LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

ARMY REFORM SINCE THE WAR.

[To THS EDITOR Or vex " SPECTATOR." I SIR,—Your correspondent " Miles " (Spectator, April 25th) gives a list of so-called reforms with which he credits our military administration. I desire, with your leave, to take up these points one by one

(1) The pay of the soldier has been increased, and will be further increased next year, but the standards have been reduced, so that we pay a higher price for an inferior article.

(2) and (3) If the recruiting is satisfactory, why has the enlistment of " specials " and men without character been stopped? Simply because the results of recruiting have not been satisfactory in point of quality, and all the world knows it.

(4) No serious steps have been taken to raise the status of the non-commissioned officers, to train them for com- missions, or to enable them to rise in their profession. It is one of the most serious blemishes of our organisation. The Militia Reserve was promised, it is true, in 1901, established on paper last December, and on paper it still remains.

(6) The Drill Books have been rewritten. Granted; and the Revue Militaire de l'Etranger, the most competent military organ of the Continent, has cut them into ribbons by the most destructive criticism that has ever been applied to publications of the kind.

An educational branch has not been established; it has been enlarged. It did nothing before, and it has done nothing since. One may live in hope without being in a state of grace.

Sandhurst has been placed under Colonel Kitson, who has been allowed a free hand to initiate the reforms he suggested to a recent Committee. The War Office is welcome to shine in this reflected glory; but after securing Colonel Kitson it had the meanness to cut down the pay by MOO a year, without informing him of the fact when it offered him the post. It is thus that it rewards merit and encourages zeal.

(9) Candidates for cavalry and Foot Guards have indeed been placed on the general list. They might have been beatified or placed on the "Index" with equal effect. No examination has taken place under the new rule, and therefore no opinion can be expressed as to the success or failure of the new departure.

(10) The Committee on Officers' Expenses asks the public to put down £350,000 in hard cash, and £100,000 annually. The expense is certain ; the result is not. The question of "existing officers and foreign service" is reserved: the problem is less than half solved—even on paper.

(11) The chief merit of the Report of the above Committee lies in its earnest advice to the War Office to amend its ways, and cease to order and counter-order changes of uniform. This will indeed be a reform, and I trust that "Miles" may live to see it.

(12) Mounted infantry are being trained in larger numbers. That is correct. But they are being trained under the old slipshod routine, the best elements being taken from infantry battalions, and despatched at heavy cost to Aldershot from all parts of England and Scotland. This pernicious system is one of the worst features of our Army.

(13) The Yeomanry have been increased by some nineteen thousand men ; it is so much to the good.

(14) The lance has been abandoned on the advice of an infantry officer and against the opinion of the majority of cavalry officers.

(15) Such advantages as are claimed for the new rifle do not appear to warrant the cost of the rearmament of our Infantry with the new weapon. I am, however, prepared to believe that this will be done on the advice of cavalry officers.

I am tempted to compile another list of as many points, but have already trespassed too much on your valuable space.—

[Our readers are fully aware of our own attitude in regard to Army Reform. We must point out, however, that we take no responsibility for the statements made by " Staff Officer," with many of which we do not agree, and with none of which do we desire in any way to associate ourselves—En. Spectator.]