ARMY REFORM.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] SIR,—I have read your note and article in the Spectator of November 21st on "Mr. Arnold-Forster on the Army," and feel sure that most people must agree with your general reasoning. The private soldier represents the pith of the case, as you very truly state. It is therefore to be regretted that you should have weakened your argument by making the two following remarks, viz. :—(1), "A Hohenzollern would save it [namely, 23,500,000] by a radical reform in the regimental system," &c. ; and (2), "We have too many departments, too many officers,—what is the use of a Colonel, for instance, or a Major either P"
Now, Mr. Arnold-Forster has studied his subject, and appears to have made himself better acquainted with the military- service than any other civilian. He has got hold of certain hard facts, but the sentences which I quote from the Spectator display some lack of information. Had you known of the many instructional classes and detached and necessary duties which take officers away from their regiments ; or had you seen the amount of non-commissioned officers' work which officers have to undertake (because non-commissioned officers are now so young and inexperienced) ; or had you realised the numerous duties which devolve on the officers of an Army which keeps its best eighty thousand men in India and the Colonies,—I feel sure you would not have said that the officers on the active list are too numerous, or that Colonels and Majors are of no use I am at a loss to know what actual " department " you would abolish ; surely not the Supply, or Medical, or Transport ? Doubtless economy might well be practised, but not on the lines you suggest. The " regimental " would seem to be the one system which has not failed so far, though it has been hard hit by War Office clerks. But if you had said that our existing staff of officers is sufficient for double our present number of privates, and that our home battalions, instead of being reduced, might with advantage be raised to twelve hundred to cover the constant drafts which are sent abroad, / believe all officers who are anxious to improve the efficiency of the service would agree with you.—I am, Sir, Szc., AN OFFICER.
[Our correspondent seems not to see that our proposals are identical. To double the number of men in a regiment is to. halve the number of officers.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
