THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF HEROISM IN BRITAIN 37
I confess it does not seem to be right or politic that such deeds of
heroism as this war has produced should go unrewarded by any distinctive
outward mark of honour because they were done by privates or by
officers below the rank of major – and it is impossible to believe that Her
Majesty’s troops fighting side-by-side with those of France do not draw
an invidious contrast between the rewards bestowed upon themselves and
their allies
The value attached by soldiers to a little bit of ribbon is such as to render
any danger insignificant and any privation light if it can be attained, and
I believe that great indeed would be the stimulus and dearly prized the
award of a Cross of Military Merit.
Of course great care would be requisite to prevent abuse – but I am sure
your Royal Highness will not consider the danger of abuse a sufficient
reason to reject this proposal if there appears sufficient good in it to justify
its adoption.^66
The Prince Consort sent a lengthy reply on 22 January, and still noted
strong reservations to changing the existing structure for the recognition of
heroism. He detailed the shortcomings of the Order of the Bath, remarking
that the
difficulty of distinguishing between the merits of different Officers in
responsible situations and the unwillingness on the part of Commanders
to incur the odium of making the distinction, have led them to mention
nearly everybody in their Despatches and the government is thus left,
either to do possible injustice, or to allow the reward to become a mere
appendage of a certain Rank.^67
He went on to discuss the limitations of medals for general campaigns and
clasps for specific engagements:
This mode is open to none of the former objections but is exposed to
some of its own: – it leaves individual merit unnoticed & even here the
necessity of distinguishing between actions becomes an embarrassment
to the Govt. The troops which fought at Balaklava cry out at this moment
at not sharing in the honours bestowed upon Inkerman, to which, it is
true, the government can reply, that it marked an important success in
the one instance, while the other was (to use the Duke of Wellington’s
expression) and ‘untoward event’. It has no reply however to the remonstrance
of the troops: ‘why are we to be punished for the mistakes of our
lily
(lily)
#1