LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
A WORD FOR LORD SALISBURY.
rre THE EDITOR OF THE .SPEOTATOR.1 Sin,—I cannot help thinking that, between the tumultuous acclaim of the Conservative journals and the impassioned reproba- tion of their Liberal antagonists, it is but wild justice that has been done to Lord Salisbury's speech on the Army Bill. Probably he has not much to complain of,—much, I mean, for which he has not himself to blame. In the tossing of a feudal fray the banners of the chieftains required to be visible and intelligible at a glance, and if, instead of a lion done in gold to catch the sun-rays, or a pine-tree relieved in black upon a ground of white, one of them had been inscribed with a concise disquisition on the art of war or the statement and solution of a philosophical problem, it would have been quite uselems, because quite incomprehensible. Hung out in the strife of parties, Lord Salisbury's speech was taken for a mere party symbol, and as he ought to have known that it would 'of necessity be so taken, he is himself in fault if its higher value has been overlooked. But this consideration does not make it one whit less wise, or fair, or expedient on the part of the public to take note of this value, supposing it to exist; and in my opinion it does exist. Those sentences of trenchant criticism in which Lord Salisbury touched on the philosophy of popular government and the shortcomings of free institutions deserve the attention of all sensible men, Whig, Tory, and Radi- cal. "Happy are they who can hear their detractions and put them to mending." The great Shakespearian saying applies to nations and institutions, as well as to individuals. But it is impos- sible to act upon it, if criticism is to be regarded as equivalent to. attack. Unless we are prepared to admit the sincerity of Lord Salisbury's profession of affection for representative government, we must relinquish all hope of deriving benefit from his advice. "You must not conceal from yourselves," he says," "that you have the feeblest Executive and the slowest Legislature in the world." This is startling. The impulsive patriot feels as if he saw the match applied to a gun intended to shatter "the edifice of our constitutional freedom." But, unless Lord Salisbury speaks with duplicity, this is not his intention. "I do not regret that," he "To the feebleness of the Executive we owe our liberties, and to the slowness of the Legislature we owe our institutions." A political speaker ought not to affect the style of Tacitus ; but his lordship clearly means that, feeble as is our Executive, history has afforded no instance in which so much executive efficiency has been combined with so much freedom, and in which legislative processes so tardy and cumbrous have issued in a body of laws so just and an administration of them so fair. This being understood, we may, I submit, be advantage- ously reminded by Lord Salisbury that an Executive so checked and a Legislature so retarded as ours will have difficulty in bringing to a state of perfection, and maintaining in efficiency, so complex, delicate, and wonderful a machine as a modern army. If the problem proposed to the Estates of the Realm were the construction, by successive votes in both Houses, of the beat chronometer in Europe, should we not all, firm as might be our faith in the capacity of Parliament, admit that success would be attended with difficulties ? If any one thinks this problem more difficult than that of organizing such an army as Von Moltke led into France, he can have no idea of what he talks about. We cannot have an army comparable in size to that of Prussia ; but our Line, the nucleus of our defensive system, ought at least to equal it in efficiency. I believe that every man acquainted with military affairs in Europe would agree with Lord Salisbury that it will not.be easy to attain this by means of bursts of Parliamentary eloquence. ‘Vere the difficulty of the problem put forward as an argument of the worthlessness of free institutions,—were it main- tained, even, that the organization of a thoroughly effective army through the action of our Parliamentary system is impossible,— I should disallow the conclusion ; but if the practical inference suggested by an exhibition of the difficulty of the problem is that the most thoughtful care and the most vigilant circum- spection must be exercised in solving it ; that Parliamentary eloquence ought in this instance, if ever, "to braid its golden locks by wisdom's side "; that the necessity of real acquaint- ance with the subject should be recognized by all who mingle in the discussion (and this we are, I think, bound,' in fairness to Lord Salisbury, to admit) ; then good and not evil will come of attending to his lordship's advice. The impulses of nations and of popular assemblies are almost always right ; so are the convictions from which those impulses proceed. The popular decision against the system of purchase in the Army is just, and ought to be accepted. But popular assemblies have no aptitude for the discovery of administrative methods or for settling the details of any complicated arrangement. In so far as Lord Salisbury casts his shield over the system of purchase, I dis- agree with him ; but I confess that I partake in that sentiment of despair with which he contemplates the prospect of a better system being put in its place. The thing is not impossible. At the risk of being thought conceited, I add that I know bow it could be done. But I shall be delightedly surprised if Parliament does it. One essential difficulty is to avoid stagnation. The system of pur- chase has, by a rough and ready method, kept up a flow of pro- motion. The Duke of Cambridge points out that, by a scheme of retirement, the stream may be kept flowing. But the scheme of retirement will cost a million per annum in addition to the other expenses involved in the abolition of purchase, and I fear it may strike the popular intelligence that this million, to be paid by the country for the retirement of officers, was formerly paid by officers themselves. I fear, also, that it will not strike the popular intel- ligence that a scheme of retirement, managed in conjunction veith judicious methods of selection, will give us better officers. This last is the consideration which turns the balance absolutely against the system of purchase. But the House of Commons will judge the expense of retirement, and if rigid parsi- mony is enforced on the Commander-in-Chief, be will find it impossible to keep up the flow of promotion, and chronic stagnation, chronic discontent in the Army, will be the inevitable result. Lord Salisbury has been sternly rebuked for hinting that "seniority tempered by selection " may become "stagnation tempered by jobbery." Patriotism knits its brow and scowls upon the cynical aristocrat who asperses the public spirit of the country and the personal honour of our statesmen. But patriots ought to remember that man is mortal and fallible. Do not even their own piercing eyes overlook the failings of pleasant friends and useful relatives ? What statesman so pure as not to detect virtues in his supporters, and shortcomings in those who have steadily opposed him? But the heart of the difficulty lies in this, that if the Commander-in-Chief were purity and magnanimity incarnate, he would, in time of peace, be at a loss for decisive indications by which to determine the superiority of one officer to another. Von Moltke manages it. Yes ; but Von Moltke has in operation a Staff system the most per- fect the world ever saw, with a marvellously elaborate scheme of reporting, so that, assisted by a thousand eyes practised in the discernment of military efficiency, he can form an intelligent, well-grounded estimate of the merit of every officer in the service. Von Moltke, moreover, and Von loon would resign their posts to-morrow if they were told that their exercise of the right of selection could, in each particular instance, be made the subject of a question in the Prussian House of Representatives. Last of all, the Prussian commander-in-chief has the advantage of putting the troops annually through the great movements, with a large proportion of the actual hardships, of a campaign. In a working army selection is comparatively an easy affair ; but the work natural to an army is fighting, and the pro- blem we have to solve is to keep an army in a state of perfect effi- ciency in time of peace. The abolition of purchase is, 1 believe, a step in the right direction ; but it is no more than a first stop, and Lord Salisbury has, I think, done less than no harm in calling attention to the difficulty of the steps by which, unless the last state of our Army is to be worse than the first, it must be followed.
Previous page
