ARMY REFORMS

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1686, 22 June 1904, Page 2

ARMY REFORMS

WISE AND OTHERWISE,

(From Our OVm Correspondent.) LONDON, April 20. "I left my cap in a public-house, my bdots in the public road, And the Lord knows where, and I don’t care', my belt and tunic goed.”.-

So sang the soldier in Kipling’s "Barrack Room Ballads,” and though, unless overcome with beer, the average Tommy Atkins would think many times before distributing his uniform promiscuously over the town, he is, according to- the ideas of the energetic War Office reformers far too negligent of appearances when oh furlough. A serious item in. the. War ,Office’s plaint against Thomas Atkins is that he wears his cap on the hack of his head for the purpose, of displaying an "effiminate and unsoldierliko curl on his martial forehead. This hirsute adornment the War Office has banned by bell, book and candle, and henceforward Tommy Atkins is strictly enjoined not to indulge in the luxury of a "quiff” even though his best Sunday housemaid’s heart be'hardened against him . through its absence. Other vicious practices alleged against Tommy Atkins are that lie is in the habit of sticking cigarettes behind his ears, of walking with his hands in his pockets, and of appearing in public without a belt! But, worse than all, he has been .seen. on ocasions actually wearing in tlie public streets, as a protection against cold, that woollen monstrosity, "a muffler.” No wonder the War Office waxed indignant. That a man whoso duty calls upon him to face without flinching lead and steel should be guilty of such pusillanimity as to guard his throat -from the assaults of a “nor’easter” in November filled Pall Mall with horror. Forthwith the “’muffler” was placed in the War Office’s “Index Expurgatorius,” the unbelted warrior denounced as an infamous person (“or words to that effect”) and the hands-in-pocket and cigarette-behiiul-tlie-ear offender strictly counselled to mend his ways lest evil befel him. "Be smart out of barracks” was the sum and substance of a recently issued army order of many passages, breathing righteous indignation and hinting at terrible punishments if the injunction was disobeyed. Thomas Atkins considers, the order unnecessary in its entirety. He says the reason he wears his hat at the back, of his h'ead is not to show his "quiff” but to conceal as far as possible the horrors of the ,'Brodriek cap which is a combination —and an utterly inartistic one at that—of the German cap and the headgear worn by the City of Westminster scavengers. As to mufflers they are occasionally worn by men gbing a journey on a cold da.y, and as for the belt, well—even a soldier of the King is entitled to study his own comfort at times, and ought not to be compelled to spend his holiday hours strapped up from chin to heel in garments which render it well nigh impossible for him to sit down in comfort. The average civilian will see eye to eye with Tommy Atkins in this respect, but, of course, the authorities in Pall Mall are not average civilians.

PETTTCOAT INFLUENCE.

It is, by the way, pleasing to find that the reformers of Pall Mall can find time whilst bringing the common soldier man to his bearings in the matter of dress to attend to such little matters-as the extinction of "petticoat influence” in tho higher walks.of Army life. The Army Council has just issued stringent regula-

tions against officers writing private letters to officials at the War Office on such matters as promotion, appointments, postings, or transfers. The final paragraphs of the new order are as follows: "Attempts to obtain f avourable consideration of any application by the use of outside influence are forbidden, and, if resorted to, will be regarded as an admission on the part of the applicant that hisi ca?e is not good on its merits, and it will be dealt with accordingly. When an interview is asked for, or a letter written on behalf of an officer by any person other than himself, such application will be deemed to have been made at his suggestion, unless he can show to the satisfaction of the authorities that he has no knowledge, directly or indirectly, of such application.” It is certainly high time a serious effort was made to abolish "petticoat influence ’ which under the late regime was iised to a scandalous extent, so much so indeed that an introduction to the wife of a very highly placed officer was reckoned an almost indispensable step towards promotion or preferment. But the new order is certainly open to serious objection on one ground, namely that it offers a temptingly easy way for an officer’s enemies, male or female, to do him serious injury. All that need be done in the future.is to "exert influence” in favour of the man you want to Jiurt. That* will be enough to mar his career unless he is able to convince the authorities that he is innocent of any complicity which would probably be a very difficult matter, unless ‘he could give ample proof that the "exertion of influence” was the work of an open enemy. As the order stands it seems a gift of the gods to women of influence with axes to grind, for they can at one and the same time punish those who have incurred their displeasure and help their favourites by killing the competition of rivals. Formerly when a woman of influence set to work to improve a protegee’s position she honestly advocated his claims.- Now she can achieve her object best by advocating the claims of those who stand in the way of his advancement. The order, indeed, if carried into effect,.appears to place in the hands of the enemies of an Army officer a particularly deadly weapon..