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
such as 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 on foreign 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 term of 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; the _personnel_
of 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 new _régime_; 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 office
of 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 highest professional 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 system then 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
embarkation of 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:--
Secretary of State, War, and Colonies General Sir George Murray,G.C.B.
Commander-in-Chief General Lord Hill,G.C.B.
Master General of Ordnance General Lord Beresford,G.C.B.
Secretary at War General Sir Henry Hardinge,K.C.B.
Clerk of Ordnance Rt. Hon. Spencer Percival
Lieut.-General of Ordnance Lieut.-Gen. Lord Edward Somerset
Surveyor General of Ordnance Major-Gen. Sir Henry Fane,K.C.B.
Principal Storekeeper Colonel Trench
Clerk of Deliveries General Phipps
Secretary to Master General Colonel Lord Downes
Treasurer of Ordnance William Holmes
Paymaster-General Rt. Hon. J. Calcraft
Judge Advocate General Rt. Hon. Sir John Beckett
We must always bear in mind that the army is no mere inanimate piece of
machinery. On the contrary, 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 in his
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 the _right_. 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:
[Footnote 74: Clode's _Military Forces of the Crown_, ii. 765.]
[Footnote 75: Clode's _Military Forces of the Crown_, ii. 251.]
[Footnote 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.)]
[Footnote 77: See _Commission on the Administration of the Naval and
Military Departments_, February 1890, pp. 57, 67, 70, 73, and 114.]
[Footnote 78: The gymnasium.]
[Footnote 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.']