THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE'S OPPORTUNITY. T HE Duke of Cambridge has
a great opportunity for doing a s gnal public service. The answers given to Mr. Gilbert Parker on Monday by Mr. Akers-Douglas, coupled with Lord Stanley's previous answer to Mr. Arthur Lee, make it absolutely clear that the solution of the question whether the Volunteers are to be excluded from Richmond Park rests absolutely and entirely in the hands of the Ranger,—that is, of the Duke of Cambridge. The Secretary of State for War in his answer to Mr. Lee's question as to what places near London were open for the training of Volunteers virtually repudiated all responsibility on behalf of his Department for the exclusion, and consider- ing Mr. Brodrick's vigilance and earnestness in all that concerns our military efficiency, whether as regards the Regular or the Auxiliary Forces of the Crown, we may, we think, safely assume that he cannot at heart view the exclusion of the Volunteers with anything but regret. Mr.
Akers-Douglas, as Commissioner of Public Works, has also refused, in effect, to take any responsibility for the exclu- sion, for he pointedly informed Mr. Gilbert Parker that all applications as to the use of the Park "are made to the Ranger direct, and considered and settled by him." Speaking in regard to the small area of the Park where local Volunteers are now allowed to drill—only to drill, remember, and not to acquire field training—Mr. Akers- Douglas remarked : "His Royal Highness gives permission to certain local corps to drill in the Park over an area, I should say, of some four or five hundred acres, but as the matter is not dealt with by my Department I cannot with- out notice give the exact acreage." All this means, of course, only one thing,—namely, as we have said, that the Duke of Cambridge has thematter entirely in his own hands. He can if he chooses keep the Park gates shut on the London Volunteers. He can, that is, refuse them the right to learn in the Park duties which they ought to learn, which the War Office is sternly telling them they must learn or else remain unfit to take their part in the scheme of national defence, and which, in fact, they can learn nowhere else. The Duke of Cambridge has undoubtedly the power, and can use it if he likes. On the other hand, the Duke of Cambridge can if he chooses say : Richmond Park is open to the London Volunteers, and in it they can learn their work, and learn it with my hearty goodwill and approval.' If only he will say that, nothing can keep the Park shut to the Volunteers, for the Ranger possesses the power before which all vested interests must bow. Here, then, is the Duke of Cambridge's opportunity.
It is our belief that he will use this opportunity in the way which the country has a right to expect from a gallant soldier who as Commander-in-Chief did much good service for his Sovereign and the nation. The Duke, we cannot forget, is a Prince of a Royal house whose members have never failed when national interests were involved to show a sense of public duty as great as that steadfastness and personal courage which have always marked their race. The Duke of Cambridge does not require to be assured by any newspaper that if he now allows the Volunteers to be trained in Richmond Park the public will not for a moment misunderstand his position or think that he has yielded to popular or journalistic clamour. The country fully realises that up till now there may have been many reasons combining to induce the Duke of Cambridge as Ranger to maintain the rules excluding the Volunteers. The desire of the Volunteers to use the Park might not have been put forward in former days with any great distinctness, and till recently it might very well have seemed to the Duke of Cambridge that it was not clear that the general public would appreciate the use of the Park on Saturday after- noons for the field training a Volunteers. The Duke might very well have argued, as we do not doubt he did in fact argue, that he was in his capacity of Ranger bound to act as a trustee for the public, and that he could not make any changes without some definite indications of public approval in regard to the demand that the Volun- teers should no longer be excluded from the Park. But those indications of public opinion have now been mani- fested, and in a manner which we venture to think must be taken by the Duke of Cambridge as conclusive. The Duke throughout his• career has admitted that public opinion must exercise a great influence on the action of persons possessed of power and authority. But that being the case, a study of public opinion should certainly induce the Duke to open the Park. Take, to begin with, the feeline•p shown in the Press. Of our ' own articles on the subject we cannot, of course, speak, but in regard to the communications of our correspondents such reticence is not necessary. We have received a large number of letters dealing with Richmond Park and the Volunteers. Of these, one, and one only—i.e., the letter of the Under-Secretary of State for the •Colonies—s'iowed approval of the exclusion of the Volunteers from the Park, and even here the condemnation of our view was rather implied than directly expressed. Our other cor- respondents have one and all agreed that the time has come to open the Park. But every one who is at all con- versant with the relations of newspapers to their readers must know that this virtual unanimity is a most sig- nificant fact. It indicates a state of opinion which it is impossible to ignore. But the Spectator has not, of course, been alone in urging the necessity for the opening of the Park. Newspapers of most various shades of opinion and with audiences of very different kinds have been quite as strong as we have in denouncing the absurdity of telling the Volunteers that they must have more field training and then preventing them using the only training ground avail- able. The Morning Post insisted that the matter must be treated as a test case to show whether the Volunteers were to be taken seriously or merely regarded as a plaything of the House of Commons; the St. James's Gazette, which has always shown knowledge as well as zeal on all questions concerning the Volunteers, tore to pieces the preposterous suggestion that the Volunteers were not to be allowed to train in the Park for fear of disturbing the herons ; the Daily Mail twice brought the matter under the notice of its readers ; while the Daily Express in an article of pungent sarcasm reviewed the supposed case for exclusion. We do not, of course, mean to say that there has been nothing written publicly on the other side. For example, the Globe, which we fully admit is a paper with a keen interest in and knowledge of Service questions, seems to favour the exclusion of the Volunteers; but we cannot recall any other newspaper which has dealt with the demand in a hostile spirit. Though Parliament has not yet had an opportunity to debate the matter, the asking of questions by some of the most loyal supporters of the Government, and the reception accorded to the answers by the public opinion of the House, show clearly that the body which is asked to vote £5,000 every year to keep up Richmond Park is not on the side of the herons. The House of Commons could not fail to note that there must be something wrong about a case which can only be maintained by Ministers taking shelter in a heronry. In truth, public opinion has been overwhelmingly on the side of the Volunteers and. against the herons.
We think we have given sufficient proof that the Duke of Cambridge may now feel himself justified by the trend of public opinion in opening the Park to the Volunteers. If he does feel able to do so he will no doubt be personally pleased, for he has always been a friend and supporter Of the Volunteer movement, and he gave the Volunteers help and encouragement at a time when they were not so powerful and popular as they now are. A reason for specially desiring that the Duke of Cambridge should choose the present time to alter the regulations is the fact that there are abundant signs that ° the controversy which has begun is not likely to cease, but is certain to increase in volume. '" But if it does, it will be sure, as all controversies do, to lose its present moderate tone, and to become -violent and irritated. Harsh things are sure to be said when men's passions are aroused, as they always are in a long and eager controversy. We do not, of course, imagine that this aspect of the matter is likely to affect, or perhaps should affect, the mind of the Duke of Cambridge. He would probably be rendered only the more tenacious of any view he had taken up by such suggestions, but his friends would most certainly greatly deplore the outbreak of a long and bitter controversy, and regard it with the utmost dissatisfaction. They would certainly wish that the gallant soldier should not have his well-earned repose embittered by an angry agitation.
The Duke of Cambridge in a recent speech declared with a pride in which we all share that we were an old Monarchy, and that we ought to hold our own "in the spirit of the monarchical institutions under which we had previously existed." We entirely agree with him. The Empire is presided over by a Monarchy, and we are content and glad that it should be so. We yield to none in our loyalty to that Monarchy and in our desire that it shall con- tinue. But we cannot ignore the fact that we are a Monarchy because not only the Sovereign but the Royal Family as a whole have worked for the general good of the nation. That is the spirit—the spirit of public service---which has made the British Monarchy what it is. The present King is a conspicuous example of t he spirit of public service. He has never tried, because he has never wished, to treat public questions on narrow or self-regarding grounds. The Duke of Cambridge, we are certain, need not be reminded that as a member of the Royal house he is called upon to follow the King's example. That, we feel certain, must be the spirit in which he will act now, for he has acted in it in the past. It can only be necessary for him to realise fully the facts of the case as to Richmond Park and the intensity of public feeling in the matter, to induce him to obey the tradition of his house and act as the public welfare demands. That it is a matter of public welfare that our Volunteers should be trained cannot, in our view, be doubted for a moment. If it is not, it is surely little short of madness to spend our money on the Volunteers and to rely upon them in our schemes of military organisation.
Previous page
