Under the Search-Light : A Record of a Great Scandal

Introduction

I HAVE been urged by a number of people lovers of justice and f airplay to make public the true facts surrounding my summary dismissal from the Women's Royal Air Force, so that my name and honour may at last be vindicated from the slurs unjustly cast on them.

During the House of Lords Inquiry, many points of vital importance were insufficiently brought out or not brought out at all. Now that the War is officially at an end (September 1st, 1921) there can be no reason on the score of official secrecy why the public should not be made aware of the events which led to my instant dismissal from the post of Commandant and from the Corps. This step was taken without the knowledge of my Senior Officer (Major-General Sir Godfrey Paine), and without any adverse report from him. The whole of this affair has been wrapped in mystery and distinguished by astonishing prevarication on the part of the authorities.

Below are a few of the contradictory reasons given by Ministers and others for my dismissal :

General Brancker a total stranger when he dismissed me, declared :

" You are very efficient, but grossly unpopular with everyone who has ever seen you."

General Seely, Air Minister, in an interview, informed certain Members of Parliament that I was "a very incompetent woman." When challenged on this point in the House of Commons, shortly afterwards, he made a complete volte face and declared :

" It was never said that she was inefficient in fact it was expressly said she was most efficient In the opinion of the competent authority, Miss Douglas- Pennant was one of the most competent and efficient ladies in England or Wales, there are not words strong enough to say how highly I regard Miss Douglas- Pennant and the services she has rendered to the State."

On the other hand, Lord Londonderry (Additional Member of the Air Council) informed the House of Lords that I was incompetent and inefficient, and, to confirm this, quoted from a letter which he said that Lord Weir had written to tell me of his intention to supersede me for these reasons. No such letter was received by me. The only letter I received from Lord Weir was dated ten days after my summary dismissal and contained the assurance that " there was nothing which reflected in any way on your capacity or efficiency."

It is equally difficult to reconcile the assertion made by the Air Ministry in the written Statement of Case, prepared for the Select Committee, that

" Miss Douglas- Pennant was removed from the post of Commandant of the Women's Royal Air Force because, in the opinion of H.M. Secretary of State for the Royal Air Force (Lord Weir), she was incompetent to discharge the duties of the office and for no other reason."

During the Inquiry, Lord Weir repudiated any responsibility for the Air Ministry's Statement of Case to quote his words : " I do not know anything about it . . . I have had very little to do with this case"

A still more serious reason was given by the late Whip of the Labour Party, who declared on what he alleged was the authority of the Secretary of the Air Ministry, that I had been dismissed owing to the discovery that I was a bully, a virago, and a woman of disreputable character, with a bad personal and official record in Wales.

Lord Peel (Under- Secretary for War) denied in the House of Lords, a year after my dismissal, the allegations against my personal character and said :

" Her character is unassailed and unassailable it stands far above any detraction that any man could ever suggest or bring against her .... it is even an insult to the lady to suggest that such a matter could be discussed."

Lord Peel, on the same occasion, gave an entirely new reason for my dismissal when he stated that three W.R.A.F. officers " were actually dismissed from their posts on the representations of Miss Douglas-Pennant", a grotesque perversion of truth, as I never dismissed or brought about the dismissal of any officers.

These statements are inconsistent with the reply given in the House of Commons by Major (now Sir John) Baird, Parliamentary Secretary, in reply to questions a fortnight before my dismissal :

"The Air Council have every confidence in this lady's ability and discretion . . . She was appointed to her present position because her experience and qualifications rendered her in the view of the Air Council the most suitable person available."

What can have occurred during the few intervening days to cause Lord Weir to instruct General Brancker to throw me out of the Corps and order me to leave the office immediately, before a successor had been appointed ? It was not until the last day of the Inquiry that a ray of light was thrown on this mystery, when it emerged for the first time that my dismissal was brought about by secret " serious " information supplied by a total stranger to Lady Rhondda, who admitted that she had accepted it without inquiry. This information she communicated to Sir Auckland Geddes (Minister of National Service), who, to quote Lord Wrenbury's words, "compelled" Lord Weir to dismiss me. Lord Weir admitted that he took this step without any investigation, and to this day I have never been allowed to know of what I was accused.

It is possible that those who do me the honour of reading these pages may feel that elementary justice calls for replies to the following questions :

1. What was the nature of these mysterious charges, and why have I never been given any opportunity of refuting them ?

2. How did it come about that there is no record of this affair, and that the correspondence which passed between Sir Auckland Geddes and Lord Weir on this subject was declared by them when called for by my Counsel to have been " lost " (both copies and original) by the Ministry of National Service as well as by the Air Ministry ?

3. Why was no inquiry made by the Select Committee into the nature of these charges, and why was Lady Rhondda's informant not subpoenaed by the Court to substantiate them ?

4. Why was the attention of the Select Committee focussed instead on an unpleasant incident which had nothing to do with my dismissal, as it occurred six months after I had been removed from the W.R.A.F., and of which I heard for the first time in a speech made by Lord Stanhope in the House of Lords ?

5. Why did Lord Wrenbury, by imposing on me prohibitive financial terms, make it impossible for certain witnesses to be heard regarding the alleged irregularities at Hurst Park ?

6. Why did the Court rule out as irrelevant certain matters connected with W.R.A.F. clothing (to which attention had been previously drawn by the Public Accounts Committee) on the ground that the Air Ministry had already decided the matter ?

In the following statement it will be seen that all important points are fully corroborated, either by documentary evidence or by extracts from the evidence of witnesses. I have endeavoured to write as im- personally as possible, as I am only a name in a matter which involves a fundamental principle, i.e., the right of an accused person to know what charges are brought against him, and to be given an opportunity of defending himself before he is condemned, dismissed, discredited and, as in my case, financially ruined and ostracised.

From the outset of the House of Lords Inquiry it was plain that it would be impossible for me to emerge successfully, as it was ruled by the Chairman (Lord Wrenbury) that I must prove wrongful dismissal, and that my case must be taken first. Lord Wrenbury lays down in his Report, that as Lord Weir, in the opinion of the Committee, honestly believed that my removal was in the public interest, he was at liberty to order it, and that consequently I have no grounds for complaint. I have never for one moment suggested that Lord Weir did not act in what he "honestly believed" at the time to be in the public interest (it has never been my wish to prove the contrary). I firmly maintain, however, that Lord Weir and Sir Auckland Geddes, who knew nothing of me or my work, allowed themselves to be influenced by pressure from prejudiced people, on whose information they acted without any investigation. I can only leave it to my readers (who are as well qualified to form an opinion, based on facts, as the four Peers and the distinguished Chancery Judge who presided over them) to decide as to the justification I have for holding this view.

In the Report, I am depicted as an impossible woman of bad and vindictive disposition, suffering from " incapacity to see things in their true perspective," and " eager to find evil which did not exist."

Notwithstanding this unanimous verdict, a Member of the Committee (Lord Denbigh) in a letter now in my possession written to a stranger shortly after the publication of the Report, assured his correspondent that :

" Nobody questions the past valuable and honourable public service of Miss Douglas- Pennant, nor her amiability of character."

One of my reasons for writing this book is my desire to protest with all my strength, against a system which is capable of being used to destroy utterly without inquiry or warning any individual whose only crime is a desire to serve his country honestly, and to carry out his duty. Surely the Government is militating against the best interests of the public service, and is breaking every canon of justice and fair play by its decision that in no case is redress for injustice permissible if the prestige of a Minister is involved. Lord Londonderry made this position clear in the House of Lords when on behalf of the Government, he refused to grant an Inquiry on the ground that it would be

" A suggestion that the Secretary of State was either moved by corrupt influences or that he was a man who by his intellectual capacity was not fitted for the position in which he was placed."

Doubtless, the public will recognise that mistakes are excusable during the stress of war-time, but fair-minded people will hardly take the view that the prestige of Lord Weir and Sir Auckland Geddes would be seriously injured if they admitted that they had been misled. In setting down the facts of this case, I have no wish to cast reflections on those who were apparently misled, or on Colonel (now Mr.) Bersey or Brig.-General G. Livingston, of whom frequent mention is made. Before the Inquiry, I believed that the latter were ring-leaders in an intrigue against me, but during the Inquiry it became evident that I was mistaken in this respect. It was pointed out to me that I had done them an injustice I therefore felt bound to apologise and withdraw my allegations unreservedly.

I am glad to have this opportunity of expressing my warmest thanks and appreciation to my comrades in the W.R.A.F. and R.A.F. for the sympathy and confidence they have shown me; to the thousands of ex- Service men and women ; to my former colleagues inside and outside the Government Service ; to those members of both Houses of Parliament who, in spite of criticism and ridicule, stood firm for justice and fair play, and whose unabated confidence has afforded me such cheering support ; and lastly, to the gallant band who are deter- mined at all costs to right an injustice, and who have proved the value of true and disinterested friendship.

I greatly regret that owing to the number of references I felt bound to quote and explain, it has been impossible to shorten this statement. Many of the incidents set forth would seem unworthy of notice if considered separately. As this book, however, is intended to expose the result of the vested interests, back-stair intrigue, and lack of discipline, which are bringing discredit on some of the Government Departments, I feel bound to relate them, so that the reader may have a true picture of a state of affairs which, unfortunately, was permitted by the authorities to triumph, instead of being crushed with a strong hand.

Valuable reforms have sometimes been the outcome of apparently unimportant incidents and humble efforts. I can only hope that this exposure of modern bureaucratic methods will lead the public to insist that its servants in the future are safeguarded in the exercise of their duty, and protected from the treatment meted out to me. As for myself, I take comfort in the thought that Truth in the long run can never be defeated, and in the words of Tacitus, is "established by investigation and delay."

VIOLET DOUGLAS-PENNANT.

21st November, 1921.