LORD ROBERTS OF KANDAHAR
(PHOTO: BY COURTESY, SANMMH)

SIR REDVERS BULLAR
(PHOTO: BY COURTESY, SANMMH)

LIEUTENANT THE HON F H S ROBERTS, FALLING WOUNDED WHILE SAVING THE GUNS AT COLENSO
(FROM A SKETCH BY F A STEWART,ILLUSTRATED LONDON NEWS, 20 JANUARY 1900, P75) Exactly what went through Buller's mind the next day cannot be stated with any certainty. His own recollections of Colenso and the aftermath became thoroughly muddled in the process of explaining what had happened to the War Office. What he did on 16 December 1899 is a matter of official record, however. As Freddy Roberts lay dying, Buller recommended him for the Victoria Cross, and in so doing discarded 42 years of precedent regarding badly wounded heroes.

The VC warrant of 1856 was vague concerning the nuances of eligibility. The fifth clause stated that the award was open to any officer or man who had served in the presence of the enemy and had performed some signal act of valour. The sixth clause specified that neither rank, nor long service, nor wounds were to enter into the determination of fitness for the award and that it should rest solely on the merit of the action. It did not specifically bar the VC to soldiers killed in the process of serving the Queen. That decision originated in the bureaucracy at the War Office.

The precedent for refusing to consider posthumous recommendations came from Lord Panmure's desk almost before the ink on the original warrant had dried. Queried as to the possibility of granting a VC to the father of a soldier who had died in action in the Crimea, he replied in a letter to Edward Pennington in April 1856 that the cross 'is an order for the living' (PRO File WO/32/7300). Horse Guards followed his lead. In a letter to John Godfrey dated 13 May 1856 (PRO File WO/98/3), Jonathan Peel wrote:
'I am directed by Lord Panmure to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 16th ultimo, requesting to be informed whether, as representing your late son, Lieutenant Godfrey, of the 1st Battalion of the Rifle Brigade, you would be entitled to prefer a claim under the Royal Warrant instituting the decoration of the Victoria Cross; and to acquaint in reply, that this decoration will not be conferred upon the families of deceased officers, and that it is more in the nature of an order like that of the Bath rather than of a medal commemorative of a campaign or expedition. In the case of the Crimean Medal her Majesty was pleased specially to command that the medals of those who died should be given to their representatives, but it is by survivors only that claims to the Victoria Cross will be able to be established.'

From the outset, it was made clear that submitting the names of dead men for the honour would not be tolerated.

In only six cases before the Boer War had this precedent even been questioned. Private Edward Spence was mortally wounded in an attempt to retrieve the body of a dead Lieutenant on 15 April 1858. He died two days later. Ensign Everard Aloysius Lisle Phillipps was cited for cumulative bravery during the siege of Delhi, 30 May to 18 September 1857, including the capture of the Water Bastion during the assault on the city. He was killed in street fighting on 18 September. Two lieutenants of the South Wales Borderers, Teignmouth Melvill and Nevill J A Coghill, died together at Isandhlwana on 22 January 1879, trying to spirit away the Queen's Colours from the hands of the Zulu after the day and the battalion had been lost. More recently, Trooper Frank William Baxter had lost his life in the Matabele Rebellion on 22 April 1896, when he gave his horse to a wounded comrade and tried to escape the pursuing Matabele on foot. At the village of Nawa Kill, during the Tirab Campaign in 1897, Lieutenant Hector L S MacLean was mortally wounded in an attempt to recover a wounded officer. These six were each gazetted as 'would have been recommended to Her Majesty for the Distinction of the Victoria Cross had he survived', but no medals were issued (PRO File WO/32/ 7498. Memorandum from the War Office to His Majesty, 20 October 1902). In a memorandum from Sir Henry Storks to Captain Colin Yorke Campbell, Royal Artillery, 6 May 1858 (PRO File WO/98/3), it emerged that the War Office was careful even of extending recognition to the dead in this fashion:
'I am directed by Secretary Major General Peel to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the nineteenth ultimo regarding that, in consideration of the deed of gallantry performed by your late brother Captain Howard Douglas Campbell of the 78th Highlanders in India, a notice be published in the London Gazette to the effect that the distinction of the Victoria Cross would have been conferred upon him had he survived; and I am to acquaint you in reply that as no distinct recommendation of the late Captain Campbell for this honour was ever made, his death having taken place a few days after the performance of the act of gallantry and question, Major General Peel regrets that he is unable to comply with the request which you have now made as in the absence of such recommendation it has been found impossible to bring under Her Majesty's notice the act of heroism which Her Majesty would no doubt have gladly rewarded had circumstances permitted.'

In practice, the prohibition against posthumous crosses evolved into a rough rule of thumb applied by commanding officers. Unscathed heroes could be submitted without reservation. Dead heroes could never be submitted. Wounded heroes could be submitted only if there was a strong chance of their surviving their wounds. Buller, whether motivated by shame, guilt, remorse or shell-shock, violated the last principle in his recommendation of young Roberts. He did not deserve a Victoria Cross for his actions at Colenso. All he did was get killed, a distinction he shared with a number of individuals in that donga. At the very most be should have been gazetted as '...would have... had he survived'. Although the general did adhere to the letter of the regulations in recommending the lieutenant before his death, the recommendation was suspect from the moment he set pen to paper.

Bullet was, furthermore, transparent in his padding of the account of Colenso to justify the recommendation of Roberts. He detailed the actions of Congreve and Captain Hamilton Lyster Reed in their VC recommendations (Capt Reed, 7th Battery, Royal Field Artillery, having heard of the difficulty, had quickly brought down three teams from his battery to see if he could he of any use. He and five of the thirteen men who rode out with him were wounded, one was killed, and thirteen of the 21 horses were killed before he got half-way to the guns and he was obliged to retire). However, in the case of Roberts, Buller could only report that 'Lieutenant the Honourable F Roberts, King's Royal Rifles, assisted Captain Congreve. He was wounded in three places.' (L Creswicke, 1900,11: p199). He did not mention that Roberts was acting in response to his direct order to help Schofield, nor did he state that Roberts's wounds were fatal. In fact, the report was worded in such away to suggest that he (Buller) was not present at the time of the event. Also interesting was the slant Buller attached to his reasons for recommending certain individuals while skipping others:
'I have differentiated in my recommendations, because I thought that a recommendation for the Victoria Cross required proof of initiative, something more, in fact, than mere obedience to orders, and for this reason I have not recommended Captain Schofield, Royal Artillery, who was acting under orders, though I desire to record his conduct as most gallant.' (L Creswicke, 1900,11: p200). Oddly enough, Buller recommended only those who had failed to retrieve a gun. He nominated the six drivers who had actually accomplished their mission and came back with two guns, for the Distinguished Conduct Medal.

All in all, it is obvious that he was rushing the report, closing it with the statement 'several other gallant drivers tried, but were all killed, and I cannot get their names' (L Creswicke, 1900,11: p200). It truly seems he was trying to dispatch the letter before Freddy Roberts breathed his last.

Buller's recommendation sailed through the adjudication process without comment, and Lieutenant Roberts was gazetted as a Victoria Cross recipient on 2 February l900, along with Congreve, Reed, and Corporal George Edward Nurse. Buller had nominated, and had passed, four VCs for a dismal failure largely of his own making. More VCs were to come of Colenso - Major William Babtie, RAMC, who tended Roberts under fire, was gazetted on 20 April 1900. Captain Schofield received the Distinguished Service Order for his efforts that day as well.

Here the Victorian sense of fair play became part of the process, both inside and outside the administration of the army. It was hardly proper that Congreve and Roberts got the VC for trying to do the same task as Schofield, who received a lesser award. Buller's argument that Schofield was acting under orders, while the others showed initiative, was undercut by Congreve's statement to the contrary. It is unclear who initiated the sequence of events, but once Lord Roberts had handed over command in South Africa to Lord Kitchener and returned to London as the new commander-in-chief, further enquiry was made into the Colenso affair, specifically as to the actions of Schofield. In a letter marked 'secret', Colonel Ian Hamilton, Military Secretary to Roberts at Horse Guards, asked Captain Congreve for his version of events at Colenso (PRO File WO/32/7470: Letter, 7 June 1901).

Based on Congreve's account, Roberts pushed for an upgrade in Schofield's reward for gallantry and on 30 August 1901 he was gazetted for the VC. Hamilton wrote the letter informing Buller of this development (PRO File WO/32/ 7470, letter dated 22 May 1901):
'Dear Sir Redvers
In considering the case ofa soldier of the Royal Scots Fusiliers recommended for the VC, the question of Captain Sc[h]ofield, and his reward came up and was discussed by the Secretary of the State and the Comm[ander] in Chief.
Lord Roberts thinks you would like to know that as a result it is now intended to give Capt Sc[h]ofield the Victoria Cross instead of the DSO.
This action is taken in assumption that although you did not think you were justified under the terms of the warrant in recommending Captain Sc[h]ofield, you would nevertheless be glad to learn he was going to obtain this great distinction.
With kind regards, sir
yours sincerely, Ian Hamilton'.

(It is interesting to note that Hamilton had twice been recommended for the Victoria Cross himself, and on both occasions his nomination had been denied by Buller as theatre commander.)

The British did not allow stacking awards for the same deed. Thus, when Capt Schofield was awarded the VC, he had to relinquish the DSO already awarded for the same event. In this instance, he had held the DSO for only 30 days before it was reclaimed by the War Office (PRO File WO/32/ 7470, War Office Memorandum, 18 May 1901).

Fair play also dictated a review of cases similar to that of Freddy Roberts. Lord Roberts took the lead in assembling a case for changing the interpretation of the warrant. The long-standing policy of the government concerning the VC was to consider it a hybrid award, combining aspects of both a medal, some of which could be awarded posthumously, and an order, which could not be granted posthumously (PRO File WO/98/2, Letter, Maj Gen J Peel to J Godfrey, 13 May 1856).

Roberts's staff attacked the latter premise, dredging up instances in which an order had in fact been granted to the widow of the man who earned it. The strongest case they came up with was that of Lieutenant Colonel A Fills, 'who would have been recommended for the dignity of Knight Commander of the Bath (Military Division) had be survived' operations on the west coast of Africa in 1894. They pointed out, however, that 'his widow was granted the Style, Plan and Precedence which she would have been entitled to had her husband survived' (PRO File WO/32/7478, Explanatory Memoranda A).

There were six instances in the Boer War involving great courage with fatal results. Horse Guards made a test case out of the actions of Sergeant Alfred Atkinson of the Yorkshire Regiment. On 18 February 1900 he made repeated trips under heavy fire to bring water to the wounded, and was mortally wounded on his seventh traverse of the fire zone. He died three days later. In a memo to the Secretary of State, St John Broderick, on 7 April 1902, Lord Roberts gave his endorsement to granting the VC he should have won to Atkinson's mother, and then recommended that the five other dead heroes be given the same (PRO File WO/32/ 7478). All six - Sergeant Atkinson; Lieutenant Gustavus Coulson, DOW 18 May 1901, Lambrechtfontein; Trooper Herman Albrecht and Lieutenant Robert Digby-Jones, KIA 6 January 1900, Ladysmith; Private John Barry, KIA, 8 January 1901, Monument Hill; and Captain David Younger, DOW, 11 July 1900, Krugersdorp - were gazetted on 8 August 1902. The posthumous award of the Victoria Cross was now an acceptable course of action, but the debate over posthumous awards was not finished. The announcement of the awards prompted a call for fair play from outside the War Office and Horse Guards. Even before the London Gazette with their citations left the printers, word of the decision had leaked, prompting letters from grieving and in some cases irate family members demanding similar treatment for their fallen sons (PRO File WO/32/ 7498. Memo from General Sir Ian Hamilton, 8 October 1902). Most were easily dismissed, but the six who had been gazetted as '...would have... if survived' proved to be more difficult, particularly when their proponents were members of the aristocracy.

The first blast came from Sir John Joscelyn Coghill, father of one of the fugitive heroes of Isandhlwana. He wrote a threatening letter to the Secretary of State for War on 3 August 1902. When he got no satisfaction, he called on the young officer's uncle, Lord Rathmore, to put further pressure on the administration. On 17 September 1902, Lord Rathmore wrote to the Secretary of State for War, St John Broderick, on the subject. He suggested that the government could hardly withhold the cross from those who would have earned it had they not died, and now that the interpretation of the warrant had been altered, there was no bar to granting it posthumously. It is apparent from the letter that he intended to get a VC for his dead nephew, no matter what the cost. If he had to force the government to grant the award to five other corpses, so be it. However, it was not as if he were going to bat for the other five specifically (PRO File WO/32/7498).

Broderick forwarded the letter to Lord Roberts along with a request for information on any other 'would haves'. The C-in-C informed the Secretary of State that only six such cases existed and voiced his approval of backdating the VCs of these 'would haves' on the condition that only those already gazetted as such would be considered. It is apparent in the letter that he could not in good conscience refuse the award granted to his dead son to those who had earned it in the past (PRO File WO/32/ 7498. Undated letter from St John Broderick to Lord Roberts, assumed to be mid-September 1902; Letter from Lord Roberts to St John Broderick, 27 September 1902).

Others in the administration did not share his optimism, among them his military secretary, Ian Hamilton, who wrote in his memo of 8 October 1902 (PRO File WO/ 32/7498):
'If we confine this to the above nine [a reference to the three Boer War posthumous VCs and the six "would haves"] all will be well, but I must say I have had misgivings about this business.
Until now it has been the laudable object of a commander to write to the relatives of officers and men who have fallen in terms of unmeasured praise. This could do no harm. [It] could serve as a basis to no claims and was a certain consolation. Now either all this must stop and a dead man must be measured by the same standard as a living one, or else applications for posthumous decorations will be the rule and not the exception.
The impossibility of arguing with the relatives of a dead man is well shown by the intensely disagreeable and threatening tone of Sir J Coghill in his letter to the S of S dated 3rd August 1902.'

Broderick shared some of Hamilton's misgivings, but approved the measure. 'Submit to the king and at the same time make it perfectly clear no one will be allowed to participate in the decision who is not one of these nine', he wrote on 9 October 1902 (PRO File WO/32/7498). Lord Roberts did not credit the apprehensions. When Hamilton questioned him a final time over the proposal he replied with a brief note: 'Carry out. I confess I do not share your fears...' (PRO File WO/32/7498. Lord Roberts. Instructions to Military Secretary [Hamilton], 12 October 1902).

Subsequent to the deliberations of Roberts, Broderick, and Hamilton, the proposal to grant the six pre-Boer War VCs was submitted to Edward VII on 2 November 1902. According to an undated memo by S Ewart, Military Secretary, the king refused to approve the measure on the grounds that it would provoke a flood of submissions from grieving relatives (PRO File WO/32/7499). The problem was that His Majesty had already approved the issue of posthumous VCs to the dead heroes of the Boer War, which left an awkward situation, with the War Office caught between the monarch on one side and adamant relatives on the other.

Another reason cited for the King's reluctance to backdate Victoria Crosses was that so much time had elapsed since the original acts. As Lord Knollys later explained in a memo to the War Office, written in November 1906, 'H M thinks that with two exceptions the acts of gallantry were so long ago that it would hardly be understood were the VC to be given to representatives of the deceased officers and men after a lapse of so many years.' (PRO File WO/32/ 7500). At some point in late 1906, however, the widow of Lieutenant Teign mouth Melvill wrote directly to the king, requesting that the VC he should have earned at Isandhlwana be forwarded to her as his next of kin. It was clear that she understood the importance of the award, despite the years that had passed since 1879.

Accordingly, the Crown requested further information from the War Office on 3 December 1906, regarding the particulars of Melvill's case. General Sir Arthur Wynne at the War Office used this opportunity to bring up the cases of the other five 'would haves', pointing out that there was no substantive difference between Melvill and any of the others, and that to grant one and not the others would be a great injustice. Edward VII decided, based on this information, to go ahead and grant the VC to the six - on strict condition that no other pre-Boer War claimants be considered under any circumstances (PRO File WO/32/7500. Query from Colonel Sir Arthur Davidson to the War Office, 3 December 1906; Letter from Sir Arthur Wynne to Davidson, 6 December 1906; Letter from Davidson to Wynne, 8 December 1906). On Tuesday, 15 January 1907, the six were gazetted. What the reasoning of the War Office, the bombast of Sir J Coghill, and the influence of Lord Rathmore could not accomplish, a widow's plea made reality.

Bibliography

C E Callwell, Small wars: Their principal and practice (London, HMSO, 1906, reprint by Greenhill Books, 1990).
M Chariot, Victoria: The young queen (Oxford, Basil Blackwell Ltd, 1991).
L Creswicke, South Africa and the Transvaal War, Vols II, V (New York, G P Putnam's Sons, 1900).
B Farwell, Eminent Victorian Soldiers.
B Farwell, The Great Anglo-Boer War (New York, Harper & Row, 1976).
W B Pemberton, Battles of the Boer War (London, B T Batsford Ltd, 1964)
H Smith-Dorrien, Memories of Forty-Eight Years' Service (London, John Murray, 1925).
The Times of London, 26 June 1857.
Public Records Office (PRO), Kew, London, PRO files WO/98/2, WO/98/3, WO/32/7300, WO/32/7470, WO/32/7478, WO/32/7498, WO/132/7499, WO/32/7500, WO/32/7878.

The Hon Frederick Sherston Roberts (VC)

Frederick Sherston Roberts was born at Uniballa, India, on 8 January 1872. He lost his life and was awarded the Victoria Cross for an attempt to save the guns of the 14th and 66th batteries, Royal Field Artillery, during the battle of Colenso on 15 December 1899. The VC was gazetted on 2 January 1900:
'The Honourable Frederick Sherston Roberts (since deceased), Lieut, Kings Royal Rifle Corps. At Colenso, on the 15th December 1899, the detachments serving the guns of 14th and 16th batteries, RFA, had all been either killed, wounded or driven from their guns by infantry fire at close range, and their guns were deserted. About 500 yards [457 metres] behind the lines was a donga, in which some of the few horses and drivers left alive were sheltered. The intervening space was swept with shell and rifle fire. Capt Congreve, Rifle Brigade, who was in the donga, assisted to hook a team into a limber, went out and assisted to limber up a gun. Being wounded, he took shelter, but seeing Lieut Roberts fall badly wounded, he went out again, brought him in, With him went the gallant Major Babtie of the RAMC, who had ridden across the donga amid a hail of bullets, and had done what he could for the wounded men. Capt Congreve was shot through the leg, through the toe of his boot, grazed on the elbow and the shoulder and his horse shot in three places. Lieut Roberts assisted Capt Congreve. He was wounded in three places.'

Reference:
(Sir O'Moore Creagh and E M Humphris, The VC and DSO, Vol I, p 112).

Return to Journal Index OR Society's Home page