PRIVATE ARMIES

Evening Post, Volume CXVII, Issue 114, 16 May 1934, Page 9

PRIVATE ARMIES

ARISING IN BRITAIN

A NEW SOURCE OF DANGER

GOVERNMENT ACTION ?

"The growing danger of public disturbances which the police attribute to the wearing of what may conveniently be called political uniforms is shown by the fact that the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis reports that in the first six months of 1933 there were in the Metropolitan Police district 11 disturbances of a political character attributed to this cause, while in the last six months of the year there have been no fewer than 22 such disturbances. The whole question is engaging my serious consideration." —Sir John Gilmbur, Home Secretary. The important statement1 made by the Home Secretary, quoted above, was followed the next day by a speech by Sir John Simon, which, it is generally taken for granted, expresses the' view of the Government, say 3 "Public Opinion." It is believed that the speech indicates action in the near ±uture against all political societies which wear uniforms, have drills, and carry on other work of a physical character, which might be a menace to the constitutional government of the British people. Sir John Simon said:— "There is this special objection to this sort of thing—the existence of one private and unauthorised force inevitably tends to call into existence another. If people start expressing their political ideas, not' only by the colour of their shirts, but by preparations to demonstrate their physical force, there will be more colours than one, we may end by finding ourselves black and blue in tire scuffle, and we shall be in danger of losing the practice as well as the doctrine of that common citizenship in which one opinion is as free as another, and undivided public authority is respected becauso it deals put equal treatment according to law. '' SLIPPING BACK. »' "That would mean slipping back into a different conception of political organisation which is not the least an improvement'on British practice, and which inevitably tends to rival attempts at bullying people we do not happen to like. ... It is the essence of British political liberty that justice should be administered with complete impartiality and as speedily as possible; that those who are proved innocent should receive and enjoy their freedom; that governing should be carried on under the authority of a Parliamentary Government; and that order should be kept by responsible authorities, for whom Ministers of the Crown and elected local bodies arc answerable. By these means, and no other, Britain at least can be made 'safe for democracy.' "

"In order that those who arc giving attention to .this subject," writes Lord Allen of Hurt wood, 'in "The Times," "may become aware of the manner in which it has already been dealt ivith in other countries, I thought it might be of some value if public opinion were acquainted with the exact form of wording used by the Swedish Government in its law. dealing with this problem. The following is the relevant clause:—

t _ His Majesty the King may, when it is thought necessary for the safeguarding of order and security, prohibit the wearing of uniforms or similar articles of clothing used to indicate the wearer's political opinions, buch prohibition shall also apply to any part of ; a uniform, ■ armlets, or similar distinctive marks.'

"It will be noted that the power taken is discretionary, ana only relates to uniforms used to indicate a political opinion. This form of word; mg seems to me eminently practical and wise and well worth consideration in. this country."

DISASTROUS RESULTS. "From beginning to end these things whether organised from the Left or from the Right," asserts the "Sunday Times," "are attempts to copy in this country something which has been done already on the Continent, and done there with disastrous consequences to the liberties which we here hold dear. "The mischief, happily, has as yet not gone far with us; but that is no reason for tolerating its growth. It is a mischief which, as the foreign examples show, can only be suppressed « tackled at an early stage. Once let it develop to the point where each important party has an 'army' of its own, and you may find no Government in a position to take the only kind of action which is effective. "Uniforms, however, are only a small part of the. matter. Drilling, arming, ana military organisation are at least £ s *f portant. The gunmen of the old J.K.A. did not bother about uniforms; they found it easier to perpetrate their "■"« murders in plain clothes. The marchers wear no uniforms either. Technical difficulties about dealing with the evil by legislation are, no doubt, considerable. The drafting of a Bill or an Order reasonably free from objection will call for muck thought and skill. One assumes from Sir John Gilmour's statement that the Home Office has set its experts to the

« J xTThe^ firsfc in stinct," points" out the f'WChronicle," "o/tbe ordTnarl Englishman was to laugh at these private 'armies' of black, green, and blueshirted young men. They seemed to Aim grotesque: as indeed they arc ■ His second instinct, was one of mere irritation. He considered them a nuisance; and that, too, they: aro showing themselves to be.' SHOWN ELSEWHERE, "But these 'armies' may easily become something much more than this, if they are suffered to multiply • "What they may become has been shown in the anarchy of Ireland and the Nazi tyranny in Germany; in tho horrors of the Austrian civil war, and the 'beatings up' and murders which signalised the rise of Fascism in Italy • ,V S al} very well t0 say that notu-' ing like these disorders could happen an this country. They could not happen at present because the authority of the police is unquestioned by all but a tiny minority of the population. But to permit these private, unauthorised iorces is to undermine the 'undivided public authority' to which we have all hitherto trusted. Their mere existence is a challenge to it." "No one could object to their taking to themselves, say, a metal badge if they would be content with that amount of exhibitionism," says the "Manchester Guardian," referring to the alleged difficulty of finding a definition of what is or is not "political." It goes on to say:—

"All kinds of people -do it; some countries simply love it. It would be quite easy for police and Law Courts to distinguish between those social movements—exceedingly few—in which some sort of semi-military display is regarded as legitimate and those political movements where it is not. "Spveral enlightened countries of the Continent have found it perfectly possible to frame a sufficiently adequate definition to incorporate in their ban on the wearing of political uniforms. There is no reason why Britain could' not."

The "Observer" thinks that if the Government does its work with efficiency it need not trouble about political shirts of any hue. It says:— "If in this country the aense of na-

tional unity were spontaneously to demand textile expression, it might well take the form of a national guard to protect essential services in emergency. But of such a rejoinder to partisan shirtings there is as yet no sign because no need.

"Nevertheless,, this present tendency towards an emblematic dress half-way between civil clothes and military uniform must not be dismissed as un-Eng-lish and therefore ridiculous. It is, in two aspects, a real though inadequate expression of the democratic temper. In the first place it makes visible that unity in equality which is the very essence of democracy.

"In the second place it Tefieets the democratic zeal for efficiency. It is not an accident that the garment chosen to indicate political adherence is a shirt, not a blazer; people take their coats off to work. What a Na.tional Government must justify its existence by showing is that dictatorship is not merely bad politics, but that it is wholly unnecessary as a means for getting urgent work done."