Our Pessimists in War Time
Category Archives: Home Front
Slackness in War-Time
THERE have been many signs lately that seem to betray a growing slackness up Fields, a steady falling-off in the interest which should be accorded to games. This has been manifested in various ways : failure to cross one’s name out on the games’ lists, an omission which causes immense trouble ; a disinclination to play football at all on the part of the boys high up in the School ; a wretched attendance, or rather lack of it, at matches, and, as a correspondent points out in this issue, a painful lack of enthusiasm in those who are on the ground, which contrasts vividly with the interest and excitement displayed by the ‘railings.’
This spirit may be charitablyattributed to the War, the universal scapegoat. It is hard nowadays to concentrate even on work, when other work is going on elsewhere that seems so much more engrossing, so much more vital. And it is certainly doubly difficult to find the necessary enthusiasm and energy for games ; indeed many acutely feel the incongruity of their employment when they go up Fields in footer’ change, and have to pass along Victoria Street with its ample numbers of men in khaki, and perhaps a recruiting sergeant hovering near. Now we can only do this without misgiving, and we can only play games as they should be played, with heart and soul, if we are obsessed by the conviction that we are doing the right thing ; and there is no doubt that we are doing the right thing.
If there is one thing this War has made manifest, it is the worth of that much-maligned being, the Public School Man. We cannot be accused of undue pessimism, we think, when we say that the Public School Man is still in great demand, and is likely to be for some considerable time. Therefore the supply must equal the demand. ‘Very true,’ says our advocatus diaboli, ‘but are games necessary at the present time ? ‘We might content ourselves with pointing out that games are an integral part, and no unimportant one, of that system which has produced the men who are so lightheartedly and efficiently officering our armies. But what else can be suggested in their place ? Some form of physical exercise is necessary, especially in London. What about the corps ?’ says our imaginary opponent with commendable promptitude; let us devote all our energy to that, and play no games at all.’ Now this is a specious argument, and the rejection of it would seem to imply a lack of patriotism ; but we do riot think it sound or practicable, although such questions of course must eventually rest in other hands than ours. If we were in the country, and could devote unlimited time to field work, or even if we were so efficient in our drill that we could pay proper attention to physical exercises, then perhaps the question might be considered. By all means take every care that games do not interfere with military duties, which must be paramount nowadays, but, nevertheless, carry on with the games.
All of us, no doubt, have marvelled at the popular catch-word, ‘Business as usual,’ and thanked God that England has not been doing her business as usual during the past year. No ; our duty is to do our business with ten times more zeal than usual, with ten times more energy, with ten times more conviction.
And let us not be deterred by its nature. Whether it be military duties, the most congenial business, or work in School, which is work after all, as we, no doubt, say subconsciously to ourselves, but also if it be games, let us put our whole soul into it, as surely as some day we hope to put our whole soul into a grimmer and more exacting game.
From The Elizabethan, November 1915
The Geography of the Western Front
On Saturday, October 3o, Capt. H. A. Wootton delivered to a large and appreciative audience a most interesting lecture on ‘The Geography of the Western Front.’ He dealt with the front in sections, illustrating his remarks by diagrams on the blackboard, and gave us many illuminating details about places with such familiar names as Ypres, Hooge, Hill 6o, &c. Since the maps formed an integral part of his discourse, it is impossible to report his lecture at length, and we hope that this will be a suitable punishment for those who let slip the opportunity of hearing Capt. Wootton.
The War should not prevent the performance of the Latin Play
The House met on Thursday, October 21, to discuss the motion that ‘ In the opinion of this House the War should not prevent the performance of the Play.’
The Proposer (Mr. MEYER) said that the Play being one of the School’s most treasured institutions should certainly not be stopped. He saw no reason why we should not have some diversion, andit is good for us to be cheered up every now and then. Terence’s plays certainly were not frivolous. The working and acting of the Play would be very much more difficult when none of those taking part in it had ever seen a play.
The Opposer (the SECRETARY) said that the Play was stopped in the first year of the Crimea, which was far less important than this war. If the Play was not frivolous, the epilogue most certainly was. We could not possibly have a play without the epilogue. Other public schools had given up many of their most treasured institutions. If other schools give up theirs, why shouldn’t we give up ours ? If theatres were stopped owing to the war, numbers of people would be thrown out of work, whereas the Westminster Play, as Mr. Meyer had said, was entirely run by the School, and consequently no one would be thrown out of work if we did not have it.
The Seconder (The PRESIDENT) said that the Secretary was quite wrong, and that there was a play at the time of the Crimean war. The Play had not been stopped at all in the last century, not even in the Napoleonic wars, except out of compliment to the Royal Family when a prominent member of it had died. He quite agreed that it was not right for us to criticise at this time, and that consequently we could not have an epilogue, but could we not have some sort of commemorative address? There were certain details with regard to the Play that people could not have drummed into them.
Mr. ABRAHAMS said that the sentimental. side of the question could not possibly be neglected. One did not want uproarious laughter nowadays. He gave us a quotation from the Famulus, and said that that was not the sort of thing we wanted at this time. This terrible war, into which all Europe was now plunged, was a far greater calamity than the death of a king. If we stopped the Play for that, surely it was our duty to stop it now. If the actors found that there was only a small audience, it would have a very bad effect upon them.
Mr. HERBERT told us that the newspapers last year, discussing the fact that ‘Westminster was not having its Play, said that it was exceedingly good taste.
The SECRETARY pointed out that it would be no more of a blow to us not to have the Play than it was to Eton and Harrow not to have their usual match at Lord’s.
Mr. OLIVER said that the only reason why the Eton and Harrow match did not take place at Lord’s was that Lord’s was not open.
Mr. SIMPSON suggested that now that we were more settled and in less of a panic we might have the Play again.
The SECRETARY disputed that we were settled and knew where we were.
The PRESIDENT said that we must certainly find out whether various influential Old Westminsters approved or not.
The motion was then put to the vote and carried by 14 votes to 7.
John Wyndham Hamilton McCulloch
John was the only son of John Exley McCulloch of Paddington. He was born in December 1894,and arrived up Ashburnham in 1909.
He took part in the debating society. A report in The Elizabethan, notes that “On Thursday, October 19, the House met to discuss the following motion, ‘That in the opinion of this House the advantages of a boarding school are exaggerated.’ÔǪ The Seconder (Mr J.W. McCulloch), dwelt upon the splendid discipline of home life; in a moment of confidence, he gave the Society a glimpse of himself seated over his books in a lonely attic, from which the ‘injusta noverca’ forbade him to stir”.
However, his primary interest at school was sports and his contemporaries said he was a “useful” player. He earned a pink in both Cricket and Football and, in 1913, he played cricket for Middlesex.
On the 4th November 1914, he enlisted as 2nd Lieutenant for the 8th (Service) Battalion Border Regiment, and became Lieutenant the following February. He was serving as a temporary Captain when he was wounded in Flanders on the 20th October 1915.
He died of his injuries at Bailleul the following day.
This House would welcome the revival of Sumptuary Laws
The House met on Thursday, October 14, to discuss the motion that ‘ This House would welcome the revival of Sumptuary Laws.’
The Proposer (Mr. TURBERVILLE) began by defining sumptuary laws ; he said that they limited expenditure in food, furniture, apparel, &c., and had first appeared in Rome during the third century before Christ, but had obtained since in some form or other in all civilised countries. He pointed out that people were failing to economise now, not because they were unwilling, but because they did not realise the pressing need for it ; legislation would help them to realise this need. At the present moment we were doing nothing to prepare ourselves to bear the burden of the great debt which would ensue from the war ; we should merely shift it on to the shoulders of generations to come. Ordinary taxes press hardest on the lower classes, while it is those higher up in the social scale who indulge in reckless expenditure, subversive to the interests of the country and, at the present time, of the world. We had had enough of appealing pamphlets, and it was time that legislation should be introduced. Mr. Turberville has a hesitating delivery and tendency to repeat himself, but he brought out the main points of his case.
The Opposer (Mr. HARROD) said that there were two ways in which sumptuary laws might be introduced. A mild Government might limitexpenditure in certain articles, the number of which would be gradually increased ; this would only turn the attention of the population to articles to which no limit of expenditure was laid down, and the evil would increase ; there were sumptuary laws at Rome, but Rome fell because of her indulgence in luxury. Secondly, a determined Government might prohibit all luxuries at one fell swoop. No Englishman would stand this, we are too jealous of our private life. Some other remedy must be found to limit extravagance. It was absurd to let people possess excessive wealth, and then make laws to prevent them using it. Such steps as the nationalisation of railways and the revision of our laws of inheritance must be taken to ensure an even distribution of wealth. Mr. Harrod made a brief recapitulation of the chief points of his speech, and then sat down ; he speaks well, though his method of delivery is apt to grate on the nerves.
The Seconder (Mr. ELLIS) spoke so fast and so indistinctly that it was almost impossible to gather the drift of his argument. He suggested that such legislation might help to alleviate poverty. As for the impracticability of such measures, he thought the dropping of Mr. Lloyd George’s Bill dealing with drink a disgrace to the nation. Personally he thought sumptuary laws would be welcome.
Mr. GREIG added his theory of the history of sumptuary laws, with special reference to any such legislation obtaining at any time in England. There were sumptuary laws at present in force in the shape of taxes on foodstuffs. After a quotation from Horace he brought his speech to an end.
The PRESIDENT then disputed several of Mr. Harrod’s statements, after which he sat down.
Mr. BRANDON-THOMAS said that nothing would stop a man having drink. If you tried to abolish luxury you would throw thousands of dressmakers and clothworkers out of work. You couldn’t abolish luxury without hurting others.
Mr. HERBERT pointed out that the expense of assessing everybody’s level of luxury would be tremendous.
After a final definition by the VICE-PRESIDENT the motion was put to the vote and lost by 6 votes to 11
The present situation renders Conscription imperative, continued
Mr. BRANDON-THOMAS referred people who said conscription would not work to the example of France. The idea that one volunteer is worth three conscripts seemed to rankle in his mind, and he eulogised the German soldier’s fighting qualities. After a brief tirade against strikers, he resumed his seat.
The PRESIDENT deplored the lack of definition hitherto painfully evident in the speeches of the House. He considered that conscription should refer to all branches of work such as munition making, not only to active service. He fiercely resented Mr. Brandon-Thomas’s desire to win the war by hook or crook ; but conscription was not slavery, it was elementary justice. Of course we wanted more men, and there were plenty to get. If the people refused to have conscription, they must go under and Democracy be proved a failure.
The VICE-PRESIDENT wanted to know how we were to discriminate between who should go and who not. He made the extraordinary remark that our Government was as autocratic as that of Germany, citing the Prime Minister as an example.
Mr. JACKSON considered we could avoid the difficulty by letting our colonies have conscription and fight for us.
Mr. ABRAHAMS pointed out the impertinence of this suggestion. He denied that we should not be able to free ourselves from conscription after the war.
Mr. HARROD made a fierce attack on the ethics of conscription. It was Great Britain’s sacred duty to uphold the cause of freewill. She had forgotten it in America, in India. Let her not forget it again. The failure of the voluntary system would entail a defeat greater than any Germany could inflict upon us.
Mr. BRANDON-THOMAS denied this, and asked if the House considered France a country of slaves with no regard for freewill. With reference to Mr. Jackson’s remark, he waxed eloquent over the ‘ Yellow Peril.’
The Debate then resolved itself into a series of isolated quarrels, the fiercest being that between the President and Mr. Harrod on the rights of the individual.
After a final summing up by the VICE-PRESIDENT the motion was put to the House, and carried by 12 votes to nine.
The present situation renders Conscription imperative
THE House met on Thursday, September 30, to discuss the motion ‘ That in the opinion of this House the present situation renders Conscription imperative.’
The Proposer (Mr. J. R. BRANDON-THOMAS) laid emphasis on the words ‘ the present situation.’ More men were wanted and were not forthcoming, nor were they likely to join after a year’s refusal, and this knowledge would have a prejudicial effect on our men at the Front. He did not think we had come out very well in the war so far ; we had had the usual quarrels with the Labour Party, for instance. That sort of thing didn’t happen in France or Germany. Why not ? Because the culprits were immediately called to the colours, for there is conscription in those countries. The chief difficulty, the Proposer considered, was how conscription was to be worked, and this was outweighed by its advantages. The chief of these was, perhaps, that the country had absolute knowledge of its own strength ; lack of organisation was the chief fault of the Voluntary System. He finished by commenting on the disgraceful methods of recruiting by advertisements and bribery now obtaining in this country, and poured scorn on the theory that a volunteer was worth three conscripts. Mr. Brandon-Thomas is a very fluent orator, but his speeches usually lack cohesion and arrangement.
The Opposer (The TREASURER) began by accusing Mr. Brandon-Thomas of being a militarist, and of showing the spirit against which we are fighting. Conscription, in plain words, was slavery. He then proceeded to draw some parallels from history : Germany was driven to conscription, because she was a country of small States which had to be held together by some tie. France virtually had conscription during the Napoleonic wars, and had not been able to get rid of it since, also she had Germany on her borders. Italy also had consisted of small States. Therefore all parallels from foreign countries failed in our case. Voluntary service was the only way to oppose German militarism, and the adoption of conscription after a year’s war would be an admission that the ideals of our country had been found wanting. He stated that no country could possibly put more than ten per cent. of its population in the field, and in our case this amounted to nearly four and a half millions. We had already over four millions training or in the field. England provided an immense amount of equipment for herself and her Allies, and therefore required a great industrial army. After pointing out the disruption which conscription would cause in the country, he denied the Opposer’s statement as toour lack of organisation. The Treasurer speaks with great conviction, but his delivery is halting and frequently inaudible.
The Seconder (Mr. A. ABRAHAMS) , with the help of a great many statistics, informed the House that there were at least one and a half million men who were able to join the Forces. Conscription, he considered, would be fairer and more economical all round. As to the ‘ volunteer worth three conscripts ‘ fallacy, Napoleon practically conquered the world with a conscript army. He said that the Opposer’s views were those of a sentimentalist, and, after informing the House that he knew twenty-seven slackers, sat down.
The VICE-PRESIDENT said that whatever Napoleon did with a conscript army, he was in the end beaten by Wellington with a voluntary army. He then rivalled Mr. Abrahams in the production of statistics, which entirely disagreed with any the Society had hitherto heard. He enlarged on the Opposer’s argument that we need a great industrial army. He finished by pointing out the impossibility of training so many men in such a short time.
Mr. BRANDON-THOMAS again rose and said that the ideal of voluntaryism was good, but it would not win the war. Games at School, if voluntary, were scantily attended ; some form of compulsion was necessary. He drew a somewhat confused parallel between Russian peasants and British labourers.
The debate was then adjourned till the next meeting.
Alfred Crosfield Vernor Miles
Alfred Miles joined his elder brother Cyril up Grant’s in September 1908. He seemed set to follow in his brother’s footsteps as a gifted sportsman, winning the Junior Gymnastic Competition in his second term at the school, and reaching the semi-finals for the under-16 100 yards later in the year. He sat the Challenge in June, and was elected to a non-resident King’s Scholarship.
In March 1909, there was an outbreak of measles at the school, and Alfred was one of those who succumbed to the illness. In the boredom of convalescence, he turned to causing mischief. His head of house, Lawrence Tanner, wrote in his diary on Monday April 5th 1909: “ÔǪsome Grantites had been throwing water on to Rigaudites playing in a yard tie, from one of the upper windows. It turned out to be the ‘measlers’ Radford and Miles.”
Throughout his time at the school, Alfred was an active member of the Debating Society and prone to “rhetorical outbursts”. The society’s debate on Civilisation on 8th of February 1912 was reported in The Elizabethan:
Mr. A.C.V. Miles, in the course of some Hobsonian and irrelevantremarks, informed the Societythat the had picked up Civilisation in the streets (according to our reporter), and that he had also found itgrowingon walls, rotten trees, dry sponges, and precipitous abysses.
Alfred took part in the OTC, and was promoted to the rank of Sergeant in his final year of school. After year of being articled to his father, a solicitor of Hampstead, he enlisted in the 1st Battalion Artists’ Rifles in August 1914. By April 1915, Alfred was a 2nd Lieutenant in the 2nd Battalion Welsh Regiment. He was sent out to the Western front in October 1914, where his brother Cyril joined him the following March.
It was near Vermelles, France, and while he was acting as a Brigade Wiring Officer, that Alfred was killed on 24th August 1915.
Artillery
