THE RIGHTS OF REMEMBRANCE

Hokitika Guardian, 5 January 1931, Page 2

THE RIGHTS OF REMEMBRANCE

WAR MEMORIES. LONDON, November 6. The Daily Telegraph published on November 3 what it describes as “fiery stanzas” by Rudyard Kipling, who puts into tiie mouths of the Socialist Government the ambition to destroy bv “small corroding words” tiie memory of men who gave their lives in the

it is recalled that .when the Daily Telegraph warned the public of the Government's suggestion to other countries that there should be no more ceremonies on the part of official visitors at the tombs of Unknown Soldiers, it was hastily explained on behalf of the Government that the object of this proposal was “the eradication of memories of the Great War. This is not the comment of an enemy; it is the authorised interpretation ; and the offensive folly of it is Mr Kipling’s text. The journal named does not “forget the Prime Minister’s attempt to save himself from his friends. He assured the House of Commons, in one of the most disingenuous explanations which it has ever heard, that other countries wei ; e ill favour of ending official iii-ts of I'eiiiehibl‘alldej and that ‘the one motive which animated the Government was to keep a thing which ought to he a homage of the heart from becoming a mere formality.’ 'Those who can read that Pecksniffian sentence without discomfort must surely he few,” comments the Daily Telegraph, in a leading article. “What Mr MacDonald’s motive may have been is only of interest as a matter of casuistry. What is before the nation is one more example of the Socialist Government's policy of diminishing the solemnity of the rites of remembrance by which we honour the sacrifice of the men who died for the honour of England and the liberties of the world. That such examples should be repeated cannot he accident. How can we interpret them but as revealing the domination of the Government by those fanatics of pacifism who dread that unity of national spirit which saved us in the storm of 1914, and who would if they could destroy the memory of it? The- power of these verses is in their truth.” Here they are :

MEMORIES. “The eradication of memories of the Great War.”—Socialist Government Organ. By Rudyard Kipling. The Socialists Government speak.): Though all the Dead we all forgot And razed Were every tomb, The W’iirin—the Worm that dieth' not—• Compels Us to our doom, Though nil which once was England stands Subservient to Our will, TheJDead of whom we washed Our Hands, They have observance still.

We laid no finger to Their load. We multiplied Their woes. We used Their dearly-opened road To traffic with Their foes; And yet to Them men turn their eyes To them are vows renewed Of faith, Obedience, Sacrifice, Honour and Fortitude! Which things must perish. But our hour Comes not by staves or .swords So much as, subtly, through the power Or .small corroding words. No need to make the plot more plain By any open thrust. But, see Their memory is slain Long ere Their bones are dust! Wisely, but yearly, filch some wreath— Lay some proud rite aside— And daily tarnish with our breath The ends for which They diet!. Distract, deride, decry, confuse—■ (Or —when it serves Us —pray!) So presently We break the use And meaning of Their day. INSULT TO THE WAR DEAD.

In a letter next day, Lord Melchett congratulated Mr Kipling on his magficent poem, and continued:—

Thank heaven someone has realised the enormity of the insult which the Socialist Government is offering to those who died in the war and those who fought in the war and survived. The absurd explanation of a communication to foreign Governments that we do not look on the placing of wreaths on the Unknown Warrior’s grave and the Cenotaph as any longer an official act, but merely to be carried out as an expression of personal sympathy within the discretion apparently of the head of any mission, must be quite unacceptable.

In these kinds of matters there must either be an official protocol or nothing An act of this kind of an official head of a mission representing his nation is meant to imply not a question of personal sentiment but an act of international courtesy to the nation lie is visiting. 1 have been amazed that there has not been a national outburst of indignation against this further attempt to diminish both the sacrifice and the glory of the triumph of the British Empire in the greatest struggle in which ifc has ever been involved.