166 AWARDED FOR VALOUR
provisionally, noting none of which were possible in modern warfare.
He didn’t see a problem with the wording of Clause VII, but noted the
ambiguities of Clause XIII. More than anything else, his research revealed
that the Army’s records on the creation of the Victoria Cross were ‘defective,’
consisting of the signed 1856 Warrant and two undated, unsigned minute
sheets that were little more than fragmentary notes. He and Brade concluded
that they dated possibly from 1852, as one set of initials could be read as
‘J.P.,’ which they took to mean ‘Sir J. Pakington,’ the Secretary of State in
that year.^2 Brade sent a copy of Graham’s brief to Murray, along with his
observation that since the warrant would need to be amended in the near
future to recognize the existence of the Royal Air Force, it might be time to
convene a general committee to rewrite the warrant entirely.^3
The idea was kicked back and forth between the War Office and the
Admiralty for the rest of July, with various deficiencies of the existing
warrant discussed. At length the Navy let the Army take the lead on
approaching King George V for permission to convene a committee to
rewrite the warrant, perhaps on the grounds that the majority of VCs had
been won by Army personnel over the years. On 30 July 1918 Bertram
Blakiston Cubitt wrote the Admiralty on behalf of the War Office to indicate
that the Army Council had made a formal request of His Majesty and they
would be informed of the decision. The next day Graham wrote to Sir
Frederick Ponsonby, the Keeper of the Privy Purse, to brief King George V
on the proposed committee.^4 It is at this point that a highly controversial
issue entered the discussion.
Ponsonby replied on 3 August that the King approved of the revision
and had named him (Ponsonby) as chair of the committee. But there was a
specific issue His Majesty wanted clarified:
There is one point the King wishes you to have discussed privately before
the meeting is held, and that is whether or not women should be eligible
for the V.C. It is conceivable that a woman driving a motor car, or a
nurse, might possibly perform sufficiently gallant services to merit the
V.C., but according to the Statutes at present she would not be eligible.
The fact that women were eligible for the V.C. might be resented in the
Army, and it would be best to go carefully in this matter before any
decision is arrived at. On the other hand, if civilians are made eligible
according to the new Warrant, the question may be asked why should not
women be equally considered. On a matter of this sort, it would perhaps
be best for you to ask the opinion of the different offices concerned
confidentially.^5
lily
(lily)
#1