Untitled

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16313, 10 September 1918, Page 6

====== . < ] The Australian troops have -won two reputations in this war—one for ' courage and initiative, the other Tor lack of discipline. According to Bishop Long, who has been at the \ front, the latter is as undeserved j as the former is deservod. At first I he held the common opinion of Aus- [ tralian discipline, but after he had ; soon the men in France and listened, to tho comments of regular officers | "who know what real discipline is, and the ends for which discipline exists, | men who do not mistake the trappings j for the reality," he changed his bpin-j ion. He quotes a General of the; regular army, a taciturn, shrewd officer who had commanded men in ' all parts of the world: "Stout fellows, | high-spirited, yes, need proper hand- i ling. Undisciplined, no! good, com-, mon-sense, stout fellows! Fewer crimes since they camo here than ever before." 1 An assistant-provost-marshal described them as "tho best boys in tho world. ' "You can do anything with them Thev are tho most responsive and reliable men I have ever handled when taken the right way." An English officer who had been with the Australians from the beginning, declared that the Australians' discipline was the most wonderful thing - he had ever eonio in contact with. As this might l-e taken in two different ways, the Bishop suspected that his episcopal leg was being puLed, but the ofucer was in earnest. He meant their front-lino, fighting discipline. A casual free-and-easiness was observable both in officers and men, and between them when they were not fighting, but when once business was afoot there was unswerving obedience, and each duty was carried out with the minutest carc and the finest spirit. The Australians have no doubt suffered, as have tho New Zealanders at times, from tho many tales current- as to their man-

ii | ners and methods when off duty, bu lo judged by its results—the only aae y quate test that can be applied—th i discipline of both is all that it nee< and should be. - i — . There have been many stories printec 3- j concerning the stopping of the Frencl 0 j offensive of April in last year. Th< n , usual story is that politicians, terrifiec v by the slaughter, induced the then Pre mier, M. Painleve, to order the ending n of the attack. This story has been recently repeated in America, and it has 1 been circulated again in France by the "Action Fraii(jaise." M. Painleve haj d accordingly made the following stato y inent:—"The lying legend which attrii- butes to the Government to which ] 0 | had the honour to belong the responsi--1 bility for the failure aud the cessation of the offensive of April lGtli, 1917, was evidently insufficient. The attempt is now being made to create a new legend. n j It is asserted that, yielding to occult influences, 1 took tho initiative at the same 0 period of removing General Mangiu a from his command. It is my duty to f make the truth known. It was on the . proposal of the Commander-in-Chief r that the Government removed General _ Mangin from his command at the end of April. 1917. At the end of July I offered General Mangin a command identical with that which he accepted a few months later from tho present - Minister of War." t A rather shocking revelation of the j amount of political malignancy that has j survived the purging force of the war . followed the case in which Sir Godfrey p Isaacs unsuccessfully prosecuted Sir Charles Hobhouse for libel. Sir Charles Hobhouse was defended by Sir John Simon, who had leave from France, and it was suggested by some people that Sir John Simon had obtained leave in • order to make money in this case. That, they said, was the sort of way in which Sir John Simon took his duties as a military officer. The suggestion would have appeared absurd to anyone who reflected that Sir John Simon could have p had either the Chief Justiceship or the Woolsack, but preferred to remain ac--1 tive in politics, and that he gave up the 1 richest legal practice in Britain (estii mated at from £30,000 to £50,000 a year) ; to go to France to serve with the army. ! But the trouble is that many bitter peo- . pie dff not refleet at all, and the grotesque story malignantly put- about was probably believed until" Sir Charles Hobhouse wrote to the Press to say that Sir John Simon refused to take his case unless leave then due to liim coincided with the time of hearing, that he would not have granted his services to anybody but his old friend and colleague at a time like this, and, finally, that he ' would not appear even for Sir Charles Hobhouse unless he could do so without a fee—the latter a stipulation which benefited Sir Godfrey Isaacs most, as he was ordered to pay all costs.