CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF THE TIMELINE OF CORRESPONDENCE, AND RESPONSES

IN THE MATTER OF A POSTHUMOUS AWARD OF THE VICTORIA CROSS TO 9786 WILLIAM TONGS DCM.

The first Petition was first filed on the 11/11/2015 (The Queen passed the petition on to the MOD).

The MOD answers on 21st December 2015. Quoting the MOD Order of 1919, that no further awards would be given in that war.

Issued 2nd Petition 2018, due to finding further evidence.

 The Petition was again denied but evoked a more comprehensive report as to why the petition would not succeed, and thus the new evidence would not be read in its entirety by the Medal Awards Committee.

Letters received from the following MP’s: - 

(a) 24th September 2018. Michael Tomlinson MP. Passed the petition onto The Right Hon Earl Howe PC.

(b) Letters from Earle Howe PC 16th. October 2018, and 5th of December 2018. Although stating that based on the evidence I had given, my letter was compelling. It was still denied. See Letter as Exhibit “A” at the end of this narrative.

At this point, it was evident to get to the cause of the problem. It was apparent that should we get over the 1919 MOD Directive of the MOD not issuing any further awards in the 1914-18 war, we could procced to a proper hearing by the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals (the HD Committee) for in depth consideration. 

By this time the Military Medals Review by Sir John Holmes in July 2012, had been published.  There were several critical derogatory expectations on how the Committee worked. See Exhibit “B” at the end of this narrative. Therefore, if the HD Committee had read the Petition in its entirety, there could be a different outcome as to earlier petitions, if the 1919 law had been revoked.

The evidence shows that there can be little or no dispute as to why Pte. William Tongs should not be awarded posthumously the Victoria Cross, for his many actions of gallantry and bravery at Neuve Chappelle from March 10th – March 12th and 9th of May. 1915.

Here we discuss the reasons and evidence why Pte. Tongs fell through an administrative gap, caused by exceptional circumstance, confusion, and the death of his Commanding Officer Lieutenant-Colonel W. M. Bliss on the specific day of Pte. Tongs’ first act of bravery. Compounding this event, the 2nd in Command Major Carter Campbell was twice wounded, and on the two days that Pte. Tongs undertook the 8 acts of bravery in bringing back 7 men of the Royal Irish Rifles.

The revised Petition demonstrates new and convincing evidence that signifies an absence of unavoidable administrative duty, due to the chaos and confusion of the battle, and the Commanding officer Col. W. Bliss being killed on the 10th of March, plus 2nd in Command Major Carter Campbell, becoming incapacitated, and virtually all the senior ranks being killed within the first 3 days of the battle of Neuve Chappelle. 

The 2nd in Command was wounded on both days that Pte. Tongs undertook 8 of the 9 acts of bravery, between the 10th & 12th of March 1915, and was removed for medical aid.

Some 7 -10 days later a Major Richard Oakley was appointed new Commander of 2nd Battalion Scottish Rifles. Shortly thereafter another officer was appointed, the chain of command was obviously broken and much more importance was placed on the war ahead.

Major Oakley then goes onto say that one or two days later Pvt Tongs under very heavy fire, helped into safety, soldiers of the Royal Irish Rifles. Major Oakley is still confused by the loss of so many officers and senior NCO ranks. See important verbatim comments by Major Oakley Exhibit “C”. 

A recommendation for the VC is normally issued by an officer at regimental level or equivalent, and has to be supported by three witnesses, although this has been waived on occasion. However, Both the Commanding officer and 2nd in Command were either deceased or injured. At this stage, the VC must have been mentioned several times, as it appears in the Press in Guernsey, and on an official Army document, certified Correct & Complete on his War Graves Burial Certificate, stating: - See: - Exhibit “D”

To review Pte. W. Tongs’ 9 acts of gallantry and bravery from March 10th. March 12th. & May 9th. 1915 are as follows: - (1) Silenced a German Machine Gun doing much damage. (Not mentioned by Maj. Oakley) Only stating that Pte. Tongs used his machine gun and saved many lives. It was later that it was noted that the German machine gun had been silenced. (2) On the 11th or 12th March, Major Oakley records that Pte. Tongs helped to bring several wounded men of the Royal Irish Rifles back under a heavy fire. Later it was established that there were 7 men saved. (3) the 9th and last act of bravery, where Pte. Tongs is mortally wounded, which is described by Major Carter Campbell in  a letter in December 1915 some 10 months later in a personal letter to Pvt Tong’s father: -

“There was no more gallant officer or man in the Battalion.  He died from wounds received on the 9th of May. On this occasion his gallantry was equally conspicuous in the manner he worked his machine gun. He was on this occasion wounded several times and died on the 13th of May. He served his country nobly and died a hero’s death”.

 

Be it noted, and not demeaning the bravery of the below mentioned men. In one case 2 Victoria Crosses were issued to the following soldiers Lt. Maurice Dease, in another specific incident involving a machine gun, Lt. Maurice Dease, and Pte. Sydney Godley, worked their machine gun whereby Lt. Dease was injured and subsequently died of his injuries. Pte. Sydney Godley took over Lt. Dease’s machine gun, until both soldiers were captured. This incident is where both the officer and the enlisted man were each awarded the Victoria Cross, i.e., 2 VCs for one incident. “Courtesy Lord Ashcroft’s Book, Victoria Cross Heroes, page 151”. Pte. Tongs silenced a German machine gun on the 10th of March, and was undertaking the exact same act as Lt. Dease and Pte. Godley who both received a Victoria Cross, yet Pte. Tongs was awarded for the first 8 acts a DCM which was 7th below the Victoria Cross at that time. See Chart Below.

In several other incidents where medics helped wounded soldiers, two medic officers were each awarded 2 Victoria Crosses each for helping wounded soldiers under heavy fire. Please understand that references to other VC recipients, is not a reflection of their acts of bravery, purely as a comparison of the act itself. Three people have been awarded a VC and Bar, the bar representing a second award of the VC. They were Noel Chavasse and Arthur Martin-Leake, both doctors in the Royal Army Medical Corps, for rescuing wounded men under fire; and New Zealander Captain Charles Upham, an infantryman, for combat actions. “Courtesy Lord Ashcroft’s Book, Victoria Cross Heroes, page 165”.

Be it also noted that these two Doctors were each awarded two Victoria Crosses, mainly for going out under heavy fire to treat wounded men. Despite their bravery, this was part of their duty and the swearing of the Hippocratic Oath. Pte. Tongs who carried out 9 acts of bravery, silenced a German machine gun doing much damage and days later did the same act multiple times by bringing back 7 wounded soldiers under heavy fire (as depicted by Major Oakley in the 2nd Batalion Scottish Rifles War Diaries, and did it purely out of bravery, to save his fellow man. Pte. Tongs was mortally wounded on the 9th act of courage but was awarded the DCM for all acts of bravery which at that time in 1914 was 7th in precedence to the Victoria Cross. See: -

IN THE 1914-18 WAR THE DCM WAS THE 7TH MEDAL IN PRECEDENCE FROM THE VICTORIA CROSS. The following WW1 awards are listed below in order of precedence: 

(1)Victoria Cross (V.C.) 
(2) Distinguished Service Order (D.S.O.) 
(3)Distinguished Service Cross (D.S.C.) 
(4)Military Cross (M.C.)
(5) Distinguished Flying Cross (D.F.C.) 
(6) Air Force Cross (A.F.C.) 
(7)Distinguished Conduct Medal (D.C.M.) 
             (8) Conspicuous Gallantry Medal (C.G.M.) 

 

There should be no contest in Pte. Tong’s acts of bravery and should be duly award the Victoria Cross posthumously, despite any previous decisions not to by the 1919’s MOD’s directive, and my subsequent Petition in 2015 and 2018, and now a 3rd petition.

However, Pte. W. Tongs, who carried out these nine acts of bravery, the two combined single acts deserving the maximum award of the Victoria Cross, and although it is recorded on his burial records, that he was buried with the VC after his name as to “Scottish Rifles 9786 Tongs VC. Pte. W”. He never received this medal. The burial Record can be seen in Exhibit “D” of this document. 

The Battle of Neuve Chapelle was short and seriously damaging losing almost all the officers and NCO’s. Obviously, confusion prevailed. Here starts the fatal gap opening up for Pte. Tongs.

The infantry attack commenced at 8.05am on 10 March. In the centre of the assault the advance was successful, with the village of Neuve Chapelle being taken. Casualties among the troops attacking the village were high, with the 2nd Cameronians (Scottish Rifles) and 2nd Lincolns suffering particularly heavily.

EXHIBITS “A””

EXHIBIT “B”

Extract from Medals Review 2012 by Sir John Holmes

By and large this very British system seems to have worked reasonably well over time, avoiding politicisation of medal decisions. However, the Review also found a degree of dissatisfaction with its operation. This is partly about process. The Committee rarely meets in practice (it has not physically met for the last two years, for example) and conducts its business largely by correspondence/ email. Since most of its members are extremely busy people with many other issues on their plate, this increases the risk that 27 recommendations to it about military medals issues from the MOD or FCO, via the Secretariat, go through without substantial discussion or the airing of other views. 

6. The process is also largely invisible and inaccessible to those outside the system, which has substantially added to the frustration of veterans and other campaigners, unable to penetrate beyond bland official statements that a particular decision has been taken. 

7. The Committee’s narrow membership, essentially of civil servants only, also means that there is little or no scope for wider views or considerations to be introduced. This looks increasingly anomalous as committees dealing with other individual aspects of the Honours system have been opened up to outside membership. For example, the compositions of the committees which make recommendations about the main civilian honours are dominated by independent members, with relatively few officials. 

8. The Review believes that opening up membership of the HD Committee to a number of outsiders and ensuring that it does meet physically on a reasonably regular basis would improve both its decision-making and its credibility more widely, including with veterans‟ representatives and other campaigners. Since its remit covers a number of areas besides those which are the subject of this review, it is not feasible for this Review to say exactly how its composition should be changed, but the Review believes that any change should include a number of outsiders who have wider political and military expertise and experience relevant to the military side of its activities. 

9. The Review also recommends the establishment of a standing sub-committe

EXHIBITS “C”

The war diary for the 2nd Battalion Scottish Rifles records the events of the battle of Neuve Chapelle in some detail. At the commencement of the battle, Major George Carter-Campbell was second in command of the Battalion. The Commanding Officer of 2nd Scottish Rifles was Lieutenant-Colonel W. M. Bliss, who was killed in the early stages of the attack on 10th March, at which point Major Carter-Campbell assumed command. Major Carter-Campbell was wounded later that day but remained in command of the Battalion. He was wounded a second time in the afternoon of 12th March, at which point he relinquished command and retired to the Regimental Aid Post. Command of the battalion devolved to Second Lieutenant Somervail, the only officer of the battalion not killed or wounded (other than the Quartermaster and Medical Officer), such were the enormous casualties suffered by the battalion. On 17th March, Major Richard Oakley was posted from the 1st Battalion The Cameronians to commence the rebuilding of the shattered 2nd Battalion. One of the first duties Major Oakley undertook was to compile a list of names of officers and men who had distinguished themselves in the battle. As he himself was not a witness to such deeds, Major Oakley had to rely on the testimony and reports of the men who had survived to provide such detail. It is possible that Carter-Campbell was able to feed back his thoughts on those who should be recommended for awards as a result of their actions at Neuve Chapelle, but ultimately it was Major Oakley who made the submission; Colonel Bliss was killed on the 10th of March, Carter-Campbell was in hospital recovering from his wounds. Your uncle is included in this list within the war diary, and of him is written: “No 9786 Pt W. TONGS - Machine Gunner at the taking of the 3rd German trench. The Coy was heavily enfiladed & Pte. TONGS got his gun into position & by opening fire reduced our casualties. It was done under a heavy fire & there was no officers to direct . On the 11th [possibly 12th] he helped to bring a number of wounded men of the Irish Rifles back under a heavy fire.” At the end of the list, Major Oakley qualifies his findings with the following statement: “As regards the whole of the names put forward - owing to the heavy casualties amongst the officers I have not been able to find out all I could wish - but all cases have been personally authenticated by me since joining the Battalion. Apart from 13 officers killed & 9 wounded, 23 full Sergeants & 6 Lance. Sgts were killed or wounded, showing that all were doing their best.” Major Oakley’s list makes no mention of which type of award he recommends for each individual. As it happened, four of the men named were mentioned in dispatches, eight men (including Private Tongs) were awarded Distinguished Conduct Medals, an officer and the Regimental Sergeant Major were awarded the Military Cross, a single officer was awarded the Distinguished Service Order, and two men were further awarded a foreign decoration (one to accompany a mention in dispatches, one to accompany a Distinguished Conduct Medal).

The award of the Distinguished Conduct Medal to Private Tongs was officially announced in the London Gazette dated 3rd June 1915, in which the citation reads as follows: “For conspicuous gallantry at Neuve Chapelle on 10/03/1915, when he brought his MG into position under heavy fire and silenced a German gun which had been doing much damage. It was done under a heavy fire & there was no officers to direct. On 12/03 he rescued wounded men of the Royal Irish Rifles under heavy fire." The wording of the official citation following closely the original statement included in Major Oakley’s list quoted in the war diary. Major Oakley is soon replaced as Commanding Officer by Lieutenant Colonel C. B. Vandeleur, who again was posted from the 1st Battalion to take over Command. On his return from hospital, Major Carter-Campbell resumes his role as second in command and remains as such until the action of 9th May 1915. In this action, the Commanding Officer is again wounded, and Major Carter-Campbell assumes command. This of course is also the action which sees Private Tongs’ fatally wounded, succumbing to his wounds on 12th May 1915. The letter from Major Carter-Campbell, printed in the local newspaper, was written sometime following this action (we are unsure if the date is mentioned in the newspaper article). While it is not unheard of for a senior officer to write home to the family of a deceased soldier, often this was a duty taken on by a soldier’s platoon or company commander rather than the second in command or Commanding Officer. Major Carter-Campbell speaks openly in his letter about Private Tongs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBITS “D”