[TO THE EDITOR OP THE " SPECTATOR:1
SIR,—As candid friend of the British officer you have enjoyed such a long innings that I do not think you will grudge one of them a short turn at the wicket. You are, I know, too good a sportsman for that.
I observe with regret that in spite of my former protests you return to your attack on the " stupid " officer. I wish to examine some of your remarks in the Spectator for August 29th and Septem-
ber 5th. You say that more has been written about "stupid" officers than about any subject connected with the war, and you further say that no such complaint has ever been made about barristers, solicitors, or doctors. I ask you, Sir, in common fairness, is there any analogy between the position of members of those professions and the position of officers on active service ? Are the former ever as a body brought so prominently before the public ? We have all had the misfortune to meet or hear of stupid lawyers or doctors, but we have the sense not to damn a class for the faults of individuals. Moreover, while those pro- fessions protect themselves from the criticism of the public by the studied obscurity of their language, soldiers must express themselves so as to be understood by the "man in the street," and we are all soldiers now.
You try to make the point that only about one per cent, of the boys who gain scholarships go into the Army. Can you show that any of that one per cent, have gained distinction in the Army? To prove anything you must show that a large proportion of that one per cent. are distinguished. Lord Roberts says that brains are more important even than numbers. With all due respect, there are two things more important still for the mass,—temperament and physique. The man who will be a soldier will be a soldier, and if he is the right sort, lives through his hard times somehow. If you increase the pay very much, you offer a bribe to the able, not a wage to the fit. You propose to make an officer's life very hard when he is not on active service. Believe me, Sir, he will not have it. He is engaged in the most "dangerous trade" there is, and if he is not allowed some freedom when not actively employed, he will be spoilt.
Now to your article of September 5th. You quote Sir Ian Hamilton. "We are fortunate in having an officer who can express his view so intelligibly yet picturesquely." "Don't he write beautiful !" as the cook observed in "Vice-Vera." Well, he does ; but the meaning of the first paragraph you quote from this distinguished officer simply is that if you, in the attack with first- class troops, meet with an imbecile enemy—i.e., who will not 3ounter-attack—yon will probably win. It is very creditable to him, as you say, to put it so picturesquely, but it has occurred to humbler men before. Sir Ian's evidence raises questions very highly contentious, I admit. It is not all platitude.
In your delightful Jovine way, you would like to know how many soldiers will read these Minutes. Every Army reformer, you say, should use them as his Bible; you need be under no anxiety ; he will do so. That is why I, as one of the material that will be experimented on, take no interest in them. The toad under the , harrow does not consider possible alterations in machinery. I
think you believe that we officers are very muddle-headed,—then why do you recommend us to read stuff which expresses opinions "so numerous and so varied" that if we cannot always form a final opinion for ourselves we cannot fail to be wiser for the reading? Sadder, yes, but wiser, no. Lord Wolseley and Lord Roberts express views diametrically opposed on a plain strategical problem. How are we wiser for that ? Sir George White, for his part, gives the conundrum up.
[Unless "Unit" assumes that the author of the article is a soldier, he raises an obviously false issue. For the rest, we think that he misrepresenfs both the character of the evidence and the attitude of his fellow-officers. So far from being exclusively concerned with theories or projects of Army reform, the evidence contains a mass of information about tactics and the right uses of the various arms and weapons of the Service. If that does not interest a soldier, he can hardly take any genuine interest in his profession. As regards pay, we have never advocated an excessive increase, and may refer
"Company Officer" to the views expressed in another column on officers' expenses.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
