88 AWARDED FOR VALOUR
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 honor 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.^60
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 motiv-
ated by shame, guilt, remorse, or shell-shock, violated the last prin-
ciple 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. His
final gallop toward the guns was the result of Buller’s order, not an
impulsive or voluntary act. At the very most he should have been gazetted
as ‘would havehad 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.
Buller 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^61 in their VC recommendations,
but of Roberts he could only report, ‘Lieutenant the Honourable F. Roberts,
King’s Royal Rifles, assisted Captain Congreve. He was wounded in three
places.’^62 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 mortal. In fact, the report was worded in such a way to suggest he
(Buller) was not present at the time of the event. Also interesting was the
slant Buller put on his reasons for recommendation of 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
lily
(lily)
#1