18 MAY 1962, Page 14

Sie,—A paragraph in 'Spectator's Notebook' on May 11 suggests a

laCk of candour on the part of the Trustees of the Westminster Memorial Trust because it alleges that Moral Re-Armament is not mentioned in a letter to residents in Westminster inviting them to the play, Music at Midnight. It may modify the hurt and harm of this paragraph if we point out that every letter included a leaflet plainly stating at the head of it that the play is presented by the Westminster Memorial Trust in association with Moral Re-Armament. As this item seems to have escaped the notice of your colleague, it occurs to us that it could with advantage be printed on the leaflets more boldly and this is now being done.

The Westminster Theatre is owned, not by Moral Re-Armament, but by the Westminster Memorial Trust. The Trust co-operates in the Christian work of Moral Re-Armament, but is a distinct and separate body with its own constitution. It bought the theatre in 1946 from gifts made by nearly, 3,000 men and women to honour the memory of members of their families and friends who gave their lives in the war; hence the title of the Trust.

In the play now running at the Westminster Theatre, Moral Re-Armament as such is not men- tioned from first to last. The sponsors prefer to let their audiences see the implication—with or with- out Moral Re-Armament—for themselves. In the first ten days the play was seen by 6,718 people and the house was full or almost full at every per- formance. The theatre remains full each night. Many of the people who have come knew little or nothing of Moral Re-Armament and we are happy to report that they have been almost unanimously enthusiastic about the quality and content of the play. The 'House Full' notice has been out many times, but there should be room for readers of 'Spectator's Notebook' who would like to book seats and see for themselves whether anything that the Westminster Memorial Trustees or Moral Re- Armament have said, or have failed to say, in presenting this play really merits what they felt was an ungenerous paragraph.

J. G. HASSELL