[To THE EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR. "] SIR,—It is a strange
thing that Lord Roberts and the National Service League should again and again avoid what is for Liberals the vital objection to every scheme that• has so far been put forward. The writer is a Liberal and, like many Liberals, holds that in universal service lies the best hope of raising the standard of fitness and inculcating a sense of citizenship. Of course there are doctrinaires who object to any kind of military training, but they are not in the majority. And even with these the real objection is not so much to military training and discipline as to compulsory service in a body in which will prevail class distinctions of the most objectionable kind. A soldier's discipline is an excellent thing, but only when it is paid to officers who owe their place to courage and merit. It is not enough that all should serve in the ranks. There must be only one way out. Make the test of promotion as high as possible, but make it one of merit only. At present, in the Territorials as in the Regulars, the real test is money. No doubt the officer has to be efficient, but efficiency alone has a poor chance. If service is to be compulsory, the Army must be made a pro- fession in which, as in other professions, promotion depends solely on merit. Such a training could not fail to have an excellent effect on the manhood of the country. Men of all classes, serving side by side in the ranks, enduring the same discipline and striving on equal terms to excel, would learn a mutual respect and forbearance. Unfortunately, this is not what is generally meant by " discipline." A Tory and a Leaguer said to me recently, " How would you like to take orders from the baker's boy ? " It is this flunkeyism of mind that is the real bar to universal service. How can Liberals be expected to respond to an appeal from a body of men who show so deep a distrust of mere merit P—I am, Sir, &c.,
L. A. F.
Previous page
