The new Volunteer Regulations have naturally provoked a great deal
of comment and criticism in the Press, notably in the Daily Telegraph. Our contemporary admits that the more stringent regulations now put forward are the logical outcome of Mr. Brodrick's new Army Corps scheme, and accord with the view of those experts who set special store by " quality," and prefer a small, highly trained, professional Army to the " Nation in Arms " ; and it holds that barrack-yard drill is of itself inadequate to meet the conditions of modern warfare. But it supports the view of those correspondents who deprecate the abandonment of those who cannot become "efficient on the new basis, and favours a scheme by which a supplementary force of marksmen-Volunteers should be encouraged and subsidised by the State. The danger of -the new regulations, as it seems to us, is that unless interpreted with great tact and elasticity, they may further the bad policy of attempting to turn Volunteers into sham Regulars. We want to get " quality " certainly, but we cannot afford to lose those who can shoot and are already two-thirds soldiers. For ourselves• we should prefer to see any definite changes in the organisation of the Volunteer Force postponed for a year, during which' time a thorough investigation of the whole sub- ject should be made, special consideration being given to the claims of the Metropolitan regiments, on whom the new con- ditions as to camp attendance press most severely.
Previous page
