Sin,—Encouraged by the wide hospitality you have shown to divergent
views on this most vital question, I venture, as a Volunteer of varied experience, as private and officer, in artillery and infantry, to join in the discussion.
In considering the " efficiency " of the Volunteers, it is necessary to have a definite view of what is meant by the word. If by that term is meant ready effectiveness, like that of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade, or the crew, of a cross-Channel steamer—i.e., organised fitness for immediate use for the purpose for which they exist—it is glaringly obvious that the Volunteers have not, and never can have, any such efficiency. I am fully convinced of the general truth of the strictures of "Adjutant, Volunteer Artillery," but regret that he has somewhat spoiled his case by exaggerations of statement. The Volunteers have shown that they cannot as a body manage even a biennial camp- training of six days, with an annual minimum of ten isolated single hours of drill, a morning or afternoon's class-firing, and an inspection parade. Can any serious man regard such a training as adequate for a military force on which the safety of a great country may depend? They are over a hundred thousand men and officers short, and the numbers are dwindling; the physique of a great proportion of the members is deplorable, the average medical inspection being a mere farce. Even to perpetuate the ill-trained, ill-disciplined, hopelessly inadequate force that we have, the only possible means are further attenua- tions of service, the admission of an ever-lower physical standard, or—payment. The country, I hope, will accept neither of the first two means; and I am very certain it will not accept the last.
With the alternatives thus presented—of paying a tremendous price for an utterly unreliable force, or of accepting a just and beneficial national sacrifice by the compulsory training of the youthful manhood of the country—the choice, to a self-respecting people, must be obvious. There is no need to " destroy " our present Auxiliary Forces. Upon the basis of the most ancient of all our forces, the Militia, the theory of whose maintenance is compulsory service, we can, by the institution of a system akin to that of Switzerland, but with a fuller training for officers, raise a really reliable homogeneous Home Defence Army, incorporating the Yeomanry and Volunteers, and taking over all such "plant," titles, and organisation as competent authorities may judge advisable. That the Volunteer service companies did well in South Africa is not surprising. They were picked men ; they had, between enrolment and landing, several weeks of military discipline; and in most cases, in the instances where they ultimately did face an enemy, possessing even less discipline than themselves, they had had several more weeks of military service before doing so,—say three months in all. Such war service can be no criterion for a future and extremely probable great war, when the "Auxiliaries" may not have time for three days' extra preparation.
—I am, Sir, &C., VOLUNTEER.
[We believe that the falling off in the physique of the Volunteers is largely due to the fact that the best men have been driven out of the force by the new requirements for efficiency, which are aimed at making the Volunteers into imitation Regulars rather than giving them an appropriate organisa- tion. On the question of payment we have an open mind. The old Volunteers—i.e., the Volunteers raised during the French War—were paid, a fact of which we were reminded by the payment of the ante-bellum Yeomanry, who were mounted Volunteers. We must now close this correspondence.—
Previous page
