The Story of the British Army

by Charles Cooper King

Lord Wolseley, whose experience of war in all its aspects is second to none, has always expressed himself in terms of the strongest approval of our young soldiers, who have done their duty so well, and without a murmur, and yet are maligned by those who ought to know better.

In his last despatch from the Nile, in June 1885, he thus refers to the lads who had undergone the severe strain of the campaign, and with comparatively so little loss. “It is a source of great pride to me as a soldier, and of satisfaction as a British subject, that upon each fresh occasion when I am brought in contact with Her Majesty’s troops in the field, I find the army more efficient as a military machine than it was the last time I was associated with it on active service. This improvement is evident in all grades and in all arms and departments, but it is, I think, more marked in the rank and file. Military spirit—the essence of military efficiency—is now established in our army in a higher form and on a sounder basis than formerly. I attribute the improvement in moral tone that undoubtedly exists, in no small degree, to the abolition of flogging, and I believe that amongst the officers who have lately had practical experience in the field, even those previously in favour of retaining the lash as a punishment on active service, now fully recognise that many advantages have resulted from its total abolition. The soldier is prouder of himself and of his calling than he used to be, and his self-esteem has also been raised by the healthy feeling of liberty arising from the knowledge that if the army does not suit his tastes, he can easily quit it, instead of being bound to it for ten or twelve years. Our rank and file are morally better, and militarily more efficient, than formerly. The general conduct and bearing of our men in the Sudan left nothing to be desired, and was not only creditable to the British army, but should be also a just source of pride to the British nation.”

Nor in comparison with foreign armies equally on a peace footing is there anything to complain of as regards the length of service of the men serving, for out of battalions of between 500 and 600 men there were in British battalions 245, in German 59, and in French but 23 men of three years’ service and upwards. Similarly, the Continental recruit ranges in height from 5 feet to 5 feet 1½ inches, with a chest measurement of 30.8 inches, but with an age of 20 years; while our “boys” of 18 have a height of 5 feet 4 inches, with a chest of 33 inches.

Even the cry that reservists cannot find employment is an exaggeration, as the report of Lord Wantage’s Committee shows; for it was proved that of 32,700 reservists, 75 per cent. were in regular employ.

Turning to the territorialisation of the regiments, there again must be necessarily conflicting opinions. Those who think regimental prestige is lost with a name, must have a very poor opinion of what prestige really is. Have the navy no esprit de corps? And yet theirs is for their profession, not for H.M.S. Bacchante or the Melpomene. It must not be forgotten, too, that many of the existing regiments have borne other numbers. Has their efficiency been lessened because they had to put 82 instead of 83 on their forage caps in past years? Doubtless it is not worth while changing for changing’s sake; but when administration is simplified, the working of the short service system (which is in a sense forced on us) and recruiting improved, then those who object must show a better case than that of objection merely because they don’t like it.

There is the strongest evidence that the bulk of the men not only don’t care about the dead and gone numbers, but prefer the territorial title. In the presence of some officer, whose enthusiasm clings like ivy round the past glories of the “Onety-oneth,” they may, for obvious reasons, express themselves differently; but, when alone, they do as everybody else does, outside a small and decreasing group of men who live, as archæologists do, in a dead past, and use the local name, which to them has a more distinct meaning.

Of course it is to be regretted that the army is not strong enough to do the foreign service it is called upon to perform; that of the two battalions, now tied together as they were formerly linked, one cannot always be at home. But that simply comes from the numerical weakness of the army, and has nothing to do with the system. True, the home battalion is practically a secondary depôt, and why not? So long as the foreign, and often active service, battalion is strong, what does it matter?

So the army in 1881 was territorialised, as it had previously been linked. The linking was less symmetrical than the new plan, for two battalion regiments like the 17th were formerly linked with a single battalion like the 45th. As far as possible, too, battalions that had during their regimental history been formed in the same or neighbouring districts were joined under the same designation. There were of course difficulties, and ludicrous ones at times, as when the 100th Royal Canadians are united with the 3rd Bombay European Regiment to form the Leinster Regiment; but these are of no great moment now, and will be quite forgotten in another fifty years.

But more than grouping battalions of the regular army together is the uniting in one common bond the other parts of our fighting strength. The addition of militia to the regiment, and of the volunteers to the same, both promotes a real and wider esprit de corps, and facilitates recruiting in every way. To hear a Hampshire volunteer say he is leaving his volunteer battalion to “join our fighting battalion,” meaning thereby the 1st regular battalion then on foreign service, expresses very fully the union that, given time and patience, will eventually exist between all branches of our fighting strength.

Hence, therefore, rightly or wrongly, as opinions differ, the army is divided into English regiments with white facings, Scotch (4 Battalions) with yellow facings, and Irish (1 Battalion) with green facings; but the Royal Irish and the Scottish Rifles have dark green, all Royal Regiments blue, the East Kent Regiment buff, the Rifle Brigade black, and the King’s Royal Rifles scarlet facings. Similarly the garrison artillery are partially territorialised, but the cavalry are not so.