TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE SOLDIER'S DUTY IN TUMULT AND RIOT.
THERE is no reason why strikes should lead to riot and bloodshed, though too often they do so. The right to strike, however inconvenient to the community, is recognized, and rightly recognized, here—though not in Soviet Russia, remember—as an inalienable right. If a man cannot withhold his labour—subject to any contracts he has made in regard to notice or to some imperative need during a war—he is a slave. Just as no man can be forced to employ, so no man can be forced to work. That being so, there is no reason why strikes should lead to physical conflict. Unfortunately, however, the men who claim the right not to work also claim a right to exercise a veto upon the work of others. Hence comes the strike riot. Such rioting is often made to look as if the State, at the orders of the employers, were trying to drive the strikers back to work. As a matter of fact, no such thing is ever done or even contemplated, except in Russia. There, as also in France under Robespierre and the Terror, the workman is not allowed the right to strike. The notion of forcing men by the rifle and the bayonet to produce against their will has never crossed the brain of even the most haughty of British Bureaucrats or the most fantastic of Capitalists. We doubt if even Mr. and Mrs. Sidney Webb contemplate it as one of the reserve forces of the Socialist State. We feel sure Mrs. Snowden does not.
But though there seems so little excuse for a recourse to force during a modern strike, we know, unhappily, that Labour conflict, if unduly prolonged, often ends in street- fighting or something very like it. It is most necessary, then, that those who may be called upon to prevent or to put down attempts to use physical force by physical force should be fully instructed as to how they are to act in case of conflict. Needless to say, it is impossible to foresee the future and the circumstances under which riots will arise, but it is, on the other hand, quite possible to enunciate principles for the guidance of magistrates, soldiers and police, and to lay down certain broad rules for their action.
In the first place, the human instruments employed to prevent the destruction of Public Order must be made to feel that they will not be deserted by their chiefs, however great the temptation : they will not be thrown to the wolves or sacrificed upon the altar of Opportunism. They must know beyond all doubt that as long as they act in good faith and without malice, and do not violate their orders, they will bo protected. For example, if an officer in charge of police or soldiers is told to prevent a mob from proceeding down a particular street, and if in carrying out the order there is great loss of life, the blame, if any, must fall on those who gave the order, not on those who executed it. Next, this sound principle must not be kept in form but violated in fact by orders being cast in an ambiguous mould. Orders must not " hedge " or seek by subtly contrived words to place the responsibility upon those who carry them out and not upon those who give them. So much for the over-mastering principle. It is possible, however, to be more specific. (1) Those who have to deal with mobs or any form of tumultuous or angry assembly must be warned never to show hesitation or indecision, nor to exhibit any doubts as to what their orders are or how they are to carry them out. A group of men without a fixed plan or policy is sure to be overwhelmed. (2) Next, those on whom is imposed the duty of maintaining order in perilous times must never let their opponents know how they mean to deal with a certain situation if it should arise. There may, in fact, be only one way possible ; but even if there is, it should never be stated. Omne ignotum is the soundest of principles. The unknown is always far more impressive than the known. If the officer looks determined but gives not the slightest clue as to what his action will be, rumour in the crowd will soon build a romance as to the awful things to be expected. (3) Next comes the often violated, buenever safely violated, rule, " If you have recourse to shooting, remember that half-measures may be your ruin." It may not be necessary to fire at all but if it is necessary, then firing with a faint heart and
indecisively will produce the worst of evils. If you fire to disperse a crowd which is committing outrages, or beginning an attack which may lead to very serious conse- quences, to leave it undispersed is one of those follies which are among the worst of crimes. No one must encourage irresponsible or reckless firing or firing just as a reminder to the mob to look out. Firing, when it takes place, must always be carried out in the most serious spirit and as something absolutely necessary, and not as the whim of the officer. People must be warned in every possible way to disperse ; but these warnings must not cause delay to an extent which might frustrate the carrying out of orders to use physical force. It would, for example, be wrong for an officer in command of troops to give another half-hour's grace so that fresh efforts may be made to get a part of the crowd to disperse if other parts of the crowd use that time to push their way round and cut of his retreat or isolate his force and prevent it being strengthened or relieved.
Here, once again, it is necessary to enforce the importance of certainty of action. If the soldier knows that he will be supported by the authorities, and if this is not only quite clear to the officer, but through him to the men, he is far more likely to be able to be considerate, to act coolly, and with prudence and humanity, than if he is in a state of nervousness or mental confusion caused by uncertainty. A man will take responsibility much more readily and wisely if he is quite sure of where he stands in regard to his superiors. And let us never forget that in war or civil tumult there is often just as great a responsi- bility involved in not acting promptly, however good the motive, as there is in action which may prove to be premature. In the French Revolution again and again torrents of blood were shed because the King could never make up his mind how to act, and so could not give clear and coherent orders. Indeed, it is not too much to say that, if Louis XVI. had been capable of giving an order, not only would he have kept his own head on his shoulders, but he would have saved the French people, whom he sincerely loved and for whom he was quite willing to undergo any sacrifice, from their ten years' agony. As Milieu and other survivors of the Revolutionary times were wont to declare, it was the King's refusal to let the Swiss Guards fire that made the Revolution possible. But though firmness is essential, and though rioters, who are in law and fact felons, must learn the nature and danger of the crimes they are committing, no sane person wants to adopt the tyrant's or the revolutionary's plea that bloodshed is necessary. The idea of firing or killing in order to strike terror into the minds of the people is as abhorrent to good policy as to good feeling. Another matter which must never be forgotten, either by officers in command of troops or by the Government, is that the soldiers and, of course, the police must have proper protection from unfair attacks made upon them —in the form of shooting from behind hedges or firing into the backs of soldiers and police in the streets.
We have already dealt with the question of reprisals, but must say once more than it can never be right for the troops to take the matter into their own hands and inflict reprisals upon individuals whom they suspect of crime. But though there must clearly be no casual reprisals of this kind, the Government must make it their duty, as it certainly is their right, to inflict reprisals, not, of course, for mere abuse or " booing," but for serious attacks upon the national forces. Unless they do so there are sure to be wild and indefensible reprisals, attended every now and then by some of the villainies of lynch law. To put the
thing in its clearest form, if a hostile population claims by words, or at any rate by deeds, the rights of belligerents and acts on the principle recognized in open war—that whenever you see an enemy you have the right either to shoot him or take him prisoner—the Government must adopt a similar position. When a civil population takes to fierce and homicidal belligerent acts it is madness for the Government to stand by and to pretend that t hey sire
not at war. They cannot ignore the fact that if their men are murdered and there is no hitting back, on the plea that it was impossible to secure the arrest of the man who fired the shot, or, again, that none of the persTr who saw the murder committed could be got to evidence, then the soldiers and police will soon be reduced to either mutiny or inaction. A one-sided war is not only an absurdity but an impossibility. Even soldiers so well disciplined as those under the British Government cannot stand it, and ought not to be expected to stand it.
Officers should continually bring this fact before their civilian superiors. No one, of course, in his senses would suggest the brutal and unfair plan of taking hostages for the good behaviour of a district and shooting them in case of murders, for that involves the killing of the innocent. But if there must be no killing or punishment of hostages, which, indeed, is absolutely contrary to the principles settled at The Hague, it is perfectly fair and right for the authorities to insist, in the case of a state of civil war such as exists in Ireland, on making it clear who are our friends and who are our enemies, and in doubtful cases on obtaining adepate guarantees for good behaviour. Here, again, nobody suggests that a man should be shot, imprisoned or fined merely because he says he is an Irish Republican and hates England. It is, however, quite fair to ask him whether he is in favour of maintaining law and order and whether he will assist in the work. If he refuses to answer these questions, then it is right and reasonable to count him as an enemy, to watch him very carefully, and, if need be, to insist on his giving bail for good behaviour, and very substantial bail. There is no oppression in finding out who is with us and who is against us in maintaining the peace, and, indeed, it is the very least we can do to protect our men from outrage.
We have one more thing to say in regard to men in command and their subordinates. We trust that they will not be terrified by what text-books say about the civil courts having power over them and holding them respon- sible for this or that act. It is quite right that the law should be laid down as it is laid down in the books, but the officer maintaining law and order need have no fears. He should know that the law will support and protect him whenever he has acted in good faith and with the desire to prevent killing or injury of human beings or destruction of property.- All these are at law serious crimes and felonies, and he and the soldiers under him have not only the right to prevent such crimes, but have a positive duty to do so. In fact, if they see felonies committed, or preparations made to commit them, and do not do their best to prevent such doings, they will themselves be guilty of felony. The officer, as long as he has a clean conscience, need not have the slightest fear of the Common or Statute Law, whether it be strengthened or not strengthened by the new enactment.
Previous page
