BRITISH ARMY (PAGEANTS). (Hansard, 8 July 1930)

§ Mr. RAMSBOTHAM
The matter that I desire to raise arises out of an astonishing decision by the Secretary of State for War in regard to a local pageant at Lancaster, in my constituency. His decision involves disallowing the participation of some 50 men from the local depot of the King's Own Royal Regiment of Lancaster to participate in this pageant. The matter has considerable national as well as local interest, and in view of the widespread indignation and surprise among my constituents, I desire to put to the right hon. Gentleman the local considerations. I hope that when he has heard the arguments he will reconsider his decision and soften his heart.
One of the main objects of this pageant is to provide funds for the local Royal Infirmary, and the men of the depot use this infirmary, so it may well be contended that their participation as individuals—some 50 of them—in the pageant is really a subscription in kind. In the second place, there have been for many years the most friendly relations between the local regiment and the townspeople, and successions of commanding officers have done their utmost to maintain and cultivate these relations. The presence of these few men in this pageant would go much further to augment the position of friendliness which very largely prevails between the civilians and the military.
The third reason is the very long association of the regiment with the town, 390 which makes it extremely fitting in any celebration of the age-long history of Lancaster, one of the most important histories of any town in the United Kingdom, that some of the men of the local regiment should take part in celebrating the annals and traditions of this town. Fourthly, the participation of these men will undoubtedly benefit recruiting. The commanding officer himself writes: I am of opinion that it will be beneficial to recruiting and in these days I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman cannot very well overlook a consideration of that kind.
What is the objection that he makes? The objection is that the participation of these men will greatly interfere with training. May I read what the commanding officer says: I am of opinion that, if sanctioned, there will be little interference with training. Two rehearsals will suffice, and the hours of three to six from the 4th to the 9th August will not be a serious handicap. After all, this pageant is held once in 10 years, and perhaps not so often. Six afternoons absence from training in 10 years is all that it involves, and one of those days is a Bank holiday and another a Saturday. I should imagine that in any event the troops would not train in the afternoon. Even if they do, and there is a general willingness to play up to this pageant, surely the commanding officer would have the co-operation of the men in doing a little extra training to make up for the few hours that they have lost. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, with great respect, that if he would reflect upon this further he would surely be minded to reconsider this very reasonable request, which would do a great deal of good.
I cannot help thinking that the excuse that it will interfere with training is somewhat of a flimsy and trivial nature. As regards precedents, only last year the Border Regiment took part in the Carlisle pageant, and I believe that even more recently the North Staffords took part in the Stoke pageant. Why should the men of Lancaster be singled out as an exception? I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is nothing in the way of a tattoo, and that there are no military ceremonials which would possibly instil a warlike spirit into the civilians who watch them. There is an altogether 391 peaceful ceremonial, and one in which the soldiers will, of course, be acting as individuals, and not performing any exciting evolutions.
I would add that the men will be fully insured, and that there will be no charge whatever on the public funds. I earnestly appeal to the Secretary of Sate for War to treat, as I know he would in his heart, this matter in a common-sense and kindly fashion, and not to be led away by some stiff-necked bureaucrat or Prussian that he has in his Department, who regards this absence from training for a few hours in one week as something that cannot be tolerated, and for which we must forego the very valuable and necessary presence of these comparatively few men.

§ Commander SOUTHBY
This has a much wider application than my hon. Friend's constituency. All over the country men have been allowed in the past to take part in various celebrations for local charities and for various good works, and surely it is a new departure for the Secretary of State in the most arbitrary spirit to prevent the participation of the men, who are only too anxious to give their services for good works. In very few cases are these men paid. If they choose to give their help to some pageant or some hospital celebration, they ought, as free subjects, to be allowed to do so, particularly when their commanding officer is able to give a certificate that in no way will the public service be injured. My hon. Friend has referred to the autocrat who sits on the Front Bench. What is he afraid of? If he is afraid of militarism, this is an autocratic and tyrannical action of a kind that might well be taken in the most autocratic and tyrannical of countries. I ask that we should continue to act on a precedent which has never been abused, and which is perfectly innocent, namely, that the men of His Majesty's forces should be allowed to take their part when they see fit in any good work that is going on, so long as it does not interfere in any way with their public service. I ask that we should not be swayed by an autocratic order given by a right hon. Gentleman whose zeal, however sincere, sometimes outruns his discretion.

§ The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw)
The hon. Member who raised the question talked about the astonishing decision that was taken in the Lancaster case. Surely he knows that this decision has been communicated long before Lancaster made an application at all and that there has been no complaint that Lancaster has been singled out. He may take it for granted that the Secretary of State for War will never be tempted to minimise the importance of Lancaster under any circumstances whatever. Lancashire is as dear to me as it is to the hon. Member. My family has lived there for hundreds of years and Lancashire in my mind is not a place that is to be slighted in any way. I have heard about indignation and surprise too. I do not doubt that indignation and surprise have been aroused, if the people of Lancaster are labouring under the impression that their town has been specially selected for a slight. May I assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing is further from the truth. He has read extracts from a letter from the officer commanding the depot. I have no knowledge whatever of that letter, but it is extraordinary that an officer in that position should not communicate his observations to his superiors.

§ Mr. RAMSBOTHAM
This is a copy of a letter written to the Quartermaster-General at Fulwood Barracks, Preston.

HON. MEMBERS
Withdraw!

§ Mr. SHAW
I withdraw nothing. I simply state that I will examine the matter and get to know how it is that this has never been brought to my notice. I think I have a right, as Secretary of State, when matters are to be raised in Parliament, and letters quoted, to be in possession of the letters in order that I may make inquiries before the letter is definitely quoted to the House. The very decencies of debate demand that when statements of this kind are made the responsible Minister should know in advance in order that he may check the information and be able to deal with the subject.

§ Mr. RAMSBOTHAM
I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman, and I understood from him that he had made full inquiries, and I naturally assumed that official documents of this kind would be in his possession.

§ Mr. SHAW
The hon. Gentleman wrote to me, and I think I will quote the letter which I wrote to him in reply, in order that we may form some idea as to what has been going on. The hon. Member will perhaps forgive me, however; I have only four minutes left, and if I read the letter, it will prevent me from giving a short statement of the policy of the Department. That policy, arrived at on the advice of the responsible military members of the Army Council, is that, with the exception of definitely permitted tattoos on a large scale, these individual demonstrations of troops at depots should not be permitted on the ground that they have interfered with the training of recruits. That rule has been applied to everybody without exception. It may be that the military members are wrong, but it cannot be argued that their decision has been taken on any grounds whatever except on grounds which they consider to be in the interests of the Army.
This application was made at the end of September last. The East Lancashire Area was definitely informed on 22nd October last that the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief did not approve of the employment of troops in the way suggested, and that the final decision as to the band would rest with the Genera] Officer Commanding the Alder-shot Command. The officer was informed quite definitely that this decision was taken on the general ground that these demonstrations interfered with training. I venture to sug- 394 gest to hon. Members opposite that you cannot have a rule which you apply piece-meal. If you make a rule, it must be applied to all.
The decision that has been arrived at was stated by myself in the House and the House was certainly under no misapprehension as to the decision taken, because the answers were very clear and definite. They may be mistaken answers, but there is no truth in the claim that it has not been made quite definite and clear to the House that with the exception of the tattoo at Alder-shot, the tattoo at Tidworth and a tattoo at one of the commands in addition, demonstrations by depots would in future be prohibited on training grounds. I want to say, quite definitely, that there is no intention of slighting any one particular town. The decision was taken in a general way and without the least specific reference to any particular town. I am still of the opinion that the military advice tendered to me on this matter is at least as worthy of consideration as any advice that I have had on the matter from any other source. Personally, while I should very much regret the suggestion that I have been in any way discourteous to Lancaster, I cannot see my way to change the decision which has been reached.