had yet reached our Government. With regard to the new Order of Merit, any acts of gallantry performed since the commencement of the war would be sufficient to qualify any person to receive this decoration. He was yet unable, however, to state when the preliminary arrangements for the first distribution would be completed.
§ MAJOR SIBTHORPsaid, he would now ask whether a claim made for the effects and medal due to private No. 2,514, John Martin, late of the 95th Regiment, who was engaged at Alma, and, it was believed, also at Inkerman, who died in camp before Sebastopol on the 7th of November, 1854, had been refused on the ground that the soldier was of illegitimate birth? and, whether the money and Crimean medal due to private No. 3,310, James Blanchard, late of the 1st battalion Rifle Brigade, who landed with the British army in the Crimea in September, 1854, and was killed in the trenches before Sebastopol on the 22nd of August, 1855, had been refused on similar grounds?
§ MR. FREDERICK PEELreplied, that both the claims to which the hon. and gallant Member referred appeared to have been disallowed upon the ground he had mentioned. The usual, practice, however, was, when a mother made a claim for the effects of an illegitimate son, to allow such claim provided she was able to produce a certificate showing that she was the mother of the person deceased.