THE NEED FOR A SECOND ARMY.
[To THZ EDITOR OF THY " SFRCIATOR."1
SIR,—You say it is imperative that we should have at least half a million men in training. No doubt it is. Mr. Spenser Wilkinson, in the Morning Post of August 3rd, said that "Great Britain must call out all her resources," and that "the young men who are not yet trained must at once offer themselves for training." But how weak is your advice for getting the men ! You "beg and pray of your readers to turn themselves into recruiting sergeants." That is all. Why do you not advocate some form of conscription? Is it because you think the country would not stand it ? Well, perhaps it
will have to stand it sooner or later if it does not mean to knuckle under.—I am, Sir, &c., F. R. CAVE. Bath.
P.S.—The concluding remarks in the Morning Post of Friday week (leading article on the operations in Belgium) are worth noting :—
" War is a test of efficiency, and England is now under the teat. Her forty-five millions have sent a few divisions into the field. That can hardly be described as a nation putting forth its strength. Nor is the enlistment of a hundred thousand men a national effort. Any one who walks about London will see every day so many able-bodied men that he must feel that London alone, if she made a special effort, could enrol a hundred thousand men in a week without the streets showing much difference. But between enrolling men and having them fit for the field there is a great gap, a gap measured by months, and in war time is a vital element."
[Our correspondent does not appear to be aware that for the last ten years we have consistently advocated universal service in these columns.—En. Spectatorj
Previous page
