§ The DUKE of RICHMONDrose to ask if the Government would not consent to extend the general orders of the Admiralty and Army, by adding actions both by sea and land, to which war medals should be granted. He would instance, in the first place, the expedition to Egypt as illustrating the ungenerous manner in which the Government dealt with men who had risked their lives in defence of the nation's interests. That expedition was admitted by the French generals to have been one of the most dashing, daring, and ably executed exploits ever accomplished. The landing of the troops was especially deserving of admiration—upwards of 5,000 men having been placed on the shore in five or six minutes, ready for action. The success of that army was of no ordinary nature; they took above 22,000 prisoners; and yet the Government, which had granted medals for actions of far less importance, had, up to the present time, neglected to give them any medals. For that campaign he found that throe peerages had been granted: one being to the widow of Sir R. Abercromby, with a pension of 2,000l. a year; and another to Sir J. H. Hutchinson; and the third to the Admiral who commanded the naval force. The votes of Parliament were twice given to that army. The only argument which he had heard for not granting medals to the men that served in it, was that the superior officers received no medals from the Sovereign of that time. But although it was not the practice of the Crown of England to bestow medals at that time, yet the King of England permitted his son to give medals to the officers that served in that war; and surely there could not he the 826 slightest reason why ribbons and medals should not also be given to the non-commissioned officers, soldiers, and sailors. For the capture of Washington, also a most gallant exploit, no medals had been given. There was another of his noble Friend's (the Duke of Wellington) great achievements, the passage of the Bidassoa, upon which occasion 40,000 British soldiers of the line were passed over in one day. The thanks of both Houses of Parliament were voted to the army, but no medals had been given to the men as a reward for the great services rendered by them upon that occasion. Again, medals had been given for the capture of Martinique, but none had been given for a more important service—the capture of the Isle of Prance. For the siege and capture of Flushing, also, no medals had been awarded. Upon the occasion of the capture of four American vessels in Chesapeake Bay, no medals had been given; while for the capture, by a sloop, of a small vessel ill the Channel, rewards had been given. Then there were the operations under Sir Edward Owen, all of which were entirely neglected. Then there was the great campaign in India, for which the East India Company proposed to give medals to the King's soldiers, but was prevented from doing so by the Duke of York, who was then commander-in-chief; and to this day the King's troops had received no medals, whilst the East India Company's troops had received one for their share in the campaign. He trusted, however, that now at least Her Majesty's Government would take the whole of this subject into their serious consideration, and do justice to those old veterans who had so much contributed to the glory of the empire. To show the extreme injustice of the present system, he might mention that an old gentleman, who had served as captain in the Navy, and who had been fifty-one years in Her Majesty's service—who had been engaged on fifty different occasions with the enemy, and five times shipwrecked—who had lost a leg and part of a thigh—who had received three most desperate wounds—and who bore so high a character that the First Lord of the Admiralty (whose loss they must all deplore) appointed him to be one of the captains of Greenwich Hospital—this old gentleman, for his lengthened and honourable service, had received—how many medals did their Lordships suppose? Not one, because he did not happen to have served in any of those actions 827 which the Government had been pleased to select for the favours of the Crown. There were several similar instances of hardship. The Government excused themselves for not rewarding many of those old veterans on the ground that they had never been engaged in general actions; but any man at all acquainted with warfare knew that skirmishes were frequently attended with more danger than general actions; and that many men, in consequence of the wounds which they received in those skirmishes, were prevented from taking part in the general action which followed. He therefore begged to ask his noble Friend opposite whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to extend the General Orders of the Admiralty and Army by adding actions both by sea and land in the distribution of war medals? At the same time he begged to move for returns, to the production of which, he was quite sure, his noble Friend could have no objection, namely, nominal return of the actions for which medals had been awarded by sea and by land from 1794 to 1814, both inclusive, in pursuance of the General Orders of the Admiralty and Horse Guards; secondly, a return of actions and military and naval operations, for which the thanks of Parliament have been voted up to the present time; and also, lists of the actions which regiments are permitted to have emblazoned on their standards and colours.
§ EARL GREYsaid, the great difficulty in acceding to the desire which had been so strongly expressed of medals being granted for services in the late war was, how to ascertain the particular service in respect to which this honour should be granted. It was a subject of difficulty almost insurmountable, at this period of time, to investigate what was the degree of merit of each individual in a war that took place more than a quarter of a century since. On the other hand, he must remind his noble Friend that he himself, when he originally brought this subject under the consideration of their Lordships, stated that, in his opinion, it was not desirable that those honours should be given without distinction. His noble Friend deemed, as every person must, that to give without discrimination to every one in the Army during the war a medal, whether the service in which he was engaged was important or not, would be exceedingly inconvenient, not to say injurious. If this were not to be the rule pursued—if they were 828 not to give the medal without discrimination to all persons serving during the war, it was absolutely necessary to find some rule or other by which they could determine what were to be the particular services and actions in respect to which that honour would be granted. After much consideration and consulting the noble Duke at the table (the Duke of Wellington), it was thought, on the whole, the best rule would be (though in some cases that rule might not be quite satisfactory, still on the whole the best rule would be) to be guided by the estimation of the services at the time they were performed—to look back to the records of those days, and to give a medal to every officer and soldier where, according to the practice of that day, a medal was given to the superior officer only. In the Navy it was found that medals were not given so extensively as in the Army, and different rules were suggested by the committee of naval officers who considered the subject. According to the plan on which the medal was distributed, there were many services to which the noble Duke had adverted, of very great use, excluded, and more especially the expedition to Egypt. He believed, considering the difficulties to be struggled with, the manner in which the expedition was conducted, and the glorious success with which it was finally crowned, there was nothing that did more honour to the British arms. Whether any alteration in the rule could be made without leading to the indiscriminate extension of the medal to which he had adverted, that would include the services in Egypt, had been again brought under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and was not yet decided. He must say that this was a question to be considered with a good deal of care. It would not do to take any course that would load to that indiscriminate distribution of those medals that would deprive them of their just value, for the value of any distinction of the kind depended entirely on the discrimination with which it was bestowed. If it were given in profusion, and without proper consideration of the grounds on which it was bestowed, it would very soon cease to be of any value at all. It was because they had hitherto been given in this country with so much discrimination, that they possessed so much value. All he would say was, that the subject should be well considered by Her Majesty's Government, with a view, if possible, to adopt a general 829 rule, by which particular services could be recognised without any of those inconveniences
§ The DUKE of WELLINGTONsaid, it appeared to him that the measure that was adopted by the Order of 1847 was exactly that which was desired by those to whom this distinction ought to be granted. The complaint originally was, that a medal had been granted for the services performed in Flanders—at Waterloo—and that a medal was, on the same plan, subsequently granted for services performed in the East Indies; but that such medal was not granted to those who had served in the army in the Peninsula; and certainly, when Her Majesty was graciously pleased to consent; to confer distinctions upon those officers and soldiers, he (the Duke of Wellington) considered that the very line adopted—that is to say, granting medals to those who bad been engaged in services which had been already held deserving of commemoration by the estimation in which those services were held at the time when they were performed—was a measure that would give satisfaction to all concerned. Their Lordships must observe that it was the Crown that conferred these distinctions, and they were valuable because they were conferred by the Crown; and whatever officers and soldiers might feel at receiving the approbation of that and the other House of Parliament, it was not that House or the other House of Parliament that created the value of this distinction—it was its; being conferred by the Crown. Those who had the honour of advising the Sovereign on such a subject as this, must find out the means of discovering the services which were performed thirty, forty fifty years ago, and which were at that time most highly considered, and most particularly by the Crown, as deserving its I approbation, and the honour of being commemorated. That was the ground on which Her Majesty's servants must have considered it their duty to advise Her Majesty; and he (the Dulce of Wellington) really must say that he always considered that the advice which they gave was most likely to be satisfactory to those upon whom the honour was to be conferred. It might be right to extend the principle further; but with respect to individual cases, it would be quite impossible for Her Majesty's Ministers to advise the Crown to adopt any principle except that adverted to by the noble Secretary of State, namely, to grant a medal to every individual who happened 830 to be employed on foreign service during the war. But would any man feel any distinction in such a grant? Certainly not. The distinction would be accepted, and might be worn; but no man would feel satisfaction in being distinguished for nothing except that he served abroad during the war. In each of the cases where medals were given, the Sovereign had pursued, by the advice of Her Ministers, the order which directed that these services should have been commemorated by striking medals, and giving one of each to the principal officers; and according to that rule every individual who was present in the same campaign, and received that mark of distinction from the Sovereign, must derive satisfaction from it. He would not say that those who were wounded did not deserve any distinction that could be given to them; but the principle of rewarding men with medals merely because they had been wounded, was a principle not hitherto acted on. There were many wounded men in this country long before the year 1794; but it was never proposed to reward them by distinctions on account of their wounds. He felt for those men, and desired to see them properly considered; but what he wanted now to say was, that it was not usual to grant them medals. No distinction of that sort could be granted, unless regularly recommended to the Sovereign, for services performed twenty-five or fifty years ago; and he did not see how that could be done otherwise than by the general rules established in 1847.
§ LORD COLCHESTERthought the medals ought to be given in all cases in which the parties engaged had received the thanks of Parliament. The noble Lord the Secretary of State had said it was under the consideration of the Government as to whether the rule might not further be extended; and that, he (Lord Colchester) conceived, was an extension of the rule that might be granted. There were several services of great importance, and well known, which were excluded. For example, there was the storming of Monte Video, being a joint expedition of the Army and Navy; and there was likewise the expedition to Copenhagen.
The DIKE of RICHMONDwished it to be understood that he asked for medals, and not for orders, for the Army and Navy. He contended that for such services as he had referred to, the thanks of the Parliament were not sufficient. Why did they allow the colours of the regiments to be 831 emblazoned with the names of the actions, if they did not think them worthy of the honour? Why was it said, when colours were presented to a regiment, "These are the actions in which the regiment was engaged, on the colours; see what the men belonging to the regiment did heretofore; do you hereafter emulate their fame." They should, he submitted, give a medal to every man who served in the actions emblazoned on the colours. He did not understand that his noble Friend opposite (Earl Grey) was totally disinclined to accede to his proposition; and if he would permit, he would send him a paper drawn up with considerable care, and showing the justice of the case, and the services that have been performed. He hoped the noble Lord would have no objection to grant the return.
§ Returns ordered.