Governments who know the price of everything and the value of nothing?

[George Armstrong Custer]

From the Dundee Courier & Advertiser, 20 November 1918:

Town asked to buy trophies won by local Battalion

Matlock Bank, wishing to possess four German guns as trophies won by their own local battalion, the Sherwood Foresters, applied to the Government for them, and received with surprise a reply to the effect that the goods were not gifts, but were for sale. The local Councillors think this is quite unpatriotic seeing that the local lads fought and died for the guns.

One can sympathise with the local viewpoint. On the other hand, the Government might be said to have had an absolute duty to recoup as much of their war expenditure as possible by realising the value of captured war booty. The argument might be, however, whether that ought to have extended to those local communities who wanted a souvenir tribute to the achievement of their men. And it might also be argued that, as the country as a whole had underwritten the cost of the war, it was wrong to try to recover those costs from those who'd already paid the price.

George

[Terry_Reeves]

It is rather strange that they took that line given that there was machinery in place that dealt with the question of war trophies.

The War Trophies Committee was formed in November 1916. The terms of reference were "to deal with all questions in regard to the distribution of Trophies and to watch the interests of the Imperial War Museum."

There was great competition amongst units, particularly for captured guns. Because of this, a rule was laid down "that substantiated claims for Trophies by units were to be only those having received War Office Authority."

Once a claim had been substantiated, the unit in question was asked its view as to where the trophy should go with the proviso that it should be a regimental depot, a recognised public body, or a museum. In practice this varied widely, from a public site provided by a local council, to local schools. The distribution of such items was generally left to local authorities.

By April 1920, 3,595 artillery pieces, 15,044 machine guns, 75,824 small arms and 7,887 other Trophies had been distributed.

As for their allocation in WW1 , a search of the local council minute books will often give some information. As far as final disposal is concerned, many were sent for scrap in 1939 .

Quotations are from "Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War, p 780.

[George Armstrong Custer]

Thanks for that info, Terry - interesting to note that regulations for such trophies had been in place as early as 1916. Reading the rules you quote, the only reason I can think of that Matlock Bank council was asked to pay for the guns they wanted is that they were applying for them directly as a local council. If the unit who'd captured them, the Sherwood Foresters, had made the application for the guns, then that would seem to fall under the remit of the regulations for the (presumably) free distribution of such trophies. These rules do seem to be applicable to military units applying to the War Office for trophies. If the Sherwood Foresters had done this they could then, presumably, have given their assent to 'their' guns going to Matlock Bank. It would seem, from the Dundee Courier report at least, that local council's applying directly on their own behalf were charged for and not 'gifted' these 'goods'.

George

[Terry_Reeves]

George

I think there may be a bit of both in this. The council might well have breached the rule by asking the Government directly, equally, there was around this time, a major effort being started to recoup costs. The Ministry of Munitions was tasked with this and set up the Disposals Board to deal with the sale war materiel of all types, at home and abroad. Nothing was missed, from tanks and artillery pieces to nuts and bolts and even broken duck boards, all sold off at auction. The Disposals Board continued its work until 1926. There are a lot of files in MUN 4 at the NA which cover this. Perhaps somebody at the War Office was trying to get a head start.

TR

[George Armstrong Custer]

Yes, that would seem to make sense - a sudden shift in policy towards a more mercenary one of charging for everything might be exactly why the knock-back to Matlock Bank council was newsworthy in far-off Dundee.

George

[centurion]

The Mayor of Lampeter wrote to Lloyd George demanding a German Tank, Lampeter was given a pair of field guns.

[Guest]

Perth got a Tank, but weren't allowed to keep it.

Mike

[Sidearm]

Skipman

Have you any more on Perth's tank please? Even the date of the newspaper clipping would help. The distribution of tanks in Scotland is something of a mystery to me. Thanks

Gwyn

[tanks3]

Hi Mike,

Interested to see your post. Do you know anymore about Perth's tank - when it was given and when it exactly went etc? Always pleased to read more about the presentation tanks

Thanks

Tanks3

[Guest]

Hi folks. Re the Tank. I only have this clipping, but I think there is more in various dates of the Newspaper. Next time I am there, i will see if can find more. If and when I get any more I will start a new thread on it, unless George is happy for us to post on this one?

People's Journal March 1921

Cheers Mike

[Verrico2009]

The tiny village of Sutton-in-Craven got this rather nice specimen, presumably because they asked nicely!

[George Armstrong Custer]

unless George is happy for us to post on this one?

Be my guest, Mike - as my Water Carrier will testify, I'm not known as Generous George for nothing - I'm as interested as anyone in the Perth tank. I'm wondering if Perth Council were scrapping it in the hope of making a few bob on something they'd acquired for nothing, or whether they were looking to recoup the expenditure on a display piece they'd paid the government for.

George

[Guest]

Be my guest, Mike - as my Water Carrier will testify, I'm not known as Generous George for nothing - I'm as interested as anyone in the Perth tank. I'm wondering if Perth Council were scrapping it in the hope of making a few bob on something they'd acquired for nothing, or whether they were looking to recoup the expenditure on a display piece they'd paid the government for.

George

Would that be Mr Hart, the water carrier?

Don't know a great deal about the Tank, as I tend to concentrate on Aberfeldy Kenmore etc. The next time I am at Bells, I will see what else there is. I just scroll through the various years, and take a snap of anything related to my area. I saw the Tank in the passing, and thought it interesting.Will post anything else I find.

Cheers Mike

[Sidearm]

Very many thanks. The date of March 1921 is incredibly early as a disposal date. One of the first to go, I suspect. Found a reference to it in Perth & Kinloss Archives online catalogue (www.pkc.gov.uk):

PE1/1/44 Perth Town Council minutes 1920. War trophies - Discussion on various sites in Perth to place a battery of Turkish guns and a tank.

Gwyn

[Guest]

Hi Gwyn. I remember reading a bit about it, but did not take a record of it, but am sure there was mention of it ' not being thought appropriate' and that the war was too fresh in the mind. So many people still in mourning did not want reminding?

Mike

[Sidearm]

An understandable and widespread sentiment. It seems to be the golden thread running through the story of virtually all presentation tanks.

Gwyn

[geraint]

George

The Town Council minutes of the "Profiteering Committee" for 27 Nov 1918 wrote back to the War Office stating

"The 15" Shell offered to the Borough Town of Ruthin, in recognition of the National War Loan sum collected of £127,000 was not worthy of the sum collected, nor of the lives lost by our gallant men"

They put it on the next train and sent it back to London.

They hadn't requested a trophy, and were very surprised, then insulted and finaly highly miffed when it arrived unannounced and unloved!

Geraint

[George Armstrong Custer]

They hadn't requested a trophy, and were very surprised, then insulted and finaly highly miffed when it arrived unannounced and unloved!

Geraint, I wonder if they'd have been happier if they'd been given the tank that Perth Council didn't want! You can please some of the people some of the time.....

George

[Andrew Hesketh]

No real help here, but a minor correction - it's Matlock Bath, not Matlock Bank.

[George Armstrong Custer]

No real help here, but a minor correction - it's Matlock Bath, not Matlock Bank.

I did wonder about that, Andrew. The Dundee Courier printed 'Matlock Bank', which I later googled for a map - that's when I came across the 'peakdistrictonline' page on the various components of Matlock -

"There are in fact five parts to Matlock - Matlock Town, Matlock Green, Matlock Bank, Matlock Bridge and Matlock Bath. At the time of the Norman Conquest there were just two settlements here, recorded in the Domesday Book of 1085 as Meslach (Matlock) & Mestesforde, (Matlock Bridge).

Of the other parts, Matlock Bank is mainly a product of expansion and growth during and since the Hydropathic establishments of the mid 19th to mid 20th century; Matlock Bath became a noted water-cure resort two centuries earlier, but really blossomed and expanded into a major tourist attraction with the coming of the railways in 1849."

I do wonder, then, whether the press report was correct to impy that the 'local Councillors' were from a Matlock Bank Council; it seems more likely that all 5 Matlock components are served by the one Council.

George

[geraint]

Geraint, I wonder if they'd have been happier if they'd been given the tank that Perth Council didn't want! You can please some of the people some of the time.....

George

When I read the minutes -the impression given was that they didn't really want a trophy, certainly hadn't requested one; but would probably have kept a larger one such as the Perth tank. At the same meetings they were discussing raising a local war memorial, and the unannounced arrival of a 15" shell (similar ones having probably killed a few of the men in 'friendly fire' bombardments) probably veered on the edge of bad taste, and certainly of bad timing.

Geraint

[George Armstrong Custer]

[....] the unannounced arrival of a 15" shell (similar ones having probably killed a few of the men in 'friendly fire' bombardments) probably veered on the edge of bad taste, and certainly of bad timing.

Possibly, though unless there's a record of anyone actually expressing such views at the time I'd be wary of imposing modern sensibilities or suppositions upon them retrospectively. If you gained the impression that they'd have kept a more impressive trophy, then it's just as likely that it was a case of their civic pride in the local war effort being dented through being palmed off with an inert shell rather than something like a tank which made them send it back.

George

[Andrew Hesketh]

I did wonder about that, Andrew. The Dundee Courier printed 'Matlock Bank', etc....

Interesting George. I lived in Matlock for four years, so I can probably make some sense of this now you mention what you just have. I had jumped to a quick (and daft) conclusion.

Matlock Bath is a seperate village a mile or two along the river Derwent. Matlock Bank is basically part of the main town of Matlock and indistinguishable by any 'border'or gap in the buildings, but occupies steep high ground up 'Bank Road' towards the once famous Hydros. In other words, it's the part of the town that nestles on the side and top of a big hill rising to the east of the river that cuts through the town.

Interestingly, one of the former Hydro's on the bank is now the home of the County Council, and the local records office is just a few yards further along.

In other words, to cut a long story short, I rescind my correction as this now makes sense!