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 with high 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 and of 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 in maintaining 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 its progress; 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 reserve now 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 nearly 3,000,000l. 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 East Indies.' 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 are worthy 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.

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