TEETHING PROBLEMS, 1856–1867 51
any mention of the existence of the Victoria Cross. It is clear that Daubeney
was already trying to turn a mention in dispatches into some form of Order
before the possibility of winning a VC appeared on the horizon; once the
Cross became a reality, Daubeney focused all his attention on acquiring one
for himself.
It is unclear whether or not Daubeney knew he had been recommended.
He wrote Pennefather in December 1856, detailing his own heroism in a
nine-page letter and enclosed the signed affidavits of seven privates and
one sergeant attesting to his valour at Inkerman.^29 On the strength of
this new evidence, Pennefather submitted a secondary recommendation on
Daubeney’s behalf to the War Office in January 1857. It cited Inkerman
only, for ‘charging a body of Russians which had penetrated his post in
the fog – as vouched for by the accompanying papers.’ He explained in
a separate paragraph that he had already recommended Daubeney before
reading these affidavits.^30 Nine days after making sure his own horn had
been blown, Daubeney submitted his regimental recommendations.
The regimental returns were somewhat suspicious:
Sgt Patrick Ashe: Valour at Inkerman
Pvt John Prinsinville: "
Pvt Thomas Layland: "
Pvt John Stokes: "
Pvt William King: "
Pvt Donato McIntosh: "
Pvt William Smith: "
Pvt Jeremiah Ready: "
Pvt Patrick Guering: "
Pvt James Ryan: "
Sgt William Jackson: "
Pvt Bryan Hughes: "
Pvt Michael Kilbride: "^31
Of these men listed under the blanket (and vague) ‘valour at Inkerman,’
Privates Prinsinville, King, Layland, McIntosh, Smith, Ready, Stokes, and
Sergeant Ashe were the eyewitnesses whose affidavits were forwarded to
General Pennefather to support Daubeney’s claim. The affidavits of the
privates were obviously dictated, as they are all written in the same hand.
This is not unusual, given the literacy rates in the Army of the mid-nineteenth
century, and some of the statements are signed with a witnessed ‘X’ rather
than a signature.
lily
(lily)
#1