THE DEFENCE LEAGUE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXII, 19 April 1939, Page 11

THE DEFENCE LEAGUE

ITo The Eiitorl Sir, —Although Mr Lorimer has apparently given up hope of dealing with the varied questions, two or three others have taken up the cudgels on his behalf. We feel it is not necessary to deal with the letter of Grace Fox who agrees with us on one point, at least, though the clergy, who are concerned in that point, keep a tactful silence. No doubt they feel the justice of the point and are taking their little beating in brave silence. They grin and bear it. There are various odd invitations for cur representative to call at the offices of the Defence League and there discuss matters. Our object in conducting this enquiry is not to hamper the League if its objects are reasonable, nor to hinder it if otherwise, but merely to make public the aims and methods of the League, and we can see no advantage to be gained from the hole-and-corner methods the League's spokesmen wish us to adopt. One correspondent has suggested half-a-crown be sent in to allow the Society to join the League. Whether hi* accepts the assurance or not is immaterial, but we can assure him that one half-crown would not be enough to cover the members of this organisation. And in any case general meetings of the League, even meetings of the General Committee of the League, are held so rarely in Nelson that most of the gallant 500 signed-up members already in have little opportunity to join in its councils.

Mr Stedman has kindly published the platform of the League. No doubt the League also has a constitution of some k;nd. Perhaps Mr Stedman will let us know how often general meetings should be held. We should think that since, according to information we have received, Nelson is the most active centre of the League, it could afford to hold meetings here as often as possible. We are also informed that although this is the most enthusiastic centre the general committee could only get an attendance of four out of several tens last time. This makes us wonder just l.ow much real enthusiasm there is in the League. What percentage of its members belong to the Territorial forces? How many are joined up with the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve? How many have made a special contribution to the Government for the purchase of fighting plans? And how many, if any, have thought of giving the Government credit for its work in forming a very efficient body of Defence forces.

Will Mr Stedman tell us why the matters that come under Army Law and King’s Regulations should not be the concern of the League? Our point here is that anything that makes for a happy and efficient body of men should come within the scope of a body bearing the Defence League’s name. Some Army Law is positively vicious in our opinion, while the King’s Regulations contain a good deal of stupidity. For example, there are few Territorials that would not thank the Defence League for having its buttons blackened. A small point? Military efficiency and soldier’s comfort is built up of small points.

May we suggest that the Nelson branch 6f the Defence League should organise a march of its members through the town on a Friday night shortly, and then we shall all see just w’ ' these patriotic Leaguers are, and no doubt the display will be sufficiently inspiring to cause many others to join the ranks. We offer the suggestion in a spirit of Christian helpfulness, merely adding as an afterthought that on no account should the clergy be allowed to “spreach” as that would discourage the the ungodly through boredom while proving, if the text was about not hitting back, that the godly should not be in the ranks of the Defence League at all.—l am, etc.,

THE SOCIETY FOR INVESTIGATION OF THE DEFENCE LEAGUE. Nelson, 15th April. [This correspondent has received more than a generous share of our space, and the correspondence is now closed.]