MORE WAR OFFICE MISDEEDS.

Evening Star, Issue 11606, 17 June 1902, Page 1

MORE WAR OFFICE MISDEEDS.

From time to time one has heard rumors as to the part that social status played- in Lord Roberta’s selection of officers for his staff and tor important posts. It was said that many of - his mistakes in the South African campaign were due to the incompetent lordlings by whom he was surrounded, and that Lord Kitchener’s first act on taking over the supreme command was to weed out ruthlessly those inefficient® whose social influence was unaccompanied by military ability. The ‘Saturday Review,’ with a lofty disregard for the pains and penalties of libel, now boldly charges “Bobs” with perpetrating jobs, and attributes the worst case of jobbery to what it calls Hie “Roberts Ring and the War ■Office.” Those are some samples of the ■Review’s’ indictment: — .."When ft is decided that one officer with strong professional claims, and young far his age,’ shall retire the very day ho reaches the age limit of his rant, while abother officer with no professional claims is, at the same time, promoted, or given some appointment just in the nick of time to permit his remaining in the service—“ The Ring” ie credited with the operation. ... At the outbreak of the present war, an officer, serving in another part of the world as a colonel of the staff, offered his services in connection with the buying of remounts. He had passed through the Staff College; he had served in South Africa for at least twelve years; had fought with the Boers, and was ready with a plan for buying horses for the Government on very advantageous terms. His services were not accepted, and he soon after left the army without having been able to be of any use in a matter which events proved to bo of the greatest possible importance. He was simply unprovided with the necessary password for the “ Roberta Ring.” Others without a tithe of his experience or military .qualifications were sent in his place, because they could command interest . . . The objects of “The Ring” consist, in superintending the patronage of the British Army, in seeing that it is mainly bestowed in a. manner of which they approve—on themselves, their friends, or persons whom their friends recommended to them —and that all interlopers shall be kept, at arm’s length or warned off the premises. It is lamentable to see such a reactionary experiment countenanced, if not actively patronised, by the Commander-in-Chief. He has always evinced a close persona] interest in the administration of his own patronage, and it is very unlikely that any of the more important acts with which his “ Ring ” is credited are done without his knowledge and entire approval. He may sometimes merely acquiesce, but some of the worst cases of jobs done in South Africa were certainly dtie to bis personal initiation, and the impression thus created is confirmed by many officers who served under him when he held the Indian command. In a word, his character is conspicuously lacking in that of fairness.

Whatever truth there may be in the ‘ Review's’ charges, selection....and. promotion on social consideration!? are only the natural corollary of a system which keeps the British Army a close preserve for the aristocracy and plutocracy —a system of the reform of which (in spite of much talk) there are as yet no signs. The ‘Review,’ however, is hopeful that the growing voice of discontent will at length make itself heard and smash the secret system of selection, based entirely on sodal claims, which tends to produce the very worst machine for fighting.