HL Deb 08 March 1916 vol 21 cc304-12
THE EARL OF MEATH

My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether they see any valid reason why posthumous honours should not be granted in the case of officers and men who have been killed in His Majesty's service, and who would, had they lived, have received either the Distinguished Service Order, the Military Cross, the Distinguished Service Cross, the Distinguished Conduct Medal, or the Distinguished Service Medal.

The subject of my Question may at first right seem one of slight importance, but I venture to say that it would be a mistake to accept this conclusion without further consideration. It may be said that my Question is one of pure sentiment Granted. But the most important of human actions and often the most noble have been dictated by motives of sentiment. Over and over again in the world's history men and women have willingly laid down their lives for matters of sentiment, and nations have preferred poverty and sentiment to riches and material welfare. The progress of ages and the advance of civilisation have made absolutely no difference in the power of this motive. Indeed, I am not at all sure that it could not be proved that sentiment is stronger in the present day than it ever was at any time in the history of the world. I am not going to depart from the general lines of my Question by proving this; but I may say, in the case of one instance—my own country—that I think the Irish have shown the extraordinary enduring power of sentiment against what many would consider their own interest. The truth of the strength of sentiment must be patent to all who give the matter a moment's consideration. This being so, a wise Government will, I think, always be careful not to ignore sentiment if it can be helped, and will utilise it for the benefit of the State and the community and to the noblest ends.

A flag is a mere piece of bunting, and the Victoria Cross, the most coveted distinction which can be bestowed by His Majesty, is not made of gold but of bronze. It is sentiment that gives a value to the bunting and to the bronze. To defend the bunting from insult and to win a small piece of bronze men are daily willingly giving up their lives. In the case of the Victoria Cross they know that if they have performed a deed worthy of such reward, even if they die in its performance, the medal will be treasured in their families and will keep the remembrance of their names and of their valour green for many generations; it will be a stimulus to those who follow them to act nobly, and, if need be, to die gloriously. I believe that this assurance materially enhances the value of the Victoria Cross; and my object in asking the Question on the Paper is to express a hope that, unless very good reasons can be shown to the contrary, other medals and orders, including those I have named, may also be given a posthumous character.

The French are well aware of the value of posthumous honours, and since I put the Notice on your Lordships' Paper I have seen a most touching illustration of the way in which they realise the importance of this sentiment. Your Lordships may have seen it. It is a picture of a French General with a line of children and of ladies in mourning drawn up in front of him, and he is presenting medals to the orphan children and to the widows for services performed by those who have died gloriously for their country. I hope that His Majesty's Government may be able to give, not only a sympathetic reply, but a reply which will show that they intend to go beyond words and proceed to deeds. In this war, the greatest war that Britain or the world has ever entered into, we must not go by precedent, because there are no precedents on this occasion. We have to do everything we can to win this war. We cannot neglect sentiment, and I earnestly beseech His Majesty's Government to give some practical result to any debate that there may be on this subject to-night.

LORD GRENFELL

My Lords, I desire most strongly to endorse the hope which the noble Earl has expressed that this matter will receive the favourable consideration of His Majesty's Government. There is, perhaps, no question in which officers of the Army now on service and also non-commissioned officers and men are more concerned than this one of posthumous honours. I have had many letters on this subject. I have lately seen officers from the Front, Staff officers as well as officers attached to Infantry and Cavalry regiments, and when they heard that this question was to be raised they all said it was really a vital one. I could give reasons for this matter being of such a vital nature. The present procedure is unfortunate and peculiar. An officer may greatly distinguish himself in the first phase of a week's action in France or elsewhere, and he may be noted for the Military Cross. I do not speak of the Victoria Cross, because where the man dies that honour is given posthumously. But the officer may be absolutely noted for the Military Cross, and he may be killed at the end of the week. The fact of his death entirely obliterates any notice that would have been taken of the gallant services of that officer and the bestowal of the Cross. He may, of course, be mentioned in Despatches, but the Despatches may not come out for two or even three months.

I was told only yesterday of an officer who in leading only unit was five times wounded. He was noted for great gallantry. He refused to leave the field, and after his fifth wound he was still leading and encouraging his men. The sixth wound proved fatal. That is a case which surely deserves posthumous honours. Then take two officers of the same battalion who in an engagement distinguish themselves greatly. One is considered worthy of the Victoria Cross, and the other nearly deserving of the Victoria Cross. The latter would naturally he noted for the Military Cross or for some other decoration. Those two officers are killed. The family of the one gets the Victoria Cross; the family of the other nothing. This matter deserves the consideration of the Government, not only in regard to the injustice which is done to the memory of these gallant officers, but also in the interests of the widows and the parents of those who are killed. In The Times a few days ago there appeared a letter describing a case which is quite typical of what we are discussing. A major had greatly distinguished himself, had, been thanked by his Brigadier, and mentioned in Despatches. He was severely wounded and died before the decoration which he had earned could be bestowed, leaving a widow and three sons. His widow stated bow helpful it would be to her in bringing up her boys as patriotic and loyal English men if she could have shown them the decoration won by their father in defence of his King and country.

I have received many letters—not now but in the past—from relatives of officers who have died, expressing exactly the same views, and saying what a comfort it would have been to them if they could have possessed the decoration which they were told by the officer commanding the regiment, or perhaps by a higher authority, would have been awarded to the deceased officer had he lived. In the old days there were what were called "forlorn-hopes," but we all know that in this war there have been forlorn-hopes frequently and often. I know many cases in which units have been led against trenches and it has eventually been found that the wire entanglements had not been destroyed. Faced by the machine guns of the enemy, these units have gone forward without a pause and have died before they could get to the trenches which they were attacking. In no other war, perhaps, have there ever been such a number of gallant actions as there have been in this. It is very difficult to see what arguments can be advanced against the granting of the noble Earl's request; everything is in favour of it. No doubt in the case of the older orders the Chancelleries might object to this change, and it is the fact, perhaps, that their charters would be against it; but in the case of the new orders that have been instituted there could be no possible objection. No community has suffered in this war more than, or perhaps as much as, the Peerage. I believe there have been more losses, both by deaths and wounds, among the relatives of members of this House than, relatively to their numbers, among any other class in the community. We in the Army, and I speak in the name of many officers in the Army—the heads of the Army in the Field, the various Generals, and I need not say the regimental officers—as well as non-commissioned officers and men, absolutely and entirely desire and trust that the Government will grant this concession.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

My Lords, I desire to add a few words in support of the alteration in the Regulations which has been suggested. This is a change which it is desired by a very large number of people in the country should be made. It is felt that those who give combatant service to the State and receive inferior pay to that awarded to those engaged in the civil and non-combatant service of the State should certainly, in the matter of honours, stand at all events in as good a position as those employed in less dangerous work. A Civil Servant who serves his country well and long, provided he lives, in time gets his reward and is granted an honour. But it is entirely different in the Army and Navy. Unfortunately many of the bravest and best are cut off in the prime of life, and consequently never receive those rewards and honours which in the course of their career they have merited time after time. There can be no doubt that modern war has largely revolutionised the way of looking at these things. In modern war, owing to the terrible destructive power of modern explosives, the chance of surviving is less and less, and those who are brave and lead their troops with skill and foresight are unfortunately less likely to survive. Therefore the case is all the stronger that the relatives of those men who have earned honours and rewards by their bravery should receive the honours and in that way know that they have been earned. At present a man who has shown most conspicuous bravery may be killed in battle or die of wounds soon afterwards. No doubt his commanding officer, his brother officers, his comrades in arms, will write sympathetic letters to his relatives and friends, and tell of the glorious way in which he died and of the noble work which he performed. That must be a great solace to sorrowing hearts, but it seems to me that on an occasion like that the State might at least give a posthumous honour so that the man's name may go down to posterity as an example to those who come after him. I hope that this proposal will receive sympathetic consideration at the hands of His Majesty's Government.

LORD SYDENHAM

My Lords, I most cordially support what has been said by the noble Earl and by the noble and gallant Field-Marshal. No words of mine could add to the force of the observations which they have addressed to your Lordships. I feel specially what the noble Earl (Lord Meath) said about sentiment. Sentiment always has been, is, and always will be the strongest force by which mankind is moved; and I am well aware that among the ranks of the Army and among sorrowing and anxious relatives at home the sentiment is very strong in the direction of giving posthumous orders or decorations to those whom they have lost. And I cannot conceive, as the noble and gallant Field-Marshal said, that there can be any valid objection to this proposal. The line might be taken that there should be no posthumous honours. That might be argued. But it cannot be said, when one order is posthumous, that the concession may not be conceded of other orders. And we must remember that in the allocation of orders for gallant action it is very difficult to say exactly where the line of the Victoria Cross comes and that of the next lower decoration. It is a question which cannot be decided with absolute certainty. Therefore it must happen that men who might have gained the Victoria Cross lose it, and no permanent record remains for their families of their gallant deeds. By allowing these symbols of honour and patriotism to remain as a permanent possession and a heirloom in many humble homes, you will, I am sure, do much to develop patriotism among the people of this country.

THE DUKE OF RUTLAND

My Lords, this is a matter which has been brought to my notice on several occasions in those counties with which I am closely connected, and I firmly believe that at this juncture of our history no act would be more welcomed by the relatives of the men who have died for their country than the granting of posthumous honours as suggested by the noble Earl. There is a very strong feeling existent that the line which has always been taken in this respect by our gallant French Allies should be followed by us, and I cannot see any valid reason for not doing so. The only objection that I can conceive is that there is no precedent for it. If that is one of the objections which are going to be put forward by His Majesty's Government, all I can say is that I trust they will reconsider their decision. In these days the word "precedent," as regards the services of the Army and the Navy, ought to be ruled out of court altogether. It is an accursed word at the present moment. Precedent and red tape, I believe, have done as much harm to us in this war as a whole German division, and ought to be eliminated. What is wanted is speed so long as efficacy is joined to it, and speed is very often gravely diminished by our old friend "red tape"; and this is so closely allied to the word "precedent" that I could not help referring to it. The thousands of gallant deeds which have been done in this war are not only deserving of a record in the newspapers, but are deserving of the insignia which mark those gallant deeds being handed down to the families of these men. Even on a lower ground than that, consider the amount of extra patriotic feeling that would be caused if the medals and other decorations won by those who have been killed in their gallant efforts for their King and country were sent to their relatives at home. It is an important point, and one which should be carefully considered by the Government. Nowadays not one single thing that can, so to speak, "keep the home fires burning" should be omitted, and I hope that the Government will sweep away front their minds all idea of precedent, and consider this question from a broad, national point of view.

LORD SANDHURST

My Lords, it is now over thirty years since I first had the honour of representing the War Office as Under-Secretary of State. Five or six years after that I again had the honour of that responsibility, and now five and twenty years later I find myself for the third time representing this Department. The overwhelming duties of the Secretary of State for War prevent his frequent attendance in your Lordships' House, and, if I may say so with great respect, it will at all times be a great pleasure to me, within my duty and to the best of my ability, to endeavour to give your Lordships any information that yon may desire.

I am sure we have all listened with great interest and sympathy to the speeches that have been made, and I will make it my duty to report personally to the Secretary of State what has been said by the noble and gallant Field-Marshal and by the other noble Lords who have spoken. Lord Meath's Question on the Paper refers to the Distinguished Service Order, the Military Cross, the Distinguished Service Cross, which deal with military matters; the Distinguished Conduct Medal and the Distinguished Service Medal, which have to do with the Admiralty—and I am instructed that as regards the two last named decorations the Admiralty will fall in with whatever is arranged. But perhaps I may be allowed to mention some others that would have to be taken into consideration. There is, of course, the Companionship of the Bath and the Companionship of the Order of St. Michael and St. George, and the promotions in those orders. If your Lordships will allow me, I will state what the precise position is of these various decorations. You are all aware that the V.C., in the case of decease, is given to the next of kin—that was laid down in 1902. In the case of the C.B., the C.M.G., the D.S.O., and the Military Cross, if the intended recipient dies between the issue of the Gazette and the time of the investiture, the insignia are sent to his next of kin; and the war medals of deceased officers and men are issued to the relatives. By a General Order in 1810 the first Peninsular War medal was sent to the families of fallen officers. I find also that in 1855, after the Crimean War, and after a list of appointments to the Order of the Bath, these words appeared in the Gazette, "List of Officers of the Army and Navy who would have been recommended for the honour of the first, second, and third classes of the Bath had they survived."

I venture to say that we all sympathise, and I am sure none more so than the Secretary of State, with the intentions of Lord Meath. I think all would desire to pay this tribute to those gallant, and heroic men who have made the great sacrifice for their King and country. More than that, all would desire to meet the wishes of those relatives who have sent out their very best without scruple, have received their sad tidings with courage and without, murmur, and have gloried in the deeds of gallantry of those who have fallen. I can assure the noble Duke opposite that I do not think there is any danger of too much attention being paid to precedent. From what I have learned of my noble and gallant friend the Secretary of State for War, I do not think he is likely to be at all trammelled in that direction. But in other matters it frequently occurs, as we all know, in regard to proposals which look extremely attractive and equally simple, that when one comes to try to give them practical effect one finds that there are difficulties which at first were not apparent. So it is in this case; and perhaps I may enumerate one or two of them.

Noble Lords know that there is another method of reward for gallant conduct and efficiency besides decoration—that, of brevet promotion. That promotion is, I understand, even more thoroughly appreciated—if that is the right term—by young officers than decorations, and for the obvious reason that it, may materially advance them in the profession which they love and which they so adorn. These are officers, of course, of exceptional capacity. It is manifest that one cannot, promote a deceased officer, and it has been thought that in some degree, perhaps slight, some feeling of unfairness might be created. Another point is this. It would have to be very carefully considered whether this action should be made retrospective. Again, the selection of names is always a very difficult matter in the case of posthumous honours. Whatever system was adopted, it is feared that there could not fail to be a certain amount of heartburning and disappointment on the part of some of the relatives of those whose names were not chosen. It would be difficult to satisfy every claim. But while I enumerate these difficulties I am instructed by the Secretary of State to say that he views the desire of my noble friend Lord Meath with very great sympathy—and I can assure noble Lords that he would have listened with equal sympathy to the various speeches had lie been able to be present—and that while he cannot disguise from himself the difficulties which surround the question, two or three of which I have ventured to enumerate, he will give the subject very close attention to see how far he can extend the present practice of bestowing posthumous honours. He also asked me to state in addition that, as in other campaigns, the whole matter will be dealt with at the termination of the war when the medal is issued.

THE EARL of MEATH

I am grateful to the noble Lord and to the Secretary of State for War for the reply which has been given, and I shall look forward confidently to some action being taken. I think I may say, with the support of my noble friends, that unless some action is taken we must press this matter later on. In the meantime there is one thing I should like to say. It may be argued that in some cases there is no relative sufficiently near of kin to whom to present the decoration. My humble suggestion would then be that the Government should present it to the regiment.