Throughout British history, those fighting in the armed forces have often experienced violations of their human rights. Until the nineteenth century this was rarely considered an important issue. However, since the nineteenth century, the small area of Easthampstead in Berkshire has produced several people who have stood up and fought for these rights, including John Thadeus Dela and Arthur Divett Hayter, Lord Haversham.
John Thadeus Delane (1817-1879)
Delane grew up in Bracknell, part of the parish of Easthampstead. In 1841, he became the editor of The Times, considered at the time the most important newspaper in the world.[1] He soon set his mark upon The Times by accepting or refusing to print letters based on whether he felt their ethos to be that of the paper.
Throughout his time at The Times Delane’s editorial policy also had an influence on government policy. He held liberal views on most issues, but believed it was the role of a newspaper to be independent of political parties. Delane argued that the ‘duty of the journalist is the same as that of the historian – to seek out truth above all things’.[2] However, he added that The Times ‘owes its first duty to the national interests’ and that the aims of ‘a really patriotic and enlightened journal’ were ‘absolutely identical with the ends of an enlightened and patriotic Minister’.[3] His approach was especially significant during the Crimean War.
He obtained permission from the war office for the journalist William Russell to accompany a regiment to the front. Russell’s reports were explicit in their descriptions of the poor supplies and conditions suffered by the army. Breaking every precedent, Delane published the reports verbatim. This gave his readers an insight into the appalling conditions under which the soldiers were suffering and meant the government could no longer ignore these issues. Russell’s report on ‘The Charge of the Light Brigade’, which took place on 25th November 1854, was published in The Times on 15th November. The delay meant than more positive reports had already been published, but the truth was published with grave dignity by The Times. Their report revealed that only 130 of 700 men had survived.
Delane’s commitment to The Times was total; writing in 1861: ‘My whole life is bound up with the paper – I must either work for it or not at all.’[4] He remained the newspaper’s editor until his retirement in 1877, and died in 1879.
Arthur Divett Hayter, Lord Haversham (1835-1917)
Born in 1835, Sir Arthur Hayter was the only son of the politician and barrister Sir William Goodenough Hayter. Like his father, he became a politician, serving as an MP for Wells (1865–8), Bath (1873–85), and Walsall (1893–95, 1900-06). Between 1895 and 1900 he took time away from parliament, undertaking humanitarian work in Bulgaria with his wife, helping Armenian refugees.
Lord Haversham, both in his time in the House of Commons and, after 1906, in the House of Lords, argued frequently for the rights of members of the armed forces. Most of these contributions were minor but on 25th November 1914 he challenged the Secretary of State for War to ask, ‘whether it is the intention of the Government to send troops to the Front without any change of clothing and with the one pair of boots only which they are wearing.’ He stated that his intentions were not to criticise the War Office, but rather he was ‘merely asking for the purposes of information.’[5] He stated:
I think it a most dangerous thing to send men abroad with absolutely nothing except what they stand up in. It seems to me that they will have only one service dress and one pair of boots. They will have to do some marching before they get up to the Front, and when they get there they will not have a change of boots … Boots play a great part in the power of a man’s marching. If he is used to the boots he is wearing he gets on very well, but if he has to take boots from an ordnance store my noble friend does not need to be told that they may bring on sore feet. I do not know whether this is intended to be carried out, but, if so, I should like to know the reason. It cannot be for the convenience of the troops remaining at home, because we have ample stores from which to supply them; at any rate in the case of my own district, Reading, we can supply them if needed. To take these things from the men who are going on active service seems to me to be an unwise proceeding and very inconvenient to the men concerned.
Lord Haversham can thus be seen to have been very aware of human rights, whether they be the rights of refugees or of those in our armed forces. He died on 10 May 1917, at the age of 81.
Conclusion
Despite the efforts of John Delane and Lord Haversham, members of the armed forces have continued to face hardships. In 2000, the Armed Forces Covenant was introduced. It is an informal agreement which sets out the relationship between the nation, the government and the armed forces. It recognises that the whole nation has a moral obligation to members of the armed forces and their families, and it establishes how they should expect to be treated. The covenant exists to redress the disadvantages that the armed forces community may face in comparison to other citizens, and to recognise sacrifices made. The covenant suggests that perhaps, at last, we are taking action to ensure greater care of our armed forces.
By Diane Collins, a U3A Shared Learning Project researcher for the Citizens Project
[1] Tim Coates Delane’s War (Biteback Publishing, 2009), 4.
[2] The Times, 5 February 1852.
[3] The Times, 6 February 1852 and 7 February 1852.
[4] A. I. Dasent, John Thadeus Delane, vol. 2 (1908), 27.
[5] https://hansard.parliament.uk, 25th November 1914
