THE NATIONAL SERVICE LEAGUE AND UNIVERSAL TRAINING.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] SIR, I hope that you will find apace for a correction of one point in your article on " Civil Fortitude," in which you unwittingly do injustice both to the National Service League and to Lord Roberts. You write of the League asking for " universal training and universal service," and again, of " every man being required to join." I understand from your previous article, aptly beaded "A Medley of Philosophy and War," that this accurately describes your own proposal, and that you do not care if the result is an army far larger than can be needed for any war so long as it affords a school for a particular philosophy of duty. It is only !fair to point out that the National Service League only proposes to take about one-third of the men reaching military age, and that Lord Roberts in his evidence before the Norfolk Commission expressly refused to commit himself to the military heresy that a militia force, even after a training twice as long as that which you propose, would be sufficient to defend the country against a substantial invasion -without the support of [The National Service League only proposes to exempt those who are not physically fit or who join the regular forces of the nation by land or sea.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
