Mr. Brodrick's defence of his scheme, though in our op i n ion
unsound, as not distinguishing between the true functions of our professional and non-professional soldiers, was an able Parliamentary performance, and—unlike a great may Parliainentary performances of this kind—it was, we believe, entirely sincere. Mr. Brodrick believes in his own scheme, and defends it not from personal motives, but because he holds that it is best calculated to ensure the safety of the nation. After denying that be had injured the Volun- teers by requiring too high a standard from them, Mr. Brodrick defended his army corps organisation.. They, at any rate, were not responsible for the increased expenditure. Out of the fifty-four thousand men added to the Army in the last six years, only five thousand could be charged to the army corps system. The army corps system—a point which, we may note, we have always fully admitted—did not really alter any- thing, but only gave an organisation to the Army which made decentralisation easy.
Previous page
