LTO THZ EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR."3
see in the last Spectator that "A Military Corre- spondent" and " Taxpayer " both attack my recent letters to you under the above heading. I am not anxious to enter into a triangular duel in which I must be the mark for two- thirds of the ammunition; but as both your correspondents have misquoted me, I would fire one round in return to their broadside.
Your "Military Correspondent" gives an extremely interesting exposition of his views on the recent Kaiser-Manover, but seems to consider that he has hit upon a remarkable and novel fact when he has demonstrated in two columns of print that the German system of training is based on the fact that Continental troops cannot be trusted to fight in extended formations. This is a fact which has been apparent to Continental leaders of men since the early days of the Peninsular War, and was the despair of Napoleon when he realised that British troops were able to withstand the onslaught of his veteran masses in shallow and comparatively open array.
Having promulgated this discovery, your "Military Corre- spondent" goes on to quote my " opinions as to the relative value of the German conscript and the British soldier, be he Regular or Auxiliary." In no way whatever have I ever suggested that the British Regular would not hold his own against the German conscript masses,—in the same way as did his ancestors in their thin red lines ; but I have gravely questioned the power of our Auxiliary Forces to do so. I do not in the least insinuate that the individual Volunteer or Militiaman is any more deficient in courage than the individual Regular ; but individual courage is a very different thing from the courage of a body of men, and this is a fact which is demonstrable from almost any instance of popular riot. Why I question the power of our Auxiliary battalions to with- stand good Continental troops is because I hold that their training is not sufficient to give them what has enabled British troops to fight so successfully in shallow formations against masses for the last century, and that is discipline and confidence in their leaders. Discipline, and discipline of the highest order, is requisite to give courage to a whole body of men against the threatening onslaught of heavy masses, and it was this point which I originally disputed in the Spectator's suggestions for largely increasing our Volunteer Force by means which I held, and still hold, could only produce nndiciplined masses of riflemen.
To turn to " Taxpayer's" letter. He honours me by associating me with the Regular Army, but goes on to condemn me with almost all Regular officers, particularly those in high authority, for regard- ing the Volunteers as "an amateur attempt of certain individuals who • desire to pose as soldiers with the minimum of irksome training.' " These are indeed my words, but the partial quotation is as unfair to my expressed opinion of the Volunteers as it is to the general mass of Regular officers, as conveying a correct idea of their attitude to the Volunteers. I referred in my letter to "the numbers of citizens who, in a real spirit of patriotism' or perhaps in some cases in a desire to pose as soldiers with the minimum of irksome training, have enrolled themselves as Volunteers," and this, I maintain, is a very different opinion from that imputed to me by " Taxpayer " concerning the Volunteer Force.
I do not believe that the real Volunteer has any more kindly or sincere friends than the majority of Regular officers. And if, as " Taxpayer " declares, the opinion of Regular officers in authority is against the efficiency of the Volunteers as a whole, can lie not see that it may be because these officers realise that it is impossible for the whole Volunteer Force to give the requisite time to the training which is necessary to enable them to face the best foreign troops under conditions of modern warfare, and not, as he and certain other supporters of the Volunteers would have us believe, because the bulk of Regular officers are a body. of fools actuated by a spirit of malevolent jealousy to the Volunteer movement?
" Taxpayer's " somewhat heated epistle rather leads to the inference that in addition to being a taxpayer he may be also a somewhat outré Volunteer. If so, I would remind him of the adage that "self-praise is no recommendation "; if not, I must apologise in all sincerity to the Volunteer Force for my suggestion. In this connection, however, and the continual. reference which is made to the Volunteers in South Africa, I would express my agreement with some remarks recently made by " Strategos" in the Sunday Times, in which he says that, with every wish to do all justice to the work of our Auxiliary Forces in South Africa, it is time that the fulsome flattery by which it is made to appear that they alone stood between the Empire and utter destruction ceased, and their work was looked at in its real proportions. I have seen the Volunteers on service and in action, and I realise that the good Volunteer is a most valuable individual, whether officer or man. I will go further, and say that the good Volunteer is far preferable to the bad or indifferent Regular. But to arrive at the value of the Volunteer Force as a whole you must take into consideration the existing proportion of good Volunteers; for, as in a chain, so in the unit of Auxiliary troops it is the weak link which gives its breaking strain. It is for this reason that I emphasised the growing expenditure on mu Volun- teer Forces. " Taxpayer " sneers at my objections to the ex- penditure of £1,200,000 per annum. If he will once again read the whole passage, he will, I think, find that what I pointed to was that there was no sign of finality at this comparatively high figure, and this to my mind is a danger. The Volunteer Force is gradually being made more of a political and less of a patriotic: organisation, and as this tendency increases under a Radical Government we shall see more and more money lavished on the Volunteers, to the detriment of those branches of our land forces which are as a whole, and at all times, available for the defence of our heel of Achilles, the oversea portions of the British Empire.
—I am, Sir, &c., A SOLDIER.
[Let the Auxiliaries in action be judged by the same standard as the Regular. If the Auxiliaries were so little to be depended on as "A Soldier" suggests, should not we find that all the bad surrenders and "regrettable incidents" in South Africa occurred among the Auxiliaries, and none among the Regulars ? Yet Nicholson's Nek contradicts this conclusion. We do not mean for a moment to suggest that that episode was in any way disgraceful to the Regulars, regrettable as it was; but it is most unfair to condemn the Auxiliaries on a hypo- thesis, and talk as if the record of the Regulars forbids the possibility of their ever proving unable "to stick it out." If the chain metaphor were to be applied, it would condemn the Regular Army just as much as the Auxiliaries. For our own part, we admire and respect our Regular Army as much as any Regular can; but that does not blind us to the merits of our Auxiliaries. We trust that "A Military Correspondent" and " Taxpayer " will not demand a right to reply, as this correspondence has already occupied a considerable portion
of our space. There is nothing in "A Soldier's" letter which, in our opinion, requires an answer.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
