ARMY REFORM.
[To THE EDITOR, ON THE " SPECTATOR:1 SIR,—In the Spectator of September 5th you say that you would like to know how many young officers will read "these entertaining pages," meaning the Minutes of Evidence on which the Report of the Royal Commission on the War was based. I can assure you that very few, if any, will do so. Why should we? Our daily work is best done if we "carry on" in the manner prescribed by our commanding officers, and the less we are able to criticise the more useful we are deemed to be. Even to pass our examinations for promotion we are only concerned with the demands of the examiners. We do not care for theories, opinions, or suggestions; we do not even care for Army orders or division orders unless they are enforced by our immediate superior, and he, as a rule, only desires to rub along quietly until the age for retirement. Most of us have to go at forty-five years of age. Why should we concern ourselves with distant projects for Army reform ? Sic vos non vobis is not a maxim we
approve. Most of us are far too well educated for the trivial duties we are called upon to perform ; and we cannot all be Staff Officers. I could easily give you a roll of officers who have devoted their leisure to signalling, shooting, tactics, &c. Not one of them is to-day one penny the better for his efforts. Then why should we exert ourselves more than is necessary to satisfy our commanding officer ? To apply the argumentum ad hominem, would the writer of your article have taken the trouble to read the Minutes, &c., if he had not had a definite object in view, nothing lees, in short, than an article for the Spectator. We soldiers are very much like the rest of the world. Show us what we are to gain by doing anything outside our daily routine of duty and you will find us keen enough, but works of supererogation (such as reading of minutes of evidence) we do not undertake.—I am,
Previous page
