IS SURGEON MAJOR LEAKE THE ONLY DOUBLE V.C.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 4, Issue 96, 15 October 1915, Page 1 (Supplement)

IS SURGEON MAJOR LEAKE THE ONLY DOUBLE V.C.

THE WAR OFFICE SAYS " YES, BIT HISTORY SAYS "NO."

Since it was anounced that the special "clasp" or "bar," signifying a second bestowal of the Victoria Cross, has been awarded to Surgeon-Major Leake, of the R.A.M.C, for his splendid rescue of many wounded soldiers, whilst exposed to constant fire near Zonnebeke, he already having won me V.C. in the Boer War, there has been going on a great and interesting correspondence and discussion in several newspapers as to whether the brave surgeon is, or is not, the firet man to recive such a notable decoration. Amongst those who say he is, by far the most important authority is Mr. D. H. Parry. For not only has Mr. Parry written what ie generally regarded as the best book on the Vic-

toria Cross and its heroes; not only has he spent years in studying all about this subject; but he makes the assertion on the authority of the War Office itself, he can state definitely that Surgeon Leake is the first man to navebeen awarded the "clasp" or "bar" in question. This definite and clear statement would seem to settle the matter, nut it doesn't do s.o, not by far! For there are six or seven known cases, without the shadow of a doubt, where a gallant recipient of the Cross wore it with one, two, or three "bars attached to it. Moreover, there is abundant living testimony to the fact that this or that brave solder or sailor was decorated with the "V. C." more.than once in this way. So how either the War Office or Mr. Parry can declare the contrary, let a'one substantiate it, is a puzzle. NAVAL DO'CBLE V.C.'s. There is the case of Captain George Fiott Day, R.N. This surprisingly gallant man, when a lieutenant in the Cr mean War. offered to make two reconnaisanees alone in the dark on iik spit of Arabat, to gain valuable information about the enemy for his superiors. The risks were tremendous, but the brave lieutenant survive.! them each time, and made tk? reconnaisances on the 17th and 21st of September, 1855. For this he was awarded the V.C.j being gazetted in kebru ary 1857, and he was .thus, amongst the first batch of recipients )f the distinguished honour Again, in the China War of l>bO, Day was recommended for flu V.C. once more, on account of his special valour at a critical tim?. Having alreadv had the Cross, however, ne was now allowed to add the "bar," precisely the same thing as Surgeon Leake has recently gained. Miss Ethel Day, his daughter, wrote to the papers soon after tne correspondence ;n question began, and *aid on behalf of herself, her mother (still living), and her family, that not only had her father thus twice won the Cross (and been given it in the way described), but that she and her family had seen him wearing it many and many a time. So there cannot be the least doubt of this. Moreover, when Captain died at Weston-super-Mare, in December 1876, the local paper there had a full account of his life and many deeds of bravery, together with a list of aU his medals. . The account stated that the deceased possessed more medals than any officer then in the Service; and it distinctly mentions that one of these was the V.C. with a "bar" attached, explaining to its readers that Captain Daywas given the extra "bar" for gallantry in China, 1860, because he had already won the Cross for his daring work in the Crimea in 1855. Inis paper is now before me as I write. HARD FACTS. In February, 1857, was gazetted for the V.C. the then Lieutenant, W. JN. Hewett, acting-mate of H.M.r*. Beagle. This fine officer afterwards became Vice-Admiral Sir William Hewett, K.C.B. He was given the Cross for conspicuous bravery in piucK, ily defending his battery with one gun against the Russians, and also tor special gallantry at the battle ot lnkerman. Now that account ot the death and career of Captain Day (jiM mentioned as having appeared ini tne Weston paper at the time he died; happens to sav that "He was the only living naval officer who had this extra 'bar' with the V.C, except Commodore Hewett, who also possesses tne rare distinction." j On seing Miss Day's letter in the morning papers a week or two ago, Lieutenant-Colonel B. N. Bute wrote from Manchester td this lady saying that, though he did not know her, it might be of interest in this discussion for him to state that he himself had served in 1886 underf Sir William Hewett and distinctly remembered seeing him with the V.C.; bearing; the extra "clasp" or "bar" in it. "Sc.that, writes the gallant Lieutenant-Co onel, "the one lately raijted is certainly by no means unique.") This testimony, fcommg on the wp of the other, absolutely conclusive and must put.-the matter beyond doubt. Hence the (affirmations of the War Office and M*. Parry appear all the more extraordinary. May I myself, jhere interpolate a query? It will ha noticed that both

the gentlemen mentioned (Sir Williara Hewett and Captain Day) were naval men. Would the Admiarlty have evidence, therefore, of a fact which the War Office seems not to have cognisance of in ite archives? Has rny inquiry been made, at the headquarters of the Navy with respect to this? However, even if we confined ourselves to the Army, the statements of the authorities spoken of seem strange and puzzling, to say the least. Look at one or two OTHER FAMOUS CASES. The late General Sir Charles ... Gough was recommended for the V.C. for four separate deeds of valour, viz., on 15th and 18th August, 1857; and 27th January and 23rd February, 1858. These feats were as follow: (1) At Khurkowdah he saved a wounded soldier and killed two of the enemy; (2) Headed a troop of Guides in a famous charge, and cut down two sowars after a desperate hand-to-hand fight, (3) He attacked one of the rebel leaders, ran him through with his sword, which was dashed out of his hand, but then defended himself and his com rade with his re *clver, shooting two of his foes dead; and (4) He rode to the help of Major .Anson at a desperate moment, slew that officer's attaefcer, and cut down another of the foe. Now Sir Charles Gough was gazetted for the V.C. in September, 1859, and on his Cross were all four dates of the events th'us mentioned, on separate bars! His is the most striking case of all in the story of the V.C, no other man having thus had four dates inscribed on the decoration. General Sir Hugh Gough, brother of Sir Charles, was twice recommended for the Cross, and, when given it in December, 1858, both dates were engraved on it 6eparate'y. In November, 1857, this brave lieutenant (as he then was) in command of the famous Hodson's Horse, charged across » swamp, and captured two guns defended by a much superior iorce. When engaged with three sepoys his turbau was cut through, and his horse wounded twice. Again, in the following year at Lucknow he charged the guns, fighting several single combats, two horses being killed under him; and whilst wounded badly he charged two rebels with fixed bayonets, and received shots through both his helmet and scabbard! Major-General Jerome three times did actions which brought him the honour of the Victoria Cross, as may be seen not only from authoritatn u books on the subject, but also from his memorial-6tone in the Lansdown cemetery, Bath. But I cannot say irom actual knowledge or certain evidence whether the Cross was given him for all three cumulatively, or for each separately. IRBEFCTABLE EVIDENCE. Nor must I omit mention of the gallant Sir William Peel, the "Charlie Beresford" of the Navy at the time «h the Crimean and Mutiny struggles. The dates of three distinct deeds worthy of the Cross were inscribed on the decoration worn by Peel. The first or these was done at the-Diamond Battery where, when many cases of ammunition were being piled, a live shell dropped right on the lot. Young Peel jumped for the shell like a flash, threw it away with a powerful heave, and it buret in a mijiute! The second time was when he ]omed the Grenadiers at the Sandbag Battery, and helped to save the colours from capture at great personal risk. The third was when he headed a laa-der-party in the celebrated assail t on the Redan, and won much distinction bv his supreme bravery. 'Now William Peel died comparat T.?ly young. But I well remember his distinguished brother (afterwards Speaker of the Commons, and siiosequently Viscount Peel) telling ne how the young naval officer had twice won the V.C. as the Cross itself testified," he said. , In the face of all this irrefutable evidence, then, what does the War Office mean by saying that the gallant Sur-geon-Major Arthur Martn Leake is the first man to have had a "cksii ""'• "bar" granted him for a second <!;iplay of bravery in this way? The solutions to the myste y serin to me to be perhaps as follow. I Jr Jl these suggestions do not explain the puzzle, then I, and others, must acknowledge that re are in as big a tog as ever! , . , The cases of the naval men spoken ot may not be officially under the cognisance of the War Omc«, but of the Admiralty. ~ V n (2) When a man was given the V.l. after more than one distinct recommendation DURING THE SAME CAMPAIGN, but the award was not gazetted till the close of the war it may have been the custom that all the separate dates were inscribed on th: Cross (or on bars attached to it), though the award of the actual decoration made but one official record in Whitehall. , ,„ „„, (3) It may be that the War Office to-day only recognises as an extra "clasp" or "bar," one given lor a special recommendation of the v I . .o a man who has already won it in quite a (Different war from that where the second gallantry occurred. Personally, I fancy the true explanation of the mystery will be found in the third of these suggestions, *or note the underlined wording ot the clause in the original warrant for the institution of the Cross in 1856, the fourth clause which deals with this point. It says:— "It is ordained that any one who AFTER HAVING RECEIVED IHE CROSS, shall again perform an act ot bravery, which, if he had not received such Cross, would have entitled him to it such further act shall be recorded by a bar attached to the ribbon from which the Cross is suspended; and tor every additional act of bravery on additional bar may be added." But whatever view one takes nstt. the "official" statements, about this extra clasp, there 'cannot be the slightest doubt that General Sir Charles Gough, General Sir Hugh Gough, Captain Sir William Peel, Captain George Fiott Day, and Vice-Ad-miral Sir William Hewett all won the Victoria Cross more than once, anu that some of them actually »o.e "bars" of the kind mentioned; vhust all had at least*the several dates je;arately recorded on the Cross, m-lioat-ing subsequent deeds of valour .Vfuic:ally recognised) to that for which the Cross was first granted. For it is otherwise absolutely unthinkable that these brave fellowsall officers and gentlemen of the l.nest

stamp—would have worn any '"lmp"', or had any extra date engraven oa the Cross, without due and proper euthority for so doing. This band ot special heroes—"special" even amongst the most famous company of heroes in the world! —is but a small one, after all. And into that very select band has now come Surgi on-Major Arthur Martin Leake, with his double reward for conspicuous gallantry in the second Boer War and the present German War. All honour to this son of Westminster School, which is justly proud of him to-day. Long may he live to enjoy the supreme distinction of his double V.C.! GEORGE A. WADE.