[To THE Enrmat or TEl " Brzensoa."1
Sut,—In spite of the adverse criticism of Mr. Churchill's pro- posals to reclothe the Army in full dress for ceremonial, a great
number of us who have served in the Army believe Mr. Churchill is right on this point. The War Minister has pointed out that the soldier must have two uniforms. Just as the working man likes a change into his " best " suit for special occasions, so the soldier should have a "best" suit for cere- monial. Why should not this best suit be of scarlet, blue, or green, the traditional colours of our Army? Our Army is to be a voluntary one, and an attractive uniform has always been an incentive to recruiting. Lord Roberts has told us how his heart was captured by the plumed helmets and white buckskins of the Bengal Horse Artillery. Already khaki's supporters are asking for facings, and if the "economists" have their way the sartorial "experts" will devise a khaki ceremonial that will cost quite as much, last half as long, and look half as well as the scarlet and gold of pre-war days. A smart turn-out engenders a feeling of esprit de corps and self-respect. It would be false economy to relegate the King's scarlet to the limbo of [No doubt two uniforms are necessary, but if both are of exactly the same kind the " beet " becomes "second-best" in due course—the one used originally for special occasions becomes the working uniform. If the two uniforms are distinct the ceremonial uniform, grown shabby, has to be cast away when it might have had a long working life before it, and thus economy is not served. Let us save every penny we can till the nation is out of the financial wood. If that argument is not strong enough let us at least forswear red cloth till the insanitary barracks are made healthy.—ED. Spectator.)
Previous page
