REVISED PETITION IN THE HISTORY
OF PTE. WILLIAM TONGS, DCM
SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE OR ORGANISATIONS
Former Brigadier General Tweedie Brown CBE, OBE.
For the attention of: -
HRH Prince Charles, President of the Victoria Cross
and George Cross Association
Sir Chris Wormald (chair)
The Principal Private Secretary to HM Queen Elizabeth II
The Principal Private Secretary to the Prime Minister
The Permanent Under-Secretary of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
The Permanent Secretary of the Home Office
The Permanent Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Defence
The Secretary of the Central Chancery of the Orders of Knighthood
This is an updated petition to my 2015 petition to award the Victoria Cross posthumously to 9786 Pte. William Tongs late
of the 2nd Battalion Scottish Rifles (Cameronians) in 1915, 106 years after the event. The Cameronians (Scottish
Rifles) was a rifle regiment of the British Army, the only regiment of rifles amongst the Scottish regiments of infantry. It
was formed in 1881 under the Childers Reforms by the amalgamation of the 26th Cameronian Regiment and the 90th
Perthshire Light Infantry.
The Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal). Is established under the provisions in Schedule 1 of the
Defence Legislation Amendment Act 2010 [No. 1] (Cwlth), which came into effect on 5 January 2011. Although this petition
was denied in 2015 by the Defence Secretariate of the MOD and then subsequently in 2018 by the Member of Parliament
for mid Dorset and Poole. I am basing this updated new petition on the assumptions of “The Committee on the Grant of
Honours, Decorations, and Medals”, (HD) in 2012. Therefore, I submit the following further evidence and observations,
pursuant to the specific issues mentioned in the Committee on Grants and Honours, that are defined and listed in
paragraphs A. though D. below.
A. There is evidence that the issue was never properly considered at the time.
Despite the possibility that the first Petition was not reviewed in its entirety, as none of the
important aspects were commented on during the many letters of refusal, just a plain out of
hand dismissal albeit from none of the members named above, Therefore, aspects of this
corrected and updated petition should be reviewed in detail, as the evidence is clear and
compelling for a more positive outcome, only if all of the evidence is combined, does a true
picture appear. Therefore, there are anomalies as laid out by the South Lanarkshire Museum
that may have compromised Pte. W. Tongs in the award of the Victoria Cross. Please Note!
It is recorded by military history, that on the outbreak of World War I, Major CarterCampbell (photo-right) proceeded to France with the 8th Division as second-in-command of
the 2nd Battalion, Cameronians (Scottish Rifles)[8] and was wounded during the Battle of
Neuve Chapelle[9] on 10th. March 1915, being awarded the Distinguished Service Order and
also the Order of St. Stanislaus. Please note: It was on this specific date the 10th of March
1915, that Pte. W. Tongs silenced a German Machine Gun that was doing much damage. The
second deed was not until the 12th of March 2 days later that Pte. Tongs went out under very
heavy fire and recovered 7 men of the Royal Irish Rifles and brought them back to safety. On
the 12th of March Major Carter was again wounded and was retired to the Regimental Aid Post. This date was on the 2nd act
of bravery by Pte. Tongs. (See pages 11/12) statement by a researcher and Curator at the South Lanarkshire Museum, the
holders of the 2nd Battalion Scottish Rifles War Diaries.
On May 9th Pte. Tongs was injured firing his machine gun which was confirmed by Major Carter Campbell’s letter 10 months
later to the father of Pte. Tongs. He wrote that Pte. Tongs’ gallantry was equally conspicuous in the manner he worked his
machine gun. Pte. Tongs died of his injuries 3 days later.
2
During this heavy and conflicting time, even though these incidents are well recorded, the issue of the Victoria Cross must
have been debated, as the award of the VC appears next to his name on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission
Register, signed by a Major of the British Army, as evidenced and seen on page 10. It was not until December 1915 that the
Guernsey Press announced certain letters being received from Major Carter Campbell to Pte Tongs’ father, William Tongs
Snr. This was 10 months after the 9 heroic deeds of Pte. Tongs. Accordingly, and as late as 1920 it states in Wikia.org the
following: - Major General Carter-Campbell was wounded during the First World War. After the war had ended, and he had
recovered sufficiently, he was made General officer commanding Northern Ireland.
The 9 deeds were as follows: (1) 10th of March 1015, he silenced a German machine gun that was doing much damage.
(1) deed of valour), thus, saving many lives. (2) He went out under heavy fire and brought back 7 men of the Royal Irish
Rifles one at a time. (7 deeds of valour) (3) On the 9th of May 1915, he was mortally wounded handling his machine gun in
the same conspicuous manner, as described by Major Carter Campbell 10 months after the event in his letter to Pte Tong’s
father, therefore 9 acts of valour over the period of 2 months.
Part of the research on Pte. W. Tongs DCM (left) and the Battle of Neuve Chappelle is undertaken
by a Curator of the South Lanarkshire Museum, the holders of the War Diaries of the 2nd
Battalion Scottish Rifles. The report can be seen on Page 11/12 Under Extended Notes (1).
Could this be one of several reasons that the Victoria Cross was in line for the award, but due to
the incapacity of Major Campbell Carter it was not complete? According to the protocols of the
issuance of a Victoria Cross, there had to be someone commanding or 3 other witnesses to the
event, it was already established, and London Gazetted that Pte. Tongs had silenced a German
machine gun, on the 10th of March and on the 12th of March 1915, rescued 7 Men of The Royal
Irish Rifles, under very heavy fire. Certainly, this was more than sufficient evidence of witnesses
and acts of self-sacrifice, sufficient to be awarded the highest honour, the Victoria Cross, as did
9 other recipients of the VC at Neuve Chapelle, who are recorded undertaking the exact acts of
bravery and far less in some cases, that Pte Tongs successfully accomplished. This is also confirmed by the war diaries
researched by The South Lanarkshire Parks Museum.
The Victoria Cross is the pre-eminent award for acts of bravery in wartime It is awarded to persons who, in the
presence of the enemy, display the most conspicuous gallantry; a daring or pre-eminent act of valour or self-sacrifice; or
extreme devotion to duty. All 9 of the events displayed by Pte. Tongs met these criteria.
The splendid tribute of his Commanding Officer Major Carter Campbell to Pte W. Tong’s father, written 10 months after the
event is further evidence of a time lapse. There were several letters from other members of the British Expeditionary Force
to Mr. W. Tongs, Senior Nursing Sister H.G. Palmer in a pathetic letter describing Pte. Tongs hospital life and death says:
"A friend of his called and told me that he was one of the best and could be very badly spared. I am sure you should feel
proud of having had such a son “. His injuries, received at Fromelles, were severe, both arms being broken, and he received
a grave injury to the chest and several other minor wounds. He lies buried at Merville Cemetery. Grave No. H. 11. There were
additional letters sent to his Father John William Tongs. The fact that General Carter was injured on the 10th of March 1915,
and the 12th of March 1915, he may not have been aware of the 2nd and 3rd acts of bravery until much later and in the saving
of 7 men whilst under very heavy fire and getting them all back to safety. It was only after 10 months that General Carter
corresponded with Pte. W. Tongs’ father. In the letter to Pte. Tong’s father, as seen below, Major Carter refers to two deeds
being acted upon on the same day. In fact, the second deed was carried out two days later, and possible after Major Carter
had given Major Oakland the duty of the administration of any awards to be given. It is apparent that Major Carter believed
that the two deeds i.e., silencing the German machine gun that was doing much damage, and going out to save 7 men of the
Royal Irish Rifles, was all done on the same day, as can be seen in his letter to Pte. Tong’s father in December 1915. As seen
in the 3rd paragraph in the Guernsey World War I website link below.
B. Significant new evidence has become available that had not been considered previously.
The fact that Major Carter Campbell, made a statement in a letter to Pte. Tong’s Father in 1915, 10 months after the event.
Remember that Major Carter was injured on the 10th of March 1915, and again on the 12th of March 1915. It was both times
on those dates that Pte. Tongs undertook no less than 8 deeds of bravery. it appears that Major Carter’s injuries may have
impeded his ability to accurately see through the VC medal process, even though Major Carter handed over to a Major
Oakdale the duty of administering any medal awards, on the 17th of March 1915 and though Major Oakdale was not present
in the Battle until after it was over. Major Oakdale’s verbatim comments were: - “As regards the whole of the names
put forward - owing to the heavy casualties amongst the officers I have not been able to find out all I
could wish”. See pages 11 and 12 extract from the Curator at Lanarkshire Museum.
3
Below was published in the local Guernsey Press as to: -
Letter from Major Carter Campbell to Pte Tong’s Father in Guernsey, and printed by the Guernsey Press
December 1915. “There was no more gallant officer or man in the battalion than your son; he earned his D.C.M. on 10th
March for conspicuous bravery both in the handling of a machine gun, and for going out under very heavy fire from
the enemy and helping in seven wounded men. He died from wounds received in action on the 9th of May. On this occasion
his gallantry was equally conspicuous in the manner he worked his machine gun. He was on this occasion wounded
several times and died on the 12th of May. He served his country nobly and died a hero’s death."
Guernsey Press Comment: It will be noticed that no award was made for the third plucky incident in the
career of this noble Guernsey-man. The V.C. has often been granted for such deeds.
Can be seen on the below website:
The Channel Islands and The Great War (greatwarci.net)
Please Note: that the Medal received by Pte. W. Tongs was the Distinguished Conduct Medal (DCM) which today is the
6th medal in general order of precedence to the Victoria Cross being the first and highest award.
C. Facts relied upon during the original decision-making process are shown to be unsound.
The Report of the Inquiry into unresolved recognition for past acts of naval and military
gallantry and valour (defence-honours-tribunal.gov.au)
4-13 The 1856 Warrant was silent on the question of whether the VC could be awarded posthumously. In 1907, King
Edward VII approved certain posthumous awards; 194 posthumous awards, including 14 to Australian forces, were granted
between 1914 and 1919. In 1920 the warrant was amended to state explicitly that the VC might be awarded posthumously,
and this clause remained unchanged in subsequent revisions. Where an individual was killed in action or died subsequently
from any cause before the award was formally approved, it was deemed to be posthumous. If the recipient died after an
award had been approved, but before it was gazetted, the award was not posthumous. The gazette entry showed ‘since
deceased’.
4-33 In the First World War, the great majority of recommendations went initially through headquarters staffed by
Australians (or British officers holding ‘Australian’ appointments), and, in the latter part of the war, commanded by
Australians at all levels — from corps downwards. The case of the seven VCs awarded to Australian officers and men for
actions at Lone Pine between 6 and 10 August 1915 demonstrates the procedure while Australians were at Gallipoli. The
Battle of Neuve Chappelle was rapid and over by the 13th of March 1915, and there were many casualties. Major Oakley did
not arrive at the unit until the 17th of March to take over from Major Carter Campbell.
D. The original decision appears to be manifestly inconsistent with those for other similar
campaigns.
Despite the bravery of other VC beneficiaries, it should be noted that there were numerous VC awards for the way the
recipients worked their machine guns and rescued wounded men. There were 9 VCs awarded at the Battle of Neuve Chapelle,
between the 10th of March – 13th of March 1915. On both days Pte. Tongs undertook eight acts of bravery, either one would
have justified the award of the Victoria Cross. The 9th brave act, was described by Major Carter as seen in the Guernsey
World War 1 link above.
To this end I have compiled several VC’s that were awarded at different times and each one should be compared to the
confirmed acts of Pte. Tongs, despite these recipients’ bravery, the final conclusions should be evaluated accordingly.
On more or less the dates that Pte Tongs earned a DCM, there were 9 VCs awarded at Neuve Chappelle as seen by a number
of recipients below. I reiterate without disrespect to the bravery of these young men, this is purely for evaluation of the act
itself, compared to what Pte. Tongs undertook during his 9 acts of bravery between the 10th of March, the 12th of March, and
May the 9th 1915. This will be the first time that extensive research has gone into the circumstances as to why Pte. Tongs was
not awarded the Victoria Cross although all the brave acts he undertook, were especially worth the highest award.
4
(1) Jacob Rivers
On 12th. March 1915, Private Rivers, on his own initiative, crept to within a few yards of a very large number of the enemy
who were massed on the flank of an advanced company of his battalion, and hurled bombs on them. His action caused the
enemy to retire, and so relieved the situation. Private Rivers performed a second similar act of great bravery on the same
day, again causing the enemy to withdraw. He was killed on this occasion, and his remains never found – Private Jacob
Rivers, VC is commemorated on the Le Touret Memorial.
(2) William Buckingham
William Buckingham was also awarded a VC, the citation for this award reads: "For conspicuous acts of bravery and devotion
to duty in rescuing and rendering aid to the wounded whilst exposed to heavy fire, especially at Neuve-Chapelle on 10th and
12th March 1915."William survived the battle but was killed on the Somme in 1916. He is commemorated on the Thiepval
Memorial to the Missing.
From March 10th, and 12th 1915, until his death in May 1915, after he had performed no less than nine acts of Bravery, like
the two recipients above Pte. Tongs was awarded the Distinguished Conduct Medal, but 5 years later his burial records
indicated next to his name was the insignia of the Victoria Cross, as seen on page 10 of the petition.
(3) James Duffy, VC was 28 years old and was a stretcher-bearer and a Private in the 6th Battalion of The Royal
Inniskilling Fusiliers when he was awarded the Victoria Cross (VC). Due to his attendance under heavy fire, his
conspicuous bravery saved both men's lives. His award appeared in the Fourth Supplement to The London Gazette
dated Wednesday, 27 February 1918 and stated: No. 6/17978.
In Comparison, Pte. Tongs undertook a total of 9 acts of bravery in that he silenced a German machine Gun that was
doing much damage, and two days later went into no man’s land under very heavy fire and retrieved 7 men of the Royal
Irish Rifles and brought them all back to safety. He died on the 12th of May 1915, and his commanding officer commended
him, as seen in the link to the Guernsey World War I website in previous pages.
under cover and
(4) In another specific incident involving a machine gun, Lt. Maurice Dease, and Pte Sydney Godley, worked their
machine gun whereby Lt. Dease was injured and subsequently died of his injuries. Pte Godley took over Lt. Dease’s
machine gun, until both soldiers were captured. This incident is where both the officer and the enlisted man were
each awarded the Victoria Cross, i.e., 2 VCs for one incident. “Courtesy Lord Ashcroft’s Book, Victoria
Cross Heroes, page 151”.
Pte. Tongs on the 10th of March silenced a German machine gun that was doing much damage, thereby saving many lives.
Two days later saved multiple lives by bringing 7 Royal Irish Riflemen back to safety. His 3rd act of heroism, was on the 9th
of May, as described by Major Carter Campbell, in which he was mortally wounded and died on the 12th of May 1915.
(5) Further, on 31st July 1917 at Pilkem near Ypres, Belgium, during an attack an enemy machine-gun was seen to
be enfilading the battalion on the right. Private Whitham on his own initiative immediately worked his way from
shell-hole to shell-hole through our own barrage, reached the machine-gun and, although under very heavy fire
captured it, together with an officer and two other ranks. This bold action was of great assistance to the battalion
and undoubtedly saved many lives. He left France on leave on 6th October and the VC was presented by King George
V at Buckingham Palace on 20th October.
In several other incidents where medics helped wounded soldiers, two medical officers were each awarded 2 Victoria Crosses
each for helping wounded soldiers under heavy fire. Please understand that references to other VC recipients, is not a
reflection of their acts of bravery, purely as a comparison of the act itself. Three people have been awarded the VC and Bar,
the bar representing a second award of the VC. They are Noel Chavasse and Arthur Martin-Leake, both doctors in the
Royal Army Medical Corps, for rescuing wounded men under fire; and New Zealander Captain Charles Upham, an
infantryman, for combat actions. “Courtesy Lord Ashcrofts Book, Victoria Cross Heroes, page 165”.
Be it also noted that these two Doctors were each awarded two Victoria Crosses, mainly for going out under heavy fire to
treat wounded men. Despite their bravery, this was part of their duty and the swearing of the Hippocratic Oath. Pte. Tongs
who carried out eight acts of bravery, silenced a German machine gun doing much damage and 2 days later did the same act
multiple times by bringing back 7 wounded soldiers and did it purely out of bravery, to save his fellow man. Pte Tongs was
killed on the 3rd act of courage but was overall only awarded the DCM which today is 6th in precedence to the VC. There
should be no contest in Pte. Tong’s acts of bravery and he should be duly award the Victoria Cross posthumously, despite
any previous decisions not to award any more medals in World War 1 by the 1919’s MOD’s directive, and my subsequent
petition in 2015.
5
However, Pte. W. Tongs, who carried out these nine acts of bravery, the two combined single acts deserving the maximum
award of the Victoria Cross, and although it is recorded on his burial records, that he was buried with the VC after his name
as to “Scottish Rifles 9786 Tongs VC. Pte W”. He never received this medal. The burial Record can be seen on Page 10
of this document.
Officers and NCOs are overweighted in VCs. "Although the terms of the creation of the VC emphasised that it was open to
both services and to all ranks, it is clear that there is a numerical bias towards officers and NCOs".[2] Clause 13 of the warrant
explains that in the "event of a gallant and daring act having been performed" ... "one officer shall be selected by the officers
engaged for the Decoration, and in like manner one petty officer or non-commissioned officer".[3]
(6) VC and Bar winners
Three people have been awarded the Victoria Cross and Bar, Christ's College, Christchurch, New Zealand (Charles
Upham), Magdalen College School/Liverpool College (Noel Godfrey Chavasse) and Westminster School (Arthur
Martin-Leake). The bars are included as separate awards in the columns of the table.
(7) Private Edward Barber, VC
For most conspicuous bravery on 12th March 1915, at Neuve Chapelle. He ran speedily in front of the grenade
company to which he belonged and threw bombs on the enemy with such effect that a very great number of them at
once surrendered. He was awarded the VC Second Supplement to The London Gazette of 16 April 1915. 19 April
1915, Numb. 29135, p. 3815)
(8) John James Cowe, VC Officer
On 14 April 1918 at Neuve Eglise, Belgium, when the enemy, having attacked a post in a village, broke past on the
high ground and established a machine-gun and snipers, Second Lieutenant Crowe, with two NCOs and seven men
twice engaged the enemy who on each occasion withdrew into the village, followed by the lieutenant firing on them.
On the second occasion, taking only two men, he attacked two enemy machine-guns killing both gunners and several
more of the enemy. The remainder withdrew, allowing him to capture the two guns. His actions during this incident
resulted in Crowe being awarded the Victoria Cross.[2]
(9) Daniels, Harry VC Officer.
He was 30 years old, and a Company Sergeant-Major in the 2nd Battalion of The Rifle Brigade (Prince Consort's
Own), British Army during the First World War when the following deed took place for which he was awarded the
VC. On 12 March 1915 at Neuve Chapelle, France, his unit was ordered into an advance on the German trenches
across no-man's land which was covered by machine guns and strewn with barbed wire. Daniels and another
man, Cecil Reginald Noble, voluntarily rushed in front with cutters and attacked the wires They were both wounded
at once, Noble dying later of his wounds.[1] For further activities on the Western Front he was awarded the Military
Cross and later achieved the rank of lieutenant colonel.
(10) Charles Foss, VC Officer
Captain Foss, on his own initiative, dashed forward with eight men, under heavy fire, attacked the enemy with
bombs, and captured the position, including the 52 Germans occupying it. The capture of this position from the
enemy was of the greatest importance, and the utmost bravery was displayed in essaying the task with so very few
men. Third Supplement to The London Gazette of 20 August 1915. 23 August 1915, Numb. 29272, p. 8373
(11) Wilfred Fuller VC
On the 12th March 1915 at Neuve Chapelle, France, Lance-Corporal Fuller saw a party of the enemy trying to escape
along a communication trench. He ran towards them and killed the leading man with a bomb; the remainder (nearly
50) seeing no means of evading his bombs, all surrendered to him. Lance-Corporal Fuller was quite alone at the
time. He was gazetted on 19th April 1915, and the following day received a public reception in Mansfield where he
was presented with a gold watch and an illuminated address by the Mayor on 3rd June. He was presented with his
VC by King George V at Buckingham Palace on 4th June. He was also awarded the Cross of the Order of St Georgee,
3rd Class (Russia) on 25th August 1915. This was presented to him by King George V at No 3 Northern General
Hospital, Sheffield on 29th September 1915.
6
(12) Officer Philipp Neame VC
On 19th December 1914 at Neuve Chapelle, France, Lieutenant Neame, in the face of very heavy fire, engaged the
Germans in a single-handed bombing attack, killing and wounding a number of them. He was able to check the
enemy advance for three-quarters of an hour and to rescue all the wounded whom it was possible to move. Neame
was also mentioned in despatches twice and promoted to Captain in February 1915. He was wounded on 10th March
1915, but it was a minor wound, as he was soon appointed Adjutant 8th Division Royal Engineers, on 30th March
1915. He received a civic reception in Faversham on 17th July, two days before he received his VC from King George
V at Windsor Castle.
(13) Cecile Noble VC
On 12th March 1915 at Neuve Chapelle, France, when the advance of the battalion was impeded by wire
entanglements and by very severe machine-gun fire, Corporal Noble and another man (Harry Daniels) voluntarily
rushed in front and succeeded in cutting the wires. They were both wounded, and Corporal Noble later died of his
injuries. Noble was buried in Longuenesse Souvenir Cemetery. His VC was sent to his mother by post on 12th June
1915 and was presented to her formally by King George V at Buckingham Palace on 29th November 1916.In addition
to his VC, he was awarded the 1914 Star with Mons clasp, British War Medal 1914-20 and Victory Medal 1914-19.
His medals are held privately.
The decision appears to have been taken for reasons which have nothing to do with risk and rigour.
My correspondence to the MOD or case handling is amply explained below. My concerns are the following. Obviously, a
great deal of time and expense was carried out on the production, research, and publication of the Medal Review Report. I
now have found the updated “Awarding Military Campaign Medals, Guidance”. These guidelines explain the conditions and
the criteria for the award of Military Campaign Medals. Published 27th. October 2014. From: The Cabinet Office. The relevant
chapter is noted herein below.
On the 21st of December 2015 and as recent as July 3rd, 2018, I received letters from the MOD. The Defence People
Secretariat make the following observations “That the MOD cannot make comment on the conclusions or recommendations
reached by Sir John Holmes, following his independent review of Military Medals as the study was conducted
autonomously of the MOD by the Cabinet Office”.
If this be the case, what was the purpose of a paper that by all conclusions was never to be acted upon by the MOD?
Especially in the relevant chapters in the Sir John Holmes paper, which are contrary to the MOD’s rulings, in their
correspondence to me. Below are pertinent extracts Sir John Holmes’s recommendations in the Medal Review, and update
in 2014.
Section 4: the decision-making process 1. As explained at the beginning of Section 3, the introduction of new medals, and
decisions on changes to existing medal regimes, require individual cases to be submitted from MOD through the Committee
on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals (the HD Committee) to the Sovereign for approval. The HD Committee,
which has been in existence since before WW2, is the principal body for provision of advice to the government and the
Sovereign on these issues, including individual gallantry and meritorious service awards (outside the scope of this review).
It also has a wider remit related to the honours and appointments system in general.
The Committee is currently chaired by the Head of the Home Civil Service. The other members are the Principal Private
Secretary to The Queen; the Principal Private Secretary to the Prime Minister; Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Defence;
Defence Services Secretary, Ministry of Defence; Permanent Secretary, Foreign and Commonwealth Office; Permanent
Secretary, Home Office; Secretary of the Central Chancery of the Orders of Knighthood; and the Head of the Honours and
Appointments Secretariat, who acts as Secretary.
Although the Committee is mostly composed of civil servants, answerable to minsters, it operates essentially as a nonpolitical body, not consulting or going through ministers, but providing advice direct to the Sovereign, as the fount of all
honours. Ministers have in effect adhered to a self-denying ordinance in not attempting to direct its recommendations, and
not intervening directly with the Palace. This is a convention rather than a rule. If the Prime Minister wished to make a
direct recommendation to the Sovereign on a particular medal issue, either through HD Committee or directly, that would
be within his constitutional right. Meanwhile the presence of his Principal Private Secretary on the Committee enables him
to make his views known.
7
HD Committee has a small secretariat based in the Cabinet Office which prepares papers for the Committee’s consideration,
records meetings, and decisions, and acts as a channel of communication between the relevant government departments
and the Palace.
NB. By and large this very British system seems to have worked reasonably well over time, avoiding politicisation of medal
decisions. However, the Review also found a degree of dissatisfaction with its operation. This is partly about process. The
Committee rarely meets in practice (it has not physically met for the last two years, for example) and conducts its business
largely by correspondence/email. Since most of its members are extremely busy people with many other issues on their
plate, this increases the risk that 27 recommendations to it about military medals issues from the MOD or FCO, via the
Secretariat, go through without substantial discussion or the airing of other views.
The process is also largely invisible and inaccessible to those outside the system, which has substantially added to the
frustration of veterans and other campaigners, unable to penetrate beyond bland official statements that a particular
decision has been taken.
The Committee’s narrow membership, essentially of civil servants only, also means that there is little or no scope for wider
views or considerations to be introduced. This looks increasingly anomalous as committees dealing with other individual
aspects of the Honours system have been opened to outside membership. For example, the compositions of the committees
which make recommendations about the main civilian honours are dominated by independent members, with relatively few
officials. Ends
Exhibit “3”. Further Guidelines.
7. The AMSC shall also look carefully at whether each campaign medal has given rise to claims of inconsistency or other
kinds of injustice no more than five years after the medal has been first awarded, to review the conditions and criteria, and
to make recommendations accordingly. The presumption should be that after this review, and once five years have passed,
there should be no more changes to the criteria. If there are further claims after this five year period, they should be eligible
to be looked into if the circumstances can be shown to be in some way exceptional, for example if there is evidence that the
issues raised were not properly considered at the time or at the time of the five year review; if significant new information
has become available; if facts relied on during the original decision-making process or the review can be shown to be
unsound; if the original decision or the review appears to be manifestly inconsistent with decisions on other relevant/similar
campaign medals; or if the decision or the review appears to have been based on reasons which were not solely related to
risk and rigour. It is accepted that setting the geographical and length of service criteria of any campaign medal involves
drawing lines which are bound to leave some people on the wrong side of them. Any redrawing of such lines should respect
the principle of fairness for as many as possible, and between different groups, and the need for clarity and precision in all
such criteria.
Ministry of Defence - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
The Victoria Cross is awarded for the most conspicuous bravery, or some daring or pre-eminent act of valour or self-sacrifice,
or extreme devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy.[1] As described by Major Carter Campbell in his letters to Pte.
Tong’s father. In the case of Pte Tongs, as he was buried in 1915 and later in 1920 his burial records states that an award of
the Victoria Cross is evident in the burial certificate and is acknowledged and certified, correct and complete. The process
and motivations of selecting the medal's recipients has sometimes been interpreted as inconsistent or overly political. The
most common observation being that the Victoria Cross may be given more often for engagements that senior military
personnel would like to publicly promote.[37][38]
The Comprehensive Report from the Graves Registration Report Form of the Merville Community
Cemetery. Which was Certified Correct & Complete and signed by a Major from B.A.D.G. R & E South. The
Signature is discernible, and not readable. Further it states that this report cancels all previous reports,
and this is dated August 6th 1920. See Page 10.
Extract from Sir John Holmes Medal review in 2012 NB. By and large this very British system seems to have worked
reasonably well over time, avoiding politicisation of medal decisions. However, the Review also found a degree of
dissatisfaction with its operation. This is partly about process. The Committee rarely meets in practice (it has not physically
met for the last two years, for example) and conducts its business largely by correspondence email. Since most of its
members are extremely busy people with many other issues on their plate, this increases the risk that 27 recommendations
to it about military medals issues from the MOD or FCO, via the Secretariat, go through without substantial discussion or
the airing of other views.
8
Disclaimer: Recommendations for the Victoria Cross could only be accepted if properly sworn to and attested, in writing, by
three persons who had seen the event. Accordingly, many extraordinary feats of bravery that were not so well witnessed, or
where the witnesses were also killed, went unrecorded by default.
WINSTON CHURCHILL SAID
“The object of giving medals, stars and ribbons is to give pride and pleasure to those who have deserved
them. At the same time a distinction is something which everybody does not possess. If all have it, it is of
less value. There must, therefore, be heart-burnings and disappointments on the borderline. A medal
glitters, but it also casts a shadow. The task of drawing up regulations for such awards is one which does
not admit of a perfect solution. It is not possible to satisfy everybody without running the risk of
satisfying nobody. All that is possible is to give the greatest satisfaction to the greatest number and to
hurt the feelings of the fewest.”
Seventy-eight years to the day since his heroic actions in World War II, Ordinary Seaman Edward ‘Teddy’ Sheean has
become the first Navy crew member to be awarded Australia’s highest military honour, the Victoria Cross. Queen Elizabeth
Recently approved the issuance of a Posthumous award to Teddy Sheean.
Key points:
Tasmanian war hero Edward 'Teddy' Sheean has been awarded a Victoria Cross, 78 years after he died in battle. The 18-
year-old was last seen aboard HMAS Armidale in 1942 and was shooting at Japanese aircraft as the ship sank Politicians,
historians and Sheean's family have campaigned for decades for him to receive the honour. In an investiture ceremony in
Canberra on Tuesday, Ordinary Seaman Sheean was being honoured for his "remarkable gallantry, sacrifice and the
significance of his actions to modern Australia".
Nephew's joy after decades-long fight
Before the ceremony, Mr. Ivory, who spearheaded the campaign for recognition, said he was always determined to "never,
ever give up". "Top of the world, mate, it's been a long time coming but believe me, the feeling I've got today, it's made it all
worthwhile," he said.
4-29 The question of awarding posthumous honours other than VCs and MIDs was raised in the House of Commons on
20 May 1942, and the British Prime Minister agreed to have the matter examined by the United Kingdom’s Committee on
the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals in Time of War. In requesting this advice, the British Prime Minister’s office
noted that if posthumous awards were to be broadened, the system would become unmanageable, especially since some
awards were made for both gallantry and good service. In response, the Committee concluded that if a scheme to broaden
posthumous awards was introduced it would be unfair to ‘those who have already given their lives’, and this would cause
dissatisfaction to the next of kin and bring the system into disrepute.
4-15. This posthumous policy remained in place until 1979, when the Queen agreed that all remaining operational awards
(except for the Distinguished Service Order [DSO]) be amended to permit them to be awarded posthumously. Honours and
awards under the Australian system have never had a posthumous restriction. In the First World War, commanders-in-chief
had the power to grant some honours provisionally including the DSO, MC and DCM, and Corps commanders had the power
to grant the MM. 6 MJ Crook, The evolution of the Victoria Cross-a study in administrative history, Midas Books, Kent,
1975, Appendix XVIII, p. 304
4-15. This posthumous policy remained in place until 1979, when the Queen agreed that all remaining operational awards
(except for the Distinguished Service Order [DSO]) be amended to permit them to be awarded posthumously. Honours and
awards under the Australian system have never had a posthumous restriction
5. In the First World War, commanders-in-chief had the power to grant some honours provisionally including the DSO, MC
and DCM, and Corps commanders had the power to grant the MM. 6 MJ Crook, The evolution of the Victoria Cross-a study
in administrative history, Midas Books, Kent, 1975, Appendix XVIII, p. 304
9
10
Extended Notes (1)
FROM
Sharon Paton
Museum Officer
South Lanarkshire Leisure and Culture
Low Parks Museum
129 Muir Street, Hamilton, ML3 6BJ
Dear Mr. Tongs,
Thank you very much for contacting us regarding your uncle, 9786 Private William Tongs DCM. We read your email with
much interest regarding your decision to investigate the possible posthumous award of a VC to your uncle.
We hold the regimental museum collection of the Cameronians (Scottish Rifles) but we do not officially represent the
regiment, which was formally disbanded in 1968 and the remaining Trustees were formally wound up as an entity in 2015.
We do, however, have a part to play in promoting the history and maintaining the legacy of the regiment, the regimental
collections being part of that legacy. One of our curators has looked into the award of the DCM to Private Tongs in some
detail, and we hope you might find the following information of some interest, and possibly of use in helping you to fill in
more information.
The war diary for the 2nd Battalion Scottish Rifles records the events of the battle of Neuve Chapelle in some detail. At the
commencement of the battle, Major George Carter-Campbell was second in command of the Battalion. The Commanding
Officer of 2nd Scottish Rifles was Lieutenant-Colonel W. M. Bliss, who was killed in the early stages of the attack on
10th March, at which point Major Carter-Campbell assumed command. Major Carter-Campbell was wounded later
that day but remained in command of the Battalion. He was wounded a second time in the afternoon of
12th March, at which point he relinquished command and retired to the Regimental Aid Post. Command of
the battalion devolved to Second Lieutenant Somervail, the only officer of the battalion not killed or
wounded (other than the Quartermaster and Medical Officer), such were the enormous casualties suffered
by the battalion. On 17th March, Major Richard Oakley was posted from the 1st Battalion The Cameronians
to commence the rebuilding of the shattered 2nd Battalion. One of the first duties Major Oakley undertook
was to compile a list of names of officers and men who had distinguished themselves in the battle. As he
himself was not a witness to such deeds, Major Oakley had to rely on the testimony and reports of the men
who had survived to provide such detail. It is possible that Carter-Campbell was able to feed back his thoughts on
those who should be recommended for awards as a result of their actions at Neuve Chapelle, but ultimately it was Major
Oakley who made the submission; Carter-Campbell was in hospital recovering from his wounds. Your uncle is included in
this list within the war diary, and of him is written:
“No 9786 Pt W. TONGS - Machine Gunner at the taking of the 3rd German trench. The Coy was heavily enfiladed
& Pte TONGS got his gun into position & by opening fire reduced our casualties . It was done under a heavy fire & there
was no officers to direct . On the 11th[possibly 12th] he helped to bring a number of wounded men of the Irish Rifles back
under a heavy fire.”
At the end of the list, Major Oakley qualifies his findings with the following statement:
“As regards the whole of the names put forward - owing to the heavy casualties amongst the officers I have not been able
to find out all I could wish - but all cases have been personally authenticated by me since joining the Battalion. I might
add that apart from 13 officers killed & 9 wounded, 23 full Sergeants & 6 Lance. Sgts were killed or wounded, showing
that all were doing their best.”
Major Oakley’s list makes no mention of which type of award he recommends for each individual. As it happened, four of
the men named were mentioned in dispatches, eight men (including Private Tongs) were awarded Distinguished Conduct
Medals, an officer and the Regimental Sergeant Major were awarded the Military Cross, a single officer was awarded the
Distinguished Service Order, and two men were further awarded a foreign decoration (one to accompany a mention in
dispatches, one to accompany a Distinguished Conduct Medal).
It is notable from Private Tongs recording in the list, quoted above, that mention is made of gallantry in combating an enemy
machine gun post and in helping rescue a number of wounded men from the Royal Irish Rifles. Both of these actions were
submitted by Major Oakley and presumably both were taken into consideration when higher authorities decreed that the
Distinguished Conduct Medal was conferred.
11
The war diary goes on to record against 18th April 1915 that: “The following N.C.O’s and men were awarded the
Distinguished Conduct Medal for conspicuous gallantry at NEUVE CHAPELLE. No 6055 C.S.M W G. McBEATH, 8347
Sgt P MAYO, 9204 L/Cpl H.R.CANNON (killed in action), 9786 Pte. W TONGS, 10777 Pte. H. McCABE (killed
in action, would have been awarded if he had lived.)”
It is unclear if the actual Distinguished Conduct Medal would have been presented to the three surviving recipients on this
date. I suspect it more likely they were issued with a length of ribbon or a ribband that could be worn on the uniform to
denote such an award had been bestowed. The award of the Distinguished Conduct Medal to Private Tongs was officially
announced in the London Gazette dated 3rd June 1915, in which the citation reads as follows:
“For conspicuous gallantry at Neuve Chapelle on 10/03/1915, when he brought his MG into position under heavy fire and
silenced a German gun which had been doing much damage. It was done under a heavy fire & there was no officers to
direct. On 12/03 he rescued wounded men of the Royal Irish Rifles under heavy fire."
The wording of the official citation following closely the original statement included in Major Oakley’s list quoted in the war
diary.
Major Oakley is soon replaced as Commanding Officer by Lieutenant Colonel C. B. Vandeleur, who again was posted from
the 1st Battalion to take over Command. On his return from hospital, Major Carter-Campbell resumes his role as second in
command and remains as such until the action of 9th May 1915. In this action, the Commanding Officer is again wounded,
and Major Carter-Campbell assumes command. This of course is also the action which sees Private Tongs’ fatally wounded,
succumbing to his wounds on 12th May 1915. The letter from Major Carter-Campbell, printed in the local newspaper, was
written sometime following this action (we are unsure if the date is mentioned in the newspaper article). While it is not
unheard of for a senior officer to write home to the family of a deceased soldier, often this was a duty taken on by a soldier’s
platoon or company commander rather than the second in command or Commanding Officer. Major Carter-Campbell
speaks openly in his letter about Private Tongs’ being awarded the DCM, and how in his opinion the medal was fully
deserved. There is, unfortunately, no reference to the Victoria Cross.
In answer to your question regarding the amalgamation of regiments in 1881, you are quite correct that the
26th Cameronians Regiment was amalgamated with the 90th (Perthshire) Light Infantry, the two regiments becoming the
1
st and 2nd Battalions of The Cameronians (Scottish Rifles) respectively. By the time of the First World War there were very
few officers or men engaged, or re-engaged, who would have served in either the 26th or 90th regiments pre-amalgamation.
For a pre-1881 officer still to be serving he would most likely be of general officer rank (and so not actively serving at
regimental level), or be on the half-pay/retired lists. Some of the latter were brought out of retirement for war-time service.
In the case of other ranks, they would likely be reservists or time-served men who re-engaged for war service.
While at the time the amalgamation was generally unpopular within the regiments involved, by 1915 there were no officers
serving in the 1st or 2nd Battalions who had started their service in the 26th or 90th regiments. Furthermore, since
amalgamation, there had been a constant mixing between the two battalions by ways of drafts of officers and men in order
to keep whichever battalion was serving abroad at overseas establishment strength. While the two battalions might still
operate largely independently, there was growing awareness, acknowledgement, and acceptance that they were both part of
The Cameronians (Scottish Rifles). The formation of the Regimental Association in 1908 is just one such demonstration of
this, and we can’t envisage or evidence any circumstances under which the amalgamation of 1881 would have any bearing
on a soldier either receiving, or not receiving, a gallantry award in 1915.
You mention that Private Tongs was to be awarded the Victoria Cross for his actions on 9th May 1915. The Commonwealth
War Graves Commission (CWGC) may be able to advise you further on this, but we understand that the document you
enclosed relates to efforts by the War Graves Commission to check and confirm burial details in each cemetery prior to the
erection of stone grave markers. The document appears to be dated August 1920 in the lower margin and doesn’t include a
list of effects found with soldiers’ remains or directly reference a citation or recommendation for an award of the Victoria
Cross. Perhaps the CWGC hold more information they could provide in relation to this document.
12
10 – 13 March 1915: the Battle of Neuve Chapelle. British First Army mounts first offensive on large scale: costly in
terms of casualties but results in capture of Neuve Chapelle. Localised operations continue afterwards. Neuve Chapelle
was the first large scale organised attack undertaken by the British Army during the war. It followed the miserable winter
operations of 1914-15. More Divisions had now arrived in France and the British Expeditionary Force was now split into two
Armies. Neuve Chapelle was undertaken by Sir Douglas Haig’s First Army, while subsequent actions were fought by Sir
Herbert Smith-Dorrien’s Second Army.
Order of battle.
The point of attack is selected
Neuve Chapelle village lies on the road between Bethune, Fleurbaix and Armentieres, near its junction with the Estaires –
La Bassee road. The front lines ran parallel with the Bethune-Armentieres road, a little way to the east of the village. Behind
the German line is the Bois de Biez. The ground here is flat and cut by many small drainage ditches. A mile ahead of the
British was a long ridge – Aubers Ridge – barely 20 feet higher than the surrounding area but giving an observation
advantage. Some 25km to the south, this flat area is overlooked by the heights at Vimy Ridge. The German lines in the
immediate vicinity were very lightly defended. The night before the attack was wet, with light snow, which turned to damp
mist on 10 March. The attack goes in – succeeds at first – gets bogged down. The attack was undertaken by Sir Douglas
Haig’s First Army, with Rawlinson’s IV Corps on the left and Willcock’s Indian Corps on the right, squeezing out a German
salient that included the village itself. The battle opened with a 35 minute bombardment of the front line, then 30 minutes
on the village and reserve positions. The bombardment, for weight of shell fired per yard of enemy front, was the heaviest
that would be fired until 1917.
At 7.30am the artillery bombardment commenced, and never since history has there been such a one. You couldn’t hear
yourself speak for the noise. It was a continual rattle and roar. We lay very low in our trenches, as several of our guns
were firing short. Captain W.G. Bagot-Chester MC, 2/3rd Ghurka Rifles, Gharwal Brigade, Meerut Division. Three infantry
brigades were ordered to advance quickly as soon as the barrage lifted from the front line at 8.05am. The Gharwal Brigade
of the Indian Corps advanced successfully, with the exception of the 1/39th Gharwal Rifles on the extreme right that went
astray and plunged into defences untouched by the bombardment, suffering large losses. The 25th and 23rd Brigades of the
8th Division made good progress against the village. There were delays in sending further orders and reinforcements
forward, but by nightfall the village had been captured, and the advanced units were in places as far forward as the Layes
brook. During the night the Germans reinforced their second line in front of the Bois de Biez, and all further attempts over
the next few days brought little material success.
The German defences in the centre were quickly overrun on a 1,600 yd (1,500 m) front and Neuve Chapelle was captured
by 10:00 a.m. At Haig's request, the British Commander-in-Chief, Field Marshal Sir John French, released the 5th
Cavalry Brigade to exploit the expected breakthrough.