Roberts and Churchill

Readers’ Note: Most of you’ve likely read my post, “Duke lacrosse: A support and tribute post.” If not, I encourage you to read it. It will help you understand this post.

John
____________________________________________

Why, in 1902,did Britain’s Army Commander-in-Chief, Lord Fredrick Roberts, overrule a decision he and the Government had approved, and agree to review the cases of twenty-nine Sandhurst cadets sent down for a term and three servants dismissed when no one came forward to identify an arsonist(s) or admit to being one in connection with a series of fires at the Royal Military College?

And why did a politically ambitious, twenty-seven year old Winston Churchill, sitting in his first Parliament, join with a handful of other young Members of the Commons to challenge the Government’s decision supporting the sending down of the cadets and the dismissel of the servants?

About Roberts, some background: He seems to have been a very decent person in the first place. The men who served under Roberts gave him the tribute soldiers only give to commanders they like and admire: an affectionate nickname. In the ranks Roberts was “Bobs.” To this day, the Irish Guards Regiment of which he was honorary Colonel still calls itself “Bobs Own.”

It’s reasonable to think that in the extraordinary circumstances of arson fires at the college, Roberts would have approved draconian actions that in other circumstances he’d have rejected.

I think the appeal to justice Churchill and others made to Roberts was all the prompting he needed to act on the cardinal principles of equity Churchill invoked in his letter to The Times:

“that suspicion in not evidence; that accused should be heard in their own defense; and that it is for the accuser to prove his charge, not for the defendant to prove his innocence.”

And what about Churchill? Why did a young politician, eager for advancement and with his eyes even than on Number 10 Downing Street, take on an unpopular cause and challenge his country’s political establishment?

He did it for the same reasons he would thirty years on again challenge his country’s establishment to take on another unpopular cause ; refusing in the 1930s to appease Hitler.

Churchill succeeded in 1902; failed during the 1930s; and than, beginning in the 1940, led the desperate but ultimately successful battle to destroy Hitler and Nazism.

Looking across those forty plus years, who doubts that in Churchill’s case the son was father to the man?