"A LAWLESS WAR OFFICE"

Evening Star, Issue 12883, 4 August 1906, Page 10

"A LAWLESS WAR OFFICE"

Some startling statements relating to the maltreatment of officers in the British Army by the War Office were made at a meeting of the Army League, and 1 Imperial Defence Association at the Hotel Cecil on June 11. The gathering was fcr the purpose of hearing the first of a scries of lectures by Dr T. Miller Maguiro on ' The Lawless and Capricious Treatment of Our Officers.' It was stated by Dr G. W. Potter, who presided, that the subject of the amendment of the military law wc id be brought forward in the House of Commons next year, provided sufficient assistance from outside the Association warranted this action.

No class of the community, said Dr Maguire, was so badly treated in any way as that .of the army. It was mulcte'T, cheated, and befooled. The military code, according to War Office authorities, was based' on the idea that officers were fools, sergeants knaves, and privates ruffians. Tiie Army Council ho characterised as a burea" cracy of uncontrolled despotism. It was always persecuting and ruining officers on some pretest or other, and yet its own members were false to the very principle of their constitution. The Army Council was a preposterous Star Chamber, born in 1904 :in violence and treachery, and existing by a travesty of its own vital principles. Thfdisasters in South Africa were engineered by poltroons and politicians. Discipline in the army, was a misleading phrase. It had ceased to have any relation to honor, fair play, efficiency, or common sense. When the weight of evidence seemed conclusive against an officer, a court-martial was giveu, but when there was any doubt about a case, or when it was desirable to get rid of an officer, a court of inquiry was held. Although the latter had no judicial power, the evidence collected needed only to be sent to the Army Council, and the officer was " asked" to retire. If he refused, he was promptly " gazetted out.'' Ho could not claim a court-martial, neither could he claim to he informed of the reason why his services had been dispensed with. General officers, to his own certain knowledge, had been curtly told that they would get no information on these points. Thero was impudent arrogance on the part of the Army Council to men who were distinguished and popular in times of war and in peace. The Army Council could tine a retired officer £5,000 for venturing to protest against tho maltreatment of his own sou, and he had no appeal. Naturally, officers, and the relatives of officers, were shivering with dread of this Venetian oligarchy. Ono exceptionally startling case was mentioned by Dr Mstguire. This was the "Female Espionage Case," which occurred' in the Boer War. In daylight in Pretoria a female was driven about by officers of tlie Intelligence Department, pnd introduced to officers, who were led to believe that she was a spy on the Boers. This woman was furnished with data and cyphers by the authorities, and driven to try arid entrap officers. But it was to the credit of tho mass of their officers that the plot did not succeed. He had asked the Foreign Office about these proceedings. At first they would not believe them; then they said it was impossible abroad, and that every member of the Intelligence Department would have been challenged seriatim or shot. " When the true history of the War Office comes to be written," declared Dr Maguire, " this casa will be a horrid blot on the English escutcheon.''

In the discussion which followed, several instances were cited in which the speakers' relatives or themselves personally had been the subjects of maltreatment at the hands of the authorities.