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:—

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).