LORD ROBERTS ON HOME DEFENCE.
AT Norwich on Monday Lord Roberts, the first of living British soldiers, whom the country is about to con- gratulate on his eightieth birthday, spoke with an earnestness exceptional even for him of the need of compulsory military training for the youth of the British Isles. His introduc- tion to his subject was, as it always must be, a consideration of the place of the Navy in relation to the Army. He deprecated the general sense of security from the possibility of invasion, but admitted that it was not an unnatural feeling.
"That such a strong feeling of security and immunity from danger should so generally exist is, perhaps, not surprising. You have, no doubt, been led to believe from your earliest days that an invasion of these shores is an impossibility. You have been allowed to think that the defence of your country is something with which you have nothing to do, as it is looked after by those in authority who are more competent to judge of its safety than you axe; that it is no concern of yours whether the Army is or is not fitted to do all that is required to keep the Empire intact, and that, so long as we have a powerful Navy, you can sleep comfortably in your beds, and need not trouble yourselves about the safety of your homes."
It is natural, indeed, for people to give themselves the benefit of any doubt they may have as to whether their services are really required, when they can refer to the soothing assurances of men like Lord Fisher, and even of Mr. Balfour, who is generally admirably sound on military and naval questions. Even if the Navy were able to prevent any and every sort of landing on our shores, it might be that our ships would be fatally hampered by having to watch in full strength the British coasts when it was their proper duty to search out the enemy and destroy him further away. A well-trained and adequately large Army of Home Defence would relieve the Navy of this distracting if not paralyzing anxiety. But we go further than to say that a Home Defence Army should merely set free the Navy. We say that no man knows for certain that an invasion is an impossibility, and that no states- man has a right to unman his countrymen by telling them that they need not worry. No kind of avoidable risk should be accepted. Only the other day, in the Nava manoeuvres, fog, which is characteristic of the North Sea as everyone knows, enabled the attacking fleet to land a considerable force before it was discovered. An adequate Army for Home Defence would deprive our rivals of all temptation to attack us. They would reflect that the risk of letting an invading force become engaged with such an army as the Swiss possess—for that is our ideal model for an Army of Home Defence—would be much too great to be faced.
Lord Roberts spoke of the small amount of sacrifice necessary—a sacrifice "which all other nations have had to take upon themselves." But the sacrifice would be even less than he seemed to say. What the National Service League and Lord Roberts, and all of us who agree with their principles, desire is emphatically not conscription in the Continental sense. Conscript service for Imperial duties abroad is not contemplated. All that is asked for is a, short period of compulsory military training for every able-bodied youth, to be followed by shorter periods of training in subsequent years, i.e., by four years' service in a Territorial unit, and up till, say, forty by member- ship in a Territorial Reserve. In time of emergency a youth so trained might volunteer for military service abroad, and his services would then be worth accept- ing, instead of being like those of some of the latest volunteers in the South African War. But the only compulsion on him would be to present himself for training and to defend the British Isles if they were threatened. This would be a great military improvement on our present method. But it would be much more than that. It would be a most beneficial social revolution. It would be in the truest sense a democratic movement. As it is, an enormous number of electors are able to vote on issues of peace and war without sharing in any of the personal dangers they invoke. They enjoy a position of privilege ; they vote away other men's lives. The citizens of the British Dominions are more democratic than ourselves. One and all they are coming to perceive the perfect logic of a "nation in arms." Just as a democrat everywhere says "No taxation without repre- sentation," so a democrat in the Dominions says, "No making war without personal responsibility." It is a sober- ing thought. We are often told that to train the nation to arms is to create a nation of Jingoes. Was there ever greater nonsense than this ? Is it likely that the civilian elector would scream for war if he knew that instead of being able to watch war as though he were in a comfort- able seat in a theatre, he and every able-bodied member of his family would have to turn out and take part in it ? Nor would the permeation of the country by a sense of responsibility be the only social gain. There would be a great improvement in the physical quality of the nation. Who that is not quite blinded by prejudice and cant does not recognize at a glance the superior handiness, the superior look of well-being, the superior air of self-respect, which belong to a man who has had a military training ?
At present it is our national practice to penalize patriotism. The employer who seta his men free for their Territorial training is at a disadvantage in competing with his less patriotic rival. And the obstructions and impedi- ments in the way of a young man who wants to do his service have more ramifications than some people have ever imagined. The head gardener is tempted to force an under gardener to cry off his training, though the lad may be dying to go, because he, the head gardener, does not want to have more work temporarily on his own hands ; the coachman to intimidate the groom ; the foreman of works the men under him. The father of the family reviles his son for playing at being a soldier, instead of making sure of pleasing his employer and keeping his job. So it goes on through all grades of society. But give us compulsion and all these obstacles and all the invidiousness would vanish at one stroke. The Army would become the possession of the people themselves. Lord Roberts said most truly :— "It is only when there is a prospect of war that any interest is taken in the Army by the general public, and then only in a hysterical and excitable fashion. No inquiry is even then made by the public as to whether the men who are sent off to fight, and perhaps to die, are thoroughly qualified for their perilous duties ; whether they are numerically strong enough or sufficiently trained as soldiers to cope with the troops they may have to meet; whether they are properly equipped, or whether their arms are all that they should be. But when disasters occur from want of numbers, insufficient training, or inferior weapons, the Army and its coin-
menders are as unfairly, as they are unstintingly, condemned by the same public. Gentlemen, this is altogether wrong. It is as shortsighted as it is unpatriotic, but it will never be otherwise until the Army is looked upon as part and parcel of the nation."
In this connexion we must say how glad we are to read the plea which Sir Ian Hamilton made, in his address on "National Life and National Training" at Birmingham on Tuesday, for compulsory cadet training in all schools public or private. Explaining his scheme, he said :— "There exist in the United Kingdom and in Ireland '758,000 boys aged 12 and under 14. To equip these boys and give them a thorough two years' course of military training in their schools would cost .2380,000 per annum. An amendment to the Education Act must provide for the expenditure of this sum. Under the terms of that amendment teachers would become the cadet corps officers, receiving such help as was necessary from retired non- commissioned officers. The War Office would advise and inspect. Such inspections would prove to be the salvation of our race. Because the great mass are apathetic; because the far-seeing minority are disunited; because some preach voluntary service, some national service, some compulsory service, some conscription ; because of these inevitably divided councils—are we to do nothing ? "
Sir Ian Hamilton disappointed the greater number of his friends when he published a book in condemnation of compulsory military training. We trust that circum- stances will compel him to return to his former beliefs. At all events the necessary step is not a long one. Between him and us there appears to be now only a question of age. He wants compulsory military training in schools ; we want it as the essential part of National Service a little later in life, when we are certain it would be still more useful. We do not know how he maintains his condemna- tion of the latter plan, though maintain it he still apparently does. What he says, however, of the advantages of com- pulsory cadet service in schools will serve capitally as a list of the virtues we should certainly acquire by the compulsory military training of our youths—" discipline, self-restraint, good manners, cleanliness, and physical development."
Previous page
