FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[69]The rainfall in that part of India is said to exceed 600 inches a year.[70]See map of Bootan.[71]Now General Sir Henry Hume, K.C.B.[72]Captain Griffin had been in command of a battery, and had done excellent service during the previous frontier war of Umbeylah. The names of the two lieutenants were E. Walker and E.A. Anderson.[73]Now General Sir George Bourchier, K.C.B.

[69]The rainfall in that part of India is said to exceed 600 inches a year.

[70]See map of Bootan.

[71]Now General Sir Henry Hume, K.C.B.

[72]Captain Griffin had been in command of a battery, and had done excellent service during the previous frontier war of Umbeylah. The names of the two lieutenants were E. Walker and E.A. Anderson.

[73]Now General Sir George Bourchier, K.C.B.

FAREWELL TO INDIA—RETURN TO REGIMENTAL DUTY AT WOOLWICH—APPOINTED DIRECTOR OF ARTILLERY—WAR OFFICE ORGANIZATION

Having completed an almost continuous service of nine years in India, the time had at length arrived for my return to England. After many wanderings in distant lands, it is always a happiness to return home; still, no one, I think, can derive other than benefit from a residence for a time in the great empire which England has established in the East. To a soldier the experience gained is invaluable, not only in regard to the incidents of camp life and of marching, but also from the exceptional character of the campaigns in which our troops are so often engaged. Desirous as the Government may be for peace, still even now other military expeditions may be looming in the future; and under any circumstances the preparations for possible wars require constant care and watchfulness. Indeed, in the wide range of their duties in India, the officers and men of the British forces gain a varied experience suchas does not fall to the lot of any other European army.

The subjects of interest in our Eastern dominions are, however, by no means confined to arrangements for military expeditions. The various races of people whose customs, laws, and religions are so diverse in themselves, and so different from our own, the remarkable history of the country in the years gone by, and its successive invasions—all these are matters of a specially interesting character; and never more so than at the present time, when the results of our conquest, and the effects of modern civilisation, are beginning to exert so powerful an influence amongst the millions over whom we hold sway. Old customs and ancient superstitions are being rapidly and almost violently disturbed. In short, the establishment of our rule in the country is not only an unprecedented event, but involves a gradual and an almost entire change in the views and habits of the people. We have given them internal peace, sound laws, and safety of life and property, such as they have never enjoyed before; but we cannot stand still. Enlightenment, and the diffusion of what is termed education, are gravely affecting the character of the people; and it is not sufficient to guarantee them a mere peaceful existence; we must look forward to the results as they develop, and as we commenced by a bold policy,to subjugate a vast continent, so we must equally boldly be prepared to trust the people, and gradually to allow all ranks and classes to take part in the political, civil, and military events as they arise. By consistently and courageously following out such a policy, we shall present a noble spectacle to the world of a great, prosperous, and, what is more, an enduring empire established by England in the East. We have, indeed, but one course to pursue.

Military service at home in time of peace is naturally of a less interesting character than travels and occasional expeditions in distant lands; and the training of young soldiers at Woolwich, which fell to my lot for some time after my return to England, did not present incidents of a striking character. At one period, I remember, there was a considerable dearth of recruits, especially of drivers for the horse artillery, partially due to the frequent changes in war office regulations as to the height and dimensions of the men enlisted. We were allowed to take short men, provided they were of exceptional width of chest and shoulders. Meeting an old recruiting serjeant one day, I inquired if he had been successful, but he was by no means sanguine; and, on my pressing him for the reason of his comparative failure, he replied: 'Beg your pardon, sir, but the Almighty doesn't make the men the shape you order 'em.'

I received occasional curious letters from soldiers, one or two of which are worth quotation. The first was from a gunner who was anxious to be married, as in the days of long service it was necessary to obtain previous permission from the commanding officer. It is as follows: 'Sir, I beg you will pardon the liberty I take, in requesting the favour of your permission on a subject which depends on my future happiness. During my stay in Winchester, I have formed an attachment with a highly respectable young person, to whom I wish to develop my sentiments, by a matrimonial engagement, for which purpose may I beg, sir, the favour of your liberty?' The man, so far as my recollection goes, was duly married, and happy ever afterwards.

The second letter accidentally fell into my hands, and is of a romantic character, from a soldier to a girl to whom he was devoted. 'My darling Jane, it is with great Plesur that I sit down to right a fue lines to you, with the intenchun of cheering your drooping sperits, for the tempest that ranges before you, the storm is hie, the tempest's winds blows through the parish, the throushes is warbling their songs of melode, but by far the sweetest song thare singing, his hover the water to Charley' ... and so on.

Whilst stationed at Woolwich an incident occurred connected with a young artillery officer, of Irish family, who had been absent for some years onforeign service; and who, on his return to Woolwich, was taken to the large handsome messroom to see some recent improvements. Amongst other things, a new patent stove was pointed out to him; and it was explained that, whilst it gave the same amount of heat as the old fireplace, there was a considerable economy of coal—in fact, there was a saving of half the fuel. The officer at once remarked: 'If one stove saves half the fuel, why don't you buy two of them, and save the whole of it?' This view had never occurred to the Mess Committee.

It was not until the early part of 1870 that I again took an active part in military administration, being unexpectedly offered the appointment of Director of Artillery at the War Office, by the Minister for War, Mr. Cardwell, whom until then I had never seen. It happened to be a period when considerable reforms in the army were under consideration; and I was fortunate in being associated for three or four years with a statesman of resolution and great ability, who, in the face of much opposition, parliamentary and other, laid the foundation of several important and beneficial changes, not only in the War Office itself, but also in the terms of soldiers' service and in general improvement of their condition. In order to understand the general bearing and scope of some of the chief reforms inaugurated by the late Lord Cardwell during his termof office as Minister, it will be desirable to give short accounts of the arrangements formerly existing in each case; and as some of his measures, from their nature, only arrived at maturity years after he had ceased to be Secretary of State, I propose to trace their gradual development, and the results achieved, down to the present day.

One of the first subjects which engaged the attention of Mr. Cardwell was the difficult one of War Office administration. The authority over the army was formerly more or less of a dual character; thepersonnelof the infantry and cavalry being under a Commander-in-Chief, whilst a Master General had charge of the ordnance corps, as well as the provision of armaments for the naval and military services. These arrangements would not in themselves at first sight appear to have much to recommend them, the responsibility being rather diffused. Still it must be remembered that they bore successfully the stress of the great wars at the end of the last and in the earlier years of the present century. As the Master General was always a distinguished officer, and was often a member of the Cabinet, and further was assisted by a board, some of whom were men of military experience and in Parliament, the system apparently suited itself more or less to our constitutional form of government. The great Duke of Wellington, who was for some time Master General,stated that the Ordnance Department was careful, economical, and efficient. He spoke of it as one of the most ancient departments of the monarchy, and that it was a pattern for others.[74]When, in 1849, a proposal had been made to abolish the board, he strongly opposed it, and said: 'I warn the Government of the danger of this alteration in a military view.' Sir Henry Hardinge, and other experienced General Officers who had held the same office, were of similar opinions.

When at length, after a peace of nearly forty years, we again in 1854 took part in a great European war, the difficulties which at once ensued, the enormous cost involved, and the sufferings of our troops during the winter in the Crimea, led the Government of the day suddenly to inaugurate a newrégime; and early in 1855 the administration of the army in all its departments was vested in a Minister for War. In short, we made the somewhat hazardous experiment of swopping horses when crossing a stream. As a matter of general principle, it is probable that some such arrangement was desirable, an army being a department of the State which requires concentration of authority. But it is to be observed that the Minister for War is usually a civilian, and changes with each Government, so that neither concentration of knowledge nor unity of purpose necessarily followed on the change; and, further, when the new system came into force the Master General and board, instead of being simply absorbed, were abolished, their duties being divided in a slap-dash fashion amongst various departments. Mr. Clode[75]says that after the first Cabinet of Lord Palmerston as Premier, early in 1855, the Secretary-at-War 'brought home half a sheet of paper, containing a memorandum that the Ordnance Department was to be abolished.'

It is hardly a matter of wonder that this sudden concentration of the military departments in a new War Office, under a parliamentary chief, and in the midst of a great war, should have led to some confusion, which continued for several years. Soon after Mr. Cardwell became Minister, he appointed a committee under Lord Northbrook (then Under-Secretary) to investigate the matter; and the results of their inquiries led to a reconstruction, in 1870, of the various departments on an intelligible and sound basis. The War Office was then divided into three main branches: (1)personnel, under the Commander-in-Chief; (2)matériel, that is, armaments for navy and army, fortifications, barracks, commissariat and clothing, under a Surveyor General of Ordnance, who it was specially stated should be an experienced officer—in fact, it was a virtual revival of the officeof Master General; (3) finance, to be represented by an Under-Secretary in Parliament.

The arrangement was simple, and soon in working order; but, unfortunately, after Mr. Cardwell had ceased to be War Minister one of its main principles was ignored, and the office of Surveyor General, which obviously required military experience, came to be regarded chiefly as a civil and political appointment, and was usually conferred on a member of Parliament, coming and going, of course, with the Government of the day. The result was a gradual weakening of the whole organisation. As a proof of the numerous changes which may occur, I may point out that between 1883 and 1887 there were no less than five Ministers for War, and four Surveyors General, all civilians, in office in rapid succession.

It so happens that in 1887 there were two Royal Commissions, the one under the late Sir James Stephen, and the other under Sir Matthew Ridley; both of whom advised the revival of the Master General. Sir James Stephen's Commission said: 'The office of Master General of the Ordnance should be revived, so far as the management of the stores and manufacturing departments is concerned. He should be a soldier of the highest eminence....' Sir Matthew Ridley said: 'That the intentions of Lord Northbrook's Committee of 1870 have not been carried out, and the idea of securing the highestprofessional acquirements for the position has been entirely abandoned.... We are of opinion that the Surveyor General of the Ordnance should in future be what he was intended to be, viz. a military officer of high standing and experience, and that he should not be a member of the House of Commons.'

Their views, however, were not acted on; and in 1888 the office of Surveyor General was abolished, and its numerous duties sub-divided, some being transferred to the already over-burdened shoulders of the military staff, and the rest handed over to the Financial Secretary; and this condition of affairs exists to this day. In short, the War Office is now divided into two branches: the one military, with great responsibilities; the other civil and financial, with great power.[76]In my judgment, should war occur, such a system would inevitably break down at once. Further evidence, however, exists, which will, I think, be conclusive on this point. In 1890 still another Royal Commission, that of Lord Hartington, examined and reported on this question, so vital to military efficiency; and it is to be observed that of its members three had already held the office of Minister for War—namely, Lord Hartington, the late Mr. W.H. Smith, and Mr. Campbell Bannerman. In their report they practically condemn the systemthen and now existing. In the first place, they point out that the various heads of the spending departments have no direct access to the Secretary of State and are subordinate one to the other. They consider that the present organisation of the War Office is defective in principle, and they go on to recommend that the heads of departments should be directly associated with the Minister for War[77]—in short, a board of officers, such as now exists at the Admiralty.

In considering this great national question I would point out that this country holds quite an exceptional position as regards its military arrangements and preparations for war. Other nations maintain far larger armies, but their troops as a rule have no foreign duties, or distant possessions to protect. Our condition is much the reverse. We are a great naval, military, Indian, and colonial empire; with fleets, troops, fortresses, and reserves of munitions to maintain in every quarter of the world; and it is essential, not only that the two fighting services should act in unity, but that their armaments should be identical in pattern, and that the reserves at home and abroad be available for both. Then, again, on entering on a foreign expedition, we have at once to undertake a most difficult operation in the rapid embarkationof men, horses, guns, munitions, engineer, medical and commissariat stores; so that from every point of view a strong administration is required, and one in which the unrivalled experience of our officers should be fully utilised and trusted.

No doubt the requirements of constitutional government must be considered and provided for. Indeed, it is essential that the naval and military services should be adequately represented in Parliament, and this principle was fully recognised in the years gone by. For instance, in 1829, when the Duke of Wellington was Prime Minister, and when our military expenditure was far less than now, the army was officially represented in the two Houses of Parliament as follows:—

We must always bear in mind that the army is no mere inanimate piece of machinery. On thecontrary, it is one of the most vital and powerful elements of the State; and its efficiency can only be maintained by placing the administration of its various departments in the hands of competent and experienced general officers, and investing them with adequate power. If I have dwelt at some length on this abstruse subject, it is because, having served both as Director of Artillery and Surveyor General of Ordnance, I have gained some insight into its difficulties, and feel earnestly the necessity of reorganising the department.

Although the War Office, as will be seen, is a department of hard work and great responsibility, still even within its gloomy portals there are now and then incidents and stories of an amusing character. Many years ago, when the late Sir Cornewall Lewis was Minister for War, on one occasion he visited the infantry depot at Warley in Essex, and was shown a handsome room.[78]After admiring its proportions he inquired as to its use, when, suddenly observing a wooden vaulting horse at the far end of the building, he said: 'Oh! I see—the riding school.'

The late Lord Longford, who had seen much active service both in the Crimea and India, was Under-Secretary for War in 1867. He was an excellent administrator, and occasionally very humorous inhis minutes. At the period in question it so happened that there were two officers of high rank and position in the War Office who disagreed in their views on almost every subject, and were constantly in collision—on paper. The correspondence became so voluminous, and the difficulty so perplexing, that at length the whole matter was placed before Lord Longford. I am unable to give his exact words, but his minute to Sir John Pakington, then Minister for War, was to the following effect. 'Secretary of State,—This is a very interesting correspondence. From a careful perusal I have arrived at the conclusion that both these gentlemen are in theright. The case is now for your disposal.'

On another occasion, another Under-Secretary wrote a minute as follows: 'Secretary of State,—This is a very important subject. You will observe that the paper is folded the wrong way.' When Sir Henry Storks was Surveyor General of the Ordnance, he was waited upon by an excellent old messenger, who, however, in his conversation was apt to omit his h's. One day he came into the room, and said: 'Sir 'Enery, Mr. Owl wishes to see you.' 'Who?' asked Sir Henry. 'I never heard of him.' 'Beg your pardon—it is Mr. Owl, the Director of Contracts.' 'Oh, Mr. Howell; show him in!'[79]

Some years ago the Minister for War, so it is said, being desirous of acquainting himself with the work of the different branches, visited the various rooms and inquired as to the details. Meeting a gentleman in the passage, he asked at what hour he usually came to his duty. 'Oh!' said the gentleman in reply, 'I usually stroll in about eleven or twelve o'clock.' 'Stroll in,' said the minister, in surprise; 'then I presume you do not leave until a late hour?' 'Well,' replied the gentleman, 'I generally slip off about three o'clock.' 'Slip off at three?' said the minister, much scandalised. 'Pray, sir, may I ask what department you belong to?' 'Certainly,' said the young man; 'I come every Saturday to wind up the clocks!'

I also remember a curious incident which happened to Lord Cardwell, but which is social rather than military. After he had ceased to be minister, it so happened that the wife of one of his former colleagues in the Government gave birth to a child, and Lord Cardwell called to make inquiries. When the butler opened the door, he announced that her Ladyship was going on well. 'A girl?' said Cardwell, inquiringly. 'No, my Lord.' 'Oh, a boy?' remarked Cardwell. 'No, my Lord.' 'Why, surely—' but before he could say more, the butler interposed, 'Beg pardon, my Lord, but it's a little hare' (heir).

FOOTNOTES:[74]Clode'sMilitary Forces of the Crown, ii. 765.[75]Clode'sMilitary Forces of the Crown, ii. 251.[76]See evidence of H.R.H. the Commander-in-Chief (Second Report of Committee of the House of Commons on Army Estimates, 1888, pp. 27, 35, 36, and 52.)[77]SeeCommission on the Administration of the Naval and Military Departments, February 1890, pp. 57, 67, 70, 73, and 114.[78]The gymnasium.[79]I once knew a gentleman of far higher rank than a War Office messenger who laboured under the same defect. We were at one time interested in an association which, though useful, constantly met with opposition. Coming across him one day after a meeting which he had attended, I inquired how matters were going on, and he replied, 'I was determined there should be no 'itch, so I brought them up to the scratch.'

[74]Clode'sMilitary Forces of the Crown, ii. 765.

[75]Clode'sMilitary Forces of the Crown, ii. 251.

[76]See evidence of H.R.H. the Commander-in-Chief (Second Report of Committee of the House of Commons on Army Estimates, 1888, pp. 27, 35, 36, and 52.)

[77]SeeCommission on the Administration of the Naval and Military Departments, February 1890, pp. 57, 67, 70, 73, and 114.

[78]The gymnasium.

[79]I once knew a gentleman of far higher rank than a War Office messenger who laboured under the same defect. We were at one time interested in an association which, though useful, constantly met with opposition. Coming across him one day after a meeting which he had attended, I inquired how matters were going on, and he replied, 'I was determined there should be no 'itch, so I brought them up to the scratch.'

SHORT SERVICE AND RESERVE

Among the numerous measures carried out by the late Lord Cardwell during the period of his administration of the War Department, none has exercised a wider or more beneficial influence than the introduction of short service and reserve for the non-commissioned officers and men of the army. Indeed, when we consider the results achieved, it seems rather surprising that such a change had not been made long ago, not only in the interests of the men, but also in the reserve of strength which it gives to the country in the event of war.

In considering the subject in its various bearings, both military and financial, it will be desirable to refer shortly to the methods by which we had endeavoured to maintain our forces in former days. During the great wars in which this country was engaged at the end of the last and in the earlier years of the present century, although the arrangements for recruiting occasionally varied, the main principle adopted was one of long service withhigh bounties on enlistment, and small pensions on retirement. Yet, so difficult was it found to keep the ranks complete, that debtors and even criminals were pardoned on condition of serving abroad.[80]The cost was enormous. For instance, in 1808 the levy and bounty money alone exceeded 40l.for each man, before he had been trained or had done a day's service. This was not only wasteful, but led to drunkenness and desertion[81]; and, notwithstanding its cost, the plan failed in providing sufficient recruits, and the army at critical moments was lamentably behind the numbers required. For instance, early in the Peninsular war it was about 43,000[82]short of the desired establishment, and during the Crimean war the deficiency was over 46,000.[83]

The real fact was that the system of recruiting up to 1870 was, and always had been, unpopular. The service was a very hard one. Regiments were kept abroad for upwards of twenty years, often in tropical, unhealthy climates; and of the thousands who enlisted yearly but few ever returned, and even those were often prematurely aged and broken down. It is no wonder that the poor people of the country looked upon enlistment of their sons with dread, and as almost equivalent to a sentence of banishment andof death. So great was the difficulty, that between 1861 and 1869—although the men were then better paid, fed, and clothed than in former years—the average number of recruits obtained was only 12,546 per annum.[84]In 1867 General Peel, the Minister for War, said that 'the question now is whether the British army should be allowed to collapse.' In that year another Royal Commission was appointed to consider the subject, and in their report said: 'The military history of this country, even up to the date of the last great war in which we were engaged, shows that it has been our practice during periods of peace to reduce our military establishments to the lowest possible point.... No preparations for a state of war were thought of; and the consequence has been that, when war occurred, everything had to be done in a hurry at the most lavish expense.... Men were enrolled and sent half-trained into the field, material manufactured, transport provided, and accommodation for the sick and wounded devised and organised.' They went on to say that 'wars will be sudden in their commencement and short in their duration, and woe to that country which is unprepared to defend itself.'

The above remarks will probably be sufficient to demonstrate the difficulty which the country had experienced over and over again, not only inmaintaining its forces in the field during a campaign, but even in providing sufficient numbers for our garrisons at home and abroad in time of peace. But whatever may have been the merits or shortcomings of the arrangements up to 1870, one point, at all events, was perfectly clear—that the army had no reserve. One or two feeble efforts in that direction had been made, but had failed. When a great war came upon us, the only resource was to try and stimulate recruiting by lowering the physical standard and by raising the bounties, so that often the campaign was over before the desired numbers had been obtained.[85]

The time, indeed, had fully come for a change of system. In March 1869, Mr. Cardwell, speaking in the House of Commons, indicated his intention of abolishing the plan of long enlistments, and the following year introduced the bill affirming the principle of short service and reserve. What he said was 'that in time of peace the army would feed the reserve, and in time of war the reserve would feed the army.' Having confidence in the scheme, he boldly abolished the old costly system of bounty on enlistment. The principle, when first established, was tentative and optional, and naturally required time before a correct opinion could be formed of itsprogress; indeed, it is only within the last few years that the reserve has developed to its normal figure. The change was much criticised at the time, and it was confidently asserted that men would not care to engage for a short period; and that even were they to do so, the reserves would not be forthcoming if called out. No sooner, however, had the system been adopted than its success year by year became apparent. Not only did the numbers enlisting largely increase, but the proportion of those selecting long service rapidly declined. Then again, although the formation of a reserve was necessarily gradual, we have had two proofs of its reliable nature; the men composing it having been called out, first in 1878 under apprehension of war, and again partially in 1882 during the Egyptian campaign; and in both cases the percentage of absentees was very small. I have already mentioned that during the last years of the long service system the average annual number of recruits was only 12,546, whereas in 1892 no less than 41,659 men joined the army, and the reserve had in January 1894 reached the large figure of 80,349. Before leaving the subject of reserves, it will be as well to mention that Lord Cardwell, in 1870, also gave effect to the Militia Act of 1867, by which a certain number of men of that force, on receiving a small annual bounty, engage to join the regular army in case of war. This reservenow amounts to 30,103, in addition to the numbers just quoted.

These facts are undeniable proofs, not only of the popularity of the present arrangement, but also that the army can at once be largely augmented in case of necessity by men thoroughly trained and in the prime of life. There are, however, other satisfactory elements in the present system. The old feeling that the man who enlisted was virtually lost to his family is becoming a tradition of the past. In former times, as I have said, but few returned, and even they were often prematurely aged by long residence in unhealthy climates; whereas nowadays the men who come back to civil life are, on an average, little over twenty-six years old, and their numbers amount to more than 17,000 per annum, whilst their few years passed in the army have been beneficial in giving them habits of discipline and obedience.

From a financial point of view—which, it is needless to say, is an important feature—the results are equally satisfactory. In the first place, the enormous sums formerly spent in bounties and levy money are now in a great measure saved. Then, again, the pension list is decreasing. Had the old plan continued, with the army at its present strength, the annual cost of pensions would have been nearly3,000,000l.per annum. It will now gradually decrease to less than one-third of that amount. By an actuarial[86]calculation it is estimated that, taking all charges into consideration, the economy of the present system over the old one will be a saving in the normal of 21·71 per cent. for Great Britain and of 47·2 for India. The above statements are made, not as mere matters of opinion, but as facts founded on official records and parliamentary reports; and afford proofs that whilst military service is more popular, and our strength and elasticity for war considerably greater than formerly, at the same time the annual cost is much less. It may, perhaps, be said that the army estimates are increasing; and my reply is that as the Empire is expanding, it requires not only more men, but more numerous and costly armaments for defence, than in the past.

Even the results just quoted do not conclude the story. Several other incidental advantages arise from the abandonment of long service, which may be shortly alluded to. Many persons, for instance, appear to be under the impression that a large proportion of the men now serving are less efficient in point of age than formerly, but the evidence points the other way.

The following are the ages of the non-commissioned officers and men serving in January 1871 and 1894 respectively.[87]

Proportion per 1,000 men

The above figures are somewhat remarkable, as showing that the number of men of the most serviceable ages (that is, between 20 and 30) has largely increased since the introduction of short service; and I believe that experienced officers will concur with me that the army of 1894 is, in respect of age, superior to that of former days.

Then, again, in the consideration of the foreign duties which devolve on our forces, it is often urged that long service, at all events, is best adapted to meet Indian requirements, on the two grounds that young soldiers cannot stand tropical climates and that frequent reliefs are costly. Neither of these views will bear the test of examination. The report of the sanitary condition of the army in India said that 'upon the whole, early entry into India appears to be an advantage, not only at first, but in after life.'[88]At a subsequent period, Sir Ranald Martin stated that 'all statistical observations go to disprove anything like acclimatisation in the EastIndies.' On the contrary, he declares that 'disease and death increase with length of service and age.' Dr. Brydon also said: 'The death-rate of 1871 shows that the death-rate for the men above thirty has been consistently double that of men below that age.'

Lord Airey's Commission of 1880[89]quoted figures proving that the proportion of deaths, and of invalids sent home, increases in a rapid ratio with age. For instance, the number of deaths and invalids per 1,000 men on the average of ten years is—

The above figures indicate that men should be sent to India young, and not be kept there beyond a few years. If men, whose service in India is prolonged, die twice as fast after thirty as they do when under that age, it is evident that, as they must be replaced by drafts from home, even from a financial point of view such a system is not to be commended. So far from a short period not being adapted for India, it is the only one which ought to be allowed, on grounds alike of humanity, efficiency, and economy.

There still remain a few other points, regarding the men serving in the present day, which areworthy of notice. The effects of the Education Act of 1870 have been very marked on the Army. For instance, the proportion of men in the ranks of what is termed 'superior education' was in 1861 74 per thousand, whereas in 1889 it had risen to 854.[90]Again, as regards crime, in 1868[91]the proportion of courts-martial per thousand was 144, whereas in 1892 it was only 54.

Desertions also are steadily decreasing. In 1858[92]upwards of 20,000 men disappeared. In 1874 the net loss from desertion per thousand was 20. In 1893 it was 12.[93]Finally, there remains one more subject regarding the men in the army on which I would say a few words, and that is the marriage question. So long as a system of long service prevailed, a married establishment of only 7 per cent. was recognised by the Government. The virtual result was, that the great majority of men serving year after year were not allowed to marry; and this state of affairs was neither natural nor desirable, tending also to render military service unpopular. Under the present system, as the great majority of the men only remain for a few years in the ranks, they are for the most part single, and on return to civil life can marry at will.

The foregoing remarks will, I hope, be of some interest in indicating the beneficial effect of the changes introduced as regards service in the army by the late Lord Cardwell, when Minister for War in 1870. The men who now enter the ranks are probably of much the same class as formerly, but they serve under improved conditions; and whilst I believe that they retain all the enterprise and courage of those who preceded them, they are undoubtedly far better educated, and therefore to some extent require more discrimination in their treatment than formerly prevailed.

FOOTNOTES:[80]Clode'sMilitary Forces of the Crown, vol. ii., pp. 25-60.[81]Commissions on Recruiting, 1861, p. xiii., and 1867, p. x.[82]Militia Report of 1877, app. xvii., p. 546.[83]Commission on Recruiting, 1867, p. 221.[84]Army Return for 1880.[85]SeeCommission on Recruiting, 1861, p. iii.[86]Actuarial War Office Report, January 1889.[87]Annual Army Returns, 1880 and 1894.[88]Sanitary Condition of the Army in India, 1863, p. xxxi.[89]Lord Airey's Committee of 1880, p. 19.[90]Army Annual Returns, 1881 and 1893.[91]Army Annual Returns, 1880 and 1894.[92]Recruiting Commission of 1861, p. iii.[93]Annual Army Return of 1894.

[80]Clode'sMilitary Forces of the Crown, vol. ii., pp. 25-60.

[81]Commissions on Recruiting, 1861, p. xiii., and 1867, p. x.

[82]Militia Report of 1877, app. xvii., p. 546.

[83]Commission on Recruiting, 1867, p. 221.

[84]Army Return for 1880.

[85]SeeCommission on Recruiting, 1861, p. iii.

[86]Actuarial War Office Report, January 1889.

[87]Annual Army Returns, 1880 and 1894.

[88]Sanitary Condition of the Army in India, 1863, p. xxxi.

[89]Lord Airey's Committee of 1880, p. 19.

[90]Army Annual Returns, 1881 and 1893.

[91]Army Annual Returns, 1880 and 1894.

[92]Recruiting Commission of 1861, p. iii.

[93]Annual Army Return of 1894.

LOCALISATION AND COUNTY REGIMENTS.—INTERVIEW WITH THE EMPEROR NAPOLEON III.

Another important measure introduced during the administration of the late Lord Cardwell was that of localisation. In the old days, when the infantry regiments were scattered all over the world, and for the most part consisted of single battalions, it had been the custom, on their proceeding abroad, to leave behind a small depot, which was constantly moved about in the United Kingdom and obtained recruits as best it could, without regard to local ties or associations; so that, although many of the older regiments bore county titles, which had been given them so long ago as 1782 by King George the Third, in reality men of the various counties and nationalities served together indiscriminately. Field Marshal Conway, who was Commander-in-Chief at the time in question, specially stated that the object of the King was 'to create a mutual attachment between the county and the regiment, which may at all times be useful towards recruiting.'

The scheme, however, for all practical purposes had no force or realityuntil 1871. Lord Cardwell first of all established fixed depots in the counties, each representing two battalions; and thus not only engendered local ties, but also brought the regular army into permanent association with the militia and volunteers. In his speech in the House of Commons in February 1871 he emphasised the desirability of combining our military institutions. He said: 'There is the standing army, with its historical association and glorious memories, and having a larger amount of foreign service than any other army in the world; there is the militia, whose theory is conscription, but whose practice is voluntary enlistment; and then there are the volunteers, who have most of the attributes of military life, and all the independence of the most perfect civil freedom. To combine these different institutions in one complete whole is, as I believe, the desire of the House of Commons and of the English nation.' He quoted Mr. Pitt, who in 1803 spoke as follows: 'I am of opinion that to a regular army alone, however superior, however excellent, we ought not solely to trust; but that in a moment so eventful we ought to super-add to the regular army some permanent system of national defence.... The army must be the rallying point; the army must furnish example, must furnish instruction, must give us the principles on which that national systemof defence must be formed; and by which the voluntary forces of this country, though in a military view inferior to a regular army, would, fighting on their own soil, for everything dear to individuals and important to a State, be invincible.'

These quotations will, I think, give a general idea of the views which were uppermost in the mind of the Minister for War when he gave vitality to the principle of localisation. The change, like many others, was criticised and somewhat retarded, and was not brought into full maturity until several years afterwards. In 1877 a committee on the militia, of which Colonel Stanley[94]was chairman, however, gave the subject a fresh impetus. In their report they spoke strongly of the advantage of unity between the line and the militia, and said: 'We have no hesitation in replying that they should be constituent parts of one body.... We consider that this is best to be effected by their being treated as one regiment, such regiment bearing a territorial designation; the line battalions being the first and second, the militia the third and fourth, of such territorial regiment, the depot being common to all.' There was still hesitation and delay, but on Mr. Childers becoming Minister for War in 1880 the recommendations of Colonel Stanley's committee were adopted, and are now in full force; and the beneficial results arebecoming more apparent year by year. For instance, General Sir Edward Bulwer, in his report on recruiting in 1887,[95]stated 'that the number of men in infantry regiments, who were born in the district to which the regiment belongs, increases every year.' He also mentions, that upwards of 14,000 militiamen transferred their service to the regular army in the preceding twelve months. The most recent Committee on Army Service, that of Lord Wantage of 1892, speaks plainly on the subject. It says 'the evidence as to the value of the territorial connection is overwhelming;' and added, that the double battalion system is the most economical and best machinery for furnishing foreign drafts and reliefs.[96]

I might go on to allude to other measures connected with the army and its administration which were introduced by Lord Cardwell—to the vigour and influence which he imparted to the Intelligence Department, to the doubling the Field Artillery at home, to the rank of field officer given to captains of batteries, and so on—but it is perhaps hardly necessary. Lord Cardwell did not live to witness the results of some of his measures; but there was hardly a branch of the army which did not feel the benefit of his wise and far-seeing administration.[97]

In May 1872 I had an interesting interview with the late Emperor Napoleon III. at Chislehurst, only a few months before his death. During his career, he had always shown great interest in artillery questions, and had published works on the subject.[98]In May he expressed a wish to see me, being desirous of discussing a plan for checking the recoil of guns, by means of water compressed within the bore. The nature of his proposal is contained in the following letter.

sketch

Copy of Sketch by Napoleon III.

Camden Place, Chislehurst: Mai 1872.'Mon cher Général,—Il y aurait une expérience d'artillerie, assez intéressant é faire, et qui, si elle réussissait, pourrait diminuer le recul des grosses bouches é feu. Il s'agirait comme dans le dessin cijoint de prendre un ancien canon, de forer au pointAun trou d'un certain diamètre, de forer é un pointBune lumière pour mettre le feu. La partie O prèsde la culasse serait remplie d'eau. On mettrait auparavant éKune rondelle é gutta-perka pour séparer la poudre de l'eau, et en chargeant le canon comme é l'ordinaire.'En mettant le feu, é la charge, l'eau jaillirait en dehors par l'orificeA, et la force employée pour rejeter l'eau en dehors du canon diminuerait d'autant le recul. Je ne prétends pas que ce système soit très pratique, mais il serait néanmoins assez intéressant de l'essayer. Je vous confie cette idée pour que vous en fassiez l'usage que vous croirez convenable. Je vous renouvelle, Général, l'assurance de mes sentiments d'amitié.'Napoléon.'La question serait de savoir quelle est la quantité d'eau qu'il faudrait introduire dans le canon, et quel diamètre il faudrait donner é l'orifice.'

Camden Place, Chislehurst: Mai 1872.

'Mon cher Général,—Il y aurait une expérience d'artillerie, assez intéressant é faire, et qui, si elle réussissait, pourrait diminuer le recul des grosses bouches é feu. Il s'agirait comme dans le dessin cijoint de prendre un ancien canon, de forer au pointAun trou d'un certain diamètre, de forer é un pointBune lumière pour mettre le feu. La partie O prèsde la culasse serait remplie d'eau. On mettrait auparavant éKune rondelle é gutta-perka pour séparer la poudre de l'eau, et en chargeant le canon comme é l'ordinaire.

'En mettant le feu, é la charge, l'eau jaillirait en dehors par l'orificeA, et la force employée pour rejeter l'eau en dehors du canon diminuerait d'autant le recul. Je ne prétends pas que ce système soit très pratique, mais il serait néanmoins assez intéressant de l'essayer. Je vous confie cette idée pour que vous en fassiez l'usage que vous croirez convenable. Je vous renouvelle, Général, l'assurance de mes sentiments d'amitié.

'Napoléon.

'La question serait de savoir quelle est la quantité d'eau qu'il faudrait introduire dans le canon, et quel diamètre il faudrait donner é l'orifice.'

During the interview, which lasted about half-an-hour, we were quite alone; and he made some pen-and-ink sketches, which he gave me, to illustrate his views. The proposal was ingenious, although it would probably be difficult to apply it in the field.

The Emperor also referred shortly to one or two incidents of the great war of 1870, especially as to the employment of mitrailleurs; and I ventured to point out that, although of use against savage races, they had not, in my opinion, much future in a campaign against a modern army; as, although efficacious for short distances, they were of limited range and power, having neither shattering nor incendiary force, as compared to artillery, whilst they would add considerably to the impedimenta of troops in the field. I was particularly struck by the quiet unimpassioned way in which he alluded to the past; and he certainly appeared to bear his great reverses with fortitude and calm resignation. When the interview ended, I left with him at his request, a small pamphlet on rifled ordnance; and on returning it he sent me the following note:

Camden Place, Chislehurst: le 8 Mai, 1872.'Je vous renvoie, Général, avec mes remercîments, la brochure que vous avez bien voulu me prêter, et je vous prie de recevoir l'assurance de mes sentiments distingués.Napoléon.'Monsieur le Général Adye, Woolwich.

Camden Place, Chislehurst: le 8 Mai, 1872.

'Je vous renvoie, Général, avec mes remercîments, la brochure que vous avez bien voulu me prêter, et je vous prie de recevoir l'assurance de mes sentiments distingués.

Napoléon.'

Monsieur le Général Adye, Woolwich.

Subsequently, Her Majesty the Empress Eugénie was kind enough to present me with the Emperor's work, 'Organisation Militaire,' dated 'Wilhelmshoehe, 1871,' with her name inscribed upon it.

It so happened that a few months before seeing the Emperor Napoleon I had had an opportunity of discussing the subject of mitrailleurs with General von Blumenthal, who had been chief of the staff tothe Crown Prince of Germany during the war; and his views agreed with those I have just expressed. He said that the German soldiers at the outset were considerably impressed with the numerous batteries of mitrailleurs with which the French began the campaign of 1870; but they soon found out that their range was limited, and that by concentrating the distant fire of field guns upon them the mitrailleurs could not hold their ground, but were driven off the field. Prince Frederick Charles said 'that for near ranges he would rather have ten good riflemen; for far ranges a field gun.'

Back to Index Next